Hello...Past. I'm the Future.

Wildcard Line
21

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

I will properly scrutinize your responses afterwards. However for the Poser:

For additional example on Time-Existence: If the LENGTH of a speeding Car is SHORTENED for OBSERVER and the LENGTH of the OBSERVER is SHORTENED in the View of the OBSERVED (Him in the in the Speeding Vessel) do you think the SHORTENING described in the view of both OBSERVER and OBSERVED is IMAGINARY or REAL? Please Mark well that SHORTENING is DEFINED SINGLY on MOTION DIFFERENCE between Observed and Observer.

I Think One Picture as said is worth more than a thousand bits (Words).Please attempt to navigate to the Universal Resource Locator below for a better illustration and Grasp of where I am coming from with my question. Afterwards please attempt to answer the question again. Thanx
http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity2.htm

22

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

This may appear long but please don’t mind. Firstly I’ll start dissection with:

Frankly I couldn’t make heads or tails of the last part of the post. It appears that you’ve made up some jargon but haven’t defined the terms.

Sorry for the Sudden Scenario setup without A More explicit introduction. Honestly I believe we are operation on different ‘wavelengths’. For a better understanding of the ‘Jargon’ please you can navigate here.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity2.htm

In any case, you have a big problem with your granularity issue. Even if we suppose that there are an arbitrary number of smaller and smaller particles (as measured by their wavelength at this scale) you still run up against the Wave-Particle Duality problem.

True… Yeah true- only if you are talking of the SAME Dimensional Objects which is where the Uncertainty Principle Reigns. Practically, I sense we are not COUPLING at all. I think I am responsible for the ‘messing’ up .However back to the issue, get me right. Originally at the start of the Theory I was not referring to differing Sizes IN THE SAME DIMENSIONAL PLANES but Differing objects of differing DIMENSIONAL GENETIC COMPOSITIONS (Consequently differing sizes). E.g. You and your shadow. And I am striving to remain within the confines of LOGIC not Some Mysterious Metaphysics. Hope u get me.
Really, I am peering from on a higher level where the property of an object is defined by BOTH the AMALGAMATION of Dimensional Genetics make up AND Size (E.g. to completely describe any object in 4-DM space you need its COMBINED PROPERTIES of BOTH MASS AND VOLUME.
As for the ELECTRON-SIZE illustration I was just wagering it convenient merely using Size-Size difference scenario (Objects differing in size but in the same DM) to paint a picture of Differing Dimensional Genetic Composition. However using the electron example to PROPERLY pose my Theory is like COMPLETELY transforming Horizontal Distance to Vertical distance without additional parameters (E.g. the origin). Okay I think below is another example. (Hope it helps):
An object and its shadow are ‘in ‘differing Dimensions even though the shadow is a product of the objects existence. I cannot DERIVE or DETECT COMPLETELY my object from my shadow because my object (even though SOLID) is made up of ‘Finer ‘particles than my shadow which IS NOT SOLID.
Now I am of the strong conviction that all Measurements and OBSERVATIONS are like this Derivation/Detection (Of an object from its shadow). We lose Information when we take measurement but the lost is often insignificant when not beyond ‘accuracy’.
Therefore, I’ll more properly say that one object on the say 3rd Dm will NEVER have the same COMBINED Dimensional Genetic Composition and structure as another object on intrinsically derived from a 2-dm Dimensional Genetic Composition and structure

Once you’re dealing with wavelengths and energies on the quantum scale waves begin to act like particles.

Sure I can wager they will begin to act like particles because YOU are using Photon to ‘understand ‘photons. They will surely behave like particle because the object of you detection has NOW BECOME at least CRUDE. At best they will only perturb each other and compound the problem. OK simply put, any two materials with THE SAME ENERGY LEVEL, however the phase, when they interact will behave particulate to each other (I strongly believe).

If you attempt to measure one object with another object that is more finely grained you end up shooting tiny “bullets” of very dense energy at velocities near the speed of light at your object to be measured. Instead of measuring it you perturb it…
Think from my understanding,you are wrong here and also right. Wrong because YOU HAVE ALWAYS SHOT TINY BULLETS! When I measure the length of an object using an electron microscope, energy (light photons (Tiny bullets) are directed (Shot) from my microscope to the object. Therefore the material being measured was PERTURBED however INSIGNIFICANT.
The photons are surely energized and therefore the material measured should ‘ABSORB’ SOME energy of the photons AND ‘REFLECT’ SOME. We OBSERVE the reflected Photons in our Eyes and call it the PRECISE measurement of the Object. How about the Absorbed Photons even ADDING FURTHER ERROR BY EXPANDING (Accelerating the particles) the Object? The Ration of the absorbed /Reflected photons translate to the percentage/Scale of error in our measurement. But to us in our LEVEL, the object being measured is Not Perturbed because of a mighty ENERGY CONTRAST (WE COULD NOT KNOW BECAUSE WE ARE ALSO USING LIGHT PHOTONS (OPTICS, retina) TO IDENTIFY THE ACTIONS OF LIGHT PHOTONS). So the contrast is THEORETICALLY INFINITE. However we know that the object being measured absorbed energy and should have a reaction according to Newtons law of motion in the opposite direction the photons .But thanks it is so negligible. It is TERMED negligible because of the degree of accuracy we are after. Our degree of Observation is so CRUDE that we accept there was no Perturbation. So it is a matter of convenience- The degree of error COULD BE easily OVERLOOKED. But the degree of error becomes more significant as we attempt to measure more and more delicate nature of the object’s (Phase?). Surely ALL measurements are ERRONEOUS It is just a matter of THE DEGREE of error tolerance we need for the particular exercise. It as about the ENERGY CONTRAST between the observer and the OBSERVED. In conclusion even the SUNRAYS reflecting on you body right now are RESISTING your motion though it highly unnoticeable-GREAT ENERGY CONTRAST between you Newtonian Kinematics and the Kinematics of Photons. You know when a scientist placed a paddle in the path of cathode rays (RAYS!) inside an evacuated (vacuum) tube.

it bounces away (elastic collision) or the two objects fuse (inelastic collision). In each case the mass, velocity, momentum, location, etc. of the target at the instant of the “measurement” can only be indirectly estimated after the collision.
There is a limit to the scale where you can make accurate measurements. Getting the scale smaller (finer grained) only serves to make your measurements more indeterminate.

In fact I now see that we are COUPLING .But not all the way. That is because I think you appear wrong in that INDETERMINACY HAD ALWAYS BEEN PERVASIVE IN ALL OUR MEASUREMENTS, NO MATTER WHAT THE DEGREE OF PRECISION may be. IT IS JUST A matter of convenience we placed-Our ERROR TOLERANCE. When the nature of measurement becomes more delicate the ACTUAL PRESENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ERROR BEGINS TO REAR ITS HEAD. It had ALWAYS been there- IN ALL MEASUREMENT SINCE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPACT (Tiny bullets) and consequently ACTION –REACTION.

23

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

That iswhat I am saying- Arghh… Got me! –

This does not mean that the spaceship represents time it only means the ship is in motion

Based on you previous statement, I think we appear to be in full coherence. However the statement

A Dyson Sphere, as such the spaceship becomes “time”

I believe should have properly read(Correct?)

A Dyson Sphere, as such the MOTION OF THE spaceship becomes “time”

Again as to the following statement:

Everywhere inside the Dyson Sphere. In this case, that “one time” is the Sphere itself.

And that is why I am IDENTIFYING our perceived/measured
TIME as ‘PACE’ and motion ‘WITHIN’ motion.Now According
to my theory, the spaceship’s motion = our ‘time’ AND the Spaceship = MATTER and the Dyson sphere is the DIMENSIONAL PARENT from where we (MATTER and consequently our ‘TIME’ ) were derived which I have called OVERTIME, the energy Field. I am talking of a Vertical Dimensional Relationship Here and not Horizontal. In that case I existing as the realm of TIME AND MATTER IS composed of DYSON SPHERE MATERIAL and cannot perceive Dyson sphere .I will need an extra SENSOR that can perceive
it to be able to obtain that knowledge.

