Time is not real

carlo:

I agree that "THE" Time is real.

As I sit here on the Big Island of Hawaii at 2:21 AM by MY clock, THAT time is very real. Or at least it was just a few seconds ago.

But what time is it where you are as I write this?

If it is later or earlier, (and unless you live in Hawaii, it has to be one or the other), does that mean that you live in MY past or future?

I hardly think so.

Muchas gracias.
 
"Time is an illusion that is ever devouring itself. It consumes itself and arises anew out of itself. Beginning, origin, first cause and end are only markers on the flow of time. In reality, the end is as much the beginning as the beginning is the end, but to humans they are opposites.

Human beings cannot know the nature of time as long as their bodies are part of time and are the means by which they measure time."
 
Dear Deviper,

Thankyou for the knowlege. I was considering your post and I too have thought about what the limits of human capabilities. My thoughts are this.

What is to determine that all things that are concieved are things that may or maynot be plausible or possible? I question what is truelly the limit of tangability? My question is does all things that are imagined automatically existant in some form. Or are there truelly things that can be imagined but not exist?

To me the answer to this question would be determined by the physical(or unphysical) mechanism that creates uncertainty in the universe. I suggest several lines of thought on this subject without imosing the legitimacy of any of them.

I intend to search for methods to test the hypothesis that I am about to make for legitemacy. This is the scientific way.

If infinity is obtainable by a finite method or machine then all things that can be imagined can be brought forth that are dictated or ruled by that infinity.

I mean that if levels to infinity exist and if those infinities determine the perameters of the finite or other infinite laws within the physical universe either by causing directly the pattern of those laws or their existance, then to obtain affective control over this infinite mechanism by the quantity or laws that the infinity is supposed to rule is to thus affectively transfer the control mechanism from the infinite machanism to the finite law or machine. Thus enabling us, which are in contorl of the finite machine, to choose it's state of existance and form. Also, enabling us, the controlers of that mechanism, the ability to invent our own laws. We will be enabled to enforce, mediate, or cause these invented laws to exert forces upon the devices existance through the infinity which is subject to the finite mechanism that is under our control. Now since this mechanism that I am speaking of is a hypothetical mechanism to be created by man and to be controled by man, the mechanism will not be ruling itself but the laws of nature that rule and determine the nature of this mechanism will be determined by the man that is holding the joy stick..if you will.

One example of this conscept that I am working with now is the idea of couneracting the laws of conservation by altering the mechanism that I believe is behind these laws. This mechanism is that which determines or causes energy to be a closed or static system. As a matter of fact, I believe that the closed or static nature of energy or mass is responcible for the laws of conservation of energy and mass.

An example of how closed energy could cause a system to retain or conserve a constant volume of energy is a balloon. When you blow up the balloon the balloon expands because you are adding volume to that balloon. The reason you can add volume to that balloon is for the simple fact that the balloon is an open system..because there is an opening for you to blow air into.

Now once you tie the balloon's opening into a knot the balloon is no longer an open system but a closed system.

You can know longer add energy to the balloon however you can still change the size and shape of that balloon by adjusting the air pressure outside the balloon.If you decrease the air pressure outside the balloon you will cause the balloon to expand until it reaches it's specific atmospheric pressure. That is until the pressure inside the balloon reaches an equal pressure to the air outside the balloon.

Now the principle behind electrical devices that generate energy is the same. A capaciter stores electricity if you create a low electric pressure outside the capaciter the electric pressure inside the capaciter will want to expand to reach an equillibrium with the electric pressure outside the capaciter.

Now each little electron is like a molecule of air which is closed in nature whether or not it is in electron(mass) form or photon(energy) form. Now if we take these closed energy systems and create a tear in them such as a tear in a photon the energy will convert from a closed system to an open system.

Now our balloon is, in reality, is a closed system whether or not it is tied or not because the balloon is made up of rubber molecules which is make up of electrons, protons and nuetrons which are closed energy systems. The air being added through the opening of the balloon are also molecules and atoms of air which are also closed.

So you are filling one closed system with an open topology with another closed system with a closed topology. And then by tieing the knot in the balloon to hold the added air in you are closing the open system so as to have one closed system held in by another closed system( which to me is the same thing as energy in the form of mass--that is-- one closed energy system holding to confines another closed energy system).

However, here is the catch. Energy in the form of mass is like the tied balloon that is filled with air. I like to call this a double closed system because you have one kind of closed system that confines another closed system to make a compound closed system. That is what I believe energy in the form of mass is. In fact, I am willing to bet that if you were to shrink down and handle individual mass quanta's that you might discover that the mass works very similar to the machanical nature of the balloon. You would have one type of energy that makes up a surface area, like the rubber fabric of the balloon, and another type of energy; maybe even the same type of energy, that makes up the volume of the mass(that which is confined by the fabric of energy).

Now If you were to examine individual photons you might discover that this is what I like to call a single closed system. This merely means that their is only single fabric of energy with no other form of energy being confined within the energy. It would be like having a rubber balloon with absolutely no air inside it at all.

Now since photons are single closed energy systems the only thing keeping the photon as a closed energy system is the closed topology of the photon. So if we were to prick a little hole in our photon with a little needle the photon would transfigure from a closed energy topology to an open energy topology. This would alter the mathematical equation that determines the quantity of energy within that photon in such a manner as to make the quantity value of the photon either random, infinite , or all values. Potentially, some of those values will become solidified in reality and will do so randomly: at random intervals, with random quantity values.

I will allow that there is no such thing as non existance if infinite existance is real on acount that there would be no room for non-existance on acount that infinity takes up all probable areas that could be seperated for non existance. This too I have not determined as fact even hypothetically and I leave as with everything else subject to change as more measureable data is obtained.

So I leave you with this arguement in support of the hypothesis. All things that can be imagined can be obtained if one can make that which is non existant become existant by manipulating that which determines the non-existance of the particular desired reality. The above is to be accomplished by manipulating and/or rearranging the factors of that system to make the all the individual values of that system that determine the undesired law to add up inversely making what ever the desired portion of the opposite reality true.

I will write later to submit a theory to support the opposing view that all things are not possible, however I have run out of time so I leave you to ponder this.

Please reply and debate. I find that all the people on this forum have such a wealth of knowlege and I am proud to admit that much of the technical knowlege that I have both theoretical and well established was gotten by me through conversing with people on this forum and with people who are like people on this forum....intelligent and revolutionary.

You all have a good weekend, please. I will write again monday.

Regards, and inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen [email protected]
 
What's interesting in most of these discussions is what has been left out.

Science limits itself by its refusal to see (generally speaking) that its objective point of view is not so removed from objectivity at all. Science says that there must be an objective observer in replicating experiments to get the correlative evidence for replication. By dismissing all that is not objective Science limits itself to one mode of inquiry. The kinestic, the powers of emotion, intuition and some extra sensory percepts are limited from the scientific inquiry. Science has value, but does not consider other aspects of experience as valid means of discovery.

Archologists have remarked that they are in awe of the Mayan's lack of technology to view the Sagitarrian Nebulae, for instance, and yet they have this knowledge that the Sag Nebulae contains black holes. How were they able to acertain this knowledge? There is considerable evidence that they used a certain kind of hallucinagentic mushroom to explore the interior world and within this space were able to "see" the black holes of the Sag Nebulae. My point in bringing up this example is this: we are conditioned by our own thinking and trapped within it when we assume that time can be explained from a mechanistic perspective totally.

We live inside concepts. One concept is the ego. Krishamurti has proposed that the ego arrived when language arrived. Whethyer or not this is so it is true that language itself divides time into past tense, present tense and future tense. I think we need to relieve all this tension. But this is difficult to look beyond the language of words which make the structure of our reality invisible. When it is invisible our assumptions about the nature of time are also invisible because we ahve been in the sea of this conceptual reality.

My work as a shaman or journeyer has enabled me to go beyond what is normally defined as reality and see things that few people see. To do this one must be grounded, and centered in physical, emotional, intellectual, sexual reality in order to move beyond it and experience other realities and the underpinnings of separate realities that are beyond time.

Stars931
 
One other thing. Within the confines of our reality, time appears to be real. We can manipulate time from within this reality. But to travel through time, we must be able to transverse separate realities that are bent around light in a similar configuration. But that is unnesscessary when we can "travel" outside of our reality through time or we can expand our being to include the past and the future by seeing that the past is our memory of the past in the present and the future is our expectations hopes and dreams of a linear reality. Consciousness is an easy way to travel as long as you don't want the "proof" of science.

------------------
 
stars931 and rgrunt:

Yes.

The big picture is indeed one that has to be taken with an open mind and a limitless curiosity.

I guess all I'm saying here is that when you ask the question (rgrunt)...

...is it possible to concieve of that which cannot be so. Of course it is.

For aeons man concieced that the world was flat. Envisioned shipd falling off the earth as they sailed near the edge. But all the conception and belief in the world could not make it so. Because the fundamental principle in which conceptualizing that ships could sail off the edge of the earth was flawed from the outset. Based on a fundamental principle that was just plain wrong. That the Earth was flat.

Could I be wrong about time? YOU BET! I could even be a victim of my own fundamentally flawed presumptions. But...

...the laws of the universe (not all of which we know yet), still have reavealed SOME things that CANNOT be so. Like a Flat Earth. And "Wellsian Time machines". And these "cannots" are EASY to prove WHY they "cannot be."

The Wellsian Time Machine, for all it's magnifisence as a Fictional Vehicle, is as patently absurd as the Flat Earth. But a good fiction writer could weave an astounding tale on what the effects COULD be like if indeed the Earth were flat. Just like Stephen Baxter did with the Wellsian type Time Machine in "The Time Ships". Even better than Wells himself.

But none of it is, or would be true. If even CANNOT be true. And that's easy to prove.

But does there exist realms of possibilities that we have YET to think of? Of course! How could there NOT be.

We are not the "end product" of evolution, merely another step all the way.

We know a lot of things that ARE NOT so. But we have no idea yet of that which we do not know.

Diego:

Real? real....what exactly?
 
Dear Deviper,

This is a good point. I sometimes like to question those things which I believe in the physical are most solid and imovable to me. When I do this I am not satisfied until I have sufficiently proven with legitamate arguable theory that the opposite of which I believe is most solid is also true. This is an exercize that I do in order to strengthen the part of my brain that deals with that type of thinking that results in major advancements and breakthroughs. Most of the things that were invented such as rockets and the moon landing were accomplished by choosing to believe that it is possible. And then attempting to accomplish. We as humans are doers and as such we are choosers. We base what we choose to attempt based on what we 'choose' to believe is possible, which is and act that can be independent of our what we believe is logical, that is, by faith. I attempt to disprove the most fundamental things because doing so requires me to broaden my comprehension beyond the scope of that which is alreasy discovered and determined by rewriting the most fundemental and basic laws. I believe that this is possible to do because the most basic laws are caused. Since these fundemental laws are caused I assume the possibility that these laws can be altered or changed if one can discover and manipulate the causes that perpetuates these laws--even the very existance of these laws period. There is a mechanism that causes energy to be unable to be destroyed. If you find this mechanism and if this mechanism is manipulatble then you can destroy energy by altering this mechanism. However it is most likely that this mechanism is unmanipulable so energy propably cannot be destroyed( this is just my oppinion on the issue).

On a little different subject just for the fun of it I wish to submit before you a mathematical theory that shows that the earth is indeed flat. This is something that I have questioned and have discovered adequete argueable mathematical proof to present a legitemate arguement. I am just throughing this out there for fun, not to suggest that the earth is actually flat.

