I am sure you have all heard the recent news about the study which may possibly consign Einstein's physics to the dustbin.

Faster than Light - A new study may upend Einstein.

http://jdcwitherton.com/2011/10/04/faster-than-liught-a-new-study-may-upend-einstein/

Sometimes the importance of a scientist's name and the enormity of his works persuade people into accepting ideas which on very close logical reflection, they ought to have questioned. I am bringing this up because I have had endless arguments on this forum as to the true nature of time, notably with thehomer, Kag, and Viaro i think. Science has become such a creed that some persons (without realizing it) actually ignore its biggest principle - frontiers of new knowledge can be broken every day.

The specific reason i bring this up is that in the discussions we have had about the nature of time, I have consistently held time to be different from that which is imagined by current scientific thinking.

I had said to KAG, I believe, regarding Einstein's ideas -

Deep Sight:

^^^^ @ KAG - What do you say to the following suggestions -

1. That the time you refer to as being created by the Big slam simply refers to measurable time as per the finite human mind? And not the totality of time itself, which is infinite, and cannot cease to be.

2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big slam is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "slam" that occurs is a slam within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the slam that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

3. Want to change your understanding of time? Uncle Einstein was only human you know, and yes, i know the enormity of the scientific thinking that i am up against.

You have still not been able to answer this question:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Because so long as the universe is able to expand, then there must be a space for it to expand into, no?

Thus that space was already there before the big slam, no?

Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.

I am bold enough.

Are you.

So fellas, question is - does the new experiment cast any new light on the subjects we have discussed in relation to time and the universe?

Referred discussions -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-577313.0.html (with thehomer)

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-328837.0.html (with KAG)

@deepsight
The 'faster than light' theory is not yet conclusive. As at now it is only a probability,so it's too early to start taking a position. Having said that I believe as eistein said we know less than 0.01% about the physical universe, there is always something new to learn/ discover.

Pastor Kun:

@deepsight
The 'faster than light' theory is not yet conclusive.

I am aware of that. That's why i underlined the words "may possibly" in my OP.

Question is, now that the possibility has been raised, and preliminary experiments are pointing in that direction, can we question some of the old assumptions regarding the "scfientific" nature of time.

I am sorry then, I am browsing with my phone and underlined or bolded items are not indicated on the mobile site.

Yes by all means the scientific nature or even the human perception of time can be queried given new knowledge available to scientists. We might then find a way to go back in time and verify a lot of things for ourselves

In time ,we will abandon most of our assumptions about the origin and workings of the universe.

To which I replied:


What is this "totality of time itself, which is infinite, etc", of which you speak? Where is the evidence or data for it? Time may very well be a construct of the human mind, but as it stands the evidence points to something existing independent of views and, instead, dependent on space.

2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big slam is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "slam" that occurs is a slam within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the slam that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

Yawn. I wrote this earlier as a response to you:

"Not quite. If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen.

To be clear, the reference point of time as we know it is this universe, and is affected by the big slam because as far can be told right now, we discover Planck time and then "no time" as we head backwards. Essentially, time and space are bound together."

In any case, space is inseparable from our universe. The universe wouldn't be expanding into space. If there is anything beyond our universe, it would be branes, not space.

3. Want to change your understanding of time? Uncle Einstein was only human you know, and yes, i know the enormity of the scientific thinking that i am up against.

If I'm given good reason to change my understanding, then yes. SO far all you've offered are gross misunderstanding and homilies. I think I'll stick with the science community and the evidence on this one.

You have still not been able to answer this question:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Because so long as the universe is able to expand, then there must be a space for it to expand into, no?

Thus that space was already there before the big slam, no?

Yeah, I understand that it's easier to debate someone when you don't bother to read what they wrote, but it's just bad form to make it so plain. Here's the response I wrote earlier. You can read it now:

"The universe is probably not expanding into anything. If the universe is all there is, [then] it is just expanding and space is derivative of the expansion within the universe. There would be nothing outside of the universe."

Just so you understand, no, there doesn't have to be a space into which it has to expand. Space itself is caused by the expansion of the universe. It is within the universe.

Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.

