Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How would you evolutionists explain this?
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 24 of 29 (47307)
07-24-2003 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 6:25 PM


Cutting my teeth....
Jpatha writes:
P2 Time was created in the big bang and therefore did not pre-exist the big bang.
This premise is untrue. Time is. Period. The Big Bang is simply the origin from which we arbitrate our relative temporal observations. It is the convergence of all of our temporal measurements into the past, which so happen to converge because of our uniform motion with respect to eachother.
If you imagine an ordinary x-y graph, where the x and y axes intersect, at the coordinates (0,0), is the graph's origin. In a parallel analogy, universal time then is the measure of distance from any point on the graph to the origin. Nothing "precedes" the origin on this graph in this sense, because the distance between any point on the graph and the origin will always have a positive value. The past is a measure of distance from a point on the graph to the origin. The present, then, is a threshold of motion, with each persently existing thing moving uniformly away from the origin in all directions -- this is where cosmologists contrived the notion of an expanding universe. The uniformity of motion makes time appear constant and linear, but General Relativity has taught us that these are only appearances.
Furthermore, there is no point where our graph can be said to "begin" since it extends infinitely in all directions. The origin (0,0) is simply where we choose to begin, and in fact that is how it acquired the coordinate label. Thus the notion that time was "created" at the Big Bang is erroneous.
If you imagine space-time as a flat graph (as physicists frequently do in order to conceptualize space-time curvature resulting from gravity), then the Big Bang is the origin of our graph, and the past is a measure of distance from a point on the graph to the origin. Your premise presumes a erroneous unidirectional linear conceptualization of time, and instead time is better conceived as planar.
Blessings,
::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 6:25 PM Jeptha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by roxrkool, posted 07-24-2003 4:58 PM :æ: has not replied
 Message 26 by Parasomnium, posted 07-24-2003 7:54 PM :æ: has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 27 of 29 (47346)
07-24-2003 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Parasomnium
07-24-2003 7:54 PM


Re: Cutting my teeth....
Parasomnium writes:
How exactly does time appear constant to you?
It appears constant in that I can define specific, regular, rhythmic intervals that are invariant between all observing reference frames which are moving uniformly to the one in which I defined them. It appears that 24 hrs is an absolute interval independant of reference frames because you and I and everyone else are moving in motion that is uniform enough to create that appearance. IOW, the differentials in velocity that would reveal the relative nature of time, and that time is not constant, are not casually experienced by any human observers, and as a result it appears that a second to you is equal to a second to me. Of course, I went on to say that General Relativity has taught us that these are only appearances.
Parasomnium writes:
The notion of the 'flow of time' is problematic in that it implies an infinite regression of meta-times, each with its own contribution to one and the same problem. My conclusion would be that the flow of time is an illusion.
And I would agree with you.
Parasomnium writes:
To attribute uniformity (or acceleration, or even deceleration) to this succession of states is meaningless, because the succession doesn't take time. It can go one better: it defines time.
I think I must work on formulating my thoughts clearer in the future because I don't see how what I said led you to believe that I would disagree with these statements of yours. Sorry for the confusion.
Blessings,
::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Parasomnium, posted 07-24-2003 7:54 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Parasomnium, posted 07-25-2003 5:23 AM :æ: has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 29 of 29 (47457)
07-25-2003 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Parasomnium
07-25-2003 5:23 AM


Re: Cutting my teeth....
Alright, I see where I could have phrased my statements a bit clearer.
Glad we're on the same page.
Blessings,
::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Parasomnium, posted 07-25-2003 5:23 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024