Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This related to another thread that appeared the other day. To clarify what i mean here is a dictionaries definition of time;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Time

And here wiki's interpretation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Time does not exist as an entity unto its self. Time is linked to space as Space-time. Before there was Space-time, Space-time did not exist.

Time wasn't around before time.

Something may have been around but it wasn't time.

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
All these definitions relate -- obviously and unavoidably -- to time as we know it, whether scientifically defined or casually experienced. Thus, "Time" could not have existed "before time began" (ie, before the Big Bang).

"Because time won't give me time" - Culture Club

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Time does not exist as an entity unto its self. Time is linked to space as Space-time. Before there was Space-time, Space-time did not exist.

Time is a side effect of entropy working on photons. Gravity warps the 4th Dimension therefore what photons are 'attached' to. Time is actually an illusion. But where ever there is matter there in the same sense as this universe there must be time.

Originally posted by Mindship
All these definitions relate -- obviously and unavoidably -- to time as we know it, whether scientifically defined or casually experienced. Thus, "Time" could not have existed "before time began" (ie, before the Big Bang).

Not unless the big-bang was caused by the end of the universe. A perpetual loop my friend like an Eternal circle.

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
Not unless the big-bang was caused by the end of the universe. A perpetual loop my friend like an Eternal circle.

By Crom, you may be onto something, but that is assuming there was(is) no definite beginning.

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
Not unless the big-bang was caused by the end of the universe. A perpetual loop my friend like an Eternal circle.
There are a number of theories behind what caused the Big Bang (chaotic inflation, brane collisions, etc). As such, we are dealing with conditions not bound by known laws of physics and therefore not time as we know it. And currently, "dark energy" seems to preclude the possibility of an eternal circle.

But even if we postulate pre-existing universes (certainly a possibility, regardless), this does not necessarily mean there was Time then like Time now. As far as we know, random factors led to the initial conditions of our universe, and given the countless, myriad factors in constructing a universe, probability dictates that a universe much like our own likely did not exist (the one exception to this could be the Budding Universe theory).

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
...But where ever there is matter there in the same sense as this universe there must be time.

Sure it makes life easy for you, but the universe dose not need time to exist. Example: inside of a black hole.

what if space and time is nothing but a concept, or only a perspective?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure it makes life easy for you, but the universe dose not need time to exist. Example: inside of a black hole.

Dont copy my quotes ! U ****ing plagiarist !

It is an oxymoron of course but it is not a problem since there was no time before time begun.

If there is an eternal cycle, then naturally Big Bang does not means the beginning of time, therefore times does not begun and there was time before Big Bang.

time is a perceptual phenomenon to humans existing due to the nature of integration of our perceptual ability{which can only be extended to predict the future through past events before it has happened and not the other way around since that would be linguistically illogical based on the words current definitions} in reality past and present are interchangeable, expansion of the universe seems to us to represent time moving FORWARD, while compression{as might happen in the big crunch} seems to indicate time moving BACKWARDS. in reality its just two states of matter which have opposite velocities, acceleration and direction of motion. we might as well not be MOVING at all and be stuck in one place{sort of like taking a freezeframe of the dynamic universe} and be completely static. yet still we would not know it and think things were progressing in the usual way simply because we are not physically equipped to percieve anything other than PERCEPTUAL time. any REAL TIME if it exists outside our perception is beyond our ability to know. now i could simply pass time off as a perceptual illusion, but things like time dilation in reletivity and dimensional time in quantum mechanics give us evidence that there is INFACT a thing similar to REAL time exists, seperate from perceptual time. now to accurately or completely define this with my very limited knowledge of both these fields is next to impossible, but i shall try to propose my own crazy theory. time is the ability of the universe to allow motion of bodies. i think in a 3 dimensional universe particles, waves etc can EXIST in any one 3d coordinate. but they do not have the ability to MOVE from their initial coordinate to any other. the ability or function which makes TRANSLATION from point A to point B possible is called time. and since time is theorised to exist as a dimenion perpendicular to all others, and it can not be observed with the other 3, its only role is TRANSLATION or acting as a mathematical{or its physical equivalent} function, giving the ability of motion when force is induced etc .

if: F(x, y, z) --------> (x', y', z')

and x, y, z are spatial coordinates of a point and x', y' and z' are there later coordinates on which the original are mapped onto, then the "F" is time. or atleast something like it.


in either of these contexts{if i am at all right in these presumption} there is no such thing as BEGINNING of time. or rather, such a thing is irrelevant. you could say that in CONTEXT to another dimension which is to time as time is to space at WHAT COORDINATES did the lower dimensional function, TIME come into existance for the even lower dimensional space of the universe{remember that lower is only a reletive term here} you cant say "at which TIME did TIME come into existance " since time has to exist to begin with to measure the time of creation of TIME.

{i know its not the most lucid account and probably flawed but hey, its worth a try to try n understand right}

i think though that this does imply that if time was at all created at any point, there has to be a higher dimension than time itself in which one can START time with time being there to begin with.

blowup

I don't understand but time has always been there but the big crunch and big bang are what we call beginnin's and ends of time.

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
Dont copy my quotes ! U ****ing plagiarist !

What are you talking about? I never copied anything, I just quoted you because I was talking to you about what you said. What does that have to do with plagiarism?

BTW "..." means that there is more not shown. It is completely appropriate to quote only a portion as long as you show ... at the point where other information is missing.

start time *WITHOUT time being there to begin with.

this MIGHT also partially imply that all motion CAUSING phenomenon like forces are actually partially or wholly related/part of the time dimension/function.

Originally posted by Robtard
By Crom, you may be onto something, but that is assuming there was(is) no definite beginning.

I think u are mistaking me with someone else.

well i suppose no1 finds my theory of time interesting then.

Maybe this can help...
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
(the video's been iffy lately, so you may have to try it quite a few times, or again at a later time. But it is worth a watch, IMO.)

I think...no. IMO, in order for time to exist it needs to effect something, if there is nothing to effect how do you know if time is there or not.

There is no before. There is no after.
Time just expands backwards and forwards We gets more past and gets more future.

Just my thought, throug, but i kinda like it

Originally posted by leonheartmm
time is a perceptual phenomenon to humans existing due to the nature of integration of our perceptual ability{which can only be extended to predict the future through past events before it has happened and not the other way around since that would be linguistically illogical based on the words current definitions} in reality past and present are interchangeable, expansion of the universe seems to us to represent time moving FORWARD, while compression{as might happen in the big crunch} seems to indicate time moving BACKWARDS. in reality its just two states of matter which have opposite velocities, acceleration and direction of motion. we might as well not be MOVING at all and be stuck in one place{sort of like taking a freezeframe of the dynamic universe} and be completely static. yet still we would not know it and think things were progressing in the usual way simply because we are not physically equipped to percieve anything other than PERCEPTUAL time. any REAL TIME if it exists outside our perception is beyond our ability to know. now i could simply pass time off as a perceptual illusion, but things like time dilation in reletivity and dimensional time in quantum mechanics give us evidence that there is INFACT a thing similar to REAL time exists, seperate from perceptual time. now to accurately or completely define this with my very limited knowledge of both these fields is next to impossible, but i shall try to propose my own crazy theory. time is the ability of the universe to allow motion of bodies. i think in a 3 dimensional universe particles, waves etc can EXIST in any one 3d coordinate. but they do not have the ability to MOVE from their initial coordinate to any other. the ability or function which makes TRANSLATION from point A to point B possible is called time. and since time is theorised to exist as a dimenion perpendicular to all others, and it can not be observed with the other 3, its only role is TRANSLATION or acting as a mathematical{or its physical equivalent} function, giving the ability of motion when force is induced etc .

if: F(x, y, z) --------> (x', y', z')

and x, y, z are spatial coordinates of a point and x', y' and z' are there later coordinates on which the original are mapped onto, then the "F" is time. or atleast something like it.


in either of these contexts{if i am at all right in these presumption} there is no such thing as BEGINNING of time. or rather, such a thing is irrelevant. you could say that in CONTEXT to another dimension which is to time as time is to space at WHAT COORDINATES did the lower dimensional function, TIME come into existance for the even lower dimensional space of the universe{remember that lower is only a reletive term here} you cant say "at which TIME did TIME come into existance " since time has to exist to begin with to measure the time of creation of TIME.

{i know its not the most lucid account and probably flawed but hey, its worth a try to try n understand right}

Very, very sound. My cousin and I had a similar discussion and I'll try to paraphrase in more simple and concise terms. It's close to what you said:

Time may exist but we can not percieve it. Time, like other facets of metaphysical stuff, is a way for humans to explain it themselves, but it is not really explainable. Example:

The present does not exist. Everytime I press a key from the keyboard that is in the past. What I am about to type is in the future. The present can only exist by stopping time which doesn't seem reasonable at all.

In terms of speaking about history, the term "present" is applicable. Otherwise it is just something as stupid as "lion - king of the jungle" (No! there are no f'ing lions in any jungle).