In the name of Philosophy...

I believe that time began when everything began (i.e. the big bang) and since nobody was around during the big bang, time doesn't really have a beginning that we know of.

As for the whole space concept, I like the whole asteriods concept but I believe that there are more universes out there, thus our universe is finite. But not like alternate universes or any of that crap, just like a different universe, with it's own different rules and laws of physics. Of course I can't prove any of this and I am just an eighteen year old who hasn't graduated from high school yet so what the hell do I know?

Well, what was there before the big bang?
And as far as your space arguemnt, if there are other universes(I would still consider them all part of one universe, maybe you could call it a mega-universe or something) there can't be an infinite number of them. So what is outside of them?

[QUOTE=sellOut]Well, what was there before the big bang?
And as far as your space arguemnt, if there are other universes(I would still consider them all part of one universe, maybe you could call it a mega-universe or something) there can't be an infinite number of them. So what is outside of them?[/QUOTE]

From what Science has given us, the big bang was probably caused by some mega super nova by some some ungodly massive star. Asuuming this is true, it could be possible that there were other ungodly massive stars that went super nova. If that's true then there are other univiverses.

As for drawing the line between universes, or if it is just one, I don't know. I just like to think that there are more. That way there will be more for us to explore. Besides, thinkl of all the different laws of physics in other universes. It would be fucking awesome.

Time is a man made concept

and Space i like to imagine the universe as some huge thing 'exhaling', with space rushing outwards to infinite but at some point the universe will begin to 'inhale' and collapse back on itself for another big bang, only to retry this whole experiment again

Yeah, I've always liked that theory of the expanding and contracting of the universe, that the cycle repeats over and over.

[QUOTE=sellOut]Well, what was there before the big bang?
And as far as your space arguemnt, if there are other universes(I would still consider them all part of one universe, maybe you could call it a mega-universe or something) there can't be an infinite number of them. So what is outside of them?[/QUOTE]

You should look into string theory. Look into Brian Greene and Michio Kaku. They both address that as well as time. As far as philosophy goes, post modern philosphy shifted from system builders more toward existentialism with the metaphysics largely being absorbed by theoretical physics.

Going back you could try Descartes and Spinoza for systematized pictures of the universe.

Eastern Philosophies have had more to offer traditionally as has Kabbalah.

Check out a book called The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Capra. Also a movie called Mindwalk that he wrote.

To me, the Big Bang seems like divine intevention. Like, this is the one moment where God just said the word or sneezed or farted or something and from all the energy of that almighty fart the universe occured. Cause you know, if mass can be created with enough energy, then all we need is energy.

Time is a measurement designed by humans.

There really is no ‘beginning’ that we’ll comprehend. Space/Universe is too large for humans to comprehend. We do not have the capability to ever completely understand it or comprehend what it's about. The biggest problem, time. We do not live long enough, and let's face it, have barely existed on this planet compared to species like the dinosaurs who lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Another problem is that when we look into the skies, we see things as they were millions if not billions of years ago, depending on when that light left wherever it’s from. We are looking at a sky of stars where most do not actually exist anymore, we’re just seeing light that has been travelling all that time to reach us. See the problem with time here?!

As for the god part, well I’m a firm unbeliever in all of that, as god/religion are concepts developed by humans so they wouldn’t be so scared of the world around them.

True, humans did design the method that we use to tell time, but we didn't design time itself. Changes in the universe over time, the night and day cycle on the planets, they would exist without us.
And you're right Decoy, we'll never be able to comprehend a beginning of time since no one was there to witness it. For that matter, how can we believe any past events unless we were there to witness it ourselves. Hell, I still think the world may be flat ... but thats another issue entirely.

One could argue that the size of the universe issue could be resolved at some point. It is either infinite or finite, its just beyond our current limitations.

i think a bigger question would be, if you had the answers to all the questions about time and space, how would having those answers effect anything about anything.

"ok, so the universe is defintiely finite, now to go pay my car insurance bill"

[QUOTE=karbunkle]i think a bigger question would be, if you had the answers to all the questions about time and space, how would having those answers effect anything about anything.

