The Matrix - Integrated (Massive SpaceTime)

[RainmanTime]

Here are some drawings that might help folks visualize the 3 primary dimensions of The Matrix, and their 3 subdimensions. Essentially, we begin with something most people with a rudimentary understanding of science can comprehend: A 3-dimensional (Cartesian) coordinate system for Space:

The first (yellow) drawing shows how we measure positions and displacements in the dimension we call SPACE. We specify some relative origin (the white dot) and we measure spatial distances from that origin in the X, Y, and Z orthogonal directions.

We can visualize Mass in very much the same way, as we show in the second (blue) drawing. Instead of spatial coordinates, we have replaced them with a quantity of masses, in the form of how many protons, neutrons, and electrons interact for any given element of mass (review the periodic table).

And finally, we can also visualize a Time Field in the same way as Space and Mass, as we show in the third (green) drawing. Now, this one looks really weird and seems harder to comprehend than the other two. The reason is because we are always trapped in the illusion of our perception that time is linear. That time flows from the past, thru the present, and into the future. Such an interpretation looks at the present as a single point, not an entire axis as shown in the above diagram. But think about this quesiton: Is YOUR individual PRESENT the exact same as anyone else's individual PRESENT? Some might be surprised, but the answer is NO! It cannot be, because you are composed of different MASS than other people, and you also occupy different SPACES than other people. So your PRESENT TIME is unique to you. And Roel's PRESENT TIME is unique to him. And with all the living beings/animals on this planet and in this universe, we can see that this is what comprises the axis of the PRESENT. Multiple, individual, and indeed infinite PRESENTs. The other two axes are easier to understand, if you look at them similarly. There are also multiple, individual, and infinite PASTs and FUTUREs, because we all travel distinct "world lines".

We can talk and discuss many different aspects of what it means to say Time is 3-dimensional in the way I have described and shown. For instance, think about this: What would be the significance of the difference between "positive + past" and "negative - past"? Or "positive + future" or "negative - future"? CLUE: It has to do with the human capacities for both direct experience & memory, as well as vivid imagination.

Oh yeah...by the way. These drawings will eventually show up on my website page for "Science-9", which will further describe aspects of this matrix view of physical reality. So you guys are seeing a bit of an advanced preview with these discussions. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[JamesAnthony]

Interesting drawings. It took me a while to get the ideas right in my head but I still have a few questions...

In the 3D mass field, every atom would have to have a separate field - ie you can't display two atoms on the same field. Imagine two oxygen atoms beside each other - both would appear at the same point on the 3D Mass field. Are you proposing a structure of the universe which has a 3D mass field for every concievable point of reference on the 3D Space field? Would the mass of the respective units of the 3D mass field bear importance - what about the charge?

I still have trouble understanding the 3D time field. Are you saying that there are a variety of diffent pasts, a variety of different futures and a variety of different presents? And at every reference point a different 'now'. Have I got it? But therein lies the problem. If different points refer to a different 'now', then this is not really a 3D time field but rather a map of the multiverse. There's still a forth dimension missing do demonstrate the alteration over time.

Interesting concepts. Could be an intriguing topic...

James

 

[JamesAnthony]

We can talk and discuss many different aspects of what it means to say Time is 3-dimensional in the way I have described and shown. For instance, think about this: What would be the significance of the difference between "positive + past" and "negative - past"? Or "positive + future" or "negative - future"? CLUE: It has to do with the human capacities for both direct experience & memory, as well as vivid imagination.

Not quite understanding this. A more interesting aspect would be what is the difference between "past(negative value)' and 'future(positive value)'

James

 

[Roel van Houten]

Okay, I think I understand the concept. It's hard to visualize, but I've made an attempt anyway.

What I've basically done in the two illustrations below is take the 3 dimensions, combine them in one graph and project my life onto it.

Some further explanation:

MyLife®

- My current age is 26 years old. I've put ages 10, 20 and 26 on every axis, eventhough it's not always relevant on the Z axis.

- The purple/red line represents my life in time, the orange/red "cloud" represents my life in mass.

MyOtherLife®

- This is actually the same graph, rotated 90 degrees in order to make the alternative lifeline visible.

- The black line represents an alternative lifeline caused by a certain choice I make at age 10.

This is basically the way I interpret your matrix now. It might not be what you had in mind, but hey, it's a start. To simplify the graphs I made them assuming I only move in one direction my entire life. Of course, even if I maintained one course in my entire life, the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun would change my position.

My "time" starts at the origin of the graph (0,0,0). This seemed logical to me since at that point I don't have a past, I have my entire future ahead of me and I do have a present. Since the future is a variable factor, I assumed that the future remains proportional to my present, until something happens that would change that. At age 10, my present has moved 10 years since my birth. At that point I also have a past of 10 years. If I was able to look into the future at age 0, I'd see that 10 years will have passed until I reach the age of 10. If nothing happens, this line will continue into infinity.

My "mass" is represented by a cloud. Since our bodies contain numerous different chemical compounds, that means that a single body will occupy a threedimensional space within the matrix. The cloudshape I've drawn is completely random.

The second graph shows what would happen if I make a certain decision at age 10. For instance, lets assume I started smoking at age 10, causing me to die at age 20. That would change my future seriously. On the exact moment I die, my personal future ends / becomes zero (or if you're religious you might think that the line would still continue into the other quadrant, which theoratically could be heaven or hell).

Of course in reality the timeline and my position in space would be much more complex. A proper graph combining the three matrixes would look way different, probably something like the model you linked to recently. But tell me what you think of my interpretation and if it even remotely fits into your theory...

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

(Massive SpaceTime) Discussions

Hello James & thanks for the thoughts. I'll give you my cuts and thoughts on them, one at a time:

In the 3D mass field, every atom would have to have a separate field - ie you can't display two atoms on the same field.

Well, this limitation would only need apply if you were only considering mass constructs at the atomic level. However, if you look at this Mass Field Diagram with a "systems of systems" viewpoint, and apply the concept of "fractal self-similarity" at each systemic level, then one could generalize the 3-D orthogonal mass field at all levels of the system hierarchy. Subtomic particles is one level of hierarchy, atoms is the next, molecules are next above atoms, and then we get to compounds, and cells, and tissues, and organs, and networks....on up the hierarchy chain. At each of these layers of the hierarchical mass model, one can define orthogonal mass field measures. Think of it just like Space, where it is not ALWAYS X-Y-Z that is the orthogonal coordinate set used. Sometimes we choose spherical coordinates, and sometimes cylindrical coordinates. And we define transformations to go from one to the other. The concept of both Mass and Time are the same. Perhaps another way to envision it is to ignore the words "electron, proton, and neutron" as being peculiar to the atomic level. Instead, focus on the more general terms of Active (-), Neutral (0), and Passive (+). In fact, these more generalized words could replace the specific orthogonal axis definitions for all 3 primary dimensions. We could speak of each, Mass, Time, and Space as having (+), (0), and (-) orthogonal measures. We choose the specific coordinate (Mass, Time) frame of reference that applies to the analysis task at hand.

Are you proposing a structure of the universe which has a 3D mass field for every concievable point of reference on the 3D Space field? Would the mass of the respective units of the 3D mass field bear importance - what about the charge?

Not for every conceivable point (as this is a concept associated with Space), but for every conceivable Mass, it has a 3-D orthogonal Mass Field. At different systemic layers of that mass (say, your body) you express the single 3-D mass field in different ways. And as far as charge, you've hit the nail on the head. See my comments immediately above. Charge (-,0,+) is the more inherent (generic) way to think of not only the Mass field, but all 3 of the primary dimension vector fields.

Are you saying that there are a variety of diffent pasts, a variety of different futures and a variety of different presents? And at every reference point a different 'now'. Have I got it?

You're getting close. You're approaching an understanding, but you are right in that Time is a tough one to gain a full understanding of. You might get a better understanding after waiting for and reading my Science-9 page on my website when I get it done. But for now let me offer this: Remember that since we are talking about Time, the concept of a reference point (spatial) is not appropriate...just as I mentioned above for Mass.

But therein lies the problem. If different points refer to a different 'now', then this is not really a 3D time field but rather a map of the multiverse. There's still a forth dimension missing do demonstrate the alteration over time.

Well, it is a map of the multiverse, in a way, but not how you are thinking of it here, and it's not really a problem. You don't need a 4th dimension to demonstrate alteration over time, because you are only talking about time, as the time field.

Let's try thinking about it this way: TIME (which orders events) is the central dimension of perception, which is the function of human cognition. We perceive things over time. So the infinitely different "nows" is really relating to multiple different consciousness units that are all perceiving different "nows". But don't think of these as bodies made of mass (even thought that is the machine we are incarnated in) and don't think of these as occupying spaces (even though our bodies do occupy space). Think instead of disembodied, conscious points of view....observer functions. This is what comprises the "infinite number of nows".

