The Sciences of Time - Does Time Have A Beginning?

Ironic gibberish duly noted!

 

Why am I not in the least bit surprised?

 

Quite clearly you are a ''troll'' and your aim is to try to discredit me and get the readers to think otherwise to coverup science garbage .

You do not have the intellect to continue this conversation so I suggest you step aside while I await the ''big boys'' to turn up .

I am a genius , you are out of luck trying to put me off when I know science .

 

More ironic projection of shortcomings!

 

Like I said , your mediocre mind is just not impressive, you aren't even good at trolling , so lame .

 

Thank you for establishing your "impressive" trolling credentials and utterly disqualifying yourself from any meaningful interaction on this topic as far as I am concerned.

 

The contrary , you haven't discussed science and will not engage in science versus me . Your posts are malarkey in aim of disrupting , if you are serious about science then come on , let's see what you are made of .

 

Time is a quantifiable measurement to record the aging process of matter .

Why not start here ?

Time is not an individual entity that exists . time is an arbitrary measurement .

 

Actually, time as a dimension is probably an artifact of expansion.

Ever ask yourself why time can go both ways on a graph with pen and paper but only seems to travel one way in the real world?

Perhaps because the Universe tends to greater and greater entropy - lol or something like that.

Hehe....talk about gibberish, huh?

 

Theory is required to be falsifiable through testing. Plus as of now there isn't a unified theory that includes gravity - a flaw that will surely lead to some sort of limitation on theories of today.

So, I'm curious about this "absolute theory" thing - when we know we don't have anything that could be considered absolute either in terms of the very definition of "theory" or in terms of what we know about our universe.

 

just a matter of time before time runs out of time... & in timely fashion

 

Hmmm , yes there is !

 

I'll try to keep this simple as I'm not a physicist and this is a thread, not a major university physics class.

So, from wiki:
"Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics."

 

You should tell us what it is...even better, submit a paper and become rich and famous while revolutionizing the field of Physics. I would be very appreciative and in awe of your incredible mind.

 

Its merely a standardized unit for measuring change. Time started when something was different than it used to be, and it will end when nothing changes anymore.

 

You have accomplished this with no help....it must be an attribute of your genius.

 

God being the great "whatever" that transcends the universe as we perceive it, of course.

Time, like mathematics, describes something real and objective that is perceptible by us and our instruments. It is a kind of metaphorical layer that is ingrained in our thinking, one of the ways our brains cope with the world, like how we perceive matter, which is a form of energy, as matter, and do so in ways attuned to our evolutionary needs. We are naturally removed from the fundamental parts of how the energy matrix of the universe plays out, always experiencing it through these layers of perception and modeling.

From this perspective, time is, in fact, the transformation of energy that makes everything possible and of which we are wholly a part. It is like floating down a stream and perceiving that motion as time, were our perspective so limited.

 

When you consider how little we can actually observe of the universe that surrounds us, for instance whatever life forms and their ecosystems exist on other planets, we are limited in our perspective so that is a good analogy.

 

You interestingly type sentences with no science content in them , in a science section of this forum . Do you really think this mediocre minded attempt at discrediting me is actually related content to the topic ?

People can observe you have offered no defense or shown discredit .

I will put to you sir , a simple question !

In a spatial void , what elements is there that can age or be timed ?

noun
noun: void; plural noun: voids
1.
a completely empty space.
"the black void of space"


Now before you try to change the question and say there is no such thing as empty space , I will inform you in advance , that is frivolous litigation , you would be trying to change the definition and semantics of a void to suit .

Diagram 1 - Void



Δt = 0

An absolute constant !

 

Believe it or not cupcake, but we actually try to keep this section science based. To do this it sometimes becomes necessary to call out and push away members who are....uh..."Different". You unfortunately meet this criteria and I have thus begun the process for the benefit of everyone, including you if your mind has a place for pride or tries to avoid humiliation.
I am in no way worried what people observe or their opinions concerning my intellect, knowledge and quality of contribution here and in fact find it likely a few will chime in here to help me with your ridicule.

What Do You Think Folks?

 

Looks like standard clown academy behavior to me.

 

It's really not nice of you to call science clowns , mediocre minds will do just fine .

 

Your idea amounts to the idea that time is the ordering of events (like the age of an object). That idea went out with Newton, who showed that time is independent of events.

Einstein took it further than that, showing that time is an integral component of our universe - a space-time continuum.

I'd point out that scientists watch particles come in and go out of existence in a vacuum, because energy is present throughout our universe. Your pic doesn't attempt to depict energy and as a static pic taken an some unknown resolution it isn't showing this activity that physicists know by observation is occurring all the time.

You can't point at some piece of space and suggest it isn't part of our universe simply because you don't see an object there.

 

Well, like the time sequencing of events - I miss edited.

 

Yes, I've met a number of mediocre minds hiding behind intellectual snobbery. They are rather easy to identify since they signal without awareness.