How did the Universe get here?

[edthecynic]

Think about what you are saying in relation to what I have stated. If there is no TIME, there can be no "rate of change" in anything. There is no TIME for a rate or change to happen!

Time is the ORDER of change in physics. Think about what physics says instead!!!

The rate of change is the rate of change even a t = 0. The distance traveled at the speed of light at t = 0 is 0.

I know what physics says. e=mc2. IF M=0 (it has to if space = 0) and C2=0 (has to if T=0) then E=0x02, or ZERO! It doesn't matter how much you use caps on ORDER or CHANGE... Order of change, rate of change... it cannot happen without TIME. Nothing can happen without TIME. It would seem like this is a really simple concept that even a total retard could grasp, but apparently you are having trouble with it.

There you go again with your pontification and your Straw Man that if time = 0 then space must = 0.

Just admit it when it comes to physics, you are full of shit! Go back to your "actual" simulated proton.

 

[Boss]

the argument is that time is no longer considered a dimension of space/time.

since fucking when????

Since Einstein.

Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Yeah, you've posted that link already. I honestly don't know why you are throwing out Einstein here to support your lunatic arguments. Einstein coined the phrase "spacetime" and established that time IS a dimension, the fourth dimension of physical reality.

You are ass backwards.

 

[edthecynic]

since fucking when????

Since Einstein.

Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Yeah, you've posted that link already. I honestly don't know why you are throwing out Einstein here to support your lunatic arguments. Einstein coined the phrase "spacetime" and established that time IS a dimension, the fourth dimension of physical reality.

You are ass backwards.

You just keep making shit up and then pontificating. Hermann Minkowski actually coined the term.

Einstein changed his view of time by the 1950s. Time is no longer a separate dimension.

From the link you ignored:

In such a model, what we call time is created purely out of space.

 

[jesusheknowsme]

It didn't "get here", it's always been here.
The 1st law of thermo dynamics shows it could not have been created.

it's always been here

Then how did it begin motion?
Newton's 1st law of motion shows it WAS put into motion by something.

The 1st law of thermo dynamics shows it could not have been created.

You are applying circular reasoning here. Before the physical was created, the laws of physics did not apply. Without time or space, there is no 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

The laws of physics did apply, because there was space and time, but the mass we know as the stars and planets of our universe was all located at a single point.

Presumably an internal pressure build up caused the explosion.

 

[Boss]

Time is the ORDER of change in physics. Think about what physics says instead!!!

The rate of change is the rate of change even a t = 0. The distance traveled at the speed of light at t = 0 is 0.

I know what physics says. e=mc2. IF M=0 (it has to if space = 0) and C2=0 (has to if T=0) then E=0x02, or ZERO! It doesn't matter how much you use caps on ORDER or CHANGE... Order of change, rate of change... it cannot happen without TIME. Nothing can happen without TIME. It would seem like this is a really simple concept that even a total retard could grasp, but apparently you are having trouble with it.

There you go again with your pontification and your Straw Man that if time = 0 then space must = 0.

Just admit it when it comes to physics, you are full of shit! Go back to your "actual" simulated proton.

Well since the expanding of space is basically what creates time, then yeah... no time, no space. That has been the argument all along. You really do need to go back and read this thread and see where this conversation began, because you are way out in left field now, swinging at the fences.

Or, you can just step up to the plate again and torch all the imaginary straw men by explaining how energy and matter can exist without space and time. You did make that statement earlier, but you never showed me any real science to support the argument.

 

[Boss]

It didn't "get here", it's always been here.
The 1st law of thermo dynamics shows it could not have been created.

it's always been here

Then how did it begin motion?
Newton's 1st law of motion shows it WAS put into motion by something.

The 1st law of thermo dynamics shows it could not have been created.

You are applying circular reasoning here. Before the physical was created, the laws of physics did not apply. Without time or space, there is no 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

The laws of physics did apply, because there was space and time, but the mass we know as the stars and planets of our universe was all located at a single point.

Presumably an internal pressure build up caused the explosion.

Sorry, but we know nothing of the sort. Time is a perception created by the expanding universe relative to the observer. Before the universe, there was no time. Science and physics does not "presume" things, that is a measure found in faith. Christians "presume" that God created the universe, it's not a scientific fact.

Laws of physics cannot apply to a physical universe that doesn't yet exist.

 

[jesusheknowsme]

I know what physics says. e=mc2. IF M=0 (it has to if space = 0) and C2=0 (has to if T=0) then E=0x02, or ZERO! It doesn't matter how much you use caps on ORDER or CHANGE... Order of change, rate of change... it cannot happen without TIME. Nothing can happen without TIME. It would seem like this is a really simple concept that even a total retard could grasp, but apparently you are having trouble with it.

There you go again with your pontification and your Straw Man that if time = 0 then space must = 0.

Just admit it when it comes to physics, you are full of shit! Go back to your "actual" simulated proton.

Well since the expanding of space is basically what creates time, then yeah... no time, no space. That has been the argument all along. You really do need to go back and read this thread and see where this conversation began, because you are way out in left field now, swinging at the fences.

Or, you can just step up to the plate again and torch all the imaginary straw men by explaining how energy and matter can exist without space and time. You did make that statement earlier, but you never showed me any real science to support the argument.

No the expanding of space is just matter moving at speed. It's speed can be calculated by measuring the distance of travel against time. There was time before the big bang, but we have no way of measuring how long the universe existed in singularity form.
Nothing in the laws of physics suggests the big bang wasn't part of a cycle. Consider the big crunch theory.

 

[edthecynic]

I know what physics says. e=mc2. IF M=0 (it has to if space = 0) and C2=0 (has to if T=0) then E=0x02, or ZERO! It doesn't matter how much you use caps on ORDER or CHANGE... Order of change, rate of change... it cannot happen without TIME. Nothing can happen without TIME. It would seem like this is a really simple concept that even a total retard could grasp, but apparently you are having trouble with it.

There you go again with your pontification and your Straw Man that if time = 0 then space must = 0.

Just admit it when it comes to physics, you are full of shit! Go back to your "actual" simulated proton.

Well since the expanding of space is basically what creates time, then yeah... no time, no space. That has been the argument all along. You really do need to go back and read this thread and see where this conversation began, because you are way out in left field now, swinging at the fences.

Or, you can just step up to the plate again and torch all the imaginary straw men by explaining how energy and matter can exist without space and time. You did make that statement earlier, but you never showed me any real science to support the argument.

Wrong, and it will still be wrong no matter how many times you pontificate it!!!!!

No time means no MOTION, not no space.

 

[Boss]

Since Einstein.

Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Yeah, you've posted that link already. I honestly don't know why you are throwing out Einstein here to support your lunatic arguments. Einstein coined the phrase "spacetime" and established that time IS a dimension, the fourth dimension of physical reality.

You are ass backwards.

You just keep making shit up and then pontificating. Hermann Minkowski actually coined the term.

Einstein changed his view of time by the 1950s. Time is no longer a separate dimension.

From the link you ignored:

In such a model, what we call time is created purely out of space.

Which is why we call it SPACETIME! Dummy!

Where have I contradicted that time is created out of space? NOWHERE! That has been my point all along. Now here you are, trying to morph my argument into a contradiction of my argument because you cannot support your own argument. Fucking amazing!

I'll BET you voted for Obama!

 

[Boss]

No time means no MOTION, not no space. -ed (circa 2 minutes ago)

In such a model, what we call time is created purely out of space. -ed (circa 3 minutes ago)

Looky looky! Where's he at now? Ooops, not there, he's over here! Nope, not here, he's over there!

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah, you've posted that link already. I honestly don't know why you are throwing out Einstein here to support your lunatic arguments. Einstein coined the phrase "spacetime" and established that time IS a dimension, the fourth dimension of physical reality.

You are ass backwards.

You just keep making shit up and then pontificating. Hermann Minkowski actually coined the term.

Einstein changed his view of time by the 1950s. Time is no longer a separate dimension.

From the link you ignored:

In such a model, what we call time is created purely out of space.

Which is why we call it SPACETIME! Dummy!

Where have I contradicted that time is created out of space? NOWHERE! That has been my point all along. Now here you are, trying to morph my argument into a contradiction of my argument because you cannot support your own argument. Fucking amazing!

I'll BET you voted for Obama!

No you have a separate 4th dimension of time, it is you now trying to morph your 3D+T argument into my 4 Dimensions of space universe. Time is not a dimension, it is the order of events.

P.S. You would lose that bet. I am a lifelong registered independent who votes 3rd Party or write in.

 

[jesusheknowsme]

Time is a measure of how fast it takes to get from point A to point B.
Time is a measure of how long you live in earth's orbits of our sun.
There is no begining to when energy started to exist as it cannot be created.
Energy has always existed in some form or another.
How all the energy of the universe came to a single point in space and exploded is something scientists are still seeking the answers for.

 

[edthecynic]

No time means no MOTION, not no space. -ed (circa 2 minutes ago)

In such a model, what we call time is created purely out of space. -ed (circa 3 minutes ago)

Looky looky! Where's he at now? Ooops, not there, he's over here! Nope, not here, he's over there!

How are my two statements different? At any rate of speed, at t = 0 no distance has been traveled, but space still exists at t = 0. If a distance through space has been traveled, knowing the rate of speed we can calculate the time from event 1 to event 2. Time is a mathemetical device for the order of events.

 

[Boss]

No the expanding of space is just matter moving at speed. It's speed can be calculated by measuring the distance of travel against time. There was time before the big bang, but we have no way of measuring how long the universe existed in singularity form.
Nothing in the laws of physics suggests the big bang wasn't part of a cycle. Consider the big crunch theory.

You have no way of knowing there was a singularity or a big bang for that matter. These are both THEORIES.

And yes, there is something in physics which suggests the so-called "Big Crunch" theory is irrelevant. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. Previously, we believed the universe began with a Big Bang, and the relative velocity was slowing down... eventually, it was speculated the universe would then cease to expand and begin to contract back in on itself (the Big Crunch). Now, we no longer believe this theory is valid. In fact, some physicists like Stephen Hawking have even questioned whether there was a Big Bang. Quantum physics suggests our universe may have been the result of collision with another universe or fusion from another universe, and not a Big Bang at all.

Einstein proved that time is relative, meaning that time is simply our perception of the expansion of the universe. This means time did not exist BEFORE the universe. At least not in any concept we currently recognize as time.

 

[edthecynic]

No the expanding of space is just matter moving at speed. It's speed can be calculated by measuring the distance of travel against time. There was time before the big bang, but we have no way of measuring how long the universe existed in singularity form.
Nothing in the laws of physics suggests the big bang wasn't part of a cycle. Consider the big crunch theory.

You have no way of knowing there was a singularity or a big bang for that matter. These are both THEORIES.

And yes, there is something in physics which suggests the so-called "Big Crunch" theory is irrelevant. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. Previously, we believed the universe began with a Big Bang, and the relative velocity was slowing down... eventually, it was speculated the universe would then cease to expand and begin to contract back in on itself (the Big Crunch). Now, we no longer believe this theory is valid. In fact, some physicists like Stephen Hawking have even questioned whether there was a Big Bang. Quantum physics suggests our universe may have been the result of collision with another universe or fusion from another universe, and not a Big Bang at all.

Einstein proved that time is relative, meaning that time is simply our perception of the expansion of the universe. This means time did not exist BEFORE the universe. At least not in any concept we currently recognize as time.

There you go again, pontificating your own definition of the terms. Time is relative to the respective POSITION of the OBSERVERS, it has nothing to do with whether the universe is expanding or contracting.

 

[Boss]

How are my two statements different? At any rate of speed, at t = 0 no distance has been traveled, but space still exists at t = 0. If a distance through space has been traveled, knowing the rate of speed we can calculate the time from event 1 to event 2. Time is a mathemetical device for the order of events.

Well one statement says "no time doesn't mean no space" and the other says "time is created purely out of space" so you figure out how those two statements differ.

You can't calculate any distance traveled if there is no distance to travel and no time to travel any distance. There can be no event 1 or event 2 if no time or space is present for events to exist. I don't know if I can dumb that down any more for ya, ed. Time is not just a mathematical device used to measure, it is a dimension of reality that exists along with the three spacial dimensions in our universe. If you don't comprehend this, I don't know how to educate you. Seems like you're just too stupid to learn.

