Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Did time have a beginning?


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#26 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 03:36 PM

QUOTE(Travis.. @ Mar 13 2007, 07:50 AM) View Post
Time was created with man. Time is nothing more than a simple number system to...errr, gauge how long has passed. Of course time had a creation.

No...
We aren't talking religiously. tongue.gif
I agree with you that it was created, because of my belief, but in terms of science it couldn't possibly have had a creation,.

Energy had to have always existed, because energy is neither created nor destroyed. Since energy always existed, kinetic energy, the energy of motion must always have existed, therefore time MUST of existed, because motion, a distance covered per unit time, has to have existed. Time is a must for anything to exist.
Think of it this way...

Energy is the broadest level you can get to. It encompasses everything.
Energy has a definite existence. It has to have always been there, because it isn't created nor destroyed. So it ALWAYS existed. A form of energy is mass.
Another form of energy is the movement.
Kinetic energy is what existed, because before the big bang, there was no existential mass. Mass was created by the Big Bang. Since there is no mass, what's left is the motion of nothing. I know that's a hard concept to grasp, but that is what the Big Bang originated from.
Mass is merely a more stable state of energy. We know this because when you make mass disappear, I mean poof into nothing, energy, enormous amounts of it, is leftover. It is either has heat or as motion.
Don't get the notion that heat is a form of energy either. It is merely the addition of motion on a molecular level. Just unnoticeably added.

Since energy always existed, so did motion. Since motion, even the motion of nothing, always existed, so did time, because motion is a function of time.

#27 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 March 2007 - 05:22 PM

Time is infinite. People will go "There cannot be an infinite regression in time because if that were so we could not be at this point in time now because we would not have reached it yet. There would be an infinite amount of time before "now" and thus we could not possibly have ever reached where we are." (Or something like that, I copied and pasted it), but the problem with that argument is: infinity is not a number, so it can't be reached.

As for matter; Matter can't be created, nor destroyed. But yeah, matter can be turned to energy and vice versa.

Edited by Athean, 13 March 2007 - 05:24 PM.


#28 Nova John

Nova John
  • 126 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 05:45 PM

Scientifically, There was the big bang (splitting of large amount of energy.) It has also been observed that light is slowing down and will be pulled back to the center of the big bang.

In my eyes time had no beginning and will have no end, we will simply keep going through the big bang and the big return back again in an infinite loop. We may all be born again in the next time round, or we may not. Who knows. Thats just what i think based on scientific knowledge

#29 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 March 2007 - 06:08 PM

QUOTE(Nova John @ Mar 14 2007, 01:45 AM) View Post
In my eyes time had no beginning and will have no end, we will simply keep going through the big bang and the big return back again in an infinite loop. We may all be born again in the next time round, or we may not. Who knows. Thats just what i think based on scientific knowledge


I happen to agree with your theory. tongue.gif

http://www.neocodex....mp;#entry704752

#30 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 06:38 PM

It's not that light is slowing down...
They discovered this through using the doppler effect with visible light to determine which way the stars are moving.
Red shift (red light) shows that they are moving away.
Blue shift (blue light) shows that they are moving back.
I won't explain how they came up with this, but they did.
The thing about this is that planets are moving away and closer as was discovered observationally, but it isn't reverting back to a single point. Accepted theory on the expansion of the universe is that the universe itself doesn't expand... Nothing in the universe expands either, just the space itself expands. Space changes in its metrics. It goes from being millimeters between two objects to meters between two objects to kilometers between two objects.
That is the accepted theory on the expansion on the universe.
The shape of the universe determines whether or not it will revert in on itself again.
If it is closed, then it'll eventually start shrinking and the Big Bang will happen again.
If it is open, it'll expand indefinitely.
If it is flat, it'll do the same thing an open does.

Our galaxy is suggested to be closed, but it will end up indefinitely expand, because of the vast amounts of dark energy believed to exist in the universe.
The fate of a forever expanding universe is an end.
1- The universe's energy will reach a point of equilibrium where energy is uncontrollably idle, because it's evenly dispersed and the universe wants to stay that way.
2- Another end by the decline of free energy in which everything freezes to death.
3- An actual end to the universe itself... all binding forces are overwhelmed by the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by dark energy where everything would fall/rip apart at a molecular level.


