Message 391 of 405 (98799) 02-09-2008 9:16 PM

Reply to: Message 385 by Modulous 02-09-2008 7:58 PM

I don't think timeless is dealing with one end of time. In fact you used it in referring to the universe. You said past, present, and future. Time has no effect on something that is timeless.

So no it is not like saying that the North Pole is direction less.
As you pointed out by saying every direction from there is south.

Mod since you did not qualify what your reference was that told you the direction of south, such as a magnetic compass, you are only half right.

Mod I think you could stand on the North Pole, when frozen with 13,410 feet of ice and water under your feet. You could scan the horizon and probably see in a million different directions other than south.

God Bless,

Message 392 of 405 (98800) 02-09-2008 9:24 PM

Reply to: Message 390 by tesla 02-09-2008 8:49 PM

eh?

What?

In a sense it means spaceless and timeless, which of course makes no sense. That's the kind of nonsense we get when we apply a model that is not up to the task of describing that level.

Agreed.

No, I don't think we can say that absolutely. Imagine trying to peer through the thickest fog - we cannot say absolutely what lies on the other side. I've seen one idea that the net energy of the universe is zero, and some theories say that T=0 doesn't really exist since time wasn't really like time at that part of the universe, but more like space. Given the almost inherent uncertainty, how can we expect to know anything with anything approaching absolute certainty?

Message 393 of 405 (98801) 02-09-2008 9:33 PM

Reply to: Message 391 by ICANT 02-09-2008 9:16 PM

Great. That's what I said.

Right, and every direction from T=0 is forwards in time. There exists only one direction to travel in time at T=0 just like there exists only one direction at the North Pole. The North Pole isn't directionless and T=0 doesn't have to be timeless.

It doesn't matter. You could define the north pole as being the desk where you are sat at and then everywhere you look would be south by definition.

Then I wouldn't be at the definition of the North Pole we are working from. I am referring to the most Northern Point. There has to be one, however you want to determine where it is. At that point, there is nothing north of you - only things south of you.

Message 394 of 405 (98802) 02-09-2008 10:05 PM

Reply to: Message 393 by Modulous 02-09-2008 9:33 PM

I know that is what the standard theory says.

I do not believe that.

I do believe that T=O is the beginning of time as you and I know time to exist.

I believe it will cease to exist in the future in fervent heat just like it arrived.

You did not reference what was north of the North Pole.

You just said every direction from the North Pole was South.

That was not a true statement no matter how you try to dress it up.

God Bless,

Message 395 of 405 (98803) 02-09-2008 10:12 PM

Reply to: Message 392 by Modulous 02-09-2008 9:24 PM

T=0 is inevitable. period.

so what is at T=0.

not with you will any debate be found, because you have admitted "i don't know, and its impossible to know"

but it is possible to See SOME things. you can determine as i have said:

at T=0 is energy.

at T=0 is a timeless state, which means singular energy that is unchanged from its form over an indeterminable time period. but nothing before.

and we know it begot the universe and all of the universe was established by the cause's from it.

we can determine by the singular state that ordered or chaotic, a singluar evolvment from something previously unchanged , by the scope of what was formed, was intelligent. since there was nothing else for it to interact with but itself.

and we can say definitely that an action from a singular energy that "just was" ( only by itself) is an act of faith.

i don't see how you cannot see that. its like a sophist's argument, that when you show them the truth they act like there blind as bats.

what other conclusion is possible?

at T=0 is energy. T=0 is inevitable.

Message 396 of 405 (98804) 02-09-2008 10:29 PM

Reply to: Message 394 by ICANT 02-09-2008 10:05 PM

So you agree that it doesn't have to be timeless? You just believe that it is.

By definition, nothing is.

Because that is true.

Tell me one direction that is not south that you can travel in. For help in this, feel free to read the Encarta page (the first paragraph has some good hints). NOAA has a pertinent page too:

quote:

---

The North and South Poles are special points on the Earth, because they are singularities of our coordinate system. All directions from the North Pole can be called South, because they are directed exactly away from the North Pole. The directions of North, South, East and West lose the meaning they have elsewhere on the Earth.

---

Hey, singularities in a coordinate system, where have I heard something similar? Anyway, you can also go to the Arctic studies center for more information to aid your quest to show how what I said was not a true statement. Good luck with that.

Message 397 of 405 (98805) 02-09-2008 10:40 PM

Reply to: Message 395 by tesla 02-09-2008 10:12 PM

Why?

I don't know.

We can debate various possibilities, but that's not what you are asking.

Is there? How do you know?

That makes no sense. If time progresses as normal, then the time period that things were like that is quite determinable. If time isn't as normal, then there might not even be a T=0, as we really understand it.

Well, I wouldn't say that exactly. But let's move on for the moment. The universe we have today is the current result of events that took place in the early universe and the subsequent events thereof.

You keep saying we can do this, but you haven't actually done it here. Perhaps a new thread would be a good place to show your working?

I don't understand what you are talking about, how am I meant to 'see' anything with your strange use of language. Clearly express what you mean, and we might get further.

You've made a whole bunch of claims about a part of the universe for which you have no evidence. Some of the claims aren't written in normal English. You might think it is the truth, but when you engage in obscurantism, nobody is going to be able to make it out. It ain't that we're blind or even pretending to be.

Other possibilities include that at T=0 there was a net energy of zero. Or that there was no T=0.

Message 398 of 405 (98806) 02-09-2008 11:11 PM

Reply to: Message 397 by Modulous 02-09-2008 10:40 PM

net energy of zero, would be the same thing as saying there was "nothing". that invites the potential to believe you might not exist. thats mental illness. do not believe it.

there is no T=0:

all math, and all logic and all observation of the evolution of all things including the galaxies, show that T=0 is inevitable. (because things have evolved, what was the original state?

the original state is found by asking "before that". which never ends until you reach a singluar existence, that nothing was before, that was timeless. but was energy, because , if no energy, nothing would be.

it is the truth of reality. you are, and only are, because of what the first cause came from. period.

this thread is examining exactly what could be possible or not possibly said of that which was before the first cause.

you are willing to accept that it could be "zero energy" but not willing to accept it was energy, that was timeless, intelligent, and created all that is by its own faith?

which is easier to believe?

can you accept this truth of the singularity with intelligence as a "possibility"?

Edited by tesla, : typo.

Edited by tesla, : structure.

Message 399 of 405 (98807) 02-09-2008 11:29 PM

Reply to: Message 396 by Modulous 02-09-2008 10:29 PM

That is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction

Lets see now If I was standing at my house facing North =forward, left=west, right=east, backward=south, down=below my feet, and up=above my head.

If I was standing on the North Pole I could only point south, down, and up.

You did not say what is north of the north pole.

You said if you were standing on the north pole there was only one direction and that was south.

There is also the direction of UP and DOWN

If you insist on using that rubish be specific in what you are saying.

Omega, or 30 whichever you prefer.

Why does anything have to be true because I believe it.

What is, is makes no difference what I think or believe it still is.

If the universe is eternal it is whether I believe it or not.

If the Big Bang Theory is correct, it is whether I believe it or not.

If there is a God, he is, whether I believe it or not.

Just because somebody or everybody believes something does not make it so.

God Bless,

Message 400 of 405 (98808) 02-10-2008 5:20 AM

If things soon take a turn for the better I can keep this thread open, but otherwise I think this thread has run its course.

Message 403 of 405 (98811) 02-10-2008 7:38 AM

Reply to: Message 399 by ICANT 02-09-2008 11:29 PM

Up and down aren't included intentionally. I see you are still having difficulty with even the most simply of analogies.

So we're agreed at last. It doesn't have to be timeless. I suppose that's a good as place as any to finish the thread.

Message 404 of 405 (98812) 02-10-2008 7:43 AM

Reply to: Message 398 by tesla 02-09-2008 11:11 PM

Not really, no.

No, actually not all mathematics does this. Observation cannot do it. And logic is irrelevant at this scale.

Not until I see that someone has done the work to demonstrate that it is a possibility. Otherwise it is just pointless philosophical/theological drivel. You might as well ask me to accept that the truth of my table is multiple with intelligence as a possibility. Why should I?

I suggest you take a long look at the word you are using, and try and form a new thread in which to hash out what you are saying. I probably won't participate but then at least it is out of your system.

Message 405 of 405 (98813) 02-10-2008 8:19 AM

One of the most wonderful qualities of the Internet is venues where those who want to learn can ask questions. It isn't uncommon to have the good fortune to find someone who knows a great deal about what you want to know, and that is certainly true of this thread, whose participants included a couple true cosmological experts and several sufficiently competent amateurs given the level of this discussion.

Those asking the cosmological questions could have learned a great deal, and perhaps they even did, no way to be sure at this point, but what this thread makes clear is that you can only explain something to someone who already believes it is true. If they believe it is false then they'll find every excuse and opportunity to avoid reaching an understanding.

But this practice isn't unique to those approaching science from a spiritual perspective, it is also true of the reverse, as we often see when science minded folks ask Christians about the Trinity.

So the problem becomes how do you explain something to someone who doesn't believe it and only wants to disprove it? We can argue that one doesn't have to accept it, just understand it, but this turns out not to be so easy to do, for anyone from either side of this debate.