We can’t say that we measure time by the spaceship because we don’t.
We measure time by the Dyson Sphere. If the Earth blew up tomorrow,
Earth time would also end.

True… True…What SYNCHRONANCE!. Nonetheless,according to my theory, WE NEVER PERCEIVED THE DYSON SPHER
Albeit I believe I May delve into my ideas and beliefs about TIME TRAVEL with you and Even obtain (?) explanations from you!
According to my theory, the DYSON SPHERE is expanding (OUTWARD )-In perpetual motion. And I said it is the’ REAL’ TIME. I merely IDENTIFIED it as another form of MOTION- Rate of Change. Now if I accelerate the Spaceship (= matter) in the Dyson Sphere (= Real Time), would my time (= motion of the Space Ship) in the Space Ship also accelerate?
This question seems foolish like saying is 1= 1?
Nevertheless, please Go on, Answer it.

No it’s not- for every part that increases, there is an equal part that decreases. The net-effect of this is akin to a dot on your screen going from left to right- the dot is not actually moving, a series of lights are being switched on and off and we percieve this as motion. Planck Units.

Actually should have said
“In fact it is THE STORED DATA of your NEURAL LAYERS!”

Instead of

“In fact it is your NEURAL LAYERS!”

24

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

My point is that there is only one universal time everywhere in the universe: the Planck Unit. Everything in the universe is measurable in Planck Units. Keep in mind there are trillions of trillions of Planck Units per second… they’re the frames that everything in the universe complies to.

25

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

origen2d,

The shortening is real in the sense that it can be verified experimentally.

The Rossi & Hall experiments in 1941 were one of the first experimental verifications of length contraction-time dilation.

In their experiments they used the decay time of atmospheric muons (mu-mesons). Muons are decay products of cosmic ray collisions with air particles in the upper atmosphere. The decay time for muons at rest was known from both their experiments and other experiments.

Atmospheric muons travel at ~.994 c. Absent relativistic effects they should rarely be detected at the surface of the Earth because the are created many kilometers up in the atmosphere. Given their mean decay time, their velocity and their original altitude they should not have sufficient time to travel to the surface before decaying.

Yet they were detected at sea level.

The experiment validated the Lorentz transformation for length contraction.

L’ = L [1-v^2/c^2]^1/2

Let L = 1
Let v = .994
Let c = 1

L’ = 1 [1-.994^2]^1/2 = .10938

This is precisely what Rossi & Hall’s experiment determined. Muon’s traveling at that velocity experience a length contraction of approximately 1/9th.

26

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

origen2d,

I think that one problem that you might be having with this issue is that you are dealing with Special Relativity.

The assumptions in this part of relativity is that the observers are moving at a constant velocity, in a “straight line”, they are neither rotating nor revolving and they cannot “see” their external environment to gather any clues that would help them determine who is moving with respect to a third frame of reference (a distant “fixed” star or galaxy for instance) that was taken to be at rest with respect to their original rest frame. It is also assumed that they never change their velocity. They move away from each other to an infinite seperation.

Thus each observer can take the view that one of them is in motion and the other is at rest. That’s why each can take the view that it is the other observer who is experiencing contraction-time dilation. In that case neither observer can verify which one is “really” traveling faster than the other (which one has experienced a change in momentum given that they knew each other’s mass when they were at rest with respect to each other).

In the real world, however, they can determine which one has the greater velocity and is experiencing both length contraction and time dilation. One of them has to slam on the brakes, turn around and go back to the other. The one whose clock has ticked off the least time is the one who slammed on the brakes and felt the accelerating force.

27

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

I think it involves a little more than traveling at the speed of light.
If you did travel at the speed of light wouldnt you require some sort of barrier around your ship in order not to be crushed to death by the force of resistance applied upon you?
Anyway Nice to meet you… I am very interested in learning more about what you know about the history of our world, I have some beliefs of the future of this place and I’m worried things may not being going as planned for a bright future. :stuck_out_tongue:

28

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

Well you might want to give the guy a little break, after all do you remember all the presidents deaths. If the guy did come back approximately 50 years, I dont think it would be that important to him.
~Keep the peace.

29

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

You folks are Great- The muon experiment cool, the Planck Unit’s introduction cool. Actually, as for me, I am not (Yet) using any Classical/Newtonian physics to deduce anything but just as mere CHECK and Balances. In fact I am PRIMARILY DEPENDING on the intuition of EVERYDAY OBSERVATION and LOGICAL INTERPRETATION / INTERACTION of natural phenomena to advance ‘a probing’ rather than the calculating tool of mathematics.

As to the Shortening, I also believed that it is ‘REAL’

Again one might paint a picture like this –If you would agree; and based on it, would FINALLY CONCLUDE that Time Travel into the future REALLY EXISTS and that it depends on the NUMBER (AMOUNT) of MOMENTS we ‘EXISTED’ and ARE consequently DETECTED by our Dimensional Genetic Origin’s (Parent Dimension) ‘Precision Gauge’(Goodness me!). And I am GOING FURTHER to DERIVE that We have limits of EXISTENCE (NATIVE life span) and that TIME TRAVEL CANNOT increase it (Just like the filling of the hour glass has a limit).And that even if Future time travel BECAME practicable, if a person having only a fragment of ‘time’ left to live IS ‘SAMPLED’ those AMOUNT OF ‘his’ TIME ‘LEFT’ while in time travel transit, he would kaput on THAT Time travel voyage before arriving at his destination.

Okay, It was ‘theoretized that we (Matters) are DERIVED from OVERTIME (Background Energy Field, A higher Dimension Energy). I also implied that TIME (Our ‘time’) depended on our neural PERCEPTION (composed of Matter).I will apply that observation to the shortening question posed above.

REFRACTION:

Light bends as it passes the interface of one medium unto another medium.
Why are the media differing? DIFFERING ENERGY LEVELS. More precisely DENSITY Difference- not due to GENETIC configurational discrepancies! (Please correct me).

OK, the media are composed of differing densities. Obviously, here, Light acts like a detector for that Density variation. In few words DENSITY CONTRAST redraws the path of light and consequently REAL IMAGES are returned as ‘APPARENT ‘only BECAUSE of THIS contrast.
But what really matters is that even though The Eyes record Apparent Vision the TRUE EXISTENCE and USEFULNESS of the apparentness CANNOT be debated-Fishes use it to stay alive.
We use it to study the stars-ITS THERE it is TRUE.

However that Density contrasts can be eliminated by applying enough energy to the denser
medium to simulate (By acceleration) the density of the less dense one and obliterate the contrast. This last statement will be instrumental in maintaining how Existence/Inexistence can be used to explain Time travel
If done then, light as a density detector is a dummy- It would not EVEN bend (refract). Yet note that there was mere energy increase BUT THE GENETIC NATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEDIUM IS STILL INTACT.

Now I believe the question as to whether there was REALLY shortening (Or Not) can also be
asked like this:

Did light ACTUALLY bend or NOT as it traversed one density to the other? Did its SPEED actually slow down?

The analogy of time Dilation System-Light Refraction System

  1. The Speeding Car System = Dense Medium (‘Higher’ Energy System)
  2. Observer Environmental System= Less Dense medium (‘Less Higher’ Energy System)
  3. Observer’s Time Pace = Speed of Light in Less Dense medium
  4. Car Driver’s Time pace = Speed of Light in dense medium
  5. Observer’s contracted image of speeding car = Apparent Image due to light refraction
    POSER:
    • Will Our TIME pace be REALLY ‘slower’ in the speeding Car System ?
    • Will speeding car become ‘REALLY’ SHORTER?