And then, when we roll it all up, and integrate the 3 orthogonal primary dimension fields together, that is when we get the "full picture". Our integrated human existence is a body, comprised of Mass, which occupies and travel through spatial fields, and infused within these other two primary dimensions are time-based fields of "observer functions". The non-physical Mind/Soul/Spirit are those observer functions that generate the 3-D time field. Yours, mine, and every one and every thing else's.

Not quite understanding this. A more interesting aspect would be what is the difference between "past(negative value)' and 'future(positive value)'

Yes, those certainly would be interesting aspects to discuss....so why not give them some thought, and assimilate some of the ideas I have given you above, and tell us what you think these things mean and why you find them intriguing...

In the meantime, let me describe more of what I was hinting at, to help you understand. Again, we focus on the "observer function" that corresponds to our individual consciousness. Our Mind/Soul/Spirit observer elements, if you will. From my own perspective of my observer function, I am perceiving a very specific version of "present". I call that my 0Present reference point, because it is the one I am really perceiving/observing. There are any number of things that I am NOT perceiving/observing right now. For example, I am not being eaten by a lion. Since I am not presently being eaten by a lion (a mass-space perception), then this would be called one version of my -Present. I am also not putting on a clown show for an audience. That is another -Present. There are no lions around me in my 0Present, and I have no clown makeup nor an audience in my 0Present. On the flipside would be the +Present. This repsents the infinite space of possibility for what I COULD BE perceiving/observing in the present. Let's say my 0Present is looking at a computer screen and typing on the keyboard. Well, there are other elements here that I can shift my perception onto in my next moment of present. Those are the +Present elements that I can possibly shift my 0Present focus to in the next moment of Present when I "arrive" there. A bit complicated, but can you see the balance?

The same holds true for (-,0,+) Past and (-,0,+) Future. I will give an example for Past, and perhaps you can give one for Future. 0Past was the actual past event that I experienced and observed. This was a point of reference on my worldline, and it represents an element of my memory of going thru that observation, when it was a "present". -Past would be a past that DID NOT and COULD NOT have occurred in my past. This would be analagous to a fanciful story I might tell you about how I flew from California to New York by just flapping my arms...no plane needed. Nice fairy tale, but I am sure you agree that this is a past that had very little probability of actually being experienced. Flipside is +Past. Since it is not 0Past, it is not the actual past event that I perceived, but rather this is the infinite space of events that COULD HAVE occurred in my past. In other words, it is still a story, because it does not match the original event, but it is certainly within the realm of believeability and achieveability that it could have happened. An example of +Past could be either a lie that someone tells someone else, and it's believeable enough that it might appear to have been your 0Past. Another example would be a mystery/detective novel of events that are plausible enough that they COULD have happened in someone's past, but they didn't.

OK...how's that...thoroughly confused? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I hope not. But as I say, my material is still under development, so hopefully I can refine the explanations above, and add to them as I go along. And certainly talking with smart folks like you, James, is helping me figure out how to convey this model, and help people understand.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: (Massive SpaceTime) Discussions

oooooookaaay... I guess that means back to the drawingboard /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm getting there, but it's complex matter for an "alpha person" such as myself

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: (Massive SpaceTime) Discussions

Hi Roel:

oooooookaaay... I guess that means back to the drawingboard

Actually, I just spent so much time responding to James' posts last night that I got too tired to respond to yours right away.

Don't give up completely on what you drew and explained. If you will notice, your distinction between "My Life" (R) and "My Other Life" (R) is right along the lines of what I just discussed for -Past, 0Past, and +Past. Can you see that? You're not really that far off the mark! And oh, by the way, your drawings are excellent! What drawing package do you use, if you don't mind me asking a trade secret?

I need to get a decent package myself, as I am doing things the "ultra-cheap" way by drawing things in Powerpoint and exporting them as JPGs. I know there is a better way, but I am just too lazy/cheap. I get all my software tools at work purchased for me! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

One major thing to understand about the concept of the timefield is the enormity of the human imagination! Think about it: Only the 0Past element of the timefield represents your ACTUAL worldline. Which is an infinitesiaml subset of the POSSIBLE (and even IMPOSSIBLE) pasts you could have had given the concepts of +Past and -Past. This realization is important, because it leads us further down the road of understanding that human consciousness (or any other form of physical conscious being in the universe) forms the real tapestry for "reality" in any given dimensionality.

And Science continues to approach, and merge with, Spirituality (which is NOT the same as Religion!). In all honesty, it cannot be stopped, short of complete human extinction. It is our destiny.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: (Massive SpaceTime) Discussions

Don't give up completely on what you drew and explained.

