I had an abstract thought as I sometimes do and was wondering why does the universe have to begin? Is there a distinction between when humanity begins and when everything began?

Isn’t our time based on the speed the Earth rotates? And all our time is compared to the speed of light. In SI units a second is the distance light travels.

And why must there always be a beginning? I have seen arguments on this forum showing why infinity times infinity still equals infinity. So even if the universe did begin isn’t that infinity. In between 2 times isn’t the distance infinity?

My point is that did we invent time to explain our world or is it based on observations. And if it is based on observations can we rely on it to explain and apply to physics?

I think it was on this forum that some ask if math was created or discovered. Is time this way?

I post this in religion because I believe time determines religious beliefs. It is how we experience the world. And some scientists believe that the World could not be created in 7 days. Time is also how the World works. But what if there was no time?

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

My point is that did we invent time to explain our world or is it based on observations.

Time existed before humans did, and we can observe time-dependent effects from the past. We did not “invent” it any more than we invented length.

I post this in religion because I believe time determines religious beliefs

And yet you’ve made absolutely no connection between the two.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

We did not “invent” it any more

and any less

9 hours ago, swansont said:

than we invented length.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

I had an abstract thought as I sometimes do and was wondering why does the universe have to begin?

I post this in religion because I believe time determines religious beliefs. It is how we experience the world. And some scientists believe that the World could not be created in 7 days. Time is also how the World works. But what if there was no time?

We just want to know stuff and we want to believe the stuff we know is correct; no time equals no history to learn from, just empty space...

Edited January 5Jan 5 by dimreepr

But is our time dependent on motion? I know that time is different in different locations. But it is still based on the speed of light. Is there any other way to look at the speed of light and say it is moving faster than the other location. I don’t understand it but couldn’t have Einstein solve any other way than clocks at different speeds.

I put this in religion to debate time. The universe at rest where no time occurs because it is static. In Genesis God speaks the world into existence. I know that sounds like nonsense. Words don’t equal motion. But words are vibrations. What if God spoke in strings and caused vibrations throughout the universe?

But that is just a thought. My main question is why is everything based on the speed of light. Has anyone in this forum tried to replicate the experiments that measure the speed of light? It should be a YouTube challenge.

But what if we are missing something important in the spectrum of light? I don’t know what it is.

On 1/4/2026 at 9:17 PM, swansont said:

Time existed before humans did, and we can observe time-dependent effects from the past. We did not “invent” it any more than we invented length.

We did not invent them but their definitions are based on our perception.

I read a book called “The Planiverse.” The whole book was about two different worlds trying to understand each other. Both worlds had science the other couldn’t understand or relate to in their own world.

On 1/5/2026 at 8:46 AM, dimreepr said:

We just want to know stuff and we want to believe the stuff we know is correct; no time equals no history to learn from, just empty space...

Agreed. I just wanted to debate time. Like Moz on the tv show White Collar said, “We have time so everything does not happen all at once.”

39 minutes ago, Trurl said:

But is our time dependent on motion

No. There are time-dependent processes that do not involve motion, such as the decay of elementary particles for instance.

41 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I know that time is different in different locations.

Locally at any given location, all clocks always tick at exactly “one second per second” - so there is no meaningful way to say that it is different in different locations. The only thing that changes is the relationship of clocks in spacetime, but that’s not the same thing.

43 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I don’t understand it but couldn’t have Einstein solve any other way than clocks at different speeds.

Again, clocks don’t have different “speeds” - it’s only that clocks at different events are related in non-trivial ways. This may at first glance appear to say the same thing, but it doesn’t.

49 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Has anyone in this forum tried to replicate the experiments that measure the speed of light?

I have personally done it twice - once in high school physics class with an apparatus basically consisting of an assembly of rotating mirrors, and once for fun using the classic setup involving marshmallows in a microwave. And there are many other ways to do it at home, it’s not really that difficult. Note though that the level of precision within such DIY tabletop experiments is naturally limited, so don’t expect too much in terms of accuracy of the final numerical value.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

But is our time dependent on motion? I know that time is different in different locations. But it is still based on the speed of light. Is there any other way to look at the speed of light and say it is moving faster than the other location. I don’t understand it but couldn’t have Einstein solve any other way than clocks at different speeds.

The rate at which it passes does, but not the existence of time itself.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

I put this in religion to debate time. The universe at rest where no time occurs because it is static. In Genesis God speaks the world into existence. I know that sounds like nonsense. Words don’t equal motion. But words are vibrations. What if God spoke in strings and caused vibrations throughout the universe?

Religious belief is not empirical fact. You might take it as a given, but it is not.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

But that is just a thought. My main question is why is everything based on the speed of light. Has anyone in this forum tried to replicate the experiments that measure the speed of light? It should be a YouTube challenge.

Yes, in college physics we had a lab where we did it. The rotating mirror experiment Markus described.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

But what if we are missing something important in the spectrum of light? I don’t know what it is.

If there was something missing there would be experimental anomalies.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

We did not invent them but their definitions are based on our perception.

Which is not remotely the same thing.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

I read a book called “The Planiverse.” The whole book was about two different worlds trying to understand each other. Both worlds had science the other couldn’t understand or relate to in their own world.

Works of fiction aren’t much of a rebuttal, because they’re literally made up.

Awesome. Especially recreating the speed of light experiments.

To me light is the one thing that would make scientists believe in creation. I don’t know if the Bible explains time and what the light of distant stars says when it reaches Earth, but from my studies of the Bible I haven’t read anywhere that would conflict with all the facts you stated. Of course I know no one agrees with how the universe was created. I just think that scientists want to figure it out themselves.

On 1/10/2026 at 3:16 AM, Trurl said:

Awesome. Especially recreating the speed of light experiments.

To me light is the one thing that would make scientists believe in creation. I don’t know if the Bible explains time and what the light of distant stars says when it reaches Earth, but from my studies of the Bible I haven’t read anywhere that would conflict with all the facts you stated. Of course I know no one agrees with how the universe was created. I just think that scientists want to figure it out themselves.

The problem with religion is, the bible is stuck in the time it was written and our context has changed over time; if the speed of light was a thing in the bible then it would be a reasonable axiom, from which to calculate, the likely shift in context, and therefore, a greater understanding of what was written.

On 1/9/2026 at 10:16 PM, Trurl said:

Awesome. Especially recreating the speed of light experiments.

To me light is the one thing that would make scientists believe in creation. I don’t know if the Bible explains time and what the light of distant stars says when it reaches Earth, but from my studies of the Bible I haven’t read anywhere that would conflict with all the facts you stated. Of course I know no one agrees with how the universe was created. I just think that scientists want to figure it out themselves.

The people who wrote the Bible didn’t know stars were objects at different and considerable distances.

On 1/9/2026 at 8:16 PM, Trurl said:

To me light is the one thing that would make scientists believe in creation.

Quite the opposite, actually. Light is a symbol for capital T Truth and goodness in the Bible. It's also used to judge people and determine whether they deserve to be tortured for eternity. It represents the presence of the Abrahamic god, to the point where nothing good can happen in the shadows, even though shadow doesn't exist without light.

None of this has any scientific basis. Truth is subjective, always has been.

On 1/9/2026 at 8:16 PM, Trurl said:

I just think that scientists want to figure it out themselves.

Science has ways of removing subjectivity from its reasoning process, which religions don't. It's not a matter of "figuring it out themselves" so much as rejecting sloppy methodology filled with passionate attempts to build a belief system on faith alone, since the evidence doesn't support that system.

On 1/15/2026 at 3:14 PM, Phi for All said:

Science has ways of removing subjectivity from its reasoning process, which religions don't. It's not a matter of "figuring it out themselves" so much as rejecting sloppy methodology filled with passionate attempts to build a belief system on faith alone, since the evidence doesn't support that system.

I'm sorry but I can't let this pass, "religions don't"? Isn't God a way of removing subjectivity?

Two different system's with different approaches, both effective (arguably), so I find it difficult to dismiss an approach to life, that was historically successful.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't God a way of removing subjectivity?

Which one?

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm sorry but I can't let this pass, "religions don't"? Isn't God a way of removing subjectivity?

Two different system's with different approaches, both effective (arguably), so I find it difficult to dismiss an approach to life, that was historically successful.

I'll assume you mean the Abrahamic god. Can you show me how any god removes subjectivity? Please don't use anything written about them, since those myriad interpretations are at the heart of why their worship can't, by default, remove subjectivity.

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'll assume you mean the Abrahamic god.

No, I mean every accepted religion and their version of the concept.

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Can you show me how any god removes subjectivity? Please don't use anything written about them, since those myriad interpretations are at the heart of why their worship can't, by default, remove subjectivity.

If we simplify humanity, and put the scientifically literate at one end of the spectrum and the uneducated (by which I mean the illiterate among us) at the other; fate removes subjectivity from the other end of 'our' spectrum, bc our agency has been removed from the equation.

Edited Monday at 12:36 PM3 days by dimreepr

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, I mean every accepted religion and their version of the concept.

The fact that there is more than one indicates subjectivity rather than objectivity

What they remove/reduce is the reasoning process.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

The fact that there is more than one indicates subjectivity rather than objectivity

What they remove/reduce is the reasoning process.

That's kinda my point.

Removing subjectivity, scientifically, is hard work, not everyone can or even understands why it's necessary.

Not everyone is capable in the 'reasoning process', I refer to my spectrum, in an ideal world science and religion work hand in hand, much like a court of law and the application of justice; scientists understand the world for the rest of us and we're content with the answer's.

It's like 'the matrix' and the hypothesis that the humans rejected the "happy world" bc of their natural rejection of a peaceful contented scenario; to which I call bullshit.

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's kinda my point.

So in saying “Isn't God a way of removing subjectivity?” you didn’t mean that at all?

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Removing subjectivity, scientifically, is hard work, not everyone can or even understands why it's necessary.

But it’s the scientists who do that work (whether it’s all that hard is debatable) Not the institution of science, nor the average person who uses it.

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not everyone is capable in the 'reasoning process', I refer to my spectrum, in an ideal world science and religion work hand in hand, much like a court of law and the application of justice; scientists understand the world for the rest of us and we're content with the answer's.

But one can ask for the reasoning behind the answers, if one is so inclined, and it’s not “because <deity> has commanded it”

And there isn’t a different answer that depends on the discipline of science. It’s not like conservation of energy is something physics requires but chemistry rejects. Unlike e.g. eating pork or drinking alcohol in religion.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

And there isn’t a different answer that depends on the discipline of science. It’s not like conservation of energy is something physics requires but chemistry rejects. Unlike e.g. eating pork or drinking alcohol in religion.

That's the problem with a text out of time/context, it's always going to be open to the bias of our culture; which circles back to my point, even science isn't immune to the potential dislocation of text and meaning, dependant on which time/culture we choose to use as a cypher.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That's the problem with a text out of time/context, it's always going to be open to the bias of our culture; which circles back to my point, even science isn't immune to the potential dislocation of text and meaning, dependant on which time/culture we choose to use as a cypher.

So gravity depends on your culture? In some cultures you can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? That’s a pretty bold claim.

On 1/19/2026 at 5:35 AM, dimreepr said:

If we simplify humanity, and put the scientifically literate at one end of the spectrum and the uneducated (by which I mean the illiterate among us) at the other; fate removes subjectivity from the other end of 'our' spectrum, bc our agency has been removed from the equation.

I don't see how this works, and you don't help by interjecting "fate" as a mechanism for removing subjectivity. Also, uneducated and illiterate are NOT synonymous. Also, I don't see an equation that agency can be removed from. If you're just using buzzwords to explain this, it's not working.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's kinda my point.

I think it's a horrible point. Removing the process for reasoning doesn't help anybody remove their own biases. The process is what helps recognize an objective statement from a subjective one. Your "point" can't explain the difference between "apples are fruits" and "apples are delicious".

And none of this supports the statement you made that God is a way of removing subjectivity. In fact, your arguments seem to confirm that gods are practically the epitome of subjective thinking.

On 1/20/2026 at 3:06 PM, Phi for All said:

I don't see how this works, and you don't help by interjecting "fate" as a mechanism for removing subjectivity. Also, uneducated and illiterate are NOT synonymous. Also, I don't see an equation that agency can be removed from. If you're just using buzzwords to explain this, it's not working.

On 1/20/2026 at 3:06 PM, Phi for All said:

I think it's a horrible point. Removing the process for reasoning doesn't help anybody remove their own biases. The process is what helps recognize an objective statement from a subjective one. Your "point" can't explain the difference between "apples are fruits" and "apples are delicious".

I was trying to simplify the human equation, into those that can understand the lesson and those that can't, fate is just another word to fill the gap between...

When one understands a thing, it can be difficult to understand why other's can't; for instance, some apples aren't delicious.

Most of the above, in reference to agency, depends on the teachers we most trust, in a much more complicated spectrum of humanity.