Why an Eternal Circle of Time Cosomology Cannot Exist

[JimBowie1958]

JB: "Today there is a new solution of sorts to the difficulty of describing time in the context of an infinite past vrs a finite past. This idea is that of an eternal circle of time that has always existed and always will exist."

Not sure I am grasping the problem of describing time as being infinite past and present. The universe is infinite therefore the space/time continuum is infinite. What is the difficulty with that concept?

The universe is not infinite.

Please provide a link proving that the universe is finite, thank you.

I can do better than that, and simply engage your brain if you will use it.

We know the universe is not infinite for many reasons, among which are:

1. An infinite amount of matter/energy did not come out of the Big Bang or else the infinite gravitational force would have crushed it back in on itself rather quickly.

2. If the universe were infinite it would almost immediately collapse back on itself. Even with the theory regarding dilation of the universe it would collapse so quickly it wouldn't matter.

The universe that we can measure and test via science may be unbounded and yet finite, but not infinite. To talk about alternate universes or many-world hypothesis that defy everything we know about the conservation of matter and energy, that is all fantasy untestable by science.

The only people really giving serious thought to an infinite universe do so because they cannot accept the premise that the universe is finite and of finite duration and so they leap to utterly fanciful nonsense.

 

[MaryL]

I read that time isn't what we perceive as mortals. BAMB! It all happens at once. Whether or not you have a eternal life or sin, rendered irrelevant. No need for reincarnation, none of that mysticism. No need for religion. It's all about human perceptions of time.

 

[FactFinder]

Funny all the mental manipulation to try to justify oneself. There is a more peaceful way. Surrender to the fact one is not the center of the universe and there may actually be a Higher Being that created all this stuff.

In the meantime, have fun with your confusion, Peace!

 

[JimBowie1958]

I read that time isn't what we perceive as mortals. BAMB! It all happens at once. Whether or not you have a eternal life or sin, rendered irrelevant. No need for reincarnation, none of that mysticism. No need for religion. It's all about human perceptions of time.

Your first sentence describes God's perspective on time, as I understand it.

Not sure why you think that makes mortal perspectives on time irrelevant, unless us not being God makes us somehow irrelevant?

Not sure I got your point.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The universe is not infinite.

Please provide a link proving that the universe is finite, thank you.

I can do better than that, and simply engage your brain if you will use it.

We know the universe is not infinite for many reasons, among which are:

1. An infinite amount of matter/energy did not come out of the Big Bang or else the infinite gravitational force would have crushed it back in on itself rather quickly.

2. If the universe were infinite it would almost immediately collapse back on itself. Even with the theory regarding dilation of the universe it would collapse so quickly it wouldn't matter.

The universe that we can measure and test via science may be unbounded and yet finite, but not infinite. To talk about alternate universes or many-world hypothesis that defy everything we know about the conservation of matter and energy, that is all fantasy untestable by science.

The only people really giving serious thought to an infinite universe do so because they cannot accept the premise that the universe is finite and of finite duration and so they leap to utterly fanciful nonsense.

What happens when you compress something? It generates energy in the form of heat. The gravitational force of the singularity compressed matter to the point where the "compressed energy" exceeded the force of gravity. Once the energy was released it dispersed the matter so that there was no longer a single point of gravity to cause everything to collapse back into itself.

Current scientific thinking is along the lines of multiple Big Bangs all occurring randomly within our current infinite physical universe. Another Big Bang could be happening right now in time but it is beyond our limited ability to detect because it "over the horizon" so to speak. For whatever life that may eventually occur in that part of the infinite universe "time" will have appeared to have "started" only as far back as their own "horizon". All of this fits into the current physical model of the universe as we know it and does not require any "alternate universes".

What is more the measurements taken using the background radiation clearly indicate an infinite universe. With those measurements an infinite space/time continuum with multiple Big Bangs is the most rational and practical model of the universe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Please provide a link proving that the universe is finite, thank you.

I can do better than that, and simply engage your brain if you will use it.

