We have been here before

[Age]

But how is or could space/time be as: speed?

Subject moves x space over time y.
eg. 60mph means: 60 miles (x) over 60 minutes (y).
This is a ratio of space/time.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

I am not surprised that you completely misunderstood this, and wrote some thing so inconceivably off topic.

You wrote; "space/time (as: speed) = observable".

But obviously space nor time do NOT have speed.

Obviously, objects, as subjects, move, and just as obvious is space and time, by their very nature can not and do not move.

Space and time do not move, so there is no speed with space nor with time. They are both just the measurement of distance.

Space and time are like the eyes of the yin-yang: their interaction is 'motion' concerning any subject.

What IS the 'yin-yang' and what are the 'eyes of the yin-yang'?

Space and time do not interact, so there is NO interaction, which is 'motion' concerning any subject. Unless of course you can provide an actual example of such.

To me, both are just a measured distance.

As with electromagnetism wherein electricity requires both dielectric and magnetic forces working in unison to produce anything,
motion requires both time and space.

But are forces physical things?

If yes, then time and space are obviously not physical things.

You just wrote "well observed" but then contradict that.

There is no contradiction.

So, just because you wrote: "There is no contradiction", are you under some sort of illusion that then MEANS for sure "there is no contradiction"?

If you are, then I could just wrote, "Yes there is", and then I would be right? So, who would end up being the rightest of the right? Just the last one to write, "there is" or "there is not"?

What I like to do is provide evidence, after asked for, when I make a claim.

You just claimed that "there is no contradiction", so now you let us see you back up this claim with evidence.

What evidence do you have that what you wrote is not a contradiction?

The actual measurement of space and time can be observed, with the physical eyes, but space and time, themselves, are of no physical thing, which can be directly observed, with the physical eyes.

You can measure s/t but not t/s because t/s is faster-than-light (relativity is not correct).
You can not talk about one without talking about the other: hence, reciprocals (as stated).
It was the second thing I stated.

1/x = real (less than the speed of light) = matter (ie. "stuff")
1/1 = unity (speed of light)
x/1 = ethereal (greater than the speed of light) = energy (ie. "work")

Put it to work with an example and show it an action.

But how is or could space or time be as: energy?

The first step in understanding this is to stop trying to separate space and time. They are reciprocals, like yin-yang. See above.

But you did not show any thing above.

Explain how space AND time are inseparable? While you are at explain to the readers what 'space' is exactly, and what 'time' is exactly, and make those definitions fit in perfectly with absolutely EVERY thing else in the Universe. I can do it, so surely some one so much better than me could also do it as well.

Also, are you aware we are looking at and talking about different things?

Space and time do no move, so there is no energy with space nor with time. They are both just the measurement of distance.

The first step in understanding this is to stop trying to separate space and time.

'Try' and put them as one. If space and time are one the same as 'yin-yang', then explain how they are one.

Also, the last step in understanding is realizing that Everything is One.

And, remember 'you' have just separated space and time, by using the very term "space AND time".

If you want to talk about space and time as one inseparable entity then what could be a better term to use? Oh, how about 'spacetime'?

You just wrote "well observed" and then contradict that.

There is no contradiction.

The actual distance of space and time can be observed, with the Mind's Eye, and space and time, themselves, although are of no physical thing, can actually be directly observed, with the Mind's Eye.

The inseparability between space and time / time and space can be understood with the "Mind's Eye", but not by everyone.

Are you laughing 'trying to' suggest that the Mind's Eye is only available to SOME people?

Why is this even brought into a discussion when it is not even needed?

It is needed: it clarifies that A (ie. any manifest subject) must have motion as an intrinsic property. There is no-thing in the universe not in motion, thus the Aristotelian identity law A=A is false. It is relevant because the concerned observation:

Except space and time are NOT in motion at all, OBVIOUSLY. Unless of course some one can SHOW how space and time actually moves.

So, for all of those that say space and time move or are in motion, then go right ahead and explain and show HOW.

I think that time is the measurement of change and motion is needed for change to happen
Without motion there can be no change and if there is no change then there can be no time

mandates that any identity law incorporate "motion" as intrinsic to its existence.

Are you able to at least explain what the above could achieve?

√1 = +1, -1
√A = +A, -A
A ≠ A
A = *A
___________
*variability allows motion(s)

It achieves an immensely versatile mapping of a torus field. If one is unable to intuit how/why this can be used to solve for practically anything, they will have to wait until the theorem is out, as it will be used to solve for the problem of 'from whence human suffering?' and/or 'believer vs. unbeliever' (same problem/solution).

And we only have three more days to wait.

[Age]

You can call it whatever. I call it time.

There, FINALLY my POINT is acknowledged, and so NOW can be clearly SEEN.

'you', "bahman", call some thing 'time', but that in NO way means that 'time' is an actual thing, which ALLOWS change.

For the Truth IS any one can call any thing absolutely any thing at all. BUT, doing so does not mean any actual thing is true or not.

I already showed that time allows changes.

Who did you supposedly show this to?

Also, I think you do NOT at all understand what I am actually saying here.

I cannot make it clearer than this.

But you have made your BELIEFS very clear already.

And what I have pointed out is that they are just your BELIEFS only, which are NOT necessarily true at all.

I am NOT here to tell you what to believe. I am also NOT here to tell you WHY your BELIEFS are wrong and incorrect.

I am just here questioning and challenging you on your own stated claims and BELIEFS. You have already proven that you, so far, can not back up and support your BELIEFS and claims with any thing other than more BELIEFS and more claims. You have already SHOWN that you have absolutely NO logical NOR reasonable reason for WHY your BELIEF is true.

From what I have observed here, what you BELIEVE is logical and reasonable is actually illogical and unreasonable.

For example, saying; "No time leads to no points", to me, is illogical and unreasonable. Saying; "this then leading to the impossibility of change", is also just as illogical and unreasonable, to me. And, saying; "You need time to have change", is also just as illogical and unreasonable.

Obviously, to me, saying; 'All that is needed for change is physical things' is absolutely logical and reasonable. This is because change could not happen without physical things, of which 'time' is NOT one of those physical things.

This has been CLEAR enough, to me, for a while now already.

Time is a physical thing. It bends. Bending requires energy/mass. Therefore, it is a substance. I invite you to read a little general relativity. Gravitation wave is real and it was observed experimentally.

The more you write the humorous this gets.

So, time is a physical thing. Where is it? What is it? How does it look? What creates time? When did time come into existence?

So, time also bends. How does time bend? What makes time bend?

So, the only actual proof that you have that time is a physical substance, is because it supposedly bends, correct?

So, you want me to read only a "little" of general relativity. Why is that? Is there where I will find out that time is a substance which bends, or that because it bends therefore it is a substance, or that bending requires energy/mass, which by the way would mean that whatever causes time to bend would have energy/mass.

So, gravitation wave is real, AND, it was observed experimentally. What has this got to do with any thing? Are you saying that time is gravitation wave?

[Age]

That is what Aristotle said (bold part). Do you know what does he mean with that?

Do 'you', "bahman", KNOW what "aristotle' meant with "time is the measurement of change"?

If yes, then what did "aristotle" mean with that?

Also, how do 'you' KNOW what "aristotle" meant?

And, what does it care what "aristotle" meant or what you thought or believe "aristotle" meant?

I don't know what does it mean. Do you mind to elaborate?

I have absolutely NO idea OF COURSE. I was NOT with aristotle's thinking at the time aristotle said that.

I can ONLY give MY perspective on things. Obviously I could NOT tell you what "another" meant when they said or wrote some thing, unless of course I asked them DIRECTLY for clarification, and IF they provided me with clarification, ONLY THEN I could tell you what some thing meant from "another's" perspective.

Motion is a sort of change. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Why supposedly not?

To me, the conclusion followed from the premise perfectly.

What part and WHY does the conclusion not follow from the premise, for 'you', "bahman"?

So you have never experience waiting?

So,
You write: "Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise".

So,
I ask: "What part, and WHY, does the conclusion not follow from the premise, for 'you', "bahman"?"

So,
You respond: "So you have never experience waiting?"

Am I actually that absolutely useless at communication that some thing so obviously basic as this can get so taken out of context, so misunderstood, so misinterpreted, so mistaken, so missed, and/or so mis any thing else, and especially considering how I thought I had made my question so specific and so to the point as well. So, I must of missed constructing my question so much for it to become so misplaced and misconstrued as it was here just now.

By the way, Yes, i have experienced waiting. But this is because of how the human brain works, especially when this human body, for example, is sitting in a doctors "waiting" room. i have experienced waiting NOT because 'time' is a physical things, but because change, itself, occurs and because this brain has learned to get impatient very quickly, so during that 'time' when sitting in a doctor's "waiting" room the thoughts within this body imagine of being some where and 'wishing' that this body was at another place 'now'.

Does any other animal besides the human animal, come into existence and then experience 'waiting'?

Besides death and dying what is it REALLY that human being's are 'waiting' for?

The reason this human being is 'waiting' like it just said is because it has learned to get "bored" and to "wish" and "wish" and "wish" for other things, then just sitting here and enjoying and loving the experience of just living, and being alive.

i experience "waiting" NOT because there is some actual physical thing as 'time', itself, but because i have learned to take living and Life for granted. If I had NOT learned to take being here in Existence for granted, then I would NOT experience "waiting", for the only thing one could Truly wait for is their non-existence anymore.

[surreptitious57]

for all of those that say space and time move or are in motion

Space and time are not things that actually move and spacetime does not bend for the same reason

What bends are gravitational fields WITHIN spacetime which is why the equations are called field equations not spacetime ones
These fields become distorted the closer they are to objects of mass and the larger the object the greater the distortion will be

Space is completely empty so it cannot be physical but things WITHIN it like energy or mass or light however are physical
Time also has no physical dimension but things that experience it do such as every object or organism within the Universe

When the Universe dies and if there is nothing left ONLY empty space then the CONCEPT of time will become entirely meaningless
Because there will be nothing physical left that will be able to experience it anymore since everything within it will also have died

[nothing]

I am not surprised that you completely misunderstood this, and wrote some thing so inconceivably off topic.

You wrote; "space/time (as: speed) = observable".

But obviously space nor time do NOT have speed.

Obviously, objects, as subjects, move, and just as obvious is space and time, by their very nature can not and do not move.

You are collapsed in on yourself, thus projecting (ie. drawing from your own nature).

You completely misunderstood.

As clearly indicated: the ratio of space over time indicates speed.

What IS the 'yin-yang' and what are the 'eyes of the yin-yang'?

Primordial Reciprocity: the eyes being the fulcrum.

Space and time do not interact,

Wrong.

so there is NO interaction, which is 'motion' concerning any subject. Unless of course you can provide an actual example of such.

Sound.

To me, both are just a measured distance.

"To me"

Do you stand among the relativists in the cult of Einstein?

But are forces physical things?

If yes, then time and space are obviously not physical things.

"Physical things" are not physical - they are motion.

Atoms are particular configurations of motion.

So, just because you wrote: "There is no contradiction", are you under some sort of illusion that then MEANS for sure "there is no contradiction"?

Not for any such reason. Still: there is no contradiction because there was a contradiction (now) resolved.

If you are, then I could just wrote, "Yes there is", and then I would be right? So, who would end up being the rightest of the right? Just the last one to write, "there is" or "there is not"?

What can not be falsified invariably dwells in the domain of possibly true.

What I like to do is provide evidence, after asked for, when I make a claim.

If it is a problem, either don't make claims or don't bother with people demanding evidence. If they take the default position of expecting someone else to prove something to them, they already show a lack of genuine interest. Better would be: "can you point me in the direction as to what lead you to your conclusion?" This indicates genuine interest and willingness to undertake a disciplined inquiry.

You just claimed that "there is no contradiction", so now you let us see you back up this claim with evidence.

What evidence do you have that what you wrote is not a contradiction?

What evidence do you have there ever was one to begin with? That would be the starting point.

Put it to work with an example and show it an action.

There is nothing to put to work - it is already working. You see one-half (technically: one-quarter) of it as the observable universe.

But you did not show any thing above.

Explain how space AND time are inseparable?

Everything that exists in time, exists in space.
Everything that exists in space, exists in time.
Everything that exists, exists in both.

While you are at explain to the readers what 'space' is exactly, and what 'time' is exactly, and make those definitions fit in perfectly with absolutely EVERY thing else in the Universe.

They are reciprocals of one another. Reciprocity is a universal phenomenon.

The Hebrew word for 'GOD' אלהים denotes this reciprocity:

אל - 'el' as in: towards, leader
ה - 'ha' as in: conduit, womb
ים - 'im' as in: sea, expanse

What 'el' is to masculine bestowal,
'im' is to feminine reception
transacted through the common 'ha'.

I am
that
I am

Adam
and
Eve

all satisfy the same:

(+|-)
ȸ = Male (phallus)
ȹ = Female (ovum)

'GOD' is the prolonged reciprocity of the the bestowal and reception principles ad infinitum.
This is how/why the orgasm/spasm is linked to lust/ego: the more there is, the less "uninterrupted" interaction there is.

Sorry if that is too "deep".

I can do it, so surely some one so much better than me could also do it as well.

Where did this come from?

Also, are you aware we are looking at and talking about different things?

There is only one thing.

'Try' and put them as one. If space and time are one the same as 'yin-yang', then explain how they are one.

Also, the last step in understanding is realizing that Everything is One.

You're contradicting yourself now. Also:

Oneness is not in understanding. There is something beyond understanding: wisdom. Wisdom makes one. Understanding takes two, trying/testing/falsifying makes two one. Tree of Living: binah = understanding, chokmah = wisdom, kether = crown.

+A = Belief
-A = Knowledge
Subject +A to -A (what is presently known).
If -A is not sufficient to falsify +A, seek the knowledge needed to either truthify or falsify +A (into -A).
Belief (+A) becomes Knowledge (-A) ad infinitum.

Nobody comes to the Father but by way of.

And, remember 'you' have just separated space and time, by using the very term "space AND time".

The accuser is the accused. You're collapsing in on yourself (as alluded to earlier).

Not everyone is aware space and time are reciprocals of one another, thus out of respect for such ignorance they are first treated as separate, then united. Such things should be obvious, and are obvious, but not obvious to people who are only acting from a place of enmity.

If you want to talk about space and time as one inseparable entity then what could be a better term to use? Oh, how about 'spacetime'?

Doesn't work: 'timespace' would be just as valid, however when dealing in imaginary numbers, the order of these numbers matters ie. 'timespace' does not equal 'spacetime' as they are reciprocals of one another. It would be like saying n/1 = 1/n which is not only false, but upside-down.

Are you laughing 'trying to' suggest that the Mind's Eye is only available to SOME people?

Not the mind's eye itself, just the capacity to see space and time as reciprocals of one another.

Except space and time are NOT in motion at all, OBVIOUSLY. Unless of course some one can SHOW how space and time actually moves.

Read:
A (ie. any manifest subject) must have motion as an intrinsic property.

Do you selectively omit reading what would otherwise negate your contention?

So, for all of those that say space and time move or are in motion, then go right ahead and explain and show HOW.

Nobody ever said this - your "mind's eye" wishes it to be this way such to satiate your enmity.

And we only have three more days to wait.

I'm glad you are excited. However you will not find the full release of CKIIT on this forum - it has a global launch on another platform.

I may (or may not) do a forum edition post that eventually links to the global one, but as this forum has so little traffic it would hardly be worth the time.

[commonsense]

Time also has no physical dimension

the CONCEPT of time will become entirely meaningless

Because there will be nothing physical left that will be able to experience it

Yes, time isn’t physical. As such, it cannot be experienced via the human senses.

Therefore, the concept of time will be meaningless when there isn’t anyone to conceive of it.

[bahman]

There, FINALLY my POINT is acknowledged, and so NOW can be clearly SEEN.

'you', "bahman", call some thing 'time', but that in NO way means that 'time' is an actual thing, which ALLOWS change.

For the Truth IS any one can call any thing absolutely any thing at all. BUT, doing so does not mean any actual thing is true or not.

I already showed that time allows changes.

Who did you supposedly show this to?

To you. Do you want me to repeat everything again?

Also, I think you do NOT at all understand what I am actually saying here.

What do you think that I don't understand?

But you have made your BELIEFS very clear already.

And what I have pointed out is that they are just your BELIEFS only, which are NOT necessarily true at all.

I am NOT here to tell you what to believe. I am also NOT here to tell you WHY your BELIEFS are wrong and incorrect.

I am just here questioning and challenging you on your own stated claims and BELIEFS. You have already proven that you, so far, can not back up and support your BELIEFS and claims with any thing other than more BELIEFS and more claims. You have already SHOWN that you have absolutely NO logical NOR reasonable reason for WHY your BELIEF is true.

From what I have observed here, what you BELIEVE is logical and reasonable is actually illogical and unreasonable.

For example, saying; "No time leads to no points", to me, is illogical and unreasonable. Saying; "this then leading to the impossibility of change", is also just as illogical and unreasonable, to me. And, saying; "You need time to have change", is also just as illogical and unreasonable.

Obviously, to me, saying; 'All that is needed for change is physical things' is absolutely logical and reasonable. This is because change could not happen without physical things, of which 'time' is NOT one of those physical things.

This has been CLEAR enough, to me, for a while now already.

Time is a physical thing. It bends. Bending requires energy/mass. Therefore, it is a substance. I invite you to read a little general relativity. Gravitation wave is real and it was observed experimentally.

The more you write the humorous this gets.

Science and philosophy are not humor.

So, time is a physical thing. Where is it? What is it?

Time is a new dimension like space. We are embedded within. We experience it but this experience is not like space. It is therefore wrong to say where time is.

How does it look?

Waiting.

What creates time?

Nothing.

When did time come into existence?

At the beginning.

So, time also bends. How does time bend?

It becomes shorter and longer depending on where you are.

What makes time bend?

A massive object for example can bend time.

So, the only actual proof that you have that time is a physical substance, is because it supposedly bends, correct?

Not only that. Anything that exists is a substance. Time exists. Therefore time is a substance.

So, you want me to read only a "little" of general relativity. Why is that? Is there where I will find out that time is a substance which bends, or that because it bends therefore it is a substance, or that bending requires energy/mass, which by the way would mean that whatever causes time to bend would have energy/mass.

