Thread: Space-time

I would like to start a thread on space-time to help everyone better understand what it is.

My understanding of this measurement so far is that it's used to calculate the real position of an object (mainly) in space.

Because everything in space is always moving mostly away from each other and the distances are so great, the concept of space-time was created to help us determine the position of an object.

More or less an object, radio wave or form of energy you detect in space will be in a different position then where you think it is depending on your distance from the object in the first place. This is caused by the energy traveling no faster then the speed of light. We for instance might see a star and assume it's located at that exact position, in reality that star may have moved hundreds or thousands of years from that position, thus we get the idea of space-time. It took the light from the star so many years to reach our eyes, in that time the star has kept moving. Also a viewer from another planet on the other side of the star may feel it's in a completely different position then what we think it is as the light has taken a different amount of time to reach their eyes. Even our sun is not exactly where we think it is, it's always around 8 minutes ahead of our senses.

I would love to hear more from the other members if they have information to share on this topic. It's really very interesting when you get down to it. For some it may be a bit hard to grasp at first.

What I find greatest, however, is that when you look at a star, not only might it have moved, chances are it has changed properties, blown up, or elseway changed completely.

I'm not much of a star-watcher myself. It always reminds me of when we went hiking with a group, and I was alone with a the girl I loved. I told her about the stars, about time and space, and how men had worshipped deities for aeons based upon those stars. That's when I realised that I was meant to be asexual. I loved that girl so much I would have given up everything for her, but I learned that carneal lusts are not everything. Indeed, science is something I much more enjoy these days than looking into the beautiful blue eyes of a woman of astounding beauty, *sigh*.

Oh, I strayed kind of off-topic. Well, personally my difficulties lied not so much with actual space, but rather with time. I understand that it's the movement of matter, but I find it difficult to imagine how something is capable of going as fast/slow as it does. And yet, I do understand, but something about it, I just can't place. The whole concept, although I can understand individually, seems too much for me to grasp.

Mr U

As depicted by E=mC^2, whan mass approaches light speed, the energy required to push the mass becomes exponentiated by square. If the formula is algebraically broken domn to its time domain, Time is calculated to slow down. This is where I get lost. It seems to me, a relative idiot, that were time to slow down and momentum and velocity to stay the same, more time would exist to allow for C speed attainment. I'm so very confused!!! :?

Have read a S.F. book about parallel universe collision. One universe of absolute void and one of absolute energy (exact opposites) attract each other. Where the two touch, energy from E universe flowed into space domain forming this reality. As energy emptied from the energy universe, space formed within the energy U causing an antimatter universe to form in parallel to this reality. I think the book was written by Robert Heinlin, possibly not though, since it has been nearly 30 years from when it was read. Have thought alot about the apperant speeding up of stars measured by astronomers lately. Could validity exist in the two universe theory. As energy empties into void U., space fills up with energy. When filled to max. energy flow is reduced because conduction becomes reduced. As energy converts to mass and flows from point of input, space becomes empy enough to allow input of energy from E domain U. Sort of a cyclic reaction. This same effect occures in conductors generally relating to L/C tank applications. Could this Universe be expanding by sort of pulsation effect? Just a thought from an idiot contained within a species of relative idiots. We know so very little relative to all that is to be known, how can we be but idiots?

I am an Aether man and I'll tell you why.
If space-time is emptiness how can emptiness curve?

You gotta give it substance!!!

I'm new, and please correct me if i'm wrong.
As far as i know if anyone says that "space curves" is not like a sheet of paper does... it's often used as an example, but it isn't that simple.
"Space curves" on it's physical properties (i.e. gravitational properties)... and you don't need aether to explain that.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

I would like to start a thread on space-time to help everyone better understand what it is.

My understanding of this measurement so far is that it's used to calculate the real position of an object (mainly) in space.

Sorry, boss. You fell at the first jump!
Space-time is the coordinate set that is used to locate an object in both space and time. Let's say "Mardi Gras" or "Custer's last stand". Both have specific locations in space and time. Let's call them "events"

Because everything in space is always moving mostly away from each other

Is it? How so? Er...ok, you mean outer space. Don't muddle the notion of space as a dimension and space as an interstellar interval (risk of headache!)

the concept of space-time was created to help us determine the position of an object.

Well, the position in space-time, i.e. when and where, extremely loosely speaking.

I would love to hear more from the other members if they have information to share on this topic. It's really very interesting when you get down to it. For some it may be a bit hard to grasp at first.

Easy, when you know how!!

Let's say this. In space-time coordinates, a "point" is an event. I assert that if any two points in space-time have the same same coordinate positions they are a) either same same events or b) different manifestations of the same event (thunder and lightening).

Now for a really bad headache. Question. Is it possible to move in space-time? Is it possible not to?

I think the problem is that nobody can prove or disprove that space has substance or not. Is space made out of some building block we just have no knowledge of or way to detect. It's possible. When it comes to the curving effect without matter or energy we would have no idea at all this was happening. Time only changes because the matter and energy within space changes. The time measurements we get from this matter have changed. If light traveling in a straight line is bent from a strong gravitational pull then the amount of time it takes to go from point A to B also changes, thus we have space/time that bends. In reality neither space nor time has changed only the matter and or energy within it. The measurement of the duration (time) also changes based on the changes of matter and energy within space.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

If light traveling in a straight line is bent from a strong gravitational pull then the amount of time it takes to go from point A to B also changes, thus we have space/time that bends.

I don't think this is quite right. The curvature of space-time is a consequence of the presence of matter and/or energy. In the absence of these, space-time is almost flat, as far as is known.
Light always travels in straight lines, but in the vicinity of a massive object, what appeaars to light to be a straight line does not appear to be so to an observer at a distance from that object.

That is why the theory of gravitation is called a relativity theory, because observers in different locations with respect to a massive object don't agree on what it means to be flat. Which is the same as saying they don't agree on what is a straight line. Which is the same as saying they don't agree on what is the shortest distance between two points.

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

If light traveling in a straight line is bent from a strong gravitational pull then the amount of time it takes to go from point A to B also changes, thus we have space/time that bends.

I don't think this is quite right. The curvature of space-time is a consequence of the presence of matter and/or energy. In the absence of these, space-time is almost flat, as far as is known.
Light always travels in straight lines, but in the vicinity of a massive object, what appeaars to light to be a straight line does not appear to be so to an observer at a distance from that object.

That is why the theory of gravitation is called a relativity theory, because observers in different locations with respect to a massive object don't agree on what it means to be flat. Which is the same as saying they don't agree on what is a straight line. Which is the same as saying they don't agree on what is the shortest distance between two points.

Well one would have to conclude that light is being bent at some point otherwise everyone would "see" everything the same way. If one person see's everything one way and another person another way then the light between the first person and the second person is being distored in travel.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Well one would have to conclude that light is being bent at some point otherwise everyone would "see" everything the same way. If one person see's everything one way and another person another way then the light between the first person and the second person is being distored in travel.

I'm not sure I see what you're getting at here. Is it something like this?

Suppose that you look at a distant star, and your view of that star is not occluded by any intervening massive body, you can calculate the star's position.
If I, on another night, calculate the star's posistion from the exact same spot, but this time with my view partially occluded by a massive body, then my result will be different from yours due to light being bent.

Is that what you mean by "seeing different things"?

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Well one would have to conclude that light is being bent at some point otherwise everyone would "see" everything the same way. If one person sees everything one way and another person another way then the light between the first person and the second person is being distorted in travel.

I'm not sure I see what you're getting at here. Is it something like this?

Suppose that you look at a distant star, and your view of that star is not occluded by any intervening massive body, you can calculate the star's position.
If I, on another night, calculate the star's position from the exact same spot, but this time with my view partially occluded by a massive body, then my result will be different from yours due to light being bent.

Is that what you mean by "seeing different things"?

Well ya, that sounds reasonable to me. We know light can be moved by massive amounts of gravity. I suppose even a cosmic dust cloud could act like a mirror reflecting light from such star off at an angle, highly unlikely but I suppose possible. My original point was that two people in different galaxies may think a star or light source is in a totally different position because of the bending of the light coming from the star. We assume light always travels in a perfectly straight line, but we know better over such vast distances. Makes one wonder if light is not a particle of sorts.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

We assume light always travels in a perfectly straight line, but we know better over such vast distances. Makes one wonder if light is not a particle of sorts.

