Why is Velocity (Motion) Central to TIME?

[RainmanTime]

I've posted on this issue before, and discussed the universal omnipresence of the polarity of Matter and Motion. I've even pointed out how Speed/Velocity (Motion) is central to all of the fractal measure of what we call Energy. Our most sacred knowledge about our sciences continues to tell us that VELOCITY (Motion) is half of understanding physicality...the other half is MASS FLOW (Matter). If science describes MASS FLOW as Mass that changes over Time, then we can equivalently define SPACE FLOW as Space that changes over Time.

The central metric of SPACE FLOW is Motion, and we call it Velocity, and it is a Vector quantity. Its importance is central to our understanding of the various Energy Equations that have been described by our giants of science:

Newtonian Kinetic Mass Energy: Equation is given by "0.5*Mass*Object Velocity^2"
Bernoulli Dynamic Fluid Pressure: Equation is given by "0.5*Density*Fluid Velocity^2"
Einstein's Relatavistic Mass Energy: Equation is given by "Mass*Light Velocity^2"
Electrical Power Law: Equation is given by "Resistance*Current^2"
(Electrical Current is a measure of the velocity/rate of electron motion)
Vibrational Wave Kinetic Energy: Equation is given by "0.5*Mu*frequency^2*Amplitude^2*wavelength"
(Frequency*Amplitude, both being squared, describe dynamics of wave motion)

Is anyone else seeing the common theme here? Do you see the KEY, HUGE, CENTRAL, FOCUSING role of Velocity and Speed with respect to how we categorize all physical Energy exchanges? The Vector we know as Velocity is a 2-D Metric which measures the fabric we call SpaceTime. Space being one axis of this 2-D geometry, and Time being the other axis of this 2-D geometry.

Motion (Velocity) is the Metric that provides a Non-Linear, Squared Power advantage with respect to how we control Matter (its polar opposite).

Learning how to control one's velocity vector (in a very precise manner) along with learning how this personal body vector is responsible for our "velocity-squared" mechanical advantage over our physical universe, is fundamental to our evolution beyond our current understanding of physical reality.

Expect an update to the 3 Spiral threads to explain one aspect of the above discussion.
RMT

 

[Einstein]

I ran across an interesting visualization. With the sticky space phenomena, attraction occurs when pulling the magnet away. I see that as declining magnetic field intensity associated with attraction. In my antigravity generator, the magnetic field is decreasing in repetitive pulses. But repulsion is observed instead. Now before I called this an asymetry behavior of the magnetic field. But there are also other ways to look at it. In both situations we have a magnetic field decreasing in intensity. So mathematically I could set up an equality. With the antigravity generator the field intensity decreases over time. But with the sticky space phenomena the field intensity is distance dependant entirely. So on one side of the equation I have time changing and on the other side of the equation I have length changing. It could be set up to show time equals length. But we can't really do that because one force is attraction and the other force is repulsion. Opposites aren't equal. But because they both share a declining magnetic field intensity effect I could say that one could be an altered state of the other. If using the attractive state as a positive, we could use the equation Length=Negative Time. The negative time state is assigned to the repulsion effect with the antigravity generator.

Now this is one of the things in mathematics I don't like. An equation only shows a relationship between two things. Yet in nature there are always threes instead. It's like there should be some mathematical way to view the three concept. Some type of mathematical representation of a threeway cycle is needed. Also if time is an altered state of length, what might the third state shared by time and length be? I would like to say mass. You already know I view mass as just a high density state of length.

If you look at those equations you posted, I see all three states in all of them. But the idea that time, length, and mass are all just different states of the same thing is very appealing to me. I don't yet see how to put it together into a time machine. But the idea that maybe a fourth state might exist does give me some more directions of thought.

 

[RainmanTime]

But the idea that time, length, and mass are all just different states of the same thing is very appealing to me.

Indeed, we call it Energy. And it is not only a handy concept, but the conservation laws tell us it is the ONLY thing that is conserved. Mass does not have to be conserved. Space (Length) does not have to be conserved. Even Time does not have to be conserved. But their integrated metric, Energy, must be conserved.

