"The future ain't what it used to be."

seek so shall ye find

the_real_Mr_X

Timekeeper
thought exists independently of the body and brain, but time is the creatoin of matter therefore can be controlled. thought is without time. i urge you to explore with truth and understanding that which the mind is capable of understanding and not that which the brain is restricted to. time is related to you as numbers, i offer to you that number and time have no depth. and they are really a dysfunction of the brain to keep you tied to the physical dimensions of the three-dimensional world. this current mind keeps you a prisoner in time and space in the material physical world you call reality. in conclusion, time can be controlled.


best wishes in the "future"
the real mr x
 
What if time is actually the smallest particle of matter?
Interesting thought. However, this would not mesh with the fact that mankind utilizes measures of Matter in Motion as our means of tracking time.

But forgetting that for a moment, can you expound on any thought-process or evidence that you have which lead you to this thought? In other words: Talk to me and try to convince me that time is the smallest particle of matter. Help me with your "foundation".

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Well, I must admit that it was just a mindtwist. However, a couple of weeks ago I posted a message (here). Now I know this message may have looked like it was induced by extensive drug abuse, but I'd like to take out one detail that might contribute to this thread and perhaps even to my little theory here:

I think the more "active" an object or a person is, the faster it disappears from a point in time. So if one would be able to travel back in time for lets say an hour, a rock would still be there but any living tissue would be gone.

Assuming "time" is the smallest particle of matter, I can imagine "time" has a certain amount of activity. Think of it like electrons orbiting around a nucleus. The more active a timeparticle is, the sooner it will move to a next point in time as we measure it. So a rock would have gazillions of (near)inactive timeparticles, while a leaf on a tree would have gazillions of active particles.

As I already stated before, I like science, but I don't have a scientific background. So please bare with me /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I hope I got the message across.

Roel
 
I just had another thought. Again, this one's best served alongside a good glass of 18 yr old Chivas Regal ;-)

I was wondering how to define or explain a singularity, assuming that time is the smallest particle of matter. Here's what I came up with.

1) "Timeparticles" with the same level of activity have the property of clinging together;
2) Everything conists of these "timeparticles";
3) A singularity equals one timeparticle.
4) A black hole would be one timeparticle the abscence of timeparticles in the space surrounding one single timeparticle.

Okay, that's enough for tonight...
 
Hi Roel:

Well, to be honest, I don't think you theory would be given a second thought by physicists. However, the following statement you made is most insightful, so let's look at it:
I think the more "active" an object or a person is, the faster it disappears from a point in time. So if one would be able to travel back in time for lets say an hour, a rock would still be there but any living tissue would be gone.
What you are discussing here is the PERSISTENCE of various forms of matter. The mechanism that determines the persistence of a given form of matter is actually chemical in nature. A rock does not chemically interact with its surroundings, and so it lasts longer than human tissue, which will chemically react with microbes and bacteria to break it down.

However, it is worth exploring your concept from the standpoint of how different forms of life (or non-life) PERCEIVE the flow of time. I pointed out a similar example in an earlier post, where if you ignored clocks, the average human would think time passed more quickly if they were busy...i.e. if they had a lot of "Matter in Motion" going on. On the flipside, a person who was simply sitting in a chair, with nothing to do or read, would think time passed more slowly. Now let's apply this concept to the difference between humans and trees. We know that trees have MUCH longer lifespans than humans do. We also know that trees are MUCH less mobile (have lower measures of matter in motion) than humans do. Therefore, if we assume that trees have some form of rudimentary perception (and experiments show they do), then it would be likely that they would perceive the passage of time MUCH more slowly than we do. What we call a year would seem more like a second in their lifespans. Now compare a human and a rock, and you see a MUCH larger disparity still!

If you accept this premise (and agree that Matter in Motion is really what helps us determine passage of time) then the conclusion would be that the flow of time is variable, and subjective (relative) to the observer's situation. So even though we may define what a "second" is to an extreme level of accuracy, it would likely mean nothing to an alien species, especially if they had much longer lifespans than we do....or, if they lived on a planet whose period around its sun was much longer than ours.

This sort of thinking, while it may not validate your theory that time is the smallest particle of matter, does help us realize that our limited human senses are NOT the "universal authority" on how things REALLY work. Time is likely not linear, but we pronounce it to be so simply because we believe that our senses tell us the whole truth.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Memory and expectation are not diametrically opposed, they are but two sides of a single coin . . .

As far as the singularity is concerned, are we talking about Schwarzchild BH's or Kerr BH's?

Ones' sigularity is a point, the others' is a ring (I will go ahead and assume that this would be common knowledge here . . .)
 
Well, to be honest, I don't think you theory would be given a second thought by physicists. However, the following statement you made is most insightful, so let's look at it:

I know...science is one of my major shortcomings. But please, educate me /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

In my twisted view of science, the only way to travel in time would be to decrease the activity of timeparticles in your body (and thus changing your physical form).

I think I could write a science fiction novel on this subject :)
 
Re: Mr. X

Would the real Mr. X please stand up!

You are old and wise, but do you really need that Blackthorn walking stick? I think you possibly use it to poke around and navigate where the mind wants to go, but the body not so readily.

There's more truth to those hands, the lines on your palms are like maps...

Remembering the first step on the street. Where would your days be without the scents of the rain, the smell of the city, the sod peat. Just what is it that intoxicates? Take a breath. Hold it. Let it go, find your center. The truth lies in the telling and retelling...

Could it be you possibly have relations to someone here?
 
I know...science is one of my major shortcomings. But please, educate me

In my twisted view of science, the only way to travel in time would be to decrease the activity of timeparticles in your body (and thus changing your physical form).
I forget the exact quote, but to paraphrase it: The hallmark of a great and wise person is one who knows their limitations and what they don't know. The hallmark of a fool is one who ignores their limitations, and trys to convince others they are not limited in a certain area.

And you are already going in the right direction. What you are talking about here when you talk about "activity of timeparticles" is better known by the word FREQUENCY. And frequency is the mathematical reciprocal of Time. e.g. Frequency = 1/Time. And if you make this connection, read-up on frequency concepts, and perhaps even abandon your vernacular of "timeparticles", you will be approaching those in the "mainstream". You will be able to better understand what these people are talking about, and converse with them on these topics. I'm not trying to be mean, I am giving you practical advice that can help you educate yourself. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But again...you are headed in the right direction. There are many, MANY people who are in agreement that changing one's frequency (either lowering it or raising it) is a key to dimensional travel. And the word "dimensional" is a more generalized way of saying not only Time Travel, but Mass Travel, and the more common form we already practice of Space Travel.

Keep it up Roel. I am definitely here to encourage you. And as another suggestion, you might want to understand (or even ask questions, if you don't) the concepts I am trying to relate, in how Mass, Space, and Time are an integrated matrix. You are, no doubt, familiar with the Keanu Reeves movies....and where they ask "What Is The Matrix?". The answer, IMHO, is that "The Matrix" is the 3x3 matrix of interaction we call Mass, Space, and Time.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Time, smallest particle of matter?
Intiresting, but how could we fathom it?
I mean... It would be a constantly changing shape, what would it look like? A blob? and could it sit still?

Too many questions, if only it seemed plausable, but I just don't get it.
 
First to Keven: It's tough to explain superstring theory in a few words, and in layman's terms. But the following answer to Roel's question might give you an intro. Do a Google on "Superstring Theory" and you'll find plenty of sites to explain the different variants on the theory:
What does "9" have to do with the Superstringtheory?
One of the common themes (threads? strings?) of superstring theory is that there are quite a few more dimensions than the 4-Dimensions (X,Y,Z + Time) that most people are familiar with. Forms of the theory say we cannot "see" these "extra dimensions" as they are very small, and packed inside the dimensions we do experience. Various versions of the theory have different numbers of total dimensions: Some say 9, others 10, and some go up to 16 or so.

I think Mr. X is making the association between my "3x3 matrix" and superstring theory by pointing out that "9" is the key to one form of superstring theory. While I do, indeed, believe that "my version" of physical dimensionality does relate to the superstring theories, I have not seen any of these theories describing how the "smaller dimensions" are "packed" in the same way I do.

As some of you may know, I maintain there are 3 "subdimensions" for each "primary dimension". This is how you achieve vectorized quantities for each primary dimension. To review the breakdown of how I see our dimensionality:

MASS is one primary dimension, and is comprised of the following vector-orthogonal subdimensions: <ul type="square"> [*]Proton (+) [*]Neutron (0) [*]Electron (-) [/list] SPACE is another primary dimension, and we are all familiar with its vector-orthogonal subdimensions: <ul type="square"> [*]X (+) [*]Y (0) [*]Z (-) (one could also choose spherical-orthogonal coordinate system) [/list] TIME is the third and final primary dimension, with vector-orthogonal subdimensions known as: <ul type="square"> [*]Past (+) [*]Present (0) [*]Future (-) [/list]
Further details of other superstring theories theorize that their small, "packed" dimensions (not the same as mine above) are actually formed of tiny "strings" which vibrate. The frequency at which these strings vibrate determine the properties of the subatomic particles that they comprise.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Yes, I've read about Superstringtheory... Like you said there are more variations on the subject and I just happened to stumble across one theory that talked about 10 dimensions. Hence the number 9 didn't seem as significant to me as it apparently is to some :)

So how should I interpret your matrix? Are all three primary dimensions "superimposed" (in lack of a better despription). How do these dimensions combine to form the universe as we experience it?

Roel
 
seek no fall dish yes

Can you crack the code of my subject line?
I just happened to stumble across one theory that talked about 10 dimensions. Hence the number 9 didn't seem as significant to me
Well, if you consider 9 of the dimensions are the ones I give above, one could potentially define the 10th dimension as the single CONSCIOUSNESS that manipulates the other nine dimensions....?
Are all three primary dimensions "superimposed" (in lack of a better despription).
Yes, that might be one way to describe it. Another way would be that the three primary dimensions are "intertwined" with each other (see below). Or...one might say that all three of these (actually all nine of them) are INTEGRATED together as a single unit. Three pieces of a single, integrated "system of physical reality."
How do these dimensions combine to form the universe as we experience it?
There are many different ways to envision it. I think one of the best ways is with the intertwined 3-10 Torus Knot developed by Stan Tenen at the Meru Foundation. Notice in the animation on that page that there are *three* elements, or "strings" that coil and intertwine together along a central axis. You could even call them triple helixes.

And speaking of helixes...don't we have intertwined helixes for our DNA? Hmmm. I wonder if there might be some sorta correlation there?


Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Back
Top