But this is the point I was trying to get at! Light does always travel in a straight line, but in curved space-time a straight line doesn't appear to be straight to an observer in flat space-time.
Geuss what? Both lines are equally straight from the perspective of the observers in curved and flat space-time, respectively.

But this is the point I was trying to get at! Light does always travel in a straight line, but in curved space-time a straight line doesn't appear to be straight to an observer in flat space-time.

Filosophically, this raises an interesting question about 'truth'. Is the line straight when it appears to from one perspective and curved from another? Is it both? The beautiful thing about relativity is being able to say they are both. That every truth is dependable on perspective.

Suppose that you look at a distant star, and your view of that star is not occluded by any intervening massive body, you can calculate the star's position.

I must disagree with this. Unless we are talking about either an autistic person or someone with a lot of calculative power next to him. The mere curve that happens when light hits the atmosphere (the sun never being where we see it) makes it near impossible for an amateur.

Mr U

WHAT IS SPACE?

Space is the feeling of distance that zero needs to cancel in order to reach the infinity it rejects. This means that this distance can never be cancelled. Space is consciousness ("light") itself.

WHERE DOES SPACE COME FROM AND WHEN?

Space comes from the rejection of infinity-principle by the zero-principle in order to be and to remain nil. This takes place here and now.

WHAT IS TIME?

Time is the feeling of memory of what zero has managed to merge with, compared to the future of what it has not yet managed to merge with. Time is love itself.

WHERE DOES TIME COME FROM?

Time comes from the necessity of unity (of the two principles of Nothingness), that consciousness feels. What must be (nothingness) is and remains an AIM, since consciousness eternally refuses infinity (so that the zero-principle remains actual). So, the infiniteness of nothingness remains an unreachable goal giving the center of infinity a feeling of eternity. This is why mind is eternal, and why we'll never fall into nothingness.

Originally Posted by sad

Time comes from the necessity of unity (of the two principles of Nothingness), that consciousness feels. What must be (nothingness) is and remains an AIM, since consciousness eternally refuses infinity (so that the zero-principle remains actual). So, the infiniteness of nothingness remains an unreachable goal giving the center of infinity a feeling of eternity. This is why mind is eternal, and why we'll never fall into nothingness.

Wow! I wish I had thought of that.

space-time could just be a proporty of the universe granting matter a definative, well not quite, place for it to exist.

i.e you exist in a certain place for a particular duration of time.

only once we try to measure this property does it become a co-ordinate system.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

I would like to start a thread on space-time to help everyone better understand what it is.

Good idea.

My understanding of this measurement so far is that it's used to calculate the real position of an object (mainly) in space.

Why do you consider space-time to be a measurement? Just because there are ways to measure it in no way implies that it is a measurement, whatever that might mean.

Because everything in space is always moving

This is missing the point, I believe. Everything in space-time is always moving.

mostly away from each other

You are thinking only in terms of space, are you not? You are ignoring the time in space-time. Furthermore, why do you think that things are moving mostly away from each other? You are speaking in terms of galaxies perhaps.

and the distances are so great, the concept of space-time was created to help us determine the position of an object.

I disagree. Position in space-time is only one aspect of understanding space-time.

I would love to hear more from the other members if they have information to share on this topic. It's really very interesting when you get down to it. For some it may be a bit hard to grasp at first.

Everyting in the universe post Big Bang is composed of space-time. All of space is bound up with time, as space-time. Everything is always in motion through both space and time. The rate of motion through space and time is symmetrical, in the sense that increases in the rate of motion through space result in symmetrical decreases in the rate of motion through time. For more on this, consider the so-called twin paradox.

and the distances are so great, the concept of space-time was created to help us determine the position of an object.

Spacetime was created billions of years ago and exists as a number of dimensions which tells us that we can move up or down, side to side, forwards or backwards and move from and ordered state to a dissordered one as you gain entropy.

the concept of measurement and coordinates we created to help gauge distance ond positions in this 'Spacetime'.

Originally Posted by wallaby

and the distances are so great, the concept of space-time was created to help us determine the position of an object.

Spacetime was created billions of years ago and exists as a number of dimensions which tells us that we can move up or down, side to side, forwards or backwards and move from and ordered state to a dissordered one as you gain entropy.

the concept of measurement and coordinates we created to help gauge distance ond positions in this 'Spacetime'.