Ah good. Like I said, it was a first attempt and it is, afterall, very complex matter to visualize. I'm a desktop publisher by profession, so I have the uncontrolable urge to visualize everything to help me understand things. In this case I used Adobe Illustrator, which is one of the industry standards for creating vectorized artwork. I tried visualizing it in 3d Studio, but it was too much work, perhaps I'll make another attempt when I understand the model as a whole. Right now it seems to me as if the three primary dimension can't really be combined in one graph using a 3d coordinate system. Not the way I tried to do it anyway.

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Chaos - Complexity arising out of Simplicity

Yes, Roel, the deeper we go in our attempt at analysis, the more complex it seems to get. When one considers the science of Chaos Theory, this might actually tells us we are onto something! Natures demonstrates highly complex, non-linear phenomenon that arise out of something very simple (a closed-loop, feedback system). This is what Chaos Theory is all about.

And now step back from your honorable quest to understand the complexity of the nuances of my model. Look at the top level (Mass, Time, Space) and see if you can convince yourself that it IS pretty simple, until you try to delve into the depths. In your life, you perceive & identify THINGS, which are Mass. You also perceive and identify PLACES, which are SPACE. And as you watch the interplay of THINGS (Mass) and PLACES (Space), you derive, notice, and keep track of TIME. And at this point, allow me to again post-up another diagram from my website that I have posted earlier:

Complexity (of both understanding and of expression) occurs as we begin to INTEGRATE the simple pieces that we start out with to describe our universe. That is one message that this diagram is trying to convey. As we define MATTER as being MASS fields that interact with (change over) TIME fields, we see that MATTER is more complex than the simple idea of MASS. Similarly, on the other side of the triangle, we integrate SPACE with TIME and define a more complex measure of reality that we call MOTION. What we are seeing is the evidence of the old saying of systems engineering that I always state: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is the message of Chaos as to how complexity arises through integration.

And one more thing we need to keep our minds around. The "true reality" of our universe is NOT the individual aspects we try to analyze as Mass, Time, and Space. These are simply the orthogonal means by which we describe what we experience. The "true reality" of our universe can only be comprehended by considering these 3 pieces in their natural, INTEGRATED state. And this can only really be "understood" from a higher, more integrated dimensionality. This is why science focuses on ENERGY. Energy is THE integrated measure of the orthogonal Mass, Space, and Time fields. When you look at the units of Energy in such famous equations as E = m*c^2, or K.E. = 1/2(m*v^2), we see that all forms we use to describe energy from a scientific standpoint are a blended mixture of Mass, Space, and Time.

Energy is the integrated "true reality" of our 3-dimensional universe. And what is even more intriguing is that the way we perceive Energy in our limited 3-D realm with our limited senses, is NOT the same way that Energy exhibits itself if you were viewing it and perceiving it as a 4-Dimensional "Hyperbeing".

I hope this helps a bit more in the understanding. Do continue to post with your questions, comments, and realizations. It is only by sharing/understanding as a group of distributed minds that we will "crack this nut". :D

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[creedo299]

Re: (Massive SpaceTime)

To James Anthony; What you must understand to the nature of the Rainman disclosure, is that this representation is of pure academic thought, not probably how events are.

As passed over, Keven had asked in another string, what is the nature of super string theory?

Stringed theory, in its simplistic form, state that null space, is really not such, however a null void filled with filaments.

So what might be going on in supposedly null space, is that empty space, is really a modified sort of matter.

I refer to this, as M+, or stringed other frequency universe.

Because of the quatent known as Quantum flux, where particles seem to come out of nowhere, there is a denotation that supposedly null space can with the right frequency, be enacted on, as a sort of matter.

This is via frequency.

I will now stop this line of through and refer to your questions, on 3-D space.

Three D space, is only the frequency of space, which is encouraged by this central sun, within this area of the universe, at this relative time?

If one goes into other areas of space, they will encounter other frequencies of time-space, which resonate art differing frequencies.

The term massive space time, should not be connotative to space-time in general to the universe, as at any one time, the nature of space and time is not always even.

This is reflected in early cosmology theories, referring to the primordial universe, as primordial soup.

The right fixture to locate relative times, which are of interest to say you, if it is your mission to find this, would be best suited to the term, T-mass locals.

This terms is most effective, as time invest within frequency, in relationship to planetary bodies as well as other celestial objects.

This is similar to a chaos manifold, however say in supposed time travel, the traveler would always have to account for the random chance that during their time travels, into either time forward or past, in this frequency or another, that time and space would not be of a constant nature.

