Existence

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.

Hi Son, I have been reminded many times that time is a dimension of the universe.Which would mean that there was never a time that that the universe did not exist, as it has existed for all time because time began when the universe began, and is a part of the universe.If that sounds like double talk it is because that is how science speaks.That is the reason I have asked several times in this thread what time was and how we determine time.One responder gave me three types of time he believes exists but no one has tackled the problem of the question, What is time and how do we determine time.I will present some definitions of time.This is simple clock time.

quote:

---

Time. Time is a human perception defined as the length of an interval separating two points on a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. The intervals are measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, years.

---

SourceHumans divided up the duration of one revolution of the earth into seconds, minutes, and hours, which we call time.

quote:

---

Time is a basic component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining time in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.

---

SourceTime is the measurment of duration (existence).

quote:

---

Time is passing non-stop, and we follow it with clocks and calendars. Yet we cannot study it with a microscope or experiment with it. And it still keeps passing. We just cannot say what exactly happens when time passes.

​

Time is represented through change, such as the circular motion of the moon around the earth. The passing of time is indeed closely connected to the concept of space.

​

According to the general theory of relativity, space, or the universe, emerged in the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. Before that, all matter was packed into an extremely tiny dot. That dot also contained the matter that later came to be the sun, the earth and the moon — the heavenly bodies that tell us about the passing of time.

---

SourceThe standard theory requires that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.I have been introduce several times here to the arrow of time which only exists in our minds on a macroscopic level.Because at the subatomic level there is no distinction between the past and the future, thus no arrow of time.This is what I have refered to several times at EvC as a great big 'now', or 'eternal now'.This bring us to existence as there is no arrow of time. Everything just exists which is the condition found when GR breaks down at a singularity and can not tell or predict anything.Existence, existed prior to time as we know it.So your third option is not an option as it comes from existence.Either the universe has always existed in some form (which was a compact very hot entity before the Big Bang occured) or it began to exist from an absence of anything (non-existence).God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ScientificBob, But if the cake does not exist I can't eat it eather.The cake has to begin to exist before I can eat any of it or all of it.But then if the materials the cake was made from did not exist the cake could not be created, or begin to exist.Now read what I said. If the universe has not always existed then the universe had to begin to exist.And yes I believe it has always existed in some form. Therefore the materials existed which the universe and everything it was formed from as we see it today.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : Change Son to ScientificBob to correct wrong citation.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ScientificBob, My thoughts are straight.It is either your bias that is confusing you or your third grade understanding of English.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : Change Son to ScientificBob to correct wrong citation.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi 1, Well no it does not suggest our universe is a product of this Big Bang.
The Big Bang does not begin until T=10^-43 so it can not suggest anything about the origin of the universe only what happened to it after it existed.There are several hypothesis or areas of study for existence prior to T=10^-43 but no theories to date.The problem I see with those studies is that the hot little spot in which all in the universe was contained was very, very, very, very hot. I have been told it was trillions of degrees k. So how do you study past that temperature when we can't even reach that temperature? Point of inquiry:If there is non-existence how does a quantum level thing exist? The Big Bang Theory is supposed to explain what happened if that quantum fluctuation took place from T=10^-43 until the present but it does not address the fluctuation, as it explains nothing prior to T=10^-43.cavediver has beat that much into my head over the years. Thanks for your permision.But I would rather you explain how something can begin to exist from an absence of existence.A beginning to exist is required by the standard theory.A beginning to exist is required by expansion of the universe.Since Einstein believed the universe had always existed he invented a fudge factor which he said later in life was his biggest blunder. He made that statement after it was discovered the universe was expanding and could not be eternal or it would be dead.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi cavediver, It makes no difference what I have been told as that is someone's opinion.So are you saying that existence is eternal?If existence is not eternal then existence had to have a beginning.I don't see what your problem is.I believe the universe has eternally existed is some form.That removes the problems with a place for the fluctuations to take place, or for the instanton to begin to exist in, which is much more determential to my belief. So what is your definition of the English word "always"?I suppose it will be 'for all time'. And time has only existed for 13.7 billion years.So I must amend my presentations and use eternal instead of always which means the same thing to me.Eternal means 'having infinite duration'.So I believe the universe has infinite duration in some form.If the universe in some form does not have infinite duration then it had to begin to exist (have duration). Why would that be a trivial point when it does away with all the problems of a begining to exist which expansion requires? Are you saying that energy and matter have existed for infinite duration?If they haven't existed for an eternal, infinite duration then they had to begin to exist.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So if someone is of the opinion that the Universe appeared out of a turtles rectum last Wednesday you would expect the people on this forum to present the mechanism for it?Do you realize how ridiculous your comment sounds?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Your level inquiry exceeds my ability to answer. As far as I know the Big bang is the starting point. Prior to the Big bang is unknown.
No one knows the origin of the Big bang. Thats like asking where does the number zero begin? I do not know. How can you see your own eye? look in a mirror? take a photo? a pool of water?
We rely on the tools we have at hand but we can never take ourselves out of the picture because to do that changes the very thing being studied. Ferme Lab and CERN are working on experiments that concern elementary particle physics of high energy states of the early universe. Perhaps you should become a particle physicist and join in the fray? Perhaps there is no such thing as a state of non-existence. Perhaps there is only a state of probablilties. Who knows?Einstein's cosmological constant was introduced to hold the universe in static equilibrium. I am not aware that it was to show the universe as self existent. Our expanding universe will eventually become so homogenous as to not only be a dead one but a place where even photons are in isolation. It takes 8 minutes for the suns photons to hit your retina. Can you imagine waiting billions of years? Now try to imagine where the number zero begins, or where in the universe is the universe?

