itsaboutimenow
Temporal Novice
I- hoped you'd made the discovery; watched the fire-works your 4th of july
Fire-works
- Thread starter itsaboutimenow
- Start date
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Fireworks are actually a visible lesson in the variability of Time, and how we set our internal Arrows of Time by the speed of our fastest sensory input.
As you watch the fireworks your brain is conscious to the fact that you are SEEING the event first with your eyes as the firework explodes in a spherical pattern, and then at some TIME later you are HEARING that same event with a significant TIME delay.
VELOCITY is the central, underlying theme to our matrix of physicality that explains such TIME delays and TIME manipulations.
An awful lot in our universe depends upon our Velocity Vector, and how we control it through the Force of our Will.
Quite simply VELOCITY is the first, most fundamental measure of Space-Time. Position is only about Space, but the first derivative of Position (Velocity) is the first physical measure where we relate a single measure of SpaceTime geometry.
Conservation of Momentum (angular and linear) has a good bit to do with a body's Velocity.
I wonder if there are any deeper lessons in this? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Stale/Old RMT, I reverted back for tonight only!
As you watch the fireworks your brain is conscious to the fact that you are SEEING the event first with your eyes as the firework explodes in a spherical pattern, and then at some TIME later you are HEARING that same event with a significant TIME delay.
VELOCITY is the central, underlying theme to our matrix of physicality that explains such TIME delays and TIME manipulations.
An awful lot in our universe depends upon our Velocity Vector, and how we control it through the Force of our Will.
Quite simply VELOCITY is the first, most fundamental measure of Space-Time. Position is only about Space, but the first derivative of Position (Velocity) is the first physical measure where we relate a single measure of SpaceTime geometry.
Conservation of Momentum (angular and linear) has a good bit to do with a body's Velocity.
I wonder if there are any deeper lessons in this? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Stale/Old RMT, I reverted back for tonight only!
The deeper lesson I see is this (pardon my simplistic approach...but that's how I am):
You noted two perspectives on experiencing a firework. One in the visible realm and one in the audible realm. Sit a blind man and a deaf man together and ask them to pinpoint the time at which the event occurs (explosion). You'll get two different responses. The difference in velocity of light vs. sound is irrelevant. It has to do with the realm that each is able to observer and sense.
There is another realm...the Spiritual. In which things travel at an altogether different velocity, but again, that is irrelevant. It has to do with our ability to sense and observe events in that realm.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.
You noted two perspectives on experiencing a firework. One in the visible realm and one in the audible realm. Sit a blind man and a deaf man together and ask them to pinpoint the time at which the event occurs (explosion). You'll get two different responses. The difference in velocity of light vs. sound is irrelevant. It has to do with the realm that each is able to observer and sense.
There is another realm...the Spiritual. In which things travel at an altogether different velocity, but again, that is irrelevant. It has to do with our ability to sense and observe events in that realm.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.
That's defining observing in very human terms. The deaf man still observes the sound as his body is affected by the sound waves. He may not be aware of it, but it still happens. The same that the blind man is still affected by the light waves. A blind man can still "observe" the sun's ray and get a tan. "Observe and observer", within the context of quantum mechanics, is a layman's term and not to be taken in a human context.
However, the examples of a blind and deaf man, and the concept of seeing before hearing are great examples of the paradox's of "simultaneous events". Place yourself in the proper position, and you can make any two events appear to happen simultaneously. This begs the question of what exactly is time? Two numbers are only different if another number lies between them. So perhaps we can say two events happen at different times if other events occur between them. But then, position yourself accordingly, and this chronolgy can be altered to appear to happen in any order. Move in the right place to a black hole, and the light rays can be bent and delayed from reaching me, an observer in a distant galaxy, so the information of your death reaches me before the information of your birth.
However, the examples of a blind and deaf man, and the concept of seeing before hearing are great examples of the paradox's of "simultaneous events". Place yourself in the proper position, and you can make any two events appear to happen simultaneously. This begs the question of what exactly is time? Two numbers are only different if another number lies between them. So perhaps we can say two events happen at different times if other events occur between them. But then, position yourself accordingly, and this chronolgy can be altered to appear to happen in any order. Move in the right place to a black hole, and the light rays can be bent and delayed from reaching me, an observer in a distant galaxy, so the information of your death reaches me before the information of your birth.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Bravo!
