I don't agree with him though, he's just lazy.

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

Then again, obviously shit was going down before the explosion.

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

---

The question is whether or not "time" is relavent in a "still" universe. If everything down to the electrons and protons are frozen in place, if you have absolute zero, is there time.

Then again, obviously shit was going down before the explosion.

---

I'd say that if all subatomic particles were frozen at absolute zero, time would kind of in a way cease to exist, although not fully I guess.  Do you believe in the theory of multiverses?  Have you read the book "The Tenth Dimension?"  You'd probably like it.

-------
These are the stakes.
To make a world in which all God's children can live.
We must either love each other, or go into the dark.
We must...love each other...or we must die. -LBJ

Is there a difference? These are the real questions that need to be asked.

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

Would you have nothing? What then, of the big bang theory and Hawking's idea that what was going on 'before it' is irrelevant? Nothing, everything we need to know is probably centered on what happened before, and not what happened after.

Post edited at 6:51 pm on June 10, 2008 by medjai

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

---

Of course, I'm pretty sure that if you freeze an atom's substructure, it's no longer a meaningful piece of matter. So wouldn't space disappear as well?

Would you have nothing? What then, of the big bang theory and Hawking's idea that what was going on 'before it' is irrelevant? Nothing, everything we need to know is probably centered on what happened before, and not what happened after.

---

While your ideas are good ones, I have a simple question.

How could it be that Nothing could move through time. How would it be possible for time to exist with nothing to exist through time? [note, I don't mean time is there and it is empty space, I mean there IS no space for time to exist in, so how could time then flow?]

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

My point is that this was obviously not the state of the universe before the big bang, because if it were, the big bang couldn't have occured.

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

---

If everything was legitimately motionless, there would be no space, so the question is whether or not time transcends space.

My point is that this was obviously not the state of the universe before the big bang, because if it were, the big bang couldn't have occured.

---

I'm sure you know that M-theory and String Theory are developing now, and are constantly gaining credibility as possibly applicable science. If I am correct in assuming that you are versed in these fields to SOME extent, then I should also be correct in assuming you know about the "Brane theory" alluding to multiple dimensional/universal planes that resemble --in action-- a membrane. One that allows the flow of energy to and from said branes.

In this way, a collision --that might take 1x10^30 light years to happen again-- between branes might very well inject energy into an otherwise "empty dimension". some form of planar membrane that contained zero energy, and which later exploded furiously with the energy of the other brane.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

I was reading a brief history of time and hawking said that any time before the big bang occurred is irrelevant, and I'm not really sure why this is. Anyone care to explain?  

---

Because it cannot have any observable consequences, so you might just as well cut it out of the theory by the principle of economy and that the question is incoherent. Asking what happened "before" the big bang is as incoherent as asking what is north of the north pole.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Tru7h004 at 4:35 am on June 11, 2008

---

I was reading a brief history of time and hawking said that any time before the big bang occurred is irrelevant, and I'm not really sure why this is. Anyone care to explain?  

---

Because it cannot have any observable consequences, so you might just as well cut it out of the theory by the principle of economy and that the question is incoherent. Asking what happened "before" the big bang is as incoherent as asking what is north of the north pole.

---

---

If everything was legitimately motionless, there would be no space, so the question is whether or not time transcends space.

My point is that this was obviously not the state of the universe before the big bang, because if it were, the big bang couldn't have occured.

---

I like your strong opinions Jared.  Anyway, do you think that time transcends space?  There's this one book I've been meaning to buy after seeing a VERY detailed preview of multiple dimensions online.  It's called something like Inside the Tenth Dimension.  I think it might talk about some of that time/space/transcendence stuff.

Have you read the book?

-------
These are the stakes.
To make a world in which all God's children can live.
We must either love each other, or go into the dark.
We must...love each other...or we must die. -LBJ

---

Do you think space and time are real, or just ingredients in our models?

---