What is Time?

[RedDog]

Thanks for your post Earthist, It covers so much, that I'll have to break it down into several parts to really understand what you are saying.
As above, I think I'll address questions and comments per each view point.

Well, I'm pretty sure that time is, in fact, 'broken' into 'instants' for lack of a better term,

The sphere is a single instant image only. Remember that the whole sphere is also moving in space, and any spheres within it (thinking of the planet here) are also moving. Again, Earth-at-instant-number-one is DEFFERENT than Earth-at-instant-number-two. If it were otherwise, nothing could change.


Without form is the key here, I think. I think there is a 'spiritual' universe, and that universe is without time as well as without form. The physical universe, however, doesn't exist without change, and that IS time. Time is not just a measurement, it is awareness of change. The measurement is arbitrary: minute, year, atomic decay, whatever; but change -- movement -- is necessary to the existence of anything within the physical universe. Whether we're working to maintain or revert to/with the spiritual is another of those matters of opinion.

Per #1 above, if Time = Change = Movement, then time "flows" or moves.

We do seem to percieve time as 'flowing', smoothly and perpetual continuous motion, but is this view correct?

We have learned from quantum physics, that energy is not released continuously - there is a limit to how small a change in energy an atom can experience, depending upon its frequency state - it is released in discrete quanta by the emission of a single photon. Could there also be a limit to the change in time?

Our brains seem to experience reality at the same speed as a film plays -32 frames per second- and anything below that loses its appearance of smoothness.

Is there a point at which time loses its smoothness?

All we can say at this point, is that either time does flow smoothly and continuously, or if it moves in discrete steps we have not yet reached a level small enough to observe it. Which is part of the flaw; someone must observe it!

Sure, time contains matter; it contains ALL matter, every bit of it down to the smallest quark (or string). Everything moves in the physical universe. The only static occurs in the spiritual. I don't think you can understand, or even begin to discuss time unless you're willing to defferentiate. You don't have to necessarily call it spiritual. You can call it the other-six-dimensions (string theory), or you can call it the 'unseen,' or you can call it the shadow-world, or whatever you choose, My point is that it's NOT the physical universe.

This may fall under #3. You make time sound like it equals all space and therefore matter. So there is time here in the physical world and no time in the spiritual world. So there is no Universal time.

I'd have to agree, and this goes back to our previous side track into relativistic speeds. We all experience time as passing at different speeds, relative to our speed in relation to one another and the strength of any gravitational field that we may happen to be in. Our motion and position in the physical universe seems to imply No Universal time.

--------------------------

Anyway, it's the measurement of time that's mutable. Your ruler can be different than mine. You say 'it' happened at X time, and I say 'it' happened at Y time, but either way no one is denying that 'it' happened. Of course, you can say that change is change, NOT time, and that time is the measurement of change, but I think that's one of the things that serves merely to confuse the issue. It's semantics, but it's important semantics, I think.


You can travel psychically to a distant planet in an instant, but you can't bring your body.

I'd have to disagree, you can travel in an instant with your body, if the observer is moving at a much slower relativist speed in relation to you.
From your perspective, it is not an instant in time. It is how X views Y versus X viewing X.

"Perfect speed, my son, is BEING there." (I hope that's the exact quote. It's from Jonathan Livingston Seagull).

To realize that we are already there, is a very important point to that story and one that is indeed relevant to this discussion. Thanks for bringing that up.

---------------------------------------

After all the physics stuff, you're now returning to a realm where I might have something to add.

Disclaimer: this is all based on my personal experience, and I don't claim to be right, nor am I a trained remote viewer.

I can sometimes go places in the present (at least that's what I think I've done). Call it remote viewing if you want. However, if I want to psee (psychically see) something in the past, I find I either have to have a personal 'memory' of it, or I need to find another being who has one and get it second hand so to speak. What I cannot do is move back in time. So, since I wasn't there 12 billion years ago I cannot view the universe as it was then. (Or maybe I was. See that other post I mentioned above in the Who is the I thread. I don't have a date on that incident, but it was a long, long time ago.), Perhaps there are others who were there, I dunno.

You don't give yourself enough credit. I think you were there. Just as we all were there, and you have the very atoms of that event in your body right at this moment in "time". The only issue is "time" which has seperated us from that event through motion or movement. But since we contain the very atoms from that event and every other event that has occurred in all history, then you've got a physical recording of those events within you. That is how I view Remote Viewing, or any so call psi powers, as nothing more than tapping into those atoms that are a part of your physical being.

How's that for whacky? This explains why you can experience those emotions of events gone past, especially when you are in a location where more of the atoms exist for you to literally breath in.

It was fun to read. Thanks

[earthist]

Thanks for your post Earthist, It covers so much, that I'll have to break it down into several parts to really understand what you are saying.
As above, I think I'll address questions and comments per each view point.

Per #1 above, if Time = Change = Movement, then time "flows" or moves.

We do seem to percieve time as 'flowing', smoothly and perpetual continuous motion, but is this view correct?

We have learned from quantum physics, that energy is not released continuously - there is a limit to how small a change in energy an atom can experience, depending upon its frequency state - it is released in discrete quanta by the emission of a single photon. Could there also be a limit to the change in time?

Our brains seem to experience reality at the same speed as a film plays -32 frames per second- and anything below that loses its appearance of smoothness.

Is there a point at which time loses its smoothness?

All we can say at this point, is that either time does flow smoothly and continuously, or if it moves in discrete steps we have not yet reached a level small enough to observe it. Which is part of the flaw; someone must observe it!

So, the question is whether the universe moves in discrete steps (digital) or whether it flows (analog). The 'obvious' answer is analog, so that's not worth talking about here. So, let's say, just for the fun of it, that it's digital. Take it to the next step. We're saying that particles, at some level, don't slide from place to place, rather they teleport. In a sense, they blink out of existence and reappear an intant later at a new location. To ease the relativity confusion, it might help to say they blink out of one configuration and then reappear in a different one. Here are some questions that raises for me:

Do all particles blink at the same instant?

Do all particles blink at the same rate?

If they blink independently, can they be 'aligned' so they blink together?

Is on and off a polarity like magnetism? If so, can we 'magnetise' a group of them?

If it is polar in nature, can alignment be achieved as the byproduct of any mechanical process?

As you point out, this is just an exercise for the imagination unless there's a way to observe it. I would add that it still doesn't matter unless we can do something with it. I'm pretty sure the answer is yes in both cases, but until I can demonstrate it, even that doesn't matter. How about you? What leads you to think this way? Can you or have you done something that makes you think it's digital?

This may fall under #3. You make time sound like it equals all space and therefore matter. So there is time here in the physical world and no time in the spiritual world. So there is no Universal time.

I'd have to agree, and this goes back to our previous side track into relativistic speeds. We all experience time as passing at different speeds, relative to our speed in relation to one another and the strength of any gravitational field that we may happen to be in. Our motion and position in the physical universe seems to imply No Universal time.

I agree that there is no universal time. Even if the digital blinking is true, and even if it's universal, I see it as outside of time as we know it. It violates all known laws of physics and of the physical universe. If the digital blinking is true, it serves to create the physical universe, but is 'beyond' it.

--------------------------

I'd have to disagree, you can travel in an instant with your body, if the observer is moving at a much slower relativist speed in relation to you.
From your perspective, it is not an instant in time. It is how X views Y versus X viewing X.

Now you're back in Project's realm. I think he'd say that your statement is an impossibility in the physical universe. I did read a serious physics book (with equations and everything! ) that said (paraphrasing): If you imagine being a photon moving at lightspeed, no time would pass from your viewpoint, no matter how far you travelled. Our bodies can't do that, though because they have mass. Care to comment, Project?

You don't give yourself enough credit. I think you were there. Just as we all were there, and you have the very atoms of that event in your body right at this moment in "time". The only issue is "time" which has seperated us from that event through motion or movement. But since we contain the very atoms from that event and every other event that has occurred in all history, then you've got a physical recording of those events within you. That is how I view Remote Viewing, or any so call psi powers, as nothing more than tapping into those atoms that are a part of your physical being.

How's that for whacky? This explains why you can experience those emotions of events gone past, especially when you are in a location where more of the atoms exist for you to literally breath in.

It was fun to read. Thanks

Hmmmm...... I'm having trouble understanding here. If we were all there (12 billion years ago), are you saying we were all in one physical location and all carry the event forever forward in time? Are we made of all the same atoms (and maybe molecules) that we were made of then, but we've just transformed them structurally into new configurations? How could we have physically been present at all events that have occurred in all history? Sorry. I do get rather dense sometimes, but I'd appreciate some elaboration.

I think my hangup is mostly the physical vs non-physical aspect. You seem to be saying it's all explainable within the laws of physics. That makes it tough for me to understand since I'm convinced there's a separation, a real difference between the physical and the spiritual.

I doubt your idea is the least bit wacky. I just don't get it. Please try again. I'd love to gain a new viewpoint on this.

Thanks!

[Project]

A Brief History of Time is of course something anyone seriously interested in the physics of this should (try) to read. It is dense, but if you are like me and not averse to skipping a few pages of stuff that would hurt you to try to take in, you will get through it.

Now you're back in Project's realm. I think he'd say that your statement is an impossibility in the physical universe. I did read a serious physics book (with equations and everything! ) that said (paraphrasing): If you imagine being a photon moving at lightspeed, no time would pass from your viewpoint, no matter how far you travelled. Our bodies can't do that, though because they have mass. Care to comment, Project?

Well, you would have to have no mass, so assuming astral projection was some sort of ethereal conglomeration of something with no mass I suppose you could travel at light speed. However, as far as I know, time would pass normally for you, but it would seem different to an observer.

Now, there are things that seem to travel faster than light. Quantum entanglement is one. This starts getting messy, and we have to involve a higher theory than just GR or SR.

[earthist]

A Brief History of Time is of course something anyone seriously interested in the physics of this should (try) to read. It is dense, but if you are like me and not averse to skipping a few pages of stuff that would hurt you to try to take in, you will get through it.

I have read it, but I should probably do it again. The only thing I remember clearly from it is the description of entropy using the example of a coffee cup. Once broken, it will never reassemble itself due to entropy, and I thought that was a great explanation of the one-way nature of time.

Well, you would have to have no mass, so assuming astral projection was some sort of ethereal conglomeration of something with no mass I suppose you could travel at light speed. However, as far as I know, time would pass normally for you, but it would seem different to an observer.

Yes, that makes sense. But I'm certain of what was in that other book I read. I think the idea had to do with the difference between near light-speed vs at light-speed. Unfortunately, my son has it now, and I'll likely never see it again to verify.

Now, there are things that seem to travel faster than light. Quantum entanglement is one. This starts getting messy, and we have to involve a higher theory than just GR or SR.

Oh yeah, but that stuff makes my head spin big time. I've tried to read Bohm, and what I can grasp of it really appealed to me, but any time I try to explain what I read, it becomes apparent that I can't make heads or tails of it. It's one of those things (there are many) that I've filed away for further investigation some time in the future when I have a better grasp of other things.

Thanks again, Project.

[Project]

Yes, that makes sense. But I'm certain of what was in that other book I read. I think the idea had to do with the difference between near light-speed vs at light-speed. Unfortunately, my son has it now, and I'll likely never see it again to verify

There is lots I don't know, so you may be correct, but it does sound like you are perhaps confusing time dilation as a relative occurence vs a local one. Even at light speed, according to the last round of googling this thread has made me do says that your local clock will run at normal speed, but to an observer who is stationary, your clock would seem to slow, and even (almost) stop at light speed. This is again the twin paradox, and the way interstellar travel would be possible...

Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed retards the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human traveling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on Earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to travel since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime. The space travelers could return to Earth billions of years in the future. A scenario based on this idea was presented in the novel Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle.

A more likely use of this effect would be to enable humans to travel to nearby stars without spending their entire lives aboard the ship. However, any such application of time dilation would require the use of some new, advanced method of propulsion. A further problem with relativistic travel is that at such velocities dispersed particles in the rarefied interstellar medium would turn into a stream of high-energy cosmic rays that would destroy the ship unless extraordinary radiation protection measures were taken. Strong electromagnetic fields that could ionize and deflect any interstellar matter has been suggested as one way to avoid these potentially disastrous consequences.

Current space flight technology has fundamental theoretical limits based on the practical problem that an increasing amount of energy is required for propulsion as a craft approaches the speed of light. The likelihood of collision with small space debris and other particulate material is another practical limitation. At the velocities presently attained, however, time dilation is not a factor in space travel. Travel to regions of space-time where gravitational time dilation is taking place, such as within the gravitational field of a black hole but outside the event horizon (perhaps on a hyperbolic trajectory exiting the field), could also yield results consistent with present theory.

(there is gravitational time dilation as well, since Einstein observed that an observer in a closed system could not differentiate between gravity and acceleration) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation - this is real, true time travel, but it is to the future only in this theory

[Project]

Just interesting regarding time dilation, from same wikipedia page:

The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects so that they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth. In addition, but not directly time dilation related, general relativistic correction terms are built into the model of motion that the satellites broadcast to receivers — uncorrected, these effects would result in an approximately 7-metre (23 ft) oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured by a receiver over a cycle of 12 hours.

[RedDog]

Without getting to wrapped up in the man made physics of this discussion,
I'd have to say that time is not digital and flows smoothly. Yet when we apply our science to it, right down to the level of string theory, it appears to not be smooth.

This is a sign, that we are in a lesser realm of matter than the spiritual world is. Put another way, in the spiritual world of no mass, we exist as pure energy and thus can exist everwhere at once. Superliminal if you will.

