Universal size if t=0?

[gluon]

Mmmm.... interesting view. Very --- what's the word --- calculated.

 

[gluon]

Mmmm.... interesting view. Very --- what's the word --- calculated.

 

[BenTheMan]

right now or in the present moment [HSP] the universe is a big fat zero in size...because the present moment IS t=0. So in effect it is always how big it was and how big it will be as what it is NOW is zero.

This view is obviously wrong for any sensible definition of "time" and "distance".

 

[gluon]

This view is obviously wrong for any sensible definition of "time" and "distance".

Not from a Wheeler-de Witt analysis,

 

[Bishadi]

At t=0 the universe does not exist.

exactly

 

[BenTheMan]

Not from a Wheeler-de Witt analysis,

Please expand on this. I don't know what "Wheeler de-Witt" analysis is.

 

[Quantum Quack]

just an interesting extension and obviously flawed.

re:SRT

If observer A with v= .5c relative to observer B takes a recording at any given moment ignoring temporal effects he shall record his distance of separation to observer B as zero as at t=0 distance must be zero.
If we switch RF's the same could be applied.

The question then is are both zero sized universes the same universe or different universes? [ issue non-simultaneity ]

Obviously a silly idea yes?

At t=0, distance must equal some value other than zero for SRT to function.

 

[Bishadi]

just an interesting extension and obviously flawed.

such as the below analogies conflict

re:SRT

If observer A with v= .5c relative to observer B takes a recording at any given moment ignoring temporal effects he shall record his distance of separation to observer B as zero as at t=0 distance must be zero.
If we switch RF's the same could be applied.

The question then is are both zero sized universes the same universe or different universes? [ issue non-simultaneity ]

Obviously a silly idea yes?

YES

At t=0, distance must equal some value other than zero for SRT to function.

basically, presenting that an 'absolute zero' is impossible

at T=0.............. there would be no existence.

Not a 'thing' in existence can experience that; nor ever will.

 

[Quantum Quack]

such as the below analogies conflict

YES



basically, presenting that an 'absolute zero' is impossible

at T=0.............. there would be no existence.

Not a 'thing' in existence can experience that; nor ever will.

so go ahead and rewite over 1000 years of physics and math.

take the zero out of math and what do you have?

Everything in Math relates to the use of zero as it's constant.

afterall for example what does ten oranges mean? ten more than zero....

 

[Bishadi]

so go ahead and rewite over 1000 years of physics and math.

take the zero out of math and what do you have?

what does that have to do with time?

Everything in Math relates to the use of zero as it's constant.

no it doesn't

perhaps read http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Zero.html

afterall for example what does ten oranges mean? ten more than zero....

an algebraic analogy..........

but to hold an empty hand, and say "look......... zero oranges"....... is stupid, to say the least and that is what you are failing to observe

there is no zero point in existence, unless man creates it within his own mind

 

[Quantum Quack]

So James R states that if "t=0 the universe does not exist" and this thread gets moved to the pseudo science forum.....hmmmmm:shrug:

At t=0 the universe does not exist.

 

[Quantum Quack]

there is no zero point in existence,

exactly!

 

[Quantum Quack]

You do realise of course that the issue is not just simply going to go away don't you ?

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
right now or in the present moment [HSP] the universe is a big fat zero in size...because the present moment IS t=0. So in effect it is always how big it was and how big it will be as what it is NOW is zero. ”

Ben the man: This view is obviously wrong for any sensible definition of "time" and "distance".

and

JamesR: At t=0 the universe does not exist

the ramifications are obvious!