I believe from the posts that you folks have ‘proven’ that CONTRACTION of ACCELERATED objects ARE ‘REAL’, consequently TIME TRAVEL (At Least into the future) is A-GO! (Correct?)
In a following scenario I will hopefully be intimately drawing analogies to describe what could be ‘envisaged’ in a typical time travel operation.
Would also want to chip in that It appears we as Human scientists are somehow deceiving ourselves by attempting to idealize higher dimensional Existences using a 3-DM coordinates! I believe we FIRSTLY need to evolve a PRACTICABLE 4-Dm coordinate system. That System (If not available yet) would look like…. (Blimey! How do I place an attachment here?)
Till next time Sirs,
Keep on keeping on.

30

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

Hi Sirs.Wanted to give you a hint into whatz up elsewhere.This is strictly a personal Idea.I will First of all post the ‘review’ and sunsequently post the response.What do you think?

This was from MASURAO

                       POST

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Though I feel that there are some huge fallacies in origen2g’s train of thought, I am not certain I can express them properly, but I will try to, nonetheless.

First of all, you must acknowledge that, to human science (and perhaps simply to existence as well), location and motion cannot be accurately defined without time. Length can be measured in metres or yards, but motion is immediately a movement of said value per second (or minute, etc.) or how long it takes to traverse a certain distance. Concepts of ‘here’ and ‘there’ have no meaning if you cannot qualify them through a certain distance which they are removed from each other.

Einstein did say that we need time ‘just to keep everything from happening at once’, but we can also put that we need it to keep everything from happening everywhere. Without time ‘here’ would be ‘there’ and vice versa, as well as that ‘everywhere’ would be ‘here’. Simply put: we need time to qualify and quantify motion and location. You say that it is the other way around: a change in location means a passing of time to our senses, but this is not necessarily so: there is no law in physics that prohibits travelling a distance without the passage of time (i.e. teleportation), does this mean it happens naturally? No, or at least, not that we have observed, but it is possible and perhaps we will one day achieve it through artificial means.

In your thoughts, time is non-existent, there is only motion through a field of energy. But this concept is severely lacking, because if something is motionless, or cannot actively perceive such motion, your claim leads me to believe that object is effectively and entirely static: it doesn’t change at all, simply because it has no identifiable motion. A human on the outside of your hypothetical sphere, for instance, would not perceive a change in his surroundings and thus would perceive no passing of time.

You also put that what we call time is simply the ‘refreshing’ of our ‘perception’ at certain ‘intervals’. Sounds like a fancy way of describing how time is perceived by humans. It does not allow for the discarding of time, simply because you use the term ‘interval’, which in itself cannot exist without time, as it is used to measure the time passed between to moment. It can also be used to determine a distance that has been traveled, but, again, not without including the factor time.

I am also curious how you visualize clocks to change their way of measuring/telling time in accordance to a change in Nature. By all means manmade clocks are built entirely around our perception and are not affected by Nature other than through simply physics or chemistry, etc. Our biological clocks, should you have meant to refer to those, are also hard-wired genetically to a set time frame, even though they may change through habit and evolution, but certainly not to accommodate some hiccup in Nature.

Please accept this as constructive critiscism. I do not mean to slander you or your thoughts, as I find them to be very interesting. However, part of me just felt that something wasn’t right and had to express it.

31

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

Heloo Masurao,

Haba! We dey Fight? Abeg oh.
Ok.Don’t be alarmed. That’s from my mother tongue lingo.
Anyway, I will attempt to respond to your post and please note that solely in response to your Review am I responding. I may also ask some probing questions in the process. So please feel free to answer .Also feel free to comment. Your statements have been delimited by “*************”.Though I feel that there are some huge fallacies in origen2g’s train of thought, I am not certain I can express them properly, but I will try to, nonetheless.
First of all, you must acknowledge that, to human science (and perhaps simply to existence as well), location and motion cannot be accurately defined without time.

