The funny thing is, the Amrit is using the literar form of mantra instead of argument(s), too.
Even the statement "because time is a function of mind" is reincarnation of the older Amrit statement: "time is in human mind only".
Are you an alter ego of Amrit?
i was just tryingto throw a monkey wrench(or 'spanner'), into the works.
however, if the universe is expanding, then space is expanding/strecthing, and more space equals less gravity, and less gravity equals faster time.
this topic boggles my mind, which is slowing down as i get older.
i mean, if you get smaller falling into a black hole, then do you also get smaller on a bigger denser planet than earth? or say, if you're in a fighter jet expriencing 2 Gs?
i cannot understand time without understanding gravity,and i simply don't get it.
i've read theories, and i've seen NASA send probes into space with dead-eye accuracy, so certain effects of gravity are well understood.
but, i have a hard time understanding what happens in the middle of a giant sphere, be it a planet or black hole.
wouldn't gravity have to be weaker in the very centre where it changes directions?
i don't 'get' the centre, so i don't get the concept.
i do 'get' 'weak force', but i can't 'see it'. it doesn't seem weak, and if density of matter means more gravity, how can there be a middle? what is it that allows such amazing crushing forces to exist side by side in opposite directions?
gravity seems to be more of a shape to me, than a force.
and so, if i'm right about that(not saying i am, as i'm just riffing on 'word physics', with no mathematical basis, other than the math of the people i base 'my' loose theories on), then what is the cause of these shapes? and, what's in the very pinpoint middle?
i think at that 'point', something has to be different.
however, time has no beginning, and no end, and it is 'measured' by rate of change of molecular activity, which in turn, seems to be a function of gravity.
and yet, that is a function of our perception, because rate itself is a function of time, and we are 'stuck' in a fairly static rate of time. oops. there it is again. 'rate' being the only word i can think of to describe the 'density' of 'time'.
what do you think? am i still Amrit?
at maximun entropy, universe wide, would things REALLY be able to 'stand still'?
i am 'happier' with things that cycle, than with things that start and finish.
so, in my simplest of minds, i think everything pushed to it's extreme folds into it's opposite.
for time, that would mean, timeless.
what is timeless?
light, maybe? gravity?
i dunno. i don't want to 'argue' my 'mantra'. i just get curious what other people think of these things that i percieve as 'problems' which haven't been answered.
7th September 2006 - 04:23 AM
Less gravity equals faster time. Is right on. If time can slow down then it must have a starting point or fastest time from which to depart. Less motion also equals faster time.