Time - Change the word from sound to time

[Ricktheheretic]

No, there does NOT have to be a time before the BB, nor even a time *of* the BB. In fact, that is part of what the term 'singularity' means in this context: that even defining time at or before is impossible: the time coordinate simply cannot be extended backwards further.

A good analogy is latitude on the Earth. It cannot be extended to either north of the North Pole nor to south of the South Pole. The reason is the geometry of the sphere of the Earth. In the same way, spacetime has a four dimensional geometry where (at least in general relativity), the time cannot be extended backwards from or even to the singularity.

The conservation of matter (the correct version is actually the conservation of energy, because matter can be converted into energy) actually says that the total amount at one time is the same as the total amount at any other time. In other words, it compares the amount at two different times. If there is no time, there is nothing to compare.

So you are saying that something can come from nothing? That doesn't make sense. I'll read the Big Bang theory and the Atsro-Physics book, but I don't think it logically makes sense that there was nothing and then there was something. What would it's cause be? To me "matter cannot be created or destroyed" makes sense because nothing cannot make something and something cannot become nothing. What exists is, and what does not exist isn't unless it comes in the future from what already exists. That's just my take on the subject

 

[Polymath257]

So you are saying that something can come from nothing? That doesn't make sense. I'll read the Big Bang theory and the Atsro-Physics book, but I don't think it logically makes sense that there was nothing and then there was something. What would it's cause be? To me "matter cannot be created or destroyed" makes sense because nothing cannot make something and something cannot become nothing. What exists is, and what does not exist isn't unless it comes in the future from what already exists. That's just my take on the subject

Even in time only goes finitely far into the past, there was never a time when there was nothing. So, no, it isn't the case that 'something came from nothing'. Nothingness literally does not and has never existed.

 

[Ted Evans]

I am not sure what your belief is, but isn't this a false equivalency? Would you agree that your belief, whatever it may be, is just like the the belief kim jong un created the universe?

No, yes. If you believe the sun comes up from the north every third day, is that a belief or a fact? If you believe the universe was created by the BB, is that a belief or a fact, if I believe that an intelligent, supernatural being created and programmed the universe, is that a belief or a fact? Using the definition that "belief" is something that may or may not be true, unprovable, whereas, "fact" can be proven.

So, if you "believe" the BB created the universe, is that provable or is it a belief? Everyone does not agree on the BB theory, it is a belief, not a provable fact.

"Problems with many currently accepted theories including the Big-Bang Model of the universe are also briefly discussed. To gain a better understanding of these problems in Cosmology and Physics, the books “The Big Bang Never Happened” by Eric Lerner, and “Bye Bye Big Bang” by William Mitchell, have extensive chapters devoted to these perceived problems. A number of problems that exist in modern-day physics are appropriately presented by Lee Solin in the book entitled “The Trouble with Physics.”

 

[Ted Evans]

While it is helpful to think of both time and space as dimensional they are not necessarily periodic. I would say that any degree of change assumes temporality. So, your question assumes time. I don't understand how it is reasonable to ask assuming time is x possible without time?

Did you read my comment and if so, what does "hypothetical" mean for you?

 

[Ted Evans]

I'll attempt to give an example and also answer some of your questions about measurement.

I believe I have mentioned this before but if not, here it is again. I have proven that you cannot answer my questions with verifiable answers and I have not seen you offer anything but your word, so therefore, your assertions, as far as I am concerned, are nothing more than your beliefs, which I may or may not agree with.

 

[Ted Evans]

Only Man needs proof. Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is no unit of time. Time is like length, width and height it just is, you can use centimeters, inches, miles, nanoseconds, pico-centimeters, hours, days.

I understand that is your belief, we all have them.

 

[ChristineM]

OK...if you say so.

You have an alternative suggestion for time before or after life existing?

If so then please share it and stop being so facetious

 

[ChristineM]

You didn't mention the fact that the matter - antimatter should have canceled each other out. Perhaps you are unaware of this. As to knowing how things went by simulation, these simplistic simulation in no way demonstrate how the organization of the universe came to be. Even now, they fight with dark matter - does it exist? Or, doesn't it? So . . .

Another thing, the BB is said to be a singularity, which is a black hole and they do not, as in not, explode or inflate. All these unsupported ideas, that in no way are falsifiable is just someone's wet dream - at the moment. You try to explode something in a park and see how much organization you get out of that. That is easy to falsify, isn't it.

I am aware of it, however my answer applies to the period prior to matter/anti-matter forming I.e. in the state of pure energy.

Dark matter is known to exist, its effects can be measured. Perhaps you are confusing dark matter with dark energy

No, the singularity (assuming a singularity) of the bb was not a black hole. Black holes have size, the singularity at the bb had no size. A common misunderstanding among those looking for cop outs.

 

[Ted Evans]

You have an alternative suggestion for time before or after life existing?

Using the common definition of time....
"a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future"

I do not "believe" the time dimension came into existence at the exact moment of creation. Can you prove, with empirical science, what the speed of light was at the moment of creation, if so, can you provide a link supporting your answer?

 

[Curious George]

No, yes.

False quivalencies are in logic. Explaining that some question the big bang is not enough to show that this is not a false equivalency.

That you said yes to the second causes me to wonder if you are sticking to your guns no matter what. If you truly believe that whatever you believe is just like a belief that Kim Jong Un created the universe then I wish you well.

 

[Curious George]

Did you read my comment and if so, what does "hypothetical" mean for you?