Of course ‘TO HUMAN SCIENCE’- OUR INVENTION birthed from Observation of Nature.
Because of this I might just simply say that I believe from simple explanation YOU ARE WRONG. Really, stochastic Investigations need TIME variables and could even create a couple more on the fly. But mere OBSERVATION NEED NOT ‘TIME ‘variables or even ‘MOTION’. We humans (I believe) NATIVELY lean to the OBSERVATION side of things. Okay where is the ORIGIN of space? I can boldly say At least we know none. However WE may ACTUALLY OBSERVE and KNOW IT and yet have no means of EXPRESSING IT IN ANY KNOWN LINGO-mathematical or what have you. OK.Where is the LOCATION of Earth on the Space HYPER Highway? Mile ExaGiga ,Earth Highway? We may even Actually PERCEIVE the earth on A REAL hyper highway location but not be able to ADEQUATELY Express that perception even if we try.
What I am attempting to refute is your statement that both location and motion cannot be existent completely OUTSIDE the defines of time. Don’t you think that once there is a ME AND YOU and a THIRD, Both quantities (Location and motion) can COMPLETELY exist? Really, I believe all we need is make US our reference points and DEFINE OUR LOCATION IN RATIOS OF OUR SEPARATIONS (LENGTH) AND ALSO OUR MOVEMENT. A SECOND DIFFERENTIAL SHOULD IMPLY THE ILLUSION of ‘time’. Albeit, because of quantifiable Expression or what have you, (Measurements and science) we had to create an arbitrary ‘COHERENT ‘ system for the sake of Sensibility, ORIENTATION, Accountability etc. However, for the system to be viable there must be TYING UP of one thing to another and consequently RELATIONSHIPS. Our ‘Time’ is one of our ‘creations’. We needed it to tie one variable to another. And it itself is based on OBSERVATION of CYCLIC MOTION of The sun. The sun JUST MOVES! In relation to what? TO ITSELF or else to a DEFINITE PATH at a ‘CONSTANT’ INTERVAL! What is the LENGTH of DAY and NIGHT? Tell me. NONE.But WE DO KNOW IT’S A CYCLE. We know only because we observed a FINITENESS of motion or CHANGE. We only USED its INTERVALS to CREATE and THEN calibrate our STOCHASTIC TIME. So we can say, ‘OBSERVATIONAL’ SUN MOTION (LENGTH CONSTANCY) birthed STOCHASTIC TIME MOTION.
Okay, what is cesium Vibration got to do with ‘TIME’? But we OBSERVED its constant CYCLES then created OUR TIME! You see, one ECHELON surpasses the other. Observation of Definite Cycle, then TIME calibration.

******Length can be measured in metres or yards, but motion is immediately a movement of said value per second (or minute, etc.) or how long it takes to traverse a certain distance.

Academic motion LIVES on Variables. Natural motion is based on SIMPLE OBSERVATION and CORRELATION. Okay for a trick of OBSERVATION-Relativity.
When a car speeds up it is noted by an observer that it shortens in length in the direction of its speed. In fact I am convincingly of the belief that the contraction of the fast moving car is REAL. Besides I hear it is CONFIRMED SCIENTIFICALLY by ROSSI and HALL. Now to him in the car, he is not contracted (Nothing has happened to the driver’s length) -YOU ARE. He sees you fly past ALSO. It appears that on both you (the standing observer’s side) and the Speeding drivers side, THERE ARE THE SAME OBSERVED SHORTENING BASED ON YOUR RELATIVE SPEED DIFFERENCES. Therefore Length is INVERSELY proportional to SPEED IN ALL CASES. IT IS A CONSTANCY-Observed AND Observer, THIS LENGTH. On the contrary, Time IS NOT. It is SLOWER in the fast car and faster in the Standing Observer. It varies with SYSTEMS! What does that inform us OTHER than that ‘TIME IS NOT REAL’ but ‘LENGTH’ is. Which time frame is real? Mine or His? Is it not of a consequential Answer that if our variable (Time) is REALLY ‘VARIABLE’ then NONE is REAL (i.e. time of either observer or observed)?
Does the varying TIME observations not remind you of vector Summation? Because don’t we note that something is constant in the INCONSTANCY of Time in the systems? Do we not note that IT IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to ENERGY (Rate of Kinesis here) IN ALL our aforementioned SYSTEMS)? WHAT then is time? What did it RELATE to that ‘REARRANGED’ its CYCLIC patterns in the speeding car that ACTUALLY, IT SLOWED DOWN? WHY? But wait. Do we note that the CAR WAS COVERING LENGTH (MOTION, LOCATION CHANGE) IN A FASTER INTERVAL? Can we also compare ‘TIME’ to LENGTH then? Remember Cycles of the sun ARE ACTUALLY LENGTHS….Or what is missing here? Am I not puzzled too?

