What does time mean at t=1/infinity?

[KyleStreet]

I have a question, please correct me in detail if I'm wrong with my conclusion. I am no expert in physics. I do however, have a certain understanding of Trigonometry and some integrals and some derivatives Calculus 1.

If you start at t=0 (the origin of the Universe) and if that is considered to be the present, does that mean that the present (at that time) requires a past and future equally by 1 divided by infinity and/or above? This problem has made me scratch my head for a while. My conclusion was that time had to start at either t=1/infinity or undefined.

Any form of math besides physics to "fix up" my understanding would be greatly appreciated.



Kyle Street

 

[ZapperZ]

Your question makes very little sense. What equation are you using to arrive at such a division? What is it that this equation is trying to calculate or describe? There are numerous common descriptions that do not "blow up" at t=0.

Are you familiar with simple kinematics?

Zz.

 

[KyleStreet]

Okay, to clear things up I meant that for every present time that exists, there is a past and a future. So if you start at t=0, will there also be a past for t=0 if all other times have a past and future? Let's consider t approaching infinity.

 

[KyleStreet]

Oh I forgot to mention that t=0 is before the Planck Time and that the past and future are equally spread out as a v-shape

 

[JeffKoch]

Oh I forgot to mention that t=0 is before the Planck Time and that the past and future are equally spread out as a v-shape

You're speaking nonsense.

 

[phinds]

I have to agree w/ JeffKoch ... it seems as though you are just stringing out words in a way that doesn't make sense.

 

[ZealScience]

It reminds me of lorentz transformation of time when time interval is 1 and spatial interval is zero which is the time dilation while traveling at speed of light.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's probably a good idea to let the OP explain what he means rather than to guess.

 

[Simon Bridge]

That would be about correct - the bit starting with "all times have to have a past and a future" sounded promising but the following post muddied things completely.

There is an old philosophical argument you still see in creationist circles that time could not have had a beginning because every moment has a past ... or: for time to begin would need divine intervention. Similarly for time to end.

Still muddled thinking because you cannot have a "start" to time, because there would be no time for time to start in. But OP reminded me of this since his own statements suffer the same sorts of problems: how can time itself start at a particular time? This is what happens when you try to generalize common-sense(-ish) ideas to the Universe.

This is why space-time is so useful: it's all geometry.