Thief
Rogue Theologian
anyone who claims time is real......is caught in their numbers
and no longer understands reality
time is not a force or substance
not needed for reality
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Universe from Nothing?
- Thread starter Tomorrows_Child
- Start date
and no longer understands reality
time is not a force or substance
not needed for reality
Thief
Rogue Theologian
ranked as superior in a gov survey test
I was sooooooo much younger then
soooooooo much better now
reality doesn't need numbers to be real
logic....101
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Thief is correct, time plays no part in the universal reality of acceleration or gravity , it only plays a part in the human mind's calculations of it.
Here is an example, the meteorite that flashes across the night sky is a physical phenomenon involving forces of deceleration and gravity, a human who happens to see it estimates that the event was visible for about 10 seconds. The two acts are entirely separate, one is physical and the other mental, but it only your mind that merges the two as an idea of the meteorite traveling in time. Only the meteorite actually exists as a physical phenomenon, the time aspect is a thought process..
gnostic
The Lost One
How long will it take you to travel from New York to London, by air or by sea?
If time is not real, then you should be able to travel over 5500 km or over 3400 miles (straight line), instantaneously.
On those air bus, it would take anywhere from 6 to almost 7 hours, but on one of light planes, at average of 200 km/h, it would take nearly 28 hours.
But those travel times are assuming it can travel in straight line, and if it was possible for the smaller craft, fly without stops and refuelling, and maintaining that speed.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I can't believe what you have just written, you are proving time is due to a thought process, nothing more.
The concept of time is a measurement, an hour of clock time is 1/24 of the period of one rotation of the earth on its axis, that is all. Time is not dependent on what you are doing, it is the same if you are on a plane from NY to London, or remaining at home in NY watching TV. ..
gnostic
The Lost One
I can't believe what you have just written, you are proving time is due to a thought process, nothing more.
The concept of time is a measurement, an hour of clock time is 1/24 of the period of one rotation of the earth on its axis, that is all. Time is not dependent on what you are doing, it is the same if you are on a plane from NY to London, or remaining at home in NY watching TV. ..
Time is real.
It is your "eternity" that's delusional wishful fantasy. You have already shown that your personal "world" is backward and a deluded mirage.
Arguing over what is real and what isn't, is waste of time, because nothing that I have to say, is going to convince you. I am not going to waste any more of it, with you...as long as you keep it to yourself.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
What has anything in your post got to with an attempt to refute what I posted? You need to be relevant if you want to be taken seriously, as posts like that are an embarrassment.
Your post about time in the context of traveling from NY to London shows you do not understand even the basics of what time is. I am not mocking you, I am trying to help you with your education. Here... read these links to get a clue about the concept of time and how it developed.
Measuring Time
Time - Wikipedia
Seems not, seem you have forgotten or deliberately ignore the important stuff
But you are correct about reality, all reality needs is to actually exist.
I have to agree with you on this. At least on the fundamental part.
There is not such a thing as objective time. Relativity is quite clear on that.
If we take relativity at face vaue, then only spacetime is objective. And space time is not something that can be split into time and space. It is an inextricable union of the two.
The consequence is obvious. If spacetime is the only objective thing, then it is meaningless to say that it evolves. And if spacetime is the fabric of the Universe, it makes no sense to say that the Universe evolves or changes in any way.
That it was born, that it expands, that it will die. For all those concepts to make sense, we need an external spacetime context that cannot exist, if we define the Universe as the set of all things that exist.
Ergo, the Universe, defined as the set of all things that exist, is necessarily immutable and eternal. If relativity is true, as it seems.
We are like tourists on a train observing the changing landscape from that train's window. Does the world outside that window change as we observe it? Do the mountains and lakes disappear from existence as we leave them behind? Does the city we are just crossing begin to exist and stop to exist as the train keeps its journey?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Logic is not part of the equation. When the universe came into existence the laws that define what the universe is now did not exists. So it is perfectly possible for the universe to come from nothing 13.8 billion years ago and no fundamental laws will have been broken.
With the new mathematics that marries quantum theories and classical physics along with the recent detection of gravitational waves make the theory of a universe from nothing a more attractive idea.
gnostic
The Lost One
There are many different and very theoretical and hypothetical cosmological claims...
...the problems are, that only the observable universe is "observable".
Observable as in being able to "observe", "detect", "measure", "quantify", or any combination of the above.
The furthest and oldest, science and technology have been able to "observe" is currently the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or CMBR, which in the Big Bang timeline is the Recombination epoch.
CMBR is the oldest light (radiation) and temperature that we can and are able detect and measure, first from Bell Laboratories, in 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, and later confirmed by space telescopes COBE, and more recently WMAP and Planck. But CMBR was predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, with Alpher's other colleague and former professor George Gamow.
This radiation (CMBR) was caused by electrons bonding themselves to the hydrogen and helium nuclei for the first time, making these two atoms electrically stable and neutral. These bonding made the universe transparent, and therefore "observable". And the bonding cause light to radiate. And all this, took place in the Recombination epoch.
CMBR is older than the first quasars, older still than the earliest stars.
The universe before the Recombination epoch, is opaque. So we cannot currently view any event from older epochs. So the earlier epochs of the Big Bang cosmology are still hypothetical and theoretical.
Until scientists and engineers build better space probes that can view beyond the CMBR and Recombination epoch, we have no verifiable evidences what really went on before Recombination epoch.
So any theoretical physicist or cosmologist talking about the multiverse models, oscillating universe model (Big Bounce, a cycle of Bang and Crunch...and Bang again, sort of like reincarnation), or the eternal universe model, are all merely highly theoretical and hypothetical speculations.
The only things we can confirm so far, is the existence of CMBR, and seeming likely the existence of Gravitational Waves from the recent images of Planck space probe.
If cannot observe anything before Recombination epoch, then we have no evidences to support the universe is eternal or the universe comes from nothing, both of these scenarios are still just speculations.
Personally, that is all I will accept so far. Until we have more information and more verifiable evidences, I am not going to accept any alternative cosmology to be true. I am willing to wait, though we may not have that answer in our lifetime.
...the problems are, that only the observable universe is "observable".
Observable as in being able to "observe", "detect", "measure", "quantify", or any combination of the above.
The furthest and oldest, science and technology have been able to "observe" is currently the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or CMBR, which in the Big Bang timeline is the Recombination epoch.
CMBR is the oldest light (radiation) and temperature that we can and are able detect and measure, first from Bell Laboratories, in 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, and later confirmed by space telescopes COBE, and more recently WMAP and Planck. But CMBR was predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, with Alpher's other colleague and former professor George Gamow.
This radiation (CMBR) was caused by electrons bonding themselves to the hydrogen and helium nuclei for the first time, making these two atoms electrically stable and neutral. These bonding made the universe transparent, and therefore "observable". And the bonding cause light to radiate. And all this, took place in the Recombination epoch.
CMBR is older than the first quasars, older still than the earliest stars.
The universe before the Recombination epoch, is opaque. So we cannot currently view any event from older epochs. So the earlier epochs of the Big Bang cosmology are still hypothetical and theoretical.
Until scientists and engineers build better space probes that can view beyond the CMBR and Recombination epoch, we have no verifiable evidences what really went on before Recombination epoch.
So any theoretical physicist or cosmologist talking about the multiverse models, oscillating universe model (Big Bounce, a cycle of Bang and Crunch...and Bang again, sort of like reincarnation), or the eternal universe model, are all merely highly theoretical and hypothetical speculations.
The only things we can confirm so far, is the existence of CMBR, and seeming likely the existence of Gravitational Waves from the recent images of Planck space probe.
If cannot observe anything before Recombination epoch, then we have no evidences to support the universe is eternal or the universe comes from nothing, both of these scenarios are still just speculations.
Personally, that is all I will accept so far. Until we have more information and more verifiable evidences, I am not going to accept any alternative cosmology to be true. I am willing to wait, though we may not have that answer in our lifetime.
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You forgot to add some rat's tails, eye of newt, and some onion to make an even more effective brew ...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
as I stand before God and heaven......a plea of ignorance will not be allowed
I know better
I know the important stuff
Thief
Rogue Theologian
so if the light you speak of precedes all know stellar forms......
where did it come from?
the big Bang......perhaps?
I believe scientific causal explanations belong within the universe, on a piecemeal basis, and therefore looking for a cause of "the universe" is an instance of language gone on holiday...
eg a relates to b, or c related to d...
We cannot have a realistic causal explanation of "a,b,c.......y,z" as you would have to pick a letter (a,b,c) etc. to be a material cause, in which case, you'd fail in the task....
Like a domino topple, you have to talk in terms of dominos in order to talk of dominion.
eg a relates to b, or c related to d...
We cannot have a realistic causal explanation of "a,b,c.......y,z" as you would have to pick a letter (a,b,c) etc. to be a material cause, in which case, you'd fail in the task....
Like a domino topple, you have to talk in terms of dominos in order to talk of dominion.
Last edited:
You forgot to add some rat's tails, eye of newt, and some onion to make an even more effective brew ...
How childishly idiotic. Try a bit of research rather than making your case based on hyperbole.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Yes, we need definitions of those concepts. They are used in a wide variety of ways by different sources, so knowing what *you* mean by them will help in this debate.
Well, you certainly didn't.