[Max™]

There were universes before this one, Time passed in them.

Space as we know it is just a manifestation of this universe.

You could have space without time, but without any way to change, there is no way to be aware of it, so no mind.

Having time without space is hard to imagine, but having mind without time is harder to imagine.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

I believe time, space and motion are all equally fundamental. Time is the measurement of how long it takes for something to move through space. Without space there would be no consciousness. You need space and time for those little neurons to move.

All three were created simultaneously at the moment of the big bang. You can't have movement without creating space, and it takes time to move.

"In the beginning ( TIME )...and the Spirit of God ( SOMETHING ) was moving ( MOVEMENT ) over the face of the waters" ( SPACE ).

I agree, Max. But that doesn't mean your words are all wrong either, Pat. Yet, what is true one-way is not necessarily true the other way. We do use time to measure, for instance, how long something takes from A to B, yet it doesn't mean the movement of the object therefore creates the time.

Consciousness must exist within time, but does that mean time is linked to consciousness; the difference is indeed hard to tell since we have time and consciousness already, and we cannot separate one cleanly from the other. Consciousness, when seen as experience, is something of the latter time, but the ability to have consciousness may have been there from second one (or space one) or even before. I prefer to keep the frameworks cleaner than putting consciousness together in one set with time, but I get what you want to accomplish. Also: I am not going to speculate whether universes existed prior to our universe: I see no additional benefit nor disadvantage in understanding the way the universe works by having a previous universe, except for added confusion. If we can't make our universe work on real grounds, we cannot make a hundred subsequent universes work on real grounds either. But I do think time existed prior to the space invasion by matter.

The space at the center of the universe is not experiencing motion, unless it is motion that appeared later, as from a backlash kind of environment. The center at the Big Bang is without motion.

How fundamental each part is, is not the question, also not if they are equally fundamental, because the word equal does not mean anything additional at the fundamental level. There is no greater fundamental and a lesser fundamental part either, because the word fundamental already indicates something is required to have the whole be in place as it is; if one fundamental is missing, there is no whole of fundamentals as we see it. How they exist within the universe is the question. To claim that all three (time, space, and motion) were created at/during the Big Bang means, Pat, that you claim the Big Bang had a singular moment on which all were one. I don't believe that is possible. For matter (and motion of that matter) to occur, space must have existed already. For space to have existed, time must have been around, if even for a fraction longer. A framework must have come into place for each of these three to start occurring, and the frameworks today do not function on the same grounds, so why would they have started at the same time (or even in the same spot of space)? Space is a framework in which matter can exist is correct one-way. But for matter being required before space can even exist is not automatically true. Unless we are talking about a different definition for Space, Pat. Mine can have matter inside it, but matter can be taken out and we still have the same amount (if one can call it that way) of space. I consider Space a phenomenon of Nothing, that can contain a lot of matter. How do you view space?

[Max™]

Well, that is true that it isn't appropriate to speculate about other universes without understanding this one.

My attempts to understand this one merely suggested to me that it is not the first, nor will it be the last, and a mechanism representing that suggestion.

[dipayankar]

This is the first time someone has explained to me time as a particle or akin to one. Now if we consider CBR it looks more as an emission than anything else. Unless you have time particles, would you be able to fit it into the gambit of CBR??

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Hi Dippy

No, I don't. I believe that the cosmic background radiation is not a leftover from the big bang. It's the mechanism of time - the sound of the clock ticking. Current thinking has virtual particles coming into existence by borrowing energy and then repaying it as they disappear. But there is no explanation as to what is their purpose. I'm proposing that these virtual particles are necessary for the collapse of the wave function and hence the production of real matter particles (fermions). If they are regular, and I propose that they are, then that explains the meaning of 'now'. It's the point of emission of these virtual particles (chronons) and as we are made from real particles we experience 'now'.

The emission of chronons (the CBR) governs the rate at which time proceeds and hence you have to move at the rate which they dictate.

regards
Felix

PS - has anyone seen or heard of a physical explanation for the mechanism of time anywhere?

[Max™]

I missed your question about space there.

I believe if you took matter out of a body of space, you would have less space, since I'm fairly certain matter is just knots or folds in space itself.

I don't agree with the virtual particle model, it's just attempting to describe the energy contained in space without saying it is actually "the energy of space".

I just call it gravitons, it works well enough, and explains the vacuum expectation value nicely. Though it does put me at odds with Hawking, and by definition I disagree about black holes radiating, but heck... I think I can take him.

I'm going to kill the spatial wave function descriptions of quantum mechanics some day, they're the source of the pernicious infinities which require renormalization to correct, to me it screams "THIS IS WRONG", yet no one does anything about it because they don't want to consider loosening causality, and different ways to think about time.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

Lets draw a line.

Lets start with a fixed point and stretch it to make a line. Three operations are necessary to accomplish this task.

1) Stretching the point. ( MOVEMENT )
2) Simultaneously creating the line. ( SPACE )
3) It takes time to do this. ( TIME )

This is why I state that all three are necessary, and are created simultaneously. Remove one of these key elements and NO LINE. ( Or string ).

I know you have problems with trinity, but it is at the foundation of my An Idea.
The proton and the photon, which are the eternal particles, are composed of 3 elements.

