The Issue About Time and Space

[Ben Masada]

THE ISSUE ABOUT TIME AND SPACE

Nothing existed before something started to exist. BTW, time and space do not exist. They are accidents of matter.

Space is the distance between matter and matter. Considering that matter was created, there was no space before matter. Where there is no matter, there is nothing. Vacuum, is the word.

How about time? There is no time. Time is an accident of motion. For instance, put a marble ball on the top of a hill and tell me how long it takes for that marble to reach the base of the hill. You don't know. Why? Because the marble is in the state of inertia. There is no time while matter is in the state of inertia. You have got to push that marble down the hill to know how long it will take for it to reach the base of the hill. It means that time is measured by motion. Without motion, there is no time. Time is the biproduct of matter in motion. Bottom line: There is no space without matter and there is no time if matter does not move.

There was no time nor space before the universe was created. The universe is composed of matter. And time and space are accidents of matter.

Time and space became a constant after the creation of the universe. They do not exist by themselves. They are abstract concepts, relative to the existence of matter.

There is no such a thing as "always exists" about matter, and for that matter, about man. Only God always exists. And focus that the verb is in the present tense and not in the past; and it can neither be in the future.

An atheist asked me that if things were created out of nothing where did nothing come from? That's the kind of question which constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of the questioner but also to that of the one who must answer. Aristotle said, in other words, that only nothing comes out of nothing. And I add to it, by the will of man or of nature. And here is where we must start our research about the origin of things on the basis of the concept of probability that everything is possible.

Albert Einstein was once asked if he believed in God. He answered and said that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation. He was referring to the expansion of the universe, which could very well be God at His work of creation. (Psalm 19:1) Probability is the word. Nobody is sure of anything about issues of billions of years ago. So, it could have been this or that way.

Ben

[radarmark]

Not true at all. Spacetime is a measure used in Einsteinian Relativity Theory (see the "spacetime metric tensor"). If space and time do not exist, it cannot and does not measure anything. However, the proof is pretty conclusive that Relativistic Effects are real.

Einstein was (as I said before and you cannot accept) brilliant but wrong in a lot of details. His fight against Quantum, his Cosmological Constant, and this preposterous notion of a "Block Universe". He did away with time and space in some (not all, and none of his scientific papers) to bring the world crashing into his idea of material monism. Yeah, I know he talked a lot about G!D (but not in terms of his scientific work) but he only believed in matter and operationalism (in his scientific work).

In addition, it is quite possible (see "cyclic universe" and Penrose or Heller... not your normal Standard Model) the universe "bounces" from Big Bang to Big Crunch. The math works as well as a single-big bang so call the odds 50:50.

Finally, let's talk reality here, not metaphysics. There is "vacuum" everywhere, but it is not empty (see "vacuum energy"). And if time is an epiphenomemon of matter, why do I (and anyone who has ever lived or ever will live) experience its passage. If I pointed a gun at you, and pulled the trigger, would you duck? Of course. Why? Because you know from experience, from causality, that if I pull the trigger and you don't, you will die (I am a good shot).

Sorry, try again.

[bhaktajan]

Sorry, try again.

Yes, Agreed.

IMHO, the massively flawed supposition uses 'negation' as a progressive analysis methodology.

This the same central methodology used by Monist of India's Advaita sentiments ---they use 'negation'.

Do not trust the conservative view point starts with 'negation' of any thing and everything until neti-neti exists ---including there self(s).

[radarmark]

Yep. See, bhaktajan, science can be our friend.

Back to the original. If time and space are functions of matter (what the post and Einstein said) it can be expressed as t,x,y,z = f(M,E) where x to z are the space coordinates, M is mass and E is energy. Fine, this can also be expressed as M,E = f(t,x,y,z). If you read the equation one way, it must bbe valid the other way.

Besides, the basic two equations of quantum (Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrdingers Wave Equations) are exact the opposite... matter and energy are expressed as direct functions of time and position.

Neither is "true". They "work" under certain positions. And yes, we physicists make the case of one over the other all the time. Heck, in the Bohrian Copenhagen Interpretation it gets even worse. While the quantum under investigation is governed by Quantum Theory, the measureing devise must be looked at from "Classic" or "Continuum" Physics (a la Newton or Thermo or Transport Phenomena). Again, it "works" (NASA never used Einstein's equations, but Newton's in guidance systems). Just like deductive versus inductive versus abductive logic... they are useful in certain realms, with different models.

[bhaktajan]

If time and space ~ matter

matter = t,x,y,z = f(M,E) //aka// M,E = f(t,x,y,z)
[where x to z = the space coordinates]
[M = mass]
[E = energy]

FYI: the two equations of quantum (Heisenberg's Matrices & Schrdingers Waves) are exact the opposite...

matter and energy are expressed as direct functions of time and position.

I have been describing the soul/self/atman/living-being as an indisiable vector-Point . . . POV:

Nothingness and Something-ness both existed together and sustained each other since time-immemorial, together this is called the material manifestation or the Cosmos.

Something-ness may be found either conscious or in-animated.

The Self: Each conscious Individual, within the cosmos, has as its own address a "Vector Point" [X-Y-Z Axis Intersection]—which is indivisible, individual, eternal, and conscious.

An animated conscious individual may occupy a body [encasement].

This encasement allows the pursuit of its own gratification by way of:
1 Eating,
2 Sleeping,
3 Mating,
4 Defense (Physical, mental, ego).

After the temporal stages of birth, growth, old age and death the vector point retains only the spirit of 'direction toward a **goal'.

Thus by dint of prior cultivated interests, inherits a new body/encasement which accommodates another lifetime for the pursuit of gratification(s) along the same lines of interests that where cultivated during its last life. When this is repeated since time immemorial the sages call this 'samsara' [the cycle of birth and death]. . . .

Personal vs. Impersonal God - Page 4

Radar, have you stated 'that every speck of creation occupies a vector-Point in space (where no vector two points can occupy the same space at the same time rule).

Has all vector points of the cosmic sky north and south been surveyed and allocated a vector point on some institutions charts already???

[radarmark]

My friend, again, I may not be answering the question from your POV. The "cosmic sky map" (as seen north and south from here on earth) has been charted (see Skymaps.com - Publication Quality Sky Maps & Star Charts for one commercial application). Since there is no north or south except in relation to some POV and our POV is earth, this should suffice.

No not all points are allocated in the sense that they are not occupied by a star or some other source of light (nebulae, galaxies, whatever). That is because "out there" maybe 25 billion lighyears in each direction is the point where whatever beyond that is receeding from us at over the speed of light and hence is not visible.

This 46-50 billion light-year sphere is the "observable universe". While we are pretty certain there are galaxies beyond this, we cannot observe them. The "sky maps" allocate a point in 3-space (x, y, z, or, ususally in polar coordinates of (r,theta, phi)) to each object we can see within that sphere, however, the r (radial distance) is usually surpressed. See Spherical coordinate system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[bhaktajan]

"Skymaps.com" ----????????

OMG. What a small world ---I sell Skymap .com fanchises!

The IPO will split several times before the stock levels off!!!

Get in on the ground floor opportunity!

Remember: "There's a star born everyday"

IUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI

I have been describing the soul as an indivisable vector-Point.
Where no two vector points can occupy the same space at the same time.

Thus there is an absolute nature of "BEING".

No two beings can occupy the same space at the same time ---this would be an absolute rule; No?

[Etu Malku]

From what I understand the Christian mindset is that Time is Linear, there's a beginning and an end, whereas most of the world's religions understand Time as circular, or cyclical, there being no beginning or end.

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by bhaktajan

No two beings can occupy the same space at the same time ---this would be an absolute rule; No?

No. There is no being. These are illusions.

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by Aupmanyav

No. There is no being. These are illusions.

Also heard whispered:

"Build the Taj mahal . . . and they will come"

[radarmark]

I do not know that a self as a vector point exists. Self is a mental construct (an event) that is meant to explain our (an individual's) world line. That worldline occupies the same space-time coordinates as a lot of other stuff. It is a becoming, not a being.

[bhaktajan]

I do not know that a self as a vector point exists. Self is a mental construct (an event) . . . It is a becoming, not a being.

Self = Being = Consciousness = a NOUN.

You are referring to VERBS & ADJECTIVES --- 'acts' that form temporal sand castles with lots of florishes.

The mistery of Life is "Enjoyment" --- aka, "atma-rama" --- aka, "satifisfaction of the soul".

Conscious BEINGS are NOUNS.
Conscious BEINGS use "VERBS" (Actions) to animate
Un-Conscious THINGS that are devoid of Actions.

[radarmark]

I believe the universe is made up of verbs, not nouns. See the physics of Bohm and the philosophy of Whitehead. We can create a thread on this.

It is much like the x,y,z,t = f (M,E) therefore M,E = f(x,y,z,t). If space and time can be modeled as a function of matter and energy (the first equation), you can model mass and energy as functions of position and time.

In the pre-Socratic era there were two schools in conflict Heraclitus' and Parmenides'. The former believed the Kosmos to be flux ("everything flows"), that is change or becoming was the only constant. The latter developed a basic logic to refute Heraclitus which became the basis of Platonic Forms and Aristoleian logic. What the logic did do was create a pluralism (matter/mind, necessary/contingent) of thought. I disagree with this and accept the ideas of Heraclitus and Laozi.

[bhaktajan]

"I am therefore I am not"

Can this be expressed in a mathematical formula?

EIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEI

But whether or not we specfically 'exist' ---we are all flotsom floating in space.

[radarmark]

Depends on what you me by "I", doesn't it?

You see "I" as some existing being and I see "I" as a tread of events in space-time.

Yep, either way flotsom floating in space!