Existence

No - even after all this time, you still don't understand. The Universe has always existed, irrespective of whether the Universe extends infinitely or finitely into the past. Quoting Hawking is useless if you don't understand what he was saying.

Time has never not existed. Again, you do not understand. How can the Universe begin to exist in something that is part of that Universe? No, I do not. I very rarely consider an unbounded Universe. You are listening in to conversations so far above your comprehension. It is impossible for you to learn while you still insist on claiming you "understand". Given, by definition, there is no such thing as non-existence, I do not understand your question. Similarly, "begin to exist" is an ill-defined statement as far as the Universe (in its widest sense) or "existence" is concerned. "Time" is used to refer to multiple concepts. For example, time is one of the dimensions of the Universe, differing from the spatial dimensions by its opposite signature in the space-time metric. Time is also a measure of the length of a time-like path through space-time, what we would call from our 3-dimensional perspective as elapsed time. you have no desire to learn, only to gain sound-bites and quote-mines that you can use to prop up your own delusions in a hope to make them sound authoritative. I gave up on you long ago...

Why would anyone want to do this when you have been repeatedly told that this never happened? No, the Universe has "always" existed. It is just that "always" may not be as long as you think it is. No, it does not. SWH uses the word "beginning" loosely. He does not ever (in my knowledge) say that the Universe began to exist. Of course, the present form of the Universe may well be said to begin to exist from a prior form, but that is a trivial point. It does not say... They were never "brought into existence". Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Existence is for all time. But time may not be infinite in extent. I simply don't understand what you are asking. No, of course not. It is the life-history of an object (the series of points marking its x,y,z location at time t). Time-like refers to the fact that for every step in time, it can only make less than a full step in space (x, y, z) - in other words in must travel slower than light. duration and distance are very similar in space-time. We measure distance with time: light-seconds, light-minutes, light-years, etc. Likewise, we could measure distance through time with light-meter, light-kilometres, etc. 1 second ~ 300,000,000 light-meters. Because I have always prefered to answer a fool according to his folly, rather than the alternative This is my own subject, to which I have devoted a large portion of my life, and you are tarnishing it with your unbridled ignorance and arrogance. It offends me.

Am I really wasting my time here? What the hell are you talking about? Why are you asking questions, then ignoring everything that you are told? No, ICANT. What is the point of answering your questions when all you do is contradict the answers you get? Why not ask your wife her opinion, rather than mine? If you're simply going to contradict anyway, surely it doesn't matter who you ask?

How's your door-frame? Mine seems to have gained a rather deep impression of my forehead...

I know, it is difficult at first to comprehend, but it can be done if you relax your pre-suppositions and look at some analogies we use in space-time physics - the balloon analogy and the globe analogy are two that we use. I will explain them to you. Ah, you already know the answer? I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I also completely failed to realise your grasp of the subject, as you have just confidently rejected all the work of the past 100 years by giants of my field such as Einstein, Wheeler, Feynman, Dirac, Fermi, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, etc.You must have an extraordinary ability in this subject area, and it would be pointless for me to add anything further, as your knowledge certainly dwarfs mine.Thanks for your time, ICANT. You stupid twat.

Just to stress the point: it may not have a minimum value. The Universe could be past-infinite as some modern extended "theories" suggest. But if the Universe is past-finite, then all that you say carries through. Of course, there are more exotic possibilities that aren't adequately covered by either of these two options Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

No, this is future-finite - time in the future will come to an end. Past-infinite is time continues indefinitely into the past - so right through the Big Bang and into some previous domain. This would describe most extended theories at the moment: Ekpyrotic universe, chaotic inflation, some of the cosmology that has come out of Loop Quantum Gravity, etc.The point is, time could extend infinitely far in the past, or it might only extend only finitely far in the past - either way, the Universe did not "begin" to exist, for the reasons you have presented. Having an infinite past is no more of an explanation of why the Universe is here, than it having a finite past. We don't know why there is existence, but the answer does not lie in the past; the past is just one end of the Universe. Any deeper answers will require regarding the Universe as a complete 4d (or higher) unit - past, present, and future are all just different parts of this unit.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

...and realise that ICANT wants us to explain to him how the deepest levels of cosmology operate, while he denies the most basic understanding of physics. It is the same as him asking us to explain the astronavigation behind the Apollo landings whilst denying Newtonian mechanics. I think we're all on a fool's errand here.

I know what you mean, and this is what always drags me back in. But I always end up calling him ten types of idiot, then afterwards feel like I have been taunting a psych-ward patient - I just feel a bit uncomfortable about it

every physics department in the world say it does, but old-man ICANT says it doesn't. Hell, I'm convinced Unlimited arrogance and infinite stupidity - what a fantastic combination

Really? You are now the expert on physical definitions as well? The last time I checked in, you were asking for an explanation of time. You really have progressed. Given that your claims are essentially a denial of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and thus the entirety of Quantum Field Theory and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, I'm intrigued beyond measure to understand the mathematics and physics with which you intend to replace these stalwarts of the last 100 years of physics. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Well, the obvious is that you are ignoring Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. Was this deliberate?

Ah, yes, of course... Wang, that hero of modern physics who has overturned the entirety of 20th Century physics with his observations. Oh, sorry, you mean *that* Wang, the idiot engineer who no-one has ever heard of, who thinks he has something interesting to say but is unfortunately clueless about Special Relativity, and whose sole purpose is to provide idiots like ICANT with the ability to drag up "papers" from da internetz *conclusively proving* that all of modern physics is wrong Can one be this stupid naturally, ICANT, or does it take years of study?