Time - Change the word from sound to time

[Ted Evans]

Since I am Christian, I'll answer as that first

I too am a Bible believing Christian so you have no doubt what I believe, which I confess up front that it is my belief and cannot be proven with empirical scientific evidence. However, the creation as described by the proponents of the BB theory cannot be proven with empirical scientific evidence either so it is a belief just like my theory is a belief.

 

[Ted Evans]

otherwise the writer would not think the questions worthy of answering.

When folks cannot answer questions with supportive evidence they can be very creative providing excuses.

 

[Ted Evans]

If you haven't read it already you might find these two links interesting:

Thanks for the links. I have read a number of articles relative to time but I am not trying to understand time as we know it from when the earth came into existence and the instruments for measuring time. What I want to know, with some verifiable evidence, not just someone's word, is, and again hypothetically, if it would be possible for the universe to be created if there was no time dimension at the creation. Or, is the time dimension required because that is the only way that we have to measure the age of the universe? Everything that I have read about Einstien's theories of time always refers to measuring. After all, we only have access to half of the time dimension, correct?

 

[Ted Evans]

1) Before life existed in the early universe time passed in big chunks, after life ends time will continue

OK...if you say so.

 

[Jose Fly]

the creation as described by the proponents of the BB theory cannot be proven with empirical scientific evidence either so it is a belief just like my theory is a belief.

Unbelievable. All sorts of different people tried all sorts of ways to explain what "theory" means in science to you, and the end result is you never learned a single thing. Plus you continue to exhibit this black/white simplistic thinking where things are either 100% absolutely proven, or are no better than a belief that someone made up yesterday.

Christian creationists sure are an odd lot.......fascinating to behold, but odd nonetheless.

 

[Ted Evans]

all that we know began to exist (or at least the foundation of all hat we know) at the BB.

One does not need to go very deep before finding many that disagree with the BB theory, such as this quote.

"Cosmologists were hoping to obtain greater insight into the initial Big-Bang, and also to help resolve possible inconsistencies with existing theory. But instead during the time of this collaboration two previously unrecognized potential problems with the Big Bang model surfaced. These problems involved many observations which the Big Bang Model could not easily explain, but even worse they were long predicted requirements of the recently denigrated Steady-State model. They came to be known as “the flatness” and “horizon problem.”

 

[Ted Evans]

so there had to be a time that was before the BB.

That is a never ending rabbit trail which IMO, can never be explained using the laws of nature.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Did I say anything about it "happening" or did I specifically say, "hypothetically"?

It appears to me that you are suggesting with your assertion that "we are part of the universe" that people were there when the universe came into existence, is that what you are suggesting?

What does your hypothetical have to do with BB Theory? It seems unrelated is what I am saying. To paraphrase you are asking "What if BB Theory is not BB Theory." Your hypothetical is not compatible, so it is a mistake to associate it to BB Theory. In BB Theory we are part of the universe.

 

[Ted Evans]

Christian creationists sure are an odd lot.......fascinating to behold, but odd nonetheless.

But there is another difference, we are not afraid to engage in a discussion where both parties agree to answer all questions as they were asked and, provide plausible, verifiable evidence when presenting something as a fact. I have not seen one person who denigrates those that believe that a supernatural, intelligent being created space, matter, energy, time and the universe from nothing and inputting sophisticated programming that people such as yourself cannot explain. But I do admit that we are not very good at trying to be cute, as if it impresses someone.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks for the links. I have read a number of articles relative to time but I am not trying to understand time as we know it from when the earth came into existence and the instruments for measuring time. What I want to know, with some verifiable evidence, not just someone's word, is, and again hypothetically, if it would be possible for the universe to be created if there was no time dimension at the creation. Or, is the time dimension required because that is the only way that we have to measure the age of the universe? Everything that I have read about Einstien's theories of time always refers to measuring. After all, we only have access to half of the time dimension, correct?

While it is helpful to think of both time and space as dimensional they are not necessarily periodic. I would say that any degree of change assumes temporality. So, your question assumes time. I don't understand how it is reasonable to ask assuming time is x possible without time?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Are you not ignoring one important specific in the OP

What would that be? Your "point" along the lines of "OMG! There's no one to take measurements! Time must not be able to exist!" Is that what you feel I am neglecting? Others have already pointed out that measurements are all our constructs - but don't at all mean that, were we to give them up, the things we measure would just disappear or cease to be. The idea is ludicrous. A cup of water - if we suddenly gave up on the idea of a "cup" as a unit of measuring volume, what happens? NOTHING. Nothing at all happens to the cup of water. It is still SOME amount of water - whatever you want to call that amount. 5 bubbaducks of water. 35 skimbams. 1,456,231 reelibobs. It makes no difference to the water, it makes no difference to any other process in the universe. If you think it does, I suggest you try figuring out some type of measurement of ego. Chances are, yours is a bit larger than average.

 

[Grandliseur]

Cosmologists do know considerably far back to the bb, 10e-34 of a second after the event and are working toward 10e-42. Fyi, 10e-34 of a second is trillions of times less time than the fastest single clock tick of the fastest computer devised to date.
See Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia for basic information.

Also note
A large enough clump of matter will collapse to form a black hole, but ONLY if it is surrounded by (relatively) empty space. During the Big Bang, there WAS NO empty space: ALL of space was filled more or less uniformly with matter and energy; there was no "center of attraction" around which matter could coalesce. Under these circumstances, a cosmic-scale black hole will not form.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#e3

So yes, science knows why the early universe didn't cancel itself out... And now, so do you.

