aguy2

I have been using the term "still/void" in lieu of 'unfilled position', 'void', or worse yet 'nothing'. "Still/void" implies what is not there, and from a theist's pov gives a theoretical Creator something(?) to work with that might not have any need to be itself created, but still might be seen as a precurser state of "time/space". aguy2

Any bets on how they achieved the high speeds? My guess is they eject air out its nose and the missle/torpedo 'flies' through the water. aguy2

"Coor de Lune" Aguy2

how about Legio X, 63 bce? aguy2

yet you cannot name anything that is not time-dependent. neither field gray nor denim, yet nonetheless "time rules!" hey thor, i got an idea. lets 'talk about the weather', in the light of 'things' vs. 'processes'. that is if you are feeling froggy? aguy2

ThoR, No response to post#17? aguy2

ThoR, I would contend that your conclusion that 'change' is a function of 'existence' is substantively incorrect. I would contend that if a 1 dimensional condition is going to 'change' into a multi-dimensional condition, 'time' would have to be of necessity the 2nd dimension. Thus the only possible 'changless existence' would be 1 dimensional in nature, and we are not observing any 1 dimensional existences. IOW I am contending that 'processes of change' take precedence over the 'thingy-bobs' that are sometimes evident within the processes. aguy2

A very good question. You might want to animate figure 3 at this site: http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~dynamo/PJRX/Results.html The animation is of a hydro-pulse and was in no way ment as an attempt to model an all-matter, cosmological 'pulse'. For example, the experiment was set up so as the hydro-pulse transited almost immediately from a laminar (even) flow to a turbulent condition, nonetheless I would contend that it is possible to visually follow the development of a "dipole/octipole-like" prefered direction indicated by some interpertations of the 3 year WMAP data. Do you think I am "broken pottery shards" or just another "cracked pot"? aguy2

...and? aguy2

This problem is exactly why I have grown enamored with the term 'still/void'. A 'still/void' might be seen to have the properties (or more accurately, lack of properties) of 'nothinglessness', while still being able to be seen as a precursor to 'time/space'. I would tend to go for 'transforming' still/void into space on the fly, while keeping in mind the possibility that if the universe is oscillating there might be the possibility that our current visible universe might be expanding into a 'real space' created by earilier oscillations. aguy2 Ps. I am following closely the line of reasoning you and Klaynos are pursuing; I am not sure of where it is going, but it seems quite interesting.

ThoR et al, In order to see time/space as a possible conserved system, we would have to assume an oscillating/cyclic model with an inflationary epoch in its early history. If we make this assumption, then at the beginning of the inflationary epoch what is becoming the visible universe would be quite small. In a conserved system if we assign a value of, say, .0001 to the space of the pre-inflationary universe, this would mean that the universe would have 99.99% of the time it has left to exspand. As the universe exspands the amount of time left to the universe would be contracting, and when the exspansion reaches its maximum the universe would have effectively run out of time. At the 'end of time' its arrow would reverse and the universe would begin its 'death ride' back to the pre-inflationary state. Of course this conjecture would only make sense within the context of a single oscillation/cycle. Keeping in mind the question, "How many Universes do we have?", if we consider the possiblility of multiple cycles we would have to use a term like "times" when speaking of them, and reserve the term "time" for a single oscillation/cycle. aguy2

I would agree that I experience a sense of 'me-ness' that seems to meet many, if not all, the requirements of something that exists in a state of 'being', but even here I am certainly not the same man I was 40 years ago. Physically, emotionally, and intellectually I have been involved in a continuous process of 'becoming'. I can even see a somewhat different 'me' of 40 minutes ago, when that 'me' was not thinking or feeling that it was getting about lunch time. I took a quick peek at your profile, and although I don't want to appear presumtuous, I could easily guess that at least one of the reasons you are here in this forum is to avoid intellectual stagnation. In general I would agree that time/space can be considered a 'thing'. I would even go so far as to say that time/space may be seen as a conserved system. Would you be interested in seeing why I think it can be shown that time/space might be concidered a 'conserved system'? aguy2 Ps. I just got back from a week of camping and hiking in "Big Bend National Park" is this anywhere near you?

Is this a question? aguy2

I would go with 'process' to the extent that I would say that states of 'being' are only hypothetical, and that in reality we only observe states of 'becoming'. I believe "no thing = nothing" and have been using the term "still/void" as a possible uncreated precursor to the 4 dimensional world we experience, but I don't think that 'time' is the 4th dimension. If we were to consider the initial condition of the universe to be a 1 dimensional singularity of 'depth', if this 1 dimensional condition is to 'change' into a multi-dimensional condition, then 'time' would of necessity have to be at least the 2nd dimension, if not the first. If the observed states of 'becoming' are substitued for the unobserved, hypothetical states of 'being', would the 'problem' you have posed disappear? aguy2

disingenuous. lacking in frankness? maybe, but I would still like to hear more about this Amr Khaled. aguy2