ForumGarden

el whoppo



said in the what if FG closed down thread what is the longest running forum we could all meet on there if the unthinkable happens and FG died



so whilst i was waiting for an important phone call i was thinking what would be the longest running forum





the roman forum should be about 2000 years old



the before the bible forum 3000 years old



or how about the before time began forum ..i thought that would be the oldest so to amuse myself like i do i googled it and stone me there was one its full of spocks :wah:





they are arguing about when did time start every one on it seems to think it started at the moment of the big bang





but i wondered as i do if that was the case what happened before then ... then





over to our fave spock i mean spot :wah:





if any one feels the urge here is the link









http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 79248.html

That is a cool link, philosophical discussion on time and the Big Bang.

chonsigirl;674861 wrote: That is a cool link, philosophical discussion on time and the Big Bang.




rabbit ... i want answers on when time began stop going off topic :wah:





i might just join to give them all a meltdown :sneaky::sneaky:

I double dog dare you, Jimbo.

chonsigirl;674870 wrote:



I double dog dare you, Jimbo.




ok i will







my name will DR jimbomaxibrain :-6

sorry chonsi i lied i went to join and could not understand the joining forum page .... oh well i will have a mind meld with our own FG spock

Bout 14 billion years ago Jimbo, give or take a few tens of millions. Now if you had put a pound in the bank at the start of time, at say an average of 4 percent compound interest per annum. How much would you have now then, thats the main thing. I think the beginning of time was cool, but there were no women, so thats a bit crap, also there were no men, so thats a mitigating factor.

Galbally;674896 wrote: Bout 14 billion years ago Jimbo, give or take a few tens of millions. Now if you had put a pound in the bank at the start of time, at say an average of 4 percent compound interest per annum. How much would you have now then, thats the main thing. I think the beginning of time was cool, but there were no women, so thats a bit crap, also there were no men, so thats a mitigating factor.




ok DR G ... I got it :-6





but what happened before that .....

jimbo;674897 wrote: ok DR G ... I got it :-6





but what happened before that .....




Nothing, there wasn't any before that for anything to happen in big J. Time is a property of the universe and there was no time before the universe started. So it was never kicking out time down the boozer, not bad eh? :wah:

Galbally;674899 wrote: Nothing, there wasn't any before that for anything to happen in big J. Time is a property of the universe and there was no time before the universe started. So it was never kicking out time down the boozer, not bad eh? :wah:




i think this may some everything up DR G



If you use a photon to measure time you have to realise that photons are infinitely blue shifted as you back track to the BB. Therefore, by their time measurement, the BB is translated back into the inifinte past and the universe becomes eternal.

Also photons expand with the universe ,

lambda=lambda_0frac{R(t)}{R(t_0)}

therefore if in addition if you also use the wavelength of a photon to measure length then the universe becomes static, there is no expansion as measured by that 'photon ruler'.

This is the Jordan conformal frame of Self Creation Cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094).

Garth

Technically, you can derive a backwards wavefunction to two volume's of Energy, an Anti-Matter and Matter two particle 'only' location. This would be the limit of Big-Bang derived 'Time', and there are no Photons prior to these two energies interacting, and by this I mean if you continue backwards to a single point, with just a SINGLE-PARTICLE, then this has no Photons, photons travel between Atoms, and thus, need at minimum at least TWO energies in order to transport to and from?

A Universe of just a single Atom/Point would not radiate, photons may have been 'slowed' by the density of matter and thus may have been 'contained' within a 'Gap' internal of Atoms, and therefore would not be interacting with Electrons due to the constraining energies, nevertheless Time+Space+Photons go hand in hand, the THREE Quantities are needed for the first movements of matter from one location to the next, take any one of these away and you would not have any of the other Two, the three are as ONE!





all my own work of course :yh_whistl:yh_liar





i was expecting more input from MR spock umm very intriguing

jimbo;674905 wrote: i think this may some everything up DR G



If you use a photon to measure time you have to realise that photons are infinitely blue shifted as you back track to the BB. Therefore, by their time measurement, the BB is translated back into the inifinte past and the universe becomes eternal.

Also photons expand with the universe ,

lambda=lambda_0frac{R(t)}{R(t_0)}

therefore if in addition if you also use the wavelength of a photon to measure length then the universe becomes static, there is no expansion as measured by that 'photon ruler'.

This is the Jordan conformal frame of Self Creation Cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094).

Garth

Technically, you can derive a backwards wavefunction to two volume's of Energy, an Anti-Matter and Matter two particle 'only' location. This would be the limit of Big-Bang derived 'Time', and there are no Photons prior to these two energies interacting, and by this I mean if you continue backwards to a single point, with just a SINGLE-PARTICLE, then this has no Photons, photons travel between Atoms, and thus, need at minimum at least TWO energies in order to transport to and from?

A Universe of just a single Atom/Point would not radiate, photons may have been 'slowed' by the density of matter and thus may have been 'contained' within a 'Gap' internal of Atoms, and therefore would not be interacting with Electrons due to the constraining energies, nevertheless Time+Space+Photons go hand in hand, the THREE Quantities are needed for the first movements of matter from one location to the next, take any one of these away and you would not have any of the other Two, the three are as ONE!





all my own work of course :yh_whistl:yh_liar





i was expecting more input from MR spock umm very intriguing


Oh thats just kinda creationists or something, probably trying to say that there was no big bang, and that Planet Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and you know, adam and eve, the ark, etc etc. They are always at it.

Galbally;674910 wrote: Oh thats just kinda creationists or something, probably trying to say that there was no big bang, and that Planet Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and you know, adam and eve, the ark, etc etc. They are always at it.
Dang Gally and I had thought Jimbo had it all cleared up for me.:rolleyes:

Galbally;674910 wrote: Oh thats just kinda creationists or something, probably trying to say that there was no big bang, and that Planet Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and you know, adam and eve, the ark, etc etc. They are always at it.






Why isn't the answer to "before the big bang" question "some sort of an out-of-equilibrium system " (a disequilibrium state, for short)?

Probably because that makes no sense as written. Sorry, no offense intended, but you have to clarify that statement. The current universe is an 'out of equilibrium system'. When it reaches equilibrium, one way or the other, all life will cease to exist.

there could have been something before...like, dare i say, other universes? but thats not even science thats pure speculation and to us they might as well not even exist because they are in no way connected with our universe? do you agree self Adjoint?

That's absolutely correct. If there were preceding universes, or multiple co-existing ones, they would have no correlation to ours. Time there could pass billions of times faster or slower in relation to physical processes than it does here, but it doesn't matter because our time is entirely dependent upon the conditions in this universe.

consecutive measurements by the observer are more effective in marking physical change than tallying time alone.

Thanks for the translation, Loren. I've had (surprise, surprise) more than a couple of beers, and couldn't make heads nor tails of your first post. Reduced to a common-sense statement like this, it's perfectly agreeable.

YEAH. RIGHT.

Once upon a time there was an after with no 'before'.

Do you realize how silly that is?

Not half as silly as supposing that some supernatural being created it all. As a counter argument, how could there be a 'before' without an 'after'?





:D:D:-6 now do you see what i mean

jimbo;674949 wrote: Why isn't the answer to "before the big bang" question "some sort of an out-of-equilibrium system " (a disequilibrium state, for short)?

Probably because that makes no sense as written. Sorry, no offense intended, but you have to clarify that statement. The current universe is an 'out of equilibrium system'. When it reaches equilibrium, one way or the other, all life will cease to exist.

there could have been something before...like, dare i say, other universes? but thats not even science thats pure speculation and to us they might as well not even exist because they are in no way connected with our universe? do you agree self Adjoint?

That's absolutely correct. If there were preceding universes, or multiple co-existing ones, they would have no correlation to ours. Time there could pass billions of times faster or slower in relation to physical processes than it does here, but it doesn't matter because our time is entirely dependent upon the conditions in this universe.

consecutive measurements by the observer are more effective in marking physical change than tallying time alone.

Thanks for the translation, Loren. I've had (surprise, surprise) more than a couple of beers, and couldn't make heads nor tails of your first post. Reduced to a common-sense statement like this, it's perfectly agreeable.

YEAH. RIGHT.

Once upon a time there was an after with no 'before'.

Do you realize how silly that is?

Not half as silly as supposing that some supernatural being created it all. As a counter argument, how could there be a 'before' without an 'after'?





:D:D:-6 now do you see what i mean


Oh I do, but these people are just unable to undertand that time as a physical parameter, and the "time" that we percieve ub our minds are not completely the same thing, (its all a bit of mystery to be honest, i.e. we don't understand everything, which is as it should be). But thats why human understanding of these things tends to break down at a certain point, its of course impossible for us to imagine a situation where there is no time, its just outside of our understanding, but thats our limitation, not reality's. You see all of this stuff is why, in high end physics, its safer to stick to maths rather than using alegorys to describe things that don't relate to any of our normal experiences. I know that sounds maddeningly reasonable, still.

Here's something interesting to add to your debate. 1,750,000 man made bridge connecting India and Sri Lanka. :-2

http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/ancient/nasa.htm