God and the time domain

Don - August 23, 2004

I’m no physics expert. I don’t understand quarks, strings and those other advanced Einstein stuff. Hopefully I understand enough to at least ask the question.

I think, according to Einstein, to be subject to time or the time domain you must have mass. It’s all tied up with the speed of light, gavity and mass. There was an experiment done where a jet plane with an atomic clock flew west from a point and one flew east from the same point, after circling the globe and arrive back at the begining one clock had lost time and one clock had gained time.

There is also a theory that if you had twin brothers and one remained on the earth and other was able to fly at just under the speed of light to the nearest star and back that the flying brother would be 2 years younger than his earthbound brother, when he arrived back at earth.

If time really does require that we have mass then I wonder what our resurrected bodies will be made out of. Yes they are “physical” or at least we “feel” them. Can you feel something that doesn’t have mass? (I don’t think so?!)

Does anti-matter exist? If it does, then does anti-matter counteract matter or mass. So could something have mass but also have an equal amount of anti-matter so it behaves as if it doesn’t have mass….at least as far as time goes.

I know J.S. said that there is no such thing as immaterial matter, some is just more refined. What does that mean? Can it be so refined that it doesn’t have mass?

The reason I bring this whole thing up is if we don’t have mass then we aren’t subject to time, and if we aren’t subject to time then we can travel to whatever earth or earths we want faster than instantaneously. If we have matter and we are subject to time then it appears that the speed of light limits the speed of our travel.

I don’t know if that is clear…any thoughts?

1 Comment »

  1. I’m not so sure that the only way to travel instantaneously between point A and point B is to travel faster between them. If there was a way to bring A and B together, time would be immaterial, since the distance between them is immaterial.

    Perhaps, the place where God and Jesus dwell is in a different dimension than ours. Perhaps They are able to access our dimension immediately because it immediately accessible to them.

    Just another theory to make your life easier.
    Kim Siever | Email | Homepage | 08.24.04 – 11:23 am | #

    I think God is outside our time domain….and yes probably in another dimension. since we live in a 3 dimensional world and supposedly scientists say there are at least 10 dimensions (whatever that means), it would be easy to concieve that God is in another dimension.

    Is he in that dimension because he has no mass? Or does that matter? Or does anything in this dimension matter when it comes to God’s dimension?
    Don | Email | Homepage | 08.24.04 – 1:24 pm | #

    I remember taking class in Relativity and the physics professor referred to the “twins paradox” you mention and he said that when the brother returned to earth he and his brother would be the same age. The reason, he explained, is that in order to compare them the traveling twin would have to decelerate from near light speed and in so doing would enter into the same frame of reference as his brother. According to him, the paradox only exists as long as the two remain in their distinct reference frames.
    Ebenezer | Email | Homepage | 08.24.04 – 2:42 pm | #

    If you are interested in the concept of God and other dimensions there is no book that I can recommend higher than “Flatland” by Edwin A. Abbot. You can buy a very inexpensive copy($1.50 + shipping) from Dover Publications, my favorite publisher, or you can download a free text version of it from Project Gutenberg, my favorite source for free e-texts.

    Flatland is only about 100 pages long and a fun read. The book description at Dover Publications does not do it justice. It is a stinging socio-political satire and a fascinating exploration into the realms of mathematics, dimension, revelation, prophets, and God; a classic that is sadly neglected by our educational system.
    Ebenezer | Email | Homepage | 08.24.04 – 2:43 pm | #

    What is mind?
    No matter.
    What is matter?
    Never mind.
    The theory that we must have mass in order to be subject to time is, like you said, made by men. Although it sounds very logical and probable to me, that doesn’t mean there isn’t some higher law that counteracts that theory that we don’t know about yet.
    As for anit-matter, I do think it has mass but I know it definetly exists. I don’t think God or angels or anything are made of it however since once the stuff comes in contact with matter it explodes.
    Also, Joseph Smith HIstory tells us of “a conduit” that opens right into heaven that he saw when the angel Moroni left his presence in his room. That goes along with the knowledge we have that heaven isn’t really aboe us, it’s right here on earth; just in a different dimension
    Bret | Email | Homepage | 08.25.04 – 3:44 pm | #

    Flatland, while a great book, isn’t a great way to understand GR. Extra dimensions affect the physical world in ways Flatland doesn’t explain. That’s why they are there in various advanced physical theories like superstring. Explaining it is difficult and I’ll not attempt it. Suffice to say that Flatland ignores the whole issue of forces and how they interact with dimensions. Further in relativity space/time isn’t what we call Cartesian. (Meaning that each dimension is like a straight line at a right angle to each other — the way we normally think of three dimensions) In Flatland it is. In GR spacetimes curves and behaves in very unexpected ways.
    Clark Goble | Email | Homepage | 08.25.04 – 6:35 pm | #

    Kim, what you describe is non-locality. However while there is no evidence that things like wormholes or non-locality *can’t* allow the travel you suggest, all attempts at finding ways they’d work within current theory fail. Further if they do work it would entail that time travel is possible, due to the way space and time are interrelated.

    If time travel is possible then that has all sorts of troubling implications.
    Clark Goble | Email | Homepage | 08.25.04 – 6:40 pm | #

    Regarding light, Don, light is subject to time. It’s subject to gravity as well. I suspect you’re thinking of subjective time and thus from the frame of reference of light it wouldn’t be able to perceive time. But that is different from experiencing time.

    Regarding anti-matter, yes it exists and is fairly easy to see. Anti-matter has mass just like regular matter. It typically differs from regular matter only in terms of charge and the fact that it anniliates when it encounters regular matter. (i.e. when an electron and anti-electron collide they are converted into energy)

    It’s fairly trivial to see anti-matter inside a cloud chamber. I built one back in 11th grade for a science experiment. Most modern accelerators use advanced computers to look for anti-matter and other exotic particles. How they curve in the presnece of an electric field lets you determine their mass and therefore identity. That’s how physicists look for particles.
    Clark Goble | Email | Homepage | 08.25.04 – 6:41 pm | #

    Brother Goble,

    Thanks for your clarifications. You are clearly quite informed about this subject.

    I didn’t mean to suggest that Flatland is the best, or even a comprehensive, source for understand the theory of General Relativity, only that it is an excellent book to help understand some important dimensional concepts and has some good illustration, by analogy, of how those concepts might relate to visits from heavenly beings, etc.

    Considering that it was published in 1884 and predates Einstein’s publication of his theory by
    32 years, it could hardly be expected to be a guide to understanding General Relativity.

    I’m sorry if my comments were misleading. I still highly recommend the book, especially for those who are not mathematically inclined.
    Ebenezer | Email | Homepage | 08.25.04 – 8:17 pm | #

    Like me! Thanks Ebenezer, my curiosity is piqued. Also, thanks Clark Goble for your insights. I’m going to have to check out your blog. This stuff is so over my head it’s in another dimension. Okay, that was lame.
    Rusty Clifton | Email | Homepage | 08.25.04 – 10:28 pm | #

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply Flatland is a good book. It’s a great book. However it is important to understand that what is termed the *topology* of extra-dimensions matters a great deal. Up until the end of the 19th century most people just assumed one ought to think of space the way Descartes did. (Thus it is called Cartesian space) However if you think about it the surface of a sphere has very different properties than the surface of a flat piece of paper. In four dimensions with very complicated “shapes” things get very complicated yet that shape is what gives matter its existence and behavior in relativity.
    Clark | Email | Homepage | 08.26.04 – 2:47 am | #

    Sorry, that should have read, “didn’t mean to imply Flatland *wasn’t* a good book.” It’s a great book to introduce the notion of higher dimensions. It’s just that reality is even more complex.
    Clark Goble | Email | Homepage | 08.26.04 – 12:37 pm | #

    Comment by Comment Restore — November 28, 2005 @ 12:32 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.