I believe Energy is the very "3-way" form you say you are looking for. And it has many uses (most of which all work within our given set of science and mathematics that were discovered via trial and error experimentation).

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

I believe Energy is the very "3-way" form you say you are looking for. And it has many uses (most of which all work within our given set of science and mathematics that were discovered via trial and error experimentation).

Yes I suspected time was an aspect of length now for quite some time. But now I've come up with an association that suggests my suspicion just might be on the right track. I have read that even Einstein came up with a proof equating time to length. But I'll take a physical observation over math any day.

Now there is something that just does not get a lot of attention. Negative energy. It is considered a no no. But that Merkaba representation probably does depict negative states of everything. I know it is forbidden to consider destroying energy. But a negative energy field would have some interesting effects on matter. A balanced negative and positive energy condition would create a null state. That's three states again. And all I need are some negative energy state observations. Negative length, negative mass, and negative time. There is an observation with negative time associated with it. A gravity field seems to retard the flow of time. So I suspect that controlling gravity would also give us access to control over negative length and negative mass as well as negative time. Also I have lots of interesting research observations with the tesla coil to suggest that negative energy is present.

With the sticky space and antigravity experiments. The attractive force of the sticky space could oppose the repulsive force of the antigravity experiment setup. The forces would null but true cancellation would not take place. I'm very interested in creating an opposite force that would cancel. But to do that I would need to construct the opposite force out of states of negative length. In doing that, by combining a force with it's negative length counterpart, true cancelation would take place. Energy would be destroyed. I probably shouldn't word it that way. Lets just say there are some length conservation laws that do not appear to be broken.

What does all this mean? Right now my thoughts are suggesting that it is the forces that create negative and positive length that will be necessary to control in order to move through time. The time forces cause motion through space. So it follows that a length force would cause motion through time. The sticky space experiment uses a force created by changing length. It may be causing a reactionary time force moving in the opposite direction to normal time. So right now I'm going through observations and assigning positive or negative time states, and also positive or negative length states. I don't know yet know how a negative mass state would be perceived. This is still in the hypothetical stage.

 

[iridium]

Indeed, we call it Energy. And it is not only a handy concept, but the conservation laws tell us it is the ONLY thing that is conserved. Mass does not have to be conserved. Space (Length) does not have to be conserved. Even Time does not have to be conserved. But their integrated metric, Energy, must be conserved.

In light of the other thread I started (the Jesus one), would you find it interesting to equate energy with our souls? Our time doesn't need to be conserved (we die), our mass doesn't need to be conserved (we decompose), and our space doesn't need to be conserved (we disappear).

Interesting to me at least. It doesn't seem like that big of a stretch to apply this modern-day scientific principle to a faith that has existed for millenia.

 

[TimeNot_0]

Motion has been described as neither speeding up or slowing down. Velocity on the other hand implies Acceleration, which is different. Free-falling bodies exhibit motion, but velocity is something that they do not, except for a very small decrease someday many years into the future, so it is neglected for the most part because the slowing down process is so very small.

Without friction there would be no slowing down and only motion. Now the Universe is described by some as being a superfluid recently by some scientists. In Astronomy, Proper Motion is the stars path against the background of the stars still further away, and although there is Parallax, in stars's motion, the amount of time for stars to look like they are moving at all is still a very very long time.

Take the star up in the Spring, I forget the name right now, but it is a major star. It will slowly move away from being viewed in the night sky in 500,000 years! Humans will see it no more then. Arcturus is the star up in the Spring and throughout the Summer. The TV show Cosmos when it was on, in one of the Episodes was about the background of stars and through computer simulation, the stars showed to move though the simulation was over a period of millions of years. Maybe some new TV show has come along but that Episode was still a great rendition of actually how the stars move. The slowing down or speeding up which implies Velocity is never an issue though, and only Motion of the stars is talked about.

The length of time is so long as there has never been a need to make a Correction for that Velocity of Motion!

This is why to me that "Time" also can be considered to be somewhat of a Constant with respects to all the Proper Motion of the Stars that exhibit "Motion" in the Universe. It is always happening and only Gases and such exhibit "Motion" that changes when Gravity takes over and Events in the Universe take place. Gravity will exhibit "Motion" in about 3 billion years when the Milky Way Galaxy collides with the Andromeda Galaxy and even then the Space is so huge within the Galaxies that complexity will be an issue perhaps still with even humans if we exist at that time in having the tools to mearsure anything beyond exact uncertainty!

I'm, off to see the Wizard!
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz!
Because, because, because, because, bee----cause!

 

[RainmanTime]

TimeNot_0: I've got some points to address with you here...

Motion has been described as neither speeding up or slowing down.

I beg to differ with you, as speeding up or slowing down DOES refer to acceleration (rate of change of velocity). This URL provides the following appropriate defintion for motion in the context I was using:

"The act or process of changing position or place. "

Velocity on the other hand implies Acceleration, which is different.

Incorrect. Velocity does not need to imply acceleration. You can have constant velocity, in which case the acceleration is zero. Therefore, no net force.

Free-falling bodies exhibit motion, but velocity is something that they do not

Incorrect again! Free falling bodies (in the earth's atmosphere for one example) exhibit a velocity that is known as TERMINAL velocity, where the force of gravity is balanced by the force of air drag. In this case it has no NET acceleration.

ALL bodies are in motion with respect to some other relative reference point. I'll leave at this, as there are enough errors in your initial statements to question anything further.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Einstein,

Good luck with your continued experiments! Keep us informed how they go and what you observe.

But I'll take a physical observation over math any day.

Oh well, guess we just agree to disagree. I'll go you one better: I'll take a physical observation that matches and validates a mathematical model any day over one of either of them that do not match-up!

I still think math can help you avoid going down unknown paths in your trial and error experiments. But we each march to our own drummers.

Now there is something that just does not get a lot of attention. Negative energy. It is considered a no no. But that Merkaba representation probably does depict negative states of everything.

Now here's another area where we agree. Negative Energy, or in the information realm what we would call Negentropy. I agree past (and most current) science schools poo-pooed this concept. But it is slowly gaining another look...and rightly so I must say. In fact, my own looks into this are what suggest to me that what we call Physical Energy is the antithesis of Physical Information. IOW that there is a relationship between Energy and Information such that you can convert one into the other, and back again. This is where I see the key to Time Travel lying.

But a negative energy field would have some interesting effects on matter. A balanced negative and positive energy condition would create a null state. That's three states again. And all I need are some negative energy state observations. Negative length, negative mass, and negative time. There is an observation with negative time associated with it. A gravity field seems to retard the flow of time. So I suspect that controlling gravity would also give us access to control over negative length and negative mass as well as negative time.

Again, I see what you're saying and agree. Especially about the three states.... what I call dimensions in my Massive SpaceTime model.

In fact, you might want to check out my recent posts to my Triad of Threads on Spirals. It associates Mass, Space, and Time to spiral dynamics (and the math that describe them!). Have a read and see if you can falsify what I am saying.

I'm very interested in creating an opposite force that would cancel. But to do that I would need to construct the opposite force out of states of negative length. In doing that, by combining a force with it's negative length counterpart, true cancelation would take place. Energy would be destroyed. I probably shouldn't word it that way. Lets just say there are some length conservation laws that do not appear to be broken.

This might be where we part ways in agreement. You seem to think all things are just different forms of length. I could make the same kind of argument about different forms of Time and different forms of Mass. This is where I say the "singular" form is not length, but Energy. And not only do I say this, but our current scientific models of physics say the same thing via the Conservation of Energy Law. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

So right now I'm going through observations and assigning positive or negative time states, and also positive or negative length states. I don't know yet know how a negative mass state would be perceived.

I've got some ideas... but then again so does the vast, and structured body of knowledge called Qabalah. Care to take a guess on how it defines what you'd call Negative Mass? I bet you can connect these dots. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT