Perhaps there is no beginning (1 Viewer)

[jonessed]

Time as we know it didn't exist until after the Big Bang. We can't see back all the way to the Big Bang because time didn't start until after it happened.

In our universe. But there are theories out there where our universe is not the only one. Your reasoning in your post may one day be the equivalent to thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.

No because i was only talking about our Universe and everything I said is 100% accurate. Tyson even covered this on Cosmos in show 2 or 3 I think.

Time still existed before the Big Bang.

Maybe, maybe not. We really don't know. There are some pretty massive gaps in our understanding of the universe. We can observe a lot more than we can explain.

In some ways it's kind of cool because scientists can come up with all kinds of theories that test the imagination.

 

[IC FBGCav]

A similar question is, in an expanding universe, WTF are we expanding into? If you were able to place yourself at the edge of everything and then go one step further, what would you be stepping into? Scotsdale?

That's not really a meaningful question. It's like asking, if time just keeps moving on, where does it go? Today's the last day in January on my calendar, so is tomorrow just going to be some new time that doesn't exist yet? We expect time to keep on moving, and despite certain predictions about the Mayan calendar, there isn't an end in sight to time any more than there's an "end" of the universe. It's not like there's a big empty space, and the universe is a balloon that is expanding to fill it up. The size and space of the universe is expanding just like time does.I think the question you're trying to ask, though, is if there's an "end" of the universe, where if you were there, you'd just kind of run into a wall and fall down. And the answer to that, if I understand it correctly, is no. I think it's easy to imagine the edge of the universe as a huge wave of mass and energy that's just blowing outwards as part of the ongoing results of the Big Bang. And to some extent, that's true. But the universe is not limited to the three dimensions that you and I can sense. It's not a big box or a sphere or a blob - those are three dimensional shapes. Some people have described the expansion of the universe as being like the outside surface of a balloon, where the expansion of the balloon means that every point on the outside of the ballon moves a little further from every other point, and yet they're all on the same plane. If you were to trace a line around an uninflated balloon, your pen might travel a couple inches. If you begin to inflate the balloon, the pen would have further to travel to go from here to there. At no point is there an end to the path that your pen might take - you just loop back around to where you started.

There isn't really a "balloon" in the sense that the universe is spherical. If you imagine the outside of the balloon as a flat, two dimensional piece of rubber, it's not until you shape it into a sphere that it begins to look like a balloon. Similarly, if you imagine the universe as a huge three dimensional sphere, or cube, or blob, or whatever shape you picture it as, you're only thinking in three dimensions. Now wrap that three dimensional object into a four dimensional shape, and you get the "balloon" that is the universe.

This is an outstanding post.

I agree.

 

[strykerpks]

Wait, is bfred actually Matthew McCognaughey?

 

[NCCommish]

Time as we know it didn't exist until after the Big Bang. We can't see back all the way to the Big Bang because time didn't start until after it happened.

In our universe. But there are theories out there where our universe is not the only one. Your reasoning in your post may one day be the equivalent to thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.

No because i was only talking about our Universe and everything I said is 100% accurate. Tyson even covered this on Cosmos in show 2 or 3 I think.

Time still existed before the Big Bang.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Hawking disagrees with you. When the Universe was a singularity the current laws of physics did not apply. Time is a unit of measurement derived within the framework of our physical universe. When that universe didn't exist there was no time.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Time as we know it didn't exist until after the Big Bang. We can't see back all the way to the Big Bang because time didn't start until after it happened.

In our universe. But there are theories out there where our universe is not the only one. Your reasoning in your post may one day be the equivalent to thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.

No because i was only talking about our Universe and everything I said is 100% accurate. Tyson even covered this on Cosmos in show 2 or 3 I think.

Time still existed before the Big Bang.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Hawking disagrees with you. When the Universe was a singularity the current laws of physics did not apply. Time is a unit of measurement derived within the framework of our physical universe. When that universe didn't exist there was no time.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe it was in Michio Kaku's book where he talked about thinking of two sheets of papers ( for lack of a better term.) And those two sheets would wave back and forth. Some times the sheets would touch each other, and at that point, a big bang would take place. In this theory, an infinite amount of big bangs could take place. While time for each of those universes may start at that moment, time is still going on before then. We can only see what's in our universe because it is impossible to see outside of when our universe was created. But that doesn't mean that there was not other stuff before our universe.

 

[bostonfred]

If you define the word time in such a way that it only has meaning in the context of our universe, then the concept of a time before the universe doesn't make sense. But if you do that, then there may need to be a new word to define time outside the context of the universe.

If you picture the universe as a basketball passing through a flat plane, the big bang is the precise point that the ball touches the plane. Then as the ball passes through, the touch point becomes a small circle, then a bigger circle, all the way up to the full 29.5 inch circumference. Then it would contract back down to a single point and when the ball had fully passed through the plane, it would be gone and never come back.

If you were to describe how long the basketball existed, you could define it in several ways. You could talk about the ball moving at a pace of one inch per 1000 years. You could ignore the size, and just say it lasted for 9500 years. Or you could ignore the speed, and just say it lasted for 9.5 inches. That last measurement might be the most meaningful, at least for the people in the universe. Even though its hard to picture our universe as existing for a certain number of inches, or light years, or some other distance, its easier to envision time as a dimension when you compare it to other dimensions. And in the sense that the universe existed for 9.5 inches, and we were constantly moving vertically through the basketball in such a way that we could measure how many inches we had gone so far, we might be somewhere around four inches right now.

In that context, talking about something before or after the basketball wouldn't really make sense. We only exist in the sphere of the basketball, and time for us began the moment the basketball touched the plane of existence. So there is a beginning and an end to time, if we define time in that way. But in the context of a plane that existed before the basketball and will exist after it, and which may have other basketballs or baseballs or snow cones passing through it, it absolutely makes sense to discuss time before the basketball and after the basketball.

Now imagine that instead of the basketball passing through the plane, you are the plane, passing through the basketball. You're the one moving through time. The basketball always is and always was exactly that shape. In fact, imagine that you're not moving. You're outside the basketball, viewing the whole thing, but its so big you can only look at one cross section - just one dimple of one cross section at a time. That's you, not moving through time, but with a perception of movement due to your limited ability to see the whole universe and everything that ever was and ever will be all at once. In that context, time doesn't exist as a unit of measurement, but as a unit of perception by a limited observer, in much the same way that the pay binoculars at the top of the empire state building only see a small swath of the city at any given moment, but it would be absurd to measure new york city in quarters to explain how many quarters you have to put in to see the whole city.

 

[NCCommish]

Time as we know it didn't exist until after the Big Bang. We can't see back all the way to the Big Bang because time didn't start until after it happened.

In our universe. But there are theories out there where our universe is not the only one. Your reasoning in your post may one day be the equivalent to thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.

No because i was only talking about our Universe and everything I said is 100% accurate. Tyson even covered this on Cosmos in show 2 or 3 I think.

Time still existed before the Big Bang.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Hawking disagrees with you. When the Universe was a singularity the current laws of physics did not apply. Time is a unit of measurement derived within the framework of our physical universe. When that universe didn't exist there was no time.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe it was in Michio Kaku's book where he talked about thinking of two sheets of papers ( for lack of a better term.) And those two sheets would wave back and forth. Some times the sheets would touch each other, and at that point, a big bang would take place. In this theory, an infinite amount of big bangs could take place. While time for each of those universes may start at that moment, time is still going on before then. We can only see what's in our universe because it is impossible to see outside of when our universe was created. But that doesn't mean that there was not other stuff before our universe.

Yes I am fully aware of the two pieces of paper theory. However that has nothing to do with time. We don't know if time exists in either of the two sheets. Because we don't know if the laws of physics that run our universe are in place. We don't even know if those sheets have 3 dimensions prior to a singularity event.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Time as we know it didn't exist until after the Big Bang. We can't see back all the way to the Big Bang because time didn't start until after it happened.

In our universe. But there are theories out there where our universe is not the only one. Your reasoning in your post may one day be the equivalent to thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.

No because i was only talking about our Universe and everything I said is 100% accurate. Tyson even covered this on Cosmos in show 2 or 3 I think.

Time still existed before the Big Bang.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Hawking disagrees with you. When the Universe was a singularity the current laws of physics did not apply. Time is a unit of measurement derived within the framework of our physical universe. When that universe didn't exist there was no time.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe it was in Michio Kaku's book where he talked about thinking of two sheets of papers ( for lack of a better term.) And those two sheets would wave back and forth. Some times the sheets would touch each other, and at that point, a big bang would take place. In this theory, an infinite amount of big bangs could take place. While time for each of those universes may start at that moment, time is still going on before then. We can only see what's in our universe because it is impossible to see outside of when our universe was created. But that doesn't mean that there was not other stuff before our universe.

Yes I am fully aware of the two pieces of paper theory. However that has nothing to do with time. We don't know if time exists in either of the two sheets. Because we don't know if the laws of physics that run our universe are in place. We don't even know if those sheets have 3 dimensions prior to a singularity event.

What you're saying there ("we don't know") is very different than what you said earlier ("time does not exist outside of our universe.")

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Either there was a beginning moment, or there wasn't, but I find both scenarios equally problematic.

How so?

I get how it's better for an atheist viewpoint to get rid of the "big bang" creation moment, but, going to "it's turtles all the way down" doesn't really get anywhere, scientifically. You have to then answer the Prime Mover, figure out the first cause of the first effect, stuff like that. It's got it's own logical holes.

It's like you're speaking another language.