Hypothetical means that we take your hypothesis, an supposition, as true. But I am saying that your question contradicts your supposition logically such rhat it is not reasonable.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe I have mentioned this before but if not, here it is again. I have proven that you cannot answer my questions with verifiable answers and I have not seen you offer anything but your word, so therefore, your assertions, as far as I am concerned, are nothing more than your beliefs, which I may or may not agree with.

I gave answers to your question.

I provided some key words that would allow you to verify what I said (spectrum, frequency).

I explained why what I said was correct.

The rest is up to you.

 

[ChristineM]

Using the common definition of time....
"a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future"

I do not "believe" the time dimension came into existence at the exact moment of creation. Can you prove, with empirical science, what the speed of light was at the moment of creation, if so, can you provide a link supporting your answer?

And using a more precise definition of time

In classical, non-relativistic physics it is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity.

You belief is not required

Easy, there was no light at the moment the universe began, it was far to hot and dense for particles such as photons to exist. Photons did not begin to form until 10 seconds to 1.2 × 10e13 seconds after the event

I don't want to bother you with difficult links so here's is a simple wiki on the chronology of the universe
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[Grandliseur]

I am aware of it, however my answer applies to the period prior to matter/anti-matter forming I.e. in the state of pure energy.

Dark matter is known to exist, its effects can be measured. Perhaps you are confusing dark matter with dark energy

No, the singularity (assuming a singularity) of the bb was not a black hole. Black holes have size, the singularity at the bb had no size. A common misunderstanding among those looking for cop outs.

As I said, dark matter's existence is in dispute among scientists:
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

There is great uncertainty about many such things. Your statement regarding the size of the singularity - is a claim. Though, I read as much about physics, and astrophysics as I come across and used to buy books on the subject, your claim about its size is the first ever I have come across. Even Googling this subject (Initial singularity - Wikipedia) there is no mention of any size at all on several sites and with the material written by professors:

"First of all, it is not really known whether or not the universe started from a singularity. Our measurements can take us back only so far; ideas about the nature of the cosmos at the start of the big bang are mostly unproved conjecture." (Scientific American: According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?)​

What you claim is not seen supported by other proponents of the BB.
What I see
when I hear the theory about the BB, and what comes after makes little sense to me. That there seems to be enough evidence for a beginning of the universe akin to the BB is true. Here is where I have my own rowboat. Scientists in general may believe that the BB happened; yet, they have many problems which if admitted would derail their concepts.

My belief is simple, and Bible based. The Bible tells us that the angels were amazed, thrilled, when God created our universe. So, with perhaps a BB like event, God directed events so that the matter-antimatter problem didn't Zero out - otherwise, no universe!
As to the magnificent organization of matter that subsequently occurred, this too was no random event, but was part of the process God started, or perhaps, it was guided as needed over the expansion.
​

While I say Goddidit, I have nothing against the attempt by scientists in trying to establish how God did things, how did he accomplish what was made. But, as many scientists admit, there is a point beyond which the laws of physics do not work and cannot be predicted, even with mathematics. That scientists still try to come to terms with dark matter - does it exist, or not - and the matter-antimatter problem - is fine with me -- as long as they don't try to make people swallow the whale of nonsense which it becomes when you say it-did-it-itself.

Organization is not automatic. It has a cause.

​

 

[Milton Platt]

One does not need to go very deep before finding many that disagree with the BB theory, such as this quote.

"Cosmologists were hoping to obtain greater insight into the initial Big-Bang, and also to help resolve possible inconsistencies with existing theory. But instead during the time of this collaboration two previously unrecognized potential problems with the Big Bang model surfaced. These problems involved many observations which the Big Bang Model could not easily explain, but even worse they were long predicted requirements of the recently denigrated Steady-State model. They came to be known as “the flatness” and “horizon problem.”

When including a quote, you should always provide the source. The quote really tells me nothing more than that the theory is still incomplete.

 

[LukeS]

I think the physicist Wheeler a physicist argued that conscioness caused a wave function of the universe to collapse, and that consciousness kind of invented time then.


See Participaroty Universe Principle (PAP).

Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP)

 

[Ted Evans]

When including a quote, you should always provide the source.

I agree and I usually do but in this case, my point was to demonstrate there were opposing views and/or questions about the BB. It was not an attempt to refute the theory.

http://www.pantheory.org/Pan-Theory.pdf

 

[Ted Evans]

Easy, there was no light at the moment the universe began,

Interesting, when I look at the photo, it appears to me that there was enormous light at the beginning (quantum fluctuations), quite different than is depicted at the "Dark Ages" time line, but you say there was no light at the moment the universe began?

Is the rendition presented in this article empirical science or, is it only a theory? And yes, I have been told 14k times, more or less, what constitutes a scientific theory so I do not need to hear it again.

 

[Ted Evans]

I gave answers to your question.

I believe I have mentioned this before but if not, here it is again. I have proven that you cannot answer my questions with verifiable answers and I have not seen you offer anything but your word, so therefore, your assertions, as far as I am concerned, are nothing more than your beliefs, which I may or may not agree with.

 

[Ted Evans]

You have an alternative suggestion for time before or after life existing?

I asked the questions, how could time be proven to exist before it could be measured and what was the basis for the unit of measurement? IOW, every thing I see written about time, relative to the creation of the universe, seems to be "years", billions of years, light years so what was a "year", how was it determined to be a year? BTW, I am not interested in "theory", scientific or otherwise, but an answer that can be verified as fact.

In answer to your question, I do not think there was a time dimension before there was a basis to measure it by. IMO, it does not matter if the method is atomic, a sun dial or an analog clock, it all depends on 360-degree rotation and whether it is micro-seconds or light years.