The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
Did TIME Have To Manifest First ?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
Did TIME Have To Manifest First ?
3 Replies
3451 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
neilep
(OP)
Withdrawnmist
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum GOD!
21211
Activity:
1%
Thanked: 119 times
Did TIME Have To Manifest First ?
«
on:
06/01/2018 14:50:38 »
Time , its great innit ? its my favourite way to measure intervals and stuff.
As a Sheepy I of course know everything there is to know about time, but one thing does baffle me in a somewhat baffling way.
Did Time have to exist first for the Universe to expand into ?
Its said that " Time began at the big bang" but surely time had to come first and then once 'time' was happily minding its own business, the universe expanded into it !!
whajafink ?
hugs and shmishes
mwah mwah mwah !!
Sheepy
xxxx
Logged
Men are the same as Women, just inside out !
Bill S
Naked Science Forum King!
3630
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 114 times
Re: Did TIME Have To Manifest First ?
«
Reply #1 on:
08/01/2018 12:13:31 »
Quote
whajafink ?
I "fink" this question goes round in circles and probably leads to the "conclusion" that time was not created, it is simply our means of measuring change. Change then becomes something we perceive, in order to make sense of our "perceived" Universe.
It's all an illusory "shadow" of an underlying reality.
Come back David Bohm, all is forgiven.
Logged
There never was nothing.
The following users thanked this post:
neilep
jeffreyH
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Did TIME Have To Manifest First ?
«
Reply #2 on:
08/01/2018 23:35:55 »
If nothing is changing then there is nothing to measure. Also if there is a barrier that precludes measurement then apparently there is nothing to measure. The event horizon of a black hole is just such a barrier. So we have no idea if time is meaningful within this region. Inside the black hole, or any dense, enclosed region, there will still be some change occurring. So that any fluctuations of the vacuum can be said to be time dependent. It all depends upon point of view.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
The following users thanked this post:
neilep
Bill S
Naked Science Forum King!
3630
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 114 times
Re: Did TIME Have To Manifest First ?
«
Reply #3 on:
09/01/2018 23:11:35 »
[quote = Jeffrey] It all depends upon point of view. [/quote]
Precisely! and our point of view is, strictly, the point of view of out 3+1D, linear Universe. This is the "explicate order".
What we cannot see, directly, is the "implicate order"; but should that stop us from, at east, trying to apply reason and logic to our consideration of it?
Logged
There never was nothing.
The following users thanked this post:
neilep
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...