time

[Darryl_B]

The space unoccupied by an object? Not sure why you would want that, but it would be volume of the universe minus the volume of object.

Yes I know but as I said the Einstein relativity formula you site could also expect to be found in the inverse of space ie space unoccupied. I would expect to find speed of light because the universe is propositioned to expand at the speed of light and I would find subtractive math not additive math. (Its like the difference between RBG and CMYK additive or subtractive) I am making the dt have an offset of zero. So dt is just t, or t2 - t1 = t2 - 0 which equals absolute t. Hence the question, what would the formula look like and how does it differ from the formula you initially presented.

Inocente

If I was to measure the distance with sonar I would HAVE to take into account the speed of sound, not the speed of light. GPS does not use light to traverse the distance it is radio waves which travel far slower than light and far faster than the speed of sound in water. Adjusting to Einstein who was obsessed with c (speed of light) and t (time) having put them both in just about every formula he put forward would be the wrong source of speed.

 

[Darryl_B]

Also one other thing I have problems with is the time on a clock on ground level and the time on a clock on the 100th floor. The time on a clock on the 100th floor apparently goes slower than the time of a clock on the ground floor. We should include this in employment contracts. So Im going to be working overtime on the 100th floor? Sorry I will only accept this job if it is on less than the tenth floor cause I have to catch a train. I personally think there is something going on there other than time. A clock after all is just a man made gauge that attempts to accurately measure reality (not relativity). There are many other factors that could affect the validity of the readings other than time itself.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Yes I know but as I said the Einstein relativity formula you site could also expect to be found in the inverse of space ie space unoccupied.

Which, again, makes zero sense.

I would expect to find speed of light because the universe is propositioned to expand at the speed of light

The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light

and I would find subtractive math not additive math. (Its like the difference between RBG and CMYK additive or subtractive)

The choice of negative signs is a fact of the choice of the geometry, specifically the metric.

I am making the dt have an offset of zero. So dt is just t, or t2 - t1 = t2 - 0 which equals absolute t.

There is no absolute t.

Hence the question, what would the formula look like and how does it differ from the formula you initially presented.

It makes zero sense to ask about the volume unoccupied by an object. Due to the size of the universe, what you are looking for pretty much is the volume of the universe.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

What sphere? Space is flat: map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

. . . or will be for the next few years, 'til the new measurements come out showing it’s a . . . donut?

The “flatness” of the universe is really only describing how light travels. By being flat, if we took to lasers and placed them parallel to each other, their light would never cross. By being flat, the universe is actually Euclidean[/n]. An n-sphere is an n-dimensional Euclidean space.

 

[billcu1]

The “flatness” of the universe is really only describing how light travels. By being flat, if we took to lasers and placed them parallel to each other, their light would never cross. By being flat, the universe is actually Euclidean[/n]. An n-sphere is an n-dimensional Euclidean space.

I tend to lean towards Plato’s theory that the universe is a dodecahedron. I may not understand the ins and outs of that but it makes some sense.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I tend to lean towards Plato’s theory that the universe is a dodecahedron. I may not understand the ins and outs of that but it makes some sense.

The biggest problem that I see with the dodecahedral universe is that it is bounded and our universe does not appear to be.

 

[Aloysium]

The biggest problem that I see with the dodecahedral universe is that it is bounded and our universe does not appear to be.

and, from what I understand of the latest scientific view:
there is no centre, with everything being the centre and there being no edge
the microwave background we see everywhere in the very farthest distance, is actually the much smaller universe that existed near the beginning of creation

a 4-dimensionally spherical universe would make sense, but it seems not to be the case
I would appreciate some (dare I ask, coherent) references (links pls) as to how all this holds, or does’t hold together

seeing that any description of the physical requires an observer, I am left considering the probability that the universe does not actually exist in itself, that all these relationships come into being within the eternal mind of God, in which we participate as finite creations having free will

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

and, from what I understand of the latest scientific view:
there is no centre, with everything being the centre and there being no edge

There is no spatial center because the big bang was a four-dimensional explosion, not a three-dimensional one. The big bang was not an explosion in space but an explosion of space!

the microwave background we see everywhere in the very farthest distance, is actually the much smaller universe that existed near the beginning of creation

The microwave background is the spectrum of the “empty” space between galaxies. What is shows is that the temperature of the universe is pretty much the same everywhere (at ~2.75 Kelvin). What this tells us is that the whole of space was once causally connected (able to “communicate” with speeds less than that of the speed of light), which means that the universe had to be very small at one point in time.

a 4-dimensionally spherical universe would make sense, but it seems not to be the case

I think a spatially, a sphere is probably a good approximation. But since space & time are one-and-the-same, the spherical-approximation breaks down when including time in the shape of the universe.

I would appreciate some (dare I ask, coherent) references (links pls) as to how all this holds, or does’t hold together

This is a good one: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

seeing that any description of the physical requires an observer, I am left considering the probability that the universe does not actually exist in itself, that all these relationships come into being within the eternal mind of God, in which we participate as finite creations having free will

This is pretty much the principle of the Proof Of God’s Existence Through Contingency.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . This is pretty much the principle of the Proof Of God’s Existence Through Contingency.

Thx for the info.

The existence of God is self-evident, as is that of the universe. Contemplating the workings of nature does provide an additional way to witness God’s infinite beauty and splendor as reflected in His creation.

 

[inocente]

Angels are spiritually substances (i.e., not comprised of matter), so they are not bound to space and time as we are. So yes, an angel can jump to the other side of the planet by just willing it, bypassing the speed-of-light maximum–angels could travel instantaneously while light would take 0.0425 seconds to travel “through” the planet (light cannot actually do this, but it would take that long for light to travel the diameter of earth).
inocente;10795318:

Hold on a minute. If angels are not comprised of matter, their eyes can’t stop photons and so they must be blind. For the same reason they must be completely invisible. If they aren’t physical then they can’t speak since they have no way to move air molecules, and can’t hear, since air molecules can have no effect on them.

Long story short they can’t interact with electromagnetism or any other forces, which means they can have no possible effect on us, nor we on them. Ergo it makes no difference whether or not they exist, the effect is always that they don’t.


Alberti_Devoveo;10797172:

How is God any different? God is not comprised of matter (it would make Him contingent, if He were), so how can God see, be seen, communicate, etc?

God doesn’t "jump to the other side of the planet " - He doesn’t have space-time coordinates, while from what you said angels do. I don’t see how angels can move around in space-time when they are “not bound to space and time”.

PS: apologies for late reply.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

God doesn’t "jump to the other side of the planet " - He doesn’t have space-time coordinates, while from what you said angels do. I don’t see how angels can move around in space-time when they are “not bound to space and time”.

This is answered in St Thomas’ Summa Theologiae, Question 52 (link leads to page of PDFs of the translation to English):
St Thomas:

It belongs to angels to exist in a place, though an angel and a body are said to exist in a place in different senses. For a body exists in a place in virtue of being applied to the place through the contact had by its dimensional quantity (quantitas dimensiva). This is not so in the case of angels; instead, they have quantity of power (quantitas virtutis). Thus, it is through the application of an angel’s power in some way or other to a given place that the angel is said to exist in a corporeal place.

Accordingly, it is clear that an angel should not be said to be measured by his place or to have aposition within a continuum, since these features belong to a located body insofar as it is a quantumthrough its dimensional quantity.

Again, an angel should likewise not be said to be contained by his place. For an incorporeal substance that touches a corporeal thing by its power contains that corporeal thing and is not contained by it. For instance, the soul exists in the body as something that contains the body and not as something that is contained by the body. Similarly, an angel is said to exist in a corporeal place not as a thing contained by the place, but rather as a thing that in some sense contains the place.

PS: apologies for late reply.

No apologies necessary. We all have other things to do!

 

[inocente]

This is answered in St Thomas’ Summa Theologiae, Question 52 (link leads to page of PDFs of the translation to English):

Thanks. I think Thomas is trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat here, since God is existence but angels depend on God for their existence, so how is it possible for beings to exist as pure immaterial form yet still be contingent?

He seems to acknowledge that he has no adequate explanation (“the application of an angel’s power in some way or other”, “the angel is said to exist”, “rather as a thing that in some sense contains the place”. That last line in particular seems to beg the question of whether angels could be objectively real or can only exist inside our heads.

Though predictions about angels are still possible - you’ve almost certainly seen this before - Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Thanks. I think Thomas is trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat here, since God is existence but angels depend on God for their existence, so how is it possible for beings to exist as pure immaterial form yet still be contingent?

I do believe St Thomas considered these in Questions 50 and 51.

He seems to acknowledge that he has no adequate explanation (“the application of an angel’s power in some way or other”, “the angel is said to exist”, “rather as a thing that in some sense contains the place”. That last line in particular seems to beg the question of whether angels could be objectively real or can only exist inside our heads.

I do agree that he answers this question in a vague manner, but recall that, as smart as St Thomas is, no one knows the answer to everything!

In any event, Question 51 does cover how angels can assume a body to communicate with people (Abraham & his family, Lot & his family, Tobias & his family, etc) and not, then, an image in our heads.

Though predictions about angels are still possible - you’ve almost certainly seen this before - Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem

I have not seen this before! Quite amusing, thank you for sharing!