Does time have a beginning?

[JDaniel]

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.

Sid, PLEASE. I asked for something REAL, not some silly mathematico/mental conceptio ad absurdum. I would love to see you cut up a minute such that its slices become so small that time becomes useless to us. In any event, all of it is still a Minute. It is not an exigency that either of us can hold in our hands. Remember, to a point, quantitative division may take place without changing the character of the thing divided. But, sooner or later, in the real world, the thing being divided is changed. If you divide a half glass of water in half, you will still get water. You can continue to do this for a while, but, ultimately you will get to a molecule. Upon dividing the molecule in half, you will no longer have water.

A minute, by the way, is not a real thing. It is a conceptual measure of motion. I’d ask you to begin counting, by tens, if you prefer, and get back to me whenever you reach infinity - but, you wouldn’t do it. By the way, what number is infinity?

jd

 

[sidbrown]

Sid, PLEASE. I asked for something REAL, not some silly mathematico/mental conceptio ad absurdum. I would love to see you cut up a minute such that its slices become so small that time becomes useless to us. In any event, all of it is still a Minute. It is not an exigency that either of us can hold in our hands. Remember, to a point, quantitative division may take place without changing the character of the thing divided. But, sooner or later, in the real world, the thing being divided is changed. If you divide a half glass of water in half, you will still get water. You can continue to do this for a while, but, ultimately you will get to a molecule. Upon dividing the molecule in half, you will no longer have water.

A minute, by the way, is not a real thing. It is a conceptual measure of motion. I’d ask you to begin counting, by tens, if you prefer, and get back to me whenever you reach infinity - but, you wouldn’t do it. By the way, what number is infinity?

jd

Here is where we disagree. I maintain that time, although intangible to some extent, is real.

 

[JDaniel]

Here is where we disagree. I maintain that time, although intangible to some extent, is real.

And, I don’t disagree with that, as long as time is directly related to motion. I’m sure you concur that without motion there would be no time.

jd

 

[sidbrown]

And, I don’t disagree with that, as long as time is directly related to motion. I’m sure you concur that without motion there would be no time.

jd

Perhaps in a global sense, but in a local sense, no. You can have a rock sitting somewhere motionless in a certain local area, but time still passes.

 

[JDaniel]

Perhaps in a global sense, but in a local sense, no. You can have a rock sitting somewhere motionless in a certain local area, but time still passes.

Sid:

What is at rest, such as your rock, is related to motion, since things are moving around it. Thus, it can be measured by time. For example, we might say, “That rock has been sitting there since I was 10 years old.” If I am now 15, it has been there for 5 years.

jd

 

[James_S_Saint]

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.

The scientific method has nothing to do with the knowledge of others. It is about proposing a hypothesis and then demonstrating the truth of it in such a way as can be repeated and observed and LOGICALLY analyzed.

This was your erroneous statement that began the arguing;

Time did have a beginning. By time, you actually mean space-time. Time and space are one and time as we know it started at the birth of the universe.

There was no birth to the universe nor beginning to time. Not to mention that time and space are **not **“one”.

This was your effort to insult, this first on this thread by anyone;

Wow, physics 101 anyone? No wonder you are embarrased…

So I take it that you have no evidence that the universe or time actually began as you have claimed?

 

[sidbrown]

Sid:

What is at rest, such as your rock, is related to motion, since things are moving around it. Thus, it can be measured by time. For example, we might say, “That rock has been sitting there since I was 10 years old.” If I am now 15, it has been there for 5 years.

jd

Moving globally through space time yes. Moving locally in space is a question.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Moving globally through space time yes. Moving locally in space is a question.

Time is the measurement of change/motion.
Motion cannot exist without at least 2 entities so as to form location from which to move.
Change cannot take place without having something from which to change.

Thus time cannot exist until something exists.

Therefore something had to exist before time/change/motion but that something could not itself change. Thus if something existed before time, time could never begin.

Thus time never began, but simply has always been.

How long did God ponder before deciding to create time?

 

[JDaniel]

Moving globally through space time yes. Moving locally in space is a question.

Well, of course. All things, whether mobile or immobile are in some sort of motion relative to the globe. That’s the standard upon which we humans have based time: the 24 hour rotation of the earth.

But, the rock itself is relative to all objects. Comparing it to the “standard,” it may not have exhibited local motion, but, it has weathered, worn, and aged. And, these are forms of motion.

Now, if a bug, 10 ft. from the rock, started flying towards the rock at, say, 10 ft. per minute, and landed on the rock, the rock would have aged 1 minute. Or, you could say, it would be 1 minute later than when the bug took off.

Two ways of stating measurements of time, then. Both recording the expiration of one minute. Of time.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

there is no such thing as time.

anybody who says different should send me a cup, im all out

 

[JDaniel]

there is no such thing as time.

anybody who says different should send me a cup, im all out

Warped:

You know, they have them at the store. Probably won’t take too much time for you to drive over there and get one!

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warped:

You know, they have them at the store. Probably won’t take too much time for you to drive over there and get one!

jd

i sure hope i have enough change!

 

[JDaniel]

i sure hope i have enough change!

Last time I looked into it, it was pretty cheap.

jd

 

[AlbertBall]

The scientific method has nothing to do with the knowledge of others. It is about proposing a hypothesis and then demonstrating the truth of it in such a way as can be repeated and observed and LOGICALLY analyzed.

This was your erroneous statement that began the arguing;

There was no birth to the universe nor beginning to time. Not to mention that time and space are **not **“one”.

This was your effort to insult, this first on this thread by anyone;

So I take it that you have no evidence that the universe or time actually began as you have claimed?

Ok i will be very specific now seeing as how you love word games so much.

Scientific research is utterly dependent on the knowledge of other’s, scientists are completely dependent on the knowledge of other’s, and the scientific progress of humanity is utterly dependent on the accumulation of knowledge (which means we are all dependent on the knowledge of other’s).

Now you say the scientific method is about proposing hypothesis? Where do these hypothesis come from, this is further evidence that you do not understand the process, one does not just make a hypothesis up, one does not pull a hypothesis out of thin air. You must justify a hypothesis, and guess how you do that. .

Oh and a hypothesis is NOT the first step in scientific research. In fact you should not really think about forming hypothesis until you have carried out some sort of literature review, which mean guess what. Your hypothesis are guided, if not formed, by the knowledge of OTHER’S!!! ARRGHH

Have you ever heard the term “literature review”? I guess you just review all your own literature, then cite yourself ahahah .

"According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.“3 The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing.” big-bang-theory.com/

I got space and time beginning by reading about the big bang. So you can say there was no start (birth) of or our universe, but you must concede other claim the opposite.

But like i said, I’m not a physicist .

Oh and they physics 101 was in reply to the silly wee face you posted like so…

So you were the one to start all the petty squabbling, and the first one to through out an insult.

 

[James_S_Saint]

So your “evidence” is that someone whom you respect said it, so it must be true?

 

[yppop]

there is no such thing as time.

anybody who says different should send me a cup, im all out

Warps,

Have you read “The End of Time” by Julian Barbour, or you just kidding?

Yppop

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warps,

Have you read “The End of Time” by Julian Barbour, or you just kidding?

Yppop

no, i didnt read his book, but yes im serious. there is no such thing as time. change occurs. but time doesnt, a clock actually measures the change of the gears, not of some immaterial time. if you shave or change a gear in the clock you alter the rate of change, and thereby what “time” the clock registers.

much like writing an equation on graph paper in school, the equation graphed is the change that exists, the graph underneath, time, is simply a set of reference points by which we can reference various points of the equation.

time is simply a convenient measuring stick of the change that occurs around us. it provides a common framework for us to exchange information about the change we observe.

 

[AlbertBall]

So your “evidence” is that someone whom you respect said it, so it must be true?

Respect has nothing to do with it, which is why any cited papers must meet a required standard. Peer review is the best method of ensuring this.

Also i don’t know anyone who would present something along the lines of it must be true because such and such says so.

For example this is not sufficient.

“An industry report conducted by Sugrue & Rivera (2005) revealed that e-learning is growing, and is compatible with individuals’ learning styles.”

One has to build a case, like below.

