desmond

So let me put it this way: you created a topic with an initial question. You elaborated some ideas and came to a conclusion that basically answers your own question. Now, since you answered your own question, why did you make this topic? On topic: time is a measure created by humans, only understood and exists for humans and the only question that we should ask in regard to your topic is: when did this measure start? Time as a "dimension" doesn't exist.

Dude, if you don't have anything to bring to the table, there is no point whatsoever in wasting your time with those kind of replies. You don't bring anything to the table, maybe because you don't have anything, so just stay out of this if you don't know what to reply with. This is a forum, it's discussion, maybe I hurt your feelings or something, but bring something to the table that we can discuss with, not just a one sentence like that and call it a day, I mean come on dude. Play ball or play somewhere else, you know what I mean. I didn't insult anyone with what I said, and try to prove me wrong if you can. If you can't, better stay out then replying with just one sentences, at some degree, that is considered spam. Thank you for understanding.

First, you do not need a PhD or any title to understand something. If you honestly think you do, wow.. but anyway. Let me show you quickly why math does not solve all problems in "real" life. Let's say you go to buy one apple and you forgot and you actually had to buy another one, so you do. Now, you come back and tell this story to your friend and he says "so you bought two apples". Really? According to a mathematical model, this situation would be x + x = 2x, where x is the apple. But in math, x is equal everywhere in an equation, how about in real life? In real life, for this equation to make sense, it would mean that BOTH apples are EXACTLY the SAME, and what are the chances of that? I don't think so, YET, that is how that would have been modeled. But then again, is it here the QUANTITY (2), or the PROPERTIES (color, shape, etc)? If it's quantity, why isn't this mathematically just x + x = 2, since you do not care about the properties? If you care about the properties, then that model cannot be applied to real life. So this shows that, yes, you can USE math to SHOW something, but then again, how is that really true when it comes to real life? According to your last sentence, it seems to me as if any scientist could have written anything in a book and you do not care to analyze really what that means? So you just read, close the book and that's it? You do not ask yourself some questions? Words, my friend, are VERY important, not just in science, but wherever. You cannot be a scientist and write anything, I mean are you kidding me right now? Like seriously? Again, I do understand it's not easy to NOT accept a theory since it was brainwashed in your head, but then again, ask yourself some questions.

Not what is nothing by itself, because yes that is not obvious. But I meant nothing in context with the word FROM means that nothing is a location, so it is obvious. Let me ask you something. The Big Bang to do what it did, it had to exist in order to do that no? Existence of something is related to a location. You "exist" because you are located somewhere. Something that is not located anywhere in this world does not exist. So, if the Big Bang really existed, let me ask you...where? Where did the Big Bang exist for it to do what it did? Not where meaning literally, but just where? In a form of "space"? If you cannot understand that the existence of something is related to it's location, well in that case, the Big Bang did not create anything, because it didn't exist. If it did, where? and btw, the Big Bang theory is: 1) just a theory 2) not proven and it's somehow considered a model? In that case, everyone can do his own model, because according to those two points, it's just a theory and it's not proven. So why is not mine or John's or Eric's model better or even considered? It seems to me like this Big Bang is not any different than a Bible, you follow it and for you there is absolutely no other way... well, that is sad.

Well first, I am not a believer of god, and there is nothing wrong with that, but then again, I'm not a believer of science either and with that also, there shouldn't be any problem with that. For some people, this might be enough to ask why am I on these forums? Well, that's another subject. But for now, let's look more into this question that I asked. If you start a theory, no matter in what field, you have to correctly and precisely know what you are talking about, cause otherwise, there is no point in making that theory in the first place, it's a simple waste of time then. The correct and precise part simply comes to asking "all" related questions on the subject. In this case, if my theory would have been the same as Professor Hawking, isn't one of the most interesting questions to ask, and yet not even touched upon in this documentary (or even book), is: what exactly is "nothing"? Let's think about it for a moment. I want you to read this text and think in your head as you read to have an image. "something" appears "from" "nothing". Isn't it obvious that the "nothing" is indeed a "place". If "something" right now appears before you, well guess what? It appeared in a space (location), it doesn't matter where, it just matters that it appeared in a "location", or rather "somewhere". So, based on that, if your theory is based around "something" "from" "nothing", that for me, can only mean that even "nothing" is maybe "something". I mean think about it, this is like 1+1=2. For "something" to appear from "nothing", the word FROM suggests that it came from a "place", what does "from" mean then if not related to a location? or does science has it's own "from"? So, this is only one problem, only ONE problem with this theory of his. Also...."nothing"...how does "nothing" look like? If "something" appeared "from" "nothing", how does "nothing" look like? Because according to simple logic, again 1+1=2, it is IMPOSSIBLE for "anything" when in conjunction with the words "from" or "appears from" to be nothing other than a "LOCATION". There is simply no other way... how would you explain or anyone explain what does "from" mean? FROM is related to a PLACE and that's it. Unless you change the definition, that is what it is. Again, maybe crazy scientists created a new definition of "from", I don't know, but for me, you have to KNOW when doing a theory, what words you use and how you use them to explain something and in this case, clearly, or at least that video, didn't explain it correctly. Maybe that is the problem these days, too busy making new theories, but meanwhile, not really knowing what exactly is "written" on that paper, is there a "logic" to that... Anyway, I cannot wait to see who will have the courage to argue with what I just said. PhD is just a "title". PhD does not make anyone smarter. Lot of people without a PhD are actually smarter than those with one. Lot of PhD people do not even know how to fix a car, basic knowledge that everyone should have, instead of wasting your money in a repair shop. But no, most PhD people do not know how to fix a car and that is very sad. Common-sense? What is common-sense for you? If for you common-sense means a vision or theory that is shared with most people, I challenge you to find on this planet ONE person with the same vision as you have, there is no such person. Everyone thinks differently and that's what makes it more interesting actually. Again, find me one person with common sense as you have and if you do, WOW!

...he didn't double check his theory. Watch this documentary: According to this video, maybe his book is different, this theory is wrong. The POINT of this video is to show that it began from nothing and they talk about that there is no time for a god to create something...but WHEN? Only when it's a BLACKHOLE!!! So this video suggests that it all began with a blackhole then....but where does the blackhole come from then? There are other flaws, but anyway, you don't need a PhD to realize these errors...