Einstein

Why spacetime is not fundamental

Now, we all know that spacetime is not fundamental, because physicists are saying so. But, do we know the reason why spacetime cannot be fundamental?

This is a physics question as well as a philosophy question.

If we say that X is a fundamental ingredient of the universe, then we will have to admit that whatever will exist in it, will need X for its existence. Nothing can exist without it.

However, if there is something in the universe that does not need X for its existence, then X cannot be called a fundamental ingredient of the universe.

Do time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed?

So far as I can remember, there are these two equations in Einstein’s special theory of relativity:
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2……. (1)
t1 = t((1-v2/c2)1/2……. (2)

From the above two equations, two conclusions can be drawn that are as follows:
1) Time and distance are not absolute, they are relative;
2) At light speed, both travel time and travel distance become zero.

For an extraordinary claim, there is extraordinary evidence

In one YouTube comment thread, someone has written: 'Furthermore, the concept of being spaceless and timeless is the same as not existing at all'.

God is said to be spaceless and timeless. As this is an extraordinary claim, so a shred of extraordinary evidence is required for it.

Happily, a shred of extraordinary evidence for it has been kept in nature for the non-believers in general by the creative force of the universe.

God, The Full and Final Version

[There will be lots of repetitions here. It is unavoidable because this is the full and final version.]

God is not only described by the theists as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but as spaceless and timeless as well.

There is a reason as to why God is always described as spaceless and timeless. I have already shown here1 that if we go through some simple logical steps, then we will arrive at the conclusion that a creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

Is Multiverse Real?

In one YouTube presentation the question discussed was whether Atheism was Impervious to Evidence. The following thread is from that presentation.

Atheist1

No, atheism is not impervious to evidence. All you have to do is provide evidence for a god, to date nobody has done that, not even once. There has never been any testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence presented for any deity ever.

Me to Atheist1

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Einstein