The Sciences of Time - Does Time Have A Beginning?

The truth is you have presented no reason for me to take you seriously.
Moving on.

 

(n>n) = (n<n)​

"​

​

Do I really need to explain that ''n'' is neutral ?"​

Well at least you have started to explain something....unfortunately it does not help your case here.

Neutral is more than Neutral makes no sense and that it is equal to neutral is less than neutral makes even less. Claiming genius does not make it so and then providing proof it is not is simply verification of its inaccuracy. Science and mathematics/formula do not change nation to nation so your problems here will simply follow.​

 

Well unfortunately I am not going to explain giving away more free knowledge . I can earn money other ways, so , I do not need science at all in my life .

I will just wish you good day .

 

It's as if there is no presence because the 'time' it takes us to consider something in the present it has actually moved to the past...the greater the distance of what we are viewing the greater the time that has passed. In this context 'time' does exist.

Great for you getting away without the evil tethers...

 

Time, and space for that matter, only actually exist relative to matter. Space is simply position relative to matter, and time is simply the progressive, sequential relative positions of matter. If matter has a beginning, a singularity, then space/time also have a beginning.

No particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time. In other words, all matter is subject to constant change. Anything subject to change is subject. It is contingent in its being. Anything subject in its being has a beginning; in other words, it is not-necessary.

Matter, and by extension time/space, is contingent in its being and therefore has a beginning.

A third way to look at it is that if time had no beginning, if time was infinitely regressive, we could never get to this moment in time because we could always tack another moment on to the beginning. Time is uniquely progressive and therefore has a beginning.

So, at least from those three perspectives, time seems to have a beginning.

 

They will just keep lying , science doesn't venture out when 'swimming'' further than the buoys .

 

Time passes at the same rate in a vacuum.

Physicists do agree that time had a beginning. Space-time began with the big bang.

 

This is if our Universe is all that exists...what if there are multi-universes?

So is our 'time' from the BB infinite?

 

There are multiple ways of dating the universe. They agree that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.

It's pretty hard to test whether there is something other than our universe. Maybe someone will come up with some evidence.

 

Making something out of nothing is difficult to grasp. If there was a singularity at the BB it must have come from something? Is it the same space/time/matter that expands and contracts and expands again into perpetuity...our single Universe?

Is the 13.8 billion year number based on what we can detect meaning there can be much more beyond this point? Maybe we simply cannot detect what was before the BB or beyond 13.8 billion light years in distance??

 

calls himself a genius! qualified in all sciences! awarded himself the title of Professor!!!! all that and hasn't completed any of advanced education! LOL!

I think he needs to awarded internet troll of the year award...no, make that troll of the century! what a clown show...good for a laugh that's about all and we're laughing at him not with him...

 

Yes, detecting anything about the "environment" beyond our universe is incredibly difficult to say the least.

In fact, we don't have physics that goes all the way back to the big bang instant, as the physics we know about falls apart when getting near that instant.

Physicists don't say anything about creating something out of nothing.

Einstein showed us that there is an equivalence between energy and mass. So, it's not "things from nothing". It's more like moving between energy and matter.

I don't know of any physicist who thinks our universe will ever contract. It looks like the rate of expansion is actually increasing. So, the universe may be destined to do something more like evaporating - matter gradually breaking down and its energy dissipating.

 

Time for a beer.

 

which is where the idea for a multiverse originated...the guy who came up with it likened it to a soap bubble growing and growing until it popped, then to be followed by a new bubble doing the same...he said he came up with the concept in the shower watching bubbles in his shampoo bottle form grow and pop and then replaced by another...

interesting concept that would answer I a lot of questions if true and verifiable but no doubt would only create more questions...what brand of shampoo?

 

Likely we are in the middle (or whatever) of expansion from the Big Bang and in another couple Billion years would be contemplating what is happening as it slows. Contemplation on this is a bit pointless because no one will ever "Know" until the end of it, at which point we wont even care or be able to do anything but watch. Perhaps we live in a bouncing Universe and it will collapse eventually to a singularity that bangs again...who knows but its fun to think on.

 

exactly how I see it, it's interesting to speculate but entirely pointless unless you happen to be an astrophysicist ...

I recall one astrophysicist comment that even if the multiverse idea is valid and there are an infinite of universes coexisting, our universe is the only one we'll ever be able to see

 

If it could lead to improvements in our model of physics it might be a significant contribution - maybe like Einstein contributing relativity theory.

 

Actually Roger Penrose is an advocate of the Cyclical Universe model.

https://physicsworld.com/a/new-evidence-for-cyclic-universe-claimed-by-roger-penrose-and-colleagues/

 

it could but it's still so far above my paygrade that's of no consequence to me other than to satisfy my curiosity...

 

We may never see our own Universe...

 

I was thinking about exactly that the other day, why not? it seems to be only a matter of building a sufficiently large telescope...I knew radio telescopes can be linked together so today I looked into linking optical telescopes and I find that there is indeed research into that... building a ginormous electronically linked optical array and possibly space based based as well...imagine an optical space based arrayed telescopes kms across and how far it could extend our range of vision...

it would also be very very very expensive but maybe a better investment then flying people to Mars

 

Cool! Thanks. That definitely sounds interesting, especially with it being Penrose.

 

Seems like just the theorized expansion of the Universe, perhaps faster than the SOL, will keep us from ever detecting the vast distances that the Universe comprises? And, it's unclear if we can ever actually detect the 'beginning', the BB, or whatever existed when expansion began? Perhaps there will remain stuff that we will never know simply because it's not possible to know...

 

I think that's true for everyone when it comes to the extremes in pretty much every arena.

But, writing it off based on one's own assumptions about how it affects one's self isn't a great response.

 

Here is a little something to contemplate. Every "Bang" we know of happens in a spherical fashion so when we peer into the depths to look for the Big Bang aren't we just looking at the part between us and the bang?

What is in the half we don't see?