What is "spacetime" really?

[Michael Mooney]

What Modest is claiming is not controversial- relativity

 

predicts that there is no "correct" distance between the Earth and the

 

sun, and that various observers can measure various distances depending

 

on their frame of reference. This comes down, again, to

 

misunderstanding relativity.

 

You (and Modest) claim that relativity "is not controversial." This is

 

like saying,

"This is a proven fact, no longer open to question." Or to dramatize:

 

"Questioning relativity as the absolute truth will not be tolerated!"

 

Or even more Borg-like, "Resistance is futile. You will be

 

assimilated!"

 

No, I will not! In fact I agree that relativity is appropriate for

 

local perspectives dependent on who (which observer) sees what light

 

and when "relative" to another observer. And it is close to "proven"

 

that lightspeed (in a vacuum) is constant... (though it slows to about

 

20 mph in a Boze-Einstein concentrate!)

 

Perhaps it is somewhat less than "proven" that observers moving at

 

small fractions of lightspeed "see" light-emitting sources in either

 

direction of the movement vector as if there is no gain or loss in

 

light velocity. I know the classic SR experiments are well documented,

 

but just maybe the very slow speed of the observers "relative" to the

 

extreme speed of light allows enough "relative" error to "validate" SR

 

via human error in either instrumentation, or experimental design.

 

(Maybe. Something to think about. Thats why its still a theory... not a

 

fact!)

 

So, modest and (was it you?) someone earlier in this thread made a

 

case, via "thought experiment" that "for a photon" there is no distance

 

or elapsed time in its travel from sun to earth.

Then he proposed a very strange 'thought experiment' wherein two

 

travelers leave earth and arrive at the moon simultaneously, though one

 

goes directly and the other by way of Alpha Centauri. If this is

 

considered a good example of relativity, then science has gone way

 

south of both common sense and verification by observation.

 

 

So... I dare to question the absolute perspective of relativity, as

 

seen by different observers as limited by lightspeed. Though true for

 

local observation, the latter is not the whole and end all of science!

 

There is such a perspective as transcends local limits and both the

 

delays and constancy of lightspeed.

This perspective I call (interchange-ably) "objective" and "cosmic"...

 

as seen (at least in "thought experiment") from omnipresent

 

perspective. The latter will verify the precise accuracy of all those

 

distances given by classic means of measurement as given in science

 

textbooks and websites, two of which I references (and quoted

 

extensively) in my recent post above.

 

Those distances might as well be called "distances AS MEASURED

 

FROM A SYSTEM WITH THE SUN AT REST." This is understood in the

 

reporting of the distances. The whole point of relativity is that there

 

isn't a single objective measure- all measurements are frame dependent.

 

The reason others are calling it "your" perspective is that you are the

 

one advocating it.

 

I ask you again- start from your universal reference frame and try to

 

develop physics. You'll come into conflict with a constant speed of

 

light.

 

They might as well be called the *actual* distances as seen from

 

absolute, transcendental perspective, beyond the *egocentric

 

perspective* of different individual observers as seen through a lens

 

distorted by the limits of lightspeed as to who sees what and when.

The latter is "understood in the reporting of the distances"... but it

 

remains the dogma of local perspective ala relativity!

The whole point of transcendental perspective is that there is a

 

single objective measure... that beyond local frame-dependent measure

 

is the non-local

"frame" or perspective as "seen" cosmically or objectively or

 

transcendentally.

 

My "14,000 hours of transcendence" was not wasted. The epistemology of

 

which I speak is a-priori direct knowing rather than a-posteriori

 

empirical science. Yet the latter has verified the solar system (and

 

beyond) distances cited and linked in previous post.

 

Maybe you are intimidated by Einstein. I am not.

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Michael, I think I was repeatedly confused by the fact that you said you didn't disagree with relativity- merely you were adding a "cosmic perspective" on top of it, so to speak. The fact is- you are disagreeing with relativity, not just the interpretation.

 

Further, meditation does not have the same truth claim that science does. Meditation may suggest an idea, but before science will start to accept it, the idea has to be tested. Why not sit down, and derive the consequences of your universal observer? If the consequences of a universal observer don't agree with experiment will you give the idea up? How many experimental disagreements will it require?

[freeztar]

You (and Modest) claim that relativity "is not controversial."

 

Go ahead and add me to the list. :)

 

Thats why its still a theory... not a fact!

