What existed before time and space?

[Likvid]

again ? !

by the way, I've got a video of what I told. It's from BBC 2's Horizon series, transmitted in 2004.........

I rest my case.

Actually i think it's the same science show i saw about the edge of our galaxy where they said we need to travel faster than light and have enormous power to force the barriers which surrounds our galaxy.

They said the galaxies could be taken as bubbles and to travel between the bubbles needs what i explained above.

Funny thing they said is that we are all prisoners in our galaxy until we can travel faster than light.

Just because the Physics laws says something it doesn't mean it's the end and that's it.

It's like saying we developed this hacker proof systems and it's impossible to hack into or this new algorithm that is impossible.

 

[Likvid]

......er, wozzat? Hang on, let me have a shower and some breakfast ........

........ that's better.

As PaulR says, there was no "time" before the universe (Hawking also has a topological theory that there's no "beginning", since the topology becomes different around the big band "event").

Time is a property OF the universe - closely tied up with thermodynamics, entropy, statistical mechanics, etc - and probably would not otherwise exist. It is certainly not something "imposed from outside".

(If you think you can "imagine" a completely empty universe - but with time still passing - then think again, what's the flaw here?).

Don't forget, what you humans call time (oops!) is entirely subjective, clocks tick at different rates for observers in relative motion (special relativity).

There's also the possibility that subjective time is entirely a "human construct", ie, Kant's "transcendental" pre-condition for any perceptions at all to take place!

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm .
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/entropy.html .

http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm#H4 .
For Kant more generally, see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08603a.htm .

(Note, the Catholic Encyclopedia is an excellent general reference on philosophers, probably the best such on The Web - for quick browsing - although far more "in depth" articles exist on more specialist sites!)

That is actually wrong, there is no time in Universe, time was invented by humans so we could relate to day and night.

Time has no meaning in space.

 

[Saturlight]

Saturlight, if that made sense to you I think you must be as mad as me!

It did make sense, it was just his description of "nothingness" which struck a cord...because "nothingness" is kind of tangible.

Coz there's nothing in my bank.:-omg

 

[JTA]

That is actually wrong, there is no time in Universe, time was invented by humans so we could relate to day and night.
Time has no meaning in space.

Time as we use it, yes, but time is only a measurement of "evolution". Things do not stand still in the universe (well, sometimes they do, depinding on your speed, but I'm not gonna start another discussion about this), things evolve, usually from something simple into something more complex. This evolution is universally present, and can be regarded as "time". It's not a dimension, so you can't progress foreward or backward, but it can be measured by using an appropriate reference, just as we can measure intelligence or other characteristics of objects.

so yes, as everything in the universe evolves, and this can be measured, time does have meaning in space, if you choose an appropriate reference to measure it. That in turn needs some degree of intelligence which is hard to come by in the universe nowadays O-Ha

 

[spiney]

sigh ... i've explained what time is in physics, how it actually comes about, what causes it, but nobody's the least bit interested.

As for the "barrier", pure fantasy and drivel. There is no such thing, in fact nothing could exist to fulfull that description. Because there's nothing "outside" the universe. But, none of you is the slightest bit interested in physics, science, the real world, etc.

A huge pity. It's only when you know what's what, that real "what if" speculation can then begin. For example, Freeman Dyson says some fascinating things .....

I'll just point out that the human time sense is purely subjective, and Kant's explanation may well be correct. However, of course, what exists in the space-time of special relativity is "events", and duration has to be defined from these ..... which you can find out in any elementary exposition .... but of course, you lot wish only to talk drivel!

 

[Saturlight]

Yeah, but Spiney, m8, we all could be wrong, and this "universe" we call it, could just be a speck of dust in another dimension, which is much more vast than and complex than we could ever really imagine.

So, when you take into view, we as "man", after all these millions of years have only ever visited the moon, then really we cannot be "certain" about anything.

Proof in the eating is this new planet they discovered, and thus I think it was Pluto was downgraded to a star.

We are incapable of understanding only 1% of what is really out there.

 

[spiney]

Saturlight, you're getting worse .......

we know quite a lot, including what exists at the furthest away parts of the universe, where the laws of physics are same as here!

A star is a large ball of hydrogen, slowly undergoing nuclear fusion into helium, which Pluto is several million times too small for, no way it's a star (I think u mean asteroid).

Speculation has to accept known facts as a starting point, you can't just "make up anything you want" ......

To say "we might be a speck of dust in anther dimension" sounds poetic, but it's just gibberish! ("to see infinity in a grain of sand" ........).

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/blake/to_see_world.html .

Indeed, Haldane (or was it Eddington, or Bernal?) said " ..... the universe is stranger than we CAN imagine .......", but they were all top scientists with absolute understanding of their own subjects, they weren't discussing fantasies ......

(as a matter of logic, ok, yes it's true we can never be absolutely certain of anything, I'll concede that! Scientific theories can never be proved right, they can only ever be proved wrong!
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html .
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ .).

 

[Saturlight]

I am getting worse.

 

[Saturlight]

By the way, ignorance is intelligence in some parts of the world. In olden days, the villiage idiot was once seen as a man of great wisdom and truth.

 

[spiney]

Which explains most of politics, but none of physics.

 

[dig deep]

Funny

Who told U that space and time exist ?

and who said that it was a BIG bang ?

and why shouldn´t it go on and on .....

We, the apes with the bigger brain, think we can handle whatever comes in our way



Me, if U ask, don´t believe in no Big Bang I read the book !

 

[spiney]

And what book would that be?

 

[BGonaSTICK]

I think the Big Bang was a huge hoax. I think there are little green aliens with a ripped brown paper bag hiding behind a frozen chunk of turd somewhere laughing their butts off.

One day scientists will get the joke, and we'll all have a good laugh about it over a beer.

 

[Saturlight]

Funny

Who told U that space and time exist ?

and who said that it was a BIG bang ?

and why shouldn´t it go on and on .....

Completely correct. Scientists told us there was space, and time, and a Big Gang Bang.

But what do they know? They never found that star/planet/mass thing until a month ago!!