Let's. I say stars are cause by pixie dust. What say you? Elves?

I am bold enough.

Are you.

I'm bold enough to at least engage with what you write and not ignore things - especially the most egregious ones - you have written. Are you bold enough to actually understand the science and concepts that at play here? This is not just "let's spite 'Einstein and co', spout rubbish, pat ourselves and feel we've accomplished a day's work". You can start by presenting a concrete argument with evidence for an infinite, extra-universe "totality of time", or whatever.

^ Amazingly, or perhaps not amazingly, you regugitated your former response completely ignoring that which is raised in this thread: namely the fact that there is a possible change in the science involved. Please do not tell me that the co-relation with the nature of time escapes you.

Deep Sight:

^ Amazingly, or perhaps not amazingly, you regugitated your former response completely ignoring that which is raised in this thread: namely the fact that there is a possible change in the science involved. Please do not tell me that the co-relation with the nature of time escapes you.

Look, you started the thread with the inclusion of a thread in which you discussed, so as to pretend, or seemingly imply, that you had raised and debated coherently the subject of Einstein's theories and time; with this new finding- if verified - vindicating you. Not so. That's why I posted my response to the part you quoted.

Note that at no point did you present any evidence. Worse, in fact, you didn't even define any terms you introduced. You pretty much ducked around and engaged (and it has become a theme) in empty rhetoric. That's why I reposted my response in its entirety.

I'll address the neutrino subject in the next post

Deep Sight:

So fellas, question is - does the new experiment cast any new light on the subjects we have discussed in relation to time and the universe?

If verified, it won't change what we know of time. At least, I don't see how it could. It might not even affect Einstein's theory of relativity, especially if it is discovered that neutrinos can behave like, or even become, tachyons. That's my initial instinct, anyway.

KAG:

If verified, it won't change what we know of time. At least, I don't see how it could. It might not even affect Einstein's theory of relativity, especially if it is discovered that neutrinos can behave like, or even become, tachyons. That's my initial instinct, anyway.

It will help people see that scientific terms are not exactly the same as the lay man’s terms. I have said this many times, that often scientific terms should not be viewed in the ordinary sense. Everybody knows what “time”; the “time” that Deep sight is talking about; the “time” that everybody intuitively knows, but very difficult to put in words. This “time” is what I refer as to “the real time” or “the lay man’s time” But when science talks about “time” they are not talking about the layman’s time or the real time.

Of course every rational person knows that the idea that time was born at the big slam is not possible in view of the real “time” or the lay man’s time. What science calls time is simply a dimension of motion, or a derivative of motion; a derivative of the speed of light to be more exact. Scientific time is referenced to the speed of light because at that time light was the fastest thing the scientist can conceive of.

Hence if anything moves at the speed of light, time becomes stand still in respect to that thing. Just as when two cars move at the same speed, they appear standing still to each other. And consequently, if anything can move beyond the speed of light, that thing will be time-traveling because it’s moving faster than time, i.e. moving backward in time.

The fact some things can move beyond the speed of light (a fact that I strongly believe that will soon be confirmed by science) will only show people that scientific time is different from real time. Because such particles, which can move faster than the speed of light, scientifically speaking, are moving backward in time. Imagine two cars “A” and “B” in motion, if car “A” speeds faster than the “B”, it will appear as if car “B” is moving backwards; judging from the motion frame of car “A”.

Real time, intuitive time, or the lay man’s time, I believe is what Deep sight has been talking about, which obviously cannot be born at the slam. This time, real time can be defined as the continuum onto which events happen. This time existed before the big slam, indeed the big bag is just an event that happened within it. Only that the big slam commenced the physical time or the scientific time which scientist reference with the speed of light.

People keep trying to marry scientific concepts with ordinary concepts. These ordinary concepts like “time”, “work” and etc. existed before modern science. Modern science only borrowed these terms to define scientific concepts.