We know the universe is not infinite for many reasons, among which are:

1. An infinite amount of matter/energy did not come out of the Big Bang or else the infinite gravitational force would have crushed it back in on itself rather quickly.

2. If the universe were infinite it would almost immediately collapse back on itself. Even with the theory regarding dilation of the universe it would collapse so quickly it wouldn't matter.

The universe that we can measure and test via science may be unbounded and yet finite, but not infinite. To talk about alternate universes or many-world hypothesis that defy everything we know about the conservation of matter and energy, that is all fantasy untestable by science.

The only people really giving serious thought to an infinite universe do so because they cannot accept the premise that the universe is finite and of finite duration and so they leap to utterly fanciful nonsense.

What happens when you compress something? It generates energy in the form of heat. The gravitational force of the singularity compressed matter to the point where the "compressed energy" exceeded the force of gravity. Once the energy was released it dispersed the matter so that there was no longer a single point of gravity to cause everything to collapse back into itself.

Current scientific thinking is along the lines of multiple Big Bangs all occurring randomly within our current infinite physical universe. Another Big Bang could be happening right now in time but it is beyond our limited ability to detect because it "over the horizon" so to speak. For whatever life that may eventually occur in that part of the infinite universe "time" will have appeared to have "started" only as far back as their own "horizon". All of this fits into the current physical model of the universe as we know it and does not require any "alternate universes".

What is more the measurements taken using the background radiation clearly indicate an infinite universe. With those measurements an infinite space/time continuum with multiple Big Bangs is the most rational and practical model of the universe.

You're missing the point. Gravity is reduced by distance but has no limit to its reach. A grain of sand on Earth has a gravitational affect, though infitesimal, on distant planetary bodies.
Gravity from stars in far galaxies touches us here on Earth.

The greater the distance the more reduced the gravitational effect.

But if one is talking about infinite space and infinite quantities of matter, then the distances do not reduce in any effective way. And the infinite mass of the whole universe would still crush itself back together.

And why do you think, given the existence of Black Holes, that compressed energy can overcome enormous, let alone infinite, gravitational forces?

 

[FA_Q2]

You're missing the point. Gravity is reduced by distance but has no limit to its reach. A grain of sand on Earth has a gravitational affect, though infitesimal, on distant planetary bodies.
Gravity from stars in far galaxies touches us here on Earth.

The greater the distance the more reduced the gravitational effect.

But if one is talking about infinite space and infinite quantities of matter, then the distances do not reduce in any effective way. And the infinite mass of the whole universe would still crush itself back together.

And why do you think, given the existence of Black Holes, that compressed energy can overcome enormous, let alone infinite, gravitational forces?

False. Infinite distances would, in fact, reduce that effect. Gravity is not reduced by distance in a direct manner but rather is exponentially reduced by distance.

Force = (G*M1*M2) / r^2
G= 6.6726 x 10^-11
A simple math experiment give us a real picture of how this works. Let’s set up the ‘infinite’ universe with an average density of one mass 100 billion KG separated by 1 million meters. For simplicities sake we are going to assume an even distribution of that mass but all on one side ‘us.’ From our equation above, the first mass exerts a force .66 N on us. The second, added to the first, brings that up to .83. The third, .9. Notice that the difference between the total force is shrinking FASTER than the increase increment. IOW, that total will NEVER exceed 1.1. By continuing this out, we find that the combined force of 100 masses is 1.0909. The combined force of a thousand masses 1.0969. The combined force of a TEN THOUSAND masses 1.0975. Even all the way out to thirty thousand masses you do not exceed 1.0975.

His version that he was presenting never postulated that the infinite mass was ever in one locality but rather the universe in general continued forever and there were various ‘big bang’ spots (and other things if it was truly infinite) that would be a finite mass.


Because the distance (r) is squared in the function, distance WILL overpower the increased force from infinite matter. Further, you must also accept that if there is infinite mater, it goes without saying that any direction that you point to will have an infinite mount of matter as well. Essentially, that force would balance out. Take, for instance, the earth. If you were to delve to the exact center of the planet, and hollow it out so that you were not in contact with any of the ‘walls’ you would not experience any gravity at all. The planet would be pulling you in all directions equally with the only gravitational force that you experience being controlled by local masses.

