Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Duh Puck

Duh Puck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 18 February 2008 - 04:49 PM

I'm surprised nobody has brought up relativity. It's pretty clear that time is a relative quality of the physical universe. We know for certain that time slows down at higher speeds, approaching standstill at the speed of light. If the universe was in fact created, then it's not hard to grasp that said creator would be responsible for introducing the concept of time and weaving this into the fabric of the 'verse. Even if it was not created, there would be no reason to suppose that there was time prior to the Big Bang. We might have a hard time getting our heads around that due to our limited experience, but if you think about it, time is only relevant if things are happening, since it provides a way to measure a sort of "distance" between events. If nothing happens, what is time measuring?

Since the OP asked the question "when did he make, or even think about making the earth?" ... well, the first part isn't too hard. If we make a couple reasonable assumptions about the consistency of radioactive decay, then radiometric dating places the earth around 4.5 billion years old. However, I wouldn't presume to guess when the idea first popped into God's head.

Edited by Duh Puck, 18 February 2008 - 04:52 PM.

  • 0

#22 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 18 February 2008 - 07:38 PM

If he really is as effing amazing as everyone says, He would have had the idea forever, right? I think the OP is more of asking... "why? why did he wait?" not "when?" but I dont really know. I dont believe in God so I dont need to fret over some of the paradoxes like this that pop up ;D
  • 0

#23 Duh Puck

Duh Puck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 19 February 2008 - 01:53 AM

If he really is as effing amazing as everyone says, He would have had the idea forever, right? I think the OP is more of asking... "why? why did he wait?"


But there's no waiting if there's no time. Terms like "forever" don't apply, since the word is intrinsically connected with time.

For example, if you could travel at the speed of light (somehow avoiding an infinite increase in mass), you would not age. This does not mean that you're sitting there, thinking about stuff you wanna do, tapping your fingers, and occasionally noticing that the clock isn't moving. From your standpoint, everything would just stop (including, I would imagine, your thoughts). My point was that, even though we can't comprehend the absence of time, we can mathematically show that such a state exists, and that it's a property of the universe. Therefore, if there is a creator, he would have created time, and would not be subject to the limitations of time as we understand it. Incidentally, since most religions accept the concept of prophecy, which generally involves looking into the future, they inherently accept the idea that a divine creator is not limited by time as we are. If true, that would certainly make him amazing, as you said.
  • 0

#24 BoscoRanger

BoscoRanger

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 February 2008 - 01:06 PM

What if a being had no physical properties but still had a conciseness. It would not move as we know but would operate at the speed of thought, light speed or slightly slower. That being would be traveling ,per say, so fast that if it were to look at the physical earth it would be able to see all things at all times. Earths time would be a blinking of the eye..
  • 0

#25 Duh Puck

Duh Puck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 19 February 2008 - 03:47 PM

What if a being had no physical properties but still had a conciseness. It would not move as we know but would operate at the speed of thought, light speed or slightly slower. That being would be traveling ,per say, so fast that if it were to look at the physical earth it would be able to see all things at all times. Earths time would be a blinking of the eye..


I can't speak for others, but I'm pretty sure my "speed of thought" is a good deal short of light speed. B))

Your point is an interesting one. If time slows down as one speeds up, then wouldn't the subject of one's observation appear to speed up? This seems reasonable, but it really depends on the direction of travel and acceleration, since these alter one's frame of reference. For example, the earth is traveling around the sun, the solar system is traveling within the galaxy, and so on. When you talk about traveling at light speed, this speed depends on the point from which you're doing the observation. So, if you were 'operating at light speed', as you suggest, the speed of things happening on Earth, from your viewpoint, would change based on the direction of your travel. If you were traveling away from the earth, things would actually appear to slow down due to the Doppler effect (the same means by which we are able to tell the direction in which stars are moving - spectrum shift), and vice versa.

There's an interesting discussion of this on ... yes, of course, wikipedia.
  • 0

#26 Duh Puck

Duh Puck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 19 February 2008 - 04:12 PM

And on that topic, here's an interesting article I just found. I like Einstein's quote:

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
  • 0

#27 BoscoRanger

BoscoRanger

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 20 February 2008 - 05:37 AM

I understand where you’re coming from. I have been kicking this idea around for a month or so trying to figure it all out.

What if this being was not limited to one place in space? Think of it as a fog throughout the universe moving, swirling. Am I getting to far out there?

interesting article your right,it is a good read. Is time real?

  • 0

#28 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 20 February 2008 - 11:37 AM

Interesting thought for those that believe in god, the answers are in the old testament if you know where to look and have good math skills.

However, none believers or those that need proof will try to discover through science incontrovertible proof / evidence to feel safe. The bigger picture is to discover your own reality and not feel unsafe or confused. Enjoy exploring knowledge proven, unproven or disproved. Errors are made as well as discoveries. If you find knowledge fun or relaxing or both then faith in yourself and others can be as important as belief and deity worship or idol necessity.

First you neeed to prove you exist - I think therefor I am. Is not a conclusive statement.

Do we believe?
Do we NEED to believe?

I believe in fellowship. Am I one of a kind? Now there is a subject to get your teeth into.
  • 0

#29 BoscoRanger

BoscoRanger

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 20 February 2008 - 04:22 PM


"I can't speak for others, but I'm pretty sure my "speed of thought" is a good deal short of light speed.
B)) "


Is yours, mine and others thought process being slowed by our physical being. I’m implying we have a spirit and could exist outside the physical realm.

  • 0

#30 Duh Puck

Duh Puck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 12:06 PM

Interesting thought for those that believe in god, the answers are in the old testament if you know where to look and have good math skills.


Hmmm. I do believe in God, and I'm pretty familiar with the Bible, so I'm curious how good math skills would help me find answers to questions involving time, infinity, or the nature of the spirit realm.

However, none believers or those that need proof will try to discover through science incontrovertible proof / evidence to feel safe. The bigger picture is to discover your own reality and not feel unsafe or confused. Enjoy exploring knowledge proven, unproven or disproved.


I agree that explicit proof is not always a prerequisite to belief, but are you saying that believers should be content to ignore evidence that contradicts their belief, with the goal of establishing their own comfortable "reality," right or wrong? After all, does it really matter what I believe, as long as I don't feel unsafe or confused? I applaud your enthusiasm for enjoying knowledge, but I'm pretty sure you're in the minority if you don't attach importance to the truth of what you learn. I have many beliefs that I think are correct, but my thinking it doesn't make them any more or less true. If I discover my thinking is wrong, I have to change; the universe will not conform to me. Of course, if I never look, I'll never discover anything, and I'll never have to change. Some people are comfortable with that, but I'd call it self-delusion.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users