The scientific answer to the question

“Do events invoke time in space?”

- including that the question above really is a strange scientifically wording, which, nonetheless is quite legitimate in mainstream physics, where, say, events “moving inertial reference frames”, or even moving particles, “intertwine space and time” in Matter’s 4D imaginary mathematically Minkowski space,

- can be, and is [including relating to the quoted passage below] given only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and more concretely in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is essentially enough to read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics;

- where the fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, “Consciousness”, “Energy”, “Information”, are rigorously scientifically defined.

While any direct addressing to the phenomena/notions above in the mainstream really result completely logically inevitably only in transcendent/mystic something; as that is, say, in

“…The statement, 'space-time is invalid to begin with,' seems a reasonable explanation. Since, it will always begin with existential events that invoke time and occur within the expanse of space.

The basis of this statement is as follows:

Exploring the Plausibility of Dismissing Space-Time: A Consideration of Existential Events, Time, and Space….”

In the conception it is rigorously proven that absolutely for sure there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, whereas . the Set exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent; and so exists in “ absolutely long time interval”, i.e. fundamentally having no Beginning and no End;

- and the utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

- “Information”: “Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

Including in the conception “Space” and “Time” phenomena/notions are rigorously scientifically defined – that are some “Logos” elements, i.e. are absolutely fundamental phenomena which absolutely fundamentally always are actualized in every informational pattern/system, i.e. in everything, as:

- “Space” is actualized in every concrete pattern/system as the concrete the paten’s/system’s “space”, which can have “space dimensions”, number and nomenclature of which is determined only by degreases of freedom of concrete pattern/system at changing of its state.

Say, Matter’s space is composed by at least 4+4 space dimensions/ metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s), what is determined by degreases of freedom at changing of states of the Matter’s ultimate base – the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE]; and

- “Time” is actualized absolutely universally in all/every patterns/systems in the Set as the universal “time dimension”, where all/every changing elements move in only positive direction at every change of their states..

For/in every patterns/system space and time compose the pattern/system “spacetime”, so Matter’s spacetime’s metrics is (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s, ct), where “ct” is the time dimension,

- and, at that, since the Logos elements “Space” and “Time” are fundamentally independent on each other, any space dimension and the time dimension fundamentally cannot be “intertwined” , and nothing in Matter, including any events , can “invoke time and occur within the expanse of space”. Etc., more see the linked papers, though to understand what are g,w,e,s space dimensions above is necessary to read the papers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces, and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

Dear Mr. Sergey Shevchenko ,

Thank you for your detailed response and for sharing your insights into the philosophical and conceptual framework regarding the nature of space and time. Your work on "The Information as Absolute" conception and the Planck scale informational physical model offers a unique perspective on fundamental phenomena.

While your perspective contributes to the broader discourse on reality, I must point out that it seems to diverge from the specific inquiry posed in the initial discussion question regarding events invoking time in space. The discussion sought to explore the scientific implications of events within the context of space-time, rather than delving into philosophical definitions of fundamental phenomena.

Your philosophical conception provides an intriguing lens through which to view the nature of reality, however, it does not directly address the scientific aspects of the question at hand. The inquiry was aimed at understanding the relationship between events, time, and space within the framework of mainstream physics.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your contributions to the broader philosophical and conceptual understanding of reality, and I encourage further exploration of these ideas in conjunction with scientific inquiry.

Best Regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Does every act express space and time in that movement alone creates both? Information emerges from both, creating space-time'-information. Simply being creates each but any existence involves the creation of further time and space, Walking through a room creates that information through space and time in part with reference to other regions of space and time. .

Dear Mr. Stanley Wilkin,

Thank you for your insightful contribution to the discussion. Your points about the continuous creation of space and time through any act or existence resonate deeply with the essence of our discourse. It's evident that our understanding of reality is intricately tied to the perpetual interplay between events, space, and time.

