When did time start ?

[a1jatt]

Anyone has any idea ? Question is not about when did humans started tracking time, it is "when did the time start?" ....and what about before that....?

[EK 2.0]

Time in a metaphysical sense??...

Or time as in like it was been three days since the Yeti came and ate all the children from our mountain village??

[dj_rice]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060923232700AAC6TbW

[DannyO]

Smoke some weed and figure it out yourself.

[D'z Nutz]

If you're asian, time started at least a half hour after everyone else started.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by DannyO
Smoke some weed and figure it out yourself.

I'm guessing this is why he's ASKING the question. Or on an illicit substance of some sort anyway.

[EK 2.0]

Originally posted by DannyO

Smoke some weed and figure it out yourself.



I have already done this...hahaha MANY times...haha...

Being a Philo Major, you can bet I have thought on some wild topics while under the influence of cannabis...

[DJ Lazy]

"At the instant the big bang started. Before that all dimensions including time were amalgamated into a single medium."


That's my belief.

[Supa Dexta]

Jesus was actually a watch maker, he started time. Casio I think.. Jesus Casio.. Thats why anything before him was BC time; Before Casio Time.

[sabad66]

Well, according to Einstein, time is a dimension, just like the 3 physical dimensions. Therefore, time started at the Big Bang, just like the physical dimensions did.

[adam c]

ah not another one of these threads

[buh_buh]

you won't figure it out smoking weed. Mush however might have your answer.

[DJ Lazy]

Originally posted by buh_buh
you won't figure it out smoking weed. Mush however might have your answer.

Prolly better off going with DMT...

[ScottysZ]

4004 BC. The Catholic church is never wrong.

[yue]

Originally posted by ScottysZ
4004 BC. The Catholic church is never wrong.

isn't that when the dinosaurs were killed?:angel:

[GoChris]

you can't measure time.

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
If you're asian, time started at least a half hour after everyone else started.
HAHA... sad and funny.... but true.

[Grogador]

...when Chuck Norris kicked God in the balls.

[A790]

I believe that human beings are incapable of understanding the answers to questions like that, hence I don't bother trying.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by A790
I believe that human beings are incapable of understanding the answers to questions like that, hence I don't bother trying.

Appeal To Ignorance.
Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean understanding it is impossible.
There's a shitton of stuff that neither of us have the background to allow us to really understand them. That's doesn't mean no one else does.
My grasp on string theory isn't as firm as I'd like, but that doesn't invalidate string theory, nor do I use that as a crutch to excuse a lack of intellectual curiosity. I'm only ever interested in shit that I don't understand. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Godfuader]

How was distance created? Not really asking which intellect created the concept of distance...rather proving a point that distance is something man created as a guage....and not a celestial creation.

[A790]

Originally posted by TKRIS


Appeal To Ignorance.
Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean understanding it is impossible.
There's a shitton of stuff that neither of us have the background to allow us to really understand them. That's doesn't mean no one else does.
My grasp on string theory isn't as firm as I'd like, but that doesn't invalidate string theory, nor do I use that as a crutch to excuse a lack of intellectual curiosity. I'm only ever interested in shit that I don't understand. Otherwise, what's the point?

No, I'm talking about a much wider scope. In reality, our view of the world and the universe is based on scientific theories and principles that are predisposed to be incorrect simply because they are man made. Look at how conflicted humanity is over concepts that are so incredibly basic in comparison to what we're talking about now (the origins of time and/or life).

Considering the scope of the universe and the sheer magnitude of the elements and situations that are beyond our control I fail to see how a human, who is essentially blinded by their predisposition to what "reality" is, can even begin to comprehend what space and time are really all about.

It's not an appeal to ignorance, it's an acceptance of limitations.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
If you're asian, time started at least a half hour after everyone else started.

HAHAHA, so true.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by ScottysZ
4004 BC. The Catholic church is never wrong.
:werd:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by A790


No, I'm talking about a much wider scope. In reality, our view of the world and the universe is based on scientific theories and principles that are predisposed to be incorrect simply because they are man made.

Slippery Slope, assumptions, and special pleading.
The fact that something is created by man does not mean that it is inherintly flawed. In other words, it's false to assume that everything man creates or discovers or imagines is flawed simply becuase the man is.


Originally posted by A790
Look at how conflicted humanity is over concepts that are so incredibly basic in comparison to what we're talking about now (the origins of time and/or life).

This is completely beside the point.
As an example: Do you know many discussions I've had with people who don't believe in evolution, and yet don't know what evolution really is, the mechanisms behind it, or why it's regarded as valid? More than two, I assure you.
Just because a lot of people either don't understand a theory or fact, or refuse to admit it's validity, or manipulate its meaning to suit their view, does not invalidate that theory or fact.
Additionally, going back to my original example: Only a tiny percentage of people in the world truely understand string theory. That doesn't mean that string theory is wrong because almost no one on the entire planet understands it.

A hundred years ago, the only explanation for you being able to read these words would have been "Magic".


Originally posted by A790
Considering the scope of the universe and the sheer magnitude of the elements and situations that are beyond our control I fail to see how a human, who is essentially blinded by their predisposition to what "reality" is, can even begin to comprehend what space and time are really all about.

It's not an appeal to ignorance, it's an acceptance of limitations.

Actually, this is pretty much textbook appeal to ignorance. "The scope is so large that it defies imagination, and therefore cannot be understood."
Additionally, the bit about humans being blinded by our preception of reality is yet more special pleading.

http://dinosaurfanfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/raptor-jesus.jpg

[em2ab]

Originally posted by yue


isn't that when the dinosaurs were killed?:angel:

I think you're off by about 65,000,000 years.

[jwslam]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
If you're asian, time started at least a half hour after everyone else started.

:rofl:

[jdmXSI]

My thoughts are it nearly impossible to figure out when it all started. As for the comment before to do with the big bang. Wouldnt time exist prior to the planets colliding? Time would of had to exist prior, it couldnt of just started in that fraction of a second when the 2 planets hit.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Time started about two weeks before some chinese guy started providing a reasonable, albeit inferior, facsimile of it at a bargain price.

[R!zz0]

Time started when clocks were invented.
When did clocks get invented?... Before time started.

[Fafa]

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
Jesus was actually a watch maker, he started time. Casio I think.. Jesus Casio.. Thats why anything before him was BC time; Before Casio Time.

:rofl:

[megavolt]

Originally posted by jdmXSI
As for the comment before to do with the big bang. Wouldnt time exist prior to the planets colliding? Time would of had to exist prior, it couldnt of just started in that fraction of a second when the 2 planets hit.

Wat?

Think you have to do some more research on the Big Bang theory. :facepalm:

[a social dsease]

Time is infinite. We are just a mere speck in the continuom. There were probably many civilizations somewhere out there in space long before humans or dinosaurs or earth, and there probably will be many more long after we are gone and the earth is sucked into the red giant sun. Trippy shit! :bigpimp:

[Kavy]

Yes but how do they get the caramilk in the caramilk bar?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by jdmXSI
As for the comment before to do with the big bang. Wouldnt time exist prior to the planets colliding? Time would of had to exist prior, it couldnt of just started in that fraction of a second when the 2 planets hit.

I think your understanding of the concept of dimensions needs some work.

[Xtrema]

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/152/usefulnessofinternetrv8.png (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=usefulnessofinternetrv8.png)
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/usefulnessofinternetrv8.png/1/w422.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img151/usefulnessofinternetrv8.png/1/)

[semograd]

Time (magazine) was created on March 3, 1923 by Briton Hadden and Henry Luce, making it the first weekly news magazine in the United States.

[three.eighteen.]

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

[msommers]

Originally posted by a social dsease
Time is infinite. We are just a mere speck in the continuom. There were probably many civilizations somewhere out there in space long before humans or dinosaurs or earth, and there probably will be many more long after we are gone and the earth is sucked into the red giant sun. Trippy shit! :bigpimp: Actually I completely agree with this but you diverted a little from the original question, when did humans start time and not time in space (that is of course if you believe that time is anything at all). Mind you, when he said "humans" tracking time, I can only assume he meant on Earth.

:rofl: Semograd, I like it.

For some, time may have started from the big bang, which no one really knows when exactly. Maybe when the particle accelator somehow doesn't blow up our planet, and they can figure out how it was created, maybe then those particular individuals will get a more concrete answer.

There is nothing that cannot be achieved by firm imagination

[jdmXSI]

Originally posted by megavolt

Think you have to do some more research on the Big Bang theory. :facepalm:

I am familiar with the Big Bang theory, all i was getting at was that time would of had to existed prior to the collision of the two dense matters for the event to have even taken place.

[qbrown]

Originally posted by jdmXSI


I am familiar with the Big Bang theory, all i was getting at was that time would of had to existed prior to the collision of the two dense matters for the event to have even taken place.

dude, the big bang theory doesn't involve two of anything. it just involves a singular point of everything that exploded and created the universe

[integra_xsi]

The first people to accurately keep track and record time were the sumerians. Check it out on the web.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by integra_xsi
The first people to accurately keep track and record time were the sumerians. Check it out on the web.

No, do it yourself.

[liquid1010]

There was an entire issue of Scientific American devoted to trying to define the concept of time recently. Science has not been able to define many of the answers....

time seems to been one of those issues that science is really struggling with.

[A790]

Originally posted by TKRIS


Slippery Slope, assumptions, and special pleading.
The fact that something is created by man does not mean that it is inherintly flawed. In other words, it's false to assume that everything man creates or discovers or imagines is flawed simply becuase the man is.

This is completely beside the point.
As an example: Do you know many discussions I've had with people who don't believe in evolution, and yet don't know what evolution really is, the mechanisms behind it, or why it's regarded as valid? More than two, I assure you.
Just because a lot of people either don't understand a theory or fact, or refuse to admit it's validity, or manipulate its meaning to suit their view, does not invalidate that theory or fact.
Additionally, going back to my original example: Only a tiny percentage of people in the world truely understand string theory. That doesn't mean that string theory is wrong because almost no one on the entire planet understands it.

A hundred years ago, the only explanation for you being able to read these words would have been "Magic".

Actually, this is pretty much textbook appeal to ignorance. "The scope is so large that it defies imagination, and therefore cannot be understood."
Additionally, the bit about humans being blinded by our preception of reality is yet more special pleading.


:rofl: @ the picture haha

Anyways, back to the topic at hand...

What I'm finding here is that you aren't offering any kind of plausible explanation about how/when/where time began, and instead are throwing out collegiate shutdowns to my statement. Well that's all well and good, I fail to see how any progress is made in regards to the origins of time.

This is how I see it: some things just are. I will agree that it is an appeal to ignorance, as you say, as I don't believe there's any concrete way for the origins of time to be concretely explained. My reasoning for this is because we can develop theories, such as the big bang or creationism (intelligent design), we will never have the concrete evidence required to conclude that our theory is correct.

Unlike some things, such as gravity, we are unable to demonstrate our theory and affirm its plausibility. Your relation to string theory is flawed, as string theory has neither been proved nor disproved. Like all theories it has its supporters and its opponents, and that's exactly my point: even if we do come up with an answer, such as the big bang, we'll never be able to agree that it's the correct one nor will we be able to prove it.

As you said in your original post, the real point is questioning the unknown regardless of whether or not we actually find a unified solution for it.

Consider the possibility that we assume that there must be an answer, a "beginning". The reason that we assume so is because everything "must" have a beginning and an end according to our perception of reality, but who's to say that our definitions of what is and is not are actually correct. We are assuming that our logic and reasoning is correct, but we are doing so without all the information required to make those assumptions.

To be honest, I'd love to know the origins of the universe, the beginning of time, and our place in the grand scheme of things, but that will never happen. At best, we'll have a partially educated guess and speculation, and at worst we'll continue to examine and re-examine our "evidence" and theories until we come to the best case scenario.

Awaiting your reply :)

[97'Scort]

I prefer the Big Band theory *ba-dum, psh*:D

Anyways, for you Big Bang theory people, ask yourself where the speck of everything came from. There is another theory that the universe, once it reaches a certain size, will stop expanding and collapse back on itself to form another singularity which will then explode again.

It's possible this has happened an infinite number of times already.

In that case, you could also define time in an infinite number of ways that best suited your purposes. Time on Earth makes sense on Earth, but relative to the planet Xoob in the Blarg nebula, our second means nothing to them, because it doesn't break down nicely.

Hopefully in my lifetime we'll find a link between quantum theory and string theory, and we can get a little closer to a physical answer.

[jonnycat]

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unravelling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and pangea
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will cause the stars to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it wont be hurt
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating out while here they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!

[Destinova403]

^^ win.

[darkkent]

NO ONE KNOWS

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by A790


:rofl: @ the picture haha

Anyways, back to the topic at hand...

What I'm finding here is that you aren't offering any kind of plausible explanation about how/when/where time began, and instead are throwing out collegiate shutdowns to my statement. Well that's all well and good, I fail to see how any progress is made in regards to the origins of time.