To know that time is a physical thing. I found this link for you: https://www.space.com/17661-theory-gene ... ivity.html

So, gravitation wave is real, AND, it was observed experimentally. What has this got to do with any thing? Are you saying that time is gravitation wave?

The bending space-time which moves is the gravitational wave. This is illustrated in the like that I provided you.

[bahman]

Why supposedly not?

To me, the conclusion followed from the premise perfectly.

What part and WHY does the conclusion not follow from the premise, for 'you', "bahman"?

So you have never experience waiting?

So,
You write: "Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise".

So,
I ask: "What part, and WHY, does the conclusion not follow from the premise, for 'you', "bahman"?"

So,
You respond: "So you have never experience waiting?"

Am I actually that absolutely useless at communication that some thing so obviously basic as this can get so taken out of context, so misunderstood, so misinterpreted, so mistaken, so missed, and/or so mis any thing else, and especially considering how I thought I had made my question so specific and so to the point as well. So, I must of missed constructing my question so much for it to become so misplaced and misconstrued as it was here just now.

By the way, Yes, i have experienced waiting. But this is because of how the human brain works, especially when this human body, for example, is sitting in a doctors "waiting" room. i have experienced waiting NOT because 'time' is a physical things, but because change, itself, occurs and because this brain has learned to get impatient very quickly, so during that 'time' when sitting in a doctor's "waiting" room the thoughts within this body imagine of being some where and 'wishing' that this body was at another place 'now'.

Does any other animal besides the human animal, come into existence and then experience 'waiting'?

Besides death and dying what is it REALLY that human being's are 'waiting' for?

The reason this human being is 'waiting' like it just said is because it has learned to get "bored" and to "wish" and "wish" and "wish" for other things, then just sitting here and enjoying and loving the experience of just living, and being alive.

i experience "waiting" NOT because there is some actual physical thing as 'time', itself, but because i have learned to take living and Life for granted. If I had NOT learned to take being here in Existence for granted, then I would NOT experience "waiting", for the only thing one could Truly wait for is their non-existence anymore.

I mean there could be no change but time. You experience time when you are waiting. Therefore, his conclusion doesn't follow.

[Age]

for all of those that say space and time move or are in motion

Space and time are not things that actually move and spacetime does not bend for the same reason

What bends are gravitational fields WITHIN spacetime which is why the equations are called field equations not spacetime ones
These fields become distorted the closer they are to objects of mass and the larger the object the greater the distortion will be

Space is completely empty so it cannot be physical but things WITHIN it like energy or mass or light however are physical
Time also has no physical dimension but things that experience it do such as every object or organism within the Universe

When the Universe dies and if there is nothing left ONLY empty space then the CONCEPT of time will become entirely meaningless
Because there will be nothing physical left that will be able to experience it anymore since everything within it will also have died

When you say, "When the Universe dies... ", do you say this as though it is an irrefutable fact?

[Age]

I am not surprised that you completely misunderstood this, and wrote some thing so inconceivably off topic.

You wrote; "space/time (as: speed) = observable".

But obviously space nor time do NOT have speed.

Obviously, objects, as subjects, move, and just as obvious is space and time, by their very nature can not and do not move.

You are collapsed in on yourself,

If you say so. BUT, are you even able to explain what is this "self", and how it is possible for 'you', or this "self", to collapse in on "yourself" or "itself"?

thus projecting (ie. drawing from your own nature).

What exactly is 'my own nature'?
Is it different from 'your own nature'?
If yes, then how is 'my nature' different from 'your nature'?

You completely misunderstood.

Okay.

As clearly indicated: the ratio of space over time indicates speed.

Clearly as I indicated;

Objects are physical things.
Only physical things can move.
Space and time are not physical things.
Therefore, space and time can not move.

So, ONLY objects can move.

Now, since space and time are not physical things this means there could NOT be any such thing as; "the 'ratio' of space over time". One can not have a quantity of no physical thing over no physical thing. For there to be a 'ratio' there first needs to be a 'quantity', and for there to be a 'quantity' there first needs to 'some thing physical'. Space and time are NOT physical.

One, however, can have a 'ratio' of distance over length.

Therefore, to find the speed that an actual physical object is traveling at, all one only needs to know is the distance that object traveled over how long it took. To obtain that 'ratio' measuring devices are used. To measure distance increments of, for example, feet or miles are used, and the device used to measure distance is called an odometer, and, to measure how long the object took to travel that distance increments of, for example, seconds or minutes are used and the name of that device to measure how long it took is called a clock or a watch.

So, to make it absolutely CLEAR:

The ratio of the distance traveled over how long it takesindicates the speed of an actual physical object.

And, the ratio of space over time to indicate speed, is False, Wrong, and Incorrect, because space and time are not even physical things to begin with, thus they do not even have the ability to move, let alone move at speed.

Therefore, saying, "Worldly = space/time (as: speed) = observable", is just plain illogical and nonsensical.

What IS the 'yin-yang' and what are the 'eyes of the yin-yang'?

Primordial Reciprocity: the eyes being the fulcrum.

Well this does not explain to much at all. But if that is all you got, then that is all you have got.

Space and time do not interact,

Wrong.

LOL This says even less than last time

so there is NO interaction, which is 'motion' concerning any subject. Unless of course you can provide an actual example of such.

Sound.

I am listening, but this is also NOT saying any thing at all, to me.

To me, both are just a measured distance.

"To me"

Do you stand among the relativists in the cult of Einstein?

No.

I stand alone.

Absolutely EVERY thing is RELATIVE to the observer.

Unless you can prove otherwise.

But are forces physical things?

If yes, then time and space are obviously not physical things.

"Physical things" are not physical - they are motion.

How could a 'physical thing' not be physical?

And, if, to you, 'physical things' are not physical, then is any thing physical?

Just wondering, do you even see and/or hear the absurdity and/or contradiction of what saying and writing, " "physical things" are not physical ", even looks and sounds like?

Are you able to clarify or clear up this apparent absurd and contradictory statement or proposition of yours?

Can you please highlight and show the truth in it, to me, that is; if there is any?

Atoms are particular configurations of motion.

Are 'atoms', to you, physical?

Also, what is motion, (or in motion) if it is not physical?

So, just because you wrote: "There is no contradiction", are you under some sort of illusion that then MEANS for sure "there is no contradiction"?

Not for any such reason. Still: there is no contradiction because there was a contradiction (now) resolved.

But where was it supposedly (now) resolved? In that head only, because I did not see it resolved anywhere in these writings.

To remind the readers, "surreptitious57" wrote:
I think that time is the measurement of change and motion is needed for change to happen
Without motion there can be no change and if there is no change then there can be no time

To which you replied:
Very well observed: indeed, the universe is strictly motion.
And,
Worldly = space/time (as: speed) = observable

I replied by saying:
You just wrote "well observed" but then contradict that.

You then said:
There is no contradiction.

But, then changed this to after I pointed out a FACT, and then you said:

There was a contradiction (now) resolved.

In case you were unaware of what contradiction I was talking about, which appears extremely likely to be the case, especially since you NEVER even questioned me about what contradiction I was actually talking about, and instead all you did at first was just flat out reject that there was even a contradiction at all, so I will tell you what the contradiction was, which I note is obviously still not resolved, you agreed with "surreptitious57" that time is just a measurement, and thus not a physical thing, which you acknowledged was "well observed", but then went on to immediately say that "space/time (as: speed) = observable", which contradicts 'time is the measurement of change'.

Now, the only one who can clarify if this is a contradiction or not is "surreptitious57", by them explaining what they meant, by what they said, and then 'you' confirming what you meant, by what you said.

Obviously, if I say what you said contradicted what "another" said, and the "other" has not joined in to this part of the discussion, then you could NOT have (now) resolved the contradiction.

Also, it may have helped from the outset if you actually KNEW what the contradiction WAS exactly BEFORE you say things like: "There is no contradiction", or "there was a contradiction (now) resolved".

Besides all of this, you also made the CLAIM:
There is no contradiction.

I then said:
so now you let us see you back up this claim with evidence.

What evidence do you have that what you wrote is not a contradiction?

Of which you OBVIOUSLY did NOT provide absolutely any thing because you would have absolutely NO idea at all what 'contradiction' I was even talking about.

You just did what 'you', human beings, do when I say things. That is; instantly ASSUME some thing, which is nearly always WRONG, jump to the conclusion that your very OWN ASSUMPTION is true, right, and correct, and then start BELIEVING that your very OWN, invariably wrong, ASSUMPTION is actually True, Right, and Correct, without EVER even thinking of clarifying what it is that I was actually even talking about.

If you are, then I could just wrote, "Yes there is", and then I would be right? So, who would end up being the rightest of the right? Just the last one to write, "there is" or "there is not"?

What can not be falsified invariably dwells in the domain of possibly true.

So what?

Was this meant to have any relation to what I was just saying and pointing out here?

I was pointing out that you are under some sort of illusion that just because you right things like: "There is no contradiction", then that somehow makes it true. As I have SHOWN, you make up some ASSUMPTION, jump to the conclusion that YOUR ASSUMPTION is true and right, and then you, very sadly, start BELIEVING your very own ASSUMED CONCLUSIONS are actually the Truth of things.

By the way, "What can not be falsified invariably dwells in the domain of possibly true", may in fact be thee Truth, in and of Itself. But, just as True is the fact that just about all of what you human beings think and say CAN BE Falsified or proven True, anyway. See, thee Truth of things can be recognized, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD almost instantly, that is once you discover or learn how to do it.

Also, for example, even your BELIEF that "There is no contradiction", or, "There was a contradiction (now) resolved" statements or propositions could have been Falsified or proven True almost immediately, and still can, instead of dwelling in the domain of (the never ending) possibly true syndrome.

Even just the thought of that kind of living of never knowing and being stuck in that domain sounds just so depressing and down.

What I like to do is provide evidence, after asked for, when I make a claim.

If it is a problem, either don't make claims or don't bother with people demanding evidence.

Are you SERIOUSLY this stupid or blind?

I just wrote I LIKE to PROVIDE EVIDENCE, AFTER asked for, when I make a claim.

The issue I have is I RARELY, if ever, get asked for evidence. This is because 'you', people, either ASSUME or BELIEVE that I could not possibly have any for some of the claims I make or that I possibly could NEVER provide any.

There is NO problem whatsoever ANYWHERE. If you do NOT ask for evidence for what I CLAIM, then OBVIOUSLY you have absolutely NO real interest in MY CLAIM, and SO there is NO use me going on anymore about it.

The DIFFERENCE between 'you' and 'I' IS, 'I' can provide evidence for ALL of MY CLAIMS, whereas 'you' have ALREADY SHOWN that you can NOT provide ANY evidence at all for your CLAIMS, which I have asked you to provide evidence for.

And, seriously are you REALLY saying, "don't bother with people demanding evidence"? Have you REALLY NOT been reading what I WRITE?
I WANT 'you', people, to DEMAND evidence from ME for absolutely EVERY little or big thing I CLAIM.

I absolutely LOVE and THRIVE being challenged, questioned, harassed, and 'drilled to the core' while being demanded for EVIDENCE and PROOF for what I say AND CLAIM.

The MORE you WANT and DEMAND from ME, the HAPPIER I become.

If they take the default position of expecting someone else to prove something to them, they already show a lack of genuine interest. Better would be: "can you point me in the direction as to what lead you to your conclusion?" This indicates genuine interest and willingness to undertake a disciplined inquiry.

I do NOT care what you do nor how you do it. Just do some thing to SHOW there is some sort of interest in what I SAY and CLAIM, instead of SHOWING the DISBELIEF held within 'you', human beings.

By the way, what you said about; This indicates a genuine interest and willingness to undertake a disciplined inquiry' sounds absolutely BEAUTIFUL and WISE, to me, so why do you NOT show ANY interest at all, let alone an interest of that magnitude and excellence?

You just claimed that "there is no contradiction", so now you let us see you back up this claim with evidence.

What evidence do you have that what you wrote is not a contradiction?

What evidence do you have there ever was one to begin with? That would be the starting point.

Yes EXACTLY, that would HAVE been the starting point.

So, now IMAGINE if you had just started off by SHOWING some sort of OPENNESS and INTEREST, and just asked me a very simple and inquisitiveness, clarifying question like:
What contradiction are you talking about?

INSTEAD of some thing as BOLD and as CLOSED as: There is no contradiction?

Put it to work with an example and show it an action.

There is nothing to put to work - it is already working. You see one-half (technically: one-quarter) of it as the observable universe.[/quote]

You supposedly see one-half (technically: one-quarter) of 'what' (exactly) as the observable universe? In other words what is the 'it' in your statement/proposition?

But you did not show any thing above.

Explain how space AND time are inseparable?

Everything that exists in time, exists in space.
Everything that exists in space, exists in time.
Everything that exists, exists in both.

But neither 'time' nor 'space' are actual things in which other things could exist (nor be) in.

'Space' is just a part of the Universe, Itself, and so 'space' is in the Universe and not the other way around as you just proposed here.

'Time' is just a word, which is used to describe when we are talking about the perceived length between two or more perceived separate events.

While you are at explain to the readers what 'space' is exactly, and what 'time' is exactly, and make those definitions fit in perfectly with absolutely EVERY thing else in the Universe.

They are reciprocals of one another. Reciprocity is a universal phenomenon.

They may well be reciprocals of one another, and reciprocity may well be a universal phenomenon, BUT this says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL about What 'space' IS nor about What 'time' IS exactly, which is, exactly, what I asked you about.

The Hebrew word for 'GOD' אלהים denotes this reciprocity:

אל - 'el' as in: towards, leader
ה - 'ha' as in: conduit, womb
ים - 'im' as in: sea, expanse

What 'el' is to masculine bestowal,
'im' is to feminine reception
transacted through the common 'ha'.

I am
that
I am

Adam
and
Eve

all satisfy the same:

(+|-)
ȸ = Male (phallus)
ȹ = Female (ovum)

'GOD' is the prolonged reciprocity of the the bestowal and reception principles ad infinitum.
This is how/why the orgasm/spasm is linked to lust/ego: the more there is, the less "uninterrupted" interaction there is.

Sorry if that is too "deep".

But it is NOT deep at all, well to me anyway.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED just HOW 'God' is in relation to the TWO, which denotes the reciprocal NATURE of the Universe, Itself, and just HOW there has to be TWO, for Everything to exist. And, I could go on for hours explaining and PROVING with EVIDENCE this fact, BUT, in NO way at all in any thing you have just said here even remotely was aligned to what My ACTUAL question asked for, which was:
What 'space' IS, exactly?
What 'time' IS, exactly? And,
Make those definitions fit in perfectly with absolutely EVERY thing else in the Universe.

When, and only WHEN, you can do that, then what God actually IS will become FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

But as of now, you are still struggling to even begin to remotely explain what 'space' and what 'time' IS actually.

All things have to be able to be explained FULLY, if we want to get to the actual deep and underlying Truths of ALL things.

I can do it, so surely some one so much better than me could also do it as well.

Where did this come from?

One place was when you said:
I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Speaking like that makes out that what you said was 100% true, right, and correct, (which, by the way, is yet to be proven, and not just accepted or believed that it is), anyway, and by saying that you are surprised that "others" do not know that also, implies or infers a sense of one is better than the "other" for knowing some thing, which the "other" did not.

Also, IF and WHEN one realizes that they are NOT superior to "another" then they would NEVER say such a thing, as one who Truly KNOWS who they ARE NEVER makes such ASSUMPTIONS as was made there, as well as even if they found out FOR SURE that the "other" did not yet know some thing, then they would NEVER be surprised because they KNOW that absolutely EVERY thing like this is learned in Life, through experiences, and so if some one does not yet know some thing, then all that means is that they have just not yet experienced it so far.

Also, are you aware we are looking at and talking about different things?

There is only one thing.

Excellent response. And, what is that one and only thing?

'Try' and put them as one. If space and time are one the same as 'yin-yang', then explain how they are one.

Also, the last step in understanding is realizing that Everything is One.

You're contradicting yourself now.

This is just a 'paradox', that is; A seemingly contradiction, but which on further investigation expresses a truth. And, some say; 'Life is a paradox'.

Also:

Oneness is not in understanding. There is something beyond understanding: wisdom. Wisdom makes one. Understanding takes two, trying/testing/falsifying makes two one. Tree of Living: binah = understanding, chokmah = wisdom, kether = crown.

As I said; the last step in understanding is REALIZING ...

Could REALIZING be 'wisdom'?

Could working together and putting words together through 'logical reasoning' the Truth be put together and found to be as One? Or, will it always be "one is right" and the "other" "one is wrong"?

+A = Belief
-A = Knowledge
Subject +A to -A (what is presently known).
If -A is not sufficient to falsify +A, seek the knowledge needed to either truthify or falsify +A (into -A).
Belief (+A) becomes Knowledge (-A) ad infinitum.

I find using actual words of things instead of just meaningless symbols, which obviously could refer to absolutely any thing at all, is so much easier to follow and accept. Using real true to life examples, for me anyway, makes what it is that you are 'trying to' reveal so much easier to, literally, see and understand.

By the way, you NEVER explained how time and space are actually one the same as 'yin-yang'.

But you do, quite frequently, NOT explain any thing that I ask you if you can.

Nobody comes to the Father but by way of.

Who and/or what is the 'Father' word in relation to here?

And, who and/or what is the 'Nobody' that comes to that 'Father'?

Once again, ALL-OF-THIS can be explained in a way that fits in PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else.

And, remember 'you' have just separated space and time, by using the very term "space AND time".

The accuser is the accused. You're collapsing in on yourself (as alluded to earlier).

This re-repeated saying is the biggest load of The accuser is the accused itself.

STOP turning things around and LOOKING AT and accusing "others" of doing some thing, which has never even been explained what it actually means yet, by the way, and START LOOKING AT what is said.

Either you separated 'spacetime' by calling 'IT' 'space' AND 'time' or you did not.

Now, either just accept that that is exactly what you did, if you did do that. Or, if you did NOT do that, then explain HOW and WHY you did not do that.

But by LOOKING AT the actual WORDS that YOU wrote, then it is pretty OBVIOUS just HOW you separated 'spacetime', Itself.

