Time is understood far better than you express here.  What you present as time, was discarded a hundred years ago.

You are confusing the units of measurement of an entity with the entity.  There are any number of measurements of time.  Oscillations of a quartz crystal, the pendulum of a grandfather clock, the complete rotation of the earth, the complete orbital journey of the earth about the sun, on and on.  None of these are the entity time, rather measuremenst of the entity.  The entitiy is far more basic than the measurement of it.

Space is not the length of a yardstick although it is a measurement of space.  Space isn't the distance light travels in a year althought that is a measurement of space.

Do yourself a favor and pick up a book on the physical meaning of time at the local bookstore.  You might be amazed at what you will learn.

HR,

You do realize the fundamental difference between the philosopher's concept of time and the physicist's don't you?  The philosopher's concept of time is not in any way influenced by the reality of observation, experiment and examination.  They more or less sit around and think about how things are.  That was the primary wall of ignorance that kept science locked up for so long. It wasn't until science and scientists broke out of that locked up mind set of philosophy (and theology) in about the 15th century that science really began to become established as field of study.  Philosophy was what developed the water, air, earth and fire concept of the physical fundamentals.  I am not convinced that they are a whole lot more advanced than that now.

That explains any scientifically silly concept of time that the philosophers might have.  That is it, their concept of time, is intrinsically without any real physical significance.  That time is an entity on a par with space is the genious of Einstein.  That is one of the critical differences between Newtonian physics and Relativistic physics.   The reality of relativistic physics is well founded by a vast array of test and evaluation.  That philosophers might disagree is of no consequence whatsoever.

But it goes a long way to explaining your ideas about the foreknowledge of God and His (in)ability to predict the future.  I would imagine that the same arguments could be put forth for the nonentity of space also, philosophicallly speaking.  I wonder where that might lead us, theologically?

But I do mind.  It is important to understand that God's character trait that we call all-knowing is something more than just a perfect memory.

No.  Time and length, height and depth are not the same.  Time and space are two aspects of the geometry of the universe.  It just turns out that time is a scalar in character while space is vector in character.  But in fact the four dimesional aspect of space-time is fundamental.  Length, area and volume represent descriptions of space.  Length similarly represents descriptions of time.  They represent measures in the frame of reference of space-time.  Typicall we represent a point in a three dimensional (Newtonian) frame as (x,y,z).  In the four dimensional (relativistic) frame it is (x,y,z,t).

What is speculation, and not very good speculation, is that beyond or outside of this universe, i.e., the physical realm, space-time somehow continues as entities in the spiritual realm.

The speculation is the imposition of the qualities and character of this physical world onto the spiritual world.  Your argument is that space and time have meaning in the spiritual realm of God.  But they are physical quantites.

Can I prove you wrong?  You can't even prove that God exists, let alone how He perceives space-time.  You are simply assuming God exists and assuming that He experiences His creation (another assumption) as you do.  Not terribly rational.

That's very much up for debate given the hypotheses of more dimensions than just the 4 we know and love.  Google M-theory and/or String theory.  We experience time as a scalar became all of the fundamental particles that comprise us happen to be traveling at near a constant speed (c) in the same direction.  That doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't other directions of time or particles traveling at sub-c speeds on the same vector or plane.  If there are, we wouldn't be able to observe them conventionally, though we should be able to observe their effects.  So, know of any unexplainable extra gravity, Jimmy?

"Spiritual" does not mean "non-corporeal" or "other realm."  Spiritual means, "of the intellect" or "belonging to that which powers self-motion" for a more scientific terminology.  Attempts to quantify it as a seperate space or mathematical system are futile (you can try, I guess...).  I am not impressing characteristics of our space on another space; rather, no such space or system is definable.  It is not a seperate system, it has no dimensionality, but it is rather a fundamental property operating within this system, sort of like mass, charge, or color charge.

I think the biblical answer is:

[he] worketh all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11)

and:

Psa 135:6  Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.

I submit that God knows something happens because of the fact that He Himself is who decrees all things and works all things according to His will and purpose, not because things happen outside of God's sovereign decree/control/plan/purpose.

To say otherwise is to cast doubt and uncertainty on the most beautiful promise of all, Rom 8:28.

How else could "all things happen for the good of those who love God"?  If God is not in control of all, then this, and every other promise, stands a chance of failure.

As opposed to the robots of satan, which is what we all are by nature?

Someone thinks he is not in bondage, but free.....

I am still missing your point.  Particles are not vector quantities.  Are you thinking about dark matter and/or dark energy?