What we perceive with our eyes is a tiny fraction of a second older than we interpret. What we perceive with our ears is a larger (but still very small) fraction of a second older than we interpret. But we can use touch to confirm the existence of an entity. Therefore it's not a hologram. The entity must be composed of matter to appear solid to us. An entity made of energy (like a fire) isn't a hologram, because E=MC2, therefore the fire is matter in a different state.

Hologram specifically applies to an image that is made to appear three dimensional, while it is two dimensional.

If you are using another definition of "hologram", it would be appreciated if you could share it.

Matter is stored information and energy. A particle is a standing wave. The only reason matter appears 'solid' is because of the nature of its vibrational entanglements in relation to other 'things' that can sense and feel their vibrations.

Matter is not solid.

I don't know what you define as an entity, but I normally define it as something that is alive. There are many things I might consider to be "an entity" but Space-time is not one of them.

That isn't true. Can a rock sense or feel? Yet if two rocks collide, they are repelled by one another. If matter is made of standing waves or particles, matter still has a property that is known as solidity.



Some matter is solid, some is liquid and some gas. All have a level of solidity.




SpiderCMB said...

SpiderCMB said...



That was not what you said. You said that space-time was an entity. I said that space-time is NOT an entity.

The universe may very well be an entity and it may even be alive. I think the universe IS alive. But the universe is NOT space-time.

Space-time is not a universe.

While a rock may not sense or feel in the same way that we do, it does respond to vibrations and it has its own frequency. It vibrates with incoming and outgoing waves. It is made up of atoms which are mostly energy and what appears to be a field or 'empty space' (whether space is empty is debatable) These atoms are pure energy and information.

Nothing is solid. It may appear solid and it may feel solid to our human senses but these are all vibrations and interacting waves and frequencies and fields that create these images and experiences. Look a little deeper.

Solid is defined by the existence of matter. The word solid represents the effect matter has on other matter when they interact.

Take two pool balls . . . bounce them off each other hear the crack as they collide, know that matter has now interacted with matter, and kinetic energy has been transfered. If not solid then how could this transfer take place?

Just because the electromagnetic spectrum cannot be seen and just because the electrons are what really bounce, does not in any way make this not solid.

You couldn't be more wrong.

AGAIN, the word solid is defined by the interaction of matter with matter, therefore your conclusion that matter is not solid is ridiculous.

Perhaps then we have different ideas or definitions of what "solid" is. By your definition you are right and you are happy with that. But I am not.

All it would take for matter to dissolve or disappear is a change in its frequency. Therefore, matter is nothing but frequency.

I am thinking about the building blocks of matter which some used to think is a particle and scientists so wished they could have found some substance or solidity in a particle which they have not yet found.

As long as there are waves and frequencies and quantum entanglements, you will have your "matter" and you will continue to call it "solid."

The universe as a whole is the Space-time Continuum. The universe is an entity. Read the definition I have supplied, okay?

Entity: that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

In euclidean geometry, the universe is one space-time continuum.

Do you think before you type?

The definition you have supplied might be correct and accepted for the definition of an entity, but "space-time" is still not an "entity" and it is still not a "universe" in and of itself alone.

You claim that the universe "as a whole" is the "space-time continuum." You have added "continuum."

Before, you were saying only that space-time is a universe and an entity. Now you have added a "continuum."

Can you prove that? Can you prove that the only thing that makes up this universe is space-time?

And what exactly do you mean by "continuum?" What does the term continuum add to this universe?



Spider, I have thought about these philosophical ideas all of my life. Of course I think before I type. There is no need to get all condescending.

Space-time are dimensions which are coordinates for the location of events.

Neither time or space or space-time is an entity or a thing.

A "continuum" might be something altogether different.

Now please explain what the term "continuum" adds to the picture. You did not mention a "continuum" before, you only mentioned space-time.

Time is real, but it is multi-dimensional, not linear only moving forward and backward. Time like reality is multi-dimensional

Space-time continuum is the accepted name for the universe in Euclidean geometry.

http://www.answers.com/topic/spacetime


It's great that you have spent so much time thinking about it, the problem is that people more educated and intelligent than the two of us combined have already covered this ground. You can fumble around and try to figure it out by yourself or you can stand on their shoulders and enjoy the view.

What I'm posting aren't ramblings and guesses, it's accepted science. Sorry.

You understand that your post is completely in opposition to accepted science, right?

Matter is physical. It does interact with other bits of matter.

When scientists talk about matter they allow for a range of interaction.

Some particles like neutrinos are extremely weakly interacting. Which is representative of the fact that they do not appear to interact at all with electrons, they only interact with matter when it directly strikes the nucleus of an atom.


If the entire atom including electrons was the size of a football stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a very small gnat in the center of this stadium.

This shows you that indeed some particles can pass right through miles and miles of some of the most densely packed particles (miles of lead)

You know JB you speak about waves of energy as if energy where not a physical thing, like two bits of energy could pass right through each other with no effect on either bit of energy . . . this is not true.

Oscillation, gyrating, vibrating anything's are still somethings, and still must interact with something else and create an effect or it might as well not exist to us . . . .

Does that make sense? What is a thing that interacts with no other things? Is it even a thing? Things are defined by the way they interact with other things . . . (what is a property but a characteristic of interaction!) It is the proverbial lonely tree with nothing and none to hear it fall, or even to have anything to fall in or on . . . .

What is a wave, but a grouping of things moving within a space in a gyrating way?

To say matter is not solid, does not interact and is not physical is so amazingly . . . sigh. <FACEPALM


___________________________

space is also a thing . . . because it interacts and is effected by mass.

Time is also a thing, it is real, it interacts with space and forms very real relationships between movement and mass.

This is all science we have understood pretty well as a race for the better part of the last hundred years.

____________________________

Things are defined as how they interact with our reality. Time is linear because in every experimental interaction with time it either goes forward or backward.

Spider:

I know you are posting what you call "accepted science." If you were not a Christian I might take you for a hard core atheist. For someone who leans so heavily on the ramblings of Scripture you often contradict yourself when you start leaning so heavily on science.

Consider that the term "space-time" is an adjective that describes an attribute of a "continuum." I agree that a continuum can be called a thing or an entity, but "space-time" IS NOT A THING in and of itself. Space-time is not an entity.

A space-time continuum could be called an entity, but it is the continuum that makes it a thing, not space-time.

Sure, attach it to a continuum, and you have a thing or an entity with attributes of space and time. (coordinates for the location of events within said continuum.)

As for other "more educated and/or intelligent" people having "already covered this ground," I'm sure you are impressed with them and you bow to their great knowledge and authority. I'm sorry, but I still have my own thoughts on the matter.

Bushidobilly:



You misunderstand me. I do not speak of waves of energy as if energy were not a "physical thing" like two bits of energy could pass right through each other with no effect...blah blah blah.

That is not what I said. I wish you would actually read what I am writing instead of assuming I mean something else.

What I am saying is that all "physical things" are made up of energy and information and have unique frequencies which interact with each other down to the quantum level hence the entanglement is what holds things together, causes space and time, and matter. That's a very simplified version.

I did say that matter is "not solid," but I did NOT say that it does not interact or that it is not "physical."

Why do you and Spider put words into my mouth that I do not say? Try to read what I write and stop filling it in with things that I did not write with your assumptions of what you think I am saying.


You two, leaning on science and observation as your authority seem to have shackled your creative minds.

Consider the idea of a Here-now continuum rather than a space-time continuum.

Billy said:



Huh? Experimental interaction with time? Forward or backward?
I don't get what kind of experiment you are talking about.

in reality time as we know it has been set by the man.
mankind just set a standard in which divide time.
However, there is a further view of time which is the metaphysical view.
Time, regardless of its mathmatical value, is just a space or period in which an event occurs.
There is one Being who is above time, actually He owns it. That being is God.
This is my point of view regardless all the argument in this thread.

And I see that you worship Barack Obama the new King of the world.

yeap, though i don't live in the states, anymore. I'm back to the colony of the empire where i came from.

Lets talk about that.

If god is outside time. Then to god all events that will ever happen have already happened, and he can see them all at once.

This means that not only did he create everything, start time going but can at a glance see all moments of time in any universe he is outside the time of . . .

So to god you have no free will, you indeed have a written destiny and each of us are doing exactly what we should be doing, and if anyone did something god didn't like he would know and if he cared would change it himself before it even happened . . .

To a god like this each person's life is a bowling ball that he set in motion and he is the only one to blame for the gutter ball that is the depraved existence of the worst of pedophiles and murderers. To say a god that exists outside time gave you free will is to say he did not have a clue what he was doing when he created the universe, and that he was within some time to have cause and effect which is required for us to create something without knowing the outcome at the same instant as the creation . . . .

This kind of god has watched the movie of existence the same moment the movie was created and already knows the ending at the same time as he made the beginning. If he doesn't like the movie then he can change the channel, or even better get better at making the movie the way he likes it.

_____________________________

JB it is not worth my time to explain anything to you, except to tell you that when you say matter is not solid you make amazing generalizations with no context to validate that statement and in any example I give I am doing what you fail to do and that is provide context for my statements, I even place your statements into a context (even if not the one you imagined) so that what I say can make sense.

This is why what you say makes no sense. A blanket statement that matter is not solid is wrong in 90% of contexts ( and when you look down at the appropriate level of matter it is always true that matter is solid -its space that is not solid and continuous IMHO). Speaking of frequency without a medium is equally useless and meaningless.

Billy, I don't need you to waste your time explaining anything to me. I know what I mean, and I know what you mean about what you define as "solid." We are just talking about different things, so never mind.

To you, I make no sense. I make perfect sense to me and to some others who think like I do.