Time - Change the word from sound to time

[Ted Evans]

I'll read the Big Bang theory and the Atsro-Physics book, but I don't think it logically makes sense that there was nothing and then there was something.

IMO, you are using entirely too much common sense in your comments.

 

[Polymath257]

I asked the questions, how could time be proven to exist before it could be measured and what was the basis for the unit of measurement? IOW, every thing I see written about time, relative to the creation of the universe, seems to be "years", billions of years, light years so what was a "year", how was it determined to be a year? BTW, I am not interested in "theory", scientific or otherwise, but an answer that can be verified as fact.

In answer to your question, I do not think there was a time dimension before there was a basis to measure it by. IMO, it does not matter if the method is atomic, a sun dial or an analog clock, it all depends on 360-degree rotation and whether it is micro-seconds or light years.

Like I said, times are typically determined by finding something that happens at a known rate (like radioactive decay) and dividing. So, if you see something that has been moving at a known velocity and it has gone a certain distance, the time is the distance divided by the velocity.

 

[Ted Evans]

Like I said

And like I said, and you just proved, you cannot answer questions, you have nothing but your belief, just like I have my belief. Furthermore, you claim to answer my questions but cannot prove that you do so which makes you dishonest, IMO.

 

[ChristineM]

As I said, dark matter's existence is in dispute among scientists:
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

There is great uncertainty about many such things. Your statement regarding the size of the singularity - is a claim. Though, I read as much about physics, and astrophysics as I come across and used to buy books on the subject, your claim about its size is the first ever I have come across. Even Googling this subject (Initial singularity - Wikipedia) there is no mention of any size at all on several sites and with the material written by professors:

"First of all, it is not really known whether or not the universe started from a singularity. Our measurements can take us back only so far; ideas about the nature of the cosmos at the start of the big bang are mostly unproved conjecture." (Scientific American: According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?)​

What you claim is not seen supported by other proponents of the BB.
What I see
when I hear the theory about the BB, and what comes after makes little sense to me. That there seems to be enough evidence for a beginning of the universe akin to the BB is true. Here is where I have my own rowboat. Scientists in general may believe that the BB happened; yet, they have many problems which if admitted would derail their concepts.

My belief is simple, and Bible based. The Bible tells us that the angels were amazed, thrilled, when God created our universe. So, with perhaps a BB like event, God directed events so that the matter-antimatter problem didn't Zero out - otherwise, no universe!
As to the magnificent organization of matter that subsequently occurred, this too was no random event, but was part of the process God started, or perhaps, it was guided as needed over the expansion.
​

While I say Goddidit, I have nothing against the attempt by scientists in trying to establish how God did things, how did he accomplish what was made. But, as many scientists admit, there is a point beyond which the laws of physics do not work and cannot be predicted, even with mathematics. That scientists still try to come to terms with dark matter - does it exist, or not - and the matter-antimatter problem - is fine with me -- as long as they don't try to make people swallow the whale of nonsense which it becomes when you say it-did-it-itself.

Organization is not automatic. It has a cause.

​

I see no mention of dispute in that link, only an alternative theory.

Look up the meaning of singularity, also how big is a singularity, and also read
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.htunderstandingvations, mathematics etc tale us back to 10e-46 of a second after the bb, that is trillions of times less time than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer devised. So feel free to argue about such a tiny tiny tiny fragment of timr

I make no claim, i offer possibilities based on current cosmological understanding

Your understanding is not required

Please list these "many problems" that could 'derail their concepts'

As i have previously stated, the effects of dark matter can be observed. It is known to exist, what is not known is what it is, you seem to be under the misapprehension that attempting to explain what it is is the same as not knowing its there.

And all you need to do to validate your claim is
a/ prove god exist
b/ prove he is capable of creating a universe out of nothing
c/ prove he actually did create this universe
d/ show how he manipulated the quantum energy to enable the first sub atomic particles to form
e/ show how he enabled those sub atomic particles to bond to make hydrogen atoms
f/ show how he manipulator gravity to allow these H atoms to clump, compress enough to enable fusion and hence produce the first stars
g/ show how these star lived and died, in the process making heavier elements
h/ repeat the process f and g to produce even heavier element's
I could go on into planet formation etc but i am getting bored

Needless to say science can explain from c on, whereas religion can't and claims god magic.

a and b are simply starting points required for your theory of goddidit.

 

[Darkstorn]

And like I said, and you just proved, you cannot answer questions

As an "outsider" to me it looks like you're actually projecting and deflecting. I feel he's answered your questions with FAR more effort than they deserve. Only for you to later invent the claim that your inane questions were not answered, when they were.

I think you're simply not understanding what he's saying.

That's how i feel.

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting, when I look at the photo, it appears to me that there was enormous light at the beginning (quantum fluctuations), quite different than is depicted at the "Dark Ages" time line, but you say there was no light at the moment the universe began?

Is the rendition presented in this article empirical science or, is it only a theory? And yes, I have been told 14k times, more or less, what constitutes a scientific theory so I do not need to hear it again.

Photo??? You really are joking right? You don't actually believe that's a 13.8 billion year exclosure do you?

The was no light until photons formed. Unless you can redefine quantum mechanics.

Whether you want to hear it again or not is irrelevant, it is mathematically valid.

 

[ChristineM]

I asked the questions, how could time be proven to exist before it could be measured and what was the basis for the unit of measurement? IOW, every thing I see written about time, relative to the creation of the universe, seems to be "years", billions of years, light years so what was a "year", how was it determined to be a year? BTW, I am not interested in "theory", scientific or otherwise, but an answer that can be verified as fact.

In answer to your question, I do not think there was a time dimension before there was a basis to measure it by. IMO, it does not matter if the method is atomic, a sun dial or an analog clock, it all depends on 360-degree rotation and whether it is micro-seconds or light years.

Contradictory, before measurement... How was it measured?

A year is simply the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. It is a convenient arbitrary measurement. If you lived on saturn a year is 29 times longer.

So you are saying before measurement the universe did not age?

 

[Polymath257]

And like I said, and you just proved, you cannot answer questions, you have nothing but your belief, just like I have my belief. Furthermore, you claim to answer my questions but cannot prove that you do so which makes you dishonest, IMO.

I no longer answer your questions for your benefit. I answer them for others who will actually listen and learn.

 

[Ted Evans]

Only for you to later invent the claim that your inane questions were not answered, when they were.

We all have a right to our beliefs and it is very easy to make claims, proving those claims are not so easy. I listed the questions that I contend that he did not answer and he could not quote his answers, do you think you could do better? I will gladly list them for you if you wish.

 

[Ted Evans]

Photo??? You really are joking right?

Now I can understand why you make some of the comments that you make. What do you call this? It certainly looks like a photo of a graph to me

Edit...perhaps I should be more technically correct and use the word "image", however, I doubt if some would catch on.

 

[Ted Evans]

Contradictory, before measurement... How was it measured?

Good grief, I am beginning to understand this group and why there are so many different answers about where space, matter, energy and time came from, "in the beginning"....there was none before....they were always there....they were created at the BB....no one knows. Yet all of these different answers were supposedly given as if they were coming from an authority on the subject.

 

[Ted Evans]

Organization is not automatic. It has a cause.

Thanks for making some great points, unfortunately, they are automatically discarded because you mentioned the word "God". Everyone knows that it is impossible for a supernatural, intelligent supreme being to have created the universe but it is a scientific fact that nothing was responsible for that creation.

 

[Milton Platt]

I agree and I usually do but in this case, my point was to demonstrate there were opposing views and/or questions about the BB. It was not an attempt to refute the theory.

http://www.pantheory.org/Pan-Theory.pdf

Thanks for that!!! I will need time to digest it, but after asking for it will fulfill my own obligation to read t.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree and I usually do but in this case, my point was to demonstrate there were opposing views and/or questions about the BB. It was not an attempt to refute the theory.

http://www.pantheory.org/Pan-Theory.pdf

What a steaming pile of elephant dung!

This doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. It shows *no* understanding of the physical evidence that needs to be explained nor even how to go about formulating a scientific theory (at least in physics).

 

[Ted Evans]

What a steaming pile of elephant dung!

So says the one that has been proven to make false statements, ludicrous.

 

[ChristineM]

Now I can understand why you make some of the comments that you make. What do you call this? It certainly looks like a photo of a graph to me

Edit...perhaps I should be more technically correct and use the word "image", however, I doubt if some would catch on.

Yews you should use the word image, or perhaps the photographer stood on the same place god stood waving his hands and chanting abracadabra

 

[ChristineM]

Good grief, I am beginning to understand this group and why there are so many different answers about where space, matter, energy and time came from, "in the beginnialsong"....there was none before....they were always there....they were created at the BB....no one knows. Yet all of these different answers were supposedly given as if they were coming from an authority on the subject.

They have the advantage of bering mathematically valid theories, they also precisely account for the result otherwise they stand no chance of consideration and no... you don't understand, your reply makes that quite obvious

 

[Darkstorn]

So says the one that has been proven to make false statements, ludicrous.

You certainly haven't proven that, so who else did? I didn't see anyone. This whole thing literally looks like someone barely understanding what's being talked about arguing with a more intelligent person. And note: When i say more intelligent person, i'm not referring to you.

You're actually avoiding having to answer to him with the same effort he gave you, and you dare to make a public statement about you supposedly defeating him in an argument? Well, i've got news for you: That never happened. To me it looks like you're barely able to talk in a coherent manner. Barely.

 

[Ted Evans]

You're actually avoiding having to answer to him with the same effort he gave you,

Here is just a few of the questions, now, if you will quote his answers to these questions, I will acknowledge that I made a false accusation and will apologize. IF, you cannot do that, or, you do not, then the only conclusion is that you made a false accusation. So, which will it be?

[Where did I ask that, can you quote my words, not yours?

What is your definition of “beginning”?

Was the “Dot/singularity” there before the BB? If so, where did it come from, what did it consist of? What triggered the “explosion”?]

 

[Darkstorn]

Here is just a few of the questions, now, if you will quote his answers to these questions, I will acknowledge that I made a false accusation and will apologize. IF, you cannot do that, or, you do not, then the only conclusion is that you made a false accusation. So, which will it be?

Ok.

[Where did I ask that, can you quote my words, not yours?

What is your definition of “beginning”?

Was the “Dot/singularity” there before the BB? If so, where did it come from, what did it consist of? What triggered the “explosion”?]

You never asked him those questions in this thread. How do we deal with this turn of events?

/E: I would like to point out also that the last question, about the "dot/singularity," is one of those "stupid questions" where one would first need to explain to you why the question is stupid before it could be answered... ESPECIALLY if you have been paying attention to what Polymath has been trying to tell you.