22 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou keep saying there is no time before the BB, and I keep saying prove it! You word alone isn't enough, you have an event, so there is a reference point, there than is a before, after, and during, and it that simple. You saying time is not real before the event is meaningless in my opinion since everything before the BB event are referenced from that event. You put something out there that can be measured all measurements become a reality.
Your "point" only makes sense if the laws of physics are invariant around that event. Time didn't exist "before" the big bang. There was no before. It doesn't exist. To talk about before the big bang is just stupid, like talking about the smell of blue.
Kelly
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThe theory of relativity proves it.
You keep saying there is no time before the BB, and I keep saying prove it! You word alone isn't enough, you have an event, so there is a reference point, there than is a before, after, and during, and it that simple. You saying time is not real before the event is meaningless in my opinion since everything before the BB event are referenced from that event. You put something out there that can be measured all measurements become a reality.
Kelly
The theory of relativity is a published theory - it's up to you to disprove it, if you have a problem.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzCome come now, are you suggesting that a home schooled, creationist with the epistmological understanding of a newt might be able to even understand the theory of relativity, let alone refute it? This isn't fantasy island, Louis.
The theory of relativity proves it.
The theory of relativity is a published theory - it's up to you to disprove it, if you have a problem.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, absolutely. Of course, as I've pointed out before, there is as much evidence for fairies at the bottom of your garden as there is for a before - even if there was, it wouldn't make any difference to the argument.
The Theory of Relativity proves that we cannot know what happened before the BB, not that there was no 'before'.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo; it's different, because the concept that time actually had a beginning at a specific point in time (13.7 BYA) is as ridiculous as saying that weight has a specific weight like 5.5 million tons.
Well, absolutely. Of course, as I've pointed out before, there is as much evidence for fairies at the bottom of your garden as there is for a before - even if there was, it wouldn't make any difference to the argument.
Measuring a dimension in terms of itself is absurd. Invisible undetectable faeries are not; they are assumed not to exist by parsimony, but they are not nonsensical.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy bad, I thought I had Scott's post up, only after I hit send did I see my mistake. Sorry!!!!!
What is faith for me? I never said there was no before the Big Bang. I think there was because it's nonsensical to say time began at a certain point in time.
Kelly
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is not ridiculous at all.
No; it's different, because the concept that time actually had a beginning at a specific point in time (13.7 BYA) is as ridiculous as saying that weight has a specific weight like 5.5 million tons.
Your analogy of weight is a good one except you got it wrong. All weight is measured from zero so a weight of 1 ton is 1 ton away from zero. The current point in time (13.7 BYA) is 13.7 BYA away from zero and there is nothing wrong with it.
Some people are however claiming that time must necessarily have negative values. If this is the case, must weight also have negative values? Can you show me an object which is minus 1 ton?
And yes, weight may very well have a maximum too.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is based on evidence. I have faith that the universe exists, but is not the same faith that you are trying to force upon the conversation. Your definition of faith (I believe because I was brought up (read "indoctrinated"😉 to believe) and my definition of faith (I think this is right based upon the evidence laid before me) are completely different. If English were a more dynamic language, I doubt they'd be the same word.
It is faith for you, say that we are done.
Kelly