English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Does it bother anyone besides me that we can’t adequately describe the three basic elements of existence – space, matter, and time?

We have formulae that follow the laws of our observable universe. We’ve been to the moon, we have atomic clocks and daylight savings time, and we know sodium and chloride combine to make salt.

We observe space, but have no handle on infinity…how big space is…where space is or really what space is.

Matter – we have a good handle on managing stuff…but we don’t know where the original matter came from.

Time – we have the best handle on time, but we can’t accurately describe it. And what was happening three years before time began? How could time have always been?

It bothers me that we can’t describe these three. Does it bother anyone else?

2007-10-23 05:11:08 · 8 answers · asked by Richard F 6 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

8 answers

Hah... Yes it bothers me.. Matter of fact it bothers me to craziness.. I don't say that lightly... thinking about these over and over again causes an absoulte obsession for me. A thirst that I often feel will never be quenched.

2007-10-23 05:20:16 · answer #1 · answered by goldielocks528 2 · 0 0

the big bang theory says that the universe is allways expanding. some people say space is infininte other, i dont know what they say. but if the univers is ifinite than it must have all ways been infinite unless it is infinitly growing but that would still suggest that there is a end to the universe and i do no think there is an end to the universe. this one person put it something like this( if you have an infinte number line consisting of all even numbers, and a number line consisting of all numbers, which number line has more numbers, the answer is they both have the same amount of numbers) this helps explaiin the idea that the universe is infinite but still expanding.
but i do believe that there was a beging to time and before that obviosly there was no time, so you cant say what was happening three hours before time because it did not exist.
i have came up with my own idea of way there is time, matter and stuff. it is a liitle weird but i have actualy used the asian ying yang for reason. the ying yang suggest that every thing has an opposite, so you can not have one thing with out the other, for example there could be no such thing as skinny people if there werent fat people. so i have decided that the universe came into existence through the fact that there can not be nothing with out something. and this somethng became the universe.

this might not answer your question but i still felt that i should put it out there.

2007-10-23 08:01:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There are a lot of things we don't know. But, I think we DO know enough to know that what we _don't_ know is not because it's unknowable, but simply because we're not advanced enough yet.

In ancient and not-so-ancient times, man came up with religion to explain the unexplainable: weather, disease, fortune or misfortune, how the world was created, what happens to our consciousness after we die, etc. Now we have science to explain many of these questions, and while science doesn't have all the answers yet, it's becoming increasingly obvious that there is less and less room for our mythological explanations.

We do, in fact, have some pretty good theories explaining space, time and matter. In particular, inflationary theory, which is to date our most accurate theory describing how our universe came to be and why it has the properties it has. If you can find a copy at your local public or university physics library, I highly recommend "The Inflationary Universe," a book by one of the theory's developers, Alan Guth. It's written for the layman without any complicated formulas or technical jargon, but still does a great job in explaining the physical processes that led to the creation of our current universe with its space, time and matter.

2007-10-23 05:30:18 · answer #3 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 0 0

there's a lot of dirt in area. area could desire to be absolute not something. meaning vacuum and no temperature. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, area itself has a temperature of roughly 3 to 5 stages kelvin. So there is a few stuff available giving off a mild quantity of heat. The question could desire to be are we in a closed or open universe? Does the massive bang shop going on, or is this the only time on the merry go around?

2016-12-15 07:22:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Maybe the reason we don't have all of the answers is so that we will keep seeking them out. You can find many examples of where someone tried to control the minds of the masses, it takes away from basic freedoms we are entitled to. If we were supposed to know everything, we would already , and then what reason would we have for being here. There's more to life than what is tangible to you.

2007-10-23 05:36:53 · answer #5 · answered by Hot Coco Puff 7 · 0 0

YOU don't know any of these things. In my world, people know that space and time are correlated into a construct, called space-time continuum. They also know that 99.99% of organic matter is carbon-based, which, in turn, dates back 5-6 billion years. They know that universe is ever-expanding and time is linear. Sure, there are things people haven't learned yet, but give it some time, in a menwhile, why don't you try to read some Isaac Newton's works, or just quantum physics textbook

2007-10-23 05:15:36 · answer #6 · answered by krasnoglaz 3 · 0 1

The answers to these questions will only be made clear to you when you remove yourself from the occidental orthodox way of thinking. I suggest two books for your consideration; Isis Unveiled, The Secret Doctrine. Both can be viewed on line... http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/tup-onl.htm

2007-10-23 05:39:41 · answer #7 · answered by T H 2 · 0 0

You're pretty much correct. We can describe 'relationships' between all of these things, but we can't really describe exactly what they are. All we can do is point and say,"that."
But how do you actually describe a fundamental 'thing'? If you can describe it in terms of another 'thing' then what you're trying to describe is, itself, no longer 'fundamental'. See the problem?

Doug

2007-10-23 05:24:31 · answer #8 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers