Does time have a beginning?

[AlbertBall]

Yours does me as well. You only know what others have told you (whom you decided to respect enough to listen) and you do not really understand what they said, yet you expect for me to impress you with a claim of something that you haven’t already heard from one of your masters? - No thanks. If you cannot use logic, which is all I ask of you, then I expect no agreement with anything except what you have been programmed to believe (even though what you heard wasn’t their intention).

Then i take it you are not going to present Einsteins research where he proposes space and time are not linked. Nor are you going to give me an example of knowledge you have gained on your own. That fact that you don’t even appreciate how the accumulation of knowledge works suggest you don’t understand even the basics of the scientific method.

Let me guess… your a philosopher??

**“If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.” --Isaac Newton **

 

[AlbertBall]

It is universally recognized that time has an arrow of direction. Proof of this is provided by the Second Law of Thermodynamics according to which entropy, or the measure of disorder, tends to increase as time increases.
Let me put it to you this way:
Time is asymmetrical, since as time increases, the amount of disorder in an isolated system incresase.
Space is symmetrical.
There is in addition a causal arrow of time, The causal event always occurs before the event it effects. For example, conception always comes before birth.
So time and space are different. One is asymmetrical, the other is not.

Like i said take it up with the physicists, once you do and revolutionize general relativity i will most defiantly listen.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Then i take it you are not going to present Einsteins research

Nor are you.

Let me guess… your a philosopher??

**“If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.” --Isaac Newton **

The difference between Newton and you is that Newton was standing on their shoulders, not their heels with his head up their…

Like i said take it up with the physicists, once you do and revolutionize general relativity i will most defiantly listen.

No you won’t. You only accept what you think your masters told you. Odd how such people accuse Christians of being sheepish, yet have no thoughts of their own.

 

[AlbertBall]

Nor are you.

The difference between Newton and you is that Newton was standing on their shoulders, not their heels with his head up their…

Well its been fun, for me anyway . Night.

 

[AlbertBall]

No you won’t. You only accept what you think your masters told you. Odd how such people accuse Christians of being sheepish, yet have no thoughts of their own.

You have never done any scientific research have you?

 

[sidbrown]

Like i said take it up with the physicists, once you do and revolutionize general relativity i will most defiantly listen.

Do you understand the problem of time and its asymmetry as it relates to the question of a unified field theory? Physicists have so far not found a satisfactory theory which gives a consistent mesh of quantum field theory with general relativity.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You have never done any scientific research have you?

You have NO idea who you are talking to, son.

But enough quibbling with the Magog for tonight.

Goodnight.

 

[AlbertBall]

You have NO idea who you are talking to, son.

But enough quibbling with the Magog for tonight.

Goodnight.

Well i fail to see how you can claim to be Einstein incarnate and not understand how important the knowledge of other’s is. Not understand how fundamental the knowledge of other is to science.

You also have ludicrously claimed over and over that scientist blindly follow their “masters”. This is utterly absurd. Science is results based. When i carry out a literature review i don’t accept what i read on blind faith. I research the current knowledge, i look for empirical evidence. I build a case based on independent research.

**If you don’t rely on the knowledge of other’s then how on earth do you even know there is a problem to be investigated in the first place. **

The knowledge of other’s is FUNDAMENTAL to science,** no scientist would claim otherwise. **

Oh and when studied for my degree, i did not accept on “blind” faith. When i was told the downward acceleration of gravity was 9.81M/s², guess what. I could go out with brick and a stopwatch, take some measurements, carry out a few simple calculations, and… guess what?

Your right about one thing, all i have had from you all night is “quibbling”. I simply stated that according to relativity space and time are in fact linked. YOU claim otherwise, well i have searched high and low and i have yet to find anything that supports your claim that in relativity space and time are separate dimensions. So at this point i would suggest it is time for you to put up, or shut up.

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. " - Albert Einstein.

 

[JDaniel]

This has been stuck in my head for the past week, and I want some (name removed by moderator)ut on it. It’s mainly 6-8 that I’m not so sure about.

