Re: [meteorite-list] Paradox; we need to understand "time"
In fact yes: time does not have a real existance, nor space. Existance can only be attributed to matter which, as it moves, produce the sense of time and space. We can go into a deeper off-list discussion abot this subject if you like. Cheers Mohamed ".and time and space are also a consequence of natural bodies but time is something ilusionary that does not exist but is introduced by the motion of orbits and localized things when we ask about them by 'when', so time and space do not exist in reality but the existance is to the things that move and still.", [Ibn Arabi, AlFutuhat AlMAkiyya: part II, Page 458, Line 1]. == - Original Message - From: "drtanuki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "M Yousef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Paradox; we need to understand "time" > Then, Mr. Yousef, > You are totally correct in saying all rocks are meteorites as well as all > matter by a broad definition! Dirk RossTokyo > But, on one point I disagree. Time doesn't exist. > > M Yousef wrote: > > > Dear Bob; > > First, there is a mistake in your question: Nobody says the universe was > > created from "nothing". There is nothing called "nothing". "Nothing" is what > > is not; i.e. what does not exist. Non-existance can never be turned into > > existance. > > > > What is correct is: The universe was created from a singularity; like a > > black hole; a condense matter in almost zero volume (space) and at almost > > zero time. Then this matter in this singularity blasted off in what is known > > as the big bang and it started expanding (and still). This expanding > > universe has in the future three options: 1- keeps expanding for ever (open > > universe), 2- conracts again at some point (closed universe), or 3- stops > > and stay static (flat universe). If it chooses 2 (depending on its mass > > density) it will return to the singularity again and maybe another big bang > > again and so on (pulsating universe). > > > > In either case, one may ask: what was there before this singularity? We can > > turn this question religious if you like, but if you dont prefer we can turn > > it into metaphysics, because our laws of physics and mathematics CAN NOT be > > applied for singularities. This question has been asked before to many > > religion leaders; What was God doing before He created the universe? And the > > answer usualy is: "God created the universe AND time, and not: the universe > > in time". > > > > Away from religion, this question was the subject of intensive debate > > between Aristotle and Plato and their schools: > > > > Plato considers time to be created with the world, while Aristotle believes > > that the world was created in time, which is an infinite and continuous > > extension. > > Plato says: > >"Time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in order > > that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a dissolution of > > them, they might be dissolved together. It was framed after the pattern of > > the eternal nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible; for > > the pattern exists from eternity, and the created heaven has been, and is, > > and will be, in all time." > > > > Aristotle believes that Plato's proposition requires a point in time that is > > the beginning of time and there is no time before it. This is inconceivable > > for Aristotle who adopts Democritus notion of uncreated time and says: > >"But so far as time is concerned we see that all with one exception are > > in agreement in saying that it is uncreated: in fact, it is just this that > > enables Democritus to show that all things cannot have had a becoming: for > > time, he says, is uncreated. Plato alone asserts the creation of time, > > saying that it had a becoming together with the universe, the universe > > according to him having had a becoming." > > > > Time for Aristotle is a continuum and it is always associated with motion, > > and as such, it can't have a beginning. He says that time is the "number of > > movement in respect of the before and after, and is continuous In > > respect of size there is no minimum; for every line is divided ad infinitum. > > Hence it is so with time." > > > > Plato on the other hand cosiders time as the circular motion of the heavens, > > while Aristotle said it is not moti
Re: [meteorite-list] Paradox; we need to understand "time"
Then, Mr. Yousef, You are totally correct in saying all rocks are meteorites as well as all matter by a broad definition! Dirk RossTokyo But, on one point I disagree. Time doesn't exist. M Yousef wrote: > Dear Bob; > First, there is a mistake in your question: Nobody says the universe was > created from "nothing". There is nothing called "nothing". "Nothing" is what > is not; i.e. what does not exist. Non-existance can never be turned into > existance. > > What is correct is: The universe was created from a singularity; like a > black hole; a condense matter in almost zero volume (space) and at almost > zero time. Then this matter in this singularity blasted off in what is known > as the big bang and it started expanding (and still). This expanding > universe has in the future three options: 1- keeps expanding for ever (open > universe), 2- conracts again at some point (closed universe), or 3- stops > and stay static (flat universe). If it chooses 2 (depending on its mass > density) it will return to the singularity again and maybe another big bang > again and so on (pulsating universe). > > In either case, one may ask: what was there before this singularity? We can > turn this question religious if you like, but if you dont prefer we can turn > it into metaphysics, because our laws of physics and mathematics CAN NOT be > applied for singularities. This question has been asked before to many > religion leaders; What was God doing before He created the universe? And the > answer usualy is: "God created the universe AND time, and not: the universe > in time". > > Away from religion, this question was the subject of intensive debate > between Aristotle and Plato and their schools: > > Plato considers time to be created with the world, while Aristotle believes > that the world was created in time, which is an infinite and continuous > extension. > Plato says: >"Time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in order > that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a dissolution of > them, they might be dissolved together. It was framed after the pattern of > the eternal nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible; for > the pattern exists from eternity, and the created heaven has been, and is, > and will be, in all time." > > Aristotle believes that Platos proposition requires a point in time that is > the beginning of time and there is no time before it. This is inconceivable > for Aristotle who adopts Democritus notion of uncreated time and says: >"But so far as time is concerned we see that all with one exception are > in agreement in saying that it is uncreated: in fact, it is just this that > enables Democritus to show that all things cannot have had a becoming: for > time, he says, is uncreated. Plato alone asserts the creation of time, > saying that it had a becoming together with the universe, the universe > according to him having had a becoming." > > Time for Aristotle is a continuum and it is always associated with motion, > and as such, it cant have a beginning. He says that time is the "number of > movement in respect of the before and after, and is continuous In > respect of size there is no minimum; for every line is divided ad infinitum. > Hence it is so with time." > > Plato on the other hand cosiders time as the circular motion of the heavens, > while Aristotle said it is not motion but the measure of motion and he says > that it is like a circle , a structure that has no beginning or end and so > is endless in both directions. Since everything in the world is finite, also > time has to be finite and since it is continuous it has to be a circle > because we cannot conceive of a first time; for any first time we could > conceive of a time before that., so time has to be circular. > Arsitotle says: "Now since time cannot exist and is unthinkable apart from > the moment, and the moment a kind of middle-point, uniting as it does in > itself both a beginning and an end, a beginning of future time and an end of > past time, it follows that there must always be time: for the extremity of > the last period of time that we take must be found in some moment, since > time contains no point of contact for us except the moment. Therefore, since > the moment is both a beginning and an end, there must always be time on both > sides of it. But if this is true of time, it is evident that it must also be > true of motion, time being a kind of affection of motion." > > WE CONCLUDE HERE that time for Aristotle is circular and the world was > created somewhere along this circle while for Plato time is continuous and > was created with the world. Both views have unsolvable drawbacks. > > Ibn Arabi (1165 A.D.) shares the idea of a circular endless time with > Aristotle and that it is a measure of motion, but he does not consider it as > continuum. On the other hand Ibn Arabi agrees with Plato that time is > created with the world and refuses A
Re: [meteorite-list] Paradox; we need to understand "time"
Wow, that's totally true. You are knowledgeable in theoretical physics. Keep up the good work :) Graham Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/aerolitehunter >From: "M Yousef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Paradox; we need to understand "time" >Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 08:22:20 + > > > >Dear Bob; >First, there is a mistake in your question: Nobody says the universe was >created from "nothing". There is nothing called "nothing". "Nothing" is >what >is not; i.e. what does not exist. Non-existance can never be turned into >existance. > >What is correct is: The universe was created from a singularity; like a >black hole; a condense matter in almost zero volume (space) and at almost >zero time. Then this matter in this singularity blasted off in what is >known >as the big bang and it started expanding (and still). This expanding >universe has in the future three options: 1- keeps expanding for ever (open >universe), 2- conracts again at some point (closed universe), or 3- stops >and stay static (flat universe). If it chooses 2 (depending on its mass >density) it will return to the singularity again and maybe another big bang >again and so on (pulsating universe). > >In either case, one may ask: what was there before this singularity? We can >turn this question religious if you like, but if you dont prefer we can >turn >it into metaphysics, because our laws of physics and mathematics CAN NOT be >applied for singularities. This question has been asked before to many >religion leaders; What was God doing before He created the universe? And >the >answer usualy is: "God created the universe AND time, and not: the universe >in time". > >Away from religion, this question was the subject of intensive debate >between Aristotle and Plato and their schools: > >Plato considers time to be created with the world, while Aristotle believes >that the world was created in time, which is an infinite and continuous >extension. >Plato says: > "Time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in order >that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a dissolution >of >them, they might be dissolved together. It was framed after the pattern of >the eternal nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible; for >the pattern exists from eternity, and the created heaven has been, and is, >and will be, in all time." > >Aristotle believes that Platos proposition requires a point in time that >is >the beginning of time and there is no time before it. This is inconceivable >for Aristotle who adopts Democritus notion of uncreated time and says: > "But so far as time is concerned we see that all with one exception are >in agreement in saying that it is uncreated: in fact, it is just this that >enables Democritus to show that all things cannot have had a becoming: for >time, he says, is uncreated. Plato alone asserts the creation of time, >saying that it had a becoming together with the universe, the universe >according to him having had a becoming." > >Time for Aristotle is a continuum and it is always associated with motion, >and as such, it cant have a beginning. He says that time is the "number of >movement in respect of the before and after, and is continuous In >respect of size there is no minimum; for every line is divided ad >infinitum. >Hence it is so with time." > >Plato on the other hand cosiders time as the circular motion of the >heavens, >while Aristotle said it is not motion but the measure of motion and he says >that it is like a circle , a structure that has no beginning or end and so >is endless in both directions. Since everything in the world is finite, >also >time has to be finite and since it is continuous it has to be a circle >because we cannot conceive of a first time; for any first time we could >conceive of a time before that., so time has to be circular. >Arsitotle says: "Now since time cannot exist and is unthinkable apart from >the moment, and the moment a kind of middle-point, uniting as it does in >itself both a beginning and an end, a beginning of future time and an end >of >past time, it follows that there must always be time: for the extremity of >the last period of time that we take must be found in some moment, since >time contains no point of contact for us except the moment. Therefore, >since >the moment is both a beginning and an end, there must always be time on >both >sides of it. But if this is true of time, it is evident that it must also
Re: [meteorite-list] Paradox; we need to understand "time"
Dear Bob; First, there is a mistake in your question: Nobody says the universe was created from "nothing". There is nothing called "nothing". "Nothing" is what is not; i.e. what does not exist. Non-existance can never be turned into existance. What is correct is: The universe was created from a singularity; like a black hole; a condense matter in almost zero volume (space) and at almost zero time. Then this matter in this singularity blasted off in what is known as the big bang and it started expanding (and still). This expanding universe has in the future three options: 1- keeps expanding for ever (open universe), 2- conracts again at some point (closed universe), or 3- stops and stay static (flat universe). If it chooses 2 (depending on its mass density) it will return to the singularity again and maybe another big bang again and so on (pulsating universe). In either case, one may ask: what was there before this singularity? We can turn this question religious if you like, but if you dont prefer we can turn it into metaphysics, because our laws of physics and mathematics CAN NOT be applied for singularities. This question has been asked before to many religion leaders; What was God doing before He created the universe? And the answer usualy is: "God created the universe AND time, and not: the universe in time". Away from religion, this question was the subject of intensive debate between Aristotle and Plato and their schools: Plato considers time to be created with the world, while Aristotle believes that the world was created in time, which is an infinite and continuous extension. Plato says: "Time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in order that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a dissolution of them, they might be dissolved together. It was framed after the pattern of the eternal nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible; for the pattern exists from eternity, and the created heaven has been, and is, and will be, in all time." Aristotle believes that Platos proposition requires a point in time that is the beginning of time and there is no time before it. This is inconceivable for Aristotle who adopts Democritus notion of uncreated time and says: "But so far as time is concerned we see that all with one exception are in agreement in saying that it is uncreated: in fact, it is just this that enables Democritus to show that all things cannot have had a becoming: for time, he says, is uncreated. Plato alone asserts the creation of time, saying that it had a becoming together with the universe, the universe according to him having had a becoming." Time for Aristotle is a continuum and it is always associated with motion, and as such, it cant have a beginning. He says that time is the "number of movement in respect of the before and after, and is continuous In respect of size there is no minimum; for every line is divided ad infinitum. Hence it is so with time." Plato on the other hand cosiders time as the circular motion of the heavens, while Aristotle said it is not motion but the measure of motion and he says that it is like a circle , a structure that has no beginning or end and so is endless in both directions. Since everything in the world is finite, also time has to be finite and since it is continuous it has to be a circle because we cannot conceive of a first time; for any first time we could conceive of a time before that., so time has to be circular. Arsitotle says: "Now since time cannot exist and is unthinkable apart from the moment, and the moment a kind of middle-point, uniting as it does in itself both a beginning and an end, a beginning of future time and an end of past time, it follows that there must always be time: for the extremity of the last period of time that we take must be found in some moment, since time contains no point of contact for us except the moment. Therefore, since the moment is both a beginning and an end, there must always be time on both sides of it. But if this is true of time, it is evident that it must also be true of motion, time being a kind of affection of motion." WE CONCLUDE HERE that time for Aristotle is circular and the world was created somewhere along this circle while for Plato time is continuous and was created with the world. Both views have unsolvable drawbacks. Ibn Arabi (1165 A.D.) shares the idea of a circular endless time with Aristotle and that it is a measure of motion, but he does not consider it as continuum. On the other hand Ibn Arabi agrees with Plato that time is created with the world and refuses Aristotles proposal that the world is created in time. In fact Plato was right when he considered time to be created, but Aristotle refused this because he could not conceive of a starting point to the world nor to time. Only after the theory of general relativity in 1915 that introduced the idea of cur