 

The Theory of Relativity is tried and true. Theory, in the most scientific meaning of the word, means something other than the common parlance that you attribute to it. This is a common misconception.

 

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

 

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts).

 

Definition of Scientific Theory

 

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

 

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

 

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

 

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

 

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

[Michael Mooney]

Michael, I think I was repeatedly confused by the fact that you said you didn't disagree with relativity- merely you were adding a "cosmic perspective" on top of it, so to speak. The fact is- you are disagreeing with relativity, not just the interpretation.

 

Further, meditation does not have the same truth claim that science does. Meditation may suggest an idea, but before science will start to accept it, the idea has to be tested. Why not sit down, and derive the consequences of your universal observer? If the consequences of a universal observer don't agree with experiment will you give the idea up? How many experimental disagreements will it require?

Re: " The fact is- you are disagreeing with relativity, not just the interpretation. "

The "fact is" I accept relativity for the scope to which it applies, i.e., what one observer "sees" relative to another observer. I also understand that SR has yielded convincing evidence that lightspeed is unaffectd by speed of moving sources and observers. My comments in that regard above are simply questioning whether the latter movements might actually be negligible relative to the extreme speed of light... but this is merely an aside, and I could well be uninformed on the levels of precision involved in the SR experiments. In any case, the obove objection is *not* central to my critique of "spacetime" or my claim that "cosmic perspective" might well describe "the real world" beyond the limits of the local-observer perspectives central to relativity.

I am, in fact, certain that the average distance between bodies in our solar system and beyond does not itself vary with the position of the observer. In other words a "cosmic, omnipresent observer" (no "diety" implied) will see the average distance earth to sun as so many earth diameters... etc.

Further, My above certainty is not a "truth claim" based on meditation. It is a "thought experiment" based on many years of contemplating the nature of the cosmos from a perspective transcending the human point of view or what different observers are able to see given the limit of lightspeed.

I have not yet heard from anyone here willing to even engage in such a thought experiment, being that relativity totally dominates present scientific thinking.

 

Re: "If the consequences of a universal observer don't agree with experiment will you give the idea up? How many experimental disagreements will it require?"...

 

If all experiments are frame-dependent on local observation and lightspeed limit, then there is no way to test the possibility that one cosmic observer, transcending relative perspective will see the "objective distance" between objects in space as given in the two representative links and quotes I provided above.

This limit however *does not dictate* that relative perspective is the *absolute truth* and end of all further inquiry into the nature of the cosmos.

 

Michael

[freeztar]

If all experiments are frame-dependent on local observation and lightspeed limit, then there is no way to test the possibility that one cosmic observer, transcending relative perspective will see the "objective distance" between objects in space as given in the two representative links and quotes I provided above.

This limit however *does not dictate* that relative perspective is the *absolute truth* and end of all further inquiry into the nature of the cosmos.

 

That's fine and dandy, but unless you can provide an alternative explanation, it's a moot point. It's not like science has hit a brick wall with relativity. Many scientists would love to find a better explanation. Indeed, all scientific endeavors are focused on further understanding. The scientific method tempers these ambitions with empirical evidence.

[modest]

I am, in fact, certain that the average distance between bodies in our solar system and beyond does not itself vary with the position of the observer.

 

Length is not relative to position, but velocity. An inertial frame of reference refers to a state of motion. Several observers in the same physical place can measure several different lengths of an object given they have different relative velocity to each other.

 

I once again recommend you spend some time getting acquainted with the basics of special relativity:

 

Special Relativity - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks

 

You also might consider the flaw in this argument:

The measurements of heavily bodies in the solar system as measured from earth according to our local perspective is X, therefore the cosmic, non-local, transcendent perspective is X.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

MM:

If all experiments are frame-dependent on local observation and lightspeed limit, then there is no way to test the possibility that one cosmic observer, transcending relative perspective will see the "objective distance" between objects in space as given in the two representative links and quotes I provided above.

This limit however *does not dictate* that relative perspective is the *absolute truth* and end of all further inquiry into the nature of the cosmos.

 

That's fine and dandy, but unless you can provide an alternative explanation, it's a moot point. It's not like science has hit a brick wall with relativity. Many scientists would love to find a better explanation. Indeed, all scientific endeavors are focused on further understanding. The scientific method tempers these ambitions with empirical evidence.

 

First, I have no personal "ambitions." My nearly four decades of meditation have given me a perspective detached from "personal ambition."

