with meter we measure distance in space
with clocks we measure distance in time.
distance in space is physical
distance in time is of the mind, it is psychological
in this sense space-time could be interpreted as a psychophysical reality
It is impossible to measure a distance (in space) without using the durational aspect of time. So distance in space is of the mind, because all spatial distances exist in the past. The past and future do not exist physically, they exist in the mind.
Space and time are not intrinsically separate. Making distinctions between the physical and the psychological is a matter of convenience, because as you say "space-time could be interpreted as a psychophysical reality".
Do we have anything to gain by this understanding?
Space and time are not intrinsically separate. Making distinctions between the physical and the psychological is a matter of convenience, because as you say "space-time could be interpreted as a psychophysical reality".
Do we have anything to gain by this understanding?
Zenmaster: It is impossible to measure a distance (in space) without using the durational aspect of time.
Amrit: no it is not impossible. A ball moves from A to B. The distance you measure with a meter.
When you want to know the speed you use clock. With a clock we measure duration and speed of duration. But clock is invented by the man and so TIME.
I introduce "The Concept of A-Temporality" into physics:
time is a mental construct into which we experience duration of motion into space.
This approach is much closer to the reality as a space-time approach.
What you gain ??!!
A lot. You gain understanding that gravitation can not move into time, because time does not exists as a physical reality. Gravitation is A-Temporal, exists in space only and not into time, it seems that GW does not exists, see my articles in "Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics" : www.ejtp.com
Amrit: no it is not impossible. A ball moves from A to B. The distance you measure with a meter.
When you want to know the speed you use clock. With a clock we measure duration and speed of duration. But clock is invented by the man and so TIME.
I introduce "The Concept of A-Temporality" into physics:
time is a mental construct into which we experience duration of motion into space.
This approach is much closer to the reality as a space-time approach.
What you gain ??!!
A lot. You gain understanding that gravitation can not move into time, because time does not exists as a physical reality. Gravitation is A-Temporal, exists in space only and not into time, it seems that GW does not exists, see my articles in "Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics" : www.ejtp.com
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 10 2006, 10:27 AM)
When you want to know the speed you use clock. With a clock we measure duration and speed of duration. But clock is invented by the man and so TIME.
Amrit, we all can see, you're just saying nonsenses: to measure speed you need a clock, i.e. the concept of time obviously, whatever you're thinking (and saying) about. You will not obtain anything by considering it as mental construct. Everything was invented by the man: the distance, time, gravity, whatever. The realism of time and distance quantities is solely equivalent.
The gravitation is closely related to the density of energy in vacuum, an such density can spread like gravitational wave by the speed of energy, i.e. the speed of light. For example, if some mass annihilates, the corresponding density cannot disappear in the whole volume of universe instantly. You have no proofs for your stance.
Amrit, we all can see, you're just saying nonsenses: to measure speed you need a clock, i.e. the concept of time obviously, whatever you're thinking (and saying) about. You will not obtain anything by considering it as mental construct. Everything was invented by the man: the distance, time, gravity, whatever. The realism of time and distance quantities is solely equivalent.
The gravitation is closely related to the density of energy in vacuum, an such density can spread like gravitational wave by the speed of energy, i.e. the speed of light. For example, if some mass annihilates, the corresponding density cannot disappear in the whole volume of universe instantly. You have no proofs for your stance.
speed of particle or material body is a physical reality that exists into space only and not into time
to define, to describe speed we use clocks
but clocks does not run into time, clocks run into space only
how many time i would need to repeat this fact before you will see is so ???!!!
Z. Everything was invented by the man: the distance, time, gravity, whatever
A. no , distance is physical, gravity is physical,
BUT TIME IS OF THE MIND
to define, to describe speed we use clocks
but clocks does not run into time, clocks run into space only
how many time i would need to repeat this fact before you will see is so ???!!!
Z. Everything was invented by the man: the distance, time, gravity, whatever
A. no , distance is physical, gravity is physical,
BUT TIME IS OF THE MIND
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 10 2006, 04:55 PM)
how many time i would need to repeat this fact before you will see is so
By many times over, I'm afraid - because I see clearly, it's a nonsense. The time is the same real quantity, like the distance, because the Universe can be described by the wave equation recursively.
Both the Laplacians are fully equivalent (both distance, both time) from the reality meaning perspective. After all, the clock concept is based on the constant speed concept. The speed concept encloses both the distance, both the time concept at the same moment (ying-yang).
It means, the clock cannot run by the constant speed without both distance (space), both the time concept by the same way, as the wave equation itself - none of both these is privileged.
By many times over, I'm afraid - because I see clearly, it's a nonsense. The time is the same real quantity, like the distance, because the Universe can be described by the wave equation recursively.
Both the Laplacians are fully equivalent (both distance, both time) from the reality meaning perspective. After all, the clock concept is based on the constant speed concept. The speed concept encloses both the distance, both the time concept at the same moment (ying-yang).
It means, the clock cannot run by the constant speed without both distance (space), both the time concept by the same way, as the wave equation itself - none of both these is privileged.
clock run by the constant speed because it is made so
the speed of clock depends on the density D of space
this is what one can experience in the universe
all rest is imagination (time as a dimension, ..................)
the speed of clock depends on the density D of space
this is what one can experience in the universe
all rest is imagination (time as a dimension, ..................)
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 10 2006, 05:12 PM)
all rest is imagination (time as a dimension)
Sorry - it's evident, without time concept you cannot construct the wave equation as the fundamental description of Universe by the same way, as without distance (space) concept - both they're real by the same way. The time quantity isn't equivalent to the space quantity - both they're forming a duality (ying-yang).
Sorry - it's evident, without time concept you cannot construct the wave equation as the fundamental description of Universe by the same way, as without distance (space) concept - both they're real by the same way. The time quantity isn't equivalent to the space quantity - both they're forming a duality (ying-yang).
Zephir: Sorry - it's evident, without time concept
Amrit:
finally yes, TIME IS A CONCEPT, you got it
Amrit:
finally yes, TIME IS A CONCEPT, you got it
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 10 2006, 08:15 PM)
finally yes, TIME IS A CONCEPT, you got it
Not just the concept, it's a physical quantity, like the space, energy etc.. Both the time, both the space are solely symmetric from the wave equation perspective, i.e. they're real by the same way.
If you believe, the time is just a product of consciousness, the same is valid for the space - and vice versa. But I feel, both these concepts are pretty real from the physical point of view, because they cannot be derived just using eleven axioms of algebra and they're existing independently to our consciousness (the Universe is much more older, than humans, obviously).
All the physical quantities are some idealization of reality, which simplifies our understanding of reality. The same the "density of space", "charge", "photon", etc.
All they're "real" by the same way, because they can be derived from the other more fundamental concepts (energy/mass or space/time).
Not just the concept, it's a physical quantity, like the space, energy etc.. Both the time, both the space are solely symmetric from the wave equation perspective, i.e. they're real by the same way.
If you believe, the time is just a product of consciousness, the same is valid for the space - and vice versa. But I feel, both these concepts are pretty real from the physical point of view, because they cannot be derived just using eleven axioms of algebra and they're existing independently to our consciousness (the Universe is much more older, than humans, obviously).
All the physical quantities are some idealization of reality, which simplifies our understanding of reality. The same the "density of space", "charge", "photon", etc.
All they're "real" by the same way, because they can be derived from the other more fundamental concepts (energy/mass or space/time).
Zephir: If you believe, the time is just a product of consciousness, the same is valid for the space - and vice versa.
Amrit:
time is not a product of consciousness, space is not a product of consciousness
in the universe bodies and particles move into space
consciousness is beyond space and motion and beyond time
about time we know what it is
Amrit:
time is not a product of consciousness, space is not a product of consciousness
in the universe bodies and particles move into space
consciousness is beyond space and motion and beyond time
about time we know what it is
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 11 2006, 01:07 AM)
time is not a product of consciousness
Well, it's a certain progress from the previous statements like "time exist in human mind only"...
Currently I've no other comments.
Well, it's a certain progress from the previous statements like "time exist in human mind only"...
Currently I've no other comments.
If we look at energy or light its has wavelength and frequency the product of which equal the speed of light. If time and distance were only of the mind there should not be such a constant relationship between distance and time that is independent of time and space (reference).
I actually believe both points of view. Time and distance are mental concepts to measure changes of state. But I also believe that time and distance are types of quanta with intrinsic potential. This orientation makes relativity easier to understand. Velocity or gravity add potential to their intrinsic potential to create quanta of higher potential. The higher potential takes longer to process by the laws of physics.
I actually believe both points of view. Time and distance are mental concepts to measure changes of state. But I also believe that time and distance are types of quanta with intrinsic potential. This orientation makes relativity easier to understand. Velocity or gravity add potential to their intrinsic potential to create quanta of higher potential. The higher potential takes longer to process by the laws of physics.
QUOTE (MDT+Mar 11 2006, 02:33 AM)
....If time and distance were only of the mind there should not be such a constant relationship between distance and time that is independent of time and space...
Considering the recursion of wave equation, such constant relationship between distance and time can be derived just using such model. Each energy spreading through environment created just by energy should have the constant speed, i.e. no other assumptions are required.
Of course, the wave equation recursion is much more stronger assumption, than just the Lorentz symmetry principle and light speed invariance principle combination, because it contains a more information about system.
Considering the recursion of wave equation, such constant relationship between distance and time can be derived just using such model. Each energy spreading through environment created just by energy should have the constant speed, i.e. no other assumptions are required.
Of course, the wave equation recursion is much more stronger assumption, than just the Lorentz symmetry principle and light speed invariance principle combination, because it contains a more information about system.
MDT If we look at energy or light its has wavelength and frequency the product of which equal the speed of light. If time and distance were only of the mind there should not be such a constant relationship between distance and time that is independent of time and space (reference).
Amrit:
distance, motion and speed of motion are physical realities
time is mind reality
Zephir: Well, it's a certain progress from the previous statements like "time exist in human mind only"...
Currently I've no other comments.
Amrit: sure you have no comments, because you do not have arguments.
Amrit:
distance, motion and speed of motion are physical realities
time is mind reality
Zephir: Well, it's a certain progress from the previous statements like "time exist in human mind only"...
Currently I've no other comments.
Amrit: sure you have no comments, because you do not have arguments.
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 11 2006, 09:56 AM)
sure you have no comments, because you do not have arguments.
Amrit: ...time is not a product of consciousness... ...time is mind reality... ...blah, blah...
Zephir: I need no arguments, because you don't know obviously, what you're saying all the time. It's a waste of my time to dispute such things with you.
Amrit: ...time is not a product of consciousness... ...time is mind reality... ...blah, blah...
Zephir: I need no arguments, because you don't know obviously, what you're saying all the time. It's a waste of my time to dispute such things with you.
the day you will get the time will be the greatest day of your life
a Revelation you can not even dream about
PS
and if i do not know what i talk about why are your so hard on to make me change my mind ??!!
a Revelation you can not even dream about
PS
and if i do not know what i talk about why are your so hard on to make me change my mind ??!!
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 12 2006, 11:40 AM)
if i do not know what i talk about why are your so hard on to make me change my mind?
Because it helps to understand my own insights in more details. From this point of view the obstinate stance of yours is quite useful for me, Amrit...
The evolution of each theory proceeds by the highest speed in dialectic discussion as the unity of contradictions with the exact analogy of evolution of matter (even the Socrates did know it already). The exchange of opinions makes the further development of it much more smoother by the same way, as the energy spreading enables the further energy spreading being the result of energy gradient. Most of energy in nature is spreading via energy/mass density gradient in transversal waves - the bulk (longitudal) waves energy is negligible in most cases.
As you can see, the Aether Wave Theory (AWT) is very general theory of evolution - not just the theory of evolution of matter. The spreading of new ideas can be described by the same laws, as the spreading of energy. It means, the AWT explains a lot of conclusions of philosophy.
I'd like, you'll understand the Aether concept from the most general perspective available.
Because it helps to understand my own insights in more details. From this point of view the obstinate stance of yours is quite useful for me, Amrit...
The evolution of each theory proceeds by the highest speed in dialectic discussion as the unity of contradictions with the exact analogy of evolution of matter (even the Socrates did know it already). The exchange of opinions makes the further development of it much more smoother by the same way, as the energy spreading enables the further energy spreading being the result of energy gradient. Most of energy in nature is spreading via energy/mass density gradient in transversal waves - the bulk (longitudal) waves energy is negligible in most cases.
As you can see, the Aether Wave Theory (AWT) is very general theory of evolution - not just the theory of evolution of matter. The spreading of new ideas can be described by the same laws, as the spreading of energy. It means, the AWT explains a lot of conclusions of philosophy.
I'd like, you'll understand the Aether concept from the most general perspective available.
Zephir: I'd like, you'll understand the Aether concept from the most general perspective available.
Amrit: ether is a concept
and space is physical reality
when you will start talking about space we will be closer
for me ether is dead
Amrit: ether is a concept
and space is physical reality
when you will start talking about space we will be closer
for me ether is dead
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 12 2006, 07:20 PM)
for me ether is dead
The Aether by its definition is just the "massive environment for light spreading".
You can substitute this term by "space with density", if you want - from semantic point of view it's the same. But you should to respect a scientific priority of such concept in denotation.
The Aether by its definition is just the "massive environment for light spreading".
You can substitute this term by "space with density", if you want - from semantic point of view it's the same. But you should to respect a scientific priority of such concept in denotation.
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 12 2006, 07:20 PM)
and space is physical reality
The space concept is much more closer to abstract product of human consciousness, than the time concept. We know "vector space" concept from geometry and a lot of other space concepts from different branches of math.
Instead of this, the time concept has no counterparts in the world of abstract ideas. It's solely physical quantity.
The space concept is much more closer to abstract product of human consciousness, than the time concept. We know "vector space" concept from geometry and a lot of other space concepts from different branches of math.
Instead of this, the time concept has no counterparts in the world of abstract ideas. It's solely physical quantity.
Philosophically speaking, space and time constitute two aspects of the same thing (duality): space is that which is static and discrete, and time is that which is moving and continuous. So they exist, intrinsically, at the same ontological level. The problem is that we tend to confuse the principles of space and time, with the methods used to depict or to measure them. This abstraction, while practical of course, has caused a lot of confusion and dead ends in the physical theories which deal with the very small, the very large and the very fast. Isn't it about time we got back to first principles?
Typically, space is represented by a quantity of distance, and time by a quantity of duration. However, conceptual difficulties are created where we choose innappropriate reference frames and geometries. For example, the belief that space is intrinsically a container for matter (vectorial motion) and the belief that "forces" are actually primary existents stem from the abstraction and disassociation of space and time. The "force" of gravity is an example. At issue is not that we can measure something we call a force, but that we do not bother to explain the force. After all, the primary existents are not quantities of mass or gravitational force. The primary existents are the quantities and qualities of a relationship between space and time.
However, we tend to be so accustomed to conceptualizing motion as some object in motion that we neglect to recognize the more primary role of space and time as being the cause of physical manifestation (i.e. of the object) itself.
Typically, space is represented by a quantity of distance, and time by a quantity of duration. However, conceptual difficulties are created where we choose innappropriate reference frames and geometries. For example, the belief that space is intrinsically a container for matter (vectorial motion) and the belief that "forces" are actually primary existents stem from the abstraction and disassociation of space and time. The "force" of gravity is an example. At issue is not that we can measure something we call a force, but that we do not bother to explain the force. After all, the primary existents are not quantities of mass or gravitational force. The primary existents are the quantities and qualities of a relationship between space and time.
However, we tend to be so accustomed to conceptualizing motion as some object in motion that we neglect to recognize the more primary role of space and time as being the cause of physical manifestation (i.e. of the object) itself.
Zephir: "space with density",
Amrit: yes, Zephir, a good idea, droping old term ether and using "space with density D" you will have moch more success.
Amrit: yes, Zephir, a good idea, droping old term ether and using "space with density D" you will have moch more success.
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 13 2006, 03:40 PM)
drooping old term ether and using "space with density D" you will have much more success
I'm not looking for success, I'm just looking for TRUTH and explanations, Amrit.
And truth is, the "space with density" concept is fully covered by therm "Aether", because Aether is massive environment for spreading of light. The Aether is much more general and proper term than space, as the Aether contains more the one space at the same moment.
I don't care about "experts", which are believing, they will obtain prestige by introducing a new name for the old things. After all, here is something like scientific priority of concepts. The physic is using naming convention introduced by the inventor of concept. The official inventor of the massive space concept and "Aether" denominator is Rene Descartes (31.3.1596 - 11.2.1650). You should publish it first, Amrit. After all, the term Aether covers all the later concepts of more advanced theories: the "Dirac's sea", massive "strings" of superstring/M-theories and others.
Such conservatism has a deeper psychological meaning. The mainstream science should learn for future, it's impossible to throw up some old concept just because they're not fully understood, as they're can be very useful for understanding. From such point of view, the Aether naming convention should be a certain form of self-reflection for people with medieval way of thinking, which are refuting the ideas obstinately, although they're don't understand them. They should learn, the scientific methodology doesn't know a finite way, how to disprove or confirm some concept.
I'm not looking for success, I'm just looking for TRUTH and explanations, Amrit.
And truth is, the "space with density" concept is fully covered by therm "Aether", because Aether is massive environment for spreading of light. The Aether is much more general and proper term than space, as the Aether contains more the one space at the same moment.
I don't care about "experts", which are believing, they will obtain prestige by introducing a new name for the old things. After all, here is something like scientific priority of concepts. The physic is using naming convention introduced by the inventor of concept. The official inventor of the massive space concept and "Aether" denominator is Rene Descartes (31.3.1596 - 11.2.1650). You should publish it first, Amrit. After all, the term Aether covers all the later concepts of more advanced theories: the "Dirac's sea", massive "strings" of superstring/M-theories and others.
Such conservatism has a deeper psychological meaning. The mainstream science should learn for future, it's impossible to throw up some old concept just because they're not fully understood, as they're can be very useful for understanding. From such point of view, the Aether naming convention should be a certain form of self-reflection for people with medieval way of thinking, which are refuting the ideas obstinately, although they're don't understand them. They should learn, the scientific methodology doesn't know a finite way, how to disprove or confirm some concept.
QUOTE (Zenmaster+Mar 12 2006, 10:54 PM)
Philosophically speaking, space and time constitute two aspects of the same thing (duality): space is that which is static and discrete, and time is that which is moving and continuous. So they exist, intrinsically, at the same ontological level. The problem is that we tend to confuse the principles of space and time, with the methods used to depict or to measure them. This abstraction, while practical of course, has caused a lot of confusion and dead ends in the physical theories which deal with the very small, the very large and the very fast. Isn't it about time we got back to first principles?
Typically, space is represented by a quantity of distance, and time by a quantity of duration. However, conceptual difficulties are created where we choose innappropriate reference frames and geometries. For example, the belief that space is intrinsically a container for matter (vectorial motion) and the belief that "forces" are actually primary existents stem from the abstraction and disassociation of space and time. The "force" of gravity is an example. At issue is not that we can measure something we call a force, but that we do not bother to explain the force. After all, the primary existents are not quantities of mass or gravitational force. The primary existents are the quantities and qualities of a relationship between space and time.
However, we tend to be so accustomed to conceptualizing motion as some object in motion that we neglect to recognize the more primary role of space and time as being the cause of physical manifestation (i.e. of the object) itself.
I absolutely agree, zenmaster, but people here are more interested in 'prizes' than reality, i'm afraid!
Typically, space is represented by a quantity of distance, and time by a quantity of duration. However, conceptual difficulties are created where we choose innappropriate reference frames and geometries. For example, the belief that space is intrinsically a container for matter (vectorial motion) and the belief that "forces" are actually primary existents stem from the abstraction and disassociation of space and time. The "force" of gravity is an example. At issue is not that we can measure something we call a force, but that we do not bother to explain the force. After all, the primary existents are not quantities of mass or gravitational force. The primary existents are the quantities and qualities of a relationship between space and time.
However, we tend to be so accustomed to conceptualizing motion as some object in motion that we neglect to recognize the more primary role of space and time as being the cause of physical manifestation (i.e. of the object) itself.
I absolutely agree, zenmaster, but people here are more interested in 'prizes' than reality, i'm afraid!
QUOTE (Zenmaster+Mar 13 2006, 01:54 AM)
Philosophically speaking, space and time constitute two aspects of the same thing (duality): space is that which is static and discrete, and time is that which is moving and continuous...