I'm not simply "throwing around collegiate shutdowns". I'm pointing out why your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. You've based your entire reasoning on logical fallacies. I didn't suggest that I had the answers, nor did I offer any theories of my own. I know a bit about the subject, but that's beside the point.


Originally posted by A790
This is how I see it: some things just are. I will agree that it is an appeal to ignorance, as you say, as I don't believe there's any concrete way for the origins of time to be concretely explained. My reasoning for this is because we can develop theories, such as the big bang or creationism (intelligent design), we will never have the concrete evidence required to conclude that our theory is correct.

Unlike some things, such as gravity, we are unable to demonstrate our theory and affirm its plausibility.
Gravity is a theory, not a fact. We can't prove we're right about gravity any more than we can prove we're right about evolution or the earth being and oblate spheroid.
To throw out all science that can't be directly observed is naive folly. Once again, the reason you can see the words I'm typing is based on the exact type of science you'd advocate discarding.
Einstein published "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" in ~1904 and it wasn't until the 1960's that we had the technology to accurately measure light bending and further prove him right.


Originally posted by A790
Your relation to string theory is flawed, as string theory has neither been proved nor disproved.
My example is fundamentally sound. While you're right that it remains a contentious issue, it's validity will not hinge on your ability to comprehend it.


Originally posted by A790
Like all theories it has its supporters and its opponents, and that's exactly my point: even if we do come up with an answer, such as the big bang, we'll never be able to agree that it's the correct one nor will we be able to prove it.

Again, you're misinterpreting what science is.
You're confusing the falsifiability of a scientific theory with it being predisposed to be incorrect. You're confusing validity with acceptance.
We can't prove gavity is a fact. That's what makes it science. There has to be some way to falsify the theory of gravity in order for it to be a scientific theory. If you dropped a ball and it didn't fall, the theory of gravity is either wrong, or requires revision.
Similarily, the theory of relativity is falsifiable. However, like gravity, it's proven itself in every test we're able to perform. The universe acts as we expect it to act based on that theory, just as when we drop a ball, it acts as we'd expect based on gravity.
Whether or not a group of people, usually with alterior motives, choose to accept this is irrelevant. We have a good, solid theory that's been tested countless times, as sas been used to make new discoveries that have further proven it's credibility. Whether or not you believe it or understand it or accept it has no effect on it's validity. Unless you can suggest a reason why it's wrong, or a alternative that would both solve some of the questions we currently have, as well as explaining the false negatives we've been getting with a flawed theory, it's irrelevant what your personal beliefs or understandings are on the subject.
Some have tried to do that. It's called the "goddidit" theory. However, Occam's Razor and Russell's Teapot explain why these alternatives deserve little actual investigation.

Originally posted by A790
As you said in your original post, the real point is questioning the unknown regardless of whether or not we actually find a unified solution for it.

Consider the possibility that we assume that there must be an answer, a "beginning". The reason that we assume so is because everything "must" have a beginning and an end according to our perception of reality, but who's to say that our definitions of what is and is not are actually correct. We are assuming that our logic and reasoning is correct, but we are doing so without all the information required to make those assumptions.

You're building a castle on a house of cards. You can't start out with a baseless assumption, then project it unto the topic at hand, then derive conclusions on the subject based on your initial assumptions.


Originally posted by A790
To be honest, I'd love to know the origins of the universe, the beginning of time, and our place in the grand scheme of things, but that will never happen. At best, we'll have a partially educated guess and speculation, and at worst we'll continue to examine and re-examine our "evidence" and theories until we come to the best case scenario.

Awaiting your reply :)

Your ideas on what should constitute actual scientific knowledge are skewed to say the least.
What you've said here is that we can't know anything unless we know everything.
________________________________________
As far as "when did time start", the first question that comes to my mind is "That depends on where you're measuring it from."
As has been mentioned before, time isn't linear.

[a1jatt]

alright...Thanks.

It is confusing.

[bball2]

13.73 ± 0.12 billion years ago according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


No, do it yourself.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Also, I lol'd at the Jesus Casio comment. It was full of funny.

[2.0turbo]

Forever ago

[skyline19]

Originally posted by bball2
13.73 ± 0.12 billion years ago according to wikipedia:

how much is that in an actual number?

like 13 730 000 000 000 000?