Deep sight’s notion of time is right. He is talking about the real time, the lay man’s time. Posters are refuting his argument with the scientific concept of time which is only limited to the physical, i.e. the duration of physical events. This scientific concept of time is referenced to the speed of light because up till now “light” is the fastest physical phenomenon that science has observed. I will give an analogy: Deep sight is talking about motion in general, posters are refuting his argument by talking about the motion of a particular car. Of course just as motion is not limited to a particular car, time is not limited to this our particular universe. If there are other universes, their time frames will be different. And of course the motion of a particular car is born the minute the car started moving, yet the car itself is on earth which is in turn in motion; by the same token, the speed or duration of events (which science calls time) in our universe was born with the big slam; but even the big slam is an event which occurred in a lager time frame.

But I think every good scientist knows that the concept of time is not limited the scientific time. Science creates models that help them visualize and represent certain phenomena in numbers so that they can be solved mathematically to predict or give an idea of the behavior of the phenomena. It will be very misguided to expect that the phenomena itself is limited to numbers and scientific models. Certain phenomena in nature can never truly be captured on the blackboard or in a test tube. Real Time existed before the big slam will still exist afterwards.

Thanks.

Thank you Justcool.

Simply and brilliantly delivered. My only issue remains that that which they describe as time is not time at all. It is rather a measurement of movement. They need to find another word for it.

justcool:

It will help people see that scientific terms are not exactly the same as the lay man’s terms. I have said this many times, that often scientific terms should not be viewed in the ordinary sense. Everybody knows what “time”; the “time” that Deep sight is talking about; the “time” that everybody intuitively knows, but very difficult to put in words. This “time” is what I refer as to “the real time” or “the lay man’s time” But when science talks about “time” they are not talking about the layman’s time or the real time.

That's all well and good; however, when someone starts a thread or line of discussion that is heavily centered on science, then it becomes a given that, unless defined otherwise, the scientific definitions of terms hold sway. The onus is on the person supposedly using "lay man's terms" to define their terms and ensure that they aren't mistaken for the scientific ones.

Further, I don't know what "time" Deep Sight is, or was, talking about. He doggedly refused to provide any workable defintions or evidence that could have cleared that up. So, what do you mean by this "real time" that everybody knows? Any way of concretising it?

Of course every rational person knows that the idea that time was born at the big slam is not possible in view of the real “time” or the lay man’s time. What science calls time is simply a dimension of motion, or a derivative of motion; a derivative of the speed of light to be more exact. Scientific time is referenced to the speed of light because at that time light was the fastest thing the scientist can conceive of.

While I agree that time is predicated on motion, I disagree that light was the fastest thing that scientists could conceive. The special theory of relativity made provisions for massless particles that could travel faster than the speed of light: hence, tachyons.

Hence if anything moves at the speed of light, time becomes stand still in respect to that thing. Just as when two cars move at the same speed, they appear standing still to each other. And consequently, if anything can move beyond the speed of light, that thing will be time-traveling because it’s moving faster than time, i.e. moving backward in time.

Relatively.

Real time, intuitive time, or the lay man’s time, I believe is what Deep sight has been talking about, which obviously cannot be born at the slam. This time, real time can be defined as the continuum onto which events happen. This time existed before the big slam, indeed the big bag is just an event that happened within it. Only that the big slam commenced the physical time or the scientific time which scientist reference with the speed of light.

Evidence?

People keep trying to marry scientific concepts with ordinary concepts. These ordinary concepts like “time”, “work” and etc. existed before modern science. Modern science only borrowed these terms to define scientific concepts.

Yes they did, but so did a term like "electric". I I started a discussion on electricity with references to scientific reports, but I meant something other than the scientific understanding of eletricity, then I would have no grounds for complaint if others erred on the side of science. It isn't a case of marrying disparate comprehensions of terms. It's a case of no one has declared these lines of discussion exclusively theological nor philosophical.

Deep sight’s notion of time is right.

Why?

He is talking about the real time, the lay man’s time.

Concretise that concept and ground it in something tangible.

Posters are refuting his argument with the scientific concept of time which is only limited to the physical, i.e. the duration of physical events. This scientific concept of time is referenced to the speed of light because up till now “light” is the fastest physical phenomenon that science has observed.

Again, science discussion. Scientific terms until otherwise disputed and alternate terms defined.