NOT looking at things being pointed out to you, and you then turning this back onto the "other" is SHOWING how deceptive you are 'trying to' be. If you BELIEVE what I said is wrong, then just SHOW it is wrong, by PROVING just HOW it is WRONG. Explaining WHY it is WRONG is even better for both of "us". But instead just accusing me of some thing, some will have NOTICED is; "The accuser is the accused", ITSELF, as some say.

Not everyone is aware space and time are reciprocals of one another, thus out of respect for such ignorance they are first treated as separate, then united. Such things should be obvious, and are obvious, but not obvious to people who are only acting from a place of enmity.

Remember where you asked me before, Where did this come from?

Well this kind of talking, which you have done previously, is ANOTHER example of where that came from.

Just because people do not yet know some thing, then this is NOT out of "such ignorance", but rather just out of "not yet learning" that thing.

Inferring some thing is not yet known, out of "such ignorance", expresses and shows a better or a superiority complex.

Now, you can 'try to' fool us by using words like "out of respect" and "they are first treated as separate", but did you forget that it was 'you' just now who was INSISTING that 'They are NOT separate'?

You even used the actual words: The first step in understanding this is to stop trying to separate space and time.

Now, this appears to absolutely and completely CONTRADICT what you are 'trying to' say here now.

Maybe if you had just LOOKED AT and acknowledged that you did actually separate 'spacetime' by using the actual separating terms of 'space' AND 'time', and explained why you are doing what you are telling us to STOP doing, then you might not have gone down this path of now 'trying to' "justify" your very own contradictory actions or behaviors, and now would not be in this predicament?

Of, are you able to EXPLAIN ALL-OF-THIS apparent contradictions now, in a logically reasoned way, without contradicting more nor 'trying to' minimize nor "justify" "yourself" again?

If you want to talk about space and time as one inseparable entity then what could be a better term to use? Oh, how about 'spacetime'?

Doesn't work: 'timespace' would be just as valid, however when dealing in imaginary numbers, the order of these numbers matters ie. 'timespace' does not equal 'spacetime' as they are reciprocals of one another. It would be like saying n/1 = 1/n which is not only false, but upside-down.

I get lost when you start using "symbols" instead of real actual words.

Are you laughing 'trying to' suggest that the Mind's Eye is only available to SOME people?

Not the mind's eye itself, just the capacity to see space and time as reciprocals of one another.

You MISUNDERSTOOD the question. But, anyway from the way you have responded, are you laughing at, and/or suggesting, that NOT everyone could understand this?

Except space and time are NOT in motion at all, OBVIOUSLY. Unless of course some one can SHOW how space and time actually moves.

Read:
A (ie. any manifest subject) must have motion as an intrinsic property.

'Space' AND 'time' are NOT manifest subjects, which are capable of motion. This is because of what 'space' AND 'time' ACTUALLY ARE.

Only physical objects are capable of motion. This capability of physical things to move is because of 'space', itself.

The actual intrinsic property of 'space' AND 'time' means that they BOTH can NOT move, and as such do NOT have motion at all.

Do you selectively omit reading what would otherwise negate your contention?

Are you REALLY or SERIOUSLY 'trying to' SUGGEST that just because you wrote some words down, then that MEANS that they are an irrefutable fact?

So, for all of those that say space and time move or are in motion, then go right ahead and explain and show HOW.

Nobody ever said this - your "mind's eye" wishes it to be this way such to satiate your enmity.

You ability to INSTANTLY turn things around, deflect, and LOOK AT some thing else, usually the "person" instead of what was just written down and direct all attention to the person, them "self", and NOT at what was said at all, happens quite frequently when you do NOT know how to answer or respond to what was just said.

Now, let us actually LOOK AT this, in more depth, I NEVER even remotely suggested any thing about said 'WHAT', EXACTLY.

I NEVER said ANYBODY said ANY THING. I said, if we LOOK AT it again; So, for all the those that say space and time move or are in motion, which 'YOU',
"nothing' ARE one of 'those', then, to 'you', I said: go right ahead and explain and show HOW (space and time move or are in motion).

Now, you have made the CLAIM that space and time move, or are in motion, so, now, back up and support this CLAIM with EVIDENCE and better still with ACTUAL REAL PROOF.

Oh, by the way, that is if you can.

If, however, you can NOT, then just continue on what you are doing are turn this completely around to 'try to' LOOK AT 'me' and what you IMAGINE I am doing.

But as I have suggested earlier to 'you' and to "others", I think you will find it better for "yourselves" if you actually have some thing PRIOR to support and back up what it is that you want to claim BEFORE you make the actual claim itself.

And we only have three more days to wait.

I'm glad you are excited. However you will not find the full release of CKIIT on this forum - it has a global launch on another platform.

Will you provide ANY hints as to what that platform actually is?

I may (or may not) do a forum edition post that eventually links to the global one, but as this forum has so little traffic it would hardly be worth the time.

Yes so true, we would NOT want you to waste your time here in this forum, especially considering you never even planned to tell us what this secret ckiit is anyway on here.

By the way, and just curious, what are you here in this forum for anyway?

Besides telling us that you are going to launch some secret thing next year and that that secret thing will have the full release on another platform, the only other thing that I have really gotten from you is that you do not like mohammed, but you do like muslim woman.

[Age]

I already showed that time allows changes.

Who did you supposedly show this to?

To you.

But you NEVER showed any such thing, to me.

I saw in the words that you used that this is what you BELIEVE is true.

What you have SHOWED me is Truly illogical and nonsensical responses to 'try to' valid your very own BELIEF that 'time' is some actual thing that allows change.

Do you want me to repeat everything again?

If you want to, then go right ahead. I MAY then see what it is that you want me to SEE. But up to now, when I write this, you CERTAINLY have NOT showed me that 'time' allows change. You have yet to even explain what 'time' COULD BE, let alone what 'time' IS.

Also, I think you do NOT at all understand what I am actually saying here.

What do you think that I don't understand?

I think you do NOT understand that just because you BELIEVE, without a shadow of doubt, that some thing allows change, and just because you have used the word 'time' for so long and associate that word with some thing, which you BELIEVE allows change, then now you actually BELIEVE that that word 'time' actually allows change.

And, what you are also seriously MISSING and NOT understanding is that even though you have PROVEN that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to name the actual physical thing that 'time' could even be, which could even allow change, you still INSIST that it is 'time' (whatever that completely unknown thing and phenomena is to you) allows change.

Or, did you already understand that you do NOT know what the actual thing is that allows change other than 'it' is 'time' AND, to you, 'time' is what allows change?

Do you understand that WHOLE argument IS:

Some 'thing', which I can not explain, allows change.
I call that 'thing' 'time'.
Therefore, 'time' allows change?

And, that this MEANS, to you, that you have SHOWN and PROVEN that 'time allows change', correct?

Time is a physical thing. It bends. Bending requires energy/mass. Therefore, it is a substance. I invite you to read a little general relativity. Gravitation wave is real and it was observed experimentally.

The more you write the humorous this gets.

Science and philosophy are not humor.

May be they are not to some, but this might be WHY what you write is very humorous.

So, time is a physical thing. Where is it? What is it?

Time is a new dimension like space.

What do you mean by a 'new' dimension (like space). 'New' relative to what exactly?

We are embedded within.

You can be embed any thing within any thing with 'your' imagination. But let me assure 'you' I am NOT embedded within some 'new' dimension called 'time'.

We experience it but this experience is not like space. It is therefore wrong to say where time is.

It is also wrong of you to say "we" experience time, because I have CLEARLY told you many times by now I do NOT experience 'time', like 'you' IMAGINE I do.

You can rightly speak for what 'you' experience, but as soon as you 'try to' speak for 'we', including 'me', then 'you' will inevitably be WRONG.

How does it look?

Waiting.

So, 'time' looks like 'waiting'.

So, 'time' could be associated with 'answers' then.

What creates time?

Nothing.

So, 'time' is just another one of these magical things that just appear out of "nothing".

Why is it whenever people are challenged on their claims, answers like this appear?

When did time come into existence?

At the beginning.

LOL, around and around in circles we start to spin.

So, time also bends. How does time bend?

It becomes shorter and longer depending on where you are.

So, 'time' is not some actual thing but rather it is some imagined thing that just appears to be the case, which is depended upon where I am. Like, for example, when i am in a philosophy forum trying to extract logical and sensible answers from posters, then 'time' is VERY LOOOONGGG, but when i want to have a long rest, then 'time' is very short, and interrupted?

Or, did you mean some thing else?

What makes time bend?

A massive object for example can bend time.

How 'massive' is 'massive'?

So, the only actual proof that you have that time is a physical substance, is because it supposedly bends, correct?

Not only that. Anything that exists is a substance. Time exists. Therefore time is a substance.

Ah ok, so you have two arguments for time. The one above and this one:

Any thing that exists is a substance.
Time exists (because I say it does)
Therefore, times is a substance.

So, that is all sorted out once and for all, correct?

So, you want me to read only a "little" of general relativity. Why is that? Is there where I will find out that time is a substance which bends, or that because it bends therefore it is a substance, or that bending requires energy/mass, which by the way would mean that whatever causes time to bend would have energy/mass.

To know that time is a physical thing. I found this link for you: https://www.space.com/17661-theory-gene ... ivity.html

Thank you. I am SURE you BELIEVE that it will PROVE, without any doubt at all, that 'time' is absolutely a physical thing.

But now I wonder if to KNOW that time is a physical thing I could have just read this BEFORE, then WHY do you just NOT copy AND write the actual words in that link, which PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that 'time' is an actual physical thing.

See, what tends to happen is people have 'confirmation biases, and as such I might also read that link, which you so kindly 'found just for me', with said such 'confirmation biases' and actually NOT see what it is that you say I will. In fact I might read that link, and with said such 'confirmation biases' I might SEE things that actually purport to SHOW that 'time' is NOT an actual thing at all. Now, some might say that this would be a "very strange thing" to happen.

But considering that 'you', human beings, have completely OPPOSITE and OPPOSING views on the EXACT SAME phenomena, and have been discussing these same things for, literally, thousands upon thousands of years without ever coming to some sort of resolution, then maybe this "take a look at this link or writing, and then you will see what I see" actually does NOT work at all.

Hey how about, and this might be a new idea, if ANY 'you', human beings, actually CLAIM some thing to be true, then either back it up with a sound and valid argument, which obviously could NOT be refuted, or, back your CLAIM up with EVIDENCE that actually PROVES your CLAIM to be an unambiguous, irrefutable FACT?

And, until then HOW ABOUT just STOP ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING and INSISTING that 'you' actually KNOW what is true, right, and correct, and instead just STAY OPEN so that you can discover, learn, and understand what IS thee actual Truth of things?

But, in saying this, i will still HAVE TO LOOK AT that link because I do NOT know what I will FIND inside of it.

So, gravitation wave is real, AND, it was observed experimentally. What has this got to do with any thing? Are you saying that time is gravitation wave?

The bending space-time which moves is the gravitational wave. This is illustrated in the like that I provided you.

Ah ok, so the bending space-time thingy, which moves is the gravitational wave, correct?

If yes, then what you might have been 'trying to' say all along is that 'time' is part of the gravitational wave, which is what allows change. The other part of that gravitational wave is 'space'. Now, if you were, then this would make a thousand fold more sense than what you have been saying so far.

This might even have some logic to it. But I will NOT know until I think about it, which I might do.

Does "nothing" cause a 'gravitational wave', or is this unlike 'time' and is there actually some thing now, which causes a 'gravitational wave'?

[Age]

So you have never experience waiting?

So,
You write: "Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise".

So,
I ask: "What part, and WHY, does the conclusion not follow from the premise, for 'you', "bahman"?"

So,
You respond: "So you have never experience waiting?"

Am I actually that absolutely useless at communication that some thing so obviously basic as this can get so taken out of context, so misunderstood, so misinterpreted, so mistaken, so missed, and/or so mis any thing else, and especially considering how I thought I had made my question so specific and so to the point as well. So, I must of missed constructing my question so much for it to become so misplaced and misconstrued as it was here just now.

By the way, Yes, i have experienced waiting. But this is because of how the human brain works, especially when this human body, for example, is sitting in a doctors "waiting" room. i have experienced waiting NOT because 'time' is a physical things, but because change, itself, occurs and because this brain has learned to get impatient very quickly, so during that 'time' when sitting in a doctor's "waiting" room the thoughts within this body imagine of being some where and 'wishing' that this body was at another place 'now'.

Does any other animal besides the human animal, come into existence and then experience 'waiting'?

Besides death and dying what is it REALLY that human being's are 'waiting' for?

The reason this human being is 'waiting' like it just said is because it has learned to get "bored" and to "wish" and "wish" and "wish" for other things, then just sitting here and enjoying and loving the experience of just living, and being alive.

i experience "waiting" NOT because there is some actual physical thing as 'time', itself, but because i have learned to take living and Life for granted. If I had NOT learned to take being here in Existence for granted, then I would NOT experience "waiting", for the only thing one could Truly wait for is their non-existence anymore.

I mean there could be no change but time.

I have NO idea what this is in relation to, now.

But before were you arguing that time allows change? And, if you were, then what do you now mean, "there could be no change BUT time"?

You experience time when you are waiting.

As I have said previously, when 'you' 'try to' speak for 'me', then you will inevitably get it WRONG.

Listen up now, I am speaking for I, so what I say IS what I experience ('you' may think you know what 'you' experience, but 'you' certainly do NOT know what 'I' experience). So, I will now tell 'you' what 'I' experience.

I do NOT experience 'time' at all. What I do experience, however, is "waiting". 'Waiting' is NOT 'time' at all. 'Waiting' is just WANTING or WISHING to be somewhere else, or just WANTING or WISHING to be doing some thing else.

I experience WAITING. I do NOT experience TIME.

To me, 'time' is just a word made up to describe the process of measuring the change between different labeled events.

Therefore, his conclusion doesn't follow.

Is this because 'you' KNOW, for SURE, 100% without doubt, what the absolute Truth of things IS? Or, just because 'you' BELIEVE some else to be true?

[Age]

To know that time is a physical thing. I found this link for you: https://www.space.com/17661-theory-gene ... ivity.html

That link is just to a "theory".
ALL theories are yet to be falsified or verified true.
Therefore, I could NOT possible KNOW that 'time' is a physical thing in that link you so kindly provided for me.

Thank you anyway.

[nothing]

...walls of text...

Clearly as I indicated;

Objects are physical things.
Only physical things can move.

s/t=speed is a ratio which describes any such physical thing.

Your whining and squealing is much ado about nothing.

Well this does not explain to much at all. But if that is all you got, then that is all you have got.

There is nothing to explain when it comes to primordial reciprocity. It is subject/context invariant.

I am listening, but this is also NOT saying any thing at all, to me.

No no... sound. As in: music, for example.

No.
I stand alone.
Absolutely EVERY thing is RELATIVE to the observer.
Unless you can prove otherwise.

The observer is relative to everything. Do you "believe" that your own personal, individual experience of life is somehow not reflected in the whole? Do you believe beings who can 'see' the whole, somehow can not see the degree(s) to which each being is reflected in the whole?

How could a 'physical thing' not be physical?

That there is even such a 'thing' as a 'physical thing' is an assumption which relies on mundane sensory perceptions and apparatuses. It relates to the same problem of the tree of knowledge: "believing" a thing to be certain while being wrong, means one is eventually dead wrong. That there is anything that constitutes a 'physical thing' is one such assumption rooted in belief: it can be known that what people believe are 'physical things' are actually just configurations of motion in relation to one another.

It's a matter of seeing creation from the bottom-up (real sector) or top-down (ethereal sector) as any/all belief-based ignorance(s) are temporary.

Are 'atoms', to you, physical?

Also, what is motion, (or in motion) if it is not physical?

No.

Motion is the starting-point: the universe. We live in a universe of motion, hence my accolades to the poster who came to it by themselves.

In case you were unaware of what contradiction I was talking about...

I was already aware of the contradiction you believed to exist.

s/t=speed

You "believed" this equation (and my use of it) does not implicitly rely on there being an object/subject to which it applies, as is the case with any such practical expression. Instead: because there is an underlying agenda to undermine for the sake of undermining, the "mind's eye" only searches for ways to accomplish this.

There is no contradiction, as was no contradiction (which you created by "believing" in). Then, you started whining and squealing:

You just did what 'you', human beings, do when I say things.

etc.

I was pointing out that you are under some sort of illusion that just because you right things like: "There is no contradiction", then that somehow makes it true. As I have SHOWN, you make up some ASSUMPTION, jump to the conclusion that YOUR ASSUMPTION is true and right, and then you, very sadly, start BELIEVING your very own ASSUMED CONCLUSIONS are actually the Truth of things.

This is highlighting my earlier point: you are 'collapsed' in on yourself "Believing" your own assumptions are that of others. It's the same as the original sin: Adam blames Eve for his own nature. Cain tills from his own soil etc. I was just pointing it out to you, but you're still collapsed going in circles spewing oink.

By the way, "What can not be falsified invariably dwells in the domain of possibly true", may in fact be thee Truth, in and of Itself. But, just as True is the fact that just about all of what you human beings think and say CAN BE Falsified or proven True, anyway. See, thee Truth of things can be recognized, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD almost instantly, that is once you discover or learn how to do it.

Like the Mark of Cain: the accuser is the accused. Instantly recognizable.

Also, for example, even your BELIEF that "There is no contradiction", or, "There was a contradiction (now) resolved" statements or propositions could have been Falsified or proven True almost immediately, and still can, instead of dwelling in the domain of (the never ending) possibly true syndrome.

Mirror.

Even just the thought of that kind of living of never knowing and being stuck in that domain sounds just so depressing and down.

See: Islam.

Are you SERIOUSLY this stupid or blind?...

...whining and squealing...

There is NO problem whatsoever ANYWHERE.

Are you sure?

The DIFFERENCE between 'you' and 'I' IS, 'I' can provide evidence for ALL of MY CLAIMS, whereas 'you' have ALREADY SHOWN that you can NOT provide ANY evidence at all for your CLAIMS, which I have asked you to provide evidence for.

I'm not interested in any of your claims: the being whence they come is problematic. If this weren't true, I'd genuinely be interested in what you had to say, but have none given the fascist pig nature of 'you!' 'you!' 'you!' which, again, invariably proves itself true over and over and over again.

And, seriously are you REALLY saying, "don't bother with people demanding evidence"? Have you REALLY NOT been reading what I WRITE?
I WANT 'you', people, to DEMAND evidence from ME for absolutely EVERY little or big thing I CLAIM.

I already did this: stop whining and squealing, stick to ten points or less, and drop the 'you!' 'you!' 'you!'.

You failed.

The MORE you WANT and DEMAND from ME, the HAPPIER I become.

Are you full of yourself, then?

I do NOT care what you do nor how you do it. Just do some thing to SHOW there is some sort of interest in what I SAY and CLAIM, instead of SHOWING the DISBELIEF held within 'you', human beings.

By the way, what you said about; This indicates a genuine interest and willingness to undertake a disciplined inquiry' sounds absolutely BEAUTIFUL and WISE, to me, so why do you NOT show ANY interest at all, let alone an interest of that magnitude and excellence?

It was already explained to you.

You supposedly see one-half (technically: one-quarter) of 'what' (exactly) as the observable universe? In other words what is the 'it' in your statement/proposition?

The usage is the same as your own 'it' viz. 'put it to work'.

But neither 'time' nor 'space' are actual things in which other things could exist (nor be) in.

Certainly not when you separate them.

'Space' is just a part of the Universe, Itself, and so 'space' is in the Universe and not the other way around as you just proposed here.

Time and space are themselves not "things" and never were implied to be. The implication was/is they are inseparable.

They may well be reciprocals of one another, and reciprocity may well be a universal phenomenon, BUT this says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL about What 'space' IS nor about What 'time' IS exactly, which is, exactly, what I asked you about.

It's a stupid question(s) - what is yang? What is yin? They are not any 'thing', thus to form a question beginning 'what' is an ignorant question.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED just HOW 'God' is in relation to the TWO,

Believer vs. unbeliever

which denotes the reciprocal NATURE of the Universe,

Belief-based-ignorance and knowledge-negating-belief

and just HOW there has to be TWO,

alpha/omega

for Everything to exist.

beginning/end

And, I could go on for hours explaining and PROVING with EVIDENCE this fact, BUT,

I can do the same, instantly, with one picture:

BUT, in NO way at all in any thing you have just said here even remotely was aligned to what My ACTUAL question asked for, which was:
What 'space' IS, exactly?
What 'time' IS, exactly? And,
Make those definitions fit in perfectly with absolutely EVERY thing else in the Universe.

Ignorant questions.

Think:
Space and Time
Rhythm and Tempo
Likeness and Image
Female and Male
Eve and Adam
Magnetism and Electricity
etc.

What (if anything) lies at/as the primordial reciprocity?
Some single 'thing'? 'What is space/time...' is ignorant.

There is unity, and...

When, and only WHEN, you can do that, then what God actually IS will become FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

...there is anything/everything less than. This is why in Islam they say "Allahu Akbar!" (ie. god is greater) but catastrophically: it captures the ignorance of the admonishment of Genesis 2:17 to (and by way of) which the "believer" is succumb. That is the final "reversal" the Muslim "believer" will witness upon death: that "Allahu Akbar" is their own signed death warrant. It is by design, and can be seen/known as a designed element, designed for a purpose.

It is both: beautiful and tragic at the same time.

Speaking like that makes out that what you said was 100% true, right, and correct, (which, by the way, is yet to be proven, and not just accepted or believed that it is), anyway, and by saying that you are surprised that "others" do not know that also, implies or infers a sense of one is better than the "other" for knowing some thing, which the "other" did not.

If the firmament of your mind is so structured.

Also, IF and WHEN one realizes that they are NOT superior to "another" then they would NEVER say such a thing, as one who Truly KNOWS who they ARE NEVER makes such ASSUMPTIONS as was made there, as well as even if they found out FOR SURE that the "other" did not yet know some thing, then they would NEVER be surprised because they KNOW that absolutely EVERY thing like this is learned in Life, through experiences, and so if some one does not yet know some thing, then all that means is that they have just not yet experienced it so far.

The assumption is on your end - you are reacting to a problem you created, but treating me as its source. It's the same as any fascist pig.

Excellent response. And, what is that one and only thing?

I don't give it a name, I just leave it (...)

This is just a 'paradox', that is; A seemingly contradiction, but which on further investigation expresses a truth. And, some say; 'Life is a paradox'.

Some say it, some know it. Whence any contradiction-paradox?

As I said; the last step in understanding is REALIZING ...

Could REALIZING be 'wisdom'?

Realizing the-two-are-one is wisdom: chokmah.
You start with understanding: binah.

binah = elohim (reciprocity of bestowal and reception)
chokmah = yhvh (unison)
kether = "I am that I am" (in-dwelling vessel for two beings to become one)



Where is the wisdom in "believer vs. unbeliever"?
Where is the wisdom in their reconciliation?

Could working together and putting words together through 'logical reasoning' the Truth be put together and found to be as One? Or, will it always be "one is right" and the "other" "one is wrong"?

You tell me?

By the way, you NEVER explained how time and space are actually one the same as 'yin-yang'.

But you do, quite frequently, NOT explain any thing that I ask you if you can.

You're not looking for answers, you're looking for ways to compare what you believe to know against what I claim/propose.

The Canaanite "us vs. them" attitude is invariably embedded in the way you see the world. Hence the constant 'you! 'you!' 'you!'

Who and/or what is the 'Father' word in relation to here?
And, who and/or what is the 'Nobody' that comes to that 'Father'?
Once again, ALL-OF-THIS can be explained in a way that fits in PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else.

All the power to you.

This re-repeated saying is the biggest load of The accuser is the accused itself.

STOP turning things around and LOOKING AT and accusing "others" of doing some thing, which has never even been explained what it actually means yet, by the way, and START LOOKING AT what is said.

Either you separated 'spacetime' by calling 'IT' 'space' AND 'time' or you did not.

You're throwing a tantrum again believing someone else is doing what you are doing.
If you weren't such a 'you!' 'you!' 'you!' thinker you would not find division/separation where there is none,
thus attempt to insert such division where there ought to be none.

But by LOOKING AT the actual WORDS that YOU wrote, then it is pretty OBVIOUS just HOW you separated 'spacetime', Itself.

Words are not everything - images have a likeness. If you can't follow the words properly to see the real likeness that is there, rather than an invented image that is not there (but suits your attacks against me) that is your problem, and not mine.

NOT looking at things being pointed out to you, and you then turning this back onto the "other" is SHOWING how deceptive you are 'trying to' be. If you BELIEVE what I said is wrong, then just SHOW it is wrong, by PROVING just HOW it is WRONG. Explaining WHY it is WRONG is even better for both of "us". But instead just accusing me of some thing, some will have NOTICED is; "The accuser is the accused", ITSELF, as some say.

Some say, some know, some merely believe to know. Whence accusation comes trial: is the accuser the accused? Whoever began the string of accusations stands to lose if/when 'true'. Who threw the first accusation, and regarding what, in our interaction(s)? Do you know?

Just because people do not yet know some thing, then this is NOT out of "such ignorance", but rather just out of "not yet learning" that thing.

They are taken to be equivalent - being ignorant includes not yet learned.

Now, you can 'try to' fool us by using words like "out of respect" and "they are first treated as separate", but did you forget that it was 'you' just now who was INSISTING that 'They are NOT separate'?

They are not - they are believed to be by others. You have to start in binah before moving to chokmah.

You even used the actual words: The first step in understanding this is to stop trying to separate space and time.

Now, this appears to absolutely and completely CONTRADICT what you are 'trying to' say here now.

Maybe if you had just LOOKED AT and acknowledged that you did actually separate 'spacetime' by using the actual separating terms of 'space' AND 'time', and explained why you are doing what you are telling us to STOP doing, then you might not have gone down this path of now 'trying to' "justify" your very own contradictory actions or behaviors, and now would not be in this predicament?

whining and squealing

Of, are you able to EXPLAIN ALL-OF-THIS apparent contradictions now, in a logically reasoned way, without contradicting more nor 'trying to' minimize nor "justify" "yourself" again?

Of what?

I get lost when you start using "symbols" instead of real actual words.

It doesn't matter what 'words' I use, you are already projecting a likeness to them that reflects your own enmity rather than anything else.

You MISUNDERSTOOD the question. But, anyway from the way you have responded, are you laughing at, and/or suggesting, that NOT everyone could understand this?

You misunderstood the response. I don't know why you keep trying to drag 'laughter' into this.

'Space' AND 'time' are NOT manifest subjects, which are capable of motion. This is because of what 'space' AND 'time' ACTUALLY ARE.

Only physical objects are capable of motion. This capability of physical things to move is because of 'space', itself.

The actual intrinsic property of 'space' AND 'time' means that they BOTH can NOT move, and as such do NOT have motion at all.

You are still whining and squealing over much ado about nothing.

Are you REALLY or SERIOUSLY 'trying to' SUGGEST that just because you wrote some words down, then that MEANS that they are an irrefutable fact?

No - that would be silly.

You ability to INSTANTLY turn things around, deflect, and LOOK AT some thing else, usually the "person" instead of what was just written down and direct all attention to the person, them "self", and NOT at what was said at all, happens quite frequently when you do NOT know how to answer or respond to what was just said.

I understand you believe this to be true. I understand it is because you have already been called for doing the same, thus are drawing from the same accusation. It is one of the reasons I do not take anything you say seriously: fascist pig.

If even I begged you to stop with the 'you!' 'you!' 'you!', clearly, you are absolutely incapable. Thus, I'd be a fool to take you seriously - you can not yourself concentrate on strictly ideas, rather than people.

I NEVER said ANYBODY said ANY THING. I said, if we LOOK AT it again; So, for all the those that say space and time move or are in motion, which 'YOU',
"nothing' ARE one of 'those', then, to 'you', I said: go right ahead and explain and show HOW (space and time move or are in motion).

Now, you have made the CLAIM that space and time move, or are in motion, so, now, back up and support this CLAIM with EVIDENCE and better still with ACTUAL REAL PROOF.

With due respect, I never once said space and/or time "move" and/or are in motion. This is your own "belief" that you are fixated to (as you have been since the beginning) as it would invariably serve to undermine me. The problem is: I never said it. If you are interpreting s/t=speed as "space and time move" the problem is on your end: enmity is blinding.

Will you provide ANY hints as to what that platform actually is?

You won't be able to miss it, even if you tried.

Yes so true, we would NOT want you to waste your time here in this forum, especially considering you never even planned to tell us what this secret ckiit is anyway on here.

By the way, and just curious, what are you here in this forum for anyway?

The forum was used to construct some elements of ckiit: people like yourself contribute to it by allowing me to derive basic algorithms defining contentions due such things as fascist pig nature. The whiners and the squealers will be very problematic when ckiit goes live, so finding the root pathologies which begets whiney-squealey is needed. Your own contributions are thus appreciated.

Besides telling us that you are going to launch some secret thing next year and that that secret thing will have the full release on another platform, the only other thing that I have really gotten from you is that you do not like mohammed, but you do like muslim woman.

Muhammad is an idol. Idols are psychological constructs, thus not real. Islam is idolatrous by way of ensconcing the conduct of a polygamous pedophile genocidal warlord and elevating it to the "highest standard" of living. In reality, the opposite is true: Islam is the "lowest standard" of living, and the first person that has to pay for that ignorance is the "believing" woman. CKIIT is thus dedicated to the same, and will be when live.

[bahman]

Who did you supposedly show this to?

To you.

But you NEVER showed any such thing, to me.

I saw in the words that you used that this is what you BELIEVE is true.

What you have SHOWED me is Truly illogical and nonsensical responses to 'try to' valid your very own BELIEF that 'time' is some actual thing that allows change.

I did show.

Do you want me to repeat everything again?

If you want to, then go right ahead. I MAY then see what it is that you want me to SEE. But up to now, when I write this, you CERTAINLY have NOT showed me that 'time' allows change. You have yet to even explain what 'time' COULD BE, let alone what 'time' IS.

Events are located on sequential points so-called time.

What do you think that I don't understand?

I think you do NOT understand that just because you BELIEVE, without a shadow of doubt, that some thing allows change, and just because you have used the word 'time' for so long and associate that word with some thing, which you BELIEVE allows change, then now you actually BELIEVE that that word 'time' actually allows change.

And, what you are also seriously MISSING and NOT understanding is that even though you have PROVEN that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to name the actual physical thing that 'time' could even be, which could even allow change, you still INSIST that it is 'time' (whatever that completely unknown thing and phenomena is to you) allows change.

Or, did you already understand that you do NOT know what the actual thing is that allows change other than 'it' is 'time' AND, to you, 'time' is what allows change?

Do you understand that WHOLE argument IS:

Some 'thing', which I can not explain, allows change.
I call that 'thing' 'time'.
Therefore, 'time' allows change?

And, that this MEANS, to you, that you have SHOWN and PROVEN that 'time allows change', correct?

I understand time. Time is a substance that allows changes.

Science and philosophy are not humor.

May be they are not to some, but this might be WHY what you write is very humorous.

What I am saying might seem humorous to you now but one day they will make sense to you.

Time is a new dimension like space.

What do you mean by a 'new' dimension (like space). 'New' relative to what exactly?

I mean that time is known as a dimension recently, after Einstien theory confirmed with several experiments, gravitational lens, gravitational wave, etc.

We are embedded within.

You can be embed any thing within any thing with 'your' imagination. But let me assure 'you' I am NOT embedded within some 'new' dimension called 'time'.

You are whether you like it or not. You can even experience time when you are waiting.

We experience it but this experience is not like space. It is therefore wrong to say where time is.

It is also wrong of you to say "we" experience time, because I have CLEARLY told you many times by now I do NOT experience 'time', like 'you' IMAGINE I do.

So you have never waited?

You can rightly speak for what 'you' experience, but as soon as you 'try to' speak for 'we', including 'me', then 'you' will inevitably be WRONG.

Hmmm.

Waiting.

So, 'time' looks like 'waiting'.

I mean we can experience time when we are waiting.

So, 'time' could be associated with 'answers' then.

No. How do you conclude that?

Nothing.

So, 'time' is just another one of these magical things that just appear out of "nothing".

Why is it whenever people are challenged on their claims, answers like this appear?

Time has a beginning when it emerged from nothing. All physical emerged from nothing.

At the beginning.

LOL, around and around in circles we start to spin.

No. I don't spin, you do. I am saying the same thing.

It becomes shorter and longer depending on where you are.

So, 'time' is not some actual thing but rather it is some imagined thing that just appears to be the case, which is depended upon where I am. Like, for example, when i am in a philosophy forum trying to extract logical and sensible answers from posters, then 'time' is VERY LOOOONGGG, but when i want to have a long rest, then 'time' is very short, and interrupted?

Or, did you mean some thing else?

Any substance get longer or shorter when it is under stress.

What makes time bend?

A massive object for example can bend time.

How 'massive' is 'massive'?
[/quote]
Any object which has mass. Larger mass, bigger bend, smaller mass, shorter bend.

So, the only actual proof that you have that time is a physical substance, is because it supposedly bends, correct?

Not only that. Anything that exists is a substance. Time exists. Therefore time is a substance.

Ah ok, so you have two arguments for time. The one above and this one:

Any thing that exists is a substance.
Time exists (because I say it does)
Therefore, times is a substance.

So, that is all sorted out once and for all, correct?

Yes.

So, you want me to read only a "little" of general relativity. Why is that? Is there where I will find out that time is a substance which bends, or that because it bends therefore it is a substance, or that bending requires energy/mass, which by the way would mean that whatever causes time to bend would have energy/mass.

To know that time is a physical thing. I found this link for you: https://www.space.com/17661-theory-gene ... ivity.html

Thank you. I am SURE you BELIEVE that it will PROVE, without any doubt at all, that 'time' is absolutely a physical thing.

But now I wonder if to KNOW that time is a physical thing I could have just read this BEFORE, then WHY do you just NOT copy AND write the actual words in that link, which PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that 'time' is an actual physical thing.

See, what tends to happen is people have 'confirmation biases, and as such I might also read that link, which you so kindly 'found just for me', with said such 'confirmation biases' and actually NOT see what it is that you say I will. In fact I might read that link, and with said such 'confirmation biases' I might SEE things that actually purport to SHOW that 'time' is NOT an actual thing at all. Now, some might say that this would be a "very strange thing" to happen.

But considering that 'you', human beings, have completely OPPOSITE and OPPOSING views on the EXACT SAME phenomena, and have been discussing these same things for, literally, thousands upon thousands of years without ever coming to some sort of resolution, then maybe this "take a look at this link or writing, and then you will see what I see" actually does NOT work at all.

Hey how about, and this might be a new idea, if ANY 'you', human beings, actually CLAIM some thing to be true, then either back it up with a sound and valid argument, which obviously could NOT be refuted, or, back your CLAIM up with EVIDENCE that actually PROVES your CLAIM to be an unambiguous, irrefutable FACT?

And, until then HOW ABOUT just STOP ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING and INSISTING that 'you' actually KNOW what is true, right, and correct, and instead just STAY OPEN so that you can discover, learn, and understand what IS thee actual Truth of things?

But, in saying this, i will still HAVE TO LOOK AT that link because I do NOT know what I will FIND inside of it.

Please have a look. We were not sure what time is for thousands of years. But we know now.

So, gravitation wave is real, AND, it was observed experimentally. What has this got to do with any thing? Are you saying that time is gravitation wave?

The bending space-time which moves is the gravitational wave. This is illustrated in the like that I provided you.

Ah ok, so the bending space-time thingy, which moves is the gravitational wave, correct?

If yes, then what you might have been 'trying to' say all along is that 'time' is part of the gravitational wave, which is what allows change. The other part of that gravitational wave is 'space'. Now, if you were, then this would make a thousand fold more sense than what you have been saying so far.

This might even have some logic to it. But I will NOT know until I think about it, which I might do.

Does "nothing" cause a 'gravitational wave', or is this unlike 'time' and is there actually some thing now, which causes a 'gravitational wave'?

No. Time is not part of the gravitational wave.