Whereas in the reality we find ourselves in, we seem to have mass in everything and everywhere, except our minds. Our brains have mass, but our minds do not. Thus, we have a spark of the divine in our reality, which points us towards the truth. A kind of road sign.

Time follows certain rules and obeys certain natural laws once mass is introduced. It even seems linked to space in our reality. But once mass is removed, I think both space and time cease to have any impact.

[Project]

What is the practical implications of your theory?

What is a mind composed of?

[RedDog]

Hmmmm...... I'm having trouble understanding here. If we were all there (12 billion years ago), are you saying we were all in one physical location and all carry the event forever forward in time? Are we made of all the same atoms (and maybe molecules) that we were made of then, but we've just transformed them structurally into new configurations? How could we have physically been present at all events that have occurred in all history? Sorry. I do get rather dense sometimes, but I'd appreciate some elaboration.

It does sound confusing, trying to concatonate a difficult concept of what we are into one paragraph. So here's the logic:
We are made of atoms, so what exactly are atoms? We need to take a close look at what atoms are in order to understand what we are.

Atoms are the building blocks of absolutely everything in the universe
Individual atoms are not particularly useful to us in an everyday sense, but when two or more atoms combine they form a molecule. Molecules from the building blocks of who we are physically. When we die, the molecules don't cease to exist, they simple change form. Dust to Dust is the ultimate cycle.

Atoms exist for billions of years without showing any signs of ageing.
The atoms that currently form me will have all come from something else.
Rocks, trees, people, stars, cosmic debris. The list is long.
In a strange and paradoxical way we are both temporary and eternal, thanks to our atoms.

Because atoms are so small, and the human body is therefore made up of such a vast number of them, there is some rather surprising statistics. It is very likely, for example, that some of the atoms incorporated into your body, possibly as many as a billion, once were part of Alexander the great, or Jesus, or George Washington. The only requirement for someone else's atoms to be incorporated into you is that they died many years ago in order for there to have been enough time to allow for a thorough re-distribution of those atoms around the globe.

Furthermore, because of the sheer mind numbing number of atoms contained in your average lung full of air, it is also very likely that you have inhaled atoms that were once also inhaled by Jesus Christ; more than that, it is virtually a statistical certainty. Now there's a thought to chew on!

I've always felt after learning about Remote viewing, hauntings and such so called paranormal events, that there was something else at work which was the underpinnings to these impossible events. It might indeed be something as simple as a collection of atoms which has not diffused enough, that some people with some of the same atoms inside them, can pick up and see or hear.

I think my hangup is mostly the physical vs non-physical aspect. You seem to be saying it's all explainable within the laws of physics. That makes it tough for me to understand since I'm convinced there's a separation, a real difference between the physical and the spiritual.

I doubt your idea is the least bit wacky. I just don't get it. Please try again. I'd love to gain a new viewpoint on this.

Thanks!

I'm only trying to state obvious beliefs to get a response like yours. One that points to the flaws in that kind of thinking. I too, don't think our reality is explainable by the physical laws of nature or man. It is to limiting to do so. How can you describe the infinite with finite tools? It is a dead end.
`Seek and ye shall find...' signs which point towards the truth.

[Project]

How can you describe the infinite with finite tools?

So, how can you describe the infinite at all? Is it possible?

You seem to be saying that there is no way to understand this, that humans are not capable of it?

[Judee]

How can there be 'time' in a Universe with no beginning and no end?

[Project]

How can there be 'time' in a Universe with no beginning and no end?

How can we say there is no beginning or end without using time to judge it? Beginning and ending would seem to be time-based ideas. If there is no time to use, everything just "is". You can't say now, was, or will be, since that requires the idea of time.

[RedDog]

What is the practical implications of your theory?

What is a mind composed of?

Practical? A timely use of this knowledge?
Does there have to be?

What is the mind composed of? hmmm...How about spirit?

So, how can you describe the infinite at all? Is it possible?

You seem to be saying that there is no way to understand this, that humans are not capable of it?

I did? Hmmm... well I'm most likely just parroting some biblical passage about the mind of God then. I'm not sure this is in that same catagory, because, I do think that one can understand these concepts from a certain relative perspective. We move towards understanding as we move toward perfection. Maybe we cannot understand the "why" of time though, since that implies intent.

“You will begin to touch heaven, Jonathan, in the moment that you touch perfect speed. And that isn’t flying a thousand miles an hour, or a million, or flying at the speed of light. Because any number is a limit, and perfection doesn’t have limits. Perfect speed, my son, is being there....To fly as fast as thought, to anywhere that is,” he said,”you must begin by knowing that you have already arrived…”