Technically speaking, it's a recursive wave equation, what is describing such duality. It gives a powerful tool for solving and simulate situation not even from material world, but the world of abstract ideas, too. For example, the recursive wave equation can describe a new ideas spreading in the population by the same way, as the energy spreading through the material world. The complexity of Platonic world is in duality of the energy density in material world by the same way, as the time and space.
I've nothing against philosophy, as it can serve as the frontier of physic in many cases - but at the certain point the philosophy becomes just an amorphous description of the world of pure mathematical logic.
Technically speaking, it's a recursive wave equation, what is describing such duality. It gives a powerful tool for solving and simulate situation not even from material world, but the world of abstract ideas, too. For example, the recursive wave equation can describe a new ideas spreading in the population by the same way, as the energy spreading through the material world. The complexity of Platonic world is in duality of the energy density in material world by the same way, as the time and space.
I've nothing against philosophy, as it can serve as the frontier of physic in many cases - but at the certain point the philosophy becomes just an amorphous description of the world of pure mathematical logic.
QUOTE (Zenmaster+Mar 13 2006, 01:54 AM)
we tend to be so accustomed to conceptualizing motion as some object in motion that we neglect to recognize the more primary role of space and time as being the cause of physical manifestation (i.e. of the object) itself...
The Aether Wave Theory gives the answer again - both these insights are equivalent. The motion of massive bodies is just a wave energy redistribution in space, formed by the another waves energy recursively. The wave pocket concept can be approximated by the particle concept for those, which are don't like the abstract world of mathematical waves, namely at the case of large time - distance and/or energy. But it always remains some approximation of reality.
The Aether Wave Theory gives the answer again - both these insights are equivalent. The motion of massive bodies is just a wave energy redistribution in space, formed by the another waves energy recursively. The wave pocket concept can be approximated by the particle concept for those, which are don't like the abstract world of mathematical waves, namely at the case of large time - distance and/or energy. But it always remains some approximation of reality.
Zephir: I'm not looking for success, I'm just looking for TRUTH and explanations, Amrit.
Amrit: TRUTH does not need explanation, you know it or not
according to my understanding basic terms of physics should be based on elementary perception: matter, space, motion
and not on abstract thinking: ether, time (non ene ever seen time and ether)
Amrit: TRUTH does not need explanation, you know it or not
according to my understanding basic terms of physics should be based on elementary perception: matter, space, motion
and not on abstract thinking: ether, time (non ene ever seen time and ether)
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 13 2006, 10:59 PM)
...basic terms of physics should be based on elementary perception: matter, space, motion...
From the recursive wave equation perspective, just two quantities (i.e. the distance and time) should be enough for total description of the momentary state of the whole universe - it's so called geometrodynamical view, proposed by the Wheeler in about 1957.
Of course, the wave equation solution can be expressed in terms of kinetic or potential energy, mass or even motion - but by my opinion, without solid math background you have no guidance for such quantity reduction.
From the recursive wave equation perspective, just two quantities (i.e. the distance and time) should be enough for total description of the momentary state of the whole universe - it's so called geometrodynamical view, proposed by the Wheeler in about 1957.
Of course, the wave equation solution can be expressed in terms of kinetic or potential energy, mass or even motion - but by my opinion, without solid math background you have no guidance for such quantity reduction.
distace and time
you mean: distance and motion
motion of what ?
motion of matter,
matter, space and motion are the trinity of the universe
who is holly gost here you have to find out yourself
you mean: distance and motion
motion of what ?
motion of matter,
matter, space and motion are the trinity of the universe
who is holly gost here you have to find out yourself
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 14 2006, 11:18 AM)
you mean: distance and motion - motion of what ? motion of matter
I know, what I mean - I've told just distance and time, not motion. And the matter can be expressed by the subsequent wave equation solution, recursively, i.e. just by the space and time mutual dependence again. I.e. our Universe is formed just by the duality of quantities - not trinity.
But you're right, such duality is trivial to understand...
I know, what I mean - I've told just distance and time, not motion. And the matter can be expressed by the subsequent wave equation solution, recursively, i.e. just by the space and time mutual dependence again. I.e. our Universe is formed just by the duality of quantities - not trinity.
But you're right, such duality is trivial to understand...
You are quite correct, amrit - As Time, the local magician, could well be defined as simply "the manipulation of memory". Think about it.
