On Time and Archaeology

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Arising_uk »

Godfree wrote:In order to stay even remotely sane , we need to have a set of assumptions that we use to fill in the missing bits of information we may have for any given situation, for example , I don't see you or any of the other people on this site , I don't know whether it's just some bored geek pretending to be everybody else and it's just me and the geek??? This is entirely possible .I wouldn't say probable , and this is where the most probable saves us time . I'm not going to imagine every crazy possibility for every second of my existence. I'm going to presume assume and know that I don't need to be there to know time has past , the tree made a sound , and time existed before the big bang.
Hmm... GF, for myself it's attempting to answer such questions that keeps me sane but I take your point about metaphysics. Its why I like phenomenology as I can come to what I think are reasonable answers to metaphysics and hence I can stop thinking about them. So I think you've not answered the question about what time is with "time has past", what does this mean? As to me time is not a thing, its memory and repetitive change in objects(and probably decay). The tree falling with no sensing thing to hear it compresses air and objects, which would be heard as whatever 'sound' it is to the sensing thing if one were there, as does the bird hear the same sound you do? I agree that if you have a big-bang then its banging 'inside' something, but does it necessarily have to be inside our 'time'? As Notvacka seems right when he says it must be outside in some sense.
Godfree
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:01 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Godfree »

Arising-uk,,,
Time is measured in man made bit's. But time existed before we started measuring it . We did not invent time , just the devices we use to measure time with . Light existed before we had eyeballs to see it with , sounds were made before we had ears to hear them with . Dinosaurs had eyes and ears.
So what if there was endless cycles going back for infinity , and man has come and gone an infinite number of times in these cycles??
Does this mean we re-invented time each time??
Does this mean that time stopped until we re-appeared to measure this time??
I can't help thinking this is an ego problem man has .
First man said we are the center of the universe , and when that was proved wrong they said our solar system is the center of the universe.
And then the big bang site is the center of the universe??.
Reality is , "There is no center to the universe"
How can there be a center , when there are no sides from which to measure.
User avatar
Notvacka
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:37 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Notvacka »

Godfree wrote:And then the big bang site is the center of the universe? How can there be a center , when there are no sides from which to measure.
Actually, there is no center. If you read up on the big bang, you should know this.
Godfree
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:01 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Godfree »

Notvacka wrote:
Godfree wrote:And then the big bang site is the center of the universe? How can there be a center , when there are no sides from which to measure.
Actually, there is no center. If you read up on the big bang, you should know this.
I believe that is what I just said .
There has been a suggestion that time began with the big bang.
But if we can prove that the universe is bigger than what was contained in our wee bang . Does that mean they over there that wasn't part of our wee bang have their own time , that their time is separate and different , or did time start for them when we had our wee bang???
User avatar
Notvacka
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:37 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Notvacka »

Godfree wrote:There has been a suggestion that time began with the big bang.
Yes. That is the general scientific view.
Godfree wrote:But if we can prove that the universe is bigger than what was contained in our wee bang.
Nothing of the sort can be proven, of course. But it's not unreasonable to imagine other universes.
Godfree wrote:Does that mean they over there that wasn't part of our wee bang have their own time , that their time is separate and different...
Yes, if other universes exist, and if they have time, then their time is completely separate from our time, just as their space, if they have space, is separate from our space. Space and time, on the other hand, is not separate from each other.
Godfree wrote:...or did time start for them when we had our wee bang???
"Our" bang could have resulted in more than one universe, each with time and space of its own, as you suggest. But it's only one possibility of many. Our time began with the big bang. As for other universes, we simply cannot know.
Godfree
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:01 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Godfree »

Notvacka.
Ok here is the bit I don't get about your concept .
What do you call the time before the big bang???
How long existed before we went bang???
What do you call the place space is about to occupy ??
What do you call the place our wee bang is about to bang into??
If the universe is finite , what do you call the bit outside the universe???
Was this the only time and place that has gone bang???
Will we go bang again at some point in the future??
If so doesn't this suggest we have done it before???

I believe the model of a finite universe that began with the big bang is a religious model , designed to sound like creation , it was created by a theist after all.
User avatar
Notvacka
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:37 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Notvacka »

Godfree wrote:Ok here is the bit I don't get about your concept .
First, this is not my concept. I'm just trying to explain some basics about how our universe is understood by modern science. That's why I implore you to read up on the basics.
Godfree wrote:What do you call the time before the big bang???
There is no meaningful way of talking about time before the big bang.
Godfree wrote:How long existed before we went bang???
Again, our universe began with the bang. Talking about "before" the bang is like talking about ghosts or pink unicorns. You can imagine it, but the idea is rejected by science.
Godfree wrote:What do you call the place space is about to occupy ??
It doesn't have a name, because it's not a place. Places exist in space, you know.
Godfree wrote:What do you call the place our wee bang is about to bang into??
Again, it's not a place.
Godfree wrote:If the universe is finite , what do you call the bit outside the universe???
Since we can't possibly know anything about anything outside our universe, it's not even sure that there is any "bit" to talk about outside it. And if we talk about it, it's pure speculation.
Godfree wrote:Was this the only time and place that has gone bang???
There simply is no way to know.
Godfree wrote:Will we go bang again at some point in the future??
Under the right conditions, the universe could stop expanding sometime far into the future and collapse into itself. We might then live in an oscillating universe that "bangs" repeatedly. Recent science suggests that this scenario is less likely than it seemed 20 years ago, though.
Godfree wrote: If so doesn't this suggest we have done it before???
Yes, but "before" doesn't mean what you think it does in this case, since time would cease to exist in the collapse. A new bang might create new time, but it would be wrong to think of this as time continuing.
Godfree wrote:I believe the model of a finite universe that began with the big bang is a religious model , designed to sound like creation , it was created by a theist after all.
If you read up on the science, you will discover that this is indeed the scientific model. If you believe otherwise, you are just like the creationists that won't accept evolution, because it doesn't fit with their beliefs. You are of course entitled to your beliefs, but I would like to quote Dalai Lama here: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."
Godfree
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:01 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Godfree »

Notvacka,,
Ok well done . you don't want to discus what to you makes no sense??fair enough ,
But lets see if you can't help me understand the beginning of time a little better.
Why is the bang the beginning of time when we humans are still 14.499 billion years away from existence.The old argument about did the tree make a sound when there was nobody there to hear it. I thought this was the argument people used to decide if something was real or not , if so the first sun dial would be the beginning of time . Our first instrument to measure time with.
If we are not there to witness or measure time did it indeed occur???
Also I presume you are believing the universe to be finite.
Something I find makes no sense.
So I'm prepared to discuss things that make no sense to me. I probably won't agree of course , but if you dismiss my questions as nonsense then maybe you miss out on learning as much as I do.
The reason I ask about space before the big bang , is because I have yet to hear a sensible explanation for what that would be,, pre-bang space,and time,
The most common response is there would be nothing ,
So of course the next question is could you please explain what nothing is??
User avatar
Notvacka
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:37 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Notvacka »

Godfree wrote:...you don't want to discus what to you makes no sense??fair enough...
It's not that it doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it makes perfect sense to me in a common sense way. The problem is that it doesn't make any scientific sense. Ever since the discovery of relativity and quantum physics, the scientific understanding of our universe is way beyond common sense.

I only wanted to point this out to you, since you consider yourself an atheist, and atheists usually argue from a scientific viewpoint. But you obviously don't understand the scientific view.

If you want to read up on the basics, you could try A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime by John Wheeler: http://www.amazon.com/JOURNEY-INTO-GRAV ... B00144K9CK
or A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Tim ... 0553380168

If those seem a bit heavy, you can still get the gist of it from a book like Time & Space by John Gribbin:http://www.amazon.com/Eyewitness-Time-S ... 0789455781 Yes, it's recommended for ages 9-12, but a perfectly good read for adults too. I'm not trying to be condescending here.
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Typist »

Godfree wrote:So of course the next question is could you please explain what nothing is??
Nothing is the vast majority of reality.

Nothing is the biggest show in town, by far.

All the somethings in the universe put together just barely exist, in comparison to nothing.

Nothing is what allows somethings to be somethings.

The white space between the letters on this page is utterly silent, unobtrusive, and almost always ignored. And yet without it, we would not be able to read any post.

Nothing is so huge, so dominant, so overwhelmingly pervasive at both the infinite, human, and sub atomic scale, that it's amazing we are interested in anything else.

God is nothing, proving the atheists right.

Nothing is damn near almost everything, proving the theists right.

Nothing is the only topic really worth talking about.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Arising_uk »

Typist wrote:...
The white space between the letters on this page is utterly silent, unobtrusive, and almost always ignored. And yet without it, we would not be able to read any post. ...
Notnecessarily,butitwouldmakeitmoredifficultandtherewouldbetheproblemofhowtoteachsinglewords.
ButIsuspectwecouldjustpointpointpointthemoutwithrepetitionanditwouldtakelongertoreadbutyou'dcertainlygetthemessageacrossI'dguess. :)
p.s
I don't consider the linebreak after the first line a 'white-space' as it could just be the edge of the paper and was done becuase without it the post becomes to wide. But I'll change it back if wished.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Arising_uk »

Godfree,
Godfree wrote:Time is measured in man made bit's. But time existed before we started measuring it. ...
In what sense?
We did not invent time , just the devices we use to measure time with . ...
I agree, so what is time too you?
...Light existed before we had eyeballs to see it with , sounds were made before we had ears to hear them with . Dinosaurs had eyes and ears.
You think you see what the dinosaur saw? Or hear what it heard? Funnily enough we dont 'see' light. Did you know it takes four photons to activate the brain. But I think I understand what you re saying and on the whole I agree with the commonsense approach, I just think we can maybe get better descriptions of the phenomena as it appears to us. You see, I think Kant is right with respect to the noumena and perception, as such I think science has been the way to understanding 'it', but now I think a phenomenology would be a pretty useful thing as well.
So what if there was endless cycles going back for infinity , and man has come and gone an infinite number of times in these cycles??
?? Nietzsche? As far as I've understood Man has only been this way once so far? Personally I prefer spirals if by cycles you mean circles.
Does this mean we re-invented time each time?? Does this mean that time stopped until we re-appeared to measure this time??I can't help thinking this is an ego problem man has .
Freud? But not really as its obvious that Time as we understand it would not be what it is without us understanding it, or some such. But I do agree with you, I'm just doubting its a substance, more decay and repetive movement of matter.
First man said we are the center of the universe , and when that was proved wrong they said our solar system is the center of the universe. And then the big bang site is the center of the universe??. Reality is , "There is no center to the universe" How can there be a center , when there are no sides from which to measure.
I thought the first man was an animist, then that the Earth was the center of the universe as the Sun revolved around it, then when it was proved wrong it became Man is the center of 'God's' attention, now religion is trying to deal with Darwin disproving that one. If there is no box then how are you understanding time? As the bigger-box that Space operates within?
Godfree
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:01 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Godfree »

Arising_UK
Cycles , not circles .I think it is the Hindu's that believe in the birth and re-birth of the universe . I think we could find some science theory that would suggest if it happened once it probably happened before and will probably happen again.
In a infinite amount of time , one could conclude an infinite number of events.I can't help thinking about how the matter got into the position to go bang.
A black hole , which I presume was the object that contained all of the matter contained in the known universe . That is what black holes do , they compress matter down to almost nothing!!!.
Gets to be the size it is by absorbing planets and stars and anything that comes close enough to be sucked in by the massive gravitational pull.
So there probably was motion and matter and all of the laws of physics and science operating then , as there is now.

Typist , the nothing ,,we can create a vacuum .we can take the matter out of the space . But the space remains .
The same is true of space.We can put all of the matter in a black hole. waiting to go bang . But the space is still there!!!
User avatar
Notvacka
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:37 am

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by Notvacka »

Godfree wrote:We can put all of the matter in a black hole. waiting to go bang . But the space is still there!!!
I guess that I should stop nagging you about this, Godfree, but please read up on the basics before stating such scientific nonsense. All the space would actually follow the matter into the black hole, and there would be no space left hanging around.
bytesplicer
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: On Time and Archaeology

Post by bytesplicer »

Time is intimately tied up with the idea of energy. From our point of view, time passes when we observe (or are subject to) exchanges of energy. If no energy exchanges take place, nothing happens, and hence time is meaningless. Only through change, via the inevitable 'spreading out' of energy, does time seem to pass. It could all of course be illusionary, but our basis of time comes directly from our observation of changes in energy (possibly also illusionary).

In the case of fossils, the energy exchange in question is the build up of carbon 14, which, in general, becomes fixed in living things in proportion to the amount present in the atmosphere at the time of fossilisation. Once fossilised and no longer exposed to the atmosphere, this isotope breaks down at a regular rate. Because the breakdown of carbon 14 is a usually orderly process, the amount present in a particular thing is indicative of a certain amount of energy exchanges, and hence the passage of a certain amount of time. This is a rough estimate, and can really only give ball-park figures, with other energy exchanges on the sample completely changing the results. Because fossils lead a relatively undisturbed life it is generally considered a good measure of age. A freshly baked jug, unless specifically doped with carbon 14, would not show this 'history' of energy exchanges and is thus new. Leave it for a few thousand years though, and that carbon 14 will begin to accumulate.
Post Reply