I will give an analogy: Deep sight is talking about motion in general, posters are refuting his argument by talking about the motion of a particular car. Of course just as motion is not limited to a particular car, time is not limited to this our particular universe. If there are other universes, their time frames will be different. And of course the motion of a particular car is born the minute the car started moving, yet the car itself is on earth which is in turn in motion; by the same token, the speed or duration of events (which science calls time) in our universe was born with the big slam; but even the big slam is an event which occurred in a lager time frame.

Yes, I have said as much about time. To wit, I wrote previously:

"If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen."

The fact remains that Deep Sight introduced the"totality of time itself, which is infinite, etc". Which he has so far failed to define nor provide an inkling of evidence or tangibility that would make it intelligible. If you subscribe to his conception, then may I ask that you do what he will not?

But I think every good scientist knows that the concept of time is not limited the scientific time. Science creates models that help them visualize and represent certain phenomena in numbers so that they can be solved mathematically to predict or give an idea of the behavior of the phenomena. It will be very misguided to expect that the phenomena itself is limited to numbers and scientific models. Certain phenomena in nature can never truly be captured on the blackboard or in a test tube. Real Time existed before the big slam will still exist afterwards.

Thanks.

What is real time, by your estimation? If it seems like I have asked that question several times, it is because you've used that phrase several times without offerring a defintion . . . or evidence . . . or really anything other than the phrase being somehow different from time as a scientific concept.

Thank you, too.

Is this a religious topic?

logica:

Is this a religious topic?

The core of the discussion is the nature of time - and this has implications on the argument for creation and the existence of a creator.

Lay-man's time/ real time and scientific concept of time discuss the same thing but in disagreement. A disagreement in perception like the light (particle or wave) issue. Clearer definitions with better demonstrations will badly be needed.

KAG:

That's all well and good; however, when someone starts a thread or line of discussion that is heavily centered on science, then it becomes a given that, unless defined otherwise, the scientific definitions of terms hold sway. The onus is on the person supposedly using "lay man's terms" to define their terms and ensure that they aren't mistaken for the scientific ones.

Further, I don't know what "time" Deep Sight is, or was, talking about. He doggedly refused to provide any workable definitions or evidence that could have cleared that up. So, what do you mean by this "real time" that everybody knows? Any way of concretising it?

While I agree that time is predicated on motion, I disagree that light was the fastest thing that scientists could conceive. The special theory of relativity made provisions for massless particles that could travel faster than the speed of light: hence, tachyons.

Relatively.


Evidence?

Yes they did, but so did a term like "electric". I I started a discussion on electricity with references to scientific reports, but I meant something other than the scientific understanding of eletricity, then I would have no grounds for complaint if others erred on the side of science. It isn't a case of marrying disparate comprehensions of terms. It's a case of no one has declared these lines of discussion exclusively theological nor philosophical.

Why?

Concretise that concept and ground it in something tangible.


Again, science discussion. Scientific terms until otherwise disputed and alternate terms defined.

Yes, I have said as much about time. To wit, I wrote previously:

"If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen."

The fact remains that Deep Sight introduced the"totality of time itself, which is infinite, etc". Which he has so far failed to define nor provide an inkling of evidence or tangibility that would make it intelligible. If you subscribe to his conception, then may I ask that you do what he will not?


What is real time, by your estimation? If it seems like I have asked that question several times, it is because you've used that phrase several times without offerring a defintion . . . or evidence . . . or really anything other than the phrase being somehow different from time as a scientific concept.

Thank you, too.

@ KAG

Thanks for addressing my post, you raised very fair points and I will address them accordingly.

You asked me to define what I mean by "real time," "lay man's time" or the "time" that deep sight is talking about. I offered a definition in my post. I wrote. “Time can be defined as the continuum onto which events happen.” This is the time that everybody knows; this is usually what people mean when they say “time.” And keep in mind that the word “time” existed before modern science. If you go back two thousand years ago and ask any man what “time” means he will not tell you that it is a dimension of motion. The idea of “time” being a dimension of motion is purely scientific, it is a scientific model.