Zephir: I know, what I mean - I've told just distance and time, not motion. And the matter can be expressed by the subsequent wave equation solution
Amrit: in the universe there is only one type of energy that has two basic forms : matter and space, space is build up out QS, matter is build up out of QS. motion of this one energy is eternal, it has no beginning
and this eternal motion we experience into time
Amrit: in the universe there is only one type of energy that has two basic forms : matter and space, space is build up out QS, matter is build up out of QS. motion of this one energy is eternal, it has no beginning
and this eternal motion we experience into time
Buddha says: time is an illusion? how that
Buddha discovered that in the universe there is no self. He showed that self is only an idea and has no existence on its own. Once one reaches beyond self time will also disappear. Time is a part of the self (ego, personality, mind) and recognizing self as an illusion also time becomes an illusion.
Motion happens into space only, not into time. This is so, it is not a personal experience, it is objective. The day physics will recognize that will be a new beginning of science.
Buddha discovered that in the universe there is no self. He showed that self is only an idea and has no existence on its own. Once one reaches beyond self time will also disappear. Time is a part of the self (ego, personality, mind) and recognizing self as an illusion also time becomes an illusion.
Motion happens into space only, not into time. This is so, it is not a personal experience, it is objective. The day physics will recognize that will be a new beginning of science.
My ancestors had an explaination of time I find intresting , and relavant to this discussion.
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once, and it doesn't move forward in a linear fashion as most imagine. If it did, time observed from different relative positions would intersect , creating noticable changes from each prospective reference point..
Time is a circle, and every moment in time that ever has been exists simultaneously with all other moments in time, the "progress" of time being measured by your position and movement along this circle time.
To put it as simply as I can, time is not a constant but it does have measurable though variable) qualities. One hour spent on the computer in the morning may pass quickly by your perception, while another hour waiting in a long line may seem like forever.
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once, and it doesn't move "forward" in a linear fashion as most imagine. Time is a circle, and every moment in time that ever has been exists simultaneously with all other moments in time, the "progress" of time being measured by your position and movement along this circle time.
Try to learn this "circle of time" concept and apply it to the rest of your physics. You will see repeatedly time misrepresented as a constant. The problem with this of course is that time has been proven to NOT to be a constant, linear progression.
As in the case of the proven time dialation due to relative movement of objects away or toward each other, time CAN be slowed down or speeded up.
The fact is our relative velocity with other objects in the universe modifies time, and makes it a circular progression, not a linear one.
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once, and it doesn't move forward in a linear fashion as most imagine. If it did, time observed from different relative positions would intersect , creating noticable changes from each prospective reference point..
Time is a circle, and every moment in time that ever has been exists simultaneously with all other moments in time, the "progress" of time being measured by your position and movement along this circle time.
To put it as simply as I can, time is not a constant but it does have measurable though variable) qualities. One hour spent on the computer in the morning may pass quickly by your perception, while another hour waiting in a long line may seem like forever.
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once, and it doesn't move "forward" in a linear fashion as most imagine. Time is a circle, and every moment in time that ever has been exists simultaneously with all other moments in time, the "progress" of time being measured by your position and movement along this circle time.
Try to learn this "circle of time" concept and apply it to the rest of your physics. You will see repeatedly time misrepresented as a constant. The problem with this of course is that time has been proven to NOT to be a constant, linear progression.
As in the case of the proven time dialation due to relative movement of objects away or toward each other, time CAN be slowed down or speeded up.
The fact is our relative velocity with other objects in the universe modifies time, and makes it a circular progression, not a linear one.
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once, and it doesn't move forward in a linear fashion as most imagine.
Amrit: you have no idea of what time is
Amrit: you have no idea of what time is
QUOTE ("Amrit"+)
Buddha says: time is an illusion? how that
I agree, the past and the future aspects of time are illusory. That is, those aspects are necessarily of the mind and have no existence outside of the mind.
However, the "now" aspect of time is quite real! But then the now aspect of time is often overlooked because we tend to relate to time in its durational sense.
However, the "now" aspect of time is quite real! But then the now aspect of time is often overlooked because we tend to relate to time in its durational sense.
yes, time has a duration, but not in the universe, in the mind only
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.