I will present the theory in my next post. I have to go.

Please have a nice day.

Gary Schasteen
 
Dear Everyone,

Here is the theory I promised in my last post to suggest that spherical objects are flat if viewed from an infinite distance.

If you stand directly infront of a sphere so that the very center of surface of the shpere and the centermass of the sphere are at eye level to you, then you will be able to see one half of the shpere. The other half of the sphere will always be hidden on the other side so that you canot see it.

Now when viewing the sphere perpindicularly the same is also always true. Now the point closest to you in elevation is always directly in front of you and is the center of the surface of the sphere which is on the equator. Now the highest elevation on the sphere that is visible to you on the sphere is at the edge of the sphere.

Now the highest elevation on the three dimensional shpere that is not visible is the point on the back side of the shpere exactly opposite to the lowest elevation on the surface of the sphere which is directly in front of you.

Now the lowest elevation and highest elevation can be connected by a straight line which we shall call the z axis, which corresponds to the z axis of uclidean geometry.

The lowest points of elevation at the circular horizon of the sphere is marked by two straigt lines that intersect at the centermass of the shpere and these lines we shall call x, and y, which also correspond to the x, and y axis of uclidean geometry. Also the z axis on our sphere intersects the plane x, and y at the centermass of the sphere at a ninety degree angle to form a three dimentional volume.

If you draw an infinite number of parallel lines and run them through every point on the shpere you will having the last of the parallel lines be the tangent of the shpere.

Allow for the parallel lines to be infinitely long and imagine that they run along the z axis and parallel to the z axis only.

So the z axis points straight at you and all the other parallel lines run past you to infinity to your right, left, and above you and below you(imagine that you are free floating in space when you are attempting to visualize this).

Now if you start traveling away from the sphere you will notice that the sphere apears to become smaller and smaller as you move further and further away. You will also notice that the points that all of the parallel lines are connected to on te vissible surface of the sphere appear to be getting closer and closer together as you get further and further away.

Now if you were to travel an infinite distance the sphere would appear to shrink to an infinitely small point. All the parallel lines and intersections on the sphere would also apear to become infinitely small.

Now if there were a second viewer to this phenomenon that remained at the sphere on the surface of the sphere looking up at you as you accelerated to an infinite distance away, he would see you getting smaller and smaller as you got further and further away.

Now he would also notice that the further and further the parallel lines extending from every point on the surface of the sphere that he is standing on appears to get closer and closer together the further away those parallel lines extend. Now the parallel lines and you would apear, to the man on the surface of the sphere, to shrink to an infinitely small point at an infinite distance.

It is just standing on a highway in the middle of arizona looking off into distance. The highway apears to be getting smaller and smaller the further off you look towards the horizon. The highway is parallel but appears to be in the shape of a triangle with an intersection somewhere over the horizon.

Now if you are an infinite distance from the earth everypoint on the surface of the earth is infinitely small and therefore distance between each parallel line is also infinitely small.

Thus if you were to mark three points on the visable half of the sphere and use the pythagerum theorum(correct spelling? a^2+b^2=c^2) from the center of the sphere to calculate three different points on the surface of the sphere from an infinite distance the equation would result in the following. The value for a is zero, and the value for b is also zero, since the length from any two points on the sphere are measured as infinitely small when viewed from an infinite distance.

The result of the formula would be 0^2+0^2=0^2. So all points on the surface of the sphere would have an equal elevation both on the visable half of the surface of the sphere and the invisable half of the surface of the sphere.

Now a sphere has an infinite number of points that compose it mathematically speaking. A plane also has infinite number of points that compose it(since an infinite number of lines are composed of an infinite number of points and an infinite number of an infinite number of points is still an infinite number of points) Now a surface that has an infinite number of points composing it such that each point on that surface has an equal elevation causes that surface to be defined as a flat plane.

Now a surface that has an infinite number of points that compose it such that all the points have a constant but equal decrease in elevation causes that surface to be defined as a shpere.

In short at an infinite distance all the equal decreases in elevation on the surface of the sphere appear to dimenish to zero as the shpere appears to compress to an infinitely small point thus changing the definition of the surface from shperical to planar, or flat.

What does everyone think? Is this crazy or what? Remember that I am not actually saying that a sphere becomes flat at an infinite distance, I am just imposing some math that might suggest such. Just thought that this might be fun to converse or think about. What do you think? Does this sound plausible? Can any of you who are mathematicians tell me if what I said truelly adds up? In other words is my logic cohesive?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

fill free to e-mail me at [email protected] [email protected]
 
rgrunt:

When you say -

"I sometimes like to question those things which I believe in the physical are most solid and imovable to me. When I do this I am not satisfied until I have sufficiently proven with legitamate arguable theory that the opposite of which I believe is most solid is also true."

- you gain my most respect. This is GOOD science.

The best way to advance any theory is to make all posible honest effort to prove that it CANNOT be so.

If you CANNOT PROVE that it CAN'T be so, you just MIGHT have a viable theory.

(smile)
 
Thankyou Deviper,

You have my deepest respects as well. I believe that alot of good things may come out of the discussions on this forum. If something(s) revolutionary comes from the discussions on this forum or any other forums then maybe someday someone who participated in those discussions might right a book about the discussions and what they meant to that particular individual. I my self am not a writer, but perhaps others here indulge in writing novels. Just a thought.

Regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
I think of time as a three dimensional space,
and the rod theory may be correct, the rod may "wrap" time around the end of the rod that was travelling at photonic speed, then, travelling through time is an easy thing to do, it's kind of like a head moving across a hard disk, but instead of tracks, you would be skipping through the years like there was no tomorrow. Speaking of tomorrow, I have something to prove that travelling into the future is impossible, because the future is not written yet, like a clean hard drive or a blank piece of paper. In the future there is no energy or matter, kind of like a void.
There is nothing in the future. That is, until the present catches up.
 
Joseph, I think you can travel to the future. all you would need to do is lift the read/write head of the hard drive off of the disk, wait for the infinite amount of other heads (this is a special hard drive) to write on the disk, then place your head back onto the disk. wa-la. While you are in the "no-time" zone, your universe (and the infinite others) keep going. when you zone back in, you have returned at a later date, provided your tracking computer did in fact find something unique and unchanging to lock onto in your universe. If not, you would come back to a universe that differs more than the timeline you were projecting to re-enter. then you would have no choice but to return to your start point. Hopefully the "index" (tracking computer) works on the "hard drive" (world line lattice), or else this becomes troublesome also.
 
stars "Consciousness is an easy way to travel as long as you don't want the "proof" of science."

I like your last statement. Sounds liek you are more interested in philosophy than science but I can see that your ideas are not so clear. Your idea is pointing in one direction and the words you are choosing, they are trying to explain something else.

If you read J. Krishnamurti's book you will get a lot of answers on the questions on your philosophical side.

About the science, no one can travel through time, we can travel in time, not through time. Its' a big difference.

richar18, can u explain what are you trying to say. How does it make sense? I did not understand.

<This message has been edited by HimaliYeti (edited 10 March 2001).>
 
I was trying to illustrate how one could travel to the future of his own timeline. One would merely need to find a parallel to traveling at near the speed of light (to use time dilation in the creation of a "semi to have the benefit of time feedback, in that for every instant you move forward, your previous reality moves forward a calculated amount) and would then be able to hop down his own timeline, to any point in his future. This future would be one without the traveler, however, unless he used a placebo self to fill in his spot after he left. As soon as he re-couples to his reality by moving out of the semi decoupled time zone, he would be at any point he chooses in the future.
 
Back
Top