"ok, so the universe is defintiely finite, now to go pay my car insurance bill"[/QUOTE]

Yeah, thats why I said "But does any of this really matter? No. "... I just wanted to see what other people thought on this... I gotta stop starting every reply with one word followed by a comma... its starting to annoy me... I have issues. Sadly, my life is so boring, issues like this are my biggest problem. Anyone here selling lives?

just for anyone thats remotely interested tonight on PBS
Nova will be on String Theory and other attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics

I think we're assuming that these things are knowable. (no I did not make up that word)

Time, by it's own virtue, does not necessitate a beginning for itself. We measure things with time, how then could we measure the beginning of time. You cannot measure something with itself because it is what it is. If I have a yardstick it is a yardstick. I cannot measure it any more than I can say it is a yardstick, and by it's own virtue it is one yard long. But that does not mean I have measured it, I have only named it. Time is time.

Or think about it this way, if I ask you "How fast are you going?", you look at your speedometer. the answer is being measured in Miles (or kilometers) per hour. This measure has only to do with speed, not location. If I ask you "where are we?" you look at your map. You can measure distance and relate it to your map, but you cannot judge speed based on a map. The map serves one purpose, and the speedometer serves another. They measure things outside of themselves. I do not ask "How fast is my speedometer?" unless I actually mean "How fast is it moving, because it is attached to the rest of my car." Now I may ask, "Where is my map?" but the answer to that question isn't on the map, or what use would the map be? Once I've found it I no longer need it. The map helps me find my way, not find itself.

Time, therefore, needs another thing to quantify it. It cannot be measured by itself, nor can it be related to in it's own terms.

Space is a bit trickier. Since it is impossible to measure space beyond what can see or reach with radio signals, this is much more theoretical. Theoretical because it is still a physical thing, unlike time, which is an abstract measure that is not (if you buy into general and special relativity) even constant.

Space appears to be expanding to scientists. whether that expansion is accelarating or slowing is debatable. The thing itself, space, however, is just that... empty space. What could be beyond space if space ran out? Nothing you say? But isn't that what space is... a vacuum of nothing? I say space is infinite because it is all that's is left when all other matter is removed.

so back to time. Does it need a beginning to be what it is? Time, since it is a concept that we cannot alter, only measure, can only have had a "beginning" in a theoretical sense when man first became aware of it. That's the beginning. Like the beginning of imagination. If you believe in evolution, you could easily imagine what life may have been like before man had developed an imagination, but that doesn't mark the beginning of imaginaiton. Imaginaiton had it's beginning when man started using it.

Same with time. Nasa can now use old star charts to rewind "time" in their model universe to billions of years ago, but that doesn't mean their getting closer to the beginning of time. It also does not mean that they arent' though.. does it?

Imaginaiton is a concept that man may have developed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't real before we realized it. in this case, we would suggest that it was always there only we couln't graps it, much like time. If we developed a sense of time in the same way, then it must have always been there and needed only to be discovered, or realized.

so I say time has no beginning because it needs no beginning. it is an abstract measure of a concept put into a tangible thing in the form of clocks and watches, but these are only time pieces, not time itself. time is infinite in that sense, and finite (in a human way) insomuch as we have only been aware of it for so long. (again, we've been aware of it for an [B]amount of time[/B]... but this does not mark a real beginning)

[QUOTE=ireLocus]I think we're assuming that these things are knowable. (no I did not make up that word)

Time, by it's own virtue, does not necessitate a beginning for itself. We measure things with time, how then could we measure the beginning of time. You cannot measure something with itself because it is what it is. If I have a yardstick it is a yardstick. I cannot measure it any more than I can say it is a yardstick, and by it's own virtue it is one yard long. But that does not mean I have measured it, I have only named it. Time is time.

