First cause.

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:42 pm

4gold wrote:A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.

Why must a beginning have a cause?

olivergringold · Post by **olivergringold** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:53 pm

Beto wrote:How can any analogy be strong on this issue if "time" is something that already exists in all possible settings? In any analogy the real "clock" is always ticking.

Because you're stating that the clock couldn't start because there was nothing to start by. I'm stating that time, as we understand it, is relative, and just because we cannot conceive of certain points in space (null, for instance), that does not mean they did not have a place in time. In the case of our universe, we call it t = 0. According to the CMB it's been ticking about 13.7 billion years.

Beto wrote:Unless I'm incurring in a fallacy of equivocation (and that might very well be the case), how can it be a "semantic problem"? To me, it just seems like a logic problem.

That could also be the case. I'm beginning to suspect that neither of us are understanding the other quite correctly.

Beto wrote:Another poster tried to make me see reason in the concept of "imaginary time". I can't say he succeeded. Is this something like what you're saying?

Not imaginary time at all. The difference between time start and proto-time isn't measured in time. Calling it imaginary wouldn't solve the problem. I was merely attempting to offer you a way to consider the pinhead that rested atop the n-sided pyramid of causality when t = 0.

Simon_Peter · Post by **Simon_Peter** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:00 pm

Hello beto,

Let me explain. Time, as your thinking about it. Is Correct and everyone else is wrong. Time, has always existed and will always exist........ Time cannot begin without time existing.

However Time is not imaginary, it is not real, time is just here. However we need a better way to describe what it is. Therefore we say time is split, into two things. Our understanding of Time is very complex. Real time. Imaginary time. Both of these combined is called time. Imagine a single train track, that stretches around the world in a loop. it has no beginning and no end. This is how beto is thinking of time. He would be correct, it cannot begin and it cannot end.

However this is a simple view. Time is actually two train tracks, one is stretched around the world this is called imaginary time. The other Track is in a straight line, and this track had a beginning. Imaginary time, is a train track in a circle. It is a clock. It goes around and around, and never ends. This is Imaginary time. Scientists made it up. A few years ago.

The other train track has had a beginning, because a major event happend. This is called the initial event. However, our universe is billions of years old. Why is the date only 2008. because the calenders started at Jesus Christs death.

Just as scientists started time at the big bang....

Imaginary time is only a mathematical device, to work with the singularity before it exploded. Scientist also say, that real time is only real when things move...since nothing was moving before the big bang, real time does not exist, therefore they imagine a train going round and round. Like a stopwatch.

Imaginary time is a constant, Real time is relative. So all this shit with T = 0, is totally absurd. That is a relative equation, and is totally incorrect, as time is both relative and constant.

Thanks

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:17 pm

olivergringold wrote:
Beto wrote:How can any analogy be strong on this issue if "time" is something that already exists in all possible settings? In any analogy the real "clock" is always ticking.
Because you're stating that the clock couldn't start because there was nothing to start by. I'm stating that time, as we understand it, is relative, and just because we cannot conceive of certain points in space (null, for instance), that does not mean they did not have a place in time. In the case of our universe, we call it t = 0. According to the CMB it's been ticking about 13.7 billion years.

Beto wrote:Unless I'm incurring in a fallacy of equivocation (and that might very well be the case), how can it be a "semantic problem"? To me, it just seems like a logic problem.
That could also be the case. I'm beginning to suspect that neither of us are understanding the other quite correctly.

Beto wrote:Another poster tried to make me see reason in the concept of "imaginary time". I can't say he succeeded. Is this something like what you're saying?
Not imaginary time at all. The difference between time start and proto-time isn't measured in time. Calling it imaginary wouldn't solve the problem. I was merely attempting to offer you a way to consider the pinhead that rested atop the n-sided pyramid of causality when t = 0.

This may seem to come out of the blue, but how does the under-planck-scale-time (if I can put it like that) factor in to your understanding of "time"? Is it relevant?

olivergringold · Post by **olivergringold** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:32 pm

Beto wrote:This may seem to come out of the blue, but how does the under-planck-scale-time (if I can put it like that) factor in to your understanding of "time"? Is it relevant?

I'm afraid not. I'm embarrassed to admit I'm not even sure what it is you're referring to. Could you please link me to an explanation of under-planck-scale-time?

Simon_Peter · Post by **Simon_Peter** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:34 pm

Hello

Your all confused, read my post just before beto asked you about plank time.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:45 pm

olivergringold wrote:
Beto wrote:This may seem to come out of the blue, but how does the under-planck-scale-time (if I can put it like that) factor in to your understanding of "time"? Is it relevant?
I'm afraid not. I'm embarrassed to admit I'm not even sure what it is you're referring to. Could you please link me to an explanation of under-planck-scale-time?

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskEx ... N=89842662

Does this actually mean "Time" began AFTER the big bang?

Simon_Peter · Post by **Simon_Peter** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:50 pm

Hello Beto,

Everyone who is confused about time, And would like an answer, especially Beto...CLICK HERE

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:59 pm

Beto wrote:
olivergringold wrote:
Beto wrote:This may seem to come out of the blue, but how does the under-planck-scale-time (if I can put it like that) factor in to your understanding of "time"? Is it relevant?
I'm afraid not. I'm embarrassed to admit I'm not even sure what it is you're referring to. Could you please link me to an explanation of under-planck-scale-time?
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskEx ... N=89842662

Does this actually mean "Time" began AFTER the big bang?

No, it just means that our equations break down, and give meaningless answers at the
under planck time scale. We have to figure out new equations that can make sense of what happened. We are lacking in information to be able to figure out the equations.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:03 pm

Simon_Peter wrote:Hello Beto,

Everyone who is confused about time, And would like an answer, especially Beto...CLICK HERE

Look, I know where you stand, ok? If it's alright with you I'll keep approaching the subject from different perspectives.

olivergringold · Post by **olivergringold** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:30 pm

Even more embarrassing, I'm afraid what you've linked to is over my head