[Halc]

We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally?

...
Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.
(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)

Yes, true even if time isn't something that passes. Those three states still have different time slots.

If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.

Have no idea what you might be suggesting with this one. An egg hardly seems fundamental, and an image is not an egg, and we have plenty of images of things (unicorn is traditional) that seem not to exist.

Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.

That's like saying without the unicorn, time doesn't exist. Time can exist just fine without an egg.
Time can exist without motion, but it's harder. The paint fades over time. That's evidence of time without utilizing the motion of anything.

How do We really measure Time?

Typically by counting regular events. That works, flow or no flow. There is no way to detect flow, so one cannot measure time by any empirical detection of flow.

How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?

There would be no 'we' to measure it without that stuff. Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.

Hope some of this helps.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.

... Agreed. In order for entropy to be occurring constantly, with no beginning and no end, we would have to be in a universe where time itself is but a measurement of relative motion of objects in one form or another.  What keeps entropy from being complete, meaning what keeps all of the useful energy in the universe from be expended, is that in an infinite and eternal universe, matter and energy are "fundamental" building blocks of everything else, cannot be used up, and are continually being converted from one to the other by natural processes.


205634,206057,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...  what keeps all of the useful energy in the universe from be expended, is that ... matter and energy are "fundamental" building blocks of everything else, cannot be used up, and are continually being converted from one to the other by natural processes.

The main natural processes in my estimation are big bangs and big crunches on a grand scale. If everything in the universe is continually being recycled from matter to energy and back to matter via big crunches and big bangs, then the trigger for each big bang would be a preceding Big Crunch. And there is no reason why the infinite universe isn't an infinite patchwork of forming crunches and expanding bangs, with new crunches and new bangs going on all the time, here and there across an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. The ultimate perpetual machine.


206109,206438,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

And there is no reason why the infinite universe isn't an infinite patchwork of forming crunches and expanding bangs, with new crunches and new bangs going on all the time, here and there across an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. The ultimate perpetual machine.

And if the universe is a "perpetual machine", infinite and eternal, ever changing, and yet the same, then what I call the "sameness principle" is always in effect, meaning no matter where you are in that infinite expanse, there is nothing new in regard to the physics that are in effect.


206451,206550,206710,207075,

[Zer0]

This Thread is my Favourite section on TNS.
For a very Simple reason, it's here that i find folks who are Able to Think ' Out of the Box ' .


Fundamental Forces.
Entropy.
Time.
Exist " Inside " our Observable Universe.

But if there is an " Outside "...
Is it a compulsion or mandatory for all those Things to be Present in the same Form exhibiting the same Nature as within?


Definitions Matter Alot!
Perhaps We should come up with New terms or verbiage to describe Space/Time before the Big Bang.


ps - the Egg was a symbolic representation of the universe, our universe, the one within which We exist.
No egg meaning no hen & no coop.

Retro-Causality negating Quantum Sciences, is not Observed within our Box.
But can We be certain of it's non-existentiality out of da box?

In my limited understanding, i do not know anything physical, which has
' No Motion ' or " Motionless " .
Perhaps one of you could help me out with an example.

pps - Only Dreamerz know this...
In Stables of the Mind..
Unicorns Exist.
: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

yY
You have to respect entropy because it is during entropy that everything happens . That is based on many assumptions, for example:


1)  the entropy I am referring to is taking place in a finite space that is surrounded by the infinite greater universe
 
2)  big bangs occur here and there, now and then, and are common events across the greater universe

3) In line with a premise that all space has always existed, any space that happens to be associated with, i.e. within the vacinity of the aftermath of a big bang event, has a higher energy density than the average density of the greater universe

4) expansion, meaning the observed separation of objects/matter in space, not only displays the "separation momentum" applied to matter as a result of the force of a local "big bang" event, but also displays the effect of energy density equalization that naturally takes place whenever energy density differentials exist in adjacent spaces.


... 207300,207739,

[Zer0]

I associate Time with Change.
& Entropy with the Flow of Energy.

But i do Wonder, what was the nature of Time, before the BB?

A Time without Atoms or Light or Matter or Entropy...
Should i even refer to it as " Time " ?


A Space before " Space " is easier in comparison to think of.

But just bcoz the " Egg " inside which i reside, has a yolk & white...
Should i assume or conclude that the ' Hen ' is made of yolk..
& the ' Coop ' is filled with white.


ps - Imagination needs no Wings nor Sky for Flight.
But remains Confined in the Skullcage, such is it's Plight.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Alright, if you are here for a layman's response, I can accommodate you .
Of course, it comes from my personal perspective and has little to do with established thinking ...
I believe time had no beginning. I'm not suggesting that time is an illusion, but instead, time has always been passing, and everything that has happened, or is happening, or will happen, takes place somewhere in the infinite and eternal time continuum. That continuum has just one direction, and that is forward in time. But also, the time continuum is characterized by a concept called "places". Places can move relative to each other, and that relative motion would most likely have an affect on the measurement of time in any given place, relative to the measurement of the passing of time in other places.


208338,

[Zer0]

Just a small OffTopic enquiry...

Suppose, just Imagine wildly, Suppose...

The Observable Universe starts
 ' Contracting ' .

