Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ben Masada

The Issue About Time and Space

99 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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. Therefore, 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

Edited by Ben Masada
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm.. The nothing that did exist before the big bang was hardly nothing. Quantum vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles. They were the 'cause' of the big bang. 'Nothing' as a state is unstable and as well all know, nature hates instability and abhors a vacuum. Path of least resistance and all that.

Physics has explained away your god as unnecessary.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. Therefore, 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

Greetings Ben.

I recently watched a video on you tube which I thought was very amusing.

Where is the center of the Universe?

The vid speaks about the Big Bang and other things to do with the Universe.

It doesn't mention GOD.

Now the universe is so vast and potentially endless that there is no way that whatever created the Big Bang could be accurately described by humankind.

It is most likely that as humans evolved - whilst interspersed in their tribal communities upon the Earth that they used some of their time to ponder upon the meaning of life and how everything began.

That is how God Evolved.

To explain the incomprehensible.

It became an art form and naturally evolved into a tool of control and influence and manipulation within human institutions.

Impinged upon the minds of humanity...a monster created. "In God We Trust"

Sure - The Big Bang didn't just magically happen. Something outside the known universe interacted with the inert stuff of potential and 'hey presto!'

But to think that any 'god' ( and I use that word loosely) of human invention is responsible for the Big Bang - well that is just silly. We cannot know what is responsible. The best we can do is acknowledge that something is the causation and that the big bang is the first evidence - the first effect of what now is a whole set of subsequent effects for every action there is indeed a reaction.

The argument has been going on for a tiny fraction of that period between the initial moment and now. "There is a god there isn't a god" and furthermore between differing religions "This is god - no this is god".

What is known for sure is that while argument persists, logic and solution are forfeited.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two words for the op:

1. Infinity.

2. Multiverse. (As in the possibly our universe is only one of many universes created the exact same way ours was)

Thinking along any other lines to me is like the old thinking that we were the only planetary solar system in our universe. We just need bigger telescopes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

According to the Big Bang theory, space came first, then matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time and motion theory sits well with me it makes sense i have discussed time in another forum

and go along the lines of time being real to living beings only as the motion must be observe to

have the experience of time inanimate objects don't experience time is individual perception of

motion at different rates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The distance between the Earth and the moon according to you is what constitutes space. In reality it is just the distance between the two and is not what creates space. All the matter of the universe exists in space and if all the matter of the universe were to cease to exist immediately the space they were in would still exist.

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. Therefore, 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.]

Put yourself in a spaceship that is not moving. Do you grow older? Yes you do so time exists whether there is inertia or not.

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.

Time and space became recognizable after life became sufficiently intelligent. But there is nothing to show they are tied 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.

God has not always existed. There is no written record of the Christian God before 1450 BCE even though, If I remember correctly, Writing began more than 1500 years before that. If the Christian God did exist there wopuld be something written about him before 1450 BCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distance between the Earth and the moon according to you is what constitutes space. In reality it is just the distance between the two and is not what creates space. All the matter of the universe exists in space and if all the matter of the universe were to cease to exist immediately the space they were in would still exist.

Put yourself in a spaceship that is not moving. Do you grow older? Yes you do so time exists whether there is inertia or not.

Time and space became recognizable after life became sufficiently intelligent. But there is nothing to show they are tied to the existence of matter.

God has not always existed. There is no written record of the Christian God before 1450 BCE even though, If I remember correctly, Writing began more than 1500 years before that. If the Christian God did exist there wopuld be something written about him before 1450 BCE

On all matter, there is another belief which says that the Big Bang created space as well as matter. Here for example:

Time is as much an invention of human beings as is the Christian God. The Universe has no need for the concept of either time or gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever get the feeling that the universe rolls its eyes at our pitiable attempts to explain it? Science is still in its infancy, yet physicists are talking about a multiverse, parallel dimensions, neutrons that disappear and reappear, the still to be understood dark matter and dark energy, and the boson higgs particles that give mass to other particles. It reminds me of all those sci fi books I read as a kid, Asimov, Clark, Heinlein, Bradbury. Childhood's End, and the one about the positronic pump in which energy was transferred from one parallel universe to another, and concept of "grokking." I'm starting to think sci fi may be the best predictor of future science!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and concept of "grokking."

lol I thought I was the only one who remembers that. Well, the universe may indeed be rolling its eyes, but physicists and cosmologists do the best they can. Possibly, science fiction stories have helped yet-to-be physicists expand their imaginations, which is a good thing. I know those stories improved my imagination in positive ways.

In this sense, sci fi may be the best predictor of future science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

According to the Big Bang theory, space came first, then matter.

I thought BBT says that all space/time/energy/matter were contained in a "singularity" ? It's expansion was at first only energy which then cooled enough to form the building blocks of matter? .. so, i guess your right according to BBT , that matter came last. But, i'm not sure that , as you say, "space came first". ?

From an entirely uniformed and unscientific point of view, i like the idea of space and time being a consequence of energy/matter. A possible hint that this it true is the fact that motion can alter time? Motion of what? Energy/Matter.

I always wonder if energy/matter is in a constant state of change ..Destruction/Recreation.. and that this process happens at a measurable rate , or rates .. like light has a measurable speed and measurable frequencies. Matter is now known to be composed of basically SPACE ... within atomic boundaries ? If that's an acceptable way to put it? Now, if the atoms forming these areas suddenly disappeared... i would think the space within their boundaries would disappear with them?? ... Therefore.. if all matter in the universe were to vanish .. wouldn't the same thing happen on a larger scale? I don't understand a vacuum or void... there must be some force or other in every inch of 'space' whether it be electromagnetic , gravitic.. (other) ?

Anyway, just thinkin.. and chit chattin.. .. and i'm ready to take my beating now :)

*paragraphs disappeared..

removed redundancy*

Edited by lightly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand a vacuum or void... there must be some force or other in every inch of 'space' whether it be electromagnetic , gravitic.. (other) ?

Nice chatting with you, lightly. Empty space is not "nothing".

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Also, if empty space were nothing, how could gravity be defined as spacetime curvature by general relativity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks StarMountainKid, you too.

I'm relieved to hear that space is not "EMPTY" I knew it couldn't be :)

Would it be safe to say that , similarly , ... the "space" within the boundaries of an atom is not empty but full of some sort of energy? .. energy field? or something?

And those particles you mention, that pop in and out of existence, sound eerily like my constantly Re creative universe?

maybe? .. sorta? ;)

*spelin*

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that the vacume or fabric of space came from the big bang. In fact suskind thinks it has always been here.

Quite obviously if the universe started as a quantum fluctuation then the vacuum had to preceed the BB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever get the feeling that the universe rolls its eyes at our pitiable attempts to explain it? Science is still in its infancy, yet physicists are talking about a multiverse, parallel dimensions, neutrons that disappear and reappear, the still to be understood dark matter and dark energy, and the boson higgs particles that give mass to other particles. It reminds me of all those sci fi books I read as a kid, Asimov, Clark, Heinlein, Bradbury. Childhood's End, and the one about the positronic pump in which energy was transferred from one parallel universe to another, and concept of "grokking." I'm starting to think sci fi may be the best predictor of future science!

Great Q and examples.

It is about making it up as you go along.

Science fiction is not a great example of likely future. It is a sower of seeds into the imagination of possibly funding sources.

Future Science in its present now state is not something to place ones faith into. Science is being used to create a prison for us all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm relieved to hear that space is not "EMPTY" I knew it couldn't be :)

Would it be safe to say that , similarly , ... the "space" within the boundaries of an atom is not empty but full of some sort of energy? .. energy field? or something?

]Vacuum energy[/b] is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). The concept of vacuum energy has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds[citation needed] and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."

I agree with Ben. It's telling that the Lord referred to himself as "I am." Sort of like He knows He always exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever get the feeling that the universe rolls its eyes at our pitiable attempts to explain it? Science is still in its infancy, yet physicists are talking about a multiverse, parallel dimensions, neutrons that disappear and reappear, the still to be understood dark matter and dark energy, and the boson higgs particles that give mass to other particles. It reminds me of all those sci fi books I read as a kid, Asimov, Clark, Heinlein, Bradbury. Childhood's End, and the one about the positronic pump in which energy was transferred from one parallel universe to another, and concept of "grokking." I'm starting to think sci fi may be the best predictor of future science!

Yes i agree everybody corrects everybody else on these topics and ist all speculation apart from some fact tested and proven

the other 90% is still unknown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

here is no evidence that the vacume or fabric of space came from the big bang. In fact suskind thinks it has always been here.

Quite obviously if the universe started as a quantum fluctuation then the vacuum had to preceed the BB

Yes, the BB theory doesn't describe the Bang itself, just its aftermath. The BB may have been created by a False Vacuum.. Alan Guth:

http://www.pbs.org/w...uns_guth_1.html

Future Science in its present now state is not something to place ones faith into. Science is being used to create a prison for us all.

I agree that present science is an ongoing development, and we must understand it to be a partial understanding, and concepts may change in the future. But I don't think it's a prison for us if we keep an open, rational mind that is fact-based and not just baseless speculation.

We all speculate about things here at UM, and I think that's healthy, but we must recognize speculation when we see it, even in ourselves, and equally not have too much faith that our imaginations create truth.

I must not forget my own Disclaimer:

"Disclaimer! I am a semi-scientifically-literate person who usually completely misinterprets the meaning of quantum mechanics, The Theory of Relativity and all other scientific theories, have little knowledge of the advanced mathematics which properly describe these theories, and am presenting the following poorly conceived personal hypothesis off the top of my head, realizing it is a complete fabrication of my own and bears no resemblance to how the universe in fact actually operates."

Edited by StarMountainKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm.. The nothing that did exist before the big bang was hardly nothing. Quantum vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles. They were the 'cause' of the big bang. 'Nothing' as a state is unstable and as well all know, nature hates instability and abhors a vacuum. Path of least resistance and all that.

Physics has explained away your god as unnecessary.

Lol.....the vacuum was one of the best answers atheists use to give to theists when asked how the universe came into existence from nothing. This was because they assumed the vacuum was nothing until we learned it's a rich sea of fluctuating energy. So question was still unanswered! Then I see the above comment, which is so devoid of it's philosophical and scientific implications!

Firstly, if the vacuum (a false vacuum) caused the big bang, this means it's a physical cause, if it's a physical cause, it's empirically observable, testable, and our science would not breakdown at the singularity but would continue to this other physical plane (false vacuum), physics work from one physical plane to another, so if the vacuum was the cause there would be empirical evidence of what was before the bigbang. It then begs the question "where did that vacuum come from or what caused it" thus the inevitable infinite regression!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two words for the op:

1. Infinity.

2. Multiverse. (As in the possibly our universe is only one of many universes created the exact same way ours was)

Thinking along any other lines to me is like the old thinking that we were the only planetary solar system in our universe. We just need bigger telescopes.

1. Please show an actual export of the infinite in our physical reality ie universe

2. It's a mathematical fairy tale with no empirical proof ie no proof which you require as your standard of truth- scientific!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't fool me! It's turtles all the way down!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lol.....the vacuum was one of the best answers atheists use to give to theists when asked how the universe came into existence from nothing. This was because they assumed the vacuum was nothing until we learned it's a rich sea of fluctuating energy. So question was still unanswered! Then I see the above comment, which is so devoid of it's philosophical and scientific implications!

Firstly, if the vacuum (a false vacuum) caused the big bang, this means it's a physical cause, if it's a physical cause, it's empirically observable, testable, and our science would not breakdown at the singularity but would continue to this other physical plane (false vacuum), physics work from one physical plane to another, so if the vacuum was the cause there would be empirical evidence of what was before the bigbang. It then begs the question "where did that vacuum come from or what caused it" thus the inevitable infinite regression!

Done laughing? Good. Now try reading something other than your book of fairy tales.