Clearly we see from this example that any human consciousness (that is capable of perceiving sequences of events) is going to set its "arrow of TRUE Time" in accordance with its highest dynamically responsive sense. This is, in fact, one thing I am pointing out in floating this case study.
Time, as perceived, is a very personal metric. Yet at the same Time, we can arrive at a consensus of Time (simultaniety) with other people... for sake of nothing more than trying to reach agreement on what really happened.
I'd like to hear more of what you have to say on this topic, Stonicus.
Rain Man Time
Yes. A VERY good question that I think many people believe is answered in a satisfactory manner... myself not being one of them.
Clearly we see from this example that any human consciousness (that is capable of perceiving sequences of events) is going to set its "arrow of TRUE Time" in accordance with its highest dynamically responsive sense. This is, in fact, one thing I am pointing out in floating this case study.
Time, as perceived, is a very personal metric. Yet at the same Time, we can arrive at a consensus of Time (simultaniety) with other people... for sake of nothing more than trying to reach agreement on what really happened.
I'd like to hear more of what you have to say on this topic, Stonicus.
Rain Man Time
I really don't have a good definition of time. Is it literally one of the dimensions we travel in, or is it merely an abstract concept? If it is a dimension, then I postulate that if you did travel "backwards" through time, you'd be all alone. Just as if me and you are together, and then I move 100 miles back, we're not together anymore. So if I travel backwards 10 years, I won't be on the Earth as it was 10 years ago, I'd be all alone in the fabric of space, as everything else is 10 years away on the dimension of time.
I've always been fascinated with the concept of the universe being a giant computer. When doing a simulation, you perform quantum ticks. You simulate the motion of objects using discrete amounts of time. Yet regardless of how long the computer takes to do it, each "cycle" every object will simulate the same time. So you tell 1000 objects to simulate their motion for "10 ms", even though it might take 5000 ms per object to do it. From our view, the computer is running slow, it's moving slower through time. Yet as far as the objects in the computer, they're chunking along normally.
So envision the fabric of space being a sort of computing medium. The more objects you have, the stronger the localized gravitational field, the slower that area seems to move through time. It's like the fabric of time is allowed N number of calculations. Put more stuff in there, and these calculations are now spread out amongst the items. A black hole has so many, it takes millions of years to simulate one cycle of 10 ms. But again, to those near the hole, time is running normally.
So perhaps you can think of time as an inverse measure of space-time density. The more dense it is, the slower it must move through time. Time = 1 / Density. Density = Mass / Volume. Therefore, Time = Volume / Mass. Einstein predicts as an object speeds up, it gains mass and loses volume. So, the faster you go, Time approaches zero. As you increase the mass of a localized group of objects, the gravity kicks in to "attract" everything together and lower the volume. So, a natural phenomenon of clustered objects is to tend to approach a higher mass with a lower volume through the force of gravity, thereby increasing the space-time density, and ultimately slowing the rate of time.
So now we have the natural progression of matter is to slow it's journey through time. Also, we have natural tendencies to move to a state of low energy and higher entropy, or higher disorder. If all of these are the universe's natural tendencies, it's not too much of a logical jump to think they are connected. So another way to look at time is a measure of order of a system versus overall energy of a system. Not too big a fan of this one, as the definition of "order" is very subjective.
Anyway, these are just a few ramblings off the top of my head. Hope I made at least a little sense. =)
I've always been fascinated with the concept of the universe being a giant computer. When doing a simulation, you perform quantum ticks. You simulate the motion of objects using discrete amounts of time. Yet regardless of how long the computer takes to do it, each "cycle" every object will simulate the same time. So you tell 1000 objects to simulate their motion for "10 ms", even though it might take 5000 ms per object to do it. From our view, the computer is running slow, it's moving slower through time. Yet as far as the objects in the computer, they're chunking along normally.
So envision the fabric of space being a sort of computing medium. The more objects you have, the stronger the localized gravitational field, the slower that area seems to move through time. It's like the fabric of time is allowed N number of calculations. Put more stuff in there, and these calculations are now spread out amongst the items. A black hole has so many, it takes millions of years to simulate one cycle of 10 ms. But again, to those near the hole, time is running normally.
So perhaps you can think of time as an inverse measure of space-time density. The more dense it is, the slower it must move through time. Time = 1 / Density. Density = Mass / Volume. Therefore, Time = Volume / Mass. Einstein predicts as an object speeds up, it gains mass and loses volume. So, the faster you go, Time approaches zero. As you increase the mass of a localized group of objects, the gravity kicks in to "attract" everything together and lower the volume. So, a natural phenomenon of clustered objects is to tend to approach a higher mass with a lower volume through the force of gravity, thereby increasing the space-time density, and ultimately slowing the rate of time.
So now we have the natural progression of matter is to slow it's journey through time. Also, we have natural tendencies to move to a state of low energy and higher entropy, or higher disorder. If all of these are the universe's natural tendencies, it's not too much of a logical jump to think they are connected. So another way to look at time is a measure of order of a system versus overall energy of a system. Not too big a fan of this one, as the definition of "order" is very subjective.
Anyway, these are just a few ramblings off the top of my head. Hope I made at least a little sense. =)
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
I think you've given a very good definition... but that may just be because you have presented an analysis that directly correlates with what I call the "Integrated Matrix of Massive SpaceTime".
FINALLY someone who has a good grip on science, AND has independently come to the same conclusion that I have! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Your dimensional analysis comes at it from a bit of a different angle (and ends up with the reciprocal of how I would define Time), but it is so close as to be the same. Let me throw my progression at you and see if it makes sense:
1) Is there a single, common precept for how we measure Time?
2) Yes. That principle is (for ALL our instruments that measure Time) TIME is measured by MATTER that is in MOTION.
3) You can think of any timepiece you like, and you will see this:
____a) Sundials = MOTION of the Earth (MASS) about its axis with respect to the Sun.
____b) Solar Calendar = MOTION of the Earth (MASS) around the Sun.
____c) Mechanical Watch/Clock = MOTION of gears (MASS) powered by a coiled spring (MASS).
____d) Atomic Clock = Oscillatory emissions (MOTION) of a specific form of MASS (Cesium).
4) Now we ask: What is MOTION? Technically, it is the TIME-DERIVATIVE of POSITION, and we call it Velocity. And the units of Velocity? SPACE per unit TIME.
5) Now we ask: What is MATTER? (This is where my theory slightly modifies standard theory to distinguish between MASS and MATTER). My body is MATTER, which is MASS that changes with respect to TIME. IOW, the Mass of my body today is NOT THE SAME Mass that my body was 5 years ago. Similarly, on a atomic scale, we know that atoms are by no means "static". The electrons form a "probability cloud" of where they might be at any point in TIME. And furthermore, we also know that subatmomic particles are constantly "changing into each other" which forms the perception that there are "static" protons and neutrons. So back to the question: What is MATTER? I say that MATTER is similar to MOTION, but it is measured as how MASS changes per unit TIME. In engineering we call this "Mass Flow Rate", and it is THE primary concept behind the production of thrust in a jet engine and torque in an internal combustion engine.
6) So now for the punchline... If TIME is measured by MATTER in MOTION, then we say TIME = MATTER/MOTION. Using the definitions of these provided above we end up with:
TIME = Matter/Motion = (Mass/Time)/(Space/Time) = Mass/Space (or Mass/Volume)
Now... this is the reciprocal of what you came up with, and the reciprocal of a measure of Time is a measure of Frequency. But in either case, we must finally realize that:
TIME (and Frequency) are measured by a CHANGE IN MASS with respect to a CHANGE IN SPACE.
Ultimately, what my theory states is that ANY attempt to separate the measure of Momentum or Energy into component "parts" (i.e. Mass, Space, or Time) will result in error. Thus, I deem that the things we call Mass, Space, and Time are CONCEPTS that are APPROXIMATIONS of what we perceive to be true. None of these three things are "real". The only "reality" is Momentum and Energy, and this is completely backed by science via Conservation Laws.
Now.... let me go further. If you accept this premise that Mass, Time, and Space are "concepts" which are actually all tied-together (integrated), we can use "similar triangles" logic to analyze how you change one by a change in the two others. The one we are familiar with is:
To move THROUGH SPACE, we need to expel MASS over periods of TIME. Hmmmm...sounds EXACTLY like how we produce thrust from a jet (see above), and indeed it is! The difference between the Mass Flow Rate input to a jet's inlet and the Mass Flow Rate coming out of the jet's exhaust nozzle is directly proportional to the amount of THRUST we get out of it...and that Thrust is what makes us move through Space.
Using the "similar triangles" approach, we now simply swap-out the parameters we wish to control. IOW, we wish to travel THROUGH TIME (viz. SPACE). Then it must stand to reason that if we wish to do this we will need to modify BOTH Mass AND Space such that we can create a displacement in TIME.
RMT