S
sidbrown
Guest
I don;t quite see why logic dictates that God could not have created time at the beginning of the Big Bang.
- Status
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
How long did God ponder the idea of starting time?
Actually I have bumped the “Before God???” thread which addresses this issue.
S
sidbrown
Guest
According to St. Augustine, God is above time.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Well my own personal opinion on the subject is quite simply, we do not know. We don’t have enough data to form any sort of meaningful conclusions regarding the origin of the universe. To be honest this is one of the main reason i have never been a big fan of some branches of physics, for example m-theory and string theory. For as you quite rightly point out it is pure speculation.
This is why i am what one could term an agnostic-atheist.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Sid:
I’m not so sure God actively created time, per se. I prefer to think that time was correlative with motion. Prior to the BB, there probably was no motion. God certainly didn’t require it. So, you are right, I think. Motion and Time began with the BB.
What do you think?
God Bless,
jd
S
sidbrown
Guest
I think that there are theoretical considerations and data which indicate the plausibility of the Big Bang theory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
no. time just isnt there to pass. people get old with the continual occurence of change. genetic damage, telomere sloughing off, etc. of the million changes that cause one to age, none or of some thing called “time”
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Above, below, sitting across the table sipping tea… doesn’t matter. Time is the CONCEPT of change. As long as anything is different or becoming different, time exists. If God is waiting for the right moment to create time, then that moment would never come because absolutely nothing would be changing until God changed his mind, and as you should know, God doesn’t change his mind. God is “outside of time”, unchanging, eternal.
God necessarily takes zero time to think about what is to be. Thus, if the universe began with the Big Bang, God had to have sprung into existence at that very same “moment”. The alternative is that the universe itself is also eternal.
God “causes” the universe. As long as there is God, there will always be a universe.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I agree, however what existed “before” the big bang, or what caused the big bang so to speak is pretty much unknown.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
But logically deducible. Metaphysics required.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I have to admit, i belong to the clan of empirical evidence, and as such i am a materialist.But logically deducible. Metaphysics required.
Edit… Actually, maybe i am a naturalist, yeah that would be a better description.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Time is the measure of change. Measure is relative comparison. Einstein’s relativity is no more than the conclusion that because we measure all “things” relative to something else, all of our measurements are related. It is not at all true that ALL things are relative because some “things” are not physical objects (“2+2=4” does not change regardless of what gravity field you are in or how fast you are moving).
As long as there is change, there is time to be measured. The physical universe is made of that changing and nothing else.
But God is the consistency, the immutable that doesn’t change, the Logos (by definition). God is the unchangable part of reality that causes change, creates the physical made of the changing.The existence of God causes change. As long as there is God, there will be change.
There was no beginning of the unchangable cause of changing. There was no beginning of the changing. There was no beginning of time.
As long as there is change, there is time to be measured. The physical universe is made of that changing and nothing else.
But God is the consistency, the immutable that doesn’t change, the Logos (by definition). God is the unchangable part of reality that causes change, creates the physical made of the changing.The existence of God causes change. As long as there is God, there will be change.
There was no beginning of the unchangable cause of changing. There was no beginning of the changing. There was no beginning of time.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Oh, but 2+2 =4 does change and is not true for velocities near the speed of light.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Can you sight one example? Don’t explain it, just demonstrate it.
S
sidbrown
Guest
See addition of velocities in special relativity:
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_addition_of_velocities
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_theory_of_relativity
relativitycalculator.com/addition_relativistic_velocities.shtml
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
First, I said “give one example. Don’t explain it.”
Each of those is an explanation. Each explains how velocities change their value such as to never reach the speed of light because each velocity is measured relative to light. The closer to the speed of light each becomes, the less each velocity can add to the other.
The explanations are basically saying, relative to “2+2=4”, that the value of “2” gets reduced as it approaches the value of “4”. But I am not talking about the value of a velocity, but the quantity of 2. Velocities are not constant quantities.
Velocities adding is not relevant to the question. None of those explanations are applicable. If you redefine what “2” means, then you change what “2+2=4” means.
That is what I meant by misunderstanding what the elite say and thus the need to use understanding, not merely faith in the elite.
Are you proposing that if I had 2 objects side by side that gradually increased speed approaching the speed of light, at some point there would no longer be 2 objects? Perhaps the number of objects gets gradually reduced to become 1.5, 1.25, 1.0, .75, .5, and so on such that at the speed of light there are no objects? Perhaps that is why nothing can travel at the speed of light, because it would be nothing if it were? It would take an infinite amount of energy to travel at the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to make something from nothing?
At what speed does 1 object plus 1 object become different than 2 objects?
Each of those is an explanation. Each explains how velocities change their value such as to never reach the speed of light because each velocity is measured relative to light. The closer to the speed of light each becomes, the less each velocity can add to the other.
The explanations are basically saying, relative to “2+2=4”, that the value of “2” gets reduced as it approaches the value of “4”. But I am not talking about the value of a velocity, but the quantity of 2. Velocities are not constant quantities.
Velocities adding is not relevant to the question. None of those explanations are applicable. If you redefine what “2” means, then you change what “2+2=4” means.
That is what I meant by misunderstanding what the elite say and thus the need to use understanding, not merely faith in the elite.
Are you proposing that if I had 2 objects side by side that gradually increased speed approaching the speed of light, at some point there would no longer be 2 objects? Perhaps the number of objects gets gradually reduced to become 1.5, 1.25, 1.0, .75, .5, and so on such that at the speed of light there are no objects? Perhaps that is why nothing can travel at the speed of light, because it would be nothing if it were? It would take an infinite amount of energy to travel at the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to make something from nothing?
At what speed does 1 object plus 1 object become different than 2 objects?
S
sidbrown
Guest
I gave you the example of relative velocities near the speed of light not adding up in the traditional manner of 1+1 = 2.
For your second question:
One object plus one object will not always equal two objects. Let me give you an example of this. The single-photon annihilation of an electron-positron pair, e− + e+ → γ can occur in the Coulomb field of a nucleus where the the translational invariance is broken and single-photon annihilation may occur. This is shown in the following paper:
Phys. Rev. 124, issue 6, p.1851–1861
Single-Quantum Annihilation of Positrons
L. Sodickson*, W. Bowman*, and J. Stephenson and R. Weinstein
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Why do you keep referencing things that you do not fully understand?
Your first answer involving relativity alters the meaning of “2” because it is a mind game of shifting reference frames so that what is 2 in one frame is not 2 in the other. With this answer, you change the meaning of “what speed” and “becomes” into “what circumstance” and “mixed together”.
When you mix the energy of an electron with that of a positron, you no longer have an electron or a positron, but you have the sum total of their energy as the 2 entities of a photon and the radiant energy not bundled into a particle, yet still an “object”.
But I didn’t ask under what circumstance can 1 object and another object be mixed together such as to become less than 2 objects. You could have just said, “when one cloud mixes with another cloud, you only have one cloud, not 2.”
I asked of when speed effects the concept of 1+1=2 to become invalid.
Since you are going to so much trouble looking up elite sounding things so as to avoid the obvious, I take it that you have no concern of truth (like so many others on this forum).
But since you want to use Science rather than merely thinking, realize that Science still proclaims that the total amount of energy in the universe cannot ever change. That alone says that energy could never have come from nothing or ever been less than it currently is.
Thus even according to Science, time could have never had a beginning.
Your first answer involving relativity alters the meaning of “2” because it is a mind game of shifting reference frames so that what is 2 in one frame is not 2 in the other. With this answer, you change the meaning of “what speed” and “becomes” into “what circumstance” and “mixed together”.
When you mix the energy of an electron with that of a positron, you no longer have an electron or a positron, but you have the sum total of their energy as the 2 entities of a photon and the radiant energy not bundled into a particle, yet still an “object”.
But I didn’t ask under what circumstance can 1 object and another object be mixed together such as to become less than 2 objects. You could have just said, “when one cloud mixes with another cloud, you only have one cloud, not 2.”
I asked of when speed effects the concept of 1+1=2 to become invalid.
Since you are going to so much trouble looking up elite sounding things so as to avoid the obvious, I take it that you have no concern of truth (like so many others on this forum).
But since you want to use Science rather than merely thinking, realize that Science still proclaims that the total amount of energy in the universe cannot ever change. That alone says that energy could never have come from nothing or ever been less than it currently is.
Thus even according to Science, time could have never had a beginning.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Take c as the velocity of light. Then let v = .95c.
It is not true that v + v = 2 v.
Take two objects one is an electron and the other is a postron. Adding them
in the Coulomb field of a nucleus will give one photon.
I have given references for the details of both of these assertions.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
You provided 2 irrelevant issues.
As long as there is change, there is time to be measured. The physical universe is made of that changing and nothing else.
But God is the consistency, the immutable that doesn’t change, the Logos (by definition). God is the unchangable part of reality that causes change, creates the physical made of the changing.The existence of God causes change. As long as there is God, there will be change.
There was no beginning of the unchangable cause of changing. There was no beginning of the changing. There was no beginning of time.
- Status