-edit
Haha, I like Sonic's idea.
That's what Newton tried to do at the end of his life.
A universal law of the universe.
He wanted to combine the super tiny, the medium, and the ridiculously large into one set of rules. smile.gif
What a cheery subject. smile.gif

Edited by ArchAngel., 13 March 2007 - 06:42 PM.


#31 Nova John

Nova John
  • 126 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:23 PM

I am familiar with blue and red shift for planetary mapping, this was not the point i was trying to make. The findings i was discussing was to do with the speed of light having been greater at the big bang compared to its speed to date. Light must also follow the laws of physics and as the medium of space spread ever wider its properties must also change to reflect this expansion. By several physics laws of energy conservation, light must slow down and stop, and possibly even pull back to its center. BTW blue/red shift may be accepted but is far from accurate over that distance, due mostly to there being no true monochromatic light.

#32 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 06:48 AM

ArchAngel, you are consistently making replies to comments you clearly do not properly understand, using theories and terminology which you clearly do not understand either.

Time Dilation is a prediction of the theories of relativity. Fact. Granted, it was found to be truth, but not before Einstein's theories were also accepted as truth.
Time Dilation HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PERCEPTION, for the -third- time.

Let's see if you can wrap your head around this one, shall we?
You say that energy has always existed, some of it has always been kinetic.
Assuming we accept that as true, you then go on to use it as proof of the non-creation of time.
Your reasoning for this is that because kinetic energy has always existed, and kinetic energy relies on time to exist, therefore time has also always existed.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Before time began, there was a nothingness so absolute your mind is incapable of comprehending it. Before time began, there was no absence of energy, there was simply nothing. There was not a single thing, nor was there the absence of a single thing. There was complete and utter nothing. Thus, as soon as time began, it had always been there, because before it was there, there was nothing.
Are you getting it yet?
The beginning of time was something we have no word for. It was an event where absolute nothing went to absolute everything in an instant. But as soon as it happened, it had always been there. Creation is insufficient. It was... genesis, perhaps a better word, but still inadequate.

To summarise, time has always been around. Consider ten seconds after the big bang. Those ten seconds are "always".
Because before the big bang there was nothing.

Edited by Sunscorch, 14 March 2007 - 06:49 AM.


#33 ink

ink
  • 2189 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 11:34 AM

ArchAngel, I had no contradiction, you misunderstood what I said. I stated that Point A was a variable point, as in not something to be found.
All energy exists at this point and it remains constant, yes. At the point before, there was a null void. No energy and no existence. Disturbance in itself based on theories yourself is a set from motionless to motion, an expansion of energy.
However, from view point, if energy existed at that point from what point was it created or better yet, transfered? This brings back to my point. If it was created, what, who, and how was it created? If it was transfered, that would prove that there would be something beyond the concept point of time and the universe in which it was created which means it could exist in other universes in different constructs from our own.
As "Sunscorch" mentioned time is comprehensible in the fact that it has always been there from the period of existence. The period of existence is not measurable by time since it is in itself the creator of time. To put this in perspective of what I said, you can run a program and end that program. It is impossible to measure the program with methods of itself because the measure will be infinite to itself. From the start of the running of the program it had code however that was created, this code had not existed and then was instantly created, however with no tools. It is the beginning of the lack of the beginning, therefore there was a beginning but not in comprehensible or measurable units therefore we based a unit on an existing point that we did understand and acknowledge: the motion of the solar star body that governs our own rotation. We can go further and further down the line tracing what sets each object in motion, but it has infinite restraints from an infinity point (something we can not comprehend nor could we in a few billion years of evolution.)

Also, if anyone wonders if time transfer is possible to go backwards, the only possible way to create a method for backwards time travel is by creating a paradox at a point in which all things can return to that point. The first thought of removal of this paradox or declination prevents the existence making time linear. In other words, you must make a machine to go back to the point at which it created itself which leads to the chicken and egg problem. If either the chicken or egg is thought irrelevant or harmful, it no longer can exist.

