It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Which was first Time or Universe?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by name pending
Ok, im sick of this. Look...time existed before the Universe began. The creation of the Universe didn't "create" time, it created movement, heat, motion, points of observation, distance and the measurements we use to confirm time.

Everything listed in your quote is a matter of human COMPREHENSION. All of it exists only within our LIMITS!!

If you cannot comprehend it, it doesnt exist to you........
If it does exist to you, it is only as great as your human comprehension.

What sounds are there that you cannot hear? What colors that you cannot see? What universal chain of command that you do not honor?

You are basing your question entirely on human comprehension which frankly should be considered null and void.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 03:58 AM
This thread made me think of this.

Dark Helmet: What the **** am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie? Colonel Sandurz: You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is happening now. Dark Helmet: What happened to then? Colonel Sandurz: We passed then. Dark Helmet: When? Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now. Dark Helmet: Go back to then. Colonel Sandurz: When? Dark Helmet: Now! Colonel Sandurz: Now? Dark Helmet: Now! Colonel Sandurz: I can't. Dark Helmet: Why? Colonel Sandurz: We missed it. Dark Helmet: When? Colonel Sandurz: Just now. Dark Helmet: When will then be now? Colonel Sandurz: Soon.

I will state that I only ponder these things when I can't fall asleep so this interpretation will probably be lacking.
And I postulate that Time has always existed and always will.

First I think you need to define time in the context of the situation.
First there is what we call time that is measurable by clocks this is our perception of the period of "time" it takes our universe to get to now and passing then...

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by name pending

Originally posted by kozmo
Answer: The Universe! Time is relative and cannot exist outside of physical matter as it is physical matter that creates the mechanism upon which time is built.

Which is odd. As time is a measurement. You are talking about things that can help TO measure time, not time itself.

You understand that a watch isn't actually time, right? That it measures a set amount of turns of a material device that is then displayed through a system upon its surface.

No actual time is flowing through it. Just as if that watch stopped, time keeps going so time does not have anything to do with physical matter.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by name pending]

I can't believe that you just answered the conundrum and yet you're still confused. Let me break it down further and then I think it will be more evident.

First of all, just as you have pointed out, TIME is a measurement, but of what? Well, of an Earth day broken down in sub-parts of hours, minutes and seconds and expanded outward into days, weeks, months and years. In other words, TIME is a man-made construct used to pinpoint mankind's journey in a linear fashion.

Now, take yourself to Jupiter. It takes Jupiter 5,652 Earth days to revolve around the sun and it takes 1.88 Earth years to equal one full rotation of Jupiter. In other words, a single day on Jupiter is 1.88 Earth years! As Einstein pointed out, time is relative!

By the same token, TIME can be related as a measure of the age of the universe. According to the Hubble-Constant, the Universe is about 8 billion years old - EARTH years that is!

So clearly you can see that the Universe MUST have come first as TIME is simple a measure relative to the physical universe. With TIME being a measure, if there were no universe what would you measure??? A singularity has no use for time as it lacks relativity. Kapiche?

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:56 AM
time and space are lovingly embracing each other constantly. time has existed for as long as existance. without existance, there is no time. however, even before the big bang, there was a.... existance. remember the old saying, in the absence of light there is dark? well, there never has been dark. something existed before, and will exist after. it is the universal breath, the most complete circle, the most important loop.

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:47 AM
Time is a man-made concept and therefore for Time to exist, someone has to be able to measure it otherwise it means nothing. However in saying this I find the theory that before the "big bang" there was no Time very hard to swallow, along with the theory itself I may add.

We consider Time as being linear in order for us to deal with our day to day lives, but I don't think it works in the fashion we imagine it to, or at least how we operate Time.

The idea that this Universe came out of nothing makes no sense to me and there had to have been something to instigate it and this must have come from another Time for want of a better expression. Therefore that's why I personally find it difficult to accept both the idea of Linear Time (something must have been there before Time supposedly started to start it) and also the big bang theory itself as this suggests that there was nothing before Time started so how could something have started it, unless it came from another Time.

I'm confusing myself now
my own belief on time albeit quite abstract is that Time is what protects us from Darkness. If you go beyond the speed of light, then there is only darkness and you are beyond the protection of the light. I'm not a religious person, or even that spiritual. But on a purely physical level, we do need light to survive and without it we'd soon die off. If we consider ourselves as microcosms of the universe then the same theory applies.

So whomever or whatever started time as we know it, put it there for a create light. And in relation to this, this is why I think the light barrier is so difficult to break. It's not that it can't be broken, just that it would be extremely perilous to do so and is essentially there to protect us.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by solipsism]

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:59 AM
These videos might help you to understand. I do understand what you are saying but I cannot dismiss a theory that makes sense. And yes I do agree with you but we have to be honest with ourselves sometimes.

No Boundary Universe

A universe that is finite in size but did not begin with a singularity is the result of one attempt to combine aspects of general relativity and quantum mechanics. The history of this no-boundary universe in imaginary time is like the surface of Earth, with the Big Bang equivalent to Earth’s North Pole and the size of the universe increasing with imaginary time as you head south toward the equator.

A proposal first advanced by Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle, the no-boundary universe is one in which the universe does not start with a singularity. It uses American physicist Richard Feynman’s proposal to treat quantum mechanics as a “sum over histories,” meaning that a particle does not have one history in space-time but instead follows every possible path to reach its current state. By summing these histories—a difficult process that must be done by treating time as imaginary—you can find the probability that the particle passes through a particular point.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Deaf Alien]

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in