Sorry, I'd just rather not rehash hundreds of years of philosophical arguments that aren't settled, and just cut to the chase, and get to where those arguments are now--that both the "big bang" and the "infinite universe" theories are somewhat problematic. Anyway, if it was the turtles comment, thought that was more widely known. Sorry.

If the thought is that the universe has always existed, why do you have to then answer the "Prime Mover" or "figure out the first cause of the first effect"?

(FYI: I have no idea what or who the "Prime Mover" is.)

Forgive me, as this is the first time I've seen this thread, but this turned out to be krista, right?

 

[NCCommish]

Time as we know it didn't exist until after the Big Bang. We can't see back all the way to the Big Bang because time didn't start until after it happened.

In our universe. But there are theories out there where our universe is not the only one. Your reasoning in your post may one day be the equivalent to thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.

No because i was only talking about our Universe and everything I said is 100% accurate. Tyson even covered this on Cosmos in show 2 or 3 I think.

Time still existed before the Big Bang.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Hawking disagrees with you. When the Universe was a singularity the current laws of physics did not apply. Time is a unit of measurement derived within the framework of our physical universe. When that universe didn't exist there was no time.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe it was in Michio Kaku's book where he talked about thinking of two sheets of papers ( for lack of a better term.) And those two sheets would wave back and forth. Some times the sheets would touch each other, and at that point, a big bang would take place. In this theory, an infinite amount of big bangs could take place. While time for each of those universes may start at that moment, time is still going on before then. We can only see what's in our universe because it is impossible to see outside of when our universe was created. But that doesn't mean that there was not other stuff before our universe.

Yes I am fully aware of the two pieces of paper theory. However that has nothing to do with time. We don't know if time exists in either of the two sheets. Because we don't know if the laws of physics that run our universe are in place. We don't even know if those sheets have 3 dimensions prior to a singularity event.

What you're saying there ("we don't know") is very different than what you said earlier ("time does not exist outside of our universe.")

No it isn't. I am saying we can't say time exists in those places because we have no way of knowing what the makeup of any alleged other universe looks like. So the only place we can say time functions as we know it is in this universe. Further that unit of measure didn't exist prior to the Big Bang because time doesn't exist inside of a singularity due to the complete repeal of the laws of physics within a singularity.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Time as we know it didn't exist until after the Big Bang. We can't see back all the way to the Big Bang because time didn't start until after it happened.

In our universe. But there are theories out there where our universe is not the only one. Your reasoning in your post may one day be the equivalent to thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.

No because i was only talking about our Universe and everything I said is 100% accurate. Tyson even covered this on Cosmos in show 2 or 3 I think.

Time still existed before the Big Bang.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Hawking disagrees with you. When the Universe was a singularity the current laws of physics did not apply. Time is a unit of measurement derived within the framework of our physical universe. When that universe didn't exist there was no time.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe it was in Michio Kaku's book where he talked about thinking of two sheets of papers ( for lack of a better term.) And those two sheets would wave back and forth. Some times the sheets would touch each other, and at that point, a big bang would take place. In this theory, an infinite amount of big bangs could take place. While time for each of those universes may start at that moment, time is still going on before then. We can only see what's in our universe because it is impossible to see outside of when our universe was created. But that doesn't mean that there was not other stuff before our universe.

Yes I am fully aware of the two pieces of paper theory. However that has nothing to do with time. We don't know if time exists in either of the two sheets. Because we don't know if the laws of physics that run our universe are in place. We don't even know if those sheets have 3 dimensions prior to a singularity event.

What you're saying there ("we don't know") is very different than what you said earlier ("time does not exist outside of our universe.")

No it isn't. I am saying we can't say time exists in those places because we have no way of knowing what the makeup of any alleged other universe looks like. So the only place we can say time functions as we know it is in this universe. Further that unit of measure didn't exist prior to the Big Bang because time doesn't exist inside of a singularity due to the complete repeal of the laws of physics within a singularity.

You're wrong on this. And that's OK.

 

[NCCommish]

You're wrong on this. And that's OK.

Dude I love ya but my views are right in the mainstream of physics. Time started after the Big Bang happened. That's not really even in dispute anywhere but in this exchange.

 

[Sweet J]

If you define the word time in such a way that it only has meaning in the context of our universe, then the concept of a time before the universe doesn't make sense. But if you do that, then there may need to be a new word to define time outside the context of the universe.

If you picture the universe as a basketball passing through a flat plane, the big bang is the precise point that the ball touches the plane. Then as the ball passes through, the touch point becomes a small circle, then a bigger circle, all the way up to the full 29.5 inch circumference. Then it would contract back down to a single point and when the ball had fully passed through the plane, it would be gone and never come back.

