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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you ignore the way reality actually behaves when we interact with it, then you are taking a step away from it, not towards it. Meditation may have therapeutic value or tell you about yourself, but I've never seen any evidence that it can tell you anything at all about reality outside your own mind.
Reality is on the side of concepts that comport with reality, but just because a concept agrees with your desires doesn't mean anything.
It's not nonsense .. you are merely trying to deflect away from the real issue.
No, a great number of philosophers understand the concept, but you can't?
No. It's a question of which model works to predict reality. Treating time and space separately was the model used until Einstein, but it's only a good approximation.
I understand fine, it's just that philosophy only ever gave us options about time, not a conclusion. Now we have actual evidence about the question, and have a conclusion.
No, no .. elapsed time has always been measured relative to space .. nothing to do
What does that even mean, 'zero time' ?
No, not at all.
You're mixing up the mechanics of measuring something with how the relevant model works. Newton described time and space and entirely separate and different. That worked fine, and still does for most situations, but treating them together as space-time is far more accurate and necessary for modern technology to work.
I mean literally in no time at all. You can't, because you can't do anything at all (even think) without time. The mechanics of measuring anything require both space and time.
In case you haven't noticed, this universe is all we actually have access to. As far as how time works, philosophy came up with some ideas (like eternalism, presentism, and a growing past) but couldn't say which was true.
So what, exactly, do you think it can tell us about time that science can't? You seem to keep changing your mind about this. Is it just subjective time, or something else?
Errr .. irrelevant. At 'a moment in time', space has dimensions.
No .. that is a philosophical stance, that denies (or discards) the existence of anything but physical reality.
Unlike you, I don't believe that the physical reality that we see is all that is.
If that's how you decide to measure it.You are referring to the fact that it takes time to "get our ruler out"
No, it isn't. I don't deny the existence of anything else, I'm just waiting for somebody to give me some reason to take any specific ideas of anything else at all seriously. And waiting.... and waiting.... and waiting....
We currently have a theory of space-time that explains every single observation and experiment we've ever been able to make or do. Of course, it isn't the end. We know that we don't have a complete picture yet because it doesn't play nicely with the theory we have that covers everything else.
Is there a point in here, struggling to get out? Yes, the expansion of space can mean that, beyond a certain distance, the recession velocity will exceed light. This is well understood and doesn't violate special relativity because (simply put) it is an expansion of space, not through space.I notice you have not commented on your 'absolute velocity' through space..
"space expands as the light travels through it, resulting in numerical values which locate the most distant galaxies beyond the Hubble sphere and therefore with recession velocities greater than the speed of light c."
Is it approaching the speed of light? Who knows?
It's alright, I'm used to waiting.......
I didn't suggest any law was being violated .. I am merely pointing out that measurement of
Yes, there is a 'universal essence' but it is not the Abrahamic God of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais, etc.
Did I imply it was, please point out my exact words where I connected it with God of Jews, or Muslims, or Bahai, etc.?
There is no time in "an absolute sense". It's relative to an observer/frame of reference. Before you mentioned "absolute velocity" too, which also isn't a thing. You seem to have misunderstood something and I'm not entirely sure what...
A second is a unit of measurement, not the thing being measured, but it's easy enough to look up:
Exactly!
I have literally no idea why you are going on about time units and standards. The discussion is about the basic nature of time itself...so measured "relative to the world", and not to the galaxy or universe.
What, that man's imagination and thought has no role to play, other than confirming what