& the rate of Collapse keeps increasing or Accelerating.

Well, Irrespective of whatever amount of Time it takes for a
 ' Complete Collapse '...

What will be the End Result?
A Singularity?
A humongous BH?

ps - easy to imagine Matter coalescence, but wat da hell bout d
 " Space Continuum " ?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... Suppose...The Observable Universe starts
 ' Contracting ' & the rate ... keeps ... Accelerating.
Irrespective of whatever amount of Time it takes for a
 ' Complete Collapse '...
What will be the End Result?
A Singularity?
A humongous BH?
...

Stepping outside of my favorite personal model of the universe, the Infinite Spongy Universe Model, and addressing your "what ifs" ... we then might have the issue that what we are talking about is an observation from some point within a selected portion of what you designate as the Observable Universe. When talking about what is observable from any particular position in space, I would expect the perspective to change (as the point from which the observation is made moves), and the view from elsewhere in the vastness might be expected to be completely different.

But not in my so called ISU Model.  Given all of the possible points from which to make such an observation, there would be an infinite number of possible perspectives, and who knows if there might be a corresponding number of different observers occupying those various distant patches of space. However, a contraction is a local event within the infinite universe, and the infinite universe as a whole isn't subject to expansion, contraction, or collapse; only patches within it can be said to contract and expand, and those circumstances occur at the whim of the most recent nearby Big Crunch or Big Bang event, I speculate.


211808,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
So again, yes, there are infinite points of observation when talking about an observable universe, but the different 'points' of observation are pretty far apart.

I get your point and see it's truth. One of the words I have used here is "contiguous", and in thinking about how far apart the various points of observation can be, they are connected in a space-time continuum. To move around in the "continuum", the line described by our path is a plot of contiguous points, complicated by the relative motion of all objects, and destined to be eventually forgotten as to never have existed. That may seem to be a characterization of gloom, but on the other hand, it can be an assurance that our worst will be forgotten. My hope is that our best will win the struggle to be remembered for at least a brief local instant.


212499

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I talk about multiple big bangs occurring here and there, now and then, across an infinite and eternal universe. My view is that the infinities of space, time, and energy have always been the case, forever. Since I posit that there was no beginning, time has always been passing, everywhere across that infinite expanse.

As part of that picture, I often discuss the "sameness doctrine" which says, on a grand scale, the universe is essentially the same no matter where you are in it; not in the precise local view which differs from point to point, but in the grand perspective, where every point enjoys the status of being the center of an infinite expanse.

Another aspect of the sameness is that the view is constantly changing from every perspective, at every point. across the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.


213142,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
Another aspect of the "sameness" is that the view is constantly changing from every perspective, at every point. across the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.

The sad fact is that we are capable of imagining so much, and it turns out that much of what we can imagine is flat out fantasy. Maybe that is why we can each voice our particular perspective on a subject, but no one has the final word :shrug:


214887,215156,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

Those qualities of the universe fit nicely in line with a hypothetical "infinite spongy universe (so called) model". Since the "spongy" aspect simply means that any given mass has no fixed position and continually moves, relative to its surroundings.

That motion is guided and constrained by the ever changing local gravitational fields, so there might seem to be a built in randomness.

But does the universe have any option as to the upcoming gravitational forces governing the local movement of any given object? I don't think that the laws of motion have much use for the concept of randomness.


215772,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I don't post online as often as I used to, but I still surf the net and follow science topics to keep my mind active. I'm not sure when "old age" occurs, but I'm sure 80, which I will turn yet this year, qualifies,



223555,

[Zer0]

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

I'm not in Disagreement,
I simply have a Different perspective.

If the BB model is Flawless...
Then Space itself had a Beginning,
And what Begins, has a Boundary.

If the Law of Entropy is Absolute...
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.


ps - ....nity is that which has No beginning, and that which has No end is Infi....!
0

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

I'm not in Disagreement,
I simply have a Different perspective.

If the BB model is Flawless...

Then Space itself had a Beginning,
And what Begins, has a Boundary.

That would be a tremendous determination if it were true, but with billions of years (actually an infinity ahead) and infinite possible outcomes to play out, the real answers to such imponderables are indeterminate.

If the Law of Entropy is Absolute...
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.

Why does it seem to me that infinity had "no beginning and will have no end"?


228563,

[Zer0]

The KeyWord in my previous post was  " if "...

As i do Not consider the BB model to be the Last final nail.
Nor the Law of Entropy Unbreakable.
The Future remains Undeterministic
&
Unpredictable.
No Fate!

 ps - If i was Never born,
i shall Never die...
But that does Not make me Immortal.
: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The KeyWord in my previous post was  " if "...

As i do Not consider the BB model to be the Last final nail.
Nor the Law of Entropy Unbreakable.
The Future remains Undeterministic
&
Unpredictable.
No Fate!

 ps - If i was Never born,
i shall Never die...
But that does Not make me Immortal.
: )

Interesting you should go in that direction ...

The "immortality" could be of life itself. How about the premise that life has always existed; has an infinite past as well as an infinite future. Individual mortality, obviously not. Immortal chain of life ... why not.


228821,
 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If that is the case, here we are, here and now, part of the immortal chain of life.