RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:Time does not "cause" motion, any more than Space causes matter. Motion is caused by interacting matter. Time is just the substrate; i.e. the place where motion occurs.
creation wrote:So, time, the dimension, is the place where motion occurs. But, if motion is caused by interacting matter, then the place where motion, or interacting matter, occurs is just the Universe, Itself, correct?
Yes, the
4D universe. The 4D universe is where 3D objects interact (and motion occurs).
Does anyone here in this thread not know this, or dispute this?
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:I mean Motion is only possible because of Time in the same respect that Matter is only possible because of Space.
creation wrote:I am still not understanding where nor what this dimension is, which is Time, and which motion is not possible without.
If you can understand 3D space, then you can understand 4D space (i.e. spacetime). -- Can you imagine the dimensions of 3D space? If so, now add a 4th axis which allows a new spatial direction for this 3D space and the material (matter) within it.
I can imagine a trillion dimensions, if we just want to add another axis on to the preceding ones, and give them a name.
But, to me, the word 'time' is just the name or label some people have placed onto the reaction process of 'change', itself.
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:Time is not an "activity". Time is just a spatial Dimension; a 'place' for activity (i.e. the interaction of matter) to happen.
creation wrote:Well the Universe, Itself, is a place, or a spatial dimension, for the interaction of matter to happen, correct?
The Universe is formed/structured by
4 spatial dimensions. It is the place where 3D objects move. Without the 4th axis, there could be no movement of 3D objects.
Is it possible that the constant-change, itself, which happens eternally by the way, is the 4th "spatial dimension" that some people just refer to as 'time'?
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:Look at it this way, without the 3 dimensions of space there would be no 'where'; no 'place' for matter to exist. And without Time (the 4th dimension) there would be no 'where'; no 'place' for matter to interact (move/motion).
creation wrote:But, to me, space is literally the place where matter is able to move and interact. Because of space, matter is able to freely move.
3D Matter is only "free to move" in 4D Space.
Is there anything else other than 3 dimensional matter? For example, is there 4 or 2 dimensional matter?
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Without a 'means' to move; or a pathway (i.e. the "dimension of Time") there could be no movement whatsoever.
Nothing can move or happen (or occur) in a 'timeless' state.
If there was no change, then yes nothing can move nor happen. Things would be in a 'changeless' state. But as there has been an eternal constant state of change, then movement has always happened. But, to me, this constant state of change happens because both space and matter have always co-existed. Therefore, because they BOTH have co-existed forever, then so to has change or movement existed forever, and it is just this actual 'change', which is just what some people refer to, and call, "time".
What they call "time" and 'change' is just the same interchangeable thing, being, what I call, labeled incorrectly with one of those words.
But you, and others, are free to call absolutely anything by absolutely any made up name or label.
(By the way, these dimensions are not real existing things, but we are an extremely way off from looking into and discussing this. But, for now, I will use these words to better grasp what you see 'time' is.)
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:Space (3D Space) only allows the existence of matter. Spacetime (4D Space) allows motion of matter (of 3D objects).
creation wrote:To me matter can exist without space.
This is not logically possible.
Maybe it is. But we will have to wait and see.
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Firstly, matter itself is formed of 3D Space.
What do you mean by this?
To me, matter is a physical thing, which shape and form is formed by its own self, which is not space, but is physical matter.
To me space is just the distance between or around matter, but is not matter itself.
But do not get me wrong. I do understand the perspective from where you are coming from.
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Matter without dimensions is not matter, it is nothing.
If, as you say, matter is formed of 3 dimensional space, would you also say that space is formed of or by matter?
Because if there was absolutely no matter, then there would only be space, and space without matter is literally nothing at all.
By the way if it is logically possible to have space without matter, then could it also be logically possible to have matter without space?
If no, then okay.
