Thread: The Nexus of Space and Time

1. Originally Posted by jontherobot
I cannot pretend to one hundred percent understand what you are getting at. Can you elaborate?

I will write more, someday. I just don't know where to start. What a quantum conundrum.
I was actually thinking how intuitives are prone to anxiety. It's mean to be unconscious work, so that would make sense. And I meant the nexus, sorry.

It's no wonder people call rock evil. ha

2. double post

3. We all know what space is, space is space, from where I am to the edge of our ever expanding universe (from here to there).
Time... Is different where you go and even how fast you go, time is a tricky force to travel back through; time is running at different speeds at different points in space... Where I am, time's stuck going at a certain rate, we can travel faster than time in theory, by reaching speeds such as the speed of light. I guess the nexus is the point between space and time, the thing that says time will flow at this rate here and that rate there, I guess the nexus is how big this space is, and the speed of stuff, idk.

4. Originally Posted by ilikeitlikethat
We all know what space is, space is space, from where I am to the edge of our ever expanding universe (from here to there).
Time... Is different where you go and even how fast you go, time is a tricky force to travel back through; time is running at different speeds at different points in space... Where I am, time's stuck going at a certain rate, we can travel faster than time in theory, by reaching speeds such as the speed of light. I guess the nexus is the point between space and time, the thing that says time will flow at this rate here and that rate there, I guess the nexus is how big this space is, and the speed of stuff, idk.

I've been doing a bit of thinking about that pesky time thing. Time only runs differently relative to the observer. Is it fair, then, to say time is running at different speeds across the universe? Or are we simply not in a sufficient place to take measurement?

Thinking about it, that's why you can never break the speed of light. The concept has finally come full circle for me. Hurrah. Now I need to sheathe this concept if I am to truly solve the mysteries of the cosmos

5. Originally Posted by jontherobot
I've been doing a bit of thinking about that pesky time thing. Time only runs differently relative to the observer. Is it fair, then, to say time is running at different speeds across the universe? Or are we simply not in a sufficient place to take measurement?

Thinking about it, that's why you can never break the speed of light. The concept has finally come full circle for me. Hurrah. Now I need to sheathe this concept if I am to truly solve the mysteries of the cosmos
From what I understand, time does run differently, and it's influenced by gravity. Black holes being the most extreme example. But I remember an article talking about how the Great Pyramid at Giza is so massive that it warps time around it to a very very tiny degree.

I could do work or get some writing done... but instead I think I will go surf wikipedia about gravity.

6. Originally Posted by jontherobot
I've been doing a bit of thinking about that pesky time thing. Time only runs differently relative to the observer. Is it fair, then, to say time is running at different speeds across the universe? Or are we simply not in a sufficient place to take measurement?

Thinking about it, that's why you can never break the speed of light. The concept has finally come full circle for me. Hurrah. Now I need to sheathe this concept if I am to truly solve the mysteries of the cosmos
From what I understand, time does run differently, and it's influenced by gravity. Black holes being the most extreme example. But I remember an article talking about how the Great Pyramid at Giza is so massive that it warps time around it to a very very tiny degree.

I could do work or get some writing done... but instead I think I will go surf wikipedia about gravity.

7. Originally Posted by Saturned
From what I understand, time does run differently, and it's influenced by gravity. Black holes being the most extreme example. But I remember an article talking about how the Great Pyramid at Giza is so massive that it warps time around it to a very very tiny degree.

I could do work or get some writing done... but instead I think I will go surf wikipedia about gravity.

Yes, surf away.

But does time actually run differently for those affected by the gravity wells? Here's a scenario:

Observer A is on Earth. Observer B is on the moon. Observer A is under the influence of greater gravity, so time passes slower for them, relative to observer B. I don't, however, think they are able to perceive this difference until external confirmation is brought in.... meaning time is still passing at the exact same rate for both observers relative to their own positions.

Kind of like how if you watch something enter a black hole it appears to never reach the event horizon, but relative to the object entering the black hole it is crushed into infinite(?) density. Black holes are something I have been meaning to do more research on.

8. In trying to understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which is usually presented as a perfect three way symmetry ("Father, Son, Spirit) of "equals", but has always been challenged by different people and movements, often asserting a superiority of the Father.

I realized the problem was the language of "equals" and "co-eternal", and downplaying of the "essence". The view the Church is most familiar with was actually only put together in the fourth century. Before that, the Father basically was seen as the whole, and the Son and Spirit as manifestations of the divine essence, rather than three "people" sitting on huge thrones next to each other. The Son was the physical manifestation, and the Spirit was the experiential manifestation. So the Father would be what I believe you are calling the "nexus"; the whole essence, basically.

Since "the heavens declare the glory of the Lord", I looked for a model of the universe that would reflect this form of "tri-unity".
Space and time seemed sort of like the Son and Spirit, as space is the material realm we live in, and time is what we experience. So then what was the "Father" element? The "Patrix" if you will.
Most triune models of the universe have it as space-matter-time, and it made sense that matter represented the physical element. But to me, it didn't seem to fit, because time and space were vectorial dimensions, matter wasn't. It's what occupies space.

Eventually I realized that "alternate reality" or (what is fictionally portrayed in Back to the Future and many other sci-fi stories) was the "source" or "nexus" that space is the physical manifestation of, and time is the experiential manifestation of. Quantum mechanics says that unchosen reality exists in a "potential" sort of a way ("uncertainty principle").

If the universe consists of vibrating strings, then there potential states and arrays of states, and these make up different realities. In our universe, some of these realities can coexist in three degrees of freedom of movement, and this is called "space". There's also a dimension of sequential realities we are dragged through in one direction, and this is called time.

Here's where I break this all down more:

http://www.erictb.info/chance.html
Hope this is what you were trying to describe.

9. @Eric B

I find it interesting that this concept can be used to describe so many different world views. I like the page you have created; I can tell you have done much pondering into the situation. One place we may differ on is the concept of time. I do not view it as even a temporal area, I view it as an illogical concept, a ghost in the machine. I think time passes for all observers equally, and therefore is negated. I've just developed this view over the past two days, so if you have any opinion on the subject, it would please me to hear it.

I don't believe there is any different existence apart from what has come to fruition. I drew this in paint, to somewhat visualize how I see reality:

Reality is determined when X=0. There is no existence at X=.0000001, or X=-.0000001, and there are no multiple existences. There is, however, chance for existence beyond what can be predicted for, but it's effects are negligible enough to the macro-scale universe.

In your model, is the Patrix beyond the funnel of the singularity involving the light cone? Potentially (har har) beyond the scope of this discussion: Why does your view have to fit into existing framework?

Edit: Okay, I'm thinking about this that I just posted harder, and maybe the temporal concept of time has to exist. I really need to read more into relativity. I'm not buying in yet, but the picture that time exists did just flash across my mind. Hm.

Edit edit: I am back to perceiving the universe timeless. It's not 'meet me at this time', it's 'expend this much energy and meet me here.' Maybe I should stop updating this every time my mind has a stroke of thought =/

10. Interesting, though I don't understand the hyperbolas [?] as light cones concept. Light cones consist of two 45° lines from any given point.
You an also divide it between proper and coordinate time. To each person, there is only X=0 (a perpetual "now"). To an observer looking at the whole "world-lines", X is a scale.
Which also figures in the notion of "time as an illusion", if I'm understanding what you're saying.
When people postulate that, what they're usually pointing to, is a view from the whole matrix, where all four dimensions of spacetime, including "time" from the beginning to end, are seen all at once. In that scene, there is nothing in spacetime "flowing". It's all static; only a thin membrane, representing all of space, "now" is moving through the dimension of time. Therefore, a flowing "time" is an "illusion", it's just forced movement of matter and energy through one of the dimensions. It's just a 4D version of the 2D Minkowski diagram where two of the space dimensions have been collapsed so that all three are represented by the one "horizontal" dimension.

And this ties in with the "Patrix" concept. It's a grand matrix of all possible arrays of strings which is basically static, and then a 3D "path" of "actualization" is cut through it, with the 3 dimensions measurable as "distance", and the changes seen as you move through it measured as "duration".

I have thought about adding "chance" to the Minkowski diagram (it would be the "depth" dimension), but have not worked out how the light cone would work. The speed of light is space per time, but chance is altogether different. We don't even know how to "move" through it; as space is by definition the only randomly accessible continuum.
The cone tells you every [spacetime coordinated] "event" you could arrive at within the limits of the relationship between space and time. Chance is telling you everything that could exist, including what lies outside of the cone.

In the light cone, the areas to the right and left outside the cone are called "elsewhere", requiring faster-than-light travel. They are deemed unreachable. Any trip that could be taken into that area [i.e. "spacelike trips"]; if you beam aboard a ship moving at just under the speed of light, and then try to beam back to your starting point at the same FTL velocity, you would end up in the past. Of course, that "past" would have to be a different spacetime "brane" in "chance"; a "parallel reality". So I guess it does figure; but I don't know how to define the light-like "limits" of "chance-like" trips. By definition, it is probably not bound by the light barrier. That's strictly a space limitation.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO