Jump to content
Aowood

A Common Understanding of SpaceTime?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I have this understanding of the nature of SpaceTime, and I'm just wondering if this is already common knowledge.

My understanding is this:

Space and time are dualities of each other, so they will be opposite in every way. In their relationship, space is the multiplicity, that which is observable, and time is the singularity, the absence of observation.

Now, The evenly balanced view of this duality would be that only one truly "exists". But since were are of an odd(3) number dimension, the observation of existence is an odd, uneven, asymmetrical balance; therefore that which wouldn't exist, does, just indirectly.

We are of the multiplicity, therefore our observation of singularities can only be through the lack of observation of the multiplicity.

Since, time is the singularity, I understand that it does not pass by, travel, change, or do anything except for a single thing; exist. And it only does so for reference. Space, is the only thing that passes by, travels, changes, etc... It's the one that does two or more things. So, any kind of observation of "time", is actually an absence of observing space. And this sense of "time passing" is due to the oscillation of observation and absence; that wave pattern life loves.

With this understanding, the relativity of SpaceTime makes sense to me, since its more so just Space(Time). Time "contracts", as you increase speed because the observation of Space is less (more blurs and skips) than when moving slower, and always in reference to a universal and unchanging Time. 

 

So, thats a basic explanation, hopefully it makes sense. I'm excited to known if this is new or not and I'll explain more, if there are questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Aowood said:

Hi,

I have this understanding of the nature of SpaceTime, and I'm just wondering if this is already common knowledge.

My understanding is this:

Space and time are dualities of each other, so they will be opposite in every way. In their relationship, space is the multiplicity, that which is observable, and time is the singularity, the absence of observation.

Now, The evenly balanced view of this duality would be that only one truly "exists". But since were are of an odd(3) number dimension, the observation of existence is an odd, uneven, asymmetrical balance; therefore that which wouldn't exist, does, just indirectly.

We are of the multiplicity, therefore our observation of singularities can only be through the lack of observation of the multiplicity.

Since, time is the singularity, I understand that it does not pass by, travel, change, or do anything except for a single thing; exist. And it only does so for reference. Space, is the only thing that passes by, travels, changes, etc... It's the one that does two or more things. So, any kind of observation of "time", is actually an absence of observing space. And this sense of "time passing" is due to the oscillation of observation and absence; that wave pattern life loves.

With this understanding, the relativity of SpaceTime makes sense to me, since its more so just Space(Time). Time "contracts", as you increase speed because the observation of Space is less (more blurs and skips) than when moving slower, and always in reference to a universal and unchanging Time. 

 

So, thats a basic explanation, hopefully it makes sense. I'm excited to known if this is new or not and I'll explain more, if there are questions.

I once made an instructional video for a Glastonbury Guru Master who had a more coherent promotional patter than this despite the smoke issuing from his incense candles.

This is not Physics.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emphasis mine

26 minutes ago, Aowood said:

With this understanding, the relativity of SpaceTime makes sense to me, since its more so just Space(Time). Time "contracts", as you increase speed because the observation of Space is less (more blurs and skips) than when moving slower, and always in reference to a universal and unchanging Time

One main thing in relativity is that there is no universal time. So unfortunately your understanding contradicts the current understanding of space and time as formulated in mainstream theories and supported by observations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ghideon said:

Emphasis mine

One main thing in relativity is that there is no universal time. So unfortunately your understanding contradicts the current understanding of space and time as formulated in mainstream theories and supported by observations. 

Thank you :) Just wanted to confirm if my current understanding matches whats commonly understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Aowood said:

Space and time are dualities of each other, so they will be opposite in every way.

No, in physics space and time represents a dimensional coordinate system. Three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension allow us to plot the where and when of an event.

1 hour ago, Aowood said:

Now, The evenly balanced view of this duality would be that only one truly "exists".

This is a big stumble in your reasoning. Can you give an example in a duality where only one part exists? 

1 hour ago, Aowood said:

In their relationship, space is the multiplicity, that which is observable, and time is the singularity, the absence of observation.

Space is empty volume. Is that what you're observing? And why can't you observe time? We have LOTS of ways to measure it, so why do you think there's an absence of observation?

1 hour ago, Aowood said:

With this understanding, the relativity of SpaceTime makes sense to me, since its more so just Space(Time).

Relativity treats space and time as a continuum called spacetime. 

1 hour ago, Aowood said:

Space, is the only thing that passes by, travels, changes, etc...

Space does NOT pass by, or travel. Space is volume. Matter inside a particular point in space can travel (is always traveling), but the space itself doesn't move (other than through expansion).

1 hour ago, Aowood said:

I'll explain more, if there are questions.

I need to come up with a name for what you're doing here, because it's getting to be more common on the internet. Your education probably didn't emphasize STEM subjects, but you've read some popular science articles and find you enjoy them and they aren't as far over your head as you thought. But instead of asking questions, or researching further on your own, you started making stuff up to fill the gaps in your knowledge, and that's a problem. First because science isn't required to be intuitive. Some aspects of physics are really tough to understand without a good foundation. And second because anything you make up is going to make PERFECT SENSE to you, but ONLY to you. 

You need to study more. The popular science articles are written to be enjoyed, but not necessarily to teach. They're trying to get you more interested in digging deeper, and I encourage you to do so. You're obviously smart, so go straight to the source and get the good stuff, the mainstream science knowledge humans have been putting together for you for a thousand years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 11:41 PM, Aowood said:

Hi,

 

Space and time are dualities of each other,

1.what do you mean by "duality" here?

(3) number dimension, the observation of existence is an odd, uneven, asymmetrical balance; therefore that which wouldn't exist, does, just indirectly.

 singularities..

Since, time is the singularity.

what does this mean? (Maybe ,I disagree to this idea) :)

one of my personal ideas: I do not know the reason that causes me to think so: but anymore,I believe that reality should be the unrenouncable target almost always. 

thus, I might conclude that ... (big sentence :) ) most of studies that specifically fall inside this subject are void... but if /whenevr you have something in your hand ,then I can appreciate that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.