You didn't mention the fact that the matter - antimatter should have canceled each other out. Perhaps you are unaware of this. As to knowing how things went by simulation, these simplistic simulation in no way demonstrate how the organization of the universe came to be. Even now, they fight with dark matter - does it exist? Or, doesn't it? So . . .

Another thing, the BB is said to be a singularity, which is a black hole and they do not, as in not, explode or inflate. All these unsupported ideas, that in no way are falsifiable is just someone's wet dream - at the moment. You try to explode something in a park and see how much organization you get out of that. That is easy to falsify, isn't it.

 

[Grandliseur]

I too am a Bible believing Christian so you have no doubt what I believe, which I confess up front that it is my belief and cannot be proven with empirical scientific evidence. However, the creation as described by the proponents of the BB theory cannot be proven with empirical scientific evidence either so it is a belief just like my theory is a belief.

They have ideas which they proclaim in loud certainty and is totally unsupported, un-falsified, etc. Their beliefs have no foundations, only gas, and it stinks of irrationality.

 

[Ted Evans]

What would that be?

How about "hypothetical?

What proof can you provide that if there were space, energy and matter that time would be required in order to have creation, in the beginning?

 

[Ted Evans]

"According to General Relativity, there is no such thing as an absolute time. Time is always relative to an observer, without the universe there would be no corresponding concept of time. All observers within the universe would have their clocks "slowed down" the nearer they are to the big bang (nearer in time). At the big bang point, their clock would stop. This said, we know that GR doesn't apply as-is all the way to the Big Bang."

So, how can it be relative if there is no observer in my hypothetical?

 

[Curious George]

I too am a Bible believing Christian so you have no doubt what I believe, which I confess up front that it is my belief and cannot be proven with empirical scientific evidence. However, the creation as described by the proponents of the BB theory cannot be proven with empirical scientific evidence either so it is a belief just like my theory is a belief.

I am not sure what your belief is, but isn't this a false equivalency? Would you agree that your belief, whatever it may be, is just like the the belief kim jong un created the universe?

 

[Polymath257]

"According to General Relativity, there is no such thing as an absolute time. Time is always relative to an observer, without the universe there would be no corresponding concept of time. All observers within the universe would have their clocks "slowed down" the nearer they are to the big bang (nearer in time). At the big bang point, their clock would stop. This said, we know that GR doesn't apply as-is all the way to the Big Bang."

So, how can it be relative if there is no observer in my hypothetical?

I'll attempt to give an example and also answer some of your questions about measurement.

Each type of atom has very particular frequencies of light that it can/will emit when excited, either by other light coming in, a collision, or whatever. The particular frequencies are called the spectrum of that atom and can be used to learn what things are made of remotely.

Now, each of those particular frequencies is a clock: a certain number of vibrations of the light per second. We can measure those frequencies in the lab here and now. But we can also identify them in distant galaxies and know both the composition of those distant galaxies and the time (number of vibrations divided by the frequency).

The point is that we can find processes that we know the rate of and use those to determine how much time passed.

Now, if two atoms are moving with respect to each other, the light emitted by one will not react with the other in the same way as it would if they were at rest: there is a frequency shift. The two atoms are the 'observers' in the relevant sense here.

 

[bobhikes]

Before man, what instrument would be used to make the measurement? Without a measurement, what proof do you have that time was there and what would the time unit be based on before the earth came into existence?

Only Man needs proof. Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is no unit of time. Time is like length, width and height it just is, you can use centimeters, inches, miles, nanoseconds, pico-centimeters, hours, days.

 

[Jose Fly]

But there is another difference, we are not afraid to engage in a discussion where both parties agree to answer all questions as they were asked and, provide plausible, verifiable evidence when presenting something as a fact.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.......who do you see around here presenting any scientific explanation for the origin of the universe as "fact"? Be as specific as you can, 'cause I'm really curious to find out who's doing that.

As far as I can remember, you've been getting primarily "we don't know" type answers, which is what keeps prompting me to ask you....

The origin of the universe is a scientific mystery. Therefore ________________?​

Care to take a crack at it this time?

I have not seen one person who denigrates those that believe that a supernatural, intelligent being created space, matter, energy, time and the universe from nothing and inputting sophisticated programming that people such as yourself cannot explain.

Well thank you for personally articulating the "God of the Gaps" fallacy so well, but if that's the best argument you can muster, I hope you'll understand if a lot of people don't find it at all compelling.

But I do admit that we are not very good at trying to be cute, as if it impresses someone.

Er.......um

 

[Ponder This]

1) Hypothetically, IF, there was a universe without any living creature, would there be time?

1a) I do not think so but the belief could change.

I would ask that you closely read #1) in my post.

Suppose a hypothetical universe that resembles our universe in everyway except that there are no living creatures.

time: an instance of something happening or being done; an occasion; an event

space, light, and stars are not living creatures
therefore, space, light, and stars exist

light changes position in space
a change in position in space is an event
therefore, time must exist

measure: travel over (a certain distance or area)

stars emit light in all directions
therefore, light travels from star to star
the distance between two particular stars is a certain distance
therefore, a measure exists

Living creatures do not need to exist for measures to exist because measures are simply things relative to other things. Every thing in the universe has a position relative to every other thing. They measure themselves according to each other by default without requiring the existence of any intelligence to comprehend it or to establish 'standard' measurements. In fact, the only thing an intelligence creature would do is create a standard measurement with which to reference all other measurements.

For example, when humans decided on the measurement of a foot, they decided on what a 'standard' foot was. They didn't decide what feet were. They didn't decide how long one foot was relative to another foot. All they did was decide to create a standard foot. They decided which measure, out of countless measures, that they would actually use. That's 'intelligence' at work.