Time and it's "spatial" conception
1 view
Skip to first unread message
AMA
Jul 14, 2008, 5:09:17 PM7/14/08
to Epistemology, Mind...@googlegroups.com
Hi to all,
When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
"disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
consensus and have no objective link with time?
When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
"disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
consensus and have no objective link with time?
ornamentalmind
Jul 16, 2008, 12:36:57 AM7/16/08
to Epistemology
Time is but our memory and images of the past, our projection of
events into the future coupled with the only thing that exists, the
present...now.
events into the future coupled with the only thing that exists, the
present...now.
Goran
Jul 16, 2008, 10:44:32 AM7/16/08
to Epistemology
hmm.. there is another conception of time also;
you also have to take into account the effect of possible and
probabilistic "universes", and their relationship to the time and
"present moment" -
where does the wave get "collapsed", so to speak? and, if it gets
collapsed for one observer, what happens to the rest of those
probabilistic states? what are the relationships between all those
probabilistic / possible universes? and, how does "time" factor into
this?
very quickly we can see that this is a problem of infinite complexity,
seemingly.
the interesting thing about time is that it's a phenomena that is
perfectly aligned with direction of entropy -
without the existence of entropy, i wonder whether we'd have time
alltogether!
/goran
you also have to take into account the effect of possible and
probabilistic "universes", and their relationship to the time and
"present moment" -
where does the wave get "collapsed", so to speak? and, if it gets
collapsed for one observer, what happens to the rest of those
probabilistic states? what are the relationships between all those
probabilistic / possible universes? and, how does "time" factor into
this?
very quickly we can see that this is a problem of infinite complexity,
seemingly.
the interesting thing about time is that it's a phenomena that is
perfectly aligned with direction of entropy -
without the existence of entropy, i wonder whether we'd have time
alltogether!
/goran
einseele
Jul 16, 2008, 11:08:41 AM7/16/08
to Epistemology
eHEYYYY Goran
Good to see you!
Yes, time is a complicated object.
I agree entropy aligns with the concept of time, otherwise is like St
Augustine said:
If nobody asks me about time, I perfectly know what it is, If someone
does ask me, then I simply dont know..
I would risk Time is also aligned with Temperature, and in general
with any concept made of two references, like longitude, distance,
I also like to think there are no instants, or "points" or "places" in
time, as these are spacial references.
Nice to see you back
Carlos
> > consensus and have no objective link with time?- Ocultar texto entre aspas -
>
> - Mostrar texto entre aspas -
Good to see you!
Yes, time is a complicated object.
I agree entropy aligns with the concept of time, otherwise is like St
Augustine said:
If nobody asks me about time, I perfectly know what it is, If someone
does ask me, then I simply dont know..
I would risk Time is also aligned with Temperature, and in general
with any concept made of two references, like longitude, distance,
I also like to think there are no instants, or "points" or "places" in
time, as these are spacial references.
Nice to see you back
Carlos
>
> - Mostrar texto entre aspas -
amoram
Jul 16, 2008, 1:58:08 PM7/16/08
to Epistemology
As the "time", as the "space" are exactly how Emanuel Kant supposed:
cathegories of the human perception.
I have the PROOF of it.
In fact, through the log in e-base, named "of the nature", it is
possible to "see" (with the intelligence) 1/4 of "time's" presence of
the Eath Volume, which is 10.8 multiplied by 10^21 m^3.
We "see" this 1/4 of 10.8, in the first 2 numbers of
2.7182818284590450 (the first 17 numbers of the e-base of the
logarithms of the nature". In fact, 2.7, multiplied by 4 PRESENCES of
"TIMES 1/4", gets 10.8.
Now the very interesting is the remaining part of the number 2.7
1828 1828 4590450.
In fact, all this number, is number of TIME.
1828 +1828 = 3656 units that are 365.6 tenths how 365 "DAYS" and 0.6
"HOURS", part of the Sidereal Year of 365 days, 6 hours, 540 seconds
equal to 9 primes, 9.54 seconds.
These last MINUTES TIMES are gotten from 459045, how its inversion in
540 seconds +9.54 seconds.
Where is the real MEANING of this inversion? It is valid because TIME
and SPACE are opposits, and 4590450 is SPACE, expressed in DEGREES.
They are the sequence of the 45° +90° +45° = 180° = Pi.
To schow WHY, we must see in the 10 cycle the SPACE and in its
inversion 01 the decimal TIME of the cycle.
So is is true between 20 and 02; 30 and 03; 40 and 04; in our case 045
and 540 senconds equal to 9 primes.
These MINUTES TIMES exist in a year because the unitary model of all
the masses, because 10^3 = 1,000.
This 1,000 is ABSOLUTE how ALL THE cycle of the mass. Its REAL UNIT is
only expressed how 999 units, or 999/1, in whic ONE UNIT is taken to
can number the remaining 999.
Very well, this 999, IN TIME, are 9 primes, 9 seconds and 9 thirds,
these last equal to 9 third minutes.
So the YEAR of the EARTH (Sidereal) has these littles 9 primes and
9.54 seconds because thei are relative to the PRESENCE of the 10^3
REFERENCE, of the mass.
The MASS is THE TIME.
In fact 10^3 electrons, each big a.m.u. 0.00054, are equal to the 0.54
seconds of the MINIMAL TIME of the Year.
We PERCEIVE the TIME in the Sun's light when we pereceive the MASS of
a WAVE after a WAVE.
We PERCEIVE the SPACE of its when we see this phenomenon in lateral
way. So, in a dusty room in which a suns's ray is passing we see a
line of SPACE of light, all existing in the same time. On the
contrary, the observer that perceives that same ray in his eye, see
THE TIME.
It is the same ray! But one observer see only the SPACE, the other
only the TIME and the MASS.
So do you understand that TIME and SPACE are only 2 different WAYS to
PERCEIVE the same Phenomenon.
Good by!
Romano Amodeo
cathegories of the human perception.
I have the PROOF of it.
In fact, through the log in e-base, named "of the nature", it is
possible to "see" (with the intelligence) 1/4 of "time's" presence of
the Eath Volume, which is 10.8 multiplied by 10^21 m^3.
We "see" this 1/4 of 10.8, in the first 2 numbers of
2.7182818284590450 (the first 17 numbers of the e-base of the
logarithms of the nature". In fact, 2.7, multiplied by 4 PRESENCES of
"TIMES 1/4", gets 10.8.
Now the very interesting is the remaining part of the number 2.7
1828 1828 4590450.
In fact, all this number, is number of TIME.
1828 +1828 = 3656 units that are 365.6 tenths how 365 "DAYS" and 0.6
"HOURS", part of the Sidereal Year of 365 days, 6 hours, 540 seconds
equal to 9 primes, 9.54 seconds.
These last MINUTES TIMES are gotten from 459045, how its inversion in
540 seconds +9.54 seconds.
Where is the real MEANING of this inversion? It is valid because TIME
and SPACE are opposits, and 4590450 is SPACE, expressed in DEGREES.
They are the sequence of the 45° +90° +45° = 180° = Pi.
To schow WHY, we must see in the 10 cycle the SPACE and in its
inversion 01 the decimal TIME of the cycle.
So is is true between 20 and 02; 30 and 03; 40 and 04; in our case 045
and 540 senconds equal to 9 primes.
These MINUTES TIMES exist in a year because the unitary model of all
the masses, because 10^3 = 1,000.
This 1,000 is ABSOLUTE how ALL THE cycle of the mass. Its REAL UNIT is
only expressed how 999 units, or 999/1, in whic ONE UNIT is taken to
can number the remaining 999.
Very well, this 999, IN TIME, are 9 primes, 9 seconds and 9 thirds,
these last equal to 9 third minutes.
So the YEAR of the EARTH (Sidereal) has these littles 9 primes and
9.54 seconds because thei are relative to the PRESENCE of the 10^3
REFERENCE, of the mass.
The MASS is THE TIME.
In fact 10^3 electrons, each big a.m.u. 0.00054, are equal to the 0.54
seconds of the MINIMAL TIME of the Year.
We PERCEIVE the TIME in the Sun's light when we pereceive the MASS of
a WAVE after a WAVE.
We PERCEIVE the SPACE of its when we see this phenomenon in lateral
way. So, in a dusty room in which a suns's ray is passing we see a
line of SPACE of light, all existing in the same time. On the
contrary, the observer that perceives that same ray in his eye, see
THE TIME.
It is the same ray! But one observer see only the SPACE, the other
only the TIME and the MASS.
So do you understand that TIME and SPACE are only 2 different WAYS to
PERCEIVE the same Phenomenon.
Good by!
Romano Amodeo
AMA
Jul 16, 2008, 5:38:04 PM7/16/08
to Epistemology
Hi all,
I have a weak scientific background, I could understand Goran and
Carlos's posts but not yours Romano.
Let's just try about great theories and try to be intuitive. Just try
grasp the "image" given to your mind when you try to think about time.
Personally I imagine a "moment" within a defined space (area). Is
there an explanation of this inevitable link between space and time.
Einstein showed clearly that we're in Space-time continuum; to me it
means clearly that they're linked, but it doesn't explain why I am (we
are) not able to imagine time without "materializing" in it. Isn't the
human mind able to grasp such a complicated concept or is it linked
with the western structure of mind?
I'm talking about western mind because of Ornementalmind's post "Time
eastern cultures (Buddhism). In this case, is the eastern view (about
time) sharper than western one?
"It was taught by the Buddha, oh Monks, that . . . the past,
the future, physical space, . . . and individuals are nothing
but names, forms of thought, words of common usage,
merely superficial realities"
I have a weak scientific background, I could understand Goran and
Carlos's posts but not yours Romano.
Let's just try about great theories and try to be intuitive. Just try
grasp the "image" given to your mind when you try to think about time.
Personally I imagine a "moment" within a defined space (area). Is
there an explanation of this inevitable link between space and time.
Einstein showed clearly that we're in Space-time continuum; to me it
means clearly that they're linked, but it doesn't explain why I am (we
are) not able to imagine time without "materializing" in it. Isn't the
human mind able to grasp such a complicated concept or is it linked
with the western structure of mind?
I'm talking about western mind because of Ornementalmind's post "Time
is but our memory and images of the past, our projection of
events into the future coupled with the only thing that exists, the
present...now. "
To me this post means "Time is an illusion" as its believed in some
events into the future coupled with the only thing that exists, the
present...now. "
eastern cultures (Buddhism). In this case, is the eastern view (about
time) sharper than western one?
"It was taught by the Buddha, oh Monks, that . . . the past,
the future, physical space, . . . and individuals are nothing
but names, forms of thought, words of common usage,
merely superficial realities"
ornamentalmind
Jul 16, 2008, 6:13:20 PM7/16/08
to Epistemology
AMA, both have their function and level within 'mind' ....both views
of 'time' that is.
> > > consensus and have no objective link with time?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
of 'time' that is.
>
> - Show quoted text -
AMA
Jul 16, 2008, 6:17:21 PM7/16/08
to Epistemology
So???
ornamentalmind
Jul 16, 2008, 8:05:24 PM7/16/08
to Epistemology
In answer to your "So???", when you earlier asked "In this case, is
the eastern view (about time) sharper than western one?" I thought
that you were presenting the apparently differing views as being in
some sort of opposition. IF I misunderstood you underlying motivation,
I appologize.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
the eastern view (about time) sharper than western one?" I thought
that you were presenting the apparently differing views as being in
some sort of opposition. IF I misunderstood you underlying motivation,
I appologize.
terenz8
Jul 17, 2008, 5:56:48 AM7/17/08
to Epistemology
Amoram, are you Romano Amodeo?
Also this explanation is of great interest. It's a pity that you say
this in an answer that only a few part reeds.
Make a new post about it!
> > consensus and have no objective link with time?- Nascondi testo citato
>
> - Mostra testo citato
Also this explanation is of great interest. It's a pity that you say
this in an answer that only a few part reeds.
Make a new post about it!
>
> - Mostra testo citato
Georges Metanomski
Jul 17, 2008, 8:05:39 AM7/17/08
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Thu, 7/17/08, terenz8 <ter...@libero.it> wrote:
> From: terenz8 <ter...@libero.it>
> Subject: [epistemology 9012] Re: Time and it's "spatial" conception
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 10:56 AM
> Amoram, are you Romano Amodeo?
> Also this explanation is of great interest. It's a pity
> that you say
> this in an answer that only a few part reeds.
==============
Indeed a pity that anyone should read it.
==============
>Make a new post about it!
=============
Please, don't.
Put it in your toilet and flush it.
=============
AMA
Jul 17, 2008, 8:32:17 AM7/17/08
to Epistemology
You don't have to apologize OM You completely caught my idea.
If the two views are not completely opposed, they're at least
complementary.
If the two views are not completely opposed, they're at least
complementary.
Georges Metanomski
Jul 17, 2008, 10:23:09 AM7/17/08
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, AMA <andali...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Einstein showed clearly that we're in Space-time
> continuum
============
He did not do anything of the sort.
I understand that you are familiar with the human cognitive hierarchy of territories / maps:
Transcendency / Sensorium
Sensorium / Imagery (or Phenomenon Domain)
Imagery / Symbolics (or Abstract Domain
Einstein made a symbolic, abstract Model having the merit
to consistently coordinate events of Imagery, without
addressing in any way their "nature". Even if he did,
it would have nothing to do with "our being in space-
time", as we "are not in" Imagery, which is a construct
of mind, two territories away from Transcendency, in which
perhaps "we are", whatever it may mean. Following Newton's
"hypotheses non fingo", Einstein did not make any
hypothesis about Imagery, let alone about Transcendency.
It's the most common and the most serious epistemological
error to confuse abstract Models with apparent "reality
of Cosmos", i.e. with Imagery, let alone with
Transcendency. Models coordinate abstract representations
of Events into deductively consistent an inductively
falsifiable symbolic structures. That's all. And not so
little, if you ask my opinion.
Georges.
============
AMA
Jul 17, 2008, 11:58:20 AM7/17/08
to Epistemology
I was waiting for your opinion. I'm still in a half-dark but light is
at the end of the way.
On Jul 17, 2:23 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
at the end of the way.
On Jul 17, 2:23 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ornamentalmind
Jul 17, 2008, 3:26:00 PM7/17/08
to Epistemology
"...If the two views are not completely opposed, they're at least
complementary..." - AMA
Do you see them as being consubstantial?
complementary..." - AMA
Do you see them as being consubstantial?
AMA
Jul 17, 2008, 5:04:26 PM7/17/08
to Epistemology
They're both a construct of the intellect but made on different
"skeletons" (the skeleton representing the cultural and religious
context and beliefs).
(I may have not completely grasped the meaning of "consubstantial".
"skeletons" (the skeleton representing the cultural and religious
context and beliefs).
(I may have not completely grasped the meaning of "consubstantial".
ornamentalmind
Jul 17, 2008, 6:29:11 PM7/17/08
to Epistemology
con·sub·stan·tial (knsb-stnshl)
adj.
Of the same substance, nature, or essence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consubstantial
adj.
Of the same substance, nature, or essence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consubstantial
Georges Metanomski
Jul 18, 2008, 2:12:36 AM7/18/08
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Thu, 7/17/08, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [epistemology 9030] Re: Time and it's "spatial" conception
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 11:29 PM
> con·sub·stan·tial (knsb-stnshl)
> adj.
> Of the same substance, nature, or essence.
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consubstantial
===============
> con·sub·stan·tial (knsb-stnshl)
> adj.
> Of the same substance, nature, or essence.
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consubstantial
G:
What's substance?
What's nature?
What's essence?
What does the dictionary, however free or fettered
know about it?
Why muddle AMA who is one of few, if not the only
one here who sincerely wants to learn and struggles
against his linguistic and educational limitations?
===============
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 12:55:56 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Hi OM,
That was the meaning I gave to the word. So, my answer is the
same...construct of the intellect....
What would you say about this "Ibhat 3an al 3ilm wa laou fi Sind"?
This will look to you as English looks to me.
Je parle un peu français aussi.
Y entiendo poco Espanol.
Ssent Tachelhit.
Thank you for the information about the FREE DICTIONARY I would never
thought about it without your sage and pertinent advice. You
enlightened the darkness of my stupidity.
That was the meaning I gave to the word. So, my answer is the
same...construct of the intellect....
What would you say about this "Ibhat 3an al 3ilm wa laou fi Sind"?
This will look to you as English looks to me.
Je parle un peu français aussi.
Y entiendo poco Espanol.
Ssent Tachelhit.
Thank you for the information about the FREE DICTIONARY I would never
thought about it without your sage and pertinent advice. You
enlightened the darkness of my stupidity.
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 1:09:47 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
OM,
Did you read "Essai sur les données immédiates de la
conscience" (Henri Bergson)?
My post was "inspired" from this essay. I red it and I'm now trying to
find out how far the ideas exposed there can be true, and to know if
other people (those who are supposed to be more cultivated than I am)
have the same view.
Did you read "Essai sur les données immédiates de la
conscience" (Henri Bergson)?
My post was "inspired" from this essay. I red it and I'm now trying to
find out how far the ideas exposed there can be true, and to know if
other people (those who are supposed to be more cultivated than I am)
have the same view.
ornamentalmind
Jul 18, 2008, 1:25:33 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
===============
G:
What's substance?
What's nature?
What's essence?
What does the dictionary, however free or fettered
know about it?
Why muddle AMA who is one of few, if not the only
one here who sincerely wants to learn and struggles
against his linguistic and educational limitations?
===============
OM - The first three are words with subjective associations many
G:
What's substance?
What's nature?
What's essence?
What does the dictionary, however free or fettered
know about it?
Why muddle AMA who is one of few, if not the only
one here who sincerely wants to learn and struggles
against his linguistic and educational limitations?
===============
humans have. The dictionary is an agreed upon repository of human
relative conceptualization.
In answer to your last polemic, AMA appears to have appreciated and
responded to my clarification.
On Jul 17, 11:12 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 7/17/08, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ornamentalmind
Jul 18, 2008, 1:26:58 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
AMA
Clearly I am more ignorant than you thus can not respond well to these
questions.
IF your comment about the dictionary was not irony, you are welcome.
Clearly I am more ignorant than you thus can not respond well to these
questions.
IF your comment about the dictionary was not irony, you are welcome.
ornamentalmind
Jul 18, 2008, 1:47:25 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
AMA,
I have not read his "Time and Free Will : An Essay on the Immediate
Data of Consciousness." as it is called in english. I understand it
was his first book.
Upon reading about this book, I am attracted to Bergson more than many
others.
His notion of a qualitative progress appears to have some promise.
Long ago I read his "An Introduction to Metaphysics" and found it
above the more common material analysis found in the writings of many
so called philosophers.
And, I seem to remember finding his notions a little bit naive. And,
since it has been many years, I can not be sure about this.
I wish I could be more clear and informative. I know I am not. And, I
don't address the notion of being more/less 'cultivated' than anyone.
I have not read his "Time and Free Will : An Essay on the Immediate
Data of Consciousness." as it is called in english. I understand it
was his first book.
Upon reading about this book, I am attracted to Bergson more than many
others.
His notion of a qualitative progress appears to have some promise.
Long ago I read his "An Introduction to Metaphysics" and found it
above the more common material analysis found in the writings of many
so called philosophers.
And, I seem to remember finding his notions a little bit naive. And,
since it has been many years, I can not be sure about this.
I wish I could be more clear and informative. I know I am not. And, I
don't address the notion of being more/less 'cultivated' than anyone.
Georges Metanomski
Jul 18, 2008, 1:53:52 PM7/18/08
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Fri, 7/18/08, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [epistemology 9041] Re: Time and it's "spatial" conception
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 6:25 PM
> ===============
> G:
> What's substance?
> What's nature?
> What's essence?
> What does the dictionary, however free or fettered
> know about it?
> Why muddle AMA who is one of few, if not the only
> one here who sincerely wants to learn and struggles
> against his linguistic and educational limitations?
> ===============
>
> OM - The first three are words with subjective associations
> many
> humans have.
==============
G:
We are supposed to deal with epistemology aka
theory of science. Thus we don't care a button about
subjective associations, but about scientific meaning
and usage of these words, which is none.
Science ignores them.
==============
The dictionary is an agreed upon repository of
> human
> relative conceptualization.
==============
G:
Whatever, if anything "relative conceptualization" may
mean, dictionaries are useful to define particular
concepts of restricted generality like "screwdriver".
For general concepts like "space", "relativity" or
"mind" they are kitchen almanacs of village idiots'
wisdom.
============
> In answer to your last polemic, AMA appears to have
> appreciated and
> responded to my clarification.
============
G:
Sad, but it's his problem.
Georges.
============
amoram
Jul 18, 2008, 3:12:26 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Dear AMA... don't you undertand AMO?
Now I explain better my conception of the time.
Let you think to the computers.
There are 16 units in horizontal line and 16 that we consider put in
vertical line, so that 16x16=256 unitary areas.
Each area receives a worth, of SPACE (and is a form, of letters,
designs...) and of TIME, and is a CALCULATION, how a multiplication, a
division, a sum...
This TIME introduces the variation of the result, that changes the
FORM.
So, to can see the TIME, you have to IMAGE the calculus, of our mind,
that GIVES this DURATION.
It is exactly this, derived by the light speed (of our brain, that
scatters
in the time the simultaneity of the presence of all the universe,
establishing in this wa the DURATION of the time:
299 792 458 : 207 542 =
1 444.4 9055131009626967071722524116
In this way we have the unitary volume of all the unitary masses of 1
m^3:
1 ×10^3 m;
we have the 4 dimensions of the space-time reality,
3 like "space" bigger than 1 m:
4 ×10^2 m represent the 4 realities of the only "space" of 100 m in
line.
4 ×10^1 m represent the 4 realities of the only "space" of 10 m in
line.
4 ×10^0 m represent the 4 realities of the only "space" of 1 m in
line.
and 1 like the decimal "time" of 1 m:
4 ×10^-1 m represent the 4 realities of the only "time" of 1/10 m
in line.
Here’s the real mass, like the work ×10 of c^2 ×10^-19:
90 ×10^-3 m is the mass energy 9 of the 10 times-masses
(of the entire cycle 10 of the mass).
Here’s the electromagnetic power 5 (in 10^-10 m):
5 ×10^-4 m is the 5 electric power of the electric reality 10^4.
5 ×10^-5 m is the 5 power of the magnetic power
at the electromagnetic worth 10^5.
etcetera.
While there is ALL PRESENT, we PUT IN only 1 m^3 of PRESENT MASS,
so scattering in the TIME all the others.
The TIME there is when you see a movie in 2 TIMES.
And the UNIT of the movie is divided in 2 half parts.
When you divide 1 in 3 parts, each part is the TIME 1/3 of the unit.
When you divide 1 in 4 parts, each one is the TIME 1/4 of the unit.
So, SPACE, and TIME, are categories of the human perception,
how daid Emmanuel Kant, becouse we are to divide in 1, 2, 3, etc.
parts... to can undestand.
The ONE is too equal!
1=1x1x1x1x1x1...
So, whithout change the 1, we put in 10 decimals.
Now the SPACE is different! Is 10, or 100, or 1000, and the
corrispondent TIME is 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000.
Another thing. We, existing, add time after time.
It is how 1 cake has 1 time, but the sequent 1 timeintroduced we have
that cake in 2 spaces, each 1/2.
The introduction of this TIME, introduces INFLATION, because the
second 1/2, cuts away the worth 1/2 by the whole cake.
Every time intruduced FORCES a redistribution, and the devaluation of
all the precedents parts.
This is the reason of the birthof new matter in the universe.
It is how a PILE that unloads all its energy in a duration always
shorter, and makes a flash always more luminous.
Is it augmented the energy? No, it is the TIME schorter.
If the energy unloads in 1/10 of second in different from the case in
which it unloads in 1/100 of second. In this TIME, the lightis 10
times more luminous becouse more concentrated.
Is it clear? The TIME is a PART of the UNIT.
If you see a ray of light in your eje, you perceive wave AFTER wave.
If you see it in a lateral way you see a lot of waves, how a line of
light, and the TIME there isn't more! There is SPACE runned in
velocity, but you see ALL the waves, whithout the difference of TIME,
introduced by a wave AFTER the other,
Boodbie!
Romano Amodeo
Here’s the absolute movement of the cubic volume,
(in its real complexity and freedom, in the absolute 10^-10 m):
13 ×10^-7 m is the cycle 10 of the 3 power in the power 10 of
10^10.
Here’s the unitary absolute area 100 at the unitary dimension
of angstrom 10^10 = 1 m, relative to the unit of the atom:
100 ×10^-10 m represents the area 10^2 relative to the 10^8
dimension of the light.
Here’s the electric "charge" (10^4)^4 of the real movement,
at the real dimension 10^-4 of its unit 10^16.
96 ×10^-12 m is the power 96 of the "real" power 10^100 ×10^-4,
equal in electric charge dimension to
(10^16)^6
Here’s the volume "charge" (10^3)^3 = 10^27
in the unitary time 10^-1, at the real D. 10^-4 of 10^-10.
26 ×10^-14 m is 13 + 13, at the corresponding 10^13 D. of its cycle
10.
Here’s the absolute “charge” (10^4)^4 of the real movement,
at the dimension 10^-16 m of its absolute unit.
96 ×10^-16 m is the charge of (10^16)^6,
acting also at its 10^16 dimension, whose unit is
10^-16.
Here’re the 3 space’s freedoms of the power 30 (of 10^30)
in the 3 powers 100, 101 and 102 (absolute, line and area)
70 ×10^-18 m is the power 70 (equal to the powers 10^100 ×10^-30).
71×10^-20 m is the power 71 (equal to the powers 10^101 ×10^-30).
72×10^-22 m is the power 71 (equal to the powers 10^102 ×10^-30).
Here’re the 2 time’s dimensions
(absolute and unitary one, of 10^-6 and 10^-4 in 10^-30)
25×10^-24 m is the Absolute TIME referred to 10^2 × 1/4.
24×10^-26 m is the relative time, relative to 24/1 hours, in the
absolute 25.
Here’s the cycle 10 in the time 1
(in 10^-30 having 10^-2 area)
11×10^-28 m is the unitary time 1 of the cycle 10 of the mass.
Here’re the 6 directions of the space-time
(in 10^-3 having 10^-1 in line)
6×10^-29 m is the last dimension, and represents all the directions
existing in m.
CONCLUSION.
The division between 299 792 458 and what (207 542 m) is put in lenght
in the transversal electromagnetic area, divides the lenght runned by
c
for the number 207 542 of all the UNITARY TIMES numbered in meter,
and obtains the quantity relative to each 1 m = s / 299 792 458.
The number resulting, 1 444.4 9055131009626967071722524116
is, in a clearest way, the determination of the UNITARY TIES, of
space, reality, energy of the mass, electromagnetis, volume's freedom,
absolute area, electric volume and absolute charge, etc.
IT IS THE UNITARY DURATION, of the dynamic model, in the s^-1 time,
that is expressed through all the relative TIES.
Romano Amodeo
Now I explain better my conception of the time.
Let you think to the computers.
There are 16 units in horizontal line and 16 that we consider put in
vertical line, so that 16x16=256 unitary areas.
Each area receives a worth, of SPACE (and is a form, of letters,
designs...) and of TIME, and is a CALCULATION, how a multiplication, a
division, a sum...
This TIME introduces the variation of the result, that changes the
FORM.
So, to can see the TIME, you have to IMAGE the calculus, of our mind,
that GIVES this DURATION.
It is exactly this, derived by the light speed (of our brain, that
scatters
in the time the simultaneity of the presence of all the universe,
establishing in this wa the DURATION of the time:
299 792 458 : 207 542 =
1 444.4 9055131009626967071722524116
In this way we have the unitary volume of all the unitary masses of 1
m^3:
1 ×10^3 m;
we have the 4 dimensions of the space-time reality,
3 like "space" bigger than 1 m:
4 ×10^2 m represent the 4 realities of the only "space" of 100 m in
line.
4 ×10^1 m represent the 4 realities of the only "space" of 10 m in
line.
4 ×10^0 m represent the 4 realities of the only "space" of 1 m in
line.
and 1 like the decimal "time" of 1 m:
4 ×10^-1 m represent the 4 realities of the only "time" of 1/10 m
in line.
Here’s the real mass, like the work ×10 of c^2 ×10^-19:
90 ×10^-3 m is the mass energy 9 of the 10 times-masses
(of the entire cycle 10 of the mass).
Here’s the electromagnetic power 5 (in 10^-10 m):
5 ×10^-4 m is the 5 electric power of the electric reality 10^4.
5 ×10^-5 m is the 5 power of the magnetic power
at the electromagnetic worth 10^5.
etcetera.
While there is ALL PRESENT, we PUT IN only 1 m^3 of PRESENT MASS,
so scattering in the TIME all the others.
The TIME there is when you see a movie in 2 TIMES.
And the UNIT of the movie is divided in 2 half parts.
When you divide 1 in 3 parts, each part is the TIME 1/3 of the unit.
When you divide 1 in 4 parts, each one is the TIME 1/4 of the unit.
So, SPACE, and TIME, are categories of the human perception,
how daid Emmanuel Kant, becouse we are to divide in 1, 2, 3, etc.
parts... to can undestand.
The ONE is too equal!
1=1x1x1x1x1x1...
So, whithout change the 1, we put in 10 decimals.
Now the SPACE is different! Is 10, or 100, or 1000, and the
corrispondent TIME is 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000.
Another thing. We, existing, add time after time.
It is how 1 cake has 1 time, but the sequent 1 timeintroduced we have
that cake in 2 spaces, each 1/2.
The introduction of this TIME, introduces INFLATION, because the
second 1/2, cuts away the worth 1/2 by the whole cake.
Every time intruduced FORCES a redistribution, and the devaluation of
all the precedents parts.
This is the reason of the birthof new matter in the universe.
It is how a PILE that unloads all its energy in a duration always
shorter, and makes a flash always more luminous.
Is it augmented the energy? No, it is the TIME schorter.
If the energy unloads in 1/10 of second in different from the case in
which it unloads in 1/100 of second. In this TIME, the lightis 10
times more luminous becouse more concentrated.
Is it clear? The TIME is a PART of the UNIT.
If you see a ray of light in your eje, you perceive wave AFTER wave.
If you see it in a lateral way you see a lot of waves, how a line of
light, and the TIME there isn't more! There is SPACE runned in
velocity, but you see ALL the waves, whithout the difference of TIME,
introduced by a wave AFTER the other,
Boodbie!
Romano Amodeo
Here’s the absolute movement of the cubic volume,
(in its real complexity and freedom, in the absolute 10^-10 m):
13 ×10^-7 m is the cycle 10 of the 3 power in the power 10 of
10^10.
Here’s the unitary absolute area 100 at the unitary dimension
of angstrom 10^10 = 1 m, relative to the unit of the atom:
100 ×10^-10 m represents the area 10^2 relative to the 10^8
dimension of the light.
Here’s the electric "charge" (10^4)^4 of the real movement,
at the real dimension 10^-4 of its unit 10^16.
96 ×10^-12 m is the power 96 of the "real" power 10^100 ×10^-4,
equal in electric charge dimension to
(10^16)^6
Here’s the volume "charge" (10^3)^3 = 10^27
in the unitary time 10^-1, at the real D. 10^-4 of 10^-10.
26 ×10^-14 m is 13 + 13, at the corresponding 10^13 D. of its cycle
10.
Here’s the absolute “charge” (10^4)^4 of the real movement,
at the dimension 10^-16 m of its absolute unit.
96 ×10^-16 m is the charge of (10^16)^6,
acting also at its 10^16 dimension, whose unit is
10^-16.
Here’re the 3 space’s freedoms of the power 30 (of 10^30)
in the 3 powers 100, 101 and 102 (absolute, line and area)
70 ×10^-18 m is the power 70 (equal to the powers 10^100 ×10^-30).
71×10^-20 m is the power 71 (equal to the powers 10^101 ×10^-30).
72×10^-22 m is the power 71 (equal to the powers 10^102 ×10^-30).
Here’re the 2 time’s dimensions
(absolute and unitary one, of 10^-6 and 10^-4 in 10^-30)
25×10^-24 m is the Absolute TIME referred to 10^2 × 1/4.
24×10^-26 m is the relative time, relative to 24/1 hours, in the
absolute 25.
Here’s the cycle 10 in the time 1
(in 10^-30 having 10^-2 area)
11×10^-28 m is the unitary time 1 of the cycle 10 of the mass.
Here’re the 6 directions of the space-time
(in 10^-3 having 10^-1 in line)
6×10^-29 m is the last dimension, and represents all the directions
existing in m.
CONCLUSION.
The division between 299 792 458 and what (207 542 m) is put in lenght
in the transversal electromagnetic area, divides the lenght runned by
c
for the number 207 542 of all the UNITARY TIMES numbered in meter,
and obtains the quantity relative to each 1 m = s / 299 792 458.
The number resulting, 1 444.4 9055131009626967071722524116
is, in a clearest way, the determination of the UNITARY TIES, of
space, reality, energy of the mass, electromagnetis, volume's freedom,
absolute area, electric volume and absolute charge, etc.
IT IS THE UNITARY DURATION, of the dynamic model, in the s^-1 time,
that is expressed through all the relative TIES.
Romano Amodeo
ornamentalmind
Jul 18, 2008, 3:31:30 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
G:
We are supposed to deal with epistemology aka
theory of science. Thus we don't care a button about
subjective associations, but about scientific meaning
and usage of these words, which is none.
Science ignores them.
======================================
We are supposed to deal with epistemology aka
theory of science. Thus we don't care a button about
subjective associations, but about scientific meaning
and usage of these words, which is none.
Science ignores them.
O: "We" do not accept your truth by fiat about what 'we' are supposed
to deal with let alone your absurd definition of epistemology nor what
'we' (you, in this case) care about. Clearly you are blind to your own
ongoing blatant use of "subjective associations" and obvious ignorance
of the very meaning of the title of this forum let alone the truth
that most scientists (not science, which does not do anything) are
well aware of these words and have the ability to limit their sight
when dealing with topics related to their training in that field of
labor. Most also have the ability to see beyond a mechanistic world-
view.
IF you don't believe my assertions about this group and what
epistemology means, you can check out how the owners talk in other
groups including humanities and poetry. Further, even though I
understand you are loathe to do so, you can use a dictionary to look
up the word. In this case, just epistemology and not megalomania,
which I suggest you do too.
Now that you have received a response to yet another one of your
polemics, perhaps you would like to look into the meaning of the word
troll?
=====================================================
G:
Whatever, if anything "relative conceptualization" may
mean, dictionaries are useful to define particular
concepts of restricted generality like "screwdriver".
For general concepts like "space", "relativity" or
"mind" they are kitchen almanacs of village idiots'
wisdom.
====================================================
Whatever, if anything "relative conceptualization" may
mean, dictionaries are useful to define particular
concepts of restricted generality like "screwdriver".
For general concepts like "space", "relativity" or
"mind" they are kitchen almanacs of village idiots'
wisdom.
O. Your ignorance is showing again 'G', or is it that worst and
incurable form of human ignorance, megalomania?
You are no more than a poor excuse for a dot in line-land with the
belief he can some day rule flat-land. Welcome to the next level!
See? Flaming is way too easy.
On Jul 18, 10:53 am, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > From: ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From: ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 4:24:36 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
I was a little ironic but now I regret (I'm human).
Let's say I was not and go on.
I discovered Bergson recently and "Time & free will" is the first book
I red from him (still few pages that I didn't). So, I have no comment
about his "An Introduction to Metaphysics".
I also think his view is "naive" and his methods empiric. Sometimes
some his thought seem confused and some results seem manipulated but
the whole stuff is OK.
Don't we forget that the book was written in 1888.
Let's say I was not and go on.
I discovered Bergson recently and "Time & free will" is the first book
I red from him (still few pages that I didn't). So, I have no comment
about his "An Introduction to Metaphysics".
I also think his view is "naive" and his methods empiric. Sometimes
some his thought seem confused and some results seem manipulated but
the whole stuff is OK.
Don't we forget that the book was written in 1888.
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 4:27:14 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
I did appreciate G.
You caught my will to go beyond the limits that were put on the road.
I also thank you for bibliography you advised me.
On Jul 18, 5:53 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
You caught my will to go beyond the limits that were put on the road.
I also thank you for bibliography you advised me.
On Jul 18, 5:53 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
ornamentalmind
Jul 18, 2008, 4:28:38 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Thank you.
And, books written much earlier had very valid notions in my view.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
And, books written much earlier had very valid notions in my view.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 4:45:48 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Hi Romano,
Your post is still too complicated for me.
I "think" that I agree with you on some points but I'd like you to
expand without mathematical demonstrations.
You're talking about "units", "Unity": isn't every unity composed with
a collection of units, and can't every unit be decomposed to a
multiplicity of other Units. So what do you exactly mean when you're
using this words. ex"Is it clear? The TIME is a PART of the UNIT.
(that would be the UNIT). Which UNIT?
I'd also like to know how you can be so sure when you're talking about
"Absolute", everything to you seems to be absolute. Have you seen the
truth? Have you been enlightened? Do you know Buddha?
Man I'm sure your trying to make me feel more ignorant than I really
am. You can't be serious with a post like this!
> ...
>
> read more »
Your post is still too complicated for me.
I "think" that I agree with you on some points but I'd like you to
expand without mathematical demonstrations.
You're talking about "units", "Unity": isn't every unity composed with
a collection of units, and can't every unit be decomposed to a
multiplicity of other Units. So what do you exactly mean when you're
using this words. ex"Is it clear? The TIME is a PART of the UNIT.
If you see a ray of light in your eje, you perceive wave AFTER wave.
If you see it in a lateral way you see a lot of waves, how a line of
light, and the TIME there isn't more! There is SPACE runned in
velocity, but you see ALL the waves, whithout the difference of TIME,
introduced by a wave AFTER the other, "
Do you mean that a very short moment is a part of a very long moment
If you see it in a lateral way you see a lot of waves, how a line of
light, and the TIME there isn't more! There is SPACE runned in
velocity, but you see ALL the waves, whithout the difference of TIME,
introduced by a wave AFTER the other, "
(that would be the UNIT). Which UNIT?
I'd also like to know how you can be so sure when you're talking about
"Absolute", everything to you seems to be absolute. Have you seen the
truth? Have you been enlightened? Do you know Buddha?
Man I'm sure your trying to make me feel more ignorant than I really
am. You can't be serious with a post like this!
>
> read more »
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 4:51:19 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Machiavelli's "Prince" is in my view one of the books that described
human being very sharply. His theories about people's behaviour are,
in my mind and daily experience, very near to reality.
Power, Money and Sex have been leading the world since its early
years.
> ...
>
> read more »
human being very sharply. His theories about people's behaviour are,
in my mind and daily experience, very near to reality.
Power, Money and Sex have been leading the world since its early
years.
>
> read more »
Georges Metanomski
Jul 18, 2008, 4:57:08 PM7/18/08
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Fri, 7/18/08, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com>
wrote a post like a
"tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
signifying nothing".
Thanks, your insults are my praise.
Answering another, equally intelligent post
stating -The "Not to be" is impossible!-
I wrote:
<<<
The "Not to be" an ass seems indeed quite impossible for
some illuminati. Not wishing to be personal I shall not
mention Amoram, Terenz8, Well, Goran, some mysterious
Romano Amodeo, Johnreed fancy dressed in pseudo-scientific
emperor's robe and a few others who escape my memory, to
whom I present most sincere apologies.
>>>
I'm sorry that you escaped my memory and sincerely
apologize.
One may ask, why am I staying amid this haystack
of imbecilities.
Two reasons:
1.One or two people seem to like conversing with me
and I would hate to maroon them.
2.I'm gathering materials for a study of most diverting
blunders and asininities in all types of media, mainly
on the Net. This list is one of the best, inexhaustible
sources. Thanks again.
But even most diverting blunders finish by getting
a bit monotonous. So don't bother to answer,
I won't read it.
Georges.
===================
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 5:10:06 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Hi G,
"and I would hate to maroon them." I like this image. It reminds of
our posts about the ocean, the shells and the Island...would you like
to let some of us on the island and continue on that fucking ocean
alone. I think OM is trying to push you to the limits, he may be
"gathering materials for a study of most " susceptible people on the
Net... Ne saute pas à pieds joints dans la trappe.
I'm not ironic, I swear by the most absolute suchness that I know.
On Jul 18, 8:57 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
"and I would hate to maroon them." I like this image. It reminds of
our posts about the ocean, the shells and the Island...would you like
to let some of us on the island and continue on that fucking ocean
alone. I think OM is trying to push you to the limits, he may be
"gathering materials for a study of most " susceptible people on the
Net... Ne saute pas à pieds joints dans la trappe.
I'm not ironic, I swear by the most absolute suchness that I know.
On Jul 18, 8:57 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
Georges Metanomski
Jul 18, 2008, 5:30:17 PM7/18/08
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Fri, 7/18/08, AMA <andali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: AMA <andali...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [epistemology 9053] Re: Time and it's "spatial" conception
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 10:10 PM
> Hi G,
>
> "and I would hate to maroon them." I like this
> image. It reminds of
> our posts about the ocean, the shells and the
> Island...would you like
> to let some of us on the island and continue on that
> fucking ocean
> alone. I think OM is trying to push you to the limits, he
> may be
> "gathering materials for a study of most "
> susceptible people on the
> Net... Ne saute pas à pieds joints dans la trappe.
==================
> Hi G,
>
> "and I would hate to maroon them." I like this
> image. It reminds of
> our posts about the ocean, the shells and the
> Island...would you like
> to let some of us on the island and continue on that
> fucking ocean
> alone. I think OM is trying to push you to the limits, he
> may be
> "gathering materials for a study of most "
> susceptible people on the
> Net... Ne saute pas à pieds joints dans la trappe.
G:
Thanks for the lovely image.
And thanks also for the warning. But to that sort of
aggressive idiocies I'm impermeable. As Shakespeare said,
they "pass by me as the idle wind, which I respect not".
Aleikum Saalam
Georges.
====================
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 5:39:51 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Peace.
On Jul 18, 9:30 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:30 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
AMA
Jul 18, 2008, 5:43:14 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
I should say "pokój". (If google translator is right).
On Jul 18, 9:30 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com>
On Jul 18, 9:30 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/18/08, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com>
ornamentalmind
Jul 18, 2008, 7:17:56 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
"..Power, Money and Sex have been leading the world since its early
years. .." - AMA
I agree.
years. .." - AMA
I agree.
ornamentalmind
Jul 18, 2008, 8:47:17 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Goran
Jul 18, 2008, 10:41:35 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
Einslee!!.. it is indeed good to see you my friend; i am glad that you
and everyone else seem to be having such a lively discussion on this,
and a range of other topics.
I think your observations are very interesting;
I have certainly never thought of time in the context of temperature,
but i suspect that there is indeed a link -
I remember talking to a physicist friend from Italy a while ago, who
was working on the well-known "travelling salesman / shortest route"
problem as part of her dissertation;
At one point, she mentioned that - at a critical point in her
algorythm - she needed to measure something; a particular natural
gradient of energy deteioration, and then plug it into her equations.
At this point i was actually quite puzzled, and sked "but why? and,
what did you measure?"
She answered that she took a glass of hot water, and then measured its
temperature as it was cooling down; and that this particular curve was
very well known, and used in simillar experiments and algorithms as
the most "objective" natural gradient against which to measure the
success of her algorithm. In other words, it suggested that there was
a relationship between the best-computation scenario, and a perfectly
natural phenomena of gradually transferring energy from one system to
another.
But, what does this mean, really??
Does this suggest a link between temperature, the loss (transfer) of
energy from one system to another, and entropy - all acting through
the medium of time?
And if so, does it suggest that the entropic "rate" is fairly constant
within a relativistic system - unless it's momentum increases, and
therefore, the overall "energy" of the system, as it approaches the
natural barrier of the speed of light? And, in such an accelerated
system, how does the relationship between temperature / entropy / time
play out?
As others have pointed in this thread, Einstein postulated some very
surprising observations, that all of us are familiar with, to one
extent or another;
If time is "strechable" and "malleable", what does that suggest about
the structure of space/time - and especially in the contexts of
temperature and entropy? Many have obviously already commented on the
causality within the space-time continuum itself; however, how do
temperature (if considered as a measure of the total energy of the
system) and entropy (if considered as a rate at which energy is
transferred from one system to another, or the total state of
organized information within a system) play into it?
Also, I think that your observation on the "points in time" is quite
fascinating;
Are there, indeed, "points" in time?
And if so, what constitutes the smallest, minimum such "point"?
I suppose that if we could "freeze" the universe at a given instant,
we could perhaps claim that any state above the absolute zero that
allows even the smallest of the sub-atomic / quantum particiles to
"move" would imply that this was the smallest such "point", or the
"gradient of time".
However, even if we had the sufficient energy to "freeze" the universe
at a particular point (which is hardly possible to imagine), would
that in fact prevent the random spontaneous occurences of virtual
particles from the "information field", that briefly but yet
definitively and constantly manifest themselves in our physical
universe?
It seems, therefore, that there is a curious relationship between time
and movement, and that - even if we conceptually had infinite energy
at our command - we could not arrest the full movements of the
universe.
All this perhaps seems to point to the existence of a grandiose,
collosal, and wholly unbridled energy, vitality and creativity in the
universe that perhaps expresses itself through time / space /
temperature / entropy in a rather miraculous, in not unstoppable
manner.
Can we take one element of that expression - time - and analyze it
separately from the rest?
/goran
On Jul 16, 11:08 am, einseele <Einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> eHEYYYY Goran
>
> Good to see you!
>
> Yes, time is a complicated object.
> I agree entropy aligns with the concept of time, otherwise is like St
> Augustine said:
> If nobody asks me about time, I perfectly know what it is, If someone
> does ask me, then I simply dont know..
>
> I would risk Time is also aligned with Temperature, and in general
> with any concept made of two references, like longitude, distance,
>
> I also like to think there are no instants, or "points" or "places" in
> time, as these are spacial references.
>
> Nice to see you back
>
> Carlos
>
> On 16 jul, 11:44, Goran <goran.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hmm.. there is another conception of time also;
>
> > you also have to take into account the effect of possible and
> > probabilistic "universes", and their relationship to the time and
> > "present moment" -
>
> > where does the wave get "collapsed", so to speak? and, if it gets
> > collapsed for one observer, what happens to the rest of those
> > probabilistic states? what are the relationships between all those
> > probabilistic / possible universes? and, how does "time" factor into
> > this?
>
> > very quickly we can see that this is a problem of infinite complexity,
> > seemingly.
>
> > the interesting thing about time is that it's a phenomena that is
> > perfectly aligned with direction of entropy -
>
> > without the existence of entropy, i wonder whether we'd have time
> > alltogether!
>
> > /goran
>
> > - Mostrar texto entre aspas -
and everyone else seem to be having such a lively discussion on this,
and a range of other topics.
I think your observations are very interesting;
I have certainly never thought of time in the context of temperature,
but i suspect that there is indeed a link -
I remember talking to a physicist friend from Italy a while ago, who
was working on the well-known "travelling salesman / shortest route"
problem as part of her dissertation;
At one point, she mentioned that - at a critical point in her
algorythm - she needed to measure something; a particular natural
gradient of energy deteioration, and then plug it into her equations.
At this point i was actually quite puzzled, and sked "but why? and,
what did you measure?"
She answered that she took a glass of hot water, and then measured its
temperature as it was cooling down; and that this particular curve was
very well known, and used in simillar experiments and algorithms as
the most "objective" natural gradient against which to measure the
success of her algorithm. In other words, it suggested that there was
a relationship between the best-computation scenario, and a perfectly
natural phenomena of gradually transferring energy from one system to
another.
But, what does this mean, really??
Does this suggest a link between temperature, the loss (transfer) of
energy from one system to another, and entropy - all acting through
the medium of time?
And if so, does it suggest that the entropic "rate" is fairly constant
within a relativistic system - unless it's momentum increases, and
therefore, the overall "energy" of the system, as it approaches the
natural barrier of the speed of light? And, in such an accelerated
system, how does the relationship between temperature / entropy / time
play out?
As others have pointed in this thread, Einstein postulated some very
surprising observations, that all of us are familiar with, to one
extent or another;
If time is "strechable" and "malleable", what does that suggest about
the structure of space/time - and especially in the contexts of
temperature and entropy? Many have obviously already commented on the
causality within the space-time continuum itself; however, how do
temperature (if considered as a measure of the total energy of the
system) and entropy (if considered as a rate at which energy is
transferred from one system to another, or the total state of
organized information within a system) play into it?
Also, I think that your observation on the "points in time" is quite
fascinating;
Are there, indeed, "points" in time?
And if so, what constitutes the smallest, minimum such "point"?
I suppose that if we could "freeze" the universe at a given instant,
we could perhaps claim that any state above the absolute zero that
allows even the smallest of the sub-atomic / quantum particiles to
"move" would imply that this was the smallest such "point", or the
"gradient of time".
However, even if we had the sufficient energy to "freeze" the universe
at a particular point (which is hardly possible to imagine), would
that in fact prevent the random spontaneous occurences of virtual
particles from the "information field", that briefly but yet
definitively and constantly manifest themselves in our physical
universe?
It seems, therefore, that there is a curious relationship between time
and movement, and that - even if we conceptually had infinite energy
at our command - we could not arrest the full movements of the
universe.
All this perhaps seems to point to the existence of a grandiose,
collosal, and wholly unbridled energy, vitality and creativity in the
universe that perhaps expresses itself through time / space /
temperature / entropy in a rather miraculous, in not unstoppable
manner.
Can we take one element of that expression - time - and analyze it
separately from the rest?
/goran
On Jul 16, 11:08 am, einseele <Einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> eHEYYYY Goran
>
> Good to see you!
>
> Yes, time is a complicated object.
> I agree entropy aligns with the concept of time, otherwise is like St
> Augustine said:
> If nobody asks me about time, I perfectly know what it is, If someone
> does ask me, then I simply dont know..
>
> I would risk Time is also aligned with Temperature, and in general
> with any concept made of two references, like longitude, distance,
>
> I also like to think there are no instants, or "points" or "places" in
> time, as these are spacial references.
>
> Nice to see you back
>
> Carlos
>
> On 16 jul, 11:44, Goran <goran.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hmm.. there is another conception of time also;
>
> > you also have to take into account the effect of possible and
> > probabilistic "universes", and their relationship to the time and
> > "present moment" -
>
> > where does the wave get "collapsed", so to speak? and, if it gets
> > collapsed for one observer, what happens to the rest of those
> > probabilistic states? what are the relationships between all those
> > probabilistic / possible universes? and, how does "time" factor into
> > this?
>
> > very quickly we can see that this is a problem of infinite complexity,
> > seemingly.
>
> > the interesting thing about time is that it's a phenomena that is
> > perfectly aligned with direction of entropy -
>
> > without the existence of entropy, i wonder whether we'd have time
> > alltogether!
>
> > /goran
> > > When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
> > > either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> > > "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> > > points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> > > who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> > > either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> > > "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> > > points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> > > who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> > > you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
> > > if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
> > > consensus and have no objective link with time?- Ocultar texto entre aspas -
> > > if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
>
> > - Mostrar texto entre aspas -
Goran
Jul 18, 2008, 10:58:32 PM7/18/08
to Epistemology
AMA,
Interesting post, indeed;
I think some of your questions are the ones that all of us are
wrestling with, because they are the "big" questions -
I suppose that many mystics and religions have asserted that all of
creation exists in the "eternal now", in one magnificent if not
collosal "moment", all co-creating simultaneously through an
unimagably complex web of interactions and inter-dependencies; and
that it is only through the facility of our perception, observation
and consciousness that we "parse" this eternal moment, producing a
much more bearable experience of a gradual and linear "passing of
time".
Somewhere in there, there seems to be a relationship between the
observer / observed, and the nature of collapsing probability waves -
when no-one seems to be looking.
Does it seem to suggest that, in order for us or even the universe
itself to have a continuous experience of itself and one "coherent",
collapsed probability-wave timeline, there always needs to be an
observer, even in "empty space" - as the Schrödinger's Cat experiment
may be interpreted to suggest?
Certainly, the universe seems to have been happily evolving for quite
a while, well before anyone appears to have stopped to take a look.
Is a conscious observer necessary for this "parsing of time" to
occur? And if so, what constitutes such an observer - will any kind
of consciousness do?
Perhaps this may inch a little closer towards the link between
imagination, materialization, and the moment you're looking for.
/goran
Interesting post, indeed;
I think some of your questions are the ones that all of us are
wrestling with, because they are the "big" questions -
I suppose that many mystics and religions have asserted that all of
creation exists in the "eternal now", in one magnificent if not
collosal "moment", all co-creating simultaneously through an
unimagably complex web of interactions and inter-dependencies; and
that it is only through the facility of our perception, observation
and consciousness that we "parse" this eternal moment, producing a
much more bearable experience of a gradual and linear "passing of
time".
Somewhere in there, there seems to be a relationship between the
observer / observed, and the nature of collapsing probability waves -
when no-one seems to be looking.
Does it seem to suggest that, in order for us or even the universe
itself to have a continuous experience of itself and one "coherent",
collapsed probability-wave timeline, there always needs to be an
observer, even in "empty space" - as the Schrödinger's Cat experiment
may be interpreted to suggest?
Certainly, the universe seems to have been happily evolving for quite
a while, well before anyone appears to have stopped to take a look.
Is a conscious observer necessary for this "parsing of time" to
occur? And if so, what constitutes such an observer - will any kind
of consciousness do?
Perhaps this may inch a little closer towards the link between
imagination, materialization, and the moment you're looking for.
/goran
> > THE TIME.
> > It is the same ray! But one observer see only the SPACE, the other
> > only the TIME and the MASS.
> > So do you understand that TIME and SPACE are only 2 different WAYS to
> > PERCEIVE the same Phenomenon.
>
> > Good by!
>
> > Romano Amodeo
>
> > It is the same ray! But one observer see only the SPACE, the other
> > only the TIME and the MASS.
> > So do you understand that TIME and SPACE are only 2 different WAYS to
> > PERCEIVE the same Phenomenon.
>
> > Good by!
>
> > Romano Amodeo
>
Georges Metanomski
Jul 19, 2008, 3:18:54 AM7/19/08
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Fri, 7/18/08, AMA <andali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: AMA <andali...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [epistemology 9056] Re: Time and it's "spatial" conception
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 10:43 PM
> I should say "pokój". (If google translator is
> right).
=================
G:
It's right, but incomplete. I understand "Saalam Aleikum"
and "Shalom Aleichem" as "peace to you" or "pokój z toba".
So let it be.
Georges
================
ornamentalmind
Jul 19, 2008, 7:00:45 AM7/19/08
to Epistemology
"...Is a conscious observer necessary for this "parsing of time" to
Goran, in my view, this too is an excellent question!
As far as I know, to see this issue more clearly, we must not only
address consciousness but Mind. (not merely brain) We know about our
relative/subjective Mind which thinks using words and concepts. There
also exists, perhaps mostly experienced with awareness by the
'mystics', our absolute/objective Mind which has no components. Once
these both are observed consubstantially, there no longer appears any
contradiction between observing time as well as no-time.
> > > > consensus and have no objective link with time?- Hide quoted text -
occur? And if so, what constitutes such an observer - will any kind
of consciousness do?..." - Goran
Goran, in my view, this too is an excellent question!
As far as I know, to see this issue more clearly, we must not only
address consciousness but Mind. (not merely brain) We know about our
relative/subjective Mind which thinks using words and concepts. There
also exists, perhaps mostly experienced with awareness by the
'mystics', our absolute/objective Mind which has no components. Once
these both are observed consubstantially, there no longer appears any
contradiction between observing time as well as no-time.
AMA
Jul 19, 2008, 1:46:12 PM7/19/08
to Epistemology
I guess I (we) have two conceptions of time:
1.Sometimes one could imagine it as homogeneous "environment" where
memories and emotions seem to be happening all together
(simultaneously). In this case one takes no account of the duration of
the moment nor of the order of events. Thus the concept of space have
been introduced in this conception of time (Kant described space as
being some kind of homogeneous "environment").
2.Another conception, linked with duration, would be that where one's
memories and emotions (Etats de conscience) seem to be fading in one
another just like the notes of a melody. Thus, one is just conscious
of the present moment that covered or dissimulated the previous
moment. We have in this case a succession without distinction, every
state of mind being the result and the latest state resulting from of
the construction between all previous states of mind. The problem here
is that to get this conception one needs to abstract every notion of
space from his mind, this is really hard to do.
The point may be a result of this belief : "Two objects can't exist at
the same moment at the same place". So, as one tend to materialize
emotions and memories, one "can't put them in that same "place" in
"time and one get a construct of an "Extended space" representing his
conception of "time" where events are disposed one beside the other.
One conceives "time" in terms of "space".
1.Sometimes one could imagine it as homogeneous "environment" where
memories and emotions seem to be happening all together
(simultaneously). In this case one takes no account of the duration of
the moment nor of the order of events. Thus the concept of space have
been introduced in this conception of time (Kant described space as
being some kind of homogeneous "environment").
2.Another conception, linked with duration, would be that where one's
memories and emotions (Etats de conscience) seem to be fading in one
another just like the notes of a melody. Thus, one is just conscious
of the present moment that covered or dissimulated the previous
moment. We have in this case a succession without distinction, every
state of mind being the result and the latest state resulting from of
the construction between all previous states of mind. The problem here
is that to get this conception one needs to abstract every notion of
space from his mind, this is really hard to do.
The point may be a result of this belief : "Two objects can't exist at
the same moment at the same place". So, as one tend to materialize
emotions and memories, one "can't put them in that same "place" in
"time and one get a construct of an "Extended space" representing his
conception of "time" where events are disposed one beside the other.
One conceives "time" in terms of "space".
ornamentalmind
Jul 19, 2008, 9:25:56 PM7/19/08
to Epistemology
I just ran across this today. It *may* be relevant.
ARISTOTLE, chapter 8 of book III, ON THE SOUL (bolding by me):
"And now, bringing together what has been said about the soul under
one main point, let us say again that the soul is in a certain way all
beings, for beings are either able of perception or intellection,
while knowledge in a certain way is the things it knows, and
perception is the things it perceives, but one needs to inquire in
what way this is so."
ARISTOTLE, chapter 8 of book III, ON THE SOUL (bolding by me):
"And now, bringing together what has been said about the soul under
one main point, let us say again that the soul is in a certain way all
beings, for beings are either able of perception or intellection,
while knowledge in a certain way is the things it knows, and
perception is the things it perceives, but one needs to inquire in
what way this is so."
einseele
Jul 20, 2008, 11:01:52 AM7/20/08
to Epistemology
Hi Goran
Great post of you here
Do you believe is there any logical possibility of information
"outside" Universe?
I do
I mean, nothing is outside universe, but can be absent, therefore
somehow is able to "come into"
Let me give a quick example, sorry all who already saw it.
Internet represents certain space, a group of 256^4 possible addresses
(that can be expanded to whichever power you consider).
That space is just an invention, a concept brought into the world....
from?
And a pure concept yes, like so many others. But be careful, billions
today depend on it. And lets suppose a cataclysm let us without the
hardware (another object which comes... from?), so what? Even then
that space is now part of Universe.
And was not, where was it before?
I believe Universe is incomplete. But at the same time this cannot be.
Is there any chance of a third position? Yes. absence is the word that
covers the gap.
kind regards
Carlos
> > > - Mostrar texto entre aspas -- Ocultar texto entre aspas -
Great post of you here
Do you believe is there any logical possibility of information
"outside" Universe?
I do
I mean, nothing is outside universe, but can be absent, therefore
somehow is able to "come into"
Let me give a quick example, sorry all who already saw it.
Internet represents certain space, a group of 256^4 possible addresses
(that can be expanded to whichever power you consider).
That space is just an invention, a concept brought into the world....
from?
And a pure concept yes, like so many others. But be careful, billions
today depend on it. And lets suppose a cataclysm let us without the
hardware (another object which comes... from?), so what? Even then
that space is now part of Universe.
And was not, where was it before?
I believe Universe is incomplete. But at the same time this cannot be.
Is there any chance of a third position? Yes. absence is the word that
covers the gap.
kind regards
Carlos
moralfinite
Jul 22, 2008, 12:37:50 PM7/22/08
to Epistemology
All perception is flawed or inaccurate therefore the concept of
infinity is flawed or inaccurate.
Time is not a perception though, time implies a "beginning". Is that
just perception? Without a beginning -all arguments of time fall
apart.
Without matter all arguments about time fall apart. So, I argue that
time is dependent on matter.
All matter has a beginning and an end. Everything finite has a
beginning and an end. Therefore time must have an end.
Is all space material? well, what else could it be? space is finite
and will end (collapse). Space is not infinite because "immeasurable"
does not mean infinite.
Humanly impossible but not infinitely complicated.(smile). I don't
believe in infinity -I'm a true atheist.
moralfinite
infinity is flawed or inaccurate.
Time is not a perception though, time implies a "beginning". Is that
just perception? Without a beginning -all arguments of time fall
apart.
Without matter all arguments about time fall apart. So, I argue that
time is dependent on matter.
All matter has a beginning and an end. Everything finite has a
beginning and an end. Therefore time must have an end.
Is all space material? well, what else could it be? space is finite
and will end (collapse). Space is not infinite because "immeasurable"
does not mean infinite.
Humanly impossible but not infinitely complicated.(smile). I don't
believe in infinity -I'm a true atheist.
moralfinite
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages