The Universe has always existed based on new evidence !

Time is a measurement of Entropy. We only know that time moves forward because of the decay of life. We measure time by the movement of the sun/stars, when really, that is only based on the Mass of the Earth in relation to the mass of the sun (gravity).

Which then brings us to the theoretically end of the universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Some really interesting ideas in that...

 

I can't remember what it was like when I was born, let alone before that

 

I won't even begin to try to get my head around the science behind this but, as always, I'll support scientific theory over creationist nonsense every time.

 

Yes, this stuff is staggering. I just read somewhere that Hubble has detected, analyzed and quantified star clusters over 2 billion light years distant. Just around the corner in space dimensions. The edge of the known universe is 15 billion light years distant. I can't do the maths but traveling, as light does, at 186,000 miles per second over a period of 15 billion years? It's almost unimaginable.

 

The Theory of Relativity identifies the measurement of time relative to mass and acceleration.

That being said the equation e = mc2 which also = information. Matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed. To me this article just reinforces all that.

 

We don't have the language to describe this. That's because we don't possess the ability to conceptualise it. Instead there will be another form of language and thinking - mathematics? - to get to grips with it. What we can't understand we sometimes dismiss. Reason alone won't bring us knowledge or understanding on this or any other question.

 

Absolutely. Good article on e = mc2 and its relation to time and space

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/#.VNvDz_nF9A0

 

Why? Because there is not evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

Kind of depressing we will not be around to unlock more secrets. its going to be hundreds, if not thousands, of years before tech is good enough and we can start truly digging into the mysteries of the universe. Finding the edge of it? lol yeah right.

 

Maybe the issue is the word "created". When we look out into the void we see certain structures organized in certain ways. Does the question involve the organization of those structures or does it involve where the matter for all of those structures came from? Those are two completely different questions. We may not know how to phrase the question that will put us on the path to getting the correct answer as to why does anything exist at all?

Our current popular questions are not the questions that we should be asking because they will never give us the real answer.

The BBT is silly because it says that a clump of stuff (who knows how the clump of stuff came to be) existed in a void of absolute nothingness. Then the clump of stuff went supernova like a regular star and shot gas out into the void. That works very well for stars. Then, after eons, the gas clumps together again and forms a new star and the process repeats. It doesn't really explain the formation of solid materials that form planets and asteroids.

But the BBT says that the gas cloud created the billions of stars that clumped together in billions of spinning galaxies with trillions of planets in a very short time.

Almost everything we see in the void is an illusion that doesn't exist. So what's the correct answer to ask about something that doesn't exist but we think is real because we see it?

 

Everytime we turn around we learn something new about Ancient Egypt..... We might NEVER know how the universe was truly formed.

 

I've seen more technical treatments of this model by Ali and Das. Like most such models, it is purely mathematical. Certainly it doesn't say the universe as we know it has always existed. It only finds a mathematical treatment for avoiding singularities (divisions by zero). We're still dealing with a universe of planck length and time at some point. The notion of some sort of phase change without a singularity is not new. What IS new is that this model posits implicit particles (gravitons) potentially capable of meeting the observations of dark matter and dark energy - neither of which is directly observed, of course. These terms only describe certain behaviors of baryonic matter at large scales, and are not necessarily either matter or energy as we know them.

I'll be interested in the reaction of the physics community at large over the next year or two. After all, the Ali and Das model makes predictions which can be observed.

 

We try to quantify and label to brings the infinite into a recognizable amount.

But when you let those quantitative hang ups fall away you realize that the only true measurement of anything is time. Without time...there's nothing. Without time there is no way to have said anything ever existed.

 

Time is amazingly subjective. As a programmer, I realize that to a computer program, "time" is measured according to clocks visible to the program. With most operation systems, it's possible to suspend any program. As far as that program is concerned, no suspension ever took place. The program has no way of knowing that it got suspended. Programmers had to invent the term "real time" to distinguish the time humans experience from the time programs experience.

But we are in exactly the same position as the programs. We have no objective measure of time. We can measure the time we experience with mind-boggling precision (to within one second of the age of the universe on our timeline) - yet to some hypothetical outside observer "running our program", they could be speeding, slowing, or stopping the program and we would have absolutely no way to detect this.

It may well be the case that there simply IS no universal clock. General relativity says there isn't.

 

On a human scale that's true.

 

Well, it is well argued that time is a dimension.

- - - Updated - - -

My calculator has been wrong all this time!

 

Nothing is really 'solid'. Not even us; we're simply a collection of disconnected atoms.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...cs-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/
As to your last question; ask Schroedinger!

 

what do you get? 0 = (-1) + (+1) = (-133) + (+133) are exactly the same thing

see how you get something from nothing..... easy

.

 

No, you are getting nothing from something. That's completely different.

 

the math works both directions

.

 

.......

 

Math, on paper, works both directions, yes. But math is not tangible, unlike the universe.

 

given enough time, something pops up out of nothing

 

The universe is like all life, through death springs all life. An exploding star through gravity creating a nebula in turn collating particles of matter that make up our universe. Humans only concept has always been a beginning and an end. Will we ever conceive another way? Only time will tell, going back to your original post about it being all about the time

 

"Dimension" is a human concept that we use to try to understand the Universe. The Universe is infinite therefore has no starting point or ending point. The limiting factor to your argument is human mental capacity, not yours, but mankind. We just haven't (and probably never will) evolve to the point of being able to understand.