If yes, then although to me it is logically possible. A Universe, or an infinite expanse of infinitely compressed matter, without any space at all, would just be an absolutely worthless and useless thing or concept. If either there was just space or just matter, and nothing else, then there could not be absolutely anything to even conceive of this type of Universe, so the idea of either existing is, to me, logically possible. But just having the ability to imagine that either one of them could be logically possible means that either could NEVER actually exist.
For a species to have the ability to imagine means that BOTH space AND matter have always co-existed HERE and NOW eternally.
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Secondly, if there is no 'place' for this matter to exist, there is no existence. For matter to exist, it must exist some-'where'. If it exists no-where, then it does not exist.
I do not think this needs to be said, nor explained.
The 'place' and the 'where' is just the infinite Universe, Itself, which is HERE (NOW).
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
creation wrote:But matter cannot move and interact without space.
Correct, ...without
4D Space.
Remember my definition of 'time' is completely different than anyone else here.
And, my definition, as far as I am away, is also completely different than everyone else here.
What you are calling 4D space here now. I would just say is the Universe, Itself, (3 dimension, for now, if you like) and 'change', its self, (your other dimension which you say is "time".
So, although I know what you are saying and getting at, I just want to make known that I know them by other names and words.
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
creation wrote:Matter moving, and interacting, is just motion, or change.
Correct. But for matter to move/interact, it must have a
means (pathway) to do so -- The dimension of Time is that pathway. Without Time, nothing happens/occurs.
I understand what you are saying and meaning.
But for me to explain what I observe and see, so that it the Truth can be clearly seen, to me, words have to have very specific meanings and definitions. Otherwise, what I have to say will just end up on the scrapheap of confusion where just about all views are in the days of when this is being written.
To me, to say that matter cannot move without 'time' is to suggest that 'time' was HERE before matter or motion was.
And, for matter to move/interact, to me, there only needs to be a 'space', or a relatively free of matter distance, to move, so that matter could interact with it's self, or, in other words, other matter.
It could be just as easily argued that for there to be time, then matter has to move/interact, so matter, or motion, was HERE before time. Or, it could be very easily argued that both 'time' and 'change' are the exact same thing because without one you could not have the other.
To me, 'time' and 'change' could be synonymous with each other, that is; if they were obviously not two different words. If there are two different words, then they might as well have two different meanings. Otherwise they would just be the EXACT SAME thing, and so two different words would not be needed at all.
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
creation wrote:The measuring of the duration of this change is just what the word 'time' describes.
That's just the man-made relative 'measurement of objects' that is being confused and conflated as Time itself (the dimension), and is the source of errors/confusion here.
But it is NOT the human-made relative 'measurement of objects'. When a measurement is made of the duration between say two different events, that that is what is referred to as 'time', from my perspective.
The 'measurement of objects' is done to obtain the size of them. (To obtain the 3 dimensions OF an object, if you like?).
The 'measurement of the space between objects' is done to obtain the distance between them. (To obtain the 1 dimension between two objects or to obtain the 3 dimensions of three or more objects, if they are not on the same plane, if you like?)
The 'measurement of the duration between a change in objects' is done to obtain the so called 'time', or to obtain the 'time it takes' to get from one particular point to another point, from one event to another event, or from one shape and form of an object to another shape and form of the same object. (To obtain the 1 dimension of motion, change, or movement, if you like?)
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
That is why I posted these multiple interpretations that are being falsely conflated as one another:
1.
Time (the dimension itself)
2. The
Measurement of Time
3. The
Measurement of Objects
I do not conflate these.
Although there is actually NO separation at all anywhere, I like to keep and use all ideas, information, texts, words, definitions, and meanings completely separate so as to not keep the confusion in human beings understanding and knowledge continuing.
RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Again, if you can conceptualize 3D Space, then you can conceptualize 4D Space (aka Spacetime).
To me, you are just saying that 'change', itself, is the 4th dimension, which is what lots of people just call 'time', itself.
I was just trying to get you to clearly spell out more what the 4th dimension, to you, was.