Concepts of ‘here’ and ‘there’ have no meaning if you cannot qualify them through a certain distance which they are removed from each other.********************************************

Sure, sure…

CONTINUED NEXT POST

32

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

Einstein did say that we need time ‘just to keep everything from happening at once’, but we can also put that we need it to keep everything from happening everywhere. Without time ‘here’ would be ‘there’ and vice versa, as well as that ‘everywhere’ would be ‘here’. Simply put: we need time to qualify and quantify motion and location. You say that it is the other way around: a change in location means a passing of time to our senses, but this is not necessarily so: there is no law in physics that prohibits travelling a distance without the passage of time (i.e. teleportation),

I believe that, if the rate of that COVERING OF DISTANCE EQUALS THE RATE OF EXPANSION OF OUR HYPOTHETICAL SPHERE, THEN there would be no ‘TIME ‘in our SENSES.

does this mean it happens naturally? No, or at least, not that we have observed, but it is possible and perhaps we will one day achieve it through artificial means.********************************************
Possible.VERY,VERY. But practicable? Not sure.

In your thoughts, time is non-existent, there is only motion through a field of energy.********************************************

I believe hitherto that there is ONLY MOTION IN A MOVING FIELD OF ENERGY

But this concept is severely lacking, because if something is motionless, or cannot actively perceive such motion, your claim leads me to believe that object is effectively and entirely static: it doesn’t change at all, simply because it has no identifiable motion.

WE (and All matter at that) ourself are ALWAYS ‘NATIVELY’ EXPANDING ALONGSIDE the 4-DM sphere in a All (positive, negative) 3-dm coordinates motion (Expansion) at the same PACE (Or probably fixed phase) with the sphere(therefore STATIC RELATIVE wise to the also expanding sphere). But our senses do not also ACTIVELY perceive this expansion because it is beyond it. It only perceives A differential. Any other motion by us (of course always in 3-DM X, Y or Z coordinates or a combination of one or two of such coordinates)or another object within sensing range is REGISTERED by our neural system.

A human on the outside of your hypothetical sphere, for instance, would not perceive a change in his surroundings and thus would perceive no passing of time.********************************************

Yes. That’s within the precincts of this Tender. However I have not extended my scope of probing to that level. Indeed suffice for now, YES.

You also put that what we call time is simply the ‘refreshing’ of our ‘perception’ at certain ‘intervals’. Sounds like a fancy way of describing how time is perceived by humans.

Yeah.Yeah. Fancy. really, really.

