Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Before that there was nothing

*possibly as far as we could ever discern.

 

[sealybobo]

We have so much to learn. I don't think killing off all science funding and accepting a 2,000 year old religion is going to help us find the answers to these questions either.

I just saw what it will take to send a submarine to Europa. It would be the greatest challenge and accomplishment. Conservatives don’t want us to find life elsewhere because it will mean life happens everywhere conditions are right.

The tardigrades is the toughest thing we know and it couldn’t survive at the bottom of Europa so anything living on the bottom of Europa would be really tough.

 

[toobfreak]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

Hawking's an ass that has already been proven wrong before. He mainly gets a free ride because of his disability because he promotes public interest in the field..

Time is a function of space-time, and without space you cannot have time since time is an extension of space. To say that time never began (was always there) is the same as saying that space was always there, which violates every accepted principle of the creation of the universe, that it all expanded from a point of creation.

Before the Big Bang, there was no space for time to occur in, in any conventional reference that we can know. Whatever occurred to spark creation came from another plane, another dimension, and no one, not even Hawking understands it, much less can say what boundaries were and were not there. It's all just a big guess.

 

[K9Buck]

Conservatives don’t want us to find life elsewhere because it will mean life happens everywhere conditions are right.

You know there are conservative atheists, right?

 

[Darkwind]

Absurd. The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking. Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.

Are you sure? Can you touch it?

Yes, and so can you. Just wait for it.

 

[gtopa1]

Before that there was nothing

*possibly as far as we could ever discern.

So how do you define "nothing"?

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

Hawking's an ass that has already been proven wrong before. He mainly gets a free ride because of his disability because he promotes public interest in the field..

Time is a function of space-time, and without space you cannot have time since time is an extension of space. To say that time never began (was always there) is the same as saying that space was always there, which violates every accepted principle of the creation of the universe, that it all expanded from a point of creation.

Before the Big Bang, there was no space for time to occur in, in any conventional reference that we can know. Whatever occurred to spark creation came from another plane, another dimension, and no one, not even Hawking understands it, much less can say what boundaries were and were not there. It's all just a big guess.

Can you have time in a vacuum?

Greg

 

[sealybobo]

Conservatives don’t want us to find life elsewhere because it will mean life happens everywhere conditions are right.

You know there are conservative atheists, right?

Not really. Moderate maybe

 

[OZman]

 

[Indeependent]

The fact is that Hawking needs someone to feed him and wipe his rear end.
He’s making less per statement these days so he makes a statement every 6 months or so to pay his nurse.

 

[Indeependent]

Who cares???

Greg

This is the Science and Technology board. If you don't care about developments in science why do you come here to troll.

A theory is not an advancement.

 

[Indeependent]

There is a plethora of evidence that the universe had a beginning and ZERO evidence that it is eternal.

But here's whereyou are missing the point:

It seems to have had a beginning to us observers, confined inside this instance of a universe. But , just because it appears so to us does not make it so. Hawking is referring to an asymptotic approach to the beginning of time, if one travels backwards in time. This is something that is generally agreed upon by all physicists. The new info here (for the layman) is that the issue of no true beginning/ppearance of beginning has been mathematically solved, with the solution relying on the boundlessness of time.

“Mathematically solved”
Thanks for proving you didn’t read the article.
It states explicitly there is no proof for the theory.

 

[deanrd]

Absurd. The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking. Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.

Are you sure? Can you touch it?

What else exists you can’t touch?

 

[Windparadox]

So how do you define "nothing"?Greg

`
Nothing is the absence of anything. Even a vacuum is something. Nothing means No time/space, No gravity, No electromagnetic or nuclear strong/weak force. It's impossible to even image "nothing."

 

[toobfreak]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

Hawking's an ass that has already been proven wrong before. He mainly gets a free ride because of his disability because he promotes public interest in the field..

Time is a function of space-time, and without space you cannot have time since time is an extension of space. To say that time never began (was always there) is the same as saying that space was always there, which violates every accepted principle of the creation of the universe, that it all expanded from a point of creation.

Before the Big Bang, there was no space for time to occur in, in any conventional reference that we can know. Whatever occurred to spark creation came from another plane, another dimension, and no one, not even Hawking understands it, much less can say what boundaries were and were not there. It's all just a big guess.

Can you have time in a vacuum?

Greg

Of course! Why wouldn't you? For one thing, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. Even the vacuum of deep space has particles and energies passing through it. And a vacuum occupies space. A vacuum is an area of space where particle density is very low. It has a point in space where it begins and ends. A point where it is contained. And a point in time where it started occurring and at some point will be interrupted. If something occurs in space, it occurs in time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To say that time never began (was always there) is the same as saying that space was always there, which violates every accepted principle of the creation of the universe

100%wrong, and Hawkings's entire point is that it vilates the conditions og the iniverse to claim there was a beginning, in our frame.

Thanks for proving you didn’t read the article.
It states explicitly there is no proof for the theory.

That was, of course, referring to experimental proof. So settle down.

 

[Indeependent]

To say that time never began (was always there) is the same as saying that space was always there, which violates every accepted principle of the creation of the universe

100%wrong, and Hawkings's entire point is that it vilates the conditions og the iniverse to claim there was a beginning, in our frame.

Thanks for proving you didn’t read the article.
It states explicitly there is no proof for the theory.

That was, of course, referring to experimental proof. So settle down.

You jumped the gun and screwed yourself.
A simple concession will set everything right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You jumped the gun and screwed yourself.

I did not. What I said was accurate, and you are confused.

 

[Indeependent]

You jumped the gun and screwed yourself.

I did not. What I said was accurate, and you are confused.

Bullshit.
You said the article said it's now provable not expecting anyone here to actually read it.
I read it and it says there's no mathematical...you're full of shit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said the article said it's now provable

That is not at all what I said. I said mathematical solutions have been found. And that is accurate; they have.

I read it and it says there's no mathematical

Apparently you didn't read carefully enough, because the article actually says there is no "raw physics" to support the idea, which is a reference to experimental evidence.