Or think about it this way, if I ask you "How fast are you going?", you look at your speedometer. the answer is being measured in Miles (or kilometers) per hour. This measure has only to do with speed, not location. If I ask you "where are we?" you look at your map. You can measure distance and relate it to your map, but you cannot judge speed based on a map. The map serves one purpose, and the speedometer serves another. They measure things outside of themselves. I do not ask "How fast is my speedometer?" unless I actually mean "How fast is it moving, because it is attached to the rest of my car." Now I may ask, "Where is my map?" but the answer to that question isn't on the map, or what use would the map be? Once I've found it I no longer need it. The map helps me find my way, not find itself.

Time, therefore, needs another thing to quantify it. It cannot be measured by itself, nor can it be related to in it's own terms.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that makes sense...I think.

[QUOTE=Draco Delacroix]Yes, that makes sense...I think.[/QUOTE]

why thank you, dragon of the cross.

Holy macarolly you said a fuck ton.
I'm not trying to get an answer to "How did time begin" or "What size or shape is the universe". The problem that I have with time and space is that they can not logically be finite or infinite. Theoretically, you can't have an infinite chain of events (I'll use events in place of time, since you don't like the use of the word time) that have lead up to this point. And you can't have a starting point. If there was a starting poin(like the big bang) then what was there before it? What caused the big bang?

And to go off subject for a moment, I would like to ask why we say the "finite" part of "infinite" diferent from the way we say "finite" by itself. The same goes for "thesis" and "antithesis". When I have the power too, I'm going to change these silly parts of the English language as well as many others.

its the same with 'dis-'
whos ever been combobulated or illusioned ?

Time does not exist in the same sense that an apple exists. It is a series of events strung together by the human mind. We experience things in a consecutive order and so our minds assign something like a time-stamp to each event.
The universe may or may not be infinite. This depends on the amount of dark matter in the universe. If there is enough to cause the universe to start collapsing after it has stetched itself out, it is a "closed" universe. If it is infiinite (ie forever expanding) it is an "open" universe. This means there is not enough dark matter to keep the universe from continuing to expand.

[QUOTE=stoyan]To me, the Big Bang seems like divine intevention. Like, this is the one moment where God just said the word or sneezed or farted or something and from all the energy of that almighty fart the universe occured. Cause you know, if mass can be created with enough energy, then all we need is energy.[/QUOTE]

The big bang theory was originaly hypothesized by a priest or some religious guy.

[QUOTE=DecoyRobot]As for the god part, well I’m a firm unbeliever in all of that, as god/religion are concepts developed by humans so they wouldn’t be so scared of the world around them.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with this, but also don't forget, the church's main goal is to take your money!!

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so energy itself must be infinite. Anyway infinity is not a concept humans can understand.

If the universe is infinite, there cannot be a top speed, shortest amount of time, or lowest temperature. BUT if there are these things like the speed of light, [URL=http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae598.cfm]Plank's time[/URL], 0 deg K, the universe MUST be finite, otherwise shouldn't everything be infinite.

One thing that I really like is that .99 repeating is equal to 1, because 1/3(1/3= .33 repeating) + 1/3 +1/3 = 1. That kind of goes against the you can never get there theory. 1/2 the distance, then 1/2 the distance, then half the distance......

[QUOTE=bassplr19]

One thing that I really like is that .99 repeating is equal to 1, because 1/3(1/3= .33 repeating) + 1/3 +1/3 = 1. That kind of goes against the you can never get there theory. 1/2 the distance, then 1/2 the distance, then half the distance......[/QUOTE]
Thsi si something that pre-Socrate philosopher Xeno of Elea was debating about 2500+ years ago when he argued that space was infinitelt divisible and movement itself was not possible as such but was instead an illusion, there being only one, immutable reality.

Xeno was actually pointing out that over reliance on logic can be just as stupid as being illogical. He didnt actually believe in the paradox he created. Plus, it has been solved since then. I havent been able to figure out what the solution [I]means [/I] but its in Bertrand Russel's Wisdom of the West.

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]Xeno was actually pointing out that over reliance on logic can be just as stupid as being illogical. He didnt actually believe in the paradox he created. Plus, it has been solved since then. I havent been able to figure out what the solution [I]means [/I] but its in Bertrand Russel's Wisdom of the West.[/QUOTE]

The solution was calculus.