1. Assume time has no beginning.
2. Therefore, an infinite amount of time has passed before the present day.
3. However, it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to be completed. An infinite amount of time would literally take forever to finish.
4. Therefore, it would take forever for the events of the present day to occur.
5. Therefore, the present will never occur.
6. Since this is not the case, time must have a beginning.
7. Since time must have a beginning, it must have a cause.
8. Since time cannot exist before it begins, whatever caused time must exist outside of time - in other words, is eternal.

Good question. A concise answer would be, “yes.” However, a more appropriate question might be, “Did “motion” have a beginning?”

Time is the measure of motion. Thus, if motion (or matter) always existed, then, time would not have begun. But, if motion began at, or immediately prior to, the most forward part of the BB, then time began at that point.

Motion is real. Time is conceptual and depends upon the existence of motion. No motion; no time.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

This has been stuck in my head for the past week, and I want some (name removed by moderator)ut on it. It’s mainly 6-8 that I’m not so sure about.

1. Assume time has no beginning.
2. Therefore, an infinite amount of time has passed before the present day.
3. However, it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to be completed. An infinite amount of time would literally take forever to finish.
4. Therefore, it would take forever for the events of the present day to occur.
5. Therefore, the present will never occur.
6. Since this is not the case, time must have a beginning.
7. Since time must have a beginning, it must have a cause.
8. Since time cannot exist before it begins, whatever caused time must exist outside of time - in other words, is eternal.

The above has more to do with a correct concept of infinity, rather than time. Although, there is a relationship, of sorts, between time and infinity. There are three realities to the concept of infinity.

Things that are quantifiable can be thought of as finite, potentially infinite, or infinite. If the quantifiable is thought of as infinite, such is understood as not to exist in the real world, but, only to exist in our minds as a creative modifier of quantification.

OTOH, both finite and potentially infinite can exist in the real world. Finite is easy; it is the limits of the quantifiable, usually “matter.” Potentially infinite is a bit more difficult. It is the existence of an incredibly large number, but one that can still be added to, or, subtracted from. Such large numbers have been called “transfinite” numbers, as they are numbers. One can state a very large number, but, one cannot state what infinity is, in terms of a number. But, no matter what, that which is potentially infinite is nonetheless finite.

jd

 

[sidbrown]

The above has more to do with a correct concept of infinity, rather than time. Although, there is a relationship, of sorts, between time and infinity. There are three realities to the concept of infinity.

Things that are quantifiable can be thought of as finite, potentially infinite, or infinite. If the quantifiable is thought of as infinite, such is understood as not to exist in the real world, but, only to exist in our minds as a creative modifier of quantification.

OTOH, both finite and potentially infinite can exist in the real world. Finite is easy; it is the limits of the quantifiable, usually “matter.” Potentially infinite is a bit more difficult. It is the existence of an incredibly large number, but one that can still be added to, or, subtracted from. Such large numbers have been called “transfinite” numbers, as they are numbers. One can state a very large number, but, one cannot state what infinity is, in terms of a number. But, no matter what, that which is potentially infinite is nonetheless finite.

jd

A thing in the real world can be infinite and have infinite properties.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You also have ludicrously claimed over and over that scientist blindly follow their “masters”.

I didn’t say “scientists”. I said you. And I also said that you do not comprehend what they have said, yet wish to teach it as though you knew more than anyone other than those few precious elite. And then want others to prove that they are one of your elite else they are nothing, certainly less than you.

Try thinking rather than judging someday. I promise, it will only hurt for a little while.

Time had no beginning. Motion had no beginning. There is no logical conflict.

 

[AlbertBall]

I didn’t say “scientists”. I said you. And I also said that you do not comprehend what they have said, yet wish to teach it as though you knew more than anyone other than those few precious elite. And then want others to prove that they are one of your elite else they are nothing, certainly less than you.

Try thinking rather than judging someday. I promise, it will only hurt for a little while.

Time had no beginning. Motion had no beginning. There is no logical conflict.

LOL ok i guess then my qualifications do not count as much as others then , and since i clearly don’t comprehend what i have learned i guess they must have passed he out of kindness LMAO .

I never tried to teach anyone all i said, **which i have explained to you countless times **,is according to relativity space and time are combined into space-time.

"Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a** finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy**.“3”

Now since you clearly do not even understand how scientific research works (“already heard from one of your masters?”), why on earth would i believe you over… well, everyone?

I notice you refused to address the main points of the last post, i will post them again for you…

**If you don’t rely on the knowledge of other’s then how on earth do you even know there is a problem to be investigated in the first place.

The knowledge of other’s is FUNDAMENTAL to science, no scientist would claim otherwise.

Oh and when studied for my degree, i did not accept on “blind” faith. When i was told the downward acceleration of gravity was 9.81M/s², guess what. I could go out with brick and a stopwatch, take some measurements, carry out a few simple calculations, and… guess what?

Your right about one thing, all i have had from you all night is “quibbling”. I simply stated that according to relativity space and time are in fact linked. YOU claim otherwise, well i have searched high and low and i have yet to find anything that supports your claim that in relativity space and time are separate dimensions. So at this point i would suggest it is time for you to put up, or shut up.**

 

[reggieM]

Remember, the past in assumption (1) has no beginning. Therefore it’s senseless to speak of time getting going.

Right – if the past has no beginning, then time could never get going at all. It could never start.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I never tried to teach anyone all i said, **which i have explained to you countless times **,is according to relativity space and time are combined into space-time.

Ah, but now you lie, as I knew you eventually would have to do. But backing down is better than continuing to be simply wrong.

I am the one who said they are combined into one concept. YOU said they are the same thing;

Space and time are not independent, they are in fact one thing, space-time.

I explained that we have different words for them for a reason. They are different concepts. I even told you what those concepts were;

No they aren’t. Space is referring to volume. Time is referring to change.

They are both caused by the same “thing” (if you want to call it a thing). But they are different concepts entirely… sorry.

Understanding how they are both produced by the same thing is about as far from your effort to measure gravity as anyone could get. Even your worshipful master Stephen Hawkings can’t understand that much. Next time you’re talking with him, ask him. I bet he reverts to the great God Randomness, which of course begs the question, “what caused randomness?” But try not to embarrass him too much. He has an image to maintain.

Now since you clearly do not even understand how scientific research works (“already heard from one of your masters?”), why on earth would i believe you over… well, everyone?

Interesting dodge since the scientific method hasn’t come into this discussion at all except for you proclaiming that I don’t know of it. It makes me suspect that you must not know it or you wouldn’t have mentioned it.

The knowledge of other’s is FUNDAMENTAL to science, no scientist would claim otherwise.

And none has. The problem is whether you know their knowledge or you merely repeat what you misunderstood about it.

Oh and when studied for my degree, i did not accept on “blind” faith. When i was told the downward acceleration of gravity was 9.81M/s², guess what. I could go out with brick and a stopwatch, take some measurements, carry out a few simple calculations, and… guess what?

Wow, you tested the acceleration rate of gravity. My, my. You ARE SO careful to ensure that no one is pulling YOUR leg. But of course, after that? “Since they were right about gravity, they must be right about all things”?

Your right about one thing, all i have had from you all night is “quibbling”. I simply stated that according to relativity space and time are in fact linked. YOU claim otherwise, well i have searched high and low and i have yet to find anything that supports your claim that in relativity space and time are separate dimensions. So at this point i would suggest it is time for you to put up, or shut up.

No. You read explanation from me and from sidbrown. You made claims that you could not support and defended them with no more than efforts to insult and references to your all wise and mighty masters who obviously you feel can make no error.

And now you claim that space and time are not even separate dimensions?? I guess you never heard the term “time, the 4th dimension”.

If anyone is in need of “putting up” it is YOU.

You claim that your master Stephen Hawkings has proven that the universe began (thus it must be unquestionable true). I say that he proved no such thing. Care to support his proof? After all, it would only be the properly skeptic thing to do.

Time to put up or backdown …again.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Right – if the past has no beginning, then time could never get going at all. It could never start.