At the end of this though we can state that such a belief in an infinite universe, while not contradictory to facts, is based entirely on faith as there is no evidence to suggest that such a condition exists. There is noting that contradicts it though.

 

[FA_Q2]

First, for the Eternal circle of time to be valid, it must be the same precise string of events of time. This is because each iteration of the circle has to be the SAME EXACT iteration or else the whole concept collapses into another version of "kick the can down the road" non-answer to the infinite regression fallacy.

This is false. There is nothing that determines that the timeline must follow exactly in an infinite time loop for the universe. The only thing that is required is that there exists a specific set of circumstances that lead to that loop. Everything outside of those circumstances are completely irrelevant.

Lets take the most popular theory that I know of in that the universe as we know it experiences a ‘big crunch’ due to gravity and then a ‘big bang’ due to the inability for forces to keep that crunch together. If each cycle were to be balanced (IOW, the system does not lose energy) then whether or not Bill exists from one iteration to the other is irrelevant because the same conditions still exists to restart that cycle. Given an infinite timescale, Bill WILL come back into existence exactly as before as well as an infant number of other outcomes but there is no reason that time must repeat itself exactly each and every time.

All that needs to repeat is that the underlying circumstances stay identical.

The circle has to relive itself EXACTLY. Not an exactly similar iteration, but the SAME EXACT ITERATION. In each cycle if a guy named 'Bill Robertson "Showboat" Flanigan' was born in one cycle, the SAME Bill must be born of the same parents in every cycle. Now there is still only one Bill that was born and lived and died, because when time folds back on itself it simply re-enters the time flow that had occurred before, and that avoids the infinite regression problem.

Based on the previous incorrect assumption as addressed.

Next, our universe is causal in nature. A causes B, which causes C. In every iteration or repeat of any segment of time, it must eventually 'double back' in exactly the same way, with the same causes. Because we are not simply recreating the past events, we are repeating the exact same segment of time.

The problems arise when we look at how causality works in the universe. We do not live in a deterministic universe. It has been proven that if one could somehow know the entirety of causes on an event that one can determine how that event will unfold. This is because at the basic building-block atomic level of our material quantum mechanical existence it has been proven that some things are unpredictable. The position of elections and thus the exact shape of molecules is chaotic and unpredictable. This makes any fluid behavior also chaotic and unpredictable except in a statistical way which is all that QM theory attempts to achieve in the form of electron valence shells of probability. The Chaos Theory also states that though there may be predictable overall patterns to chaotic systems, they are unpredictable in their individual particular events.

What this boils down to is this; If one could turn back the clock to 1900 and let it resume from there, the unfolding events will not be exactly the same. In a battle where the blood flow in a generals heart caused him a lethal heart attack, the next execution of events might cause him to live through it or avoid it altogether. A beautiful flower growing in some vacant lot that inspires an artist might not make it for that artist to ever see. A chaotic universe is not only unpredictable, but if driven by causality, it is also NOT exactly repeatable.

Thus this whole model of a universe that folds back on itself to exactly relive the same periods of time cannot be a universe ruled by causality. Perhaps in some magical fantasy story such a thing can be, but in our universe as we know it, there is ever reason to believe that an eternal circle of time is incompatible with the chaotic yet still causal nature of the universe in which we live.

To put it in a syllogism:
1. If the universe exists in a circle of time, then it must repeat itself exactly with each cycle.
2. The universe as we know it is not repeatable due to its chaotic nature.
3. Therefore our universe cannot exist in an eternal circle of time.

With 1 being false, the remaining 2 are irrelevant.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You're missing the point. Gravity is reduced by distance but has no limit to its reach. A grain of sand on Earth has a gravitational affect, though infitesimal, on distant planetary bodies.
Gravity from stars in far galaxies touches us here on Earth.

The greater the distance the more reduced the gravitational effect.

But if one is talking about infinite space and infinite quantities of matter, then the distances do not reduce in any effective way. And the infinite mass of the whole universe would still crush itself back together.

And why do you think, given the existence of Black Holes, that compressed energy can overcome enormous, let alone infinite, gravitational forces?

False. Infinite distances would, in fact, reduce that effect. Gravity is not reduced by distance in a direct manner but rather is exponentially reduced by distance.

Force = (G*M1*M2) / r^2
G= 6.6726 x 10^-11
A simple math experiment give us a real picture of how this works. Let’s set up the ‘infinite’ universe with an average density of one mass 100 billion KG separated by 1 million meters. For simplicities sake we are going to assume an even distribution of that mass but all on one side ‘us.’ From our equation above, the first mass exerts a force .66 N on us. The second, added to the first, brings that up to .83. The third, .9. Notice that the difference between the total force is shrinking FASTER than the increase increment. IOW, that total will NEVER exceed 1.1. By continuing this out, we find that the combined force of 100 masses is 1.0909. The combined force of a thousand masses 1.0969. The combined force of a TEN THOUSAND masses 1.0975. Even all the way out to thirty thousand masses you do not exceed 1.0975.

His version that he was presenting never postulated that the infinite mass was ever in one locality but rather the universe in general continued forever and there were various ‘big bang’ spots (and other things if it was truly infinite) that would be a finite mass.


Because the distance (r) is squared in the function, distance WILL overpower the increased force from infinite matter. Further, you must also accept that if there is infinite mater, it goes without saying that any direction that you point to will have an infinite mount of matter as well. Essentially, that force would balance out. Take, for instance, the earth. If you were to delve to the exact center of the planet, and hollow it out so that you were not in contact with any of the ‘walls’ you would not experience any gravity at all. The planet would be pulling you in all directions equally with the only gravitational force that you experience being controlled by local masses.

At the end of this though we can state that such a belief in an infinite universe, while not contradictory to facts, is based entirely on faith as there is no evidence to suggest that such a condition exists. There is noting that contradicts it though.

If we lived in a finite universe then it must be possible to detect that it is finite in a similar manner to how we can detect that we live on a finite planet. Geometry states that the sum of the angles in a flat planed triangle always add up to 180 degrees. However if you were to draw a triangle on the surface of the earth starting from the north pole down to the equator along the greenwich meridian and then another from the north pole 90 degrees west down to the equator you would end up with a triangle that contained 270 degrees because of the curvature of the earth.

So if you apply this to the universe and draw a triangle from the earth to edge of one of the larger "hot spots" in the background radiation and then to the other edge you would have a triangle that would detect the "curvature" of a finite universe. However the sum of the angles in that experiment returned 180 degrees thereby proving that the universe is indeed infinite or so huge as to be indistinguishable from infinite.

How Big is the Entire Universe? ? Starts With A Bang

So it is not a "belief" in an infinite universe but the scientific mathematical facts demonstrate an infinite universe.

 

[FA_Q2]

inw

 

[BreezeWood]

Lets take the most popular theory that I know of in that the universe as we know it experiences a ‘big crunch’ due to gravity and then a ‘big bang’ due to the inability for forces to keep that crunch together.

... due to gravity


FA_Q2, perhaps not Crunch but Collision Compression - all mater in expansion from the "Bang" travels at a certain angle that in extreme time returns the matter to its origin causing compaction not compression ... the compaction is not due to gravity but everything colliding back into theirselves.

 

[Derideo_Te]

False. Infinite distances would, in fact, reduce that effect. Gravity is not reduced by distance in a direct manner but rather is exponentially reduced by distance.

Force = (G*M1*M2) / r^2
G= 6.6726 x 10^-11
A simple math experiment give us a real picture of how this works. Let’s set up the ‘infinite’ universe with an average density of one mass 100 billion KG separated by 1 million meters. For simplicities sake we are going to assume an even distribution of that mass but all on one side ‘us.’ From our equation above, the first mass exerts a force .66 N on us. The second, added to the first, brings that up to .83. The third, .9. Notice that the difference between the total force is shrinking FASTER than the increase increment. IOW, that total will NEVER exceed 1.1. By continuing this out, we find that the combined force of 100 masses is 1.0909. The combined force of a thousand masses 1.0969. The combined force of a TEN THOUSAND masses 1.0975. Even all the way out to thirty thousand masses you do not exceed 1.0975.

His version that he was presenting never postulated that the infinite mass was ever in one locality but rather the universe in general continued forever and there were various ‘big bang’ spots (and other things if it was truly infinite) that would be a finite mass.


Because the distance (r) is squared in the function, distance WILL overpower the increased force from infinite matter. Further, you must also accept that if there is infinite mater, it goes without saying that any direction that you point to will have an infinite mount of matter as well. Essentially, that force would balance out. Take, for instance, the earth. If you were to delve to the exact center of the planet, and hollow it out so that you were not in contact with any of the ‘walls’ you would not experience any gravity at all. The planet would be pulling you in all directions equally with the only gravitational force that you experience being controlled by local masses.

At the end of this though we can state that such a belief in an infinite universe, while not contradictory to facts, is based entirely on faith as there is no evidence to suggest that such a condition exists. There is noting that contradicts it though.

If we lived in a finite universe then it must be possible to detect that it is finite in a similar manner to how we can detect that we live on a finite planet. Geometry states that the sum of the angles in a flat planed triangle always add up to 180 degrees. However if you were to draw a triangle on the surface of the earth starting from the north pole down to the equator along the greenwich meridian and then another from the north pole 90 degrees west down to the equator you would end up with a triangle that contained 270 degrees because of the curvature of the earth.

So if you apply this to the universe and draw a triangle from the earth to edge of one of the larger "hot spots" in the background radiation and then to the other edge you would have a triangle that would detect the "curvature" of a finite universe. However the sum of the angles in that experiment returned 180 degrees thereby proving that the universe is indeed infinite or so huge as to be indistinguishable from infinite.

How Big is the Entire Universe? ? Starts With A Bang

So it is not a "belief" in an infinite universe but the scientific mathematical facts demonstrate an infinite universe.

Well, no not at all. What you are describing is the fact that the earth is not a sphere yet what we observe in the universe is a sphere.

I would expect nothing else because the limitation on our view of the universe is NOT limited by the edge of the universe. Your thought experiment that you are trying to claim as absolute proof would require that we were capable of measuring out to the distance of the edge of the universe. AFAIK, we are not even close to being able to measure at that distance. It may not even be possible with physics as we currently understand due to the distances involved and the limitations on the speed of light.

There is also the point that the universe might just be spherical anyway. I don’t think that a non-spherical universe is mathematically guaranteed as the universe is not going to operate in the same way that a planet or a solar system does. That all depends a great deal on spin and rotation as the solar system would not exist without it BUT the universe is under so such pretension. It MIGHT be spinning but there is nothing conclusive on it.

Until someone can demonstrate that the math is wrong the results corroborate an infinite universe.

 

[Steven_R]

If we lived in a finite universe then it must be possible to detect that it is finite in a similar manner to how we can detect that we live on a finite planet. Geometry states that the sum of the angles in a flat planed triangle always add up to 180 degrees. However if you were to draw a triangle on the surface of the earth starting from the north pole down to the equator along the greenwich meridian and then another from the north pole 90 degrees west down to the equator you would end up with a triangle that contained 270 degrees because of the curvature of the earth.

So if you apply this to the universe and draw a triangle from the earth to edge of one of the larger "hot spots" in the background radiation and then to the other edge you would have a triangle that would detect the "curvature" of a finite universe. However the sum of the angles in that experiment returned 180 degrees thereby proving that the universe is indeed infinite or so huge as to be indistinguishable from infinite.

How Big is the Entire Universe? ? Starts With A Bang

So it is not a "belief" in an infinite universe but the scientific mathematical facts demonstrate an infinite universe.

Well, no not at all. What you are describing is the fact that the earth is not a sphere yet what we observe in the universe is a sphere.

I would expect nothing else because the limitation on our view of the universe is NOT limited by the edge of the universe. Your thought experiment that you are trying to claim as absolute proof would require that we were capable of measuring out to the distance of the edge of the universe. AFAIK, we are not even close to being able to measure at that distance. It may not even be possible with physics as we currently understand due to the distances involved and the limitations on the speed of light.

There is also the point that the universe might just be spherical anyway. I don’t think that a non-spherical universe is mathematically guaranteed as the universe is not going to operate in the same way that a planet or a solar system does. That all depends a great deal on spin and rotation as the solar system would not exist without it BUT the universe is under so such pretension. It MIGHT be spinning but there is nothing conclusive on it.

Until someone can demonstrate that the math is wrong the results corroborate an infinite universe.

This being the major flaw in String Theory. The math works, the math makes sense, but we can't do any experiments or observations to see if the math is right.

This leads to the philosophical argument that if we can't develop a falsifiable test (a la Karl Popper) to validate the hypothesis, is String Theory still science?

 

[FA_Q2]

If we lived in a finite universe then it must be possible to detect that it is finite in a similar manner to how we can detect that we live on a finite planet. Geometry states that the sum of the angles in a flat planed triangle always add up to 180 degrees. However if you were to draw a triangle on the surface of the earth starting from the north pole down to the equator along the greenwich meridian and then another from the north pole 90 degrees west down to the equator you would end up with a triangle that contained 270 degrees because of the curvature of the earth.

So if you apply this to the universe and draw a triangle from the earth to edge of one of the larger "hot spots" in the background radiation and then to the other edge you would have a triangle that would detect the "curvature" of a finite universe. However the sum of the angles in that experiment returned 180 degrees thereby proving that the universe is indeed infinite or so huge as to be indistinguishable from infinite.

How Big is the Entire Universe? ? Starts With A Bang

So it is not a "belief" in an infinite universe but the scientific mathematical facts demonstrate an infinite universe.

Well, no not at all. What you are describing is the fact that the earth is not a sphere yet what we observe in the universe is a sphere.

I would expect nothing else because the limitation on our view of the universe is NOT limited by the edge of the universe. Your thought experiment that you are trying to claim as absolute proof would require that we were capable of measuring out to the distance of the edge of the universe. AFAIK, we are not even close to being able to measure at that distance. It may not even be possible with physics as we currently understand due to the distances involved and the limitations on the speed of light.

There is also the point that the universe might just be spherical anyway. I don’t think that a non-spherical universe is mathematically guaranteed as the universe is not going to operate in the same way that a planet or a solar system does. That all depends a great deal on spin and rotation as the solar system would not exist without it BUT the universe is under so such pretension. It MIGHT be spinning but there is nothing conclusive on it.

Until someone can demonstrate that the math is wrong the results corroborate an infinite universe.

OOPS, pulled my post too late. I had to edit my post as I totally misinterpreted what you were getting at. Thought you were using an entirely different method than you were.

Interesting point and I have to give you that there is something to go on here then. That does not mean that it is a given though. Such does not require that the universe is infinite, just that space itself is flat. Such could exist in both a finite and an infinite universe. Not only that, but the universe could still be curved just at a very large scale. VERY large


I do find it very interesting though and obviously you are supported by more than belief. I am going to have to do more reading on this, thank you.

 

[FA_Q2]

Lets take the most popular theory that I know of in that the universe as we know it experiences a ‘big crunch’ due to gravity and then a ‘big bang’ due to the inability for forces to keep that crunch together.

... due to gravity


FA_Q2, perhaps not Crunch but Collision Compression - all mater in expansion from the "Bang" travels at a certain angle that in extreme time returns the matter to its origin causing compaction not compression ... the compaction is not due to gravity but everything colliding back into theirselves.

?

I have never heard of such a theory. AFAIK, the idea is that the gravitational force at some point might overcome the outward expansion and eventually start all matter in the universe on a collision course. That course is specifically because of gravity.

I believe that such was discounted though awhile back as matter does not seem to be slowing enough or slowing at all. As a matter of fact, the universe is INCREASING in speed, though I don’t think that researchers have determined why yet.

 

[FA_Q2]

This being the major flaw in String Theory. The math works, the math makes sense, but we can't do any experiments or observations to see if the math is right.

This leads to the philosophical argument that if we can't develop a falsifiable test (a la Karl Popper) to validate the hypothesis, is String Theory still science?

Not really. At least until it can be verified with experiment but math is where you start with your hypothesis and experiment is where you end. It just has not gotten that far yet

 

[Steven_R]

Yes, really. We have no way to prove multiple universes exist or if the Big Bang was the result of two branes colliding of if the other dimensions beyond the four we know and love are possible. The math suggests all of those things, but we have no way of designing tests, much less carrying them out, that can confirm or deny the validity of the hypothesis.

Which goes back to the philosophical question: if a scientific hypothesis cannot be tested, is it still science?

 

[The Irish Ram]

So it is not a "belief" in an infinite universe but the scientific mathematical facts demonstrate an infinite universe.

No they don't. Einstein was one who tried to prove that quote with mathematics and discovered the opposite. Expansion.
For as long as we have had telescopes, not one has captured the universe, time, or light circling in a manner that would cause the universe to end back where it began.

Quote: Originally Posted by MaryL
I read that time isn't what we perceive as mortals. BAMB! It all happens at once. Whether or not you have a eternal life or sin, rendered irrelevant. No need for reincarnation, none of that mysticism. No need for religion. It's all about human perceptions of time.

To see how relevant time is to us, hold your breath for two hours.
If one was out cold, in the back of an ambulance, and had no perception of time, racing to the hospital would still be of the essence, and could be the difference between life and death. Time matters.
We live in a 4 dimensional arena. Mortal time can be calculated and is as relevant as gravity, to mortals. It does not happen all at once, here, in the dimensions the earth is bound by. What I did yesterday at 3pm. is different than what I did today at 3pm. And 24 hours of minutes can be calculated to have passed between yesterday and today's 3pm and tomorrow's 3pm.

Having said that, time is relative to us, which makes the things you eliminated very much relevant to us also.
God, not confined to our arena, can be everywhere at once, see everything at once, because time doesn't effect the dimension He lives in. He can see time begin, unfold and end from His perspective.
It would be the difference between watching a parade turn a corner, until it is out of your sight, or watching the parade from the prospective of a helicopter, where you can see it begin, proceed, and end without have to change location. One sighting is bound by gravity and hence is limited. One sighting defies gravity, and sees the whole thing.
Beyond the speed of light, not just gravity, but time can also be observed the same way.

We are eternal beings because once we rid ourselves of our clay exterior which is bound by 4 dimensions, then we also can navigate dimensions free of time and gravity restraints. Christ demonstrated this by appearing without entering, leaving without the use of a door.
Without time and gravity, there is no aging, there is no end. The earth is finite, your soul is not.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Once the energy was released it dispersed the matter so that there was no longer a single point of gravity to cause everything to collapse back into itself.

or as some call it, In the beginning........

 

[theword]

There's no such thing as time. God wouldn't be able to give us information about future events (prophecies) if time existed.

God has given me information in two different ways about how my body will be killed. The first information came to me in a dream when I was five years old. At that time, I thought the dream was just a nightmare but a little over two years ago, God gave me other information within my mind to let me know that the dream was something that will happen in the future. It is a very detailed dream and I've already located where it will occur.

Since I've already experienced the death of my flesh, no time will have passed when I experience it again. This means it's only an illusion that time has passed.

If time is only an illusion, then all scientific data with time involved is seriously flawed, just the way God had planned it.

We saints receive knowledge of what happened before anything existed as well as how we'll live in the next age so we know that time doesn't exist within the mind of God, which happens to be the mind I'm using to write this comment.

But we also know that God created a defined world for us to exist in so time and dimensions were important illusions for us to help us understand the infinity of our existence. God's created microscope and telescope were used to show us that time and dimensions are meaningless as far as energy (information, or God's stored thoughts) is concerned.

Acts 17: 24-31

24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'