Your emphasis on every act expressing space and time aligns well with the idea that the significant beginning of events in the universe necessitates the emergence of time and the expansion of space. Indeed, events serve as catalysts for the unfolding of time within the expanse of space, shaping our perception of the universe.

I appreciate your perspective on the creation of space-time-information through movement and existence, highlighting the dynamic nature of reality. It reinforces the notion that discussions about reality often encompass a broad spectrum of events rather than being limited to specific instances.

Your insights further underscore the interconnectedness of time, space, and events in our comprehension of the universe. While questioning the validity of space-time as a standalone concept, it's essential to recognize its fundamental role in shaping our understanding of reality. Dismissing space-time would overlook the profound relationship between temporal progression and spatial extent, which are integral to our comprehension of the universe.

In conclusion, your contribution enriches our exploration of the plausibility of dismissing space-time, shedding light on the continuous creation of space and time through events and existence. I look forward to further engaging with you on this fascinating topic.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Soumendra Nath Thakur, yours is certainly a beautiful and profound question which, in my opinion, cannot be answered without knowing:

1) what is time?

2) when does time begin?

3) what was there before time began?

4) what is space?

5) where does space begin?

6) what was there before the beginning of space?

“…yours is certainly a beautiful and profound question which, in my opinion, cannot be answered without knowing: 1) what is time? 2) when does time begin? 3) what was there before time began? 4) what is space? 5) where does space begin? 6) what was there before the beginning of space? …….”

- the thread question, including all questions in the quote above, are rigorously scientifically answered in the SS post February 17 above in the thread, so quite briefly:

- the absolutely fundamental phenomenon, “Logos” set element, “Time”, and its actualization in the absolutely fundamental “Information” Set, “time dimension” since, as that rigorously scientifically proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception [the link see the SS post above], exist “absolutely always”, since any informational pattern/system, and, of course the Set that contains all the patterns/systems – the Set’s elements, logically cannot be non-existent, and so absolutely for sure haven’t any Beginning and any End.

So it is senseless to ask “what was there before time began?”

The absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion, “Logos” set element, “Space”, and its actualization “The Set’s space”, which consists of all concrete spaces of all elements in the Set, and so has at least “simply”/ “mathematically” [in mathematics absolute infinities don’t exist] infinite number of concrete “space dimensions” the correspondingly exist absolutely always, including when, say, Matter was created, say, as that is in recent cosmology, in always existent time dimension 13.8 billion years ago,

- it was created in its concrete fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where “ct” is time dimension, the rest 8 dimensions are the Matter’s space dimensions, “absolutely instantly”, i.e. “automatically”, since the created Matter “used” absolutely always existent corresponding part of the Set’s space dimensions.

So it is senseless to ask 5) where does space begin? 6) what was there before the beginning of space?

More see the SS post above and links in the post.

Cheers

Dearest Dr. Leonardo Cannizzaro ,

Your profound insights into the nature of time and space resonate deeply with my own contemplations. Your questions encapsulate the essence of our quest to understand the fundamental fabric of reality.

I am deeply grateful for your guidance, which has shed light on the intricacies of time and space. Your questions not only address the complexities of temporal and spatial existence but also provoke introspection into the very nature of our reality.

In light of your inquiries, I find solace in the realization that our journey to comprehend the universe is a profound and ongoing exploration. Your wisdom serves as a beacon, guiding us through the depths of existential inquiry.

With sincere admiration and gratitude,

Soumendra

Dearest Dr. Leonardo Cannizzaro ,

When your profound insights into the nature of time and space resonate deeply with my own contemplations, I am pleased to share my rational understanding as the answer to your specific questions.

Your questions have sparked profound reflections on the interconnectedness of events, time, and space, and I am grateful for the opportunity to engage in this dialogue.

Yours sincerely,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Soumendra Nath Thakur, thank you for your appreciation. Unfortunately, I'm too old to drive anyone. I can't even drive myself anymore. So, I hope for AI and self-driving cars. But returning to the question:

1) we have known very well, since time immemorial, to measure time but we do not know what time is in its essence;

2) we know very well how to measure space, thanks to Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometries, but we don't know what space is;

3) we know that the universe exists, i.e. space-time, but we don't know if it began or has always existed in the sense that the Bigbang theory does not define what was there before, there had to be something; where and when did it start? Furthermore, we don't know if it ends and where it ends;

4) if the universe is finite, what is beyond the edge of the universe?;

5) the holographic model (the universe is a quantum hologram) explains many things... but raises many other questions.

Dear Sergey Shevchenko, Philosophy and Physics are united because they pursue the same objective "how the universe is made and how it works, from the infinitely small to the infinitely large including social sciences". Philosophy pursues this objective with "pure thought" logic (without prejudice to the fact that every philosopher has his definition of philosophy). Physics pursues this objective according to the Galilean method and uses mathematics as an investigative tool. Everyone who deals with science is haunted by "doubt". Descartes loved to say "cogito ergo sum" or "dubito ergo sum" because doubt means to think in the sense that he who doubts thinks and therefore exists. The statement “…. absolutely certainly they have no Beginning and no End" is, in my opinion, a "consoling" statement devised by philosophers to exclude "doubt" and live a calm and serene life. However, restless souls will continue to live in doubt and ask themselves “What was there before time began?”.

I understand from your speech that space and matter were created 13.8 billion years ago. It seems natural to those who, like me, live in doubt to ask themselves what was there 14 billion years ago? Perhaps, those who don't like misery will also wonder what was there 100 billion years ago. These restless people who live in doubt will never be satisfied with "consoling" philosophical answers. They will continue to search for "concrete physical" answers (sensu Galileo) and therefore perhaps they will forever be restless in soul and mind.

Dear Leonardo Cannizzaro,

- you seems didn’t read attentively enough the couple of SS posts above and links in the posts; and so, say, write

“…The statement “…. absolutely certainly they have no Beginning and no End" is, in my opinion, a "consoling" statement devised by philosophers to exclude "doubt" and live a calm and serene life. However, restless souls will continue to live in doubt and ask themselves “What was there before time began?”.…..”

- once again: in the really philosophical SS&VT 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, for convenience repeat the link to recent version of the basic paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, it is rigorously proven, that absolutely for sure there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. The Set contains absolutely everything, including the tribal Universe – and, say, every human,

- whereas so the Set exists absolutely objectively, and, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent, so exists in “ absolutely infinitely long time interval”, i.e. fundamentally having no Beginning and no End.

I.e. there fundamentally cannot exist anything that would be “before time began”, and, at that, in this absolutely true .fact there is nothing that would be as ““a consoling" statement devised by philosophers to exclude "doubt" and live a calm and serene life”, if we say about real philosophers, not about mainstream ones.

So that

“…I understand from your speech that space and matter were created 13.8 billion years ago. It seems natural to those who, like me, live in doubt to ask themselves what was there 14 billion years ago? …..”, etc.,

- really on one hand hasn’t rational answer – humans now cannot, and practically for sure never will can, know what was in the whole Set absolutely infinite time before 13.8 billion years ago. On the other hand it looks as quite rational to assume [see the link above, section “Cosmology”] that before this current for humans time moment on the unique and universal for all the Set’s elements absolutely long time dimension

- in the Set some informational system “Consciousness” version [what is “Consciousness” see again the link above] “extremely smart and mighty Creator” existed/[ and rather probably exists now], which very smartly designed and made the informational system “Matter” 13.8 billion years ago, believe me – the construction is indeed beautiful.

However, again, because of that there was no Beginning of the Set, in the Set absolutely everything, including the Matter creation and evolution, “already” have happened – and, simultaneously is happening in absolute exact accordance of the same scenarios, this data “13.8 billion years ago” has only sense for recent for humans “Universe movie copy” realization.

Cheers

Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_really_human_being_perceives_the_Time/1, pages 1, 2, are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Dear Dr. Leonardo Cannizzaro ,

I appreciate your engagement in the ongoing discussion titled, "Do events invoke time in space?" and for circling back to the initial question.

A-1). Your statement, "we have known very well, since time immemorial, to measure time but we do not know what time is in its essence,"

This brings up the notion of measuring time throughout history. This part of your statement suggests measuring clock time, whereas "clock time" is a standardized representation of the broader idea of "cosmic" time, as I previously defined in response to your inquiry, "What is time?". The definition of "cosmic" time, as articulated in my earlier reply, asserts, "Time, as commonly understood, represents the indefinite progression of existence and events across past, present, and future. It emerges from the occurrence of existential events, highlighting its intrinsic connection to the unfolding of reality."

The latter part of your statement, "But we do not know what time is in its essence," refers to the ambiguity surrounding the essence of time. Indeed, "time" is abstract, stemming from physical events, thus rendering it meaningless in their absence. Abstraction involves stripping or removing properties to distil something to its essential qualities. Therefore, considering only "time" would overlook the role of events, reducing time to its fundamental properties. To better grasp the abstract nature of time, it's helpful to consider the concept of abstraction in mathematics. Mathematical abstraction involves extracting the underlying structure, patterns, or properties of a mathematical concept, divorcing it from its original connection to real-world objects and generalizing it for broader application. Given that time is a mathematical abstraction, it isn't empirically verifiable. Time arises from existential events, underscoring its inherent connection to reality. Events necessitate time, shaping our perception of it through thoughts involving events. Although time isn't empirically verifiable, our perception of events necessitates its existence.

A-2). Your second statement, "We know very well how to measure space, thanks to Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry, but we don't know what space is," addresses the issue of understanding the nature of space. Your statement highlights the ambiguity surrounding the extension of space. Similar to the abstract nature of time, the properties of space are also abstract. For instance, apart from complex numbers, any number we conceive is a real number. However, these "real numbers" aren't tangible but rather abstract entities. Operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, although seemingly physical, exist in abstract form. Similarly, extensions of space are mathematical abstractions devoid of physical presence, while physical events occur within these abstract dimensions of space.

We gauge changes in physical objects or events within an abstract dimension of space, much like how we measure time. However, in reality, we measure physical changes using a standardized scale of abstract space. Indeed, a standard length scale serves as a representation of the extension of abstract space, akin to a clock representing abstract cosmic time.

A-3) Your third statement, "We know that the universe exists, i.e., space-time, but we don't know that it began or always existed in the sense that the Big Bang theory doesn't define what came before, something needs to exist,"

This raises questions about the origin and nature of the universe. Firstly, you assert that we understand the universe as existing in the form of space-time. However, this interpretation overlooks the primordial existence prior to the Big Bang event, which existed outside of conventional space and time as pure energy.

Describing the universe as 'space-time' doesn't fully encapsulate its existence; rather, the Big Bang event marked the emergence of space and time from an abstract origin.

Furthermore, your statement about uncertainty regarding the beginning or perpetual existence of the universe, due to the Big Bang theory's lack of explanation regarding what preceded it, warrants scrutiny. The concept of a universal singularity prior to the Big Bang event suggests a pre-existing state, albeit without a clear definition.

Addressing the query of where and when the universe began, while there may be mathematical hypotheses, empirical verification is hindered by our physical limitations.

Lastly, your acknowledgment that we do not know if or where the universe ends aligns with logical reasoning.

A-4 and 5). The validity of your fourth and fifth statements hinges on the accurate interpretation of the preceding assertions in 1-3.

Sincerely,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Sergey Shevchenko, I would like to quietly underline some things by respecting everyone's opinions and appealing to the tolerance that everyone should have.

1) All philosophers are true in their historical, cultural, and scientific contexts.

2) Everything that is science today was yesterday's philosophy, i.e. "pure thought".

3) All philosophical theories or hypotheses or theories must be subjected to the Galilean principles: reproducibility, verifiability, and falsifiability. If these hypotheses and philosophical theories agree with the Galileo laws (reproducibility, verifiability, and falsifiability), it becomes a science. Recommended readings: Galileo Galilei, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, Albert Einstein, etc., etc.,.

4) Your statement “… ultimately nothing can exist that is “before the beginning of time”,” clearly contradicts your previous statement “… fundamentally it has no Beginning or End".

5) Regarding time, we know with certainty (scientific evidence; reproducibility, verifiability, and falsifiability) that it also depends on gravity (gravitational attraction force). Therefore, since the force of gravity is proportional to mass regardless of the Universal Gravitational Constant “G”, time also depends on mass. Since we don't know the mass of the universe because we don't know how to estimate the quantity of "dark" matter and/or the "quantity of dark energy" (given the equivalence between mass and energy), like it or not like it, we don't know what the "time" is.

6) We know how to measure time perfectly using atomic clocks. In extreme synthesis and with extreme simplification, an atomic clock measures the number of times that the spin of the electron of an atom, for example, the cesium atom, reverses (up and down) in a second. It is of fundamental importance to measure time with extreme precision since time on Earth flows at a different speed from the time that flows in space for example on a telecommunications satellite or the International Space Station (ISS) since the force of gravity is different on Earth than on the satellite. Therefore, to communicate with the ISS it is necessary to synchronize the terrestrial and ISS clocks perfectly taking into account that on Earth time passes at a certain speed, and on the ISS time passes at another speed.

A similar discussion can be made for space. For all these reasons and many others, unfortunately, to date, like it or not, we do not know what scientifically time is, what space is, what space-time is, what the universe is, if the universe is finite or infinite and whether the expansion of the universe will continue forever or not.

Dear Soumendra Nath Thakur, thank you for your appreciation. However, I would like to quietly underline some things by respecting everyone's opinions and appealing to the tolerance that everyone should have.

Mathematics and geometries are based on a series of axioms and from my point of view they are investigative tools. In theory, there are infinite mathematics and infinite geometries, and everyone can build their mathematics and geometry, for this reason, I like to talk about mathematics and geometries in the plural.

Examples:

1st example - the mathematics of natural numbers is based on 5 axioms (Giuseppe Peano's Axioms):

1) 0 is a natural number

2) Every natural number has a successor natural number

3) Different numbers have different successors

4) 0 is not the successor of any natural number

5) Every subset of natural numbers that contains zero and the successor of each of its elements coincides with the entire set of natural numbers (axiom of induction).

2nd example - Boolean algebra i.e. mathematics that uses only two symbols 0 and 1 which is the one used by all computers in the world:

1) Commutative property concerning the logical sum

x + y = y + x

2) Commutative property concerning the logical product

x . y = y. x

3) Distributive property of the product concerning the logical sum

x . (y + z) = x. y + x . z

4) Distributive property of the sum concerning the logical product

x + (y. z) = (x + y). (x + z)

5) Axioms of cancellation

x . 0 = 0 x + 1 = 1

6) Axioms of completion

x . x = 0 x + x = 1

7) Axioms of idempotence

x . x = x x + x = x

8) Axiom of double negation (double negation cancels out)

_

-

x = x

9) Axiom of negation

x = y → x = y The arrow symbol → means implication. That is, if the first relation is true it follows that the second is also true.

10) Absorption theorem 1

x + x . y = x

11) Absorption theorem 2

x + x . y = x + y or even x + x. y = x + y

12) De Morgan theorems

x + y = x. y

x . y = x + y.

3rd example – Euclidean geometry is based on 5 axioms:

1) By joining any two points you obtain a straight-line segment;

2) A segment can be extended beyond the colon indefinitely;

3) Given a point and a length, it is possible to describe a circle;

4) All right angles are congruent with each other;

5) If a straight line that cuts two other straight lines determines internal angles on the same side whose sum is less than two right angles, by extending the two straight lines, they will meet on the side where the two angles have a sum less than two right angles.

4th example – spherical geometry is based on 16 axioms:

1) The set of points on the plane is divided into pairs of points, such that each point on the plane belongs to one and only one pair and the points of each pair are distinct. For two points that belong to distinct pairs, one and only one straight line passes, while for the two points of the same pair, multiple straight lines pass.

2) There are at least three points on every line.

3) Not all points belong to the same line.

4) If S (AB | CD), then A, B, C and D are four distinct points belonging to the same straight line.

5) If S (AB | CD), then: S (BA | CD); S (AB | DC); S (BA | DC); S (CD | AB); S (CD | BA); S (DC | AB); S (DC | BA).

6) If A, B C are three points of a straight line, then there exists at least one point D such that S (AB | CD).

7) If A, B, C, and D are four distinct points belonging to the same straight line, then there is a pair of points that separates the pair from the other two; that is, at least one of the following relations holds: S (AB | CD), S (AC | BD), S (AD | BC).

8) If S (AB | CD) and S (AC | BE), then S (AB | DE).

9) A straight line that, passing through a vertex, enters a triangle, and meets the opposite side.

10) If A and B are two points on a straight line and furthermore A' is a point on the same straight line or on another a', you can always find a point B', on a given part of the straight line a' with respect to A ', such that the segment AB is congruent, or equal, to the segment A'B'; in symbols: AB ≡ A'B'.

11) If a segment A'B' and a segment A"B" are congruent to the same segment AB, A'B' ≡ AB and A"B" ≡ AB, then the segment A'B' is also congruent to the segment A”B”.

12) Let AB and BC be two segments without points in common (this means that points A and C are opposite with respect to B) on a straight line a and A'B' and B'C' are two segments on the same straight line or a 'other to', always without points in common. Then if AB ≡ A'B' and BC ≡ B'C', it is also AC ≡ A'C'.

13) Let an angle α(h,k) in a plane α and a straight line a' in a plane α' be given, as well as a given side of a' in α'. Let h' denote a half-line of the straight line a' that originates in O'. There is then in the plane one and only one half-line k' such that the angle α(h,k) is congruent, or equal, to the angle α(h',k') and at the same time all the internal points 'angle α(h',k') which are on the side of a'.

14) If for two triangles ABC and A'B'C' the congruences AB ≡ A'B', AC ≡ A'C', αABC ≡ αA'B'C' are valid, then the congruence is always valid: αABC ≡ αA 'B'C'.

15) Any two lines on a plane always have at least one point in common.

16) If the points of a segment AB are divided into two non-empty classes so that:

a) all the points of AB are in one or the other class (and in only one);

b) points A and B belong to different classes (which we will call classes I and II respectively);

c) all points of class I precede those of class II;

then there exists in the segment AB a point C (which can belong to both the I and the II class) such that all the points of the segment AB that precede C belong to the I class, and all those that follow C belong to the II class. C is called the separation point between the two classes.

5th example – elliptic geometry is based on 19 axioms:

1) Only one straight line passes through each pair of distinct points.

2) There are at least three points that do not lie in a straight line.

3) Three non-aligned points are contained in a single plane.

4) If two points contained in a line r are in a plane p, then p contains every point of r.

5) If two planes contain the same point, then there exists at least one other point contained in both.

6) Every straight line contains at least two points, every plane contains at least three non-aligned points, and there are at least four non-coplanar points.

7) If S (AB | CD), then A, B, C, and D are four distinct points belonging to the same straight line.

8) If S (AB | CD), then: S (BA | CD); S (AB | DC); S (BA | DC); S (CD | AB); S (CD | BA); S (DC | AB); S (DC | BA).

9) If A, B C are three points of a straight line, then there exists at least one point D such that S (AB | CD).

10) If A, B, C, and D are four distinct points belonging to the same straight line, then there is a pair of points that separates the pair from the other two; that is, at least one of the following relations holds: S (AB | CD), S (AC | BD), S (AD | BC).

11) If S (AB | CD) and S (AC | BE), then S (AB | DE).

12) A straight line that, passing through a vertex, enters a triangle, and meets the opposite side.

13) If A and B are two points on a straight line and A' is a point on the same straight line or another a', you can always find a point B', on a given part of the straight line a' concerning A ', such that the segment AB is congruent, or equal, to the segment A'B'; in symbols: AB ≡ A'B'.

14) If a segment A'B' and a segment A"B" are congruent to the same segment AB, A'B' ≡ AB and A"B" ≡ AB, then the segment A'B' is also congruent to the segment A”B”.

15) Let AB and BC be two segments without points in common (this means that points A and C are opposite concerning B) on a straight line a and A'B' and B'C' are two segments on the same straight line or another a', always without points in common. Then if AB ≡ A'B' and BC ≡ B'C', it is also AC ≡ A'C'.

16) Let an angle ε(h,k) in a plane α and a straight line a' in a plane α' be given, as well as a given side of a' in α'. Let h' denote a half-line of the straight line a' that originates in O'. There is then in the plane one and only one half-line k' such that the angle ε(h,k) is congruent, or equal, to the angle ε(h',k') and at the same time all the internal points 'angle ε(h',k') which are on the side of a'.

17) If for two triangles ABC and A'B'C' the congruences AB ≡ A'B', AC ≡ A'C', εABC ≡ εA'B'C' are valid, then the congruence is always valid: εABC ≡ εA 'B'C'.

18) Any two lines on a plane always have at least one point in common.

19) If the points of a segment AB are divided into two non-empty classes so that:

a) all the points of AB are in one or the other class (and in only one);

b) points A and B belong to different classes (which we will call classes I and II respectively);

c) all points of class I precede those of class II;

then there exists in the segment AB a point C (which can belong to both the I and the II class) such that all the points of the segment AB that precede C belong to the I class, and all those that follow C belong to the II class. C is called the separation point between the two classes.

I could continue endlessly with examples of mathematics and geometry but since man with the mathematics and geometry of these examples and with the set of some other type of numbers navigates in all seas, in all lands, and all skies of the world without ever losing the route and not only did he go to the Moon but he also returned and above all to avoid boring those who are not passionate about the exact sciences I will stop here. The exact sciences are such because all their architecture is created by man, based on axioms, and therefore self-coherent and self-consistent (mathematics including geometry and logic). All other sciences, especially the empirical sciences, cannot be defined as "exact sciences".

One final note: discovering what the geometry of the universe it is equivalent to discovering whether the expansion of the universe will continue infinitely or will stop or whether the universe will implode.

Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_really_human_being_perceives_the_Time/2are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

In the context of our understanding of reality, events do indeed invoke the concept of time within space. To comprehend this, consider the following points:

Defining Events: Events are occurrences or happenings that take place within a specific location and duration. These can range from cosmic events like the formation of galaxies to everyday occurrences like the fall of an apple from a tree.

Time as a Measure of Change: Time is a fundamental dimension that allows us to measure and compare the occurrence of events. Without time, there would be no way to distinguish between different events or to observe changes within the universe.

Events as Markers of Temporal Progression: Every event marks a specific moment in time and is a testament to the passage of time. For example, the formation of the Earth signifies a point in cosmic history, while the writing of this response happens at a particular moment in human history. Each event occurs within the expanse of space and serves as a reference point in the timeline of our universe.

Spatial Context of Events: Events don't occur in isolation but rather within the context of space. The location and extent of an event are described in terms of spatial coordinates. For instance, a supernova explosion happens within a specific region of space, just as the motion of a pendulum is defined by its position and movement within space.

In conclusion, events do invoke time within space, as they are intrinsically tied to both dimensions. The occurrence and progression of events are fundamentally linked to time, while their location and extent are defined by space. Together, space and time form the backdrop against which all events unfold, allowing us to comprehend and describe the rich tapestry of reality.

Zahra Sadat Roozafzai

I thank you for your acknowledgment and proper explanation of the question. Your explanation perfectly supports this Chapter. Chapter Events invoke time.

Regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Dr. Soumendra,

Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad my explanation was helpful and supported the chapter's content. Wishing you the best in your endeavor.

Sincerely,

Zahra