This is known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

This statement vies to the proposals, said by a mathematician,. that all problems within the known universe, can be solved with the principal number of zeros, ones and twos.

Hope that this helps you?

Note that the corner or XYZ co'ords, only apply in some instances to a known predicted outcome.

A plastic manifold of space-time where frequency variants the nature of space and time, remains to be seen?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: (Massive SpaceTime)

What you must understand to the nature of the Rainman disclosure, is that this representation is of pure academic thought, not probably how events are.

The same sorts of things were said of Einstein when he first floated General Relativity. All ideas about how to explain what we perceive as reality begin as academic thought. There is only one thing that will determine whether said academic thought does, indeed, reflect "probably how events are", and we call it the future....how that academic thought matures. Now, I am in no way trying to equate myself with the brilliance of a person like Einstein. I am only describing what my 22+ years of studying science, topology, sacred geometry, and mystical texts has revealed to me.

Three D space, is only the frequency of space, which is encouraged by this central sun, within this area of the universe, at this relative time?

As usual, most of what is in a post by Creedo is difficult to sort out and understand. But also, as usual, there are nuggets of wisdom and pertinence which might be worthy of further discussion and clarification. The statement above is one of them.

As discussed before, the concept of Frequency is related to the Time domain, as an inverse mathematical relationship (F = 1/T). Trying to discuss "frequency of space" can get confusing, because frequency is not directly related to Mass or Space...only Time. HOWEVER, the "gem" in what Creedo is trying to point out is that there are EQUIVALENT concepts for Mass and Space that follow the same form as Frequency and its relationship to Time. We, in the science world, just don't refer to them as Frequency, because of the obvious confusion with Time. So let's review how we discuss these equivalent concepts:

MASS Equivalent of Frequency
If we examine the relationship X = 1/M (where M=Mass), what sort of physical reality would be described by "X"? Just like Frequency is a "cycle" of Time (something per unit Time), this "X" is a "cycle" of Mass (something per unit Mass). Most often this is referred to by the term "Specific Mass". This inverse measure of Mass allows us to compare (integrate) certain "specific Masses" with other dimensional elements, to see how those other dimensional elements are affected by a "specific Mass". This is exactly the same way that Frequency is used with Time. It allows us to see how other dimensional elements integrate with "Specific Time" (e.g. Frequency). This reciprocal relationship is key to understanding how to "do" metric engineering of integrated Space-Time.

SPACE Equivalent of Frequency
We simply "repeat the recipe" we just explained for Mass. Let's set the equation Y = 1/S (where S= 3-D Space). This allows us to measure "something per unit Space", or rather, per unit Volume (3-D Space). We most often refer to this as "Specific Volume." And also similar to how we described Mass...just as Frequency is a measure of a "cycle of Time", so also is Specific Volume a measure of a "cycle of Space". This is also a key to understanding metric engineering of integrated Mass-Time.

So now, thanks to some "help" by Creedo, we have defined a set of 6 orthogonal and complementary "metrics" (forms of measurement) by which we can study the intricate complexity of integrated MassiveSpaceTime:
<ul type="square"> [*]TIME and its complementary metric FREQUENCY. [*]MASS and its complementary metric SPECIFIC MASS. [*]SPACE and its complementary metric SPECIFIC VOLUME. [/list]

NOTE: As the story has grown, one should take note of the fact that all of the more complex entities I discuss do not in ANY way contradict our measurement systems of "mainstream science". In fact, we are headed down a road that will actually not only show us where the mathematics of Calculus originates from, but also validate its worth. The ONLY elements in my model that "violate mainstream physics pronouncements" are that I define both MASS and TIME as 3-d orthogonal vector concepts, just like SPACE. Mainstream physics insists these are scalar quantities. So it is very possible that I am not so much "violating" mainstream physical models, as I am helping to "modify" them for a more complete model of integrated physicality.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[creedo299]

Re: (Massive SpaceTime)

Edit note to my post in this thread only:

xyz axis, can also be meant to assimilate the cartesian coordinates, of superior line segment to inferior, then branched composnts of line segments A to B, then branched to inferior points C and D.

Einstine's extra scailer dictated that line segments ABCD, also had shadow components of EFG and H, which were line dashed, to represent hidden other frequency realms.

What the Einstein simple to said understand does not cover, are coordinates made in curvilinear space.

This one fact, restricts all multiple phased scalier attempts, where straight line effigeys, do not represent time and space as this model would apply?

The dimension that we exist in, is dictated by our realizations to this reference by a multitude broadcaster.