“An industry report conducted by Sugrue & Rivera (2005) revealed that in the year 2000, 80% of all industry training was delivered in the classroom, with 9% being delivered via computer. As of 2005 the figure had risen to 29%. A survey carried out by OnePoll on behalf of Skillsoft (Skillsoft, 2009) on over two thousand employees produced the following results; 49% of employees found formal class room training to be only partially useful, with the vast majority (87%), favoring learning at their own pace. The above shows the percentage of people engaged in e-learning has grown, and suggest it will continue to grow. The results also suggest current e-learning is compatible with individuals’ learning styles.”

Anyway maybe we can stop breaking each others balls (excuse my French) for a little while. I have no doubt you are very talented in what ever field you work/specialize in. We can’t all be experts in every field which is why the more educated one becomes the more specialized they get…I promise took keep my nose out of physics in the future, for after all i ain’t no physicist . I also appreciate i can be a very aggravating individual at times, but hey, nobody is perfect… least of all me!

 

[sidbrown]

there is no such thing as time. .

So nobody gets old with the passage of time?

 

[James_S_Saint]

AlbertBall,

I am well aware of what it takes to convince “Science” of something. And I am well aware of the scientific method.

What it takes to prove something to anyone is that your profound evidence must be in their mental language such as to make sense to them. If I am trying to convince a strictly Biblical scholar of something, I must put my argument in Biblical terms. If I am to convince a scientist of something, I must put my argument in Science terms that particular scientist understands.

If someone only understands what he has been told by others whom he respects, then respect is the issue for convincing. If I am to convince such a person of anything, I must first convince him that I am to be respected, probably due to social credentials. After showing him that I am a “somebody” to be respected, it won’t matter much what I say as long as it doesn’t seem too far fetched or contrary to another respected person’s opinion.

But that is only a part of the problem. The greater part of convincing someone who takes the word of the respected elite is that they most often misunderstood what they were told and ended up believing something that wasn’t really what was intended. But once they are convinced by proxy, anyone trying to explain anything new must relate to that same misunderstanding or be rejected. Credentials are often not enough because the person thinks that I am arguing with the elite and I must prove that I am better than the elite just to makeup for the person’s misunderstanding.

Another part of the problem is that people accept many things that were fanciful sounding but were merely speculation on the part of the elite. The elite never really proved their idea. They were merely speculating and gaining belief merely because of their credentials. Today this is used quite often to sway political compliance because the elite who made the speculation aren’t around to further explain. This same concern happens in religion. The original founder cannot explain that what came to be believed isn’t really what he meant or that he was just speculating at that time and not really trying to profess a truth.

For these reasons, it becomes important to understand the logic behind the theory being debated. Flashing credentials will no doubt convince many, but it doesn’t cause understanding and doesn’t provide proof, rather merely more faith in the elite’s word. “I am someone respected so just accept what I say, because I am smart and you ain’t.” Them writing a paper or publishing a book is a bit meaningless yet inspires more faith in their word, but it is still merely faith.

In this issue concerning the beginning of time, logic is the real issue because no one has gone back to take samples and reverse engineering is still fraught with speculation. Einstein presumed a singularity, but shortly afterward, many came to realize that such a singularity is a physical impossibility and not really likely to be the origin of the Big Bang. Science today does not accept that the Big Bang was ever a singularity. That speculation was from a very common mistake made by scientists, one of over extending a theory. The gravity issues do not apply to anything smaller than a quark. And next to a singularity, a quark is a galaxy.

Metaphysics is a different kind of concern in that it relies on pure logic without speculation. The logic dictates what options are available for the scientist to go test. In the case of the beginning of time, the logic (from real logicians, not speculative physicists) dictates that time could not have begun at the Big Bang or any other time. It is an issue of logic before Science.

The logic isn’t all that difficult. But scientists aren’t great at logic. They speculate well beyond their science. Thus I have on many occasions shot down noted physicists person to person because they get wrapped up in their math (which they are exceedingly good with), but don’t stop to think about the logic. You don’t see me name dropping for a reason and I have a good reason for my confidence.

Regardless of what any scientist or speculative physicist has told you, the logic is simple enough if you will just follow it and the logic dictates that there could not ever have been a beginning to time regardless of all relativity concerns.

The logic involves what time actually is physically and conceptually and what that understanding necessarily leads to.