Existence of Time and God.

[Steve3007]

We live in a finite, physical Universe. Truth

We live in a finite, energy Universe. Truth

Being able to use two different words in similar sentences does not make those words synonyms. The two sentences, being different, mean different things. For example, the following two sentences are both true:

I own a green Toyota car.

I own a small Toyota car.

That does not mean that "green" and "small" are synonyms.

Here you describe three different properties of chairs:

A chair is energy. truth
A chair is physical. truth
A chair is reality. truth

That does not mean that the words you use for those properties are synonyms.

Here you make a statement which demonstrates that you don't really know what the word "frequency" means:

A chair is composed of many frequencies ( truth ) and if struck with another physical/energy/reality/observed time object, will vibrate at some frequencies that are audible, i some cases.

If you want to make meaningful statements about the world we live in, first study the definitions of the physics-related words that you use. "Energy" is a useful one to start with because most people think they have some idea what it is but it is surprisingly difficult to define. The most straightforward functional definition is that it is simply a quantity, calculated from various other measurable quantities, that appears to remain constant.

You will have learned in high school (or in the other studies that you did in preparation for formulating your ideas about Physics and Cosmology) that two types of energy called potential energy and kinetic energy can be calculated using the equations:

Kinetic Energy = ¹/₂mv²

Potential Energy = mgh (in a uniform gravitational field)

On the face of it, these two familiar equations don't bear much resemblance to each other. It is only by observing that, for a given object, their sum remains constant that we come to believe that they represent a "thing" which we call energy.

For more details on this subject, I created a topic on this website some time ago here:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... mp;t=10252

These are philosophically interesting ideas and it would be fun to discuss them. But you have to be willing to learn something about the basics first. I have shown quite a lot of willingness to follow your links and help to explain some of your ideas about such things as toruses. Will you extend me the same courtesy and read just a little tiny bit of high school physics and mathematics?

[Misty]

If god created the world and everything in it, it means that he did this at a certain time in existence. So if god did this, it means that god exists in time. So my question is : as long there is here the factor of time when did god start existing? If you say that he is eternal then why did this god just one day decided to create this world (the whole universe as you believe), what was happening in existence before that, what was god doing meanwhile? Watching TV? Playing Chess?
What I'm trying to say is: how can there be a god who created everything in a certain time in existence?
Remember, I'm not opposing or stating anything, just wondering... and before giving an argument think about the role and connection between your god and time.


PS: I don't believe in god but do not mistake me for an atheist.

Creator GOD, IS. Time is a part of the created Universe. Time has nothing to do with GOD as far as his being, being. GOD does not exist as the universe exists.
The word exist is a term for the created universe. GOD IS, no time involved.

[Rr6]

Steve3007---Being able to use two different words in similar sentences does not make those words synonyms. The two sentences, being different, mean different things. For example, the following two sentences are both true:

Here you describe three different properties of chairs:

A chair is energy. truth
A chair is physical. truth
A chair is reality. truth

That does not mean that the words you use for those properties are synonyms.

Nor does not mean they are not. I used them in a sentence, as your previous post inferred/implied they should. Check that concern of yours off your 'use in a sentence' concerns.

Here you make a statement which demonstrates that you don't really know what the word "frequency" means:

So say you with no evidence to support your claims, and specifically in regards to my comments as stated.

If you want to make meaningful statements about the world we live in, first study the definitions of the physics-related words that you use.

I have and you refuse to accept my comments as valid, as stated and you have yet to supply rational, logical common sense explanation that invalidates them, as stated.

"Energy" is a useful one to start with because most people think they have some idea what it is but it is surprisingly difficult to define.

Read a dictionary for starters Steve. Physical and energy share enough commonality to be considered synonyms. imho.

You will have learned in high school (or in the other studies that you did in preparation for formulating your ideas about Physics and Cosmology) that two types of energy called potential energy and kinetic energy can be calculated using the equations:

Fermions and bosons = physical/energy. I have to keep repeating this until you can grasp simple truths. When you have rational, logical common sense explanation that invalidates my comments as stated, please share. YOu need to reread my cosmic hierarchy as it is much more simple and concise the pretty much everything you've had to offer.