Light was the fastest thing that scientists could conceive of at that time. I.e. at the time of Einstein. Perhaps I made a poor choice of words, and for this I apologize. What I meant was that light was the fastest thing that scientist could measure at that time, and hence could concieve of at that time. Or better, the speed of light was the fastest thing that scientist could measure at that time. And I said say it this way in my post:

This scientific concept of time is referenced to the speed of light because up till now “light” is the fastest physical phenomenon that science has observed.

The evidence I have on the idea that real time existed before the big slam lies in my definition of “Real time.” I defined “real time as the continuum onto which events happen. Since the big slam is an event and every event happen on or within time. Time must have existed onto which this event (the big slam) happened. This is only a logical speculation; even prominent scientists have made this speculation. The difficulty in proving this concept or experiencing the “real time” lies in the fact that while trapped within this time frame, its difficult impossible to experience the outside time frame at least with physical means.

You are right about electricity; the same is applicable to scientific terms like “time”, “work” and etc. It’s like the electric circuits that we draw and analyze. From the circuits we predict the behavior of electricity. But this circuit that we draw is only a model which may or may not correspond exactly to reality. To make problems easier to solve, in circuit analysis we invent things like Ideal voltage sources and ideal current sources; but in reality there is nothing like an ideal voltage or current source, because every source has its own internal resistance.  I’m using electricity for an example here because you seem to understand electricity. The point that I’m trying to make is that a lot of scientific terms are models which helps scientists predict and analyze reality, these models may or may not correspond exactly to reality.

The problem is that pseudo scientists try to force reality to conform to a scientific model; or restrict their perception of reality to the scientific model. This is the wrong way to use science. Real Scientists keep fine-tuning these models to correspond more and more to reality, and not otherwise.


And of course “real Time” has to be infinite, because there is no limitation to the amount or number of events that can happen. Time is infinite, those allowing an uncountable number of events to occur. This is really hard to put into words but II hope you perceive what I’m trying to put across. Real time stands still; it is infinite and endless. Events happen within it, it is the duration of this evens, i.e. the speed of these physical events that scientist call time. You see why the scientific time is limited, it’s limited to the duration of our particular universe; but real time has nothing to do with motion, motions happen within it, it simply has no beginning and it’s endless.

Thanks

Kay 17:

Lay-man's time/ real time and scientific concept of time discuss the same thing but in disagreement. A disagreement in perception like the light (particle or wave) issue. Clearer definitions with better demonstrations will badly be needed.

That's one way to look at it. The scientist is dealing with time within our universe, or within the physical realm. But the lay man perceives that the concept of time does not have to end within this particular universe or within the physical realm. Its like two people siting in a moving car; one is dealing with the motion of the car, while the other perceives that motion doesn't have to end with that particular car, and hence dealing with the motion of the entire earth around the sun.

One is confined to the motion of the car, because his instruments for detecting motion are incapable of detecting motion outside the car. While the other is able to detect, not only the motion of the car, but the motion of the entire earth. Another person may even be able to detect the motion of the entire solar system around the center of the universe. While another may be able to detect the motion of the entire universe around its axis.


Thus it is a question of perception or the range of perceptive ability. One speaking from the spiritual perspective deals with a larger frame of time than one speaking from the scientific perspective which is confined to the physical realm.

From Divine perspective, time (The real time) is infinite and stands still. Man as a spiritual being as the ability to vaguely perceive of this time that is infinite and stands still. This he can only perceive intuitively, a gross material  or intellectual perception of it is impossible. The brain can never conceive or perceive it.

Thanks

^^^ What more can I add?

Nothing!

From Justcool

Thus it is a question of perception or the range of perceptive ability. One speaking from the spiritual perspective deals with a larger frame of time than one speaking from the scientific perspective which is confined to the physical realm.

From Divine perspective, time (The real time) is infinite and stands still. Man as a spiritual being as the ability to vaguely perceive of this time that is infinite and stands still. This he can only perceive intuitively, a gross material  or intellectual perception of it is impossible. The brain can never conceive or perceive it.

