How can time have a beginning when time is the concept of beginning and end itself?

It is more than that. It is a dimension of space time in the same way that the three spatial dimensions are. As such time began at the big bang in the same way that space did.

But that's not answering the question. How can time have a beginning? Time is beginning itself.

It is answering the question, it is simply that you don't grasp the concept of space time.
Your comment that "time is a beginning itself" is as meaningless as saying "left is a beginning itself" or "up is a beginning itself".

You are confusing the human perception of the passing of time with the actual dimension of time.

Before the big bang there was no up and down, left or right forwards or backwards because there was no space. Space and time are linked. Space is simply the 4th dimension of space-time and so before the big bang there was no time either.

It is a awfully big concept and it took a genius like Einstien to realise this was the case, but experimentation and observation seem to confirm the space-time concept.

I know all that, and I should've worded myself wrongly. Beginning and end is a concept created by the dimension of time (yes I'm very well aware of the 4 dimensional spacetime continium, I read many books on theoretical physics) so how can time have a beginning itself? No, it's not meaningless as saying left is a beginning itself because left isn't a beginning, whatever you're trying to say. But a beginning is a beginning in itself and time is the concept that there is cause and effect seperated by series of events so how can spacetime have a beginning?

It seems to me that you are getting more hung up on the words themselves than the concepts they convey.

Why is the idea of a beginning to time any different to the concept of beginning in terms of space?

A journey in a specific direction has a beginning and end, but such a journey could only occur after space was created. Exactly the same thing for time. A journey through time has a beginning and an end. Why does that mean that time itself can not have had a beginning?

If you can accept that space had a start why can you not grasp the same concept for time (I am assuming here that you do accept that space had a beginning).

If you accept the reality of space-time then there really is no difference between the four dimension accept for the fact that we are limited to travel in only on direction in time, where as we can easily retrace our steps in space.

Time does not have a beginning or an end. Like you say, it is a concept. No beginning can start without an end, and likewise every end starts a new beginning.

Sadly modern physics shows you to be wrong in every respect. Time-space and hence time began with the big bang. There was no time or space before that moment.

EH???? man this stuff really messes with my head. Let me get this straight, are they saying that before the big bang there wasn't even a big "void", (I can't do this, this is going to drive me mad). I need to be taken by the hand and explained everything as if I was a child as I really can't get my head round this.

Exactly. The 3 dimensions of space we are familiar with and the dimension of time came into existence at that moment. There was no "before" the big bang in any way meaningful because there was no time. The matter in the universe isn't expanding into a void as you would expect, for example shrapnel from a hand grenade flying off in all directions. It is actually the space itself between the galaxies that is expanding.

Don't worry about it making your head hurt. If you think you understand these concepts then that is because you REALLY don't understand these concepts. Modern physics describes the universe in a way that is beyond out normal experience. Even the theoretical physicists struggle to comprehend the consequences of their research. I know it makes my head spin too.

Time doesn't have a begining or an end, when people refer to time begining with the big bang what they mean is that before that time was irrelevant, plain and simple, and the same will go for when or if the Universe, that is, matter and energy ends.

although I guess you could say time ends when the last human dies.

Yes true,but that is human time not space time.

I agree with NeoGenesis here. People are not distinguishing between the human perception of the passing of time and the concept of time itself. The statement, has as much meaning as saying, "although I guess you could say left and right ends when the last human dies."

i tried asking myself the same sort of question, but i couldnt come up with a theory like i do with most things about the universe, but i got bored and started playing a game

Time is simply a measure of mass.

No it isn't. That is like saying left and right are a measure of mass.

Einstein showed that mass distorts space-time but that is another thing all together

Consider the other option, that it creates.

I don't know what are you talking about, do you? Please elaborate as your last two (single sentence) posts seem to be totally meaningless in the context of this thread.

I will leave it to the physicists to argue it out.
Not everyone believes that Einstein had it right you know.

No, but those he rely on evidence rather than belief tend to think he wasn't far off, at least where Relativity is concerned.

Indeed, but my point still stands, time, the liear measurement we use to order our lives, and indeed space time, are not generally considered before the big bang, because it was irrelevant to us before that as nothing existed outside of a singularity (theoretically) so it is generally held that time did indeed begin with the expansion of the universe. So I can only assume that time ends according to mordern science at such a point that it no longer remains relevant, and the only thing I could think of was when there is noone left to care about it. When the last human dies, and there is no one left to make observations, everything will become irrelevant so yes you are correct that left and right ends as well as up or down. But thats a silly argument to have, and I guess to argue with myself, some from the other boards would argue that death is not the end, so hey what do I know?

But Waspie, I have read enough of your posts to respect your scientific knowledge and objective arguments, so you of all people should know that Science especially in fringe and theoretical fields, contrary to popular belief, very rarely deal with absolutes and generally involves a lot of filling in the gaps, and this is not a question that can be answered using definitive observations or hard evidence, I answered honestly and logically. So it is also valid to say that after we are all gone Space time will endure, you could even argue that Hours minutes and seconds will endure, but this is akin to the argument that if a bomb were to detonate and there is no one around to hear it does it actually make a sound?

I think it is worthy of note that space time is still only theoretical itself, I have heard, and not had chance to do any research that Ether has become quite a popular theory within these realms again.

Where did you get that? No it's not.

Isn,t time related to motion?