If you or others do not find my ideas interesting then you can move along to those that do interest.

Meanwhile, I expect rational, logical, common sense replies with fair play. Doesn't seem like much to ask for yet it has been like pulling teeth, for some members here to have that kind of discussion, back and forth.

r6

[Steve3007]

Rr6:

So say you with no evidence to support your claims, and specifically in regards to my comments as stated.

Actually, I retract that accusation and apologize for it. (You didn't expect that, did you?). I think your description of a chair as being "composed of many frequencies" was not well-worded but, with hindsight, it's reasonably clear that you were talking about the natural resonant vibrational frequencies of an object like a chair.

Read a dictionary for starters Steve. Physical and energy share enough commonality to be considered synonyms. imho.

Just accept that they are not synonyms and move on. It's no biggy.

Fermions and bosons = physical/energy

The trouble with statements like this is that it is left to the reader to guess how to interpret these words that you insist mean the same thing. Perhaps you're saying that elementary particles can have both mass and energy? Or perhaps not.

Fermions are particles with half-integer intrinsic angular momentum (spin) and bosons are particles with integer spin. Some bosons have rest-mass, in which case, if you're using the word "physical" to mean "mass" then I would accept that you're correct to say that they have mass. But it's not clear that you are saying that. Bosons that do not have rest-mass (such as photons) still have energy and momentum.

Is this something like what you're trying to say? Or something different? Something more or less?

---

Here is an attempt at a reset (in the manner of Hilary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov circa 2009):

After trawling through many of your posts I think I actually do now have at least some idea of some of what you're trying to say. I really do think a lot of it is based on misunderstood popular accounts of various parts of advanced physics and cosmology, but I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong. They way in which I would like to be proved wrong is to try to summarize my understanding of what you appear to be saying about such things as gravity, dark energy and their relationship to the geometry of space-time. You can then tell me what I've understood about what you're trying to say and what I haven't. We can then try to critique it. I don't claim to be anything approaching an expert on the principles of General Relativity and particle physics that would be required to do a proper job. That kind of knowledge is way beyond a mediocre physics degree. But I'll do my best.

But not here, because this is a topic about God and Time and Existence and stuff. (Those three words are not synonyms, by the way.)

Somewhere else, some time later. What do you say?

[Rr6]

Steve3007--Actually, I retract that accusation and apologize for it. (You didn't expect that, did you?).

I believe there are my instances that you should have apologize for comments, and mostly those were early on, or more recently in other threads.

I think your description of a chair as being "composed of many frequencies" was not well-worded but, with hindsight, it's reasonably clear that you were talking about the natural resonant vibrational frequencies of an object like a chair.

Audible frequencies I mentioned as if struck by other objects, and every atom of a chair, auto, human. etc....has an associated frequency--- see sine-wave pattern ^v^v or as \/\/\/ ---as a straight line, topological expression of same. Simple stuff for those who dont want to be difficult. imho

Fermons and bosons have an associated frequency and both are involved in all parts physical/energy ergo reality as observed time. Simple stuff for those with broad mind as opposed to narrow mind regarding Universe and all of its parts. imho

Just accept that they are not synonyms and move on. It's no biggy.

Right back at you Steve. Yeah it is no biggy because there is enough overlap of definitions to consider them as synonyms. Widen your mind-set will allow you to be more comprehensive in your considerations what is true nature of Universe. imho

The trouble with statements like this is that it is left to the reader to guess how to interpret these words that you insist mean the same thing. Perhaps you're saying that elementary particles can have both mass and energy? Or perhaps not.

It is trouble for those with narrow mind-set. Or perhaps not is correct answer. You need to read definitions of physical and energy and reality all of which are have and associated frequency. Simple Steve for those who do not too much restriction of mind.

Observed time is relatively new addition for me, that set of synonyms. It is a bit of stretch. Not an unreasonable stretch imho, as all physical/energy ( occupied space ) only occurs with time ergo as observed time/motion/change/evolving/revolving/spin etc......

if you're using the word "physical" to mean "mass" then I would accept that you're correct to say that they have mass. But it's not clear that you are saying that. Bosons that do not have rest-mass (such as photons) still have energy and momentum.

It is real simple Steve, do quit trying to make what is simple so complex. Fermionic matter and bosonic forces are the two basic forms of all particles of Universe as physical/energy and they occupy space.. Here we need to put aside gravity and dark energy, even tho they occupy space, I personally do not classify them as physical/energy.

After trawling through many of your posts I think I actually do now have at least some idea of some of what you're trying to say. I really do think a lot of it is based on misunderstood popular accounts of various parts of advanced physics and cosmology, but I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong.

Again Steve, i offer no proof, only rational, logical common sense or for the most part, based on observations by scientists who accept those conclusions. Dark energy has not yet been classified and I repeat again, I believe it is another property of space time, along with gravity. Simple stuff Steve.

And even more simple because Ive supplied texticonic graphics as visual aids, links to drawn graphics and other info and plenty of rational, logical common sense explanations even before asked to do so. A closed mind, narrow mind, or mind blocked by ego with never see truth of my comments. Yes some is speculation and Ive pointed that out many times. Just to be clear.

They way in which I would like to be proved wrong is to try to summarize my understanding of what you appear to be saying about such things as gravity, dark energy and their relationship to the geometry of space-time.

Ive explained all that early to you and others. The geometry is speculation derived from my numerical explorations of prime number quasi-patterns.

You can then tell me what I've understood about what you're trying to say and what I haven't.

1) "U"niverse; The cosmic hierarchy.
...1c) finite, occupied space Universe.

1) "U"niverse/"G"od: The Cosmic hierarchy.
...1c) finite, occupied space Universe/God/UniVerse.

I repeat again, what part of the beginning statement do you not understand Steve. How many times have I asked you this question in this thread or others? You rarely or never respond to those questions or any like them.

Belinda and others claims the can not understand any of my cosmic hierarchy. Absurd and i dont belive it.

We can then try to critique it. I don't claim to be anything approaching an expert on the principles of General Relativity and particle physics that would be required to do a proper job. That kind of knowledge is way beyond a mediocre physics degree. But I'll do my best.

Start with the above as that is first lines of hierarch from top to bottom. Ive given bottom to top also i.e. beginning with gravity and dark energy, observed time and the geometric patterns that I believe in every particle of Universe ergo a wholistic-like scenario.

But not here, because this is a topic about God and Time and Existence and stuff. (Those three words are not synonyms, by the way.)

"G"od = "U"niverse and you or anyone has yet to acknowledge the distinction from God = Universe/UnVerse, I clearly lay out in my cosmic hierarcy. Too much ego cause of mental blockage to truth. imho What are you and others afraid of Steve? That I'm correct? So what if I am.

Your way and others is to take the easy way out and just say r6 makes no sense. That is nonsense. I'm very clear, concise and on track with my definitions and distinctions. By taking the r6 is nonsense approach you and others do not have to admit that, you have no rational logical common sense to invalidated my comments as stated.

Have some spinal chord Steve. Engage in some true intellectual discussion in these regards and leave your ego in your pocket. And ego death is a minor thing, unless a person cannot handle the death of there ego, even if for a few moments, a day etc......

Somewhere else, some time later. What do you say?

I say whats above, and much of its repeating what Ive stated from day one. Get on board this cosmic train, and face the music of truth and rational, logical common sense, Ive offered in relatively simple texticons and graphics, or not. So far you and other choose not.

Fine, the truth is still out there for those who seek it, and those who do not and those who scoff at truth. Go figure. I have and I think it as much mental blockage caused by ego as anything. imo

r6

[Steve3007]

Rr6:

Audible frequencies I mentioned as if struck by other objects, and every atom of a chair, auto, human. etc....has an associated frequency--- ...

Don't spoil it by over stretching. Yes an object has a natural resonance frequency, but that's not the same as atomic and nuclear resonance. The natural resonance frequency of a tuning fork is nothing to do with resonances in the metal atoms from which it's made, or their nuclei.

... see sine-wave pattern ^v^v or as \/\/\/ ---as a straight line, topological expression of same. Simple stuff for those who dont want to be difficult. imho

Now, this is the the kind of statement where you go wrong and start losing people. Read the above passage back to yourself, with a critical objective eye, putting yourself in the position of somebody else. It simply makes no sense. Yes, things vibrate. People will get that. Yes, if you were to measure the displacement of the object versus time it might be simple harmonic motion, and therefore a sine wave. People will get that. But you don't say that. You say:

"see sine-wave pattern, as a straight line, topological expression of the same"

Look at that. If you can't understand that it doesn't make sense, then there's not much anyone can do for you.

Fermons and bosons have an associated frequency and both are involved in all parts physical/energy ergo reality as observed time. Simple stuff for those with broad mind as opposed to narrow mind regarding Universe and all of its parts. imho

Again, look at the sentences and assess whether they make sense enough to be saying anything comprehensible. Yes, all particles have natural resonant vibration modes. But the expression:

"both are involved in all parts physical/energy ergo reality as observed time"

is gibberish. I'm sorry if this is just going to trigger another long rant from you about how you're being insulted, and not taken seriously etc. But it is. I can't lie and pretend that it somehow makes sense as a coherent English sentence, just to stop you from ranting at me. If you want to communicate with other people, you must try to see that the above quoted expression, as an exemplar of the way you typically express yourself, simply isn't coherent enough to be saying anything that anybody except yourself could understand. Please, please read that line of text as if you are somebody else and understand this point.

I'll leave it there for now because if you can't understand why your words are incoherent, there really is no point in continuing and, with genuine regret, I really will have to leave you to it.

[Belinda]

Steve wrote regarding a confusing sentence:

Look at that. If you can't understand that it doesn't make sense, then there's not much anyone can do for you.

I am wondering if use of language is a necessary though not sufficient prerequisite for being good at maths and by extension, physics.

Good language usage depends from need to communicate. At its simplest, communication involves a transmitter and a receiver. When the transmitter doesn't transmit receivable communications the medium fails.

It might be argued "What about esoteric poetry, or unusual dialects?"
Those limit the numbers of available receivers but aren't faulty transmitters. Esoteric poetry, any poetry, and unusual dialects are subject to the same transmitter/ receiver rule as prose and standard English.

[JamesCaan]

Observed time is motion/change/energy/physical/reality etc......

This is why all you are doing is using circular reasoning that has absolutely no explanatory value In your assessment of what everyone should "consider". You've simply set up a false premise. Motion is gravitational and electromagnetism observed as what we use to explain why there is motion.. Energy is the building blocks, I.e. energy matter. Physical is energy and matter. The reality we see is motion caused by gravity etc. because there exists 2 or more objects to create the definition of motion. Change is merely a state of nature not a reflection of time. Time does make things change and time doesn't need to be an existing concept for things to change. Change is simply what is inherent to what reality is. Observed time is simply, at its core, a fallacy of equivocation in regards to the word time. You simply want time to be up for grabs for whatever interpretation fits what you essentially want to argue. The result is circular reasoning as how you try and justify "observed time"..

[Steve3007]

Steve3007:

I'll leave it there for now because if you can't understand why your words are incoherent, there really is no point in continuing and, with genuine regret, I really will have to leave you to it.

Rr6. You have my promise that I will never trouble you again. Thank you for the conversation and I wish you luck with your attempts to communicate your ideas.

[Ormond]

Rr6. You have my promise that I will never trouble you again. Thank you for the conversation and I wish you luck with your attempts to communicate your ideas.

Attention User Steve3007: You are hereby being warned (yet again!) about your consistent pattern of trying to hijack promising hysterical ego mania melodrama threads with polite reasonable comments. In the future, please try to focus your posts on juvenile snarky gotcha barbs, as was agreed upon at the United Nations International Forum Behavior Convention of 2007. Thank you very much.

[Steve3007]

Belinda:

I am wondering if use of language is a necessary though not sufficient prerequisite for being good at maths and by extension, physics.

I wouldn't restrict it to maths and physics. It's any subject which requires the exchange of information. Language can have more than one purpose, but one of its purposes is the communication to other people of either factual information or logical arguments. These are the two types of communication that can be challenged or critiqued by the reader. As you've said, language also has other purposes, like poetry or expressions of personal taste. These are just as valid as facts and arguments, but they can't be challenged or critiqued. They can just be commented on or compared with our own tastes.

It is interesting to try to work out what stops people from being able to communicate effectively. As I may have said before, the clear communication of factual ideas and arguments using written words is a large part of my job, so it is more than a passing interest. I guess it's complicated and there are several factors involved, but it seems to me that one important factor which gets in the way of effective communication is an inability to realize that the inner monologue running through our heads and the background knowledge that we bring to the conversation is not something that the reader can see. That's why all technical documents in the industry I work in tend to have to be clear as to the expected level of knowledge of the reader and the related documents, as well as clearly and unambiguously defining terminology in a glossary. But even so, it's always difficult to place oneself in the head of the reader or listener. I remember, a while ago, one of the guys in my office had the task of explaining what he does to a 15 year old work experience boy. He launched into an explanation that only an electronics graduate with several years work experience would have had the background to understand. But he spends so much time immersed in his own field that he forgot that. I'm sure we all make similar mistakes.

Anyway. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I will finally have to abandon this subject and look elsewhere!

---

Ormond:

Thank you for that warning. I will try my best.

I would just like to add that imho your comment is a totally unfair personal attack that just shows you for the egomaniac you are and you have consistently imho refused to address my comments as stated because you're scared that if you did you would have to acknowledge my genius imho and if you claim not to understand my comments as stated you're a liar - a liar, I might add, whose undergarments are engulfed in a conflagration of epic proportions - just lying and pretending not to understand me so you don't have to admit them I'm absolutely right about everything imho.

How's that?

-- Updated Fri May 13, 2016 2:26 pm to add the following --

Important correction:

I said this:

"one of the guys in my office had the task of explaining what he does to a 15 year old work experience boy."

It should probably have been phrased like this:

"one of the guys in my office had the task of explaining to a 15 year old work experience boy what he does."

This language game is full of pitfalls isn't it?

[Ormond]

I would just like to add that imho your comment is a totally unfair personal attack that just shows you for the egomaniac you are and you have consistently imho refused to address my comments as stated because you're scared that if you did you would have to acknowledge my genius imho and if you claim not to understand my comments as stated you're a liar - a liar, I might add, whose undergarments are engulfed in a conflagration of epic proportions - just lying and pretending not to understand me so you don't have to admit them I'm absolutely right about everything imho.

Excellent work my man! Ok, I have removed the warning demerits from your account, in my role as a self appointed imaginary moderator.

Whoa! My undergarments are engulfed in a conflagration of epic proportions!! Who knew??? Thanks for the laugh..

[Rr6]

Steve3007:Rr6. You have my promise that I will never trouble you again. Thank you for the conversation and I wish you luck with your attempts to communicate your ideas.

[ad hominem remarks removed on report - mod]

The truth is out there for those seek it, for those who don't, and for those who scoff at it.

Ive laid out clearly the three kinds of existence as my cosmic trinity;

1) metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept, ex concepts Universe, Space, God Concepts etc...
....spirit-1 as spirit-of-intent.......

-------line-of-demarcation----------

2) metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied space,

3) finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse.
[ad hominem remarks removed on report - mod]

I have and it appears to be in regards to fear of and ego death. As if loosing their ego for whatever period of time is the end of observed time for.