Hi cavediver, Does that mean time is a dimension in the universe?In Message 182 you said:

quote:

---

Time as we know it is purely a property of our Universe.

---

You are still of the presuasion that nothing exists outside of the universe aren't you? In Message 108 you said: That is what I was talking about. If x = begining to exist,
And y = measurement of existence,
And z = ceasing to exist. That would be the life-history of an object.So when did the universe begin to exist?But I have a question of your statement "for every step in time".If time can be observed at 1/1,000,000,000,000,000th of a second and yet no discrete steps can be observed doesn't that mean that time just exists?Or if it does move in discrete steps we just haven't reached the point those steps can be observed.My understanding is that a Femtosecond which is the number above is the same as one second being equal to 32 million years.So where are those steps you are talking about? Duration is a marked off period in existence. For this we use what we call time to measure that duration.Distance can be measured in inches, feet, yards, miles with many smaller measurments below inches and others above miles.But when we are talking about the distance from where we are to the outer limits of the universe it is much easier to use the distance light travels in a light year to express those distances. Why not take the ocassion to explain to the lurkers the proper view of my misrepresented views to the point they can understand it? As the treatment of my own subject to which I have devoted 60 years of my, offends me.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi 1, If the mirror was a trillion degrees k what would I see?If the pool of water was a trillion degrees k I don't think the water would exist to cast a reflection. I believe there is eternal existence as I put forth in the OP.But would you explain how there could be a state of probabilities if there was no existence. I did not say the cosmological constant was to show the universe as self existent.I did say it was because Einstein believed the universe to be eternal in existence. Thus a static universe was necessary because of enthropy.But when it was discovered that the universe was expanding the universe could not be eternal.Thus a beginning to exist was required.Which was very acceptable to the clergy of the day. As that gave proof for the need of a creator.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That's jsut the thing, ICANT - it didn't prove that a Creator was needed.This statement of yours is jsut another perfect example of your line of thinking - when you look at evidence, you start with the conclusion, and seek evidence or interpretations of evidence that allow you to continue to believe that conclusion.That the Universe had a first moment sounds like it fits with your pre-existing hypothesis that there was a Creator.You dismiss utterly the other alternatives, and in fact you intellectually avoid arguments that suggest that, despite having a minimum value of time, the Universe may not have had a "beginning" in the way you choose to use the term.Where is the beginning of the surface of a globe, ICANT? Where does it start, and where does it stop? The North Pole? The South Pole? Paris? Beijing? Dallas? What's farther North than the North Pole? If you stood on the North Pole, and tried to go North, which direction would yo go in?I know the analogy is lost on you, we've tried it so many times before, and you're just not capable of understanding how causality breaks down when you don't have an earlier point in time than the first moment, a point farther North than the North Pole. But we can at least still point it out for the lurkers.

Hi Rahvin, What makes you think the clergy of the day did not believe that science proving to their satisfaction that the universe had a beginning was proof that a creator was required? That don't fit my hypothesis. Haven't you ever read any of my posts you have replied too?In this thread alone I have mentioned multiple times that I believe the universe has always existed in some form.So how does the universe having a first moment fit my hypothesis? Hawking says the universe has not always existed but had a beginning.BBT requires a beginning to exist.Expansion requires a beginning to exist.I do not require a beginning to exist.I do require a beginning to exist of the universe as we observe it today. At the point your finger stops when you move it in the direction of the globe. Why do you continue to make such a stupid analogy?You are comparing the earth to the universe.Can you go to the North Pole or the South Pole? Yes you can.Can you walk on the surface of the earth? Yes you can.Can you go to the surface of the Universe? No you can't.Can you walk on the surface of the Universe? No you can't.I know you like to use a balloon with ants crawling on the surface or dots on the surface and say that is an analogy of the universe.The universe is nothing like the surface of a baloon with dots or ants on it.In the balloon analogy the objects move away from each other in two directions but in the universe objects move away from each other in three directions.Now if you had a big pile of dough and put raisins in the dough and baked it causing the dough to expand the raisns will move apart from each other in all three directions.
That is a decent analogy of the universe as that is what we observe in the universe.So clean up your act and quit telling people how stupid they are because you can not explain your stupid analogy.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of 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?

What you said in message 16 was Stop being so contradictory. If it always existed, it doesn't need a beginning. There's really nothing more I can tell you. Your "explanation" is inherently contradicting. Either the universe always existed or it didn't. You clearly stated that you believe it did.Yet, you continue to argue about some magical mechanism of how it began. It just doesn't add up. This is the third time I've made this clear to you. I'ld appreciate it if you could finnaly clear that up instead of restating the same contradicting stuff.I want to hear from you either a retraction of the statement that you believe the universe always existed in some form
OR
the acknowledgement that a universe that has always existed in some form doesn't need a mechanism to begin to exist.I'm not saying I would agree with you afterwards. I'm just trying to get you to form a coherent opinion on the matter. This discussion is completely pointless if you can't manage to propose an idea that is at least internally consistent. Then why are you yapping about the universe "beginning to exist"?
It either always existed or it didn't.PS: the universe CONTAINS matter, it is not made of matter.Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

ICANT, who's been selling you two dimensional baloons? Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage