Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
Time has a beginning?
- Thread starter Perpetual Student
- Start date
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
What did I post that was so bad? I cant see the post in question anymore, its not in the PM, and I cant remember what I said
Last edited:
What I choose to eat for breakfast depends on the cuisine that I was raised upon, which depends on the plants and animals available in the area that cuisine originated in.
Therefore one cannot make healthy choices about what to eat...
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Direct experiments have been done with extremely accurate atomic clocks. Clocks that are sent up in aeroplanes to fly around count time more slowly than clocks that remain stationary on the ground.
Since matter at trillions of degrees would travel very close to the speed of light, wouldn't that mean that everything in the frame of 'shortly after singularity' existed in a very slow moving time compared to that of today's frame of reference? So the 'beginning' really happened an eternity ago.
Subduction Zone
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 999
It is way beyond my physics abilities but space was expanding too at the Big Bang. In fact I believe that current theory says that the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light. So even though initial temperatures were very high they also cooled very rapidly, and the length of time that the universe was at that temperature is measured in very small fractions of a second.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
So, as we go back in time and we get arbitrarily closer to t = 0, time becomes arbitrarily slower, making the Universe arbitrarily old (i. e., eternal)? Hmm.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
You asked, I answered.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
In my experience they cling to these contradictory beliefs for a variety of reasons, but mostly their reluctance to question their beliefs is related to ego, and the fear of being "wrong", not necessarily based upon religious motives per se. I do find it interesting that most astrophysicists are atheists, presumably because they "lack belief" in something that has not been empirically demonstrated on Earth, yet they simultaneously cling to three different forms of metaphysical forms of gap filler to prop up their otherwise failed theory, none of which can be empirically demonstrated here on Earth. It's actually a rather complicated religion.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
So, as we go back in time and we get arbitrarily closer to t = 0, time becomes arbitrarily slower, making the Universe arbitrarily old (i. e., eternal)? Hmm.
The notion of "cause and effect" seems to go out the window for some reason when they wind back the clocks. At some point they throw their hands into the air and claim time did not exist, but then if that were so, there would be no change over time and therefore no "bang" to begin with. All energy is conserved and therefore there must have been a "cause" for the bang that involved "change over time".
In my experience they cling to these contradictory beliefs for a variety of reasons, but mostly their reluctance to question their beliefs is related to ego, and the fear of being "wrong", not necessarily based upon religious motives per se. I do find it interesting that most astrophysicists are atheists, presumably because they "lack belief" in something that has not been empirically demonstrated on Earth, yet they simultaneously cling to three different forms of metaphysical forms of gap filler to prop up their otherwise failed theory, none of which can be empirically demonstrated here on Earth. It's actually a rather complicated religion.
Ah the irony. Michael Mozina trying to lecture people on ego. The same Michael Mozina who thinks the Sun is made of iron and that all astronomers who think its made of hydrogen and helium (ie all of them) are obviously wrong. And who told us how he was going to tear apart the original paper on inflation... and then promptly couldn't even define pressure.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
So, as we go back in time and we get arbitrarily closer to t = 0, time becomes arbitrarily slower, making the Universe arbitrarily old (i. e., eternal)? Hmm.
To add to that, the early universe would be more massive (fast objects have greater mass).
At t= 0 everything was = 0. This is impossible, so the universe had to be created to make everything <> 0.
Have you actually read the thread at all Michael?
Also, who are "they"? Are "they" the great scientific conspiracy? The scientific conspiracy that laugh at your model, not because its ridiculous and is falsified by a hundred different observations, but because they know, deep down inside, that you must be right. I mean who can tackle an argument from a few pretty pictures and a complete lack of understanding of basic physics? And how come "they" can't cope with your assault on cosmology which is so clearly poised to tear apart all we thought we knew about the Universe. Not by observation or experiment or by providing a better theory to fit the facts, but by ignoring all sense of quantitative measurement and just replacing scientific names with things like "faerie" and "magic" (who'd have thought it'd be that easy). "They" must be truly quaking in their boots.
So, as we go back in time and we get arbitrarily closer to t = 0, time becomes arbitrarily slower, making the Universe arbitrarily old (i. e., eternal)? Hmm.
'Going back in time' is just like saying we'll shrink another of the 4 dimensions.
Switch to the dimension of height- the big bang/expanding universe behooves us to say at a particular time the universe is 'X' light years in vertical dimension. So you could ask 'what's above and below that?'
Although the issue seems more incomprehensible with time, isn't it really the same question for all 4 dimensions?
How about figuring what was there at t=10^(-43)s first?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
If ego was an issue, I would have tried to take credit for these ideas. Sorry, but this has everything to do with pure observations (both of the sun and of you industry on the internet) over a multi-year time frame. You guys refuse to open you minds to other possibilities and anyone who disagrees with the party dogma is belittled and ignored. The mainstream handed Alfven and Nobel Prize and then improperly (according to Alfven) applied his theories to space. The fact you *still* believe in "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" only demonstrates how out to lunch your whole industry has become. No vacuum on Earth ever reaches "zero" pressure, let alone "negative" pressure. That however is a completely different topic.
The thing about BB mythology PS is that they all *assume* that every little speck of matter and energy was all collected to a *SINGLE* point. That idea itself is pure dogma and complete speculation. Alfven proposed a cyclical sort of "bang' process that was the result of a mixed matter/antimatter coming into "proximity" via contraction. His model however never ends with all matter and energy in one point, therefore it's ignored, just like every other theory that doesn't jive with party dogma and include liberal amounts of "dark" gap filler.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Sure.
In this case it would relate specifically to those that claim that there was no "time" before the bang. Are you even one of them?