We have nothing to fear except fear itself....F Roosevelt?

Universe may be mystery but it is no secret....Schnieder ?

What we have have is moderation of angle and frequency...^v^v or \/\/\/\/

What we have have modulation of angle and frequency ^v^v^ or \/\/\/\/.

Where have all, the intellectuals gone, long time passing........P. Seeger

What we have here, is a failure to communicate, the simplest of cosmic concepts....P Newman( Cool Hand Luke ) ?

'What we have here is interfering and non-interfering patterns'--- \/\/\/\/ Or ^v^v^v ---'operating in pure principle'.......R. B. Fuller

Metaphysical-3 is positive shaped arcs of gravity ( )

Metaphysical-4 is negative shaped arcs of dark energy )(

Physical/energy is the ^v^v^v or as \/\/\/\/ patterns of observed time aka reality.

The truth is out there for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.

r6

[JamesCaan]

Steve3007:Rr6. You have my promise that I will never trouble you again. Thank you for the conversation and I wish you luck with your attempts to communicate your ideas.

Trouble for me would be if your or others offered rational, logical common sense statements that actually invalidated my comments as stated. This has not happened nor have you, or others, offered any statements that add to my cosmic givens, as stated.

The truth is out there for those seek it, for those who don't, and for those who scoff at it.

Ive laid out clearly the three kinds of existence as my cosmic trinity;

1) metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept, ex concepts Universe, Space, God Concepts etc...
....spirit-1 as spirit-of-intent.......

-------line-of-demarcation----------

2) metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied space,

3) finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse.

These are simple concepts that most high school students can grasp. Simple not complex yet a few here claim they can't understand. Believe that one and they will tell you another one just like it. Go figure.

I have and it appears to be in regards to fear of and ego death. As if loosing their ego for whatever period of time is the end of observed time for.

We have nothing to fear except fear itself....F Roosevelt?

Universe may be mystery but it is no secret....Schnieder ?

What we have have is moderation of angle and frequency...^v^v or \/\/\/\/

What we have have modulation of angle and frequency ^v^v^ or \/\/\/\/.

Where have all, the intellectuals gone, long time passing........P. Seeger

What we have here, is a failure to communicate, the simplest of cosmic concepts....P Newman( Cool Hand Luke ) ?

'What we have here is interfering and non-interfering patterns'--- \/\/\/\/ Or ^v^v^v ---'operating in pure principle'.......R. B. Fuller

Metaphysical-3 is positive shaped arcs of gravity ( )

Metaphysical-4 is negative shaped arcs of dark energy )(

Physical/energy is the ^v^v^v or as \/\/\/\/ patterns of observed time aka reality.

The truth is out there for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.

r6

I completely agree with you that the truth is out there for those who seek it. There is no such thing as observed time by definition found in actual dictionaries. You cannot observe time. But if you insist that reality is time I would suggest you reformulate what the word time and what the word reality means in actual reality. When you get the whole of humanity to accept that observed time is an appropriate reflection of the meaning of reality,then we will all rejoice in your brilliance.There isn't a reasoned rejoinder amongst the argumentum ad nauseam that you engage in. Your false premise is obvious which is ?observed time is reality. Words mean nothing when exploiting them for a non agenda that achieves nothing is an assault on all who have intelligence. Reality is what I say it is and you have no logically consistent rebuttal as to why it isn't.

-- Updated May 25th, 2016, 12:02 pm to add the following --

Steve3007---The reason why the two words "physical" and "energy" are not synonyms is because they mean two different things. They do not mean exactly or nearly the same thing.

Then you need to read dictionary definition and re-assess the aspect where they do share same meaning.

Now let's try replacing the word "energy" with the word "physical":
The sentences are now meaningless, therefore "physical" and "energy" are not synonyms.

We live in a finite, physical Universe. Truth

We live in a finite, energy Universe. Truth
------------------------------------------------
An atom is physiical. truth

An atom is energy. truth
----------------------------------------
Fermions are physical. truth

Fermions are energy. truth
-------------------------------------------

Bosons are physical. truth

Bosons are energy. truth

Now, if those words are synonyms, we should be able to replace all of them with the same word without destroying the meaning. Let's try it by replacing all of them with one of the alleged synonyms. Let's try "reality":

Do I need to to above and do what Ive already done in the cosmic hiearchy? Steve, you need to broaden your narrow mind-set dude.

phyiscal/energy/reality/frequency/observed time are rather simple to grasp synonyms.

A chair is energy. truth
A chair is physical. truth
A chair is reality. truth
A chair is composed of many frequencies ( truth ) and if struck with another physical/energy/reality/observed time object, will vibrate at some frequencies that are audible, i some cases.

A chair exists as our observed time i.e. motion, and in state of gradual entropy ergo change.

Observed time is motion/change/energy/physical/reality etc......

The passage is now gibberish. Therefore those words are not synonyms. (Obviously we already knew that they are not synonyms. But I guess it had to be demonstrated.)

Ergo I demontrate for those who have narrow mind-set. A narrow-mind set is likened to the restrictor plates on the racing cars at some reacing events where all of the cars are regulated so as to be exactly equal to one another and no car and driver will have advantage over another in speed. Only driving skill and luck ( set of unpredicted events ) comes into play.

Retrictor plates are like a governor on a motor. You restrict/govern your self only see a narrow set of ideas.

If you take off your mental restrictor plate you may begin to grasp existence in a much broader context.

Universe is occupied space. Universe is one becuase gravity unifies all parts of Universe.

Rr6:

I conclude that some lack the ability to comprehend one or more words found in English dictionary.

So, to be absolutely clear: Nobody seems to understand most of what you are trying to say.

I said some you keep acting like your one of those who can understand nothing Ive stated. Not true/absurd imho.

You conclude that it is because they all lack comprehension of the English language?

Reread any of my versions or cosmic hierarchy and lets see if you can get past the first word Steve.

1) "U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy.
...1c) finite, occupied space Universe/UniVerse

1) "U"niverse/"G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy.
...1c) finite, occupied space Universe/God

Better pull out your dictionary Steve, those look like some really tough words even for some one of your intellect. Belinda could not acknowledge a single word much less acknowledge she understands a single word Ive stated. Mor absurdity and lack of intellectual integrity. This forum has some of that going on plus other nonsense.

Do you remember what I said earlier about self-criticism? Try going back to one of the posts in which you explain something about your cosmic hierarchy and try to read it with the critical eye of somebody who is not you and who doesn't already know what you are thinking. In order to see whether your words would make any sense to another person you have to attempt to put yourself in their place. I presume that one reason why you post words on a public forum is to communicate your ideas to others. You will never achieve that if whenever somebody fails to understand you, you assume that it is because they do not understand English!

Ive been doing that for many years. When you want to have rational, logical common sense discussion of my comments, as stated please share. My door is always open to rational, logical, common sense, fair play etc.......
interpretation of any subject or phrase you choose. unfortunately mere utterance that you are engaged in logical argumentation doesnt make it so.
r6[/quote
]

Prove you know what is rational. Demonstrate you know what is common sense. Give an example of a logical conclusion to a simplistic subject. Lets see if I can pick one that may determine your ability to think in terms of logical conclusions. Ok. what is a 100 percent bullet proof logical conclusion in regards to what God thinks in regards to the commandment thou shalt not kill. what can you conclude god thinks and what he thinks must be bullet proof logic. i.e. incontrovertible..

[Wayne92587]

Time , the reality of the moment, the "Here and Now" is everlasting, Eternal, is like God, Immortal, can not be destroyed; existing as an undifferentiated Singularity, Time may change form but can not Die, be destroyed.

The Existence of Time Eternal being transfigured, changing form, becomes Differentiated Time, which is the Time that we use to clock the momentum, the motion of an object as it travels through Time and Space, Space-Time.