What consists of the spiritual is expected to not be physical, otherwise it would be physical. i believe that if the spiritual is observable and  measurable to an extent, then its physical. The layman and the scientist both observe time, but provide different definitions with varying details. The layman is not merely perceiving divine time, but very possibly the same subject as the scientist. The layman by his qualifications is not in the best position to develop his view of time, it's more like crude intuition.

Kay 17:

From Justcool

What consists of the spiritual is expected to not be physical, otherwise it would be physical. i believe that if the spiritual is observable and  measurable to an extent, then its physical. The layman and the scientist both observe time, but provide different definitions with varying details. The layman is not merely perceiving divine time, but very possibly the same subject as the scientist. The layman by his qualifications is not in the best position to develop his view of time, it's more like crude intuition.

Well, the possibility of neutrinos moving faster than photons means that the spiritual probably exists. They are probably operating on the "spiritual realm" and that's why they are so fast in the "physical realm". Scientists just haven't caught up yet. The LHC will soon discover the worm hole that will lead us to Mythical Utopia.

One speaking from the spiritual perspective deals with a larger frame of time than one speaking from the scientific perspective which is confined to the physical realm.

Just kidding, but I think that's what they want you to say.

@Kay 17
Thanks for addressing my post. Sorry about my late reply, I've been very busy.

Kay 17:

From Justcool

What consists of the spiritual is expected to not be physical, otherwise it would be physical. i believe that if the spiritual is observable and measurable to an extent, then its physical.

How you came to this belief beats me. Whoever said that the spiritual is not observable and measurable? The spiritual is not just a feeling or imagination; the spiritual real is tangible, even more tangible than the physical. Only that the spiritual is of an entirely different species than the physical. The spiritual can be observed and measured by the spiritual or spiritual means, and not by physical means. Because owing to the difference in species, the physical cannot interact directly with the spiritual.

Man’s core, the true man, is spiritual; hence man can observe and measure the spiritual by means of his spiritual body or his core.

Kay 17:

The layman and the scientist both observe time, but provide different definitions with varying details. The layman is not merely perceiving divine time, but very possibly the same subject as the scientist. The layman by his qualifications is not in the best position to develop his view of time, it's more like crude intuition.

Not necessarily. Just because they use the same expression doesn’t mean that they are talking exactly about the same thing. Science borrows terms that already exist and use it to label scientific concepts; this is perhaps to make science more interesting. I will give you an example. The ancient romans believed in the existence of Neptune. To them Neptune is a god, the god of the oceans. The lay and ancient romans had believed in this Neptune many years before modern science was born. When modern science discovered the eight planet from the sun, she(modern science) decided to name this planet Neptune, after the roman god of the oceans and the seas.

Now when the modern scientist and the lay ancient roman are talking about Neptune, they are not talking about the same thing. One is talking about a planet and the other is talking about a god; one is talking science while the other is talking mythology or religion.

It will be very misguided to try to disprove the ancient or mythological Neptune based on the scientist discoveries of the planet Neptune. This is what posters are doing in this thread.

The layman coined the word “time” even before modern science was born; the lay man had a conception of time before modern science was born. Just as the ancient romans had a conception of Neptune before modern astronomy was born.
While both conceptions may be wrong or right, they are not mutually exclusive because they are not necessarily the same thing. Mythological or astrological Neptune remains the god of the oceans, while astronomical Neptune remains a planet. One cannot disprove the other; they are two different things.

The lay man’s conception of time remains what it is, the continuum into which events happen; while scientific conception of times remains a dimension of motion of physical objects or the physical universe.

Just as the mythological or astrological Neptune is not confined within the tenants of astronomical Neptune; real time or the layman’s time is not confined within the tenants and observations of scientific time. Real time or layman’s time did not start with the big bang, only the scientific time did. Saying that the layman’s time started with the big bang is like saying that the mythological Neptune started with the discovery of the astronomical Neptune.

Thanks.

@justcool

No problem. . However, a clear distinction and reason why a distinction btw the physical and the spiritual is necessary.

As to time, black holes are seen as classic experiments for timelessness and the physical nature and influence of time. Also the problem with "real" time is that its linear, that is the past links to the present and present to the future, thus has a starting point. A beginning.

Real time or scientific time are just semantics we devise to advance our arguments.Time is still time. Time is a duration of consciousness within or outside the context of motion. The concept of time is probably the most enigmatic in the study of physics. However, i think we get confused about time because our consciousness is programmed to view time as liner, that is- having a starting point. But jus suppose, as is being theorized recently by quantum physicists, that time is non-linear and therefore having no beginning(in the way we understand it). If that is true, then no beginning would logical mean no creator or first cause as Deepsight likes to put it.
If we can contemplate the notion of non-lnear time without a beginning, then the universe would not have needed a first cause or creator.

^cool

@Deepsight:
Your (insightful)response is awaited.

plaetton:

Real time or scientific time are just semantics we devise to advance our arguments.Time is still time. Time is a duration of consciousness within or outside the context of motion. The concept of time is probably the most enigmatic in the study of physics.

Indeed.

However, i think we get confused about time because our consciousness is programmed to view time as liner that is- having a starting point. But jus suppose, as is being theorized recently by quantum physicists, that time is non-linear and therefore having no beginning(in the way we understand it).

Time, being a self-existent reality, has no beginning.

If that is true, then no beginning would logical mean no creator or first cause as Deepsight likes to put it.

I have not once put my foot forward for a first cause of time, because time is self existent. It is thus uncaused.

The universe, on the other hand, is not self existent, and evidentially had a commencement. Accordingly, it requires a cause - as the implacable reasoning of the cosmological argument, correctly and logically deduces that all things which have a commencement, must per force have a trigger, or cause, for such commencement.

Time had no commencement. This is what I have consistently stated.

If we can contemplate the notion of non-lnear time without a beginning, then the universe would not have needed a first cause or creator.

Time is not the universe, and the universe is not eternal in the past.

Delightful argument:
But how can you seperate time and the universe?. The universe(space) is infinite in scope as well as in time. You are implying that time is infinite and the universe is finite. If so, I disagree. Time and space are intertwined. I speculate that at some point they are one and the same.
If god(for want of a better name) or the triggerer is an uncaused cause, then why can't the universe also be an uncaused cause?

plaetton:

Delightful argument:
But how can you seperate time and the universe?. The universe(space) is infinite in scope as well as in time. You are implying that time is infinite and the universe is finite. If so, I disagree. Time and space are intertwined. I speculate that at some point they are one and the same.
If god(for want of a better name) or the triggerer is an uncaused cause, then why can't the universe also be an uncaused cause?

Plaetton, I am currently going through all your posts. You cannot believe how delighted I am to read your posts. You suggest that you are not new to Nairaland. Please can you tell me what your previous username is. I'm just trying to figure out why I haven't noticed you before.

I think that Deep Sight sees 'the universe' as the contents of Space and Time, so space and time themselves are not a part of the universe (according to his definition of the universe). Deep Sight, abeg no vex for me, I know that our last exchanges were a teeny weeny bit strained. I take the blame, I was much too touchy. Let's kiss and make up .
This thread has suddenly gotten very interesting for me.

Funny enough, time without any matter or space seems insignificant. As its measurable through these

Finally, my kinda thread. I've not even read any posts but the title alone. . . . .

I'll be back

plaetton:

Delightful argument:
Time and space are intertwined. I speculate that at some point they are one and the same.

Scientifically speaking, the above is correct. Deep sight this is problem you will encounter when you arrive at the conclusion that: “Time is still time”

Time is still time.

In my perception, this is not so! Scientific time is most definitely not the same thing with the layman’s time or the time that we all perceive intuitively.

If we agree to the conclusion that both are the same then plaetton wins that augment; because time as science perceives it cannot be disconnected with space. It is one of the dimensions of the universe. Space, as well as time and all the dimensions of the universe were born during the big slam.

The space and time in our universe were born at the big band; or one can equally say that physical space and time were borne during the big slam. There was no physical space before the big slam; the big slam commenced the expansion of space.

One must separate the physical from the nonphysical; one who believes in the nonphysical must not look for it within the physical. Everything in our universe, including space, time, stars and planets are physical and started with the big slam.

Thanks.