I seek "Truth" beyond the present limits of popular theory... especially the theory that local perspectives define the absolute truth of the cosmos in general and distances between objects in the cosmos specifically. Anyone who believes that such distances change depending on the point of observation is deluded... And this may include Einstein and all of his dedicated "followers."

 

My "alternative explanation" is that there is a cosmic perspective from which all average distances between objects is "objective" (even as they vary according to elliptical orbits or change, as all "things" expand away from each other.)

The point is that at any given moment, the distance between cosmic bodies is "objective" and verified by our best modern science, not a subjective "distance" depending on the perspective of local observers and the lightspeed factor.

 

It is not so "moot" that humans do not have the privilege of direct observation beyond lightspeed limit of all bodies in the universe and the actual distance between them. Yet it is not a great stretch of the imagination to conceive of the possibility that there are actual distances between objects not dependent on subjective limits of observation and what images light can convey at its undeniable speed limit.

I agree that " Indeed, all scientific endeavors are focused on further understanding. (and that) The scientific method tempers these ambitions with empirical evidence."

 

Empirical science has come a long way since the dark ages of superstition ("creationism" notwithstanding!)

Relativity is the present limit of what can be seen from local perspective. It is in fact limited by lightspeed. And relativity addresses "what can be seen" in a very sophisticated and accurate way.

Yet one can not not dismiss cosmic perspective simply because we can not devise experiments to verify such things as transcendental perspective and objective distances between objects.

Hope this makes sense.

Gotta go for now. Back asap.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Length is not relative to position, but velocity

 

The distance between two objects at any moment is objective in the sense that it does not depend on local perspective of observers 'seeing' the objects within the limitation of lightspeed as a conveyer of what is seen.

 

You are wrong in your belief that subjective perception is an accurate discription of distance between objects. It suffers from the limitation of lightspeed as an inaccurate conveyer of present information. You are obviously indoctrininated into the belief that relative perspective is absolute. This is not true.

 

I once again recommend you spend some time getting acquainted with the basics of special relativity:

Your continual condescention after all I have said in truth about my study, in depth of relativity, is totally disgusting. I understand SR and here present a perspective which is cosmically more accurate than what local observers can see.

 

I am beginning to see that you are not intelligent enough to break out of your "relativity indoctrination." You can not even "hear" what I am saying as transcending relativity.

(Don't feel bad. Anyone with a PhD has gone through the "program of indoctrination." If you question it, you flunk your classes and have no opportunity to write a free-thiking doctoral thesis in contradiction to the accepted "prograqm.")

And you certainly can not acknowledge my argument in this thread without losing your credibility abong your colleagues here on this forum and elsewhere.

 

Yes, this is an intended insult. I have already clarified my priorities for honesty over the protocol of "proper manners" and avoidance of hurting feelings at *all cost.*

Michael

[arkain101]

Mr. Mooney,

 

After keeping an eye on this thread from time to time, I believe I can say I understand what you are saying. Allow me to take a stab at this to see if I got this right.

 

I think you are suggesting the following methods of 'seeing' relativity.

 

(Speaking specifically and only about the frame of reference of a human observer)

 

(1)Firstly, according to all possible observation frames, and referring to the individual perspective (of the outside VIEWED universe) from each individual frame, the observed universe (meaning various locations at significant distances away from the observation frame) is in a Specific State relative to each individual frame.

 

(2)Secondly, Within each of all the possible individual observation frames (called observer "U" : for you and universal); a foot long ruler is always a foot long ruler, 1second is always 1 second on a clock, and a 10kg object has the inertia of a 10kg object (regardless of the velocity observer "U" measures to be moving, or any other velocity other reference frames measure "U" to be moving).

 

In reference to the second statement, yes, within the perspective of any observers own inertial frame there is the universal perspective. In this universal frame, velocity is moot (ignored) and has no effect on the internal laws of physics or perspective. This can be a 'cosmic perspective'.

 

In reference to the first statement, the cosmic perspective can be "considered" because of the awareness and knowledge of the second statement (that when things are nearly at rest, relative to each other, its universally the same). However, the cosmic perspective of the viewed universe is not and can not be universally the same. Which is to say, the view is not identical to the experience within that view.

 

The argument is that, of course we can see a cosmic perspective if we prefer the view of a relatively at rest world/universe. However (to use an old example), would we have grown up in a solar system where the sun, earth and all the planets had been accelerated off into different orbits around an intense gravitational source that entered our solar system, we might have grown up to see the universe in a way that is much different from how we do now. One where, planets that look like pancakes, go zipping by every week, distance stars change color every day. And our own sun, changes shape and color through out the day. We might argue that the world we observe in (right here right now 2008) would be an unlikely world, knowing only the kind of world given in this example.

 

You mainly appear to argue, that the hike (the real reference frame) and the view (a relative perspective) are ultimately entirely different things. The view and the Hike within that view, being entirely different.

 

Now, I do not mean this in the literal sense of hiking. Nor do I mean to undermine your practiced transcended perspective, but, in order to have any kind of logical discussion we must eventually refer to understandable and describable things. I say this, because in my opinion many can have experiences of a transcended state of mind, however, I notice for people it is much harder to explain the details about it than it is to explain how one felt about it. Many feel different things, and ultimately it is an experience unique to ones self which can not usually even be explained. Because of this, it is very difficult to discuss these "no word to describe it" states of being. This would be why I referred to the idea of the hike (stable, tangible environment) and the view (an idea, or dream of a stable, tangible environenment).

[modest]

The distance between two objects at any moment is objective in the sense that it does not depend on local perspective of observers 'seeing' the objects within the limitation of lightspeed as a conveyer of what is seen.

 

Can a person determine this objective and transcendent distance?

 

You've explained that the transcendent distances between bodies in the solar system are well-known and have been measured scientifically. You then explain that transcendent distances do no depend on local measurements. These two lines of thought seem at odds which is why I've previously asked how exactly a person such as you or I is to determine the objective or transcendent distance.

 

Your continual condescention after all I have said in truth about my study, in depth of relativity, is totally disgusting. I understand SR and here present a perspective which is cosmically more accurate than what local observers can see.

 

I am beginning to see that you are not intelligent enough to break out of your "relativity indoctrination." You can not even "hear" what I am saying as transcending relativity.

 

I will understand your system better if you could demonstrate an example using your transcendent perspective, such as how fast a person must go in order to reach the sun (from the earth) in 50 seconds. This would help me understand how distance and motion work in the cosmic, transcendent perspective. Doing the same in special relativity then comparing the two will help even more.

 

Thanks,

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Arkain:

(Speaking specifically and only about the frame of reference of a human observer)

 

(1)Firstly, according to all possible observation frames, and referring to the individual perspective (of the outside VIEWED universe) from each individual frame, the observed universe (meaning various locations at significant distances away from the observation frame) is in a Specific State relative to each individual frame.

 

(2)Secondly, Within each of all the possible individual observation frames (called observer "U" : for you and universal); a foot long ruler is always a foot long ruler, 1second is always 1 second on a clock, and a 10kg object has the inertia of a 10kg object (regardless of the velocity observer "U" measures to be moving, or any other velocity other reference frames measure "U" to be moving).

Arkain,

My "philosophy of science" regarding spacetime and relativity is that "spacetime" is a metaphore only and that relativity is a quite sophisticated way to make scientific predictions *relative* to the limits of local human perspective and lightspeed as a converer of information.

 

Within this context, cosmic or objective perspective (as I call it) is a thought experiment, or vision, if you will, of the actual world and cosmos *as it is* beyond or transcending the above limited perspectives.

 

As such a transcendental possibility, it is not encumbent upon me to "prove it."

Philosopicaly, no one can "prove" that a universe actually exists beyond a single person's * idea* of it. This is classical idealism, ala Berkely and Hume, and needless tp say I do not subscribe. "It" is not "all in our minds", nor does the objective cosmos and all its parts depend on human perception and its lightspeed conveyance. I simply claim to *know* this a-priori rather than a-posteriori (empirically.) (See the former way of knowing as a branch of epistemology.)

 

So, given thhe above as context, your post does not even address "cosmic" or "objective" perspective as I use it.

 

I'll just leave it as a philosophical persuasion that the distances between objects (as referenced in my links/quotes above) are "objective" in the sense that they do not actually change with differences in viewpoint of observation.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

The distance between two objects at any moment is objective in the sense that it does not depend on local perspective of observers 'seeing' the objects within the limitation of lightspeed as a conveyer of what is seen.

(M:)

"Can a person determine this objective and transcendent distance?

 

You've explained that the transcendent distances between bodies in the solar system are well-known and have been measured scientifically. You then explain that transcendent distances do no depend on local measurements. These two lines of thought seem at odds which is why I've previously asked how exactly a person such as you or I is to determine the objective or transcendent distance."

 

See post to arkain above. I believe that the measureents as given above (solar system distances and to alpha centauri) are objective as determined by our best scientific measurements today. (See philisopical context in my last post.)

 

I will understand your system better if you could demonstrate an example using your transcendent perspective, such as how fast a person must go in order to reach the sun (from the earth) in 50 seconds. This would help me understand how distance and motion work in the cosmic, transcendent perspective. Doing the same in special relativity then comparing the two will help even more.

 

Another mind game trick, huh?

"A person" has mass and can not travel at lightspeed, much less at the fictional speeds (say like "Startrek's Enterprize")... which would require a bit over "warp nine" to reach the sun in less 50 seconds..

 

As a parting note, I wonder if there are any "philosophers of science" in or lurking about this forum who are not stuck in the dogma that relativity is the ultimate perspective and absolute reality, specifically in cosmology.

[modest]

Your continual condescention after all I have said in truth about my study, in depth of relativity, is totally disgusting. I understand SR...

 

I am beginning to see that you are not intelligent enough to break out of your "relativity indoctrination."...

 

Yes, this is an intended insult...

 

I will understand your system better if you could demonstrate an example using your transcendent perspective, such as how fast a person must go in order to reach the sun (from the earth) in 50 seconds. This would help me understand how distance and motion work in the cosmic, transcendent perspective. Doing the same in special relativity then comparing the two will help even more.

 

Thanks,

 

~modest

 

Another mind game trick, huh?

"A person" has mass and can not travel at lightspeed, much less at the fictional speeds (say like "Startrek's Enterprize")... which would require a bit over "warp nine" to reach the sun in less 50 seconds..

 

You'll find the question is number 4 under "Exercises and Problems" at this website:

 

SPECIAL RELATIVITY - School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology

 

The site also sets out the tools necessary to solve the problem. It's not a "mind game trick", but just an average question of special relativity. If you'd like, I could work through the problem with ya.

 

~modest

[watcher]

My "philosophy of science" regarding spacetime and relativity is that "spacetime" is a metaphore only and that relativity is a quite sophisticated way to make scientific predictions *relative* to the limits of local human perspective and lightspeed as a converer of information.

 

Within this context, cosmic or objective perspective (as I call it) is a thought experiment, or vision, if you will, of the actual world and cosmos *as it is* beyond or transcending the above limited perspectives.

 

As such a transcendental possibility, it is not encumbent upon me to "prove it."

Philosopicaly, no one can "prove" that a universe actually exists beyond a single person's * idea* of it. This is classical idealism, ala Berkely and Hume, and needless tp say I do not subscribe. "It" is not "all in our minds", nor does the objective cosmos and all its parts depend on human perception and its lightspeed conveyance. I simply claim to *know* this a-priori rather than a-posteriori (empirically.) (See the former way of knowing as a branch of epistemology.

 

spacetime is an experience. not that we don't know it, we do, we just can't accurately translate it into symbolic language. that is all

[arkain101]

Hey I was reminded of your thread when I was also reminded of this webpage on an interesting theory. This community claims to provide an answer to what space-time is. Which is needless to say indirectly offers an answer for your question, if your question still remains "What is space-time?".

 

It's a lot to take in, but I've been reading over it quite often over the years and I can't say I can disprove it. Its also full of cool eye candy lol...:)

 

Quantum AetherDynamics Institute - Introduction

 

and here:

Secrets of the Aether - Aether Physics Model

 

oh and here too:

Paper:A New Foundation for Physics, by Quantum Aether Dynamics Institute - PESWiki

[Michael Mooney]

Hi folks. I'm baaack! Long story... both personal and transpersonal... plus I was tired of arguing with Modest and others over the objective distance between objects. See my last reference to philosophical idealism (Berkely, Hume, et.al.).

 

In review, I maintain (philosophically speaking) that true objectivity does not depend on relativity, which depends on lightspeed for conveyance of information/perception. Therefore, the whole body of knowledge in scientific references to the distances between objects in space is independent of observer perspective and its lightspeed limitation. So, for instance, I say that objectively speaking the sun is an average of about 93 million miles or 8+ light minutes (the *distance* light travels in 8 minutes) from earth.

