leibowde84
Veteran Member
What does this have to do with "space-time" being demonstrated repeatedly via empirical evidence? What is your reason for doubting the existence of "space-time" SPECIFICALLY?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Can you support this claim?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Sure. Time moves differently for objects moving at different speeds. The closer an object gets to the speed of light, the slower time moves for that object.
Why do you think it's obvious?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
what you have stated is not that obvious.
It took several generations and then several really bright people to realize that effect.
There are only four forces.
time is not one of them.
time as a substance?....time in a bottle?
I think not
time is a measure of movement....
it is not movement.
the movement will exist whether we measure to movement or not
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Only one man ever discoverd it. It wasn't through several generations. His concept of space time was groundbreaking.
What the names of these 4 forces?
Correct. Time is a dimension.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
you mean Albert?
He made the decision to use the measure of speed as a constant.
keeping track of time has been around since Man learned his days are numbered.
gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong
time is not in that group
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Time exists in the same way that distance or space exists. It is the 4th dimension.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Indeed but the concept of time being linked to movement and the speed of light was never thought of beforehand. If it was it wasn't ever written down or passed to the next generation.
Well those are 4 of the fundamental forces but there are other forces as well. Just wanted to make sure what you were talking about so no problems here.
Indeed it is not. However that doesn't have anything to do with the passage of time in relevance to speed of movement through space.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Hi leibowde84....the concept of time is an abstraction of the mind to represent the movement or change in observed existence....Iow, it has no intrinsic reality in and of itself outside of the observation of movement and measurement thereof...if you think otherwise...what are the intrinsic properties of time outside of the workings of the mind itself?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What is the difference between that and distance? Or consciousness? Or God? Or a "flight"? Your argument extends too far.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I mean to be clear....
the passing of time (a measure) has nothing to do with the nature of light or space.
Do as Albert did....realize that MOTION is relative.
we get a better grasp on the concept because of numbers.
time is a quotient.
NOT an entity
gnostic
The Lost One
If time is "abstraction of mind", then "timelessness" is even more so an abstract idea.
Timelessness doesn't exist beyond the idea, and more importantly have no intrinsic properties of reality. You cannot observe timelessness, is because it is nothing more than imagination of men, and it's even more mythological than time.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I understand your point, but let me try and convey what I mean... Distance is a concept that represents finite spacial relativity wrt manifested aspects of the absolute .....it does not contradict the absolute wrt infinity because distance is understood to not be absolute....it is understood by all as being merely relative term. Time otoh is a concept that represents finite relative change in finite distance of aspects of the absolute in the context of persistence of eternal existence..... It too, if understood properly that it is a relative term, does not contradict the absolute wrt eternity....but if time is thought to have some absolute essence in the sense of having an absolute beginning...it contradicts the absolute wrt eternity which is by definition has no beginning or ending...
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Sure...timelessness aka eternity, like infinity, are concepts, but these concepts are understood to represent a reality beyond the ability of the conceptual mind to apprehend. What it boils down to is that there are those whose conceptual minds believe that there is no reality beyond the comprehension of the thinking mind, and those who understand and accept that their conceptual mind is incapable of apprehending the absolute... Why it is that the latter type understand this is another subject. but it can't be called imagination or myth, both of which involve the conceptual mind, because the realization does not involve thought...
gnostic
The Lost One
That's another word for saying "supernatural"...or "imaginary"...or "mythological"...or "delusional"...
...do I really know to go on?
More of the same, above.
Except that I might add, that the whole "absolute" business that some religions talk about, are sham, just like that of theism. It is still faith-based belief, and nothing more.
This "reality" you talk of, the other reality, is no different to people who go high, with ecstasy, whether that be drug or non-drug ecstasy. But to me, it is nothing more than delusional belief.
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
So to be clear on this...That's another word for saying "supernatural"...or "imaginary"...or "mythological"...or "delusional"...
...do I really know to go on?
More of the same, above.
Except that I might add, that the whole "absolute" business that some religions talk about, are sham, just like that of theism. It is still faith-based belief, and nothing more.
This "reality" you talk of, the other reality, is no different to people who go high, with ecstasy, whether that be drug or non-drug ecstasy. But to me, it is nothing more than delusional belief.
Do you believe there is no absolute reality, the sum total of all that is?
Do you know absolutely the sum total of all that is?
Your belief that the reality represented by the concept of absolute reality, ie. the sum total of all that is, is a sham is duly noted...you're welcome to believe whatever you want...
gnostic
The Lost One
Do you believe there is no absolute reality, the sum total of all that is?
Do you know absolutely the sum total of all that is?
Your belief that the reality represented by the concept of absolute reality, ie. the sum total of all that is, is a sham is duly noted...you're welcome to believe whatever you want...
I think your whole reality is a sham, "absolute" or not.
This whole "absolute" business being beyond "reality", just demonstrate it is nothing more delusional concept. It is a conceptual as any theistic belief, which required absolute faith in your "little imaginary world".
Excuse, my brute frankness, but I already know that my frankness can be impolite or rude.