If you were to describe how long the basketball existed, you could define it in several ways. You could talk about the ball moving at a pace of one inch per 1000 years. You could ignore the size, and just say it lasted for 9500 years. Or you could ignore the speed, and just say it lasted for 9.5 inches. That last measurement might be the most meaningful, at least for the people in the universe. Even though its hard to picture our universe as existing for a certain number of inches, or light years, or some other distance, its easier to envision time as a dimension when you compare it to other dimensions. And in the sense that the universe existed for 9.5 inches, and we were constantly moving vertically through the basketball in such a way that we could measure how many inches we had gone so far, we might be somewhere around four inches right now.

In that context, talking about something before or after the basketball wouldn't really make sense. We only exist in the sphere of the basketball, and time for us began the moment the basketball touched the plane of existence. So there is a beginning and an end to time, if we define time in that way. But in the context of a plane that existed before the basketball and will exist after it, and which may have other basketballs or baseballs or snow cones passing through it, it absolutely makes sense to discuss time before the basketball and after the basketball.

Now imagine that instead of the basketball passing through the plane, you are the plane, passing through the basketball. You're the one moving through time. The basketball always is and always was exactly that shape. In fact, imagine that you're not moving. You're outside the basketball, viewing the whole thing, but its so big you can only look at one cross section - just one dimple of one cross section at a time. That's you, not moving through time, but with a perception of movement due to your limited ability to see the whole universe and everything that ever was and ever will be all at once. In that context, time doesn't exist as a unit of measurement, but as a unit of perception by a limited observer, in much the same way that the pay binoculars at the top of the empire state building only see a small swath of the city at any given moment, but it would be absurd to measure new york city in quarters to explain how many quarters you have to put in to see the whole city.

Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi38Tui1bGU

 

[TheIronSheik]

You're wrong on this. And that's OK.

Dude I love ya but my views are right in the mainstream of physics. Time started after the Big Bang happened. That's not really even in dispute anywhere but in this exchange.

Are all universes the same age? Because if a universe is older than ours, it's a good bet that time existed before our big bang.

 

[Jayrod]

I don't know about any of this crap. But I do not believe in divine intervention... higher power, perhaps, but not one that intervenes in mundane affairs. If you have explanations for the many atrocities that have taken place over time, please reconcile with the notion of a loving God. Otherwise, I think we're all a flash in the pan.

I can't discuss much in this thread with any authority, but I can answer this in two parts:

1) There is much more to eternity that makes the "atrocities" you mention a small blip on the radar and while difficult in their time, they are not an end to life.

2) It appears, even Biblically, that God has left this world to us to a certain extent and his will is not always done as he would prefer it if controlling things like a puppet master.

I believe God does intervene from time to time. Maybe he sends angels, maybe he just set everything up in the beginning just right so that he knew which domino would fall when and kind of manipulates/controls things from the beginning. If as many are pointing out in here, time is another dimension, would not God be able to operate outside that dimension? The Bible indicates as much, that God is timeless (alpha and omega, in the beginning, day is as a thousand years and vice versa, etc.) It would make sense then, that his "intervention" isn't intervention in the sense as a giant picking up and moving pieces of the chess game of life, but more like the creator of all things who holds all existence in its control and thus creating things in such a way that when x happens, y is the result. Only x and y both are outside of our understanding. Or maybe he really does flex his muscles from time to time and just re-calibrates the matrix or something in a way that we can slightly notice but not really see all that he did.

I personally believe there are other dimensions beyond even a 4th that God operates in causing things that we call "supernatural" or "spiritual" but to God and angels/demons it is a world they operate in like we operate in ours. Kind of like if you were to try and explain to a fish what the world was like in outer space. They can experience the water and they can jump out of that into the atmosphere, but space is an entire world beyond even that they will never see or experience. Of course, like all analogies it is incomplete and breaks down in may ways....but that is all we have. The understanding of our world to try and explain that which we cannot see or touch or fathom based on what our senses can show us.

 

[NCCommish]

You're wrong on this. And that's OK.

Dude I love ya but my views are right in the mainstream of physics. Time started after the Big Bang happened. That's not really even in dispute anywhere but in this exchange.

Are all universes the same age? Because if a universe is older than ours, it's a good bet that time existed before our big bang.

We will never be able to observer those other other universes. Your hypothesis is therefore untestable so let's stick to the Universe we can observe shall we?

 

[TheIronSheik]

You're wrong on this. And that's OK.

Dude I love ya but my views are right in the mainstream of physics. Time started after the Big Bang happened. That's not really even in dispute anywhere but in this exchange.

Are all universes the same age? Because if a universe is older than ours, it's a good bet that time existed before our big bang.

We will never be able to observer those other other universes. Your hypothesis is therefore untestable so let's stick to the Universe we can observe shall we?

That defeats the purpose of the question. Does time exist outside of our universe? Well, since we can't see outside of our universe, we'll just put our heads in the ground and say no, it does not.