And it didn’t ever start. just as the direction to the right and left has no starting point other than what you choose to be important to you. Time is just as infinite as direction.

 

[JDaniel]

A thing in the real world can be infinite and have infinite properties.

Sid:

I’d like to get acquainted with that thing. Perhaps you could tell me what it is so I can see it for myself.

jd

 

[sidbrown]

Sid:

I’d like to get acquainted with that thing. Perhaps you could tell me what it is so I can see it for myself.

jd

Take a finite time interval of one minute.
It is composed of the following infinite sequence of time intervals:
0.5 minutes
0.25 minutes
0.125 minutes,
0.0625 minutes,
0.03125 minutes, etc.
Adding up the infinite series of intervals SUM (n=1 to infinity) (1/2^n) gives one minute.

 

[AlbertBall]

Ah, but now you lie, as I knew you eventually would have to do. But backing down is better than continuing to be simply wrong.

I am the one who said they are combined into one concept. YOU said they are the same thing;

I said space is the same as time? LOL where? Go back to post 13 genius, read for yourself. I said that are “one”, which = combined, you are now trying to play semantics, i wonder why??

I explained that we have different words for them for a reason. They are different concepts. I even told you what those concepts were;

Understanding how they are both produced by the same thing is about as far from your effort to measure gravity as anyone could get. Even your worshipful master Stephen Hawkings can’t understand that much. Next time you’re talking with him, ask him. I bet he reverts to the great God Randomness, which of course begs the question, “what caused randomness?” But try not to embarrass him too much. He has an image to maintain.

Interesting dodge since the scientific method hasn’t come into this discussion at all except for you proclaiming that I don’t know of it. It makes me suspect that you must not know it or you wouldn’t have mentioned it.

And none has. The problem is whether you know their knowledge or you merely repeat what you misunderstood about it.

Wow, you tested the acceleration rate of gravity. My, my. You ARE SO careful to ensure that no one is pulling YOUR leg. But of course, after that? “Since they were right about gravity, they must be right about all things”?

No. You read explanation from me and from sidbrown. You made claims that you could not support and defended them with no more than efforts to insult and references to your all wise and mighty masters who obviously you feel can make no error.

And now you claim that space and time are not even separate dimensions?? I guess you never heard the term “time, the 4th dimension”.

If anyone is in need of “putting up” it is YOU.

You claim that your master Stephen Hawkings has proven that the universe began (thus it must be unquestionable true). I say that he proved no such thing. Care to support his proof? After all, it would only be the properly skeptic thing to do.

Time to put up or backdown …again.

Actually i don’t claim anything about physics as i have said countless times, i am not a physicist. Also i think you will find it was YOU that started throwing about the schnide comments first. Post 41. That is also what got me onto the scientific method, for no scientist that understands the method would make such a comment.

You also totally missed my point about testing gravity, it has nothing to do with testing gravity. I am really starting to think you might be kidding about being Einstein incarnate. The point is science is results based, i do not have to accept anything on faith i can review the evidence for myself.

Exactly what claim have i made, all i have said from the start is that in relativity space and time are combined to space-time. THAT IS IT!!! I have said NOTHING MORE!!! Go back read the thread, quote me!

“And now you claim that space and time are not even separate dimensions?? I guess you never heard the term “time, the 4th dimension”.”

Yes i will give you that, thats what happens though when one starts trading insults, one can overlook the content.

So to recap all i have said from the beginning is in relativity space and time are combined into space time, AND I SAID IT FIRST!!! **POST 13!!! **

You were the one that started the schnide comments **post 41!!! **

My only other claim is that post shows you clearly do not understand the scientific method, for the knowledge of others is fundamental to scientific research. It also shows incredible arrogance and disrespect to those that have passed their hard earned knowledge on to YOU!

Have a nice day .

 

[hatsoff]

Right – if the past has no beginning, then time could never get going at all. It could never start.

Yes, that’s correct, with one minor clarification: if the past has no beginning, then we say that time could never have started, not that time could never start.