The Void of nothing

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm not going to bother with this, it's futile.STARMAN

Hmmm....that's a shame . I was hoping to find out more about this time of yours . It could have been a really exciting discovery. How can it be futile , if time is so real and substantial surely you have some way of proving it scientifically?
I was looking at my watch moving yesterday and com say that it wasn't there , it seemed very abstract to me. I will work on my faith.

Einstein predicted and calculated time dilation using his theories of relativity. This has even been experimentally observed to his predictions. If time didn't exist, then time dilation could not even be observed.

It is observable like length, width and depth. Without matter, the dimensions still exist, just that neither will be measurable.

As for Zeno's analogy mentioned in that link you have quoted, with regard to going from point A to B, it is heavily flawed and has a simplistic view on things. This is the same as an argument in pure mathematics that you cannot draw a complete circle. For example, You want to draw a circle with a metre diameter, that means it will have a circumference of pi metres. Start off by drawing a 3 metre curved line with the intension of closing up the circle, then draw an extra 0.1 metres, then 0.04 metres ad infinitum, it means that you will never be able to draw a circle! Although it does asymptotically reach there, and this isn't to do with time, it is to do with our limited capability in describing infinitesimal values within mathematics.

Originally posted by lausey
As for Zeno's analogy mentioned in that link you have quoted, with regard to going from point A to B, it is heavily flawed and has a simplistic view on things. This is the same as an argument in pure mathematics that you cannot draw a complete circle. For example, You want to draw a circle with a metre diameter, that means it will have a circumference of pi m ...[text shortened]... it is to do with are limited capability in describing infinitesimal values within mathematics.

As far as I know mathematics has no major problems with it (since calculus). It is peoples inability to comprehend infinities which results in an apparent paradox.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As far as I know mathematics has no major problems with it (since calculus). It is peoples inability to comprehend infinities which results in an apparent paradox.

Yes, good point with regard to calculus. I was referring to actually specifically comparing Zeno's analogy of travelling half way, then half way again is equivalent to trying to draw a circle by using pi going one decimal place at a time. 🙂

Calculus just proves all the more that the paradox is "apparent" (which, of course it is, because a paradox by definition cannot exist).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay,

Your logic assumes that time exists independent of spacial dimensions. This is not the case. See Wiki's article on Minkowski space.

There was never a point at which there was nothing, because there wasn't even any time. At all time points that have ever existed, there has been something, because without spacial dimensions (length, width, ...[text shortened]... t start. Kind of like looking for the "start point" of a bubble - it's all self contained.

When I say nothing I mean nothing, time would mean something therefore it wouldn't be here either. So then we look into dating methods, what are we dating if everything has always been here, to say the universe is billions of years old, how can that be if it was always here in one fashion or another? Do radiometric readings get reset with each BB, and if that is the case how do you trust them knowing they can be altered by events?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
When I say nothing I mean nothing, time would mean something therefore it wouldn't be here either. So then we look into dating methods, what are we dating if everything has always been here, to say the universe is billions of years old, how can that be if it was always here in one fashion or another? Do radiometric readings get reset with each BB, and if that is the case how do you trust them knowing they can be altered by events?
Kelly

Well then your question condenses to "was there nothing/anything when there was nothing?"

Hence, the answer is "no".

Clearly, nowadays, there is something, which meant that there had to be a beginning.

[edit; radiometric dating cannot be used for something like the BB, because it requires the existence of high molecular mass atoms, which are formed in the process of nucleosynthesis, the production of large nuclei in stars. The age of the universe is instead calculated using the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity.]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well then your question condenses to "was there nothing/anything when there was nothing?"

Hence, the answer is "no".

Clearly, nowadays, there is something, which meant that there had to be a beginning.

[edit; radiometric dating cannot be used for something like the BB, because it requires the existence of high molecular mass atoms, which are fo ...[text shortened]... the universe is instead calculated using the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity.]

I'm not sure what you mean by there has to a beginning because we
clear see something today. Seeing something only means we are seeing something, it does not speak to it having beginnings automatically.

I do not like your restating my question, but don't feel bad (I know you don't) I don't like how I did it either.

Was there ever a point where all there was, was nothing, the complete absence of all things?

Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Was there ever a point where all there was, was nothing, the complete absence of all things?

No, because there was no time for that "point" to exist in, before the universe existed.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, because there was no time for that "point" to exist in, before the universe existed.

So the universe always was, which again means it didn't have a beginning?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So the universe always was, which again means it didn't have a beginning?
Kelly

No. The universe has existed for all time. This is because time is a property of the universe. This does not mean that that time (and hence the universe) doesn't have a beginning.

I'm going to apologise here - the English language is insufficient to explain this properly. The only way it can be done is using a far better language, mathematics. Unfortunately, I am not a proficient enough guide to take you along that particular journey, perhaps Professor Hawkins' book brief history of time is a good place to start.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. The universe has existed for all time. This is because time is a property of the universe. This does not mean that that time (and hence the universe) doesn't have a beginning.

I'm going to apologise here - the English language is insufficient to explain this properly. The only way it can be done is using a far better language, mathematics. ...[text shortened]... urney, perhaps Professor Hawkins' book brief history of time is a good place to start.

So you’re saying that as long as there is or was time, there is or was a universe, implying that time is with out beginning?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you’re saying that as long as there is or was time, there is or was a universe, implying that time is with out beginning?
Kelly

No, I'm saying that time has existed as long as the universe has. The universe, and time, had a beginning.

[edit; think about it like this. Imagine measuring a piece of wood. You can measure up to the end, but not any wood beyond the end, since none exists.]

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you’re saying that as long as there is or was time, there is or was a universe, implying that time is with out beginning?
Kelly

I see three possibilities.

1. Time is infinite (and so is the universe).
2. Time is finite but does not have a beginning (ie edge, discontinuity ).
3. Time is finite and has a beginning. (but to talk about what is on the 'other' side of the beginning is still meaningless)

I believe that if the big bang theory is even partially correct then space must be finite. I think the most likely form of space is therefore similar to No2. in that space is finite but has no edges.(like the surface of a sphere in 4 dimensions).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, I'm saying that time has existed as long as the universe has. The universe, and time, had a beginning.

[edit; think about it like this. Imagine measuring a piece of wood. You can measure up to the end, but not any wood beyond the end, since none exists.]

The universe, and time, had a beginning.

But you just said that the universe has always existed. How can something that has always existed have a beginning?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]The universe, and time, had a beginning.

But you just said that the universe has always existed. How can something that has always existed have a beginning?[/b]

Because the word 'always' means 'all time' not 'infinite time'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because the word 'always' means 'all time' not 'infinite time'.

But the universe existed before time did or did the two just pop into being from nothing before time started?