This would and must be the central sun, as realized in frequency, to humans at this point juncture, as the central sun is a pulsed modulated affair.

This pulsed modulation affects the structure and frequency of time and space within this solar system, so our three D reference would stem from the central sun's output.

However please note that this is only one said influence, for the most part on our said references, within the classically held sense of how were perceive the reality we are in.

Other inputs, such as large meteorites, bending space and time, in their own influces, would affect how space and time is told.

The debatable point of how people in their mentalities reference to space and time, as a multipart application, is not debated at this point.

My only reference given here, is within the topologigies of the nature of time and space within this string.

Thank you

 

[RainmanTime]

The Context - Integrated (Massive SpaceTime)

I wanted to resurrect this thread, because what I am going to present now is a follow-on to the Massive SpaceTime model I have presented in this thread. You've heard me speak a lot about how our perceptions do not tell us "the whole truth" about physical reality. And then you've heard me describe how Mass, Space, and Time are simply our perceptions of different dimensions of an integrated "sea of Energy". So, if we classify the Massive SpaceTime model as a "system" unto itself, then we would come to understand this "system" by examining the context within which such a "system" exists.

What you are looking at in this diagram is the bottom portion of the Qabalistic Tree Of Life. Let's begin with the bottom and work our way up the Tree: The number 10 represents the sum total of all physical reality, or what I call the Physical Matrix. As I have discussed before, this is one, single, integrated "thing" whose fundamental construct is undifferentiated Energy. Our human senses can only sample pieces of this Physical Matrix, and that is because our physical senses are all limited (i.e. not of infinite bandwidth). Once one attempts to separate the integrated Energy into component parts, this is where the illusions begin. Those illusions take the form of our perceptions, which are rooted in the Massive SpaceTime Matrix, whose dimensional components you can see assigned to the three pathways up the Tree from #10.

The pathways of Mass, Space, and Time are illusions of the true nature of physical reality, because they are discrete, quantized measurements of a 4-dimensional entity (Energy). The fact that all of our human bodies are of common design, with little variance in the bandwidth of our senses, makes the concepts of Mass, Space, and Time appear "real" simply because we can share our experiences with other people, and they "agree" because their perceptions are limited in the same manner. These 3 pathways, that represent the Massive SpaceTime Matrix of Physical Reality, are nothing more than discrete channels of information that our non-physical minds use to interpret the various forms that Energy can assume in our 3-D reality. Just like any bi-drectional information channel, these channels of Mass, Space, and Time transmit information in both directions: Information moving upward represents the information that our physical sensory apparatus deliver to our mind in the quantized packets of Objects (Mass), Distances (Space), and Duration (Time). The downward direction of these channels represents commands from our mind to effect changes in the Physical Matrix.

The red triangle composed of spheres 7, 8, and 9 represents our conscious mind. Now don't make an error here: I did NOT say "brain", I said "mind". The mind is a non-physical entity (just like software) which happens to execute on a physical thing called a brain. The physical structure of the brain exists down at sphere #10 with all the other objects of Mass that occupy Space over periods of Time. The mind is pure information. So what does the mind think about? Well, look above the red triangle and you will see three words assigning generalized functions to the 3 nodes of the triangle. These 3 words describe the "higher level system context" which the Massive SpaceTime Matrix makes possible. These words describe the foundational concepts that your conscious mind operates within: You categorize your mind's interaction with the world in terms of Matter (Mass that changes over Time), Motion (Space that changes over Time), and Tense (Temporal perception of causality induced by observing Matter in Motion).

Time for my Tuesday workout...more later if there is any interest from the forum. Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[creedo299]

Re: The Context - Rainman is not the Easter Bunny.

Dearest Ray' The area that I disagree with you in, is your perception of density.

You are attached to the third density thing, it seems for either personal belief reasons, or possibly political reasons.

Just for this forum here, I have it on a very good source, that when the Atlantians came here some one hundred thousand years ago, they were fourth dimensional beings, also said as forth density.

This is out of the old Spiritweb, which is closed down now, but can be reached via a web site, know as the way back.

Proximity to any one planet, gives time density.

You can inverse this and derive mass density time, however time density is what I will use for demonstration purposes.

With regards to black holes, it is both angle of entry into veneer entry point into time density, that gives you your out principles within another coordinate, or the universe.

On the QT, I hear that black holes, as well as both planets and brown dwarves, are used this way, let's say by a division of the New York Taxi Association?

Time mass density can also give corosponace into lighter or heavier dimensions.

It is all in both the angle that you hit the veneer points and the proximity to any one massive object, that your exit point is at.

White holes are not necessarily exit points from black holes as there are two kinds of white holes.

Some might be grand, however other are always in clusters, like static electricity tornados.

When the Atlantians came here after a while, they had started to slip from a fourth density state of being, down to third.

This made them very crabby and also not at ease with their collective situations.

This was brought out in the 1960's movie on the Lost Continent Of Atlantis, that just by chance, hit the nail right on the head about genetics abuse of the slaves the Atlantians held.

They weren't all bad, they bread into the Greeks.

There is said something now infront of the sun.

I won't debate what this is with you here tonight.

However again, due to time and frequency density mass changes, the third density that you claim you like, might naturally be on the outs now.

As someone who cares for your welfare, I hope that you can read a little more into what I'm saying?

The best to you and enjoy this Easter holiday to come, for you and yours.

Oh' and thanks for the use of your Vette's trunk, for my Easter garden implements. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The Context - Creedo ate the Easter Bunny.

Creedo,

Dearest Ray' The area that I disagree with you in, is your perception of density.

You are attached to the third density thing, it seems for either personal belief reasons, or possibly political reasons.

Density is the concentration of anything with respect to a defined (unit) spatial volume. That is the scientific definition of density. If you are using your own definition of it (as you are often want to do), I would suggest you clearly define your terms before someone who understands scientific concepts tears you a new one.

In all your efforts to steer conversations towards your flights of fancy, you still don't "get" what I am doing, do you? No, you don't, otherwise you would have understood the 3 pictures... which you still have shown no comprehension of what they meant. I'll try to explain it again, but this time from a slightly different vantage point:

I don't need Atlantis or Atlantean rumors. I am not seeking to solve the Mind-Body problem by hanging my hat on heresay, innuendo, or ancient knowledge that has been so heavily "religiousized" so as to be scientifically useless. I don't require channelers, or New Age prophets. My starting point is good, old-fashioned, classical science, as we know it today. I have only tweaked the recipe ever so slightly, which actually has the effect of placing Time and Mass on the same equal (tripod) footing that Space has always had since the vector was first defined. And if you check the math, you will see that none of my tweaking has violated Einstein's GTR or STR. In fact, without stating it explicitly, Einstein already knew that the concept of undifferentiated, integrated Energy was the "true" form of everything physical.

Have you ever studied information theory, Creedo? I didn't think so. Seeing as how I have now introduced the concepts of Mass, Space, and Time as "channels", you might want to check out that web page. Guys like Claude Shannon and Richard Hamming (information theory pioneers) were talking about the exact same thing that giants like Boltzman, Carnot, and Rayleigh were talking about in thermodyanmics. Information has an entropy associated with it, just like physical systems do. Ever wonder why they are not identically equal? I know the reason why...and oddly enough, the answer to this can explain (in scientific terms) what you refer to erroneously as "4th density". The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics weilds absolutely NO power in information space. In fact, this "law" is even tenuous here in our 3-dimensional realm since none of the systems we analyze are truly "closed" in the form specified by the 2nd Law (i.e. no energy crossing the system boundaries).

Try scanning thru your stacks of Scientific American. You'll find some articles talking about the same thing I am... although they are not using the Tree Of Life to explain it. I give credit where credit is long overdue.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[creedo299]

Re: The Context - Creedo ate the Easter Bunny.

Rainman says&gt;Density is the concentration of anything with respect to a defined (unit) spatial volume. That is the scientific definition of density. If you are using your own definition of it (as you are often want to do), I would suggest you clearly define your terms before someone who understands scientific concepts tears you a new one.

Creedo answers&gt;Yes precisely, the closer one get to a masive object such as a moon, planet or even brown dwarf, the string density of space increases with proximity to that object.

This is all I have to say Ray, as it seems now, that the Never-A-Straight-Answer agency, does not factor in densities of stringed space.

They won't and can't look at it?

Happy Easter, I'm sick of arguing with you.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: The Context - Integrated (Massive SpaceTime)

I understand and kind of agree with your story. However, I don't think the things we perceive are merely illusions. In my opinion there's no reason to assume that what we see, feel, hear and taste is an illusion. I do agree that what we perceive is not what you call "the whole truth" about physical reality.

I think illusions are part of our outer conciousness which is part of "reality" but not the part we can perceive in our concious mind.

Here's a diagram: *click*

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The Context - Integrated (Massive SpaceTime)

Hi there, Roel:

However, I don't think the things we perceive are merely illusions. In my opinion there's no reason to assume that what we see, feel, hear and taste is an illusion. I do agree that what we perceive is not what you call "the whole truth" about physical reality.