I view space to be like a bubble. a closed system. That is why we have our conservation laws. Outside of this is nothing ( THE VOID ). Space is filled with everything.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. I have no problem with singularity, and my faith dictates there is a God.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Fredrick;

Lets draw a line.

Lets start with a fixed point and stretch it to make a line. Three operations are necessary to accomplish this task.

1) Stretching the point. ( MOVEMENT )
2) Simultaneously creating the line. ( SPACE )
3) It takes time to do this. ( TIME )

This is why I state that all three are necessary, and are created simultaneously. Remove one of these key elements and NO LINE. ( Or string ).

I know you have problems with trinity, but it is at the foundation of my An Idea.
The proton and the photon, which are the eternal particles, are composed of 3 elements.

I view space to be like a bubble. a closed system. That is why we have our conservation laws. Outside of this is nothing ( THE VOID ). Space is filled with everything.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. I have no problem with singularity, and my faith dictates there is a God.

Good delivery, indeed, Pat. And no problems with understanding how beliefs function; if it wasn't for your certainty that things are as you say then you wouldn't have a belief. In my pentaist ToE there is also an explanation/location for beliefs, but I do not consider addressing that here appropriate at this point in time.

The question is not if these aspects are there or not, nor is the question whether they are fundamental (and therefore required to behave the way you are describing in your example). The question is: what are their frameworks, because the frameworks will tell us how they came about, what specific purpose/functions they have. While one can say that a cow is an animal, the reverse is not automatically true, because an animal can be a lot of other things besides a cow. The framework of Animal is therefore different from the framework Cow, and they do show connections, but only with one-way certainties.

How much scientific information do you have on the existence of singularity, and is there any information available that moves this beyond the theoretical level? (In other words, in how far does the information exclude other options.)

P.S. How do you define space, Pat? Like me, like Max, or in a different way?

Originally Posted by Max™

I believe if you took matter out of a body of space, you would have less space, since I'm fairly certain matter is just knots or folds in space itself.

Originally Posted by Max™

I'm going to kill the spatial wave function descriptions of quantum mechanics some day, they're the source of the pernicious infinities which require renormalization to correct, to me it screams "THIS IS WRONG", yet no one does anything about it because they don't want to consider loosening causality, and different ways to think about time.

Hi Max, I see we are in many ways of similar mind sets, but we do not agree on what space is. Your definition involves a spatial framework that intereacts with matter, my spatial framework simply is. The earth moves through space, and in your delivery there would be some kind of interactive grid involved with that movement, my delivery only has earth as the object existing within a spatial framework interacting with other objects (planets, moon, sun, etc), but without anything special going on with space. For me, space is a nothing; it's there, but it's just a expansive position, not an entity with characteristics that interacts with matter. It's like a plate (placeholder) that is used for food (mass/energy), but the meal (matter) does not involve eating the plate (space). And where a cold plate can cool down hot food, space isn't cool nor hot, it does not interact at all, it only provides the positions matter can take in.

Can I admit that I have no idea what is so right or wrong about spatial wave function. Does it also require an interaction with a spatial grid of some paramount order that therefore doesn't fit my thinking?

[Max™]

I don't believe it is a framework that interacts with matter.

I believe matter is just an aspect of space and time, knots and folds within space.

It's how I explain gravity.


As for spatial wave functions.

Consider the interaction of a wave function with the location of a particle.

Then consider the interaction of a wave function with itself.

Then the interaction of the interaction with itself.

Then the interaction of the interaction of the interaction with itself.

It never stops, it keeps going on to infinity in some fractal spread, when I picture it in my head it looks like space is a mirror and quantum mechanics is a hammer smashing it.

So renormalization designates an arbitrary edge to the interactions, calculates what would be required to cancel them, and then applies that to infinity.

As Feynman said, Infinity - Infinity is a "dippy process."

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Max™

I don't believe it is a framework that interacts with matter.

I believe matter is just an aspect of space and time, knots and folds within space.

It's how I explain gravity.

Thanks for that explanation, Max, I have never been a fan of infinity as a great answer to anything (to me it is a function that is not real at the fundamental level, though the option to see it exists). In my pentaist theory I do have a lever effect that at one point is so great for potential energy involved that the threshold between previous state and current state of materialization is overcome. So, a kind of infinity, but then -really only halfway there- something fundamental breaks down.

As far as the framework is concerned, frameworks do not interact with substance; apologies if my wording made you consider this. Frameworks are like theories. The book of colors would be a framework to the actual colors to be used to look up names of colors, etc, not something that interacts with the colors themselves. But we do have a real distinction in our thinking here, and we also have different ideas on explaining gravity. In the pentaist theory, gravity is automatically there (like 'family' is there when you have at least two members present). I consider 'gravity' really something like 'family' is really something, based on the set up of the parts, not something based on itself. Gravity exists inside the pyramid of forces, and is itself not an entity, rather it is a phenomenon.

[Max™]

It is a phenomenon as I view it too, it is literally a representation of the amount of space folded within a body of mass.

The distance contained within a particle determines the distance which other particles are displaced by, and vice versa.

I then postulate that the other observed forces are representations of the way the distance is folded, and the effect that has on the body itself, and the rest of the spatial fabric, including other bodies within it.