 

[jesusheknowsme]

No the expanding of space is just matter moving at speed. It's speed can be calculated by measuring the distance of travel against time. There was time before the big bang, but we have no way of measuring how long the universe existed in singularity form.
Nothing in the laws of physics suggests the big bang wasn't part of a cycle. Consider the big crunch theory.

You have no way of knowing there was a singularity or a big bang for that matter. These are both THEORIES.

And yes, there is something in physics which suggests the so-called "Big Crunch" theory is irrelevant. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. Previously, we believed the universe began with a Big Bang, and the relative velocity was slowing down... eventually, it was speculated the universe would then cease to expand and begin to contract back in on itself (the Big Crunch). Now, we no longer believe this theory is valid. In fact, some physicists like Stephen Hawking have even questioned whether there was a Big Bang. Quantum physics suggests our universe may have been the result of collision with another universe or fusion from another universe, and not a Big Bang at all.

Einstein proved that time is relative, meaning that time is simply our perception of the expansion of the universe. This means time did not exist BEFORE the universe. At least not in any concept we currently recognize as time.

Astrophysicists have charted the path of the universe there is evidence to support the big bang theory.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed so must always have existed.
Time is a measure and movement is used to work out that measure. How do you measure time before the big bang, the universe could have been in singular form for a split second or for billions of years. Science does not claim to have all the answers. But it looks for evidence, both in mathematics and in the way the universe is moving.

To date science has found no evidence at all exists to say there is a God.
There could be, but there isn't any evidence at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can fully understand that to some intelligent minds it seems a remarkable coincidense that life happened here. One might ask "how is it that we are so lucky?"

We can break it down like the "goldilocks" approach to a planetary comfort zone for the possibility of life to exist in the universe. Subtracting the known potential for disaster and extinction they(the scientists) speculate that there are possibly billions of planets that would be good places for life to start and flourish.

Yes we do live in an extremely interesting time and place. The cosmic dice were tossed and we won without having to do anything but survive. A few million years one way or the other and poof...we are gone. It all seems just a little TOO fortunate.

Then some joker(me) says very calmly and plainly... "Hey!...what's the big deal? Get a grip! We are here. That's all we need to know."

There is/was no hocus pocus...just dumb luck. There is no "Why". Just enjoy the ride...it won't be forever. Even if we survive ourselves and some killer asteroid in the future or a predatory alien race that follows our dinner bell beacons back to Earth eventually the universe will collapse in a trillion years and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.

My guess is that there have been races of intelligent beings many times in the infinite past that have lived right up till the monster black hole...the biggest and last one swallowed up the previous universe and the ones before that. I bet they ALL thought they were special.

A planet that is a self correcting system,living creatures with defense mechanisms. Just too many miracles if you ask me and the best explanation given was by the creator himself.

Well... In light of this new information it would appear it is settled then..

is that the best response you've got ? I know it is hard to explain your beliefs by the evidence observed.

 

[Boss]

There you go again, pontificating your own definition of the terms. Time is relative to the respective POSITION of the OBSERVERS, it has nothing to do with whether the universe is expanding or contracting.

Well, yes it does, ed.

"what we call time is created purely out of space."

"Time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space."

"Science says the space/time we live in had a beginning.."

"time exists only in terms of motion."

"Space/time is the movement of our universe of energy/matter. Time exists only in terms of motion. Time equals Distance divided by Rate, t=d/r."

These are all YOUR remarks in this thread, and now you are trying to contradict them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

To clear up the seemingly miraculous occurence of life existing here, or any where else requires a bit of neuroscience. What some believe is incredible luck or miracles is in fact merely how your brain processes information while not possessing all the facts. We see an event we don't understand and rather than spending time to understand what occured, we chalk it up to God or luck, or some other pat answer.

Life exists on Earth because it does. If it didn't we wouldn't be musing over it. BUt that it does isn't at all remarkable. Here on Earth, life exists because it can. If it couldn't, it wouldn't. It really is as simple as that.

To pu t it another way, of the thousands of planets so far discovered, life exists on only 1 of them for sure, our's. So life on planets may only occur 1 in a few thousand times, small odds to some until you learn there's more planets in the universe than stars so something which occurs just 1 in 2000 times will have occured literally billions of times throughout the universe. Suddenly it's not so remarkable any more.

Intellectually lazy people are not looking to "clear things up".

How has the science community ever cleared up any origins question