OK, so maybe "illusion" is not the right word, because of what it connotes in the language. These things certainly do not *appear* to be illusions from our perspective, I'll give you that. But in the same sense that a visualization of a cube drawn on a piece of paper is an illusion of 3-D contained in 2-D, what we experience in 3-D is really an illusion when viewed from the reality of 4-D. Perhaps some scientists prefer the word "hologram" to "illusion", and I can accept that. But as you've heard me say before, Energy (which is an integrated measure of Mass, Space, and Time) is the "real reality". We can only perceive the effects of Energy, thus, like the picture of a cube on a piece of paper, we are seeing an "allusion" (alludes to Energy). /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif How's that?

I think illusions are part of our outer conciousness which is part of "reality" but not the part we can perceive in our concious mind.

Here's a diagram:

Hmmm....interesting, your concept of the "outer consciousness". But do you really think our conscious mind does not perceive dreams? If I am not mistaken in my understanding of neurophysiological experiments (Siegmund? Check me on this!), I believe we have found that the reason dreams seem so real is because the exact same parts of our brain used for sight are also stimulated (active) during REM sleep. This would imply that we are using the same parts of our mind during REM that we do during normal life to perceive (at least vision). Another set of experiments that I am quite sure about relate to possible explanations for some hallucinations. Through very low frequency sound tests, we have found that when a sound is produced at the resonant frequency of the eyeball's aqueous solution, that this can induce hallucinations in the test subject. Some have even described what they see as "ghostlike" in appearance! This would also lend creedence to the belief that our conscious mind is still what is perceiving the hallucination, but it is being tricked because of a physical condition (resonance) present at its input device.

Anyway, on to other questions/comments about your "outer consciousness":

Do you believe these are the only components of mind? The reason I ask (you may already have guessed where I am heading) is that my research in many areas of science have shown that anything stable always come in 3's: An active part, a passive part, and a neutral part. As I move up the TOL in my discussion of the mind, you'll see how this fits into my model. (Incidentally, my Science-9 page is up, even though it is only some of the drawings and none of the text. Just go to my Science Home Page and then click sphere #9).

Another point to consider (which is why I pursued my research into TOL once I discovered this) is that the exact same model (the TOL) that accurately describes the architecture of the physical human body, can also accurately describe the architecture of the non-physical human mind, which is really a subsystem of the entire Mind-Body being. I think this is a very important point, when one views it in the context of self-similar fractals that show up in nature as one system embedded in another system, all based on the same basic form (the fern is one of the easiest examples to see). It would seem reasonable to me that, since we are part of Nature, and Nature has shown us that "she" is fractally organized via self-similar structures, that a search for a structure that can explain the "Mind-Body problem" should take this into account.

Whaddya think? As always, I appreciate the honest and forthright discussions we have. I wish Creedo could express himself as well as you do...I might not get as frustrated with him!

RainmanTime

 

[RainmanTime]

In humanistic terms, this multiplicity of present moments means that we are cut off from each other in a way that we are scarcely aware of unless we are in the midst of angstful metaphysical musings.

This is an excellent and important realization. It underlies the major "functional purpose" for being incarnated as a human, separate from the other forms of energy in our universe. That is, to explore relationships of one thing/person to another.

We are "cut off" or isolated so that we can enjoy the illusion of separateness. And the element that comes with this separateness is Free Will. I am not sure of your spiritual leanings, if any, and I am not here to convert anyone. However, let me share something from this domain that is related to this issue:

If there is a "God", and if this God is, as many religions describe, the sum total of ALL things in the universe, then such a God would be the universal pool of Energy. As such, the one thing that this God can NOT do, and why this God "needs" us, is to experience separateness and difference and relationships. Think about it as if you were the only person AND the only object in a universe of your own. Not only would it get awfully lonely, but you would have NO Free Will, for there would be nothing else for you to exercise Free Will upon. You would not be able to experience Love for some other thing, or creature. You would long for something OTHER than yourself, so that you could experience yourself as you relate to other things/people.

The interactions that you, and I, and others on this board engage in are exploring relationships. These interactions could be thought of as the "food of our creator". While this is a departure from sheer scientific thinking and justification, by placing yourself in the lonely position described above, one can see how such a concept can lead to scientific concepts.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[enoch2]

The Architect told me that unless I assimilated into the programe zion would be distroyed.

Listen kid that man could not see past the laces on his own shoes. The architect sees the matrix as an open ended series of equations. It is his job to try and balance thoes equations.

Well what is your job.

To try and unbalance them.