Also on the absolute nothing that is incomprehensible, think about it this way:
To a computer, there is only 0 and 1.
0 is off and 1 is on.
In numeric values, you have multiple switches. The numeric absence called zero (0) is represented by all off switches. Now, as the computer views it, this is just 0 or nothing. This is not absolute nothing, since it can still be formed into another value before creation. This represented a problem for object or class basis. Why? A null value. Null to us is nothing, absolute nothing. You have to create something and put that something into that null. However, a null value is all 0 switches. This makes it the same as zero, so we must add a flag to constitute that it is null not zero. This flag no longer makes it absolute nothing because now you have a flag which must be represented by a non-0 number. You can never truly have "absolute nothing" that we can comprehend since we our selves are created and do not have a means of describing or measuring since a measure shows something which always leads from absolute nothing.

#34 Nova John

Nova John
  • 126 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:28 PM

Lol, absolute null to a computer is not having a computer!

You are right Ink, you cant measure the beginning of time with time as a 'yard stick.' If Einstien is correct about time being the 4th dimension you could measure times 'time' (ie the 5th dimension) to find when time began... of course then you would want to know when the 5th dimension started!

Unfortunately Sunscorch, Archangel was somewhat correct. Time is measured by motion and motion is measured by time. Its an unfortunate paradox of physics.
"Unit of time : second: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
and
"Unit of length : meter: The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
SI units webpage

See the issue? These are the SI definitions of time and distance, so are globally recognized as correct. Until we can find a measure for time independent of distance we are somewhat screwed on the "when did time begin?" question

Edited by Nova John, 14 March 2007 - 01:36 PM.


#35 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:49 PM

QUOTE(Nova John @ Mar 14 2007, 09:28 PM) View Post
Lol, absolute null to a computer is not having a computer!

You are right Ink, you cant measure the beginning of time with time as a 'yard stick.' If Einstien is correct about time being the 4th dimension you could measure times 'time' (ie the 5th dimension) to find when time began... of course then you would want to know when the 5th dimension started!

Unfortunately Sunscorch, Archangel was somewhat correct. Time is measured by motion and motion is measured by time. Its an unfortunate paradox of physics.
"Unit of time : second: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
and
"Unit of length : meter: The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
SI units webpage

See the issue? These are the SI definitions of time and distance, so are globally recognized as correct. Until we can find a measure for time independent of distance we are somewhat screwed on the "when did time begin?" question

Measurement is not the same as existence. I was talking about the latter tongue.gif

(PS. Americans have dropped the "a" from Caesium? Bastards)

Edited by Sunscorch, 14 March 2007 - 01:50 PM.


#36 ink

ink
  • 2189 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:18 PM

QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Mar 14 2007, 05:49 PM) View Post
(PS. Americans have dropped the "a" from Caesium? Bastards)

Yah, we did. It makes life easier without all the extra letters to remember. Ce not Ca (don't mean element symbol, I mean beginning, Cs is symbol for anyone who doesn't know). So is yours pronounced kai-see-umm? Or is it pronounced see-zee-umm?

Edited by Ink, 14 March 2007 - 04:35 PM.


#37 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:57 PM

QUOTE(Ink @ Mar 15 2007, 12:18 AM) View Post
Yah, we did. It makes life easier without all the extra letters to remember. Ce not Ca (don't mean element symbol, I mean beginning, Cs is symbol for anyone who doesn't know). So is yours pronounced kai-see-umm? Or is it pronounced see-zee-umm?

See-zee-umm
But, you can't just change something's name because you feel like it blink.gif
It's rude!
And by the by, anyone who -ever- says Sulfur in my presence gets an earful too. It's like spelling my name Josef. Fucking stupid.

#38 ink

ink
  • 2189 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:15 PM

QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Mar 14 2007, 08:57 PM) View Post
See-zee-umm
But, you can't just change something's name because you feel like it blink.gif
It's rude!
And by the by, anyone who -ever- says Sulfur in my presence gets an earful too. It's like spelling my name Josef. Fucking stupid.