 

So... what if man (or clocks in Modest's link... exercise #4) could travel at over "warp nine" (see "Star Trek" fiction) and get to the sun in 50 seconds. "What if" indeed! If sci-fi is to be taken as serious science we might as well endorse time travel and call it theorical science as well.*

 

Truth is no mass can travel at lightspeed, much less at over nine time lightspeed, so the "what if" above is moot.

 

* As for the "time" component of "spacetime", here again, from the "What is Time?" thread is my latest and maybe best expose' of the error of reification of time intrinsic to "spacetime."

 

(What is time?)

Two answers to consider simultaneously...

One:

It is the *concept/measure* of event duration, like

A: one rotation of earth (day and standardized divisions thereof... hours, minutes, seconds... nanoseconds)

B: one earth orbit around sun (measured three different ways giving three technically different *spans of time*)

C: the great cycle of the precession of the equinox

D: a complete "bang/crunch" cycle, if my favorite comology is true...

...You get the idea.

Two: Now, the present is always present, not sliced into units of time in the real world/cosmos. As I've said many times, future is not yet real and present and past is not still real and present, and there is no "time" between future and past. Therefore "time" is not a natural reality in the strict ontological sense of what is real.

So, "spans of time", as above are as real as we make them. There is no cosmic counter clicking at every complete earth rotation, year, etc. Yet we can "be on time" to work by common consensus on the convention, time. and we can plug in "time" as a component of velocity and calculate and execute a round trip to the moon.

 

It is also conventional to call "time" the fourth dimension added to the obvious spacial three which describe volume. Then we can avoid having two airplanes at the same coordinates in air-space at the same time. A very useful convention.

But it doesn't expand and contract as an actual entity of any kind... See Two above.

 

Arkain,

Enteresting links on the revival of "aether" as the substance of "spacetime." Hold on to your hats. Here comes more math esoterica trying to make something out of nothing (in the tradition of string/M-theory... which I have already critiqued.)

 

Michael

[arkain101]

Now, the present is always present, not sliced into units of time in the real world/cosmos. As I've said many times, future is not yet real and present and past is not still real and present, and there is no "time" between future and past. Therefore "time" is not a natural reality in the strict ontological sense of what is real.

So, "spans of time", as above are as real as we make them. There is no cosmic counter clicking at every complete earth rotation, year, etc. Yet we can "be on time" to work by common consensus on the convention, time. and we can plug in "time" as a component of velocity and calculate and execute a round trip to the moon.

 

It is also conventional to call "time" the fourth dimension added to the obvious spacial three which describe volume. Then we can avoid having two airplanes at the same coordinates in air-space at the same time. A very useful convention.

But it doesn't expand and contract as an actual entity of any kind...

 

So this brings me to a thought. Going by your logic, I see it as, that which is real at the most fundamental level is a level where no event can be finite in its own nature and separated from the rest of the fundamental level that is infinite and chaotic. That is, a particle can not be a fundamental entity separate from any surrounding. Instead, the fundamental level may only be defined in a finite manner by comprehensions of an observed relatively stable manifestation. For example, The pulse of the most stable compounded pattern amongst a rage of many many other, yet, less obvious compounding patterns is the only real pattern that can sustain any influence or be the cause of any effect. (ie, like the sound from a plucked string on an instrument. The string is filled with millions of oscillations, but only the macroscopic oscillation of the totality of other oscillations serves and relative purpose. Also, when using the instrument of our ears, the macroscopic oscillation overpowers any other suspect of an event to produce sound.)

 

That is a confusing mouthful. But what it is getting at is that, if we exclude the notion of time as being any real directional dimension, and accept this as our basis of point of view, then we are dealing with that which is infinite, and as a whole undefinable. What comes to mind as a visualization is that of a zoomed in view of an image of a Mandelbrot set.

 

 

In the image there is purely chaos, under the influence which produces the concept of a pattern , which can not exist on its own and furthermore translates into the law that the path of least resistance, which should be noted is the only path that can occur, because it is the only path that exists meaningfully when looking for a meaningful pattern (event).

 

Furthermore, on this basis of reasoning, there appears to be an obvious problem (paradox) when one considers how can space be both; comprehended as a void of nothingness, and be considered filled with physical properties which influence the motion of even the largest objects. Though, I think insight is found into this paradox when learning more about how we (as human minds) manifest a concept of reality in the first place. That is, you can't get your mind wrapped around a unified idea when the entirety of your thinking is based upon a whole, yet, non-unified and invidualized opertation (ie, particles and meaningful locations).