33

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

CONCLUSION

********************************************It does not allow for the discarding of time, simply because you use the term ‘interval’, which in itself cannot exist without time,

Please rethink your assertion on INTERVAL –TIME interdependence. I honestly believe you are basing the statement on a false premise. If a man falls into coma as soon as he was born and comes out at age 50 what would he remember? To him there is a MOMENTARY ‘interval ‘ Of a single cycle of 50 Whooping years.But to another who is ‘ALIVE’ a whole 50 years has elapsed and his cycle of interval certainly is ‘smaller’ than 50 years! Okay let’s say the fellow has capacity to live 1000 years and he spent them in coma. What would he remember? The last (ACTIVE) Information gathered by his neural system before the coma. You cannot give what you do not own. EVEN TO THAT NEURAL SYSTEM ITSELF, THE INTERVAL DID NOT CHANGE. In fact there was no interval but a ‘CHANGE’ of former INFORMATION due to difference in current information and the former .The only thing that happened on his regaining of consciousness was a COMPARISON of his current NEURAL DETECTION WITH THE LAST NEURAL RECORD IN HIS SYSTEM if there is a DIFFERENCE. In any case, the fellow then ‘REMEMBERS ‘the last memory he had. There is only correlation of data. Okay why is it that You Promptly and vividly remember certain (difficult) things when at the Spot of the occurrence or when you attain the same posture as of at the occurrence? In fact it would seem that you ACTUALLY ARE RELIVING the experience! You may also think about this too.********************as it is used to measure the time passed between to moment. It can also be used to determine a distance that has been traveled, but, again, not without including the factor time.
I am also curious how you visualize clocks to change their way of measuring/telling time in accordance to a change in Nature. By all means manmade clocks are built entirely around our perception and are not affected by Nature other than through simply physics or chemistry, etc. Our biological clocks, should you have meant to refer to those, are also hard-wired genetically to a set time frame, even though they may change through habit and evolution, but certainly not to accommodate some hiccup in Nature.

I expressed that matter expands alongside the sphere (please refer to above).
If a Huge Single gear drives a set of other gears, surely its pace determines the pace of those driven gears. Those gears are not ‘Police’ of rates of change themselves and would not complain of over speeding when the Parent Driver gear breaks the speed limit (joke) unless YOU, the Engineer mount a speed detector on them .We do not have that speed detector here.

Please accept this as constructive critiscism. I do not mean to slander you or your thoughts, as I find them to be very interesting. However, part of me just felt that something wasn’t right and had to express it.

no qualms

34

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

The Freedom Tower construction began last year.

35

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

Feb. 2007 ----> Major eastern US blackout caused by snowstorm will leave 1/2 of NYC without power for 48hrs.

I don’t recall a blackout in NYC.

Apr. 2007 ----> Senator John Mclain suffers Heart Attack
As far as I know. NO HEART ATTACK.

Apr. 2007 ----> Major accomplishment in “Iraq Freedom” when 250,000 troops pulled out and sent home.
Bullshit. More troops are being sent now.

Jun. 2007 ----> Building begins on The Crystalline Tower, where your World Trade Centers used to be.
And will be the tallest building in the world for 20 years.
Freedom Towers are being built right now.

All of these claims are from recorded history text books from my classes @ UW-Madison in 2055-56.

This history book is not very accurate.

I wonder if one of these days someone will show up here or another fourm and have accurate infomation on the future.

36

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

The moment you (not you, but a person) do such a thing, you alter the future. Think about the consequences of disclosing the absolute truth about a future event, How many people are going to be involved in it or even trying to prevent it from happening? Just know this, some things are meant to happen and no matter what you do, it will happen, and no time traveller nor any other person can prevent it.

37

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

Origen2g: I am going to use this opportunity to once again list my manuscript subspace2007 which is available for download at www.badongo.com/file/2011740 . I would like to discuss time with you because you ask the right questions. If you will, look over my Ms. so you know where I’m coming from. It’s only 180KB,Wordpad.:slight_smile:

38

Re: Hello…Past. I'm the Future.

Hello Sir

I have since gone thru the entire text once but hope to do it a second time.

My personal observation is that the general fabric of the treatise was woven out of
general ‘doctrinal’ thread.

Or what do you think?

Could I request you possibly dwell a bit more in the domains of the ‘scientific’?

As per my thread of reasonings and ideas regarding Time :

it had been some time now since I last visited it.

Perhaps due to your request I should soonest dust up the ideas once again.

Cheerio!