Why have two letters when you can have one that sounds exactly the same?

#39 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:16 PM

QUOTE(Ink @ Mar 15 2007, 01:15 AM) View Post
Why have two letters when you can have one that sounds exactly the same?

Because it's quirky and fun happy.gif
Curse your overefficient programmer brain tongue.gif

#40 Warlord

Warlord
  • 3988 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:18 PM

One shouldn't think about this kind of shit angry.gif

#41 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:23 PM

QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Mar 14 2007, 07:48 AM) View Post
ArchAngel, you are consistently making replies to comments you clearly do not properly understand, using theories and terminology which you clearly do not understand either.

Time Dilation is a prediction of the theories of relativity. Fact. Granted, it was found to be truth, but not before Einstein's theories were also accepted as truth.
Time Dilation HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PERCEPTION, for the -third- time.

Let's see if you can wrap your head around this one, shall we?
You say that energy has always existed, some of it has always been kinetic.
Assuming we accept that as true, you then go on to use it as proof of the non-creation of time.
Your reasoning for this is that because kinetic energy has always existed, and kinetic energy relies on time to exist, therefore time has also always existed.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Before time began, there was a nothingness so absolute your mind is incapable of comprehending it. Before time began, there was no absence of energy, there was simply nothing. There was not a single thing, nor was there the absence of a single thing. There was complete and utter nothing. Thus, as soon as time began, it had always been there, because before it was there, there was nothing.
Are you getting it yet?
The beginning of time was something we have no word for. It was an event where absolute nothing went to absolute everything in an instant. But as soon as it happened, it had always been there. Creation is insufficient. It was... genesis, perhaps a better word, but still inadequate.

To summarise, time has always been around. Consider ten seconds after the big bang. Those ten seconds are "always".
Because before the big bang there was nothing.

Time dilation has everything to do with the perception of time.
If time is inconsistent to everything in and of itself, then it itself is an inconsistent continuum. The space-time continuum accurately represents the flux in the time dimension according to gravitational dilation, but dilation of speed is totally different creating even more inconsistencies.
Think of it this way... If you are living in a machine that rockets through space at near the speed of light, ignoring the consequences of that besides time dilation, time is a totally different aspect of life than it would be if you were living a life down here. Time dilation can be applied to our lives.

Now... let's get this through your head. It must be sore after banging it against this brick wall called the Law of the Conservation of Energy.

Law of the Conservation of Energy.
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
http://www.britannic...n-law#5519.hook

That is absolute. Therefore energy always existed. The Big Bang created the existence of energy in the form of matter. -Before- the Big Bang, there was no matter. Therefore, by the process of elimination, there had to be kinetic energy.
Kinetic.
Motion.
The motion of nothing.
But energy existed.
Therefore, time must have been there to compliment it.

Ink, I have no problem with your ideas except for your assumption that at one point the energy wasn't there. Therefore, it must have been created, but it can't be. Back to the law of the conservation of energy up there...
I agree with the rest of your logic tho. Tis perfectly sensible. I especially enjoyed the program analogy. smile.gif

-edit
Also, I hate the word sulfur..
They're fuckin stupid for doing that.
I learned it the english way first. xD

Edited by ArchAngel., 14 March 2007 - 05:26 PM.


#42 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:32 PM

*sigh*

You really can't grasp what I say. And you clearly don't grasp Ink's metaphor correctly, because he said the same as I did.
And for the fourth time, time dilation is. Not. About. Differing. Perceptions.

And the law of conservation of energy does not apply up until the point after the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, the laws of physics as we know them did not apply.

#43 'B'

'B'
  • 934 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:40 PM

QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Mar 14 2007, 08:32 PM) View Post
*sigh*

You really can't grasp what I say. And you clearly don't grasp Ink's metaphor correctly, because he said the same as I did.
And for the fourth time, time dilation is. Not. About. Differing. Perceptions.

And the law of conservation of energy does not apply up until the point after the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, the laws of physics as we know them did not apply.


I say you're wrong because I said so. Why am I right in saying so? Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so? *goes on infinitely*

Grasp that! devil.gif

#44 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE(CodeDreamer @ Mar 15 2007, 01:40 AM) View Post
I say you're wrong because I said so. Why am I right in saying so? Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so?
Because I said so! Why am I right in saying so? *goes on infinitely*

Grasp that! devil.gif

*burp*

#45 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:44 PM

Time dilation has nothing to do with perception?
Time dilation wouldn't occur if there was no outside observer.
Also, care to tell me what time dilation refers to anyway?
Since it has nothing to do with effects on the metrics of time and how their changes are -perceived-.

Also, the law of conservation of energy does apply.
It applies to isolated systems... The universe can be assumed to be one.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with the creation of energy whatsoever.
NOTHING
Get it? N-O-T-H-I-N-G
The Big Bang is the expansion of energy.
It is the change in active energy to include passive energy.
To say that nothing existed until right up to the Big Bang is folly, because the Big Bang is the description of a change that something that previously EXISTED went through.
The universe was an indefinable small point of energy.
It wasn't nothing. It was energy.

#46 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:52 PM

There is a difference, in my mind at least, between perception and careful measurement.
To say that it wouldn't occur without an outside observer is, as you seem to like saying, folly. It's a predictable physical effect.
You previous explanations indicated the difference stemming from different people/organisms/entities perceiving the timespan in different ways.
Do you accept that this is incorrect, so that we can stop labouring this fairly irrelevant point?

And, do you not fnd it more likely that the Big Bang should be the start of everything, rather than a spontaneous change in an entity that has existed in a stable state for an infinity before its inception?

#47 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 06:02 PM

Yeah... I don't even know why that point was brought up. xD

The Big Bang isn't the start of everything.
It's just an explanation of how everything came to be how it is now.
I don't think it spontaneously changed.
I think that there's more than one system, and a shift in the balance of another system caused this one to change to the state it's currently at. It's like dispersion forces in gases. Everything was induced by the "dipole moment" (yes I know, out of context) of another part of the system, therefore a set of events were set in place.
I also don't believe in infinite expansion, because whatever influenced the start of the big bang would also have a say in the limits to the expansion of the universe.

Well, I don't actually believe in any of this. I'm religious.
You seem like your religious too, because nothing can be logically created from nothing, unless it was inexplicably done. Aka, a supreme being.

#48 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 06:06 PM

QUOTE(ArchAngel. @ Mar 15 2007, 02:02 AM) View Post
Yeah... I don't even know why that point was brought up. xD

The Big Bang isn't the start of everything.
It's just an explanation of how everything came to be how it is now.
I don't think it spontaneously changed.
I think that there's more than one system, and a shift in the balance of another system caused this one to change to the state it's currently at. It's like dispersion forces in gases. Everything was induced by the "dipole moment" (yes I know, out of context) of another part of the system, therefore a set of events were set in place.
I also don't believe in infinite expansion, because whatever influenced the start of the big bang would also have a say in the limits to the expansion of the universe.

Well, I don't actually believe in any of this. I'm religious.
You seem like your religious too, because nothing can be logically created from nothing, unless it was inexplicably done. Aka, a supreme being.

I'm not religious at all tongue.gif
We know nothing of the properties of absolute nothing, because there's no such thing nowadays. It's seems reasonable to me that such a genesis event could be highly likely.

It seems your opinion is fairly well thought out, and our differing opinions are based on foundations for which there is very little evidence either way.
Agree to disagree, old boy? tongue.gif

#49 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 06:08 PM

Agreed.


Btw, I loved what you said to Ink.
QUOTE
Because it's quirky and fun happy.gif
Curse your overefficient programmer brain tongue.gif

biggrin.gif

#50 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 March 2007 - 06:13 PM

Time is a dimension, or a unit of measure. In mathematical terms. So no.

But time is somewhat of a creation by god. In religious terms. So yes.

It depends on how you view things and what you believe really.

(The Big Bang theory doesn't really explain the beginning of time, I dont think)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users