Zeno’s Motion Paradoxes and Modern Physics

The problem of motion becomes a big quandary and a deep contemplation for the ancient people. For them, nature is an inner principle of change which needs further explanation of  motion’s underlying reality.

For over 2 millennia nobody offered better clues about motion’s deeper nature than Zeno of Elea (ca. 490 – 430 BC) even over Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and many others. Zeno claimed that he had issued around 60 paradoxes, but only four of them survive to our time preserved in Aristotle’s Physics. Aristotle refuted some of them leaving us with one of the deepest puzzle of space and time mystery i.e. the flying arrow paradox a).

What Zeno basically raised was about the continuation of space and time that even today’s physics are struggling with. Zeno saw that time consisted of a series of indivisible instants which make it impossible for something to move during a period of time at such an indivisible instant. He argued that an arrow in flight should be stationary at an instant and that if it was stationary at that instant then it should be stationary at any and every instant.

Zeno hypothesized, as conveyed by Aristotle, that objects occupying the same space as they do at rest must be at rest. For motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. If the arrow is stationary at that instant, and if time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible. For Zeno, being at rest means that from one instant to another entirely different instant, the body in question and all its parts occupy the same place 1.

This Zeno assertion may lead us to conclude that in order a body to move, it and all its parts must occupy less space than when it is stationary, in other words the body must have    undergone a contraction (Figure-1). This boldly answers the fundamental question which nobody dares to pose as why the Lorentz contraction occurs.

As we all know, Lorentz suggested a general hypothesis which was startling, crude and bold that any moving body must have undergone a contraction in the direction of its motion (by the fraction of (1-v2/c2)1/2),  which becomes the basis of the relativity theory  b).

Minkowski commented on this hypothesis as extremely fantastical, for the contraction was not to be looked upon as a consequence of of resistance in the ether or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from the above, – as a companion circumstance to motion 3.

It is, therefore, imperative to see this phenomenon in the other way round. We used to see the motion of the body as the cause and its contraction is the effect. We don’t see as what Zeno did, that as far as the length of the body remains the same (no contraction) at any and every instant then the motion is impossible.

We may, therefore, conclude that the contraction is the prerequisite for the motion to happen. The shorter the body has undergone a contraction the faster the motion of the body would be c).

We should, in addition, scrutinize the second part of Zeno argument which holds the indivisibility of instants during which motion is impossible to occur. Such argument was true if such  a series of instants was continue with no gaps in between two consecutive instants, which is not the case d). We have elaborated in the previous articles that the perpetual creation and annihilation, the quantum underlying mechanism, resulting in a motion-pictures-like which is a series of time gaps separating the ephemeral spaces (Figure-2).

We should, therefore, make up our mind that the arrow e) existing in any instant is entirely different from that of immediately annihilated in the succeeding instant. As such, the newly created arrow can always take a different position from that in the preceding instant.

It is unbelievable that a man who lived in such olden time may have such a deep insight puzzling the reality of motion that can only be answered by the relativity theory and quantum mechanics f) which, alas, nobody is aware of.

The 2500 years old Zeno flying-arrow paradox is in its every respect, thus, comprehensively solved.


a)   Most scholars regarded that motion had fully explained and calculus could explain the dichotomy paradox. Some philosophers, however, say that Zeno’s paradoxes and their variations are still relevant to metaphysical problems. The mathematical models of motion, space and time are merely intellectual constructions built for the convenience of simple  calculations, not for the deeper purpose of representing the structure of reality. The underlying reality that the paradox addresses is, thus, evaded.

b)   The Lorentzian hypothesis is completely equivalent to the conception of Minkowski spacetime which makes the hypothesis much more intelligible.

c)   The relativity theory asserts that a rigid body is shorter when in motion than when in rest. In this theory the speed of light c plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real body.

This is exactly how we have to interpret the underlying reality that Zeno addressed in his dichotomy, one of Zeno’s four famous paradoxes, which was expressed in ordinary [non-relativist] velocities, thus, easily refuted by anybody.

d)  Against Zeno’s theory of the continuation of time, Aristotle argued that if time is continuous and the points of time are represented as points of space, then the point’s position must be represented by both the past and future. For him the point of division lies in one segment or the other, but not in both. If a white object were changing to black in a period of time divided into two intervals – A, during which it is white, and B, during which it is black – then there must be some instant C when it is both black and white 2).

This perplexing contradictory situation that C belongs to both A and B was not learnt as it is repeated in modern time by the similar proposition of Schrodinger’s cat paradox where the cat was potentially found both dead and alive at the same time.

e)   Microscopically prevailing over its quantum stuffs.

f)  Newly interpreted quantum theory with the perpetual creation and annihilation of matter, to and fro energy, as its fundamental mechanics.


  1. Mazur, J.: “The Motion Paradox”, Dutton, New York, 2007, p. 41.
  2. ibid, p. 40.
  3. Einstein et al.: “The Principle of Relativity”, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1952, p. 81
Posted in Natural Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eternalism vs Presentism

The relativity theory unifies space and time into a single 4-dimensional continuum called the spacetime.  Albeit their unity, however, the theory inexplicably assumes that the nature of  dimensions at every point in the continuum differentiates into those of the space and time.

Such concept of spacetime sometimes is referred to as the block time, block universe or eternalism. Time is considered as having similar ontology to that of space, that future events are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time. The spacetime is viewed as unchanging 4-dimensional block as opposed to the view of the world as a 3-dimensional space perpetually modulated by the passage of time 1 .

This concept of the block universe adopted by the mainstream physics makes the physics now in trouble. This concept is totally wrong both physically and philosophically. A continuum should have inherently equivalent dimensions at its every point, except it had a discontinuity or boundary a) along which the block’s dimensions are transformed into spatial (Figure-1).

In our daily life, the biggest natural laboratory we ever experience in, one clearly observes the difference between the past, the present and the future. One perceives that as time passes, the moment that was once the present becomes part of the past, and part of the future in turn becomes the new present. As such we experience or at least perceive the passage of time, with a present moment moving forward into the future and leaving the past behind 2. Philosophically, such view of time is called presentism.

As we explain in the previous articles, our concept about the spacetime continuum is in line with this presentism, except that everything exists ephemerally. As such, when the part of the [nebulous] future is transformed into the new present, the moment that was once the present is annihilated into part of the [void] b) past. In this view, only the present is real, as opposed to eternalist idea that all points in time are equally real.

This act of perpetual creation and annihilation gives us the perception of time passage. This modified presentism accentuates the actuality of the present and its obvious difference from the potentiality of the future and the nullity of the past. Matters which exist only in the present are  exerted by the gravity and held together as a single whole on the plane c) of the present.

In order that the cause and effect principle prevails in their “chaotic” block universe, the physicists are forced to set up a light-cones system in which the individual light-cone may have different orientation (Figure-2). However, such a concept may lead us to a chaotic closed timelike curve that questions the integrity of such physical edifice.

The physicists are unaware that in such a symmetric block universe, which is timeless and eternal, no matter can exist, neither movement nor changes can possibly occur. Sooner or later the mainstream physicists should abandon their concept of the block universe which has led us to many misinterpretations such as determinism, time travel, many-worlds interpretation etc.

In the presentist universe, the block is spontaneously broken d) in two halves, creating a 3-dimensional interface in between the two as it is transforming the dimension along the interface into spatial. The space and the present time are, in fact, two different aspects of the same thing which is the smallest unit  of time. The eternity is, thus, broken bearing perpetually the present moment which splits barely the past from the future.


a)    Such as an interface or a surface in the case of liquid-like or a fissure in the case of solid-like continuum.

b)    Void of matter but not of energy.

c)    or a wavy surface or interface in order to be in line with the general relativity theory.

d)    This may be happened because of the segregation of inherent pair of energy’s opposite elements: the positive and negative energy.



  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_universe
  2. ibid.
  3. Penrose, R.: “The Road to Reality”, Vintage Book, London, 2005, p. 409.d

Posted in Natural Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Genesis’ Firmament and the Babylon Oil-Water Interface

Most people who have tried to get a deeper insight on the basic concept of the ancient cosmology either from a general scientific or philosophical point of view are doubtful about the truthfulness of such knowledge and regard them as simply superstitious or fairy tales. This general attitude is amplified as modern physics posits its own version which differs significantly from those of the ancient.

The mainstream physicists regard the universe as a four-dimensional continuum instead of classically three. They give, however, no rationalization on why the nature of dimensions are so different from one (time) to the other (space). This may happen if and only if the symmetry of such continuum was broken.  The ignorance of this very basic conception brings modern physics into trouble as we see today.

The ancient people were fully aware of the important role of this symmetry breaking and put it as the central theme of their cosmogony. It might be expressed in various ways, but the theme was always the same i.e. the split of a primordial (preexisting) body into a tripartite cosmic structure.

The Bible, or Torah to be more precise, provided a means to demonstrate the trustworthiness of its contents. It made use of the world creation story, Genesis 1, placed on its preamble as a test for anybody to challenge the Book’s credibility.  As Genesis technically describes a universal conception about the origin of the world, it can be challenged anytime as science progresses. Once this part of Genesis was scientifically refuted, the whole content of the Book would be at stake of being turned down as rubbish.

Genesis depictions of the cosmic creation is parallel to that of the mainstream ancient cosmologies on the creation of tripartite cosmic structures as the outcome of the separation or series of separations of the preexisting body. The successive creation of the tripartite structures  are expressed as heaven-earth-heaven a) (Genesis 1.1), water above-firmament-water below (Genesis 1.6), and water-dry land-water (Genesis 1.9).

This tripartite concept can be traced back remote in time to a respectable Babylonian king under the name of Enmenduranki as the seventh ruler in the Mesopotamian dynasties reigning before the Flood 1). He was believed to become the source of all human knowledge after having learned all the secrets of divination in heaven. The legend tells that while he ascended to heaven he was shown in the middle of divine assembly how to observe oil on water.

Nobody is able to comprehend the teaching properly and many anthropologists have misinterpreted that as a secret receipt of oil-containing medicine. And so this fundamental heaven knowledge remains buried in secret for thousands of years. What he handed down was more technical i.e. the tripartite structure of  an oil-water mixture, where a boundary (interface) in the midst of the oil and water divides the water which is under  the interface from the oil which is above  the interface.

If we refer to Genesis 1.6-1.7, there is complete parallel between these verses with the Enmenduranki’s separation of oil and water:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament”.

The notions of Enmenduranki’s oil and water interface and Genesis’ firmament are so closely related which in  this context representing the space. As  the interface and the firmament are 3-dimensional, Enmenduranki’s  oil and water and Genesis’ waters are  four-dimensional continuum.

In modern physics, we may correlate those interface and firmament to a mathematical entity called hypersuface or a “flat” manifold called brane in physics which may have higher number of dimensions.

The word firmament or firmamentum in Latin is the translation of the Hebrew word of “raqia” which root means gold leaf which goldsmith hammers it very thin analogous to the thinness  of the  oil and water interface 2).

In the other ancient cosmologies 3) the tripartite cosmic structure was personified such as Ancient Egypt’s Nut-Shu-Geb or  Summerian’s An-Enlil-Ki , comparable to Enmenduranki’s  physical oil-interface-water or the Genesis’ water above-firmament-water below. The cosmos tripartite structure resulted from the separation of the pre-existing heaven seemed to be the mainstream of the ancient cosmology school of thoughts.

The Summerians used the word tin  to describe the earth (firmament). The ancients whether they were Summerians, Babylon or Hebrews used a similar representation of  the space i.e.  something very thin such as thin interface,  gold leaf (raqia) or a tin leaf.

The use of thin heaven metals instead of the interface of waters to represent the firmament indicates that the earth (lowest heaven) was in the solid phase different from the higher heavens which may be in either the phase of water, air or fire.

As stated previously the “solid” firmament in the ancient cosmology can be correlated to the idea of brane in modern physics.  The brane, which mathematically equivalent to the hyper-surface may have two, three or much higher dimensions depending on the  dimensions  of the bulk it is embedded.

Sooner or later, the Big Bang theory, the current mainstream cosmology which is based on the creation out of nothing b) will be replaced by a creation theory based on separation or series of separations as our ancients adopted thousands of years ago.


a) The expression of heaven and earth should be interpreted as correlative terms.  Heaven should be identified with everything high and earth with everything low. In the context of multiverse, a specific universe could stand for the earth  if it is correlated to a higher universe, but stand for  heaven if correlated to another universe which is lower.

b). The nothingness exists only in human mind; it has no physical reality.  The spacetime (cosmos) is not an independent reality, it is a geometrical structure of energy or action (aeon). There could be no empty spacetime (no matter and no energy) exists in nature as some physicists assumed in their theory, otherwise there would be no spacetime at all.


1. Barmachi, Faraj: Treasures of the Iraq Museum, Iraq Ministry of Information, Baghdad, 1976.

2. Friedman, R.E.: Commentary on the Torah, Harper San Francisco, New York, 2001

3.  Wright, J.E.: The Early History of Heaven, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.

Posted in Natural Philosophy | Leave a comment

The ancient concept of time

“I know what time is until someone asks me about it,” said St. Augustine (400 AD). Many philosophers and scientists have tried to explore the nature of time in terms of solar, biological or atomic time 1) but hardly anybody has touched the fundamental aspect of time.

One way to comprehend the ancient cosmology is to know about the nature of time.  However, this may deter anybody to proceed further as no scientific theory has yet revealed what time really is.  I therefore wish to give you a simple hint how to get through to this subtle subject.

Everybody knows that time has a tripartite structure i.e. the past, the future and the present (“Now”), where the “Now” is situated in the middle separating the past and the future. Curiously, most of the ancients imagined the universe as a three-tiered structure namely heaven, earth, netherworld, where the earth is located in between the heaven and the netherworld. We will see shortly the close relationship between these two structures.

The four-dimensional time

Conceptually, the “Now” is like a mathematical point put arbitrarily on the  straight a) time-line separating the past on one side and the future on the other side of the line (Fig. 1B). As the end of the past is just about linked to the beginning of the future, the point separating them barely exists, it is almost imaginary b).

Philosophically, the “Now” exists in between the probability of the future existence and the necessity existence of the past it had.  As such the Now, and everything within, exists in the possibility 2). This is the underlying reality of the quantum mechanics, as oppose to the deterministic conception of the classical physics that physicists fail to comprehend.

Without separation, time would remain in its eternity (Fig. 1A). The dynamical time is created out of the eternity (aeon) through the act of separation c)

Moving to the physical reality, we need to transform the conceptual time into the real time by expanding the former’s dimensions into that of the real one. How do we do that? The Now which we are in is certainly not zero-dimensional as we have conceptualized so far. It should allow us to move forward and backward, left and right or up and down. The “Now” in which we are present should be three-dimensional.

Accordingly, as this three-dimensional “Now” is embedded between the past and the future, the latter two should be four-dimensional. The time as a whole is, therefore, four-dimensional wherein the Now is just a mere slice of it (Fig. 1E). The time-line that we use as the basic structure of the conceptualized time is corresponding to the four-dimensional [space]time which the relativity theory has discovered.

Alas, the modern physicists overlook this tripartite structure in their cosmic model. They take for granted the spacetime as a unity and deny the existence of such universal “Now” no matter whether it is flat or wavy. As such, they took a proto-universe as the actual world model which is timeless and spaceless where neither matter nor even light could exist (Fig. 1D).

The Great Mystery

And how the ancient thought about it? The reader may judge for himself about the ancient knowledge which was written on several papyrus (4300-3700 B.C) which later becomes the Chapter 64, the oldest and one of the most important chapters of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The knowledge was taught by Thoth at Sais at the commencement of Egyptian history about 14,000 B.C.

This chapter was written on a block of iron which had been inlaid with letters of Lapis Lazuli found in a shrine under the feet of the god Thoth in Khemennu (Hermopolis) in the reign of the king Men-Kan-Ra by royal son Heru-Ta-Ta-f when he was travelling to inspect the shrine. Under the guidance of his adviser, he brought to the king with his royal chariot the block containing a great mystery he had never looked upon drawn on the cube (Fig. 2). The first sentence of the hymn read “I am yesterday, today and tomorrow” 3).


Now if we look to the cube carefully, we find as if it were divided in two by a section drawn in the middle of it as depicted in Fig. 2A. We can easily decode this that one side of the section represents the past, the other side the future, and the section itself represents the “Now”. This matches exactly with the structure depicted in Fig. 1E, referring to the tripartite structure of the past, now and the future.

At the top of the cube we see a symbol drawn consisting of a triangle located in a circle bounded by the square of the cube’s section (Fig. 2B) coding the dimensions of the system. What the ancient wanted to show us was that the cube is 4-dimensional (symbolized by the square) embedding a 3-dimensional section (represented by the triangle) which represents “Now”. The ancient Egyptian cube is, therefore, corresponding to the modern 4-dimensional spacetime.

Now we have decoded the great mystery locked for thousands of years since immemorial time. We can even draw the lesson from the ancient that the current mainstream physics has wrongly adopted the 4-dimensional [undivided] spacetime to represent the real world.

Had the physicists recognized the tripartite structure of the spacetime they would go straighter through the road of reality.


a).   In a grander scale the notion of the past and the future is relative as the time-line is not straight but forms a grand circle (Fig. 1C). They are analogous to the notion of the above and below when it is looked from the global perspective.

b)     The ancient [Hindu] called such imaginary existence  (illusion) Maya

c)     Most creation stories and myths spread out across different ages and places throughout the globe are based on a basic theme:  “creation through separation”which modern physicists also adopted under the notation of spontaneous symmetry breaking.


1.  Ridley, B.K. : “Time, Space and Things”, Canto, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 57-68.
2.  Isutsu, T. : “Unicite de l’existence et Creation Perpetuelle en Mystique Islamique”, Les Deux Oceans, Paris, 1980, p. 131
3.  Churchward, J.: “Le Monde Occulte de Mu”, Editions J’ai Lu, Paris, 1972, p. 138-141.

Posted in Natural Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Enmenduranki Cosmology

A very long time ago before the Flood inundated the earth there lived a wise king named En-men-dur-an-ki a) who ruled the city of Sippar, Mesopotamia 1).  He was believed to have ascended into heaven and given the secrets of gods. He was shown how to observe oil on water, the secret of Anu, Enlil and Ea. He learned all the secrets of divination and thereby became the source of all human knowledge 2).

Nobody knows was what the secret behind that observation of oil and water. Why it was so important that somebody should ascend to heaven and receive the lesson before the assembly of gods? It was certainly nothing to do with the secret of medical receipt as some scholars have claimed, but about the disclosing of the secret of heaven which otherwise would be buried for many generations.

In order to comprehend the ancient cosmology we should bear in our mind that often we are dealing not only with the ordinary world but far beyond it. Whereas our modern sciences consider that our four-dimensional world as the only reality, the ancient believed on multiverse in which our world is embedded in many other higher dimensional worlds, one within the other in a successive way.

The meaning of “heaven and earth”, for example, doesn’t solely stand for the planet earth and its surrounding sky but also stand for wider meaning such as a pairing of something higher, active, being the provider coupled with something lower, passive, being the receiver. This includes the pairing of a higher and lower dimensional worlds.  It is exactly in this context that Enmenduranki’s teaching should be interpreted.

The nature of Genesis’ waters

Enmenduranki had given us a clue on how we should learn cosmology by taking the oil and water system as an explanatory mean.  I wish hereby to give you a hint on how we may decode the teaching. In the oil-water system we can observe a very thin interface separating the water that is under and the oil that is above the interface.  It will ring the bell if we put it side by side with Genesis 1.7: “And God made the space (firmament), and it separated between the water that was under the space and the water that was above the space”.

We can see the one-to-one correspondence between: (a) the oil-water interface and Genesis’ space, (b) the oil and Genesis’ water above and (c) the water and Genesis’ water below. As the interface is correlated to space which is one dimension higher then we can deduce that the three dimensional oil/water should be correlated similarly to something which is four-dimensional. And that something is Genesis water  b).

Genesis uses the term firmament to represent the space which is the translation of the Hebrew word of “raqia”, the root of which means gold leaf tampered very thin. Genesis uses it in purpose to show its preference to employ the surface geometry for the representation of the space, mainly to have a proper visualization of its tripartite structure. The firmament which separates the waters should be imagined as a surface instead of space or in scientific term [three-dimensional] hypersurface or brane.

For mathematician  the notation of firmament is equivalent to hypersurface which may have  any number of dimensions corresponding to the space’s dimensions it represents. Later on the modern physics introduces a similar representation called brane. With such models we can easily visualize the system including the surroundings in which it is embedded.

Now what is really the nature of Genesis water[s] which is four-dimensional? To get the answer, we may correlate this four-dimensional water to what modern physics called spacetime, standing for four-dimensional world (cosmos). Physically, such spacetime may be interpreted as the geometrical structure of Genesis’ four dimensional water. We can imagine this is just like a gigantic drop of [four-dimensional] water of which the substance is Genesis water and the “spherical” structure is the spacetime.

In many of my articles, I have shown that the spacetime is not an independent reality but merely the geometrical structure of the four-dimensional energy (action) c). It is the most fundamental [immaterial] substance in nature that can neither be created or destroyed out of or into nothing. The Genesis water is exactly that kind of substance. In fact we may say that Genesis’ water and the four-dimensional energy are two different names of the same [immaterial] substance.

The Cosmos Tripartite Structure

The relativity theory implicitly shows that energy has two opposite parts, the positive and negative energies, which tend to segregate. As it eventually happened the spacetime split in two creating a tripartite structure of positive energy-interface-negative energy (Fig.1A). The interface in that cosmic structure stands for our dear three-dimensional space we live in.

This [modern] tripartite structure is similar to that of Enmenduranki’s oil-interface-water, Genesis’ water above-firmament-water below, or more personalized such as Babilonian’s Anu-Enlil-Ea and Ancient Egyptian’s Nut-Shu-Geb, just to take a few (Fig.1B-E).

Alas, the mainstream physics denied the existence of such three-dimensional space which supposed to be embedded in the spacetime, as they consider it violating the simultaneous principle. The exclusion of this three-dimensional hypersurface, which is the loci of the universal Nows, causes troubles we currently have with physics.

Einstein was worried about the difference of the past, now and the future which does not and cannot occur within physics.  He concluded that there is something essential about the Now which is just outside the realm of science 3). Had he listened attentively to the voice of the ancients he would not waste his time for the rest of his life to finalize his unification theory .


a)     According to the King Lists compiled by Sumerian and Babylonian scribes about 2000 B.C. which were found at Nippur, Larsa and other ancient cities eight kings successively reigned in five different cities for an impossibly long time period which the King Lists put at 241,200 years [?]. The following is the list of Kings who reigned before flood and their respective capital city:

  •    A-lu-lim (Eridu),
  •    A-lal-gar (Eridu),
  •    En-me-en-lu-an-na (Badtibira),
  •    En-me-en-gal-an-na (Badtibira),
  •    Dumuzi, the shepherd (Badtibira),
  •    En-sipa-zi-an-na (Larak),
  •    En-me-en-dur-an-na or En-men-dur-an-ki (Sippar)
  •    U-bar-tu-tu (Shuruppak).

After them came the Flood which inundated the whole world.

b)     The relativity theory proves that our world, termed as spacetime, is four dimensional. Hence the Genesis water and the spacetime have the same number of dimensions.

c)         The ancients often called it aeon


  1. Basmachi, F. :”Treasures of the Iraq Museum”, Ministry of Information, Al Jumhuriya Press, Baghdad, 1976, p. 71
  2. Wright J.E.: “The Early History of Heaven”, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000, p. 43.
  3. Barbour, J.: “The End of Time”, Phoenix, London, 2001, p. 143.
Posted in Natural Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ancient Heavens and Earth

In the ancient creation myths the cosmos was commonly described as having a tripartite structure expressed in various ways as the separation of heaven-earth-heaven a), water above-firmament-water below, water-dry land-water such as cited respectively in Genesis 1.1, 1.6 and 1.9. In the ancient Egyptians and Sumerian, the cosmic structure was represented through personification of gods such as Nut-Shu-Geb  in Egypt and An-Enlil-Ki in Sumerian.

Metaphorically, the similar tripartite structure can be easily visualized from the daily phenomenon i.e. the separation of oil-water system:  oil-interface-water. This bold teaching on how the creation may take place b) can be traced back far remote in time to a respectable Babylonian king under the name of Enmenduranki as the seventh ruler in the Mesopotamian dynasties reigning before the Flood 1).

Some scholars claimed that En-mendur-anki was the historical character of Enoch. He was believed to become the source of all human knowledge after having learned all the secrets of divination in heaven. The legend tells that while he ascended to heaven he was shown in the middle of divine assembly how to observe oil on water 2).

This divine demonstration had nothing to do with the secret medical receipt revelation as many scholars thought. What Enmenduranki actually wanted to show us was the daily phenomenon about the natural creation of the interface in the separation process of two immiscible liquids such as oil and water (Figure-1A). The tripartite structure generated as the outcome of  separation process was the general model adopted by the ancients.

Following this pattern, the text of Genesis 1.1 about the creation of heavens c) and earth may be interpreted as implicitly narrates about the separation of preexisting-heaven d) to generate a tripartite structure of heaven-earth-heaven (Figure-1B). Genesis 1.6 similarly describes about the separation of primordial water to generate a cosmic structure of water above-firmament-water below (Figure-1C). Genesis 1.9 describes the separation to create the material universe structure of water-dry land-water (Figure-1D).

Nobody was aware that Genesis implicitly describes a series of separations generating multi-heavens.

It is interesting to note that Genesis implicitly shows various physical phases of the creations’ substances e). The first creation (Genesis 1.1) doesn’t point out to specific substances. However, by considering the next verses it can be interpreted as the separation of air-water system. The second creation (Genesis 1.6) explicitly refers to the separation of water-water substance generating water-watery interface-water, whilst the third (Genesis 1.9) refers to the separation of solid-water, of which the solid (dry land) is the final objective of the creation, the material world where our physical body lives in (Figure 2).

This lowest heaven is valso implicitly expressed in the root of the Genesis’ word raqia 3)  as a thin solid gold leaf or tin leaf in Sumerian cosmology which indicate the solidity of this lowest material heaven.

It may be correlated to the creation of Seven Heavens that Genesis-1 may not explicitly narrate. The existence of these heavens are quoted  in some ancient stories and stated explicitly in several verses in the Koran. The Genesis’ seven days of creations may also be correlated to the different time dimensions that those Seven Heavens individually possesses.

The Koran extensively employs the expression “heaven and earth” and “heavens and earth” over 200 times. The pairing of the two terms and their conceptual interrelationship make it practically impossible to mention one without the other. The Koran states explicitly that the heavens and earth existed together in an undifferentiated state before creation.

The basic meaning of the word sama’ (heaven) in Arabic is the higher, upper, highest or uppermost in addition to sky, clouds, and rain. The word ard (earth) is the ground, anything that is low.

When mentioning heaven [or heavens] and earth, the Koran often adds the expression “everything between the two” thus giving the tripartite structure “heaven-everything in between-earth, which is a little bit different from the other tripartite structures.  The pair of heaven and earth denotes a specific type of relationship that of giving and receiving, and  “everything between the two” refers to the result of the relationship 4).

This relationship between the tripartite is analogous to that of the tripartite cosmic structure derived from the   finalized relativity theory which includes the symmetry breaking phenomenon.


a). The term heavens is the translation of the Hebrew word samayim, related to the Akkadian term samu and has analog in Arabic (Koranic) samawi. This term typically signifies things that occur naturally in pairs or plural. Some scholars wrongly suggested to interpret this plural form as expressing the vastness or expanse 2).

b). Naturally the dimensions of the cosmos model should be projected to higher dimensional reality. We should think that such a two-dimensional interface represents the space (technically may be called 3-hypersurface or 3-brane) whilst [three-dimensional] oil and water represent parts of the four-dimensional [split] world (technically called 4-spacetime).

c). Some versions use singular form to this notion as people wrongly think this as the creation of the sky surrounding the planet earth. The heavens and earth here are discussed in the context of multiverse and used in correlative terms in which heaven is identified with everything high and earth with everything low.

d). The beginning in Genesis 1.1 is not absolute. It is the translation of Hebrew word “beresith” which is interpreted as a relative beginning. As such there could be pre-existing bodies (heavens) before Genesis beginning. The Genesis creations of heavens and earth could be thought as the continuation of a long series of separations prior to Genesis beginning.

e). The ancients referred to four fundamental substances (pillars) from which grand cosmos was built. We may interpret this as the outcome of successive grand separations of cosmos’ elements in descending degree of its dimensions and energy from the hottest substance, fire,  into air, water down to the cold solid (material universe) as depicted in Fig-3A.

The lowest heaven of the Seven heavens resides  within the sphere of solid which itself embedded in the water sphere where the higher heavens reside. These two spheres together with the seven heavens inside often called the World of the Kingdom. Beyond are the embedding larger (higher dimensional) sphere of air which itself embedded  in the  even higher dimensional sphere of fire. These outer spheres are often called The World of the Dominion (Fig. 3B)


1. Barmachi, Faraj: Treasures of the Iraq Museum, Iraq Ministry of Information, Baghdad, 1976.

2. Wright, J.E.: The Early History of Heaven, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.

3. Friedman, R.E.: Commentary on the Torah, Harper San Francisco, New York, 2001

4. Murata S. : “The Tao of Islam”‘, State University of New York Press”, 1992, p. 119

Posted in Natural Philosophy | Leave a comment

The Nature of Time Revisited

“I know what time is until someone asks me about it,” said St. Augustine (400 AD). Many philosophers and scientists have tried to explore about the nature of time and relate it with the solar time, biological or atomic time, but nobody has given a clear explanation about the mechanism on how the time has taken place.

For that purpose I wish to take a simple idea from the basic characteristic of time which consists of the past, present, and future. If we consider time passage as a line, then we can imagine an instant as a point in that line representing the present (now). This point splits the time-line into two parts: the past on one side of that point and the future on the other side (Fig. B)

Now, imagine that we remove the point. Then, what will we get? We have a time without now and consequently without the past and the future. We, thus, have the eternity, a timeless world (Fig. A). We see that time is created from the eternity through the act of separation. This is the deepest philosophy about the nature of time.

The point that separates the past from the future in this structure of time (Fig. B) is a mathematical point abstractly put in on a straight line. Actually the end of the past is almost immediately linked to the beginning of the future, as though the point that separates them exists just about in an imaginary way (“maya”).

Our feeling about the passage of time can be described as though the present time (now)  is sliding linearly along the time line. In accordance with the principle of relativity such a linear time line should form, in a grander scale, a grand circle (Fig. C). As such the past and future times become completely relative analogous to the notion of above and below for people inhabiting a spherical globe.

The aforementioned point does not move forward displacing all the other points lying all the way down the line, instead the movement is similar to that of water wave in which different particles subsequently move up and down on the way down the line.

Now, since we do live in an expanse (space), it is therefore more appropriate if we designate the now as a three-dimensional geometrical unit (space) instead of a point (zero dimension). Consequently, the time which we metamorphically describe as a line should be more appropriately described as a four-dimensional continuum, in which the space (the now) is embedded in such a continuum (Fig. E).

The relativity theory confirms that space and time are, indeed, inextricable and completely merge into what we call spacetime, a four-dimensional continuum. As such, the spacetime represents the eternity, a timeless world, in the sense that there is no clear cut between the past, present, and future. It is also spaceless in the sense that there is no locality for events to take place. The space and time have yet no physical reality. Not even a single matter could exist; the darkness covers the whole (Fig. D). Alas, the mainstream physics has adopted this embryonic spacetime (aeon?) to represent the actual world which leads us the crisis as we know today.

To have a proper time as we perceive it, the four-dimensional spacetime should be split into two parts. The interface between the two halves represents universal now which is nothing but the three-dimensional space (the slice of 4D-space is 3D-surface). The one side of the spacetime represents the past and the other side the future (FIg. E). Similarly to the point that separates the past and the future, this interface exists just about in an imaginary way, its thickness is only 10-33 cm below which there will be no separation at all.

Such a system is obviously dynamic; the 3-interface is rotating at the speed of light in the direction normal to its surface (FIg. F). We may assign a full cycle of such a rotation as one cosmic day. In Hindu belief such cosmic cycle is called Kalpa whose duration is equal to 4.32 billion years, the day of Brahman.

Similarly to what we described previously, the interface (our space) does not moves ahead but different spaces appear and disappear subsequently all the way down in time. This is the big secret underlying the quantum phenomena which have puzzled physicists for so long time.

The next question is naturally on how and what makes the spacetime split and why does the 3-interface rotate? (to get the answer please refer to The Unfinished Relativity Theory).


1. Upstream Physics: http://upstreamphysics.blogspot.com

2. Multidimensional world: http://multidimensionalworld.blogspot.com

Posted in Natural Philosophy | Leave a comment