| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Blah" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2007 06:16:49 PM |
| Object: |
time beginning |
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
.
|
|
| User: "BernardZ" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
10 Sep 2007 09:44:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1189379809.321846.16490@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
cidster12@yahoo.com says...
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or
Check up on Roger Penrose who is saying something similar now. However
he is in a minority.
would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
10 Sep 2007 04:37:14 PM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 1:16 am, Blah <cidste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
"Time is measured by consecutive events... There were more events
immediately after big bang than in whole history of universe so far."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
10 Sep 2007 10:50:22 PM |
|
|
boson boss wrote:
"Time is measured by consecutive events... There were more events
immediately after big bang than in whole history of universe so far."
Countable events "immediately after big bang" however you define
that is less than events "immediately after big bang" + another
"event".
.
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
11 Sep 2007 09:24:11 AM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 5:50 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
boson boss wrote:
"Time is measured by consecutive events... There were more events
immediately after big bang than in whole history of universe so far."
Countable events "immediately after big bang" however you define
that is less than events "immediately after big bang" + another
"event".
:-))))
I think you just caught universe on the spot, probably stealing our
donuts. No thats not what it is; its density, its math man. You can
calculate multiple things.... more order, more interactions, etc.
whatnot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
09 Sep 2007 07:58:06 PM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, Blah <cidste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
When they say time began at the Big Bang they prove
they are idiots.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
09 Sep 2007 08:05:55 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, Blah <cidste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
When they say time began at the Big Bang they prove
they are idiots.
John
Who is "they", John?
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
09 Sep 2007 08:22:34 PM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 7:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, Blah <cidste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
When they say time began at the Big Bang they prove
they are idiots.
John
Who is "they", John?
Whoever says they know how Time works.
Do you?
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Planckenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
09 Sep 2007 08:50:33 PM |
|
|
"malibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:1189387354.104764.27490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 7:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, Blah <cidste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it
was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
When they say time began at the Big Bang they prove
they are idiots.
John
Who is "they", John?
Whoever says they know how Time works.
Do you?
John
This is one of the great paradoxes and problems of Big Bang Theory. How does
a universe come from nothingness ? How does time "begin" ?
Allowing time to be taken as being probabilistic solves this problem because
it explains redshifting without the need for a cosmic firecracker. But I
dont know about all of the other things which seem to agree with BBT, I know
that there are lots of supporting evidence besides redshift.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
09 Sep 2007 09:03:27 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, Blah <cidste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
When they say time began at the Big Bang they prove
they are idiots.
John
Who is "they", John?
Whoever says they know how Time works.
Do you?
John
So you don't actually know who "they" is, I take it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
09 Sep 2007 09:33:24 PM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 8:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, Blah <cidste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
When they say time began at the Big Bang they prove
they are idiots.
John
Who is "they", John?
Whoever says they know how Time works.
Do you?
John
So you don't actually know who "they" is, I take it?
Not until they 'fess up'.
Are you one of 'them'?
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
09 Sep 2007 09:58:00 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 8:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, Blah <cidste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When they say time began at the Big Bang do they simply mean since
there was nothing physical to measure in relation to each other it was
impossible to measure the passage of time or would it be something
like if you had a massless watch outside of the singularity it would
be frozen? (I know introducing an object is problematic but I don't
know any other way to do it.)
When they say time began at the Big Bang they prove
they are idiots.
John
Who is "they", John?
Whoever says they know how Time works.
Do you?
John
So you don't actually know who "they" is, I take it?
Not until they 'fess up'.
Are you one of 'them'?
John
I'm just a "life-long learner", John. I enjoy it... I teach, I read,
I research. I think all scientists have a obligation to help educate
the public.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: time beginning |
10 Sep 2007 10:01:41 AM |
|
|
Sam As long as there is no absolute zero the cosmos will have time.
Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
