It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
spy66
Carl Sagan is not thee authority on this subject; why should i wait for him?
Carl have also said that we should ask the big questions that are hard to answer. If you deny the big questions you have Limited Your self as a fallower. You are not going to learn anything or get anywhere.
If you deny what i am saying, you certenly have a burden of profe on Your sholders to have a reason to deny. You can not deny based on nothing at all. That is as mute and pointless as a denyel can get.edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
spy66
Time have always existed. The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.
There can never be a finite time unless you have a infinite timeline.edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
spy66
zarzelius
reply to post by edmc^2
You started with the wrong sentence. Space time as you call it , didn't always exist.Time itself was created by the Big Bang.It didn't exist before.And because of that massive explosion is why it moves forward.
People should really stop trying to prove God exist. Faith is enough if you believe in it so why the need to have hard evidence?
Sounds to me like you are having a crisis of faith
Time have always existed. The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.
There can never be a finite time unless you have a infinite timeline.edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
spy66
Time have always existed.
[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.
spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.
zarzelius
reply to post by edmc^2
You started with the wrong sentence. Space time as you call it , didn't always exist.Time itself was created by the Big Bang.It didn't exist before.And because of that massive explosion is why it moves forward.
People should really stop trying to prove God exist. Faith is enough if you believe in it so why the need to have hard evidence?
Sounds to me like you are having a crisis of faith
Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.
Subnatural
spy66
Time have always existed.
In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:
[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.
spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.
Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?
spy66
Subnatural
spy66
Time have always existed.
In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:
[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.
spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.
Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?
Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.
What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.
What does something that is absolute tell us?
Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.
A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.
zarzelius
spy66
Subnatural
spy66
Time have always existed.
In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:
[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.
spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.
Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?
Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.
What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.
What does something that is absolute tell us?
Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.
A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.
Wait, i know what you say mate.I actually understand and could even agree at some extent. But there is not way for now to prove that. Big Bang on the other hand, is being proved all the time, even yesterday there was a cool announcement about waves that were detected that can give even more evidence of that.
Your argument , requires more "blind faith".There is less evidence of that , than there is of the big bang and time starting with it. Sorry but, i can go with that till there is an actuall evidence of another "dimension" or a "bigger bubble".As far as we know, there is just our universe and nothing else.
spy66
zarzelius
spy66
Subnatural
spy66
Time have always existed.
In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:
[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.
spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.
Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?
Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.
What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.
What does something that is absolute tell us?
Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.
A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.
Wait, i know what you say mate.I actually understand and could even agree at some extent. But there is not way for now to prove that. Big Bang on the other hand, is being proved all the time, even yesterday there was a cool announcement about waves that were detected that can give even more evidence of that.
Your argument , requires more "blind faith".There is less evidence of that , than there is of the big bang and time starting with it. Sorry but, i can go with that till there is an actuall evidence of another "dimension" or a "bigger bubble".As far as we know, there is just our universe and nothing else.
If you are waiting for Carl Sagan, Hawkins or some other human scientist, you will never get the answer from them. Because there is no way they can replicate and test the beginning of time, and top it all off by documenting it.
But if you understand science you can gather the evidence Your self. You dont really need them to figure this out. Because the evidence is already in front of you. You just have to see it. But you have to understand this to be able to see whats in front of you.edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
zarzelius
spy66
zarzelius
spy66
Subnatural
spy66
Time have always existed.
In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:
[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.
spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.
Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?
Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.
What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.
What does something that is absolute tell us?
Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.
A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.
Wait, i know what you say mate.I actually understand and could even agree at some extent. But there is not way for now to prove that. Big Bang on the other hand, is being proved all the time, even yesterday there was a cool announcement about waves that were detected that can give even more evidence of that.
Your argument , requires more "blind faith".There is less evidence of that , than there is of the big bang and time starting with it. Sorry but, i can go with that till there is an actuall evidence of another "dimension" or a "bigger bubble".As far as we know, there is just our universe and nothing else.
If you are waiting for Carl Sagan, Hawkins or some other human scientist, you will never get the answer from them. Because there is no way they can replicate and test the beginning of time, and top it all off by documenting it.
But if you understand science you can gather the evidence Your self. You dont really need them to figure this out. Because the evidence is already in front of you. You just have to see it. But you have to understand this to be able to see whats in front of you.edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
I get it, so i shouldnt learn from Hawkins, Einstein or any other human scientist, i should take your word for it.Well you should have started there mate! Is right in front of me , is so simple that you should send them a letter, explain it to them,then ask them to give you the Nobel Price cus, well, you discovered the answer to the universe.
Cheers mate.
spy66
Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.
spy66
Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.
spy66
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.
spy66
Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.
Subnatural
spy66
Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.
So, there is the time which our universe experiences (a finite time), and also a "meta time", something beyond our knowledge? I am inclined to agree that this is possible.
The problem for me is that this disrupts our entire concept of "time", makes it hard to relate. In effect, there are two sorts of time. This means we have to redefine the entire discussion, in my opinion. Clear definitions are essential to mutual understanding. Especially on the internet.
Or, do you mean that our universe is identical to time?
spy66
Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.
If so, i have a hard time understanding that, time is usually considered a property of our universe, or a factor affecting it. Not identical to it.
So, the spatial dimensions are not equal? You are saying that one of them is special? Why can't several dimensions be absolute?