Still it just confuses people. They need to come up with another word that doesn't include "time". They like to use "time" as everything we see is old, in some cases billions of years old...but so what. It's still just space. It's not our fault light is so damn slow

spacetime has many meanings to many people, it's all relative, spacetime is rooted together because any movent or event that occurs in a place must also occur at a time, wether it is measured or not is irrelivent fact being it happened in space and at a time. hence any movement in space is a movement in time.

Originally Posted by wallaby

spacetime has many meanings to many people, it's all relative, spacetime is rooted together because any movent or event that occurs in a place must also occur at a time, wether it is measured or not is irrelivent fact being it happened in space and at a time. hence any movement in space is a movement in time.

True, however people put the label of when something happened. I just see it as movement. It was in this state, now it's in this state. Ohh wait it just changed again. We put the label of "time" on it by comparing the change of one thing to the change of another. We then put numbers on it and say it took 54.4 seconds This really just means that while one thing was changing something else was also changing that happen to change in such a way that we could get a reading. In the end it's all just movement. It's what blows holes in the concept of time slowing down or reversing. Matter can slow and perhaps even revert back to a former state. If someone wants to label this as slowing of time, well I guess..but it's really just a slowing of matter.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

They need to come up with another word that doesn't include "time". They like to use "time" as everything we see is old, in some cases billions of years old...but so what. It's still just space.

Space-time is a concept of relativity. If you have no interest in relativity, or if you do not understand it, then you have no need to use the word space-time, and you have no need to understand the concept. However, if you do use the word, as you are here, then it might be useful if you were to understand what it means. You say that it still just space. There is no such thing as just space, as space cannot be separated from time. That is why a term such as space-time is required.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

They need to come up with another word that doesn't include "time". They like to use "time" as everything we see is old, in some cases billions of years old...but so what. It's still just space.

Space-time is a concept of relativity. If you have no interest in relativity, or if you do not understand it, then you have no need to use the word space-time, and you have no need to understand the concept. However, if you do use the word, as you are here, then it might be useful if you were to understand what it means. You say that it still just space. There is no such thing as just space, as space cannot be separated from time. That is why a term such as space-time is required.

Perhaps, however space void of everything could not have time defined. The only way to define time to such a void would be to use an external source. Time is 100% based on the change of matter and energy, therefore without it time doesn't really exist. It becomes just a figment of a concept without value. If you can't measure change in the physical universe you can't measure time. Time is man made, without intelligence it doesn't really exist.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Perhaps, however space void of everything could not have time defined.

I think that space cannot be void of everything, because that everything is the space.

The only way to define time to such a void would be to use an external source.

Ditto above.

Time is 100% based on the change of matter and energy, therefore without it time doesn't really exist.

I agree with you completely. Time is complete dependent on space. As well, space is completely dependent on time. That is the nature of space-time. In case you think that my analogy is incorect and that this is a one way street, could you provide an example of something that exists in space for which it is possible to consider it completely independently of any context of time?

It becomes just a figment of a concept without value. If you can't measure change in the physical universe you can't measure time. Time is man made, without intelligence it doesn't really exist.

I do not see how your first statement here implies or even supports the second.

ok i'll take another crack at it.

spacetime is many things, to my limited understanding anyway, one of these is a reference system.
matter was in this place and at this time but it was in a different place at the next moment in time, thus we humans devise our measureing systems.
same can be said for matter was in this place for this amount of time, again using human measuring systems, but because it is in a different point of time then it origionaly was the matter has moved.

ok thats a bit messy but the fact is that space and time are inseperable and act together on all matter in the ways that we observe.

if you try to define space without matter you must ask, "why is there no matter", the answer being because there is no spacetime.

but then again all space has energy seething in it, due to virtual particles coming and going, so you'd be hard pressed to find a perfect vacuum.

Originally Posted by wallaby

ok i'll take another crack at it.

ok thats a bit messy but the fact is that space and time are inseperable and act together on all matter in the ways that we observe.

but then again all space has energy seething in it, due to virtual particles coming and going, so you'd be hard pressed to find a perfect vacuum.

I basically agree with what you said in this post, although I do not see the requirement to have a reference system in order to consider time. Time exists, and it can be measured or not. As well, I don't think that there could be such a thing as a perfect vacuum, as I consider that space is not the container but the contained.

I actually won't disagree that all change takes some time, thus time and space (physical objects and energy) are tied together. The part I argue is that time is really just the man made version of the measurement of change. To put it another way time is not needed for change to occur, the change occurs regardless. We then label it as time. Time is not an actually thing that interacts with the universe, it's just a concept to help us understand everything.

Time is not needed for the universe to function, man needs the concept of time in order to classify and clarify the universe we live in. It's kind of a hard concept to follow as we have lived from day one with the idea of time.

The concept of time can't be separated from change, change however still happens with or without that concept.

It's concept vs physical universe.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

To put it another way time is not needed for change to occur, the change occurs regardless.

How can any change whatsoever occur within space in the universe without time?

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

To put it another way time is not needed for change to occur, the change occurs regardless.

How can any change whatsoever occur within space in the universe without time?

Well again, time is just a concept. All forms of measurement of time are based on change. Without change time can not be measured, the change however still occurs. Time is really just our way of measuring change. It is not an integral part of the change itself. One needs to separate the intellectual concept from the physical world. Changes occur, we label these changes as the passage of "time". They however are just changes. Without other changes to base the changes on we can't define time.

This is a very subjective discussion and may never wash with some. The main point in my discussion is that time is not an object, it's just a concept created by man.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Well again, time is just a concept. Time is really just our way of measuring change. It is not an integral part of the change itself.

Just out of curiosity, what is your basis for making this claim? Why do you think that this is true? Do you have any evidence, or are you just speculating?

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Well again, time is just a concept. Time is really just our way of measuring change. It is not an integral part of the change itself.

Just out of curiosity, what is your basis for making this claim? Why do you think that this is true? Do you have any evidence, or are you just speculating?

How does one have evidence about a concept? If it doesn't exist in the physical world or even the super-natural (is it exists) world then it is just a concept or a thought process.

Light exists, radiation exists, the rock you might drop on your toe exists, the effects of heating an object change the object in such a way that heat exists. Time does not really exist except in the minds of man. Change exists.

There is a difference between knowing a concept exists and is accepted and knowing something physically exists. Be it light or a rock.

the only conceptual part of time is the man made measurement for which we use to measure time based on the cycle of our day and orbit around the sun accompanied by the change in seasons.

time does not need to be measured because whether you measure it or not time will still flow, time is change, you admited earlier that space and time were tied together so by your logic space must be a concept too.

before you answer that remember that like time space does not need measurement but rather accompanies change as well.

Originally Posted by wallaby

the only conceptual part of time is the man made measurement for which we use to measure time based on the cycle of our day and orbit around the sun accompanied by the change in seasons.

time does not need to be measured because whether you measure it or not time will still flow, time is change, you admited earlier that space and time were tied together so by your logic space must be a concept too.

before you answer that remember that like time space does not need measurement but rather accompanies change as well.

I won't argue that the concept of time does flow forward. This however is 100% caused by the change in the physical world. Time being a concept of the mind is dependant on these changes to really exist. Time is not and never will be something physical or have the ability to alter, impact or trigger any change in the physical universe. The very changes in the physical universe that do occur are what triggers the concept of time. It is however without intelligence to label it, null and void.

i see where you are coming from but there is an entire universe outside of the psycological components that make up mankinds self awareness.

forget humans forget all sentient beings think universe.

change is and event which is accompanied by the passage of time.
time is a dimension of our universe in all matter and energy moves.

change is and event which is accompanied by the passage of time.
time is a dimension of our universe in all matter and energy moves.

I would agree here, except that time as a dimension is one we have created. It is not needed for the universe to function. It is pretty handy however to help us define reality

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

How does one have evidence about a concept? If it doesn't exist in the physical world or even the super-natural (is it exists) world then it is just a concept or a thought process.

You have made a claim that you would have us accept as a fact. However, you now state that you have no evidence to support your claim, and that no evidence is needed to support your claim. How can you believe in your claim if you have no evidence to support it?

I could understand your stating that you are unuaware of evidence to support the existence of time, but you did not make this claim. You claimed to know that time does not exist, just as your evidence for this contention seems not to exist.

I could understand your stating that you are unuaware of evidence to support the existence of time, but you did not make this claim. You claimed to know that time does not exist, just as your evidence for this contention seems not to exist.

Of course it exists, it exists as a concept. It's not however a physical thing or part of the physical universe. It's a thought process more then anything. Remove all intelligence to define it and it would not exist. How could one support it as anything more? Do you feel it's an object?

i guess your one of those people who believes that a tree falling in the woods must have someone observing it if it is to make a sound.

humans are not gods and we did not create time.
if time was not a physical thing the universe would never have been created and thus there would be no intelligences to observe it, unless of course there is a god...but thats just Bullshit.

i guess your one of those people who believes that a tree falling in the woods must have someone observing it if it is to make a sound.

Actually the exact opposite. Unless of course I change philosophy and views of the universe then I might be.

Hi (In)Sanity,
What about "size"? Would it exist without intelligence to define it?

Pete

Originally Posted by Pete

Hi (In)Sanity,
What about "size"? Would it exist without intelligence to define it?

Pete

Well it would relative to other things. The actual definition as in meters yards inches, etc would not. But still yes I would have to say it would in the respect of one thing being larger or smaller then another.

One set change would also exist with or without us, the label of how much time it takes or even that time passed is not however needed for it to function.

The main argument anyone would have against my statements would be certain reactions like whatever process causes light to travel. Clearly it has some type of chain reaction that has a set interval between each move. Still this is really not dependent on time being some object.

ya

Originally Posted by wallaby

humans are not gods and we did not create time.

Consciousness (separation between you and the rest of the world) created the illusion of time, matter and everything.

Do you know what God is?

The self is the absolute being. It is what religions call God.

Religious people say: "God has helped me" "I hope He will forgive me!" "I have found Jesus" Ordinary people say that they have helped themselves, they have forgiven themselves, or that they have found themselves.

You know... the universe is you. But you loved wallaby (body, matter) so you became wallaby and wallaby became the center of the world (since the only way to reject your real self which is infinite, is to become the center of the infinity, and so, because you can relate to wallaby, you caan be aware of "space") Because of this, the universe became visible. Before, when you were everything, nothing could be seen. Information is only possible by separation. Light is nothing, but if you separate it, it becomes lots of beautiful colors (simplified example)

i guess your one of those people who believes that a tree falling in the woods must have someone observing it if it is to make a sound.

Yes, but that is a pretty misleading example.

if time was not a physical thing the universe would never have been created

What? Why not?

Time is a "physical" thing, huh? It is made of matter? Have physicists invented time-particles now? Surely, you are only aware of time because of your personal consciousness, so time is mental.

Or do you think that the universe exists and evolves even though there are no sentient beings to experience it?

Well... without a conscious being the universe would be like an empty paper. It contains nothing, but it COULD contain everything, if you were there... and with your creative powers, you would imagine something and paint something on this empty paper. What could be painted on this emptiness? Anything. Everything. So nothing and everything are the same thing, really.

Originally Posted by Pete

What about "size"? Would it exist without intelligence to define it?

No.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

But still yes I would have to say it would in the respect of one thing being larger or smaller then another.

How do you know that something is smaller than something else? It is also a measurement, a sensation, like time. What does it mean that something is "small" and something is "big"? They are products of our consciousness. Habits and past experiences.

If something is smaller, is it smaller in a physical way or in a mental way?

Without consciousness, you, the self, there is no relation and there can be no sizes or distances.

Imagining that the world has an absolute material reality is like imagining that good and evil exist and are parts of the world. However, there is nothing bad in the world, good and evil are parts of our mind, and they exist only because we exist.

How do you know that something is smaller than something else? It is also a measurement, a sensation, like time. What does it mean that something is "small" and something is "big"? They are products of our consciousness. Habits and past experiences.

To a degree I understand exactly what you mean. We could however do an atom count on something and say it's mass is greater then something else. Size I guess would be relative in a sense. One would have to conclude the sun is larger then the earth. Right? It has more physical mass and a large circumference.

One would have to conclude the sun is larger then the earth. Right? It has more physical mass and a large circumference.

What I mean is that things have a "size" only because humans exist and measure them. Size IS the measurement, and measurement is a human concept, a thing in our mind, and it's not physical. Measurement is comparison. Comparison between what? Earth and the Sun? Yes, but the source of the comparison, the source of "size" comes from the one who measures it. Size is mental, just like time is.

If there is no matter, can things have size? Can things exist if there is no matter? Are things made of something physical? Can there be sound if there is no sound which travel to your ears? Can you move your body without moving it? Sure. This is just what happens in our dreams. It is only when we are awoken from the dream that we realize that it was all just perceptions. So, wouldn't it be possible to also be awoken from our life on earth? Realizing that this is all just perceptions? What else could it be, if not perceptions, things in our mind? How could we be aware of something outside our consciousness? When we see something, it means that it is in our consciousness, our mind, inside ourselves. If it wasn't in our consciousness, how could we then be conscious of it?

The conclusion is: nothing is "physical". No one has ever experienced anything physical. It is only possible to SENSE things, with our 5 senses. So, what we think is physical, are just sensations.

Surely, the sun is larger than the earth (though I say that without ever seeing it by myself) but whether a thing is small or large is not a physical reality. Same goes for things like matter and space. Up and down. They're parts of our mind. They all exist only because we have a body and we can relate between ourselves and the rest of the world (which is our unconscious mind), which we think is outside ourselves. How could anything ever be outside us? They are only outside our consciousness. We push them away because we love ourselves and want to remain what we are. Just like magnets.

---

The "observer" can be likened to a TV signal, and the TV represents the world which the observer thinks is outside him. The signal and the image on the TV is the same thing. They are not separated in any way.

Also, if the broadcast stops, the image on the screen will also dissapear. It is because the world, the image on the screen, comes from the observer, the sender of the signal.

I don't know, as humans we have certain sense that can interact with the physical world. Our physical bodies and determine temperature, taste, color..etc. Unlike time that is purely in the minds eye. Color and taste may vary from person to person yet still they are direct physical to physical interactions that produce a "sense". Size could be determined this way also. If you can't fit through the door for example.

Many things are relative to our preset values, temperature for example is based on experience. What we call cold or warm is centered around what our physical bodies can tolerate.

Originally Posted by Tjalian

Time is a "physical" thing, huh? It is made of matter? Have physicists invented time-particles now?

Your questions miss the point. You seem to be claiming that time is not physical. Can you give an example of anything physical that could possibly be considered to exist outside of the context of its relationship to time? Can you give an example of any particle that has a meaningful existence without a necessary time component?

Originally Posted by Tjalian

i guess your one of those people who believes that a tree falling in the woods must have someone observing it if it is to make a sound.

Yes, but that is a pretty misleading example.

if time was not a physical thing the universe would never have been created

What? Why not?

Time is a "physical" thing, huh? It is made of matter? Have physicists invented time-particles now? Surely, you are only aware of time because of your personal consciousness, so time is mental.

Or do you think that the universe exists and evolves even though there are no sentient beings to experience it?

by that logic space is not a physical thing and hence you are not occupying any place.
we can see a measureable impact on spacetime when objects are subject to high speeds and high gravity.
we can also see a measurable impact on space in the preasence of large amounts of matter thus space must be a physical thing if matter is to have any impact on it.
since space and time are joined time must also be a physical thing in which we have seen a measurable impact.

i would go into further detail but i have to go to bed.

I'm willing to say time and space are linked. We should however define a few things that I feel are often abused perhaps due to lack of understanding.

First, time can not be slowed down. Matter and energy can be altered in such a way that causes the sense of time to appear to slow. The whole idea of traveling at the speed of light and having time slow or stop really has to mean that matter and energy have stopped their normal movements. One could not argue this if one feels time and space are indeed linked.

Two, time can not be warped. Again matter and energy can be warped, altered, changed to impact our view of time.

Three, time can never be impacted to cause matter or energy to change. Only matter and energy can be changed to cause the perception of time to appear to change. Without matter and/or energy around to compare against time has no base of reference and becomes a complete concept of the mind. If I toss you in a pitch black sound proof room you will soon loose all concept of time.

Four, time can never be reversed. This would require matter and energy to revert back to the precise exact states as they once were. Chaos theory would also have the outcome change even if you were to manage such a feat.

Originally Posted by wallaby

by that logic space is not a physical thing and hence you are not occupying any place.

ye, that's what I believe. space is a mental thing.

we can see a measureable impact on spacetime when objects are subject to high speeds and high gravity.

objects? you probably mean subjects. no... I guess we have a different opinion of reality and the science of reality.

we can also see a measurable impact on space in the preasence of large amounts of matter thus space must be a physical thing if matter is to have any impact on it.
since space and time are joined time must also be a physical thing in which we have seen a measurable impact.

You talk about something which you call physical. What is it? I know it's made of matter, but explain to me, what is matter?

Why is it that you consider there to be something physical out there. Do you know what the word physical means? It means a substance which is distinguished from the mind, the consciousness. But how can we be conscious of it, if it is not in our consciousness? Or: how can we be conscious of it if we are not conscious of it? :?

How do you know that there is something physical out there when the only world you have ever known is the world inside your mind, the world of your 5 senses?

---

Great philosophers and metaphysicians like Plato and Socrates considered matter to be a principle rather than something "physical". It seems that people never really understood what they were talking about.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

I'm willing to say time and space are linked. We should however define a few things that I feel are often abused perhaps due to lack of understanding.

First, time can not be slowed down. Matter and energy can be altered in such a way that causes the sense of time to appear to slow. The whole idea of traveling at the speed of light and having time slow or stop really has to mean that matter and energy have stopped their normal movements. One could not argue this if one feels time and space are indeed linked.

Two, time can not be warped. Again matter and energy can be warped, altered, changed to impact our view of time.

Three, time can never be impacted to cause matter or energy to change. Only matter and energy can be changed to cause the perception of time to appear to change. Without matter and/or energy around to compare against time has no base of reference and becomes a complete concept of the mind. If I toss you in a pitch black sound proof room you will soon loose all concept of time.

Four, time can never be reversed. This would require matter and energy to revert back to the precise exact states as they once were. Chaos theory would also have the outcome change even if you were to manage such a feat.

first time can be slowed down for the observer, the observer does not have to be consious as this has been shown to happen to clocks.
unless you are aware of every atom in your body time will slow down for the matter in your body. thermodynamic proccesses slow down hence why our consiousness can observe its slowing.

second time is slowed down under the conditions i mentioned because it is warped.

third of all time is impacted by speeds and gravity in the same way as space to cause it to move at different rates causing dilation.
and if you tossed me into a pitch black sound proof room then yes i would loose all concept of time but time would still flow and i would be older once i came out, that is if you would be so kind to let me out, then i would have been when i went in. again you are being lost in the human measurements of time.

four and object of negative energy would go back in time as it goes faster than light and hence dilates time in the backward direction, but what are the chances of that happening.

i said:

we can see a measureable impact on spacetime when objects are subject to high speeds and high gravity.

you said:

objects? you probably mean subjects. no... I guess we have a different opinion of reality and the science of reality.

no i mean objects, stop twisting my theory to fit yours...maybe thats why you believe the universe is mental because you would like to believe that you are the center of it and that the universe is ment for you but its not.

i said:

we can also see a measurable impact on space in the preasence of large amounts of matter thus space must be a physical thing if matter is to have any impact on it.
since space and time are joined time must also be a physical thing in which we have seen a measurable impact.

you said:

You talk about something which you call physical. What is it? I know it's made of matter, but explain to me, what is matter?

Why is it that you consider there to be something physical out there. Do you know what the word physical means? It means a substance which is distinguished from the mind, the consciousness. But how can we be conscious of it, if it is not in our consciousness? Or: how can we be conscious of it if we are not conscious of it? :?

How do you know that there is something physical out there when the only world you have ever known is the world inside your mind, the world of your 5 senses?

Wikipedia

Matter is commonly referred to as the substance of which physical objects are composed.

matter is the fundamental unit of the universe and is everything that you see. we have seen it.
the definition you gave is from the philisophical point of view, how convenient that you left the others out.

this is why we continue to struggle. people like you refuse to let go of there senses.[/quote]

Everything you say is a lie.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

I'm willing to say time and space are linked. We should however define a few things that I feel are often abused perhaps due to lack of understanding.

First, time can not be slowed down.

You should be a little more exlicit. When you say that "we" should define a few things, you should be more explicit that you want to arbitrarily make up notions and have us accept them. I would like to know what possible basis you have for claiming that the speed of time cannot be changed.

Originally Posted by Tjalian

Everything you say is a lie.

really, is that so.
Why?