Here, try this; http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html

There was a very physical cause for the big bang. Quantum fluctuations, most likely. Even if our level of understanding leads to an infinite regression at this point, it's no different than saying that god did it, begging the question of what created god. And if you're just going to say that god exists outside of space and time, then I'm just going to counter that my couch exists outside of space and time it it was, in fact, what created the universe.

Our science breaks down at singularities because we don't yet have a grand unified theory that would go along way to understanding them. Just because we don't know doesn't mean we won't in the future. By your logic black holes do not exist since what lay inside is not observable at testable at our current level of physics.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Done laughing? Good. Now try reading something other than your book of fairy tales.

Here, try this; http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html

There was a very physical cause for the big bang. Quantum fluctuations, most likely. Even if our level of understanding leads to an infinite regression at this point, it's no different than saying that god did it, begging the question of what created god. And if you're just going to say that god exists outside of space and time, then I'm just going to counter that my couch exists outside of space and time it it was, in fact, what created the universe.

Our science breaks down at singularities because we don't yet have a grand unified theory that would go along way to understanding them. Just because we don't know doesn't mean we won't in the future. By your logic black holes do not exist since what lay inside is not observable at testable at our current level of physics.

Lmao!!! You do realise don't you that there is no proof for this. You know that sane proof you require to believe in god ie your own standard has no proof for this!!!

You see scientists are not philosophers so when they theorise sometimes using mathamatical axioms, they don't know the implication of what they say. Hence philosophy of science helps us get answers. That is, if there is a physical cause to universe then, it's should be observable, testable etc, do you have this proof? If it's physical, then what caused that physical cause and so on, infinite regression! Lol

You don't require a unified theory because if the cause is physical then its lime our physical reality. Our science, maths physics would go beyond the singularity, the reason it does not is because, the universe is the sum of all matter and energy ie physicality! Any other physicality beyond it would be accessible by our current science too.

You see you simply believe in the above post of yours based on faith alone, faith in science and faith in the scientists. Because everything on your link has no single proof!!!!

""The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

You see statements like this make me chuckle. Ask him where did the laws of physics come from? What are they? Laws of physics are observations which we have labeled so as natural occurrences in our physical reality ie universe. According the above the laws MAY (see your faith element) have started by laws of physics. So then where did they come from?

The scientists himself recognises the lameness of his statement philosophically:

""The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"

But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said."

You see it's above statements which make laugh too. On one hand he sort of acknowledges the infinite regression problem with a physical cause, but then tries to dismiss it by claiming that a divine creator faces the same problem! You see atheist philosophers would cringe at such statements, because all it shows is their lack of understanding of the argument! God is an uncaused cause of the universe, so how does that cause infinite regression?!!!!!

It's a very lame effort by materialist and atheists. Nothing new here to see. Tell me how did a physical cause bring into existence the sum of all matter and energy? This is not scientific but philosophical

Then your scientists end on this:

The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve.

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

Basically let's have faith in my theory and statement, then you ridicule faith of theists. Lmao!!!!

Edited by Lion6969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lmao!!! You do realise don't you that there is no proof for this. You know that sane proof you require to believe in god ie your own standard has no proof for this!!!

You see scientists are not philosophers so when they theorise sometimes using mathamatical axioms, they don't know the implication of what they say. Hence philosophy of science helps us get answers. That is, if there is a physical cause to universe then, it's should be observable, testable etc, do you have this proof? If it's physical, then what caused that physical cause and so on, infinite regression! Lol

You don't require a unified theory because if the cause is physical then its lime our physical reality. Our science, maths physics would go beyond the singularity, the reason it does not is because, the universe is the sum of all matter and energy ie physicality! Any other physicality beyond it would be accessible by our current science too.

Actually, all of our observations of the universe back up the Big Bang Theory and quantum fluctuations are seen all the time in accelerators. (Way more proof that can be said of your god)

As for 'our science, maths physics' going 'beyond the singularity', you have no clear concept of how science works, do you? By your reasoning we should all still be huddled in caves around fires because learning is bad!

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.