Conscious Experience of Time And Motion

[amrit]

In science we experience motion with the rational mind. Scientific mind uses "time" as a main frame into which all physical phenomena are examined. Time as a frame of the mind (we will call it "mind-time frame") was build up by observing motion. To have a rational understanding of the events in the nature human mind has developed "mind-time frame" that is composed out of past, present and future.
In the universe time does not exists, there is no evidence about time. All we observe is motion. We experience motion into the "mind-time frame", we project time into the universe.
By observing (watching, witnessing) the mind we distinguish between motion and time, we become aware that motion runs into what Einstein calls NOW.

……... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science. Albert Einstein

amrit

[Epsilon=One]

In science we experience motion with the rational mind. Scientific mind uses "time" as a main frame into which all physical phenomena are examined. Time as a frame of the mind (we will call it "mind-time frame") was build up by observing motion.Maybe so, but . . . what is time???

The mind plays illusional and delusional tricks with rationality. The academic mind of man, presently, has no such consensus as that which you propose. A platitude does not suffice as a definition.

To have a rational understanding of the events in the nature human mind has developed "mind-time frame" that is composed out of past, present and future.Such, with many, is the situation. However, as most astronomers are aware, the concept of “past, present and future” is quite elusive and deceptive. Certainly such a concept is useless in the scientific investigation as to what comprises generic “motion” and fundamental “time.”

While searching for truth, every effort must be made to eliminate the subjectivity of the investigator’s “mind.”

In the universe time does not exists, there is no evidence about time.This is false. There is nowhere that the evidence of “time” is not abundantly clear. Without “time” there can be no synchronization. Without synchronization there can be no organization. Without organization there is complete chaos. No rational person has ever suggested that Reality is complete chaos. In fact, just the opposite is the usual conclusion among the most learned.

All we observe is motion.This is because everything that exists has a common denominator of “motion.”

Time is a complex concept; particularly so with fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT), of which one component is accelerating motion.

We experience motion into the "mind-time frame", we project time into the universe.No. “We” do not “project time into the universe”; at least, not in the usual definition, or sense, of time. The “clock” that measures FIT exists; it exists whether or not “we” exist.

An understanding of the Universe requires that anthropoids are only an advanced, minor, evolutionary part of Reality.

By observing (watching, witnessing) the mind we distinguish between motion and time, we become aware that motion runs into what Einstein calls NOW.Are you, now, saying that “motion and time” are distinguishable? You are making my point that they are entirely different concepts.

……... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science. Albert EinsteinAs is most often the case, I agree with Einstein. “Now… is outside the realm of science.” It is outside the realm of science because “now”/the present does not exist. Only the past and the future exist. An instant/an infinitesimal (Infinity) is a limit beyond Reality.

[amrit]

EPSILON Are you, now, saying that “motion and time” are distinguishable? You are making my point that they are entirely different concepts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
……... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science. Albert Einstein

As is most often the case, I agree with Einstein. “Now… is outside the realm of science.” It is outside the realm of science because “now”/the present does not exist. Only the past and the future exist. An instant/an infinitesimal (Infinity) is a limit beyond Reality.

Amrit: Motion is physical reality, time is a concept of the mind developed in Western culture. You might now that some people on remote islands now only “present” in their language. All that happens is NOW. Jewish culture has introduced in Europe the concept of the linear time: past, present, future.

You say: Present do not exist? Only past and future exist? This your statements shows clearly that you see universe and also the scientific models that describe the universe into “mind-time frame”.

We can perceive only the physical reality that exists. We can not perceive physical reality that do not exists. And we perceive and experience present moment only, called by Einstein NOW. So about existence of the present momemt there is no doubt. Nobody ever experiences physical past or physical future any any scientific experiment carried out on this planet. So past and future are of the mind.

Let’s make a small experiment. You move your hand in front of the eyes. Your hand is moving from position X to position X+1, to X+2 .........to X+n. When your hand is on the position X+1 it is not any more into position X and not yet into position X+2.
When you observe hand into position X it is for you a present moment, when you observe it on the position X1 it is a present moment for you, and so on.............
You can always observe an experiment only in the present moment, never yesterday or tomorrow. Why? Because only the present moment exists as a physical reality, past and future belongs to the mind.

Universe run always into the present moment that Einstein calls NOW. Motion runs into this NOW. We experience motion into time. Time belongs to the mind, motion to the universe.

Universe is a-temporal phenomena. In the universe time does not run at all. Universe is a wholeness into dynamical equilibrium with no beginning and no end. The total entropy of the universe sums to zero. Universe is eternal.
motion is physical
time is of the mind

[Epsilon=One]

Motion is physical reality, time is a concept of the mind developed in Western culture. You might now that some people on remote islands now only “present” in their language.Yes, there are definitions of “time” that differ by cultures.

As I have stated, there are many different definitions for time depending upon how it is measured.

I am stating that time (as usually connoted) is simply that which is measured by “clocks.” The trick is to define the “clock” that measures the type of time that you are discussing.

The type of time which is most fundamental and underlies the concepts most often used by theoretical physicists, and which is little understood, is what I refer to as fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT). FIT is what synchronizes the Cosmic bodies and subatomic phenomena; FIT is built into every single quantum of the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151).

I am sure that we can agree that FIT is unknown to many primitive cultures, regardless of their location, as, also, is the concept of now/present being an infinitesimal moment that cannot exist.

Have you considered that a piece of furniture that is across the room is in a different timeframe from a piece of furniture in another room, both of which are in a different timeframe than you are? Can it be proper to state which of the three are in the “present.” The present can never exist as anything that is anymore than a delusional concept.

All that happens is NOW.Not even close. Everything happens at different timeframes. Nothing happens “NOW.”

Jewish culture has introduced in Europe the concept of the linear time: past, present, future.Does Jewish culture have a “lock on truth”?

You say: Present do not exist? Only past and future exist? This your statements shows clearly that you see universe and also the scientific models that describe the universe into “mind-time frame”.Above all else, I want to be clear that I see the “mind” as something that has no control or effect concerning the fundamental Universe.

The only physical reality that exist is the one we can perceive and experience. Nothing can be further from my beliefs. I firmly believe from all the principles of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142) that “physical reality” existed long before there was any anthropoidal perception or experience.

And we perceive and experience present moment only, called by Einstein NOW.Not for one moment have I ever thought that Einstein had a different perspective on the past, present, and future than I do. Einstein, the father (or midwife) of relativity certainly understood that the present cannot exist. I’m sure any astrophysicist would arrive at the same conclusion. After all, they deal with the relative past and future all the time when they peer into the Cosmos.

Let’s make a small experiment. You move your hand in front of the eyes. Your hand is moving from position X to position X+1, to X+2 .........to X+n. When your hand is on the position X+1 it is not any more into position X and not yet into position X+2.
When you observe hand into position X it is for you a present moment, when you observe it on the position X1 it is a present moment for you, and so on.............
You can always observe an experiment only in the present moment, never yesterday or tomorrow. Why? Because only the present moment exists as a physical reality, past and future belongs to the mind.Your gedunken is based on all false premises. The hand is always in a different location that is always moving; thus, the present, which requires an absence of motion, is never present.

Universe run always into the present moment that Einstein calls NOW. Motion runs into this NOW. We experience motion into time. Time belongs to the mind, motion to the universe.No. No. No. Yes. Yes. Not bad two out of five is better than all wrong. Please study astronomy, relativity, logic, and the mathematics of the infinitesimal.

Universe is a-temporal phenomena.No.

In the universe time does not run at all.Maybe time does not; but a fundamental “clock” does; as, all observation indicates.

Universe is a wholeness into dynamical equilibrium with no beginning and no end. The total entropy of the universe sums to zero. Universe is eternal.You are correct. And, you have just obliterated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

motion is physicalAgreed.

time is of the mindAgreed. Are you now taking a different position than Time Is Motion as stated in your TIM Theory, which I disagreed with in a prior thread (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=353)?

Time Is Motion (TIM Theory) - Summary
(published mainly in Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics: www.ejtp.com)

[amrit]

Hi Epsilon

It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things. (Ernst Mach)

My ideas on time and motion are based on Mach. Yes, I change my mind. Motion is motion and time is time.
I use to say that motion is physical time and “mind-time frame” is physiological time but this only make people more confused.
In the universe we can only observe motion, so motion is physical and time is of the mind. We experience motion into time.
More clear, more elegant.

What you say about existence of the past and future, I would be more careful. That physical past do not exists is more than evident. Go for a walk. The step you did is lost for ever.

Bridging Physics and Ontology

........... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science. Albert Einstein

Einstein’s NOW is what Kant calls “Ding an sich”, what in Zen is called “Tathagata” (Suchness), one could say "The Truth".

Does physics have a capacity to integrate ontology ? This question is into my mind for 17 years. Back in 1989 i was carrying out an experiment at the University Of Ljubljana for two month every day. I was measuring the weight of earth worms at the time of death in order to see there is relation between gravitational force and life.

During this period i read some of Einstein and I came across his statement above. What he say is right. I was measuring the weight always only in the present moment (into NOW), never into past or future. It came into my mind: Might be Einstein’s NOW is something that exists and I do not know the way to experience it.

After 17 years I have some results: the bridge into the NOW is understanding that motion belongs to the universe and time to the mind. Universe in in a continuous movement. The motion happens into NOW.
In order to experience motion in a rational manner human mind has developed time.
Time is a main frame of the mind into which we experience universe, ourselves, scientific theories about the universe.
By distinguishing motion and time one becomes aware of the NOW.

The only way to distinguish motion and time is to watch (witness) the mind and to become aware that time belongs to the mind and motion to the universe. Watching (witnessing) the mind is a function of consciousness. Let’s make an experiment. You take a pendulum and put it in front of you. Swing the pendulum and watch it for a while with the open eyes. Than close the eyes and watch the image of the swinging pendulum. The watcher that watches the pendulum is the same, it is a consciousness itself. You can open eyes again, watch the pendulum, close it again...........open it...
This experiment will help you to see the difference between motion and time into which you experience motion. You will discover that pendulum swings into NOW.

Awareness of the difference between motion and time is essential into theoretical physics. It opens the new perspectives into understanding of time, gravitation, cosmology, it integrates ontology into physics.

God is out of job here. Once we discover the NOW we do not bother about god any more. Nietzsche sad already: God is dead.

[Epsilon=One]

It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things. (Ernst Mach)I highly respect Mach. Mach was far ahead of his peers regarding an understanding of inertia as a force. I, now, refer to this force as Cosmic Inertia (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=139).

Mach, also, had great insight concerning time. I concur with your quote. What Mach is saying is that the concept of time is arrived at by the measurement/means given by “the changes of things” that occur because of “clocks.” It is the “clock” that must be defined to define time.

My ideas on time and motion are based on Mach.Your concept of time is so ill-defined that it is difficult for me to agree that Mach could ever agree with your “ideas.”

Yes, I change my mind. Motion is motion and time is time.Good. Some progress has been made. Now, can you agree that there are many different types of time; and, that each must be defined by its “clock”?

I use to say that motion is physical time and “mind-time frame” is physiological time but this only make people more confused.My point; exactly.

In the universe we can only observe motion, so motion is physical and time is of the mind.Not quite correct. Time does not require the “mind.” Time requires a “clock.”

We experience motion into time.This statement is meaningless without defining both the type of “motion” and the type of “time” you are discussing.

More clear, more elegant.Simple precision is elegance. Your statements are neither simple nor precise.

What you say about existence of the past and future, I would be more careful.Caution is not a requisite for truth.

That physical past do not exists is more than evident. Go for a walk. The step you did is lost for ever.You are mistaken. The step you refer to is in the future if I lived on a distant planet; and, the "step" is in the past for me as I "did" it. Past and future are relative terms that cannot be easily ascertained. The "step" you mention was never in the present . . . as the "step" existed. Analogies are not good arguments to present as a “proof” of one’s assumptions.

........... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science. Albert Einstein

Einstein’s NOW is what Kant calls “Ding an sich”, what in Zen is called “Tathagata” (Suchness), one could say "The Truth".You are proving my point. Truth concerns an absolute; the only absolute is Oneness/Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109)/etc.; Einstein’s “NOW” refers to the infinitesimal/infinite . . . Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is a limit beyond Reality; therefore, Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) does not “exist.” And, neither does “NOW” that Einstein states: “is “outside the realm of science.”

Does physics have a capacity to integrate ontology ?Yes. I have always stated that Physics has a responsibility to integrate Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

However, because physics plays fast and loose with its postulates, disdains precision and reconciliation, and ignores the concept of Infinity, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) one would do better to expect the integration of Ontology from within Mathematics; particularly, in the etiology of the numbers, Arithmetic manipulations, and geometry.

This question is into my mind for 17 years. Back in 1989 i was carrying out an experiment at the University Of Ljubljana for two month every day. I was measuring the weight of earth worms at the time of death in order to see there is relation between gravitational force and life.

During this period i read some of Einstein and I came across his statement above. What he say is right.Yes, I agree with Einstein. On the recommendation of Philip Morrison (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/morrison.html), I was on my way to see Einstein the day that he died. I have studied Einstein extensively. I have no doubt as to his understanding of the past, present, and future. It is nothing like the understanding that you express.

After 17 years I have some results: the bridge into the NOW is understanding that motion belongs to the universe and time to the mind. Universe in in a continuous movement. The motion happens into NOW.The present is the antithesis of motion!

Watching (witnessing) the mind is a function of consciousness. Let’s make an experiment. You take a pendulum and put it in front of you. Swing the pendulum and watch it for a while with the open eyes. Than close the eyes and watch the image of the swinging pendulum. The watcher that watches the pendulum is the same, it is a consciousness itself. You can open eyes again, watch the pendulum, close it again...........open it...
This experiment will help you to see the difference between motion and time into which you experience motion. You will discover that pendulum swings into NOW.Yes. Everytime the pendumum changes direction, for that instant, the pendumlum is motionless. When the pendulum is motionless (which it actually never is) it can be said that the pendulum is “in” the present. The present cannot exist.

Awareness of the difference between motion and time is essential into theoretical physics. It opens the new perspectives into understanding of time, gravitation, cosmology, it integrates ontology into physics.Yes. And, it is too bad that theoretical physicists do not understand the geometry of the “clock” that defines fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).

God is out of job here. Once we discover the NOW we do not bother about god any more. Nietzsche sad already: God is dead. And, what did Nietzsche know about modern theoretical physics? Depending upon the definition of god, god is really quite easy to prove. It is that which is metaphysical that presents some difficulty of proof.

Pulsoid Theory can be referred to as Quantum Cosmology. It is such that underlies cosmogony and ontology.

[amrit]

Your concept of time is so ill-defined that it is difficult for me to agree that Mach could ever agree with your “ideas.”

A. My understanding of time and motion is the same as of Ernst Mach.

Good. Some progress has been made. Now, can you agree that there are many different types of time; and, that each must be defined by its “clock”?

A. There is only one type of time: time is a construct of the mind.

Not quite correct. Time does not require the “mind.” Time requires a “clock.”

A. Time is the construct of the mind. To measure duration of motion into space man uses a clock. Clock has a constant speed of motion, so all the motions speed is compared by the clock speed. Man experiences different motions and their speeds into the concept of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
That physical past do not exists is more than evident. Go for a walk. The step you did is lost for ever.

You are mistaken. The step you refer to is in the future if I lived on a distant planet; and, the "step" is in the past for me as I "did" it. Past and future are relative terms that cannot be easily ascertained. The "step" you mention was never in the present . . . as the "step" existed. Analogies are not good arguments to present as a “proof” of one’s assumptions.

A. Please tell me do you breath into the past and future, not into the present ?
Does your heart beat into the past ?
You observe an experiment in lab into past?
How you can deny existence of the present ?!
How that you are not aware of the absurdity of your statements ??!!??
If you have a problem with the term NOW, you can change it with the term SPACE (cosmic space in which stars exists), all will remain the same.
THE ONLY TIME THAT EXIST INTO SPACE IS NOW.
We are born into it, we live into it and we die into it.

Universe is an a-temporal phenomena. In the universe there is no time. Time is a construct of the mind.
see more my artcle: A-Temporal Universe (august, 2004) Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, www.ejtp.com


Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
........... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science. Albert Einstein

Einstein’s NOW is what Kant calls “Ding an sich”, what in Zen is called “Tathagata” (Suchness), one could say "The Truth".

You are proving my point. Truth concerns an absolute; the only absolute is Oneness/Infinity/etc.; Einstein’s “NOW” refers to the infinitesimal/infinite . . . Infinity is a limit beyond Reality; therefore, Infinity does not “exist.” And, neither does “NOW” that Einstein states: “is “outside the realm of science.”

A. I’m bringing it into science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Does physics have a capacity to integrate ontology ?

Yes. I have always stated that Physics has a responsibility to integrate Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

However, because physics plays fast and loose with its postulates, disdains precision and reconciliation, and ignores the concept of Infinity, one would do better to expect the integration of Ontology from within Mathematics; particularly, in the etiology of the numbers, Arithmetic manipulations, and geometry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
This question is into my mind for 17 years. Back in 1989 i was carrying out an experiment at the University Of Ljubljana for two month every day. I was measuring the weight of earth worms at the time of death in order to see there is relation between gravitational force and life.

During this period i read some of Einstein and I came across his statement above. What he say is right.

Yes, I agree with Einstein. On the recommendation of Philip Morrison, I was on my way to see Einstein the day that he died. I have studied Einstein extensively. I have no doubt as to his understanding of the past, present, and future. It is nothing like the understanding that you express.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
After 17 years I have some results: the bridge into the NOW is understanding that motion belongs to the universe and time to the mind. Universe in in a continuous movement. The motion happens into NOW.

The present is the antithesis of motion!

A. not at all. motion runs into NOW. In space is always now, no past, no future.
You see the universe into time, and time is a construct of the mind. When you will see universe beyond the mind you will discover NOW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Watching (witnessing) the mind is a function of consciousness. Let’s make an experiment. You take a pendulum and put it in front of you. Swing the pendulum and watch it for a while with the open eyes. Than close the eyes and watch the image of the swinging pendulum. The watcher that watches the pendulum is the same, it is a consciousness itself. You can open eyes again, watch the pendulum, close it again...........open it...
This experiment will help you to see the difference between motion and time into which you experience motion. You will discover that pendulum swings into NOW.

Yes. Everytime the pendumum changes direction, for that instant, the pendumlum is motionless. When the pendulum is motionless (which it actually never is) it can be said that the pendulum is “in” the present. The present cannot exist.

A. you mix motion, time, and present. MOTION IS RUNING INTO SPACE. IN THE SPACE IS ALWAYS PRESENT (NOW). WE EXPERIENCE MOTION THAT RUNS INTO SPACE INTO TIME. TIME IS A CONSTRUCT OF THE MIND. WE MEASURE DURATION OF MOTION WITH CLOCKS.

motion into space (into NOW) ----perception----elaboration into time-----experience



Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Awareness of the difference between motion and time is essential into theoretical physics. It opens the new perspectives into understanding of time, gravitation, cosmology, it integrates ontology into physics.

Yes. And, it is too bad that theoretical physicists do not understand the geometry of the “clock” that defines fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).

A. Clocks have no geometry, clocks have a constant speed, so we compare speed of all motion with clocks speed. FIT belongs to the mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
God is out of job here. Once we discover the NOW we do not bother about god any more. Nietzsche sad already: God is dead.

And, what did Nietzsche know about modern theoretical physics? Depending upon the definition of god, god is really quite easy to prove. It is that which is metaphysical that presents some difficulty of proof.

Pulsoid Theory can be referred to as Quantum Cosmology. It is such that underlies cosmogony and ontology.

A. Nietzsche was before modern physics, but he was intelligent enough to say that god is an invention of man.

Roger Penrose about time:
The temporal ordering that we 'appear' to perceive is, I am claiming, something that we impose upon our perceptions in order to make sense of them in relation to the uniform forward time-progression of an external physical reality.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Time_2.html

temporal ordering ---------time as a part of the mind
time-progression of an external physical reality---------change (motion)

Prof. Roger Penrose seems to be close to the Ernst Mach.

[Epsilon=One]

A. My understanding of time and motion is the Mach.How does your understanding of time and motion and Mach's agree? Mach well understood the relativity of time frames.

There is only one type of time: time is a construct of the mind.You certainly have a unusual and unique definition of "time." Are you saying that the "second" that is a fraction of the Earth's rotation is the same "second" that is a fraction of the Earth's orbit. Or, the same "second" as that derived from the vibrations of a quartz crystal.

If you really believe that the synchronization of the Cosmos or atomic particles requires an anthropoidal "mind" than your faith would appear beyond that of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142).

A.Time is mind.This is obviously your opinion. Such a generalization seems meaningless without defining the type of "time" that is "mind."

To measure duration of motion mind need a clock.This is obviously your opinion. To sharpen this thought of yours, you should try to define motion (which is relative) and duration (which is relative) and clock (which is quite complex).

Please tell me do you breath into the past and future, not into the present ?Yes.

Does your heart beat into the past ?Yes.

You observe an experiment in lab into past?Yes.

How you can deny existence of the present ?!Because the present is an infintesimal instant. The infinitesimal and the infinite do no exist within Reality.

How that you are not aware of the absurdity of your statements ??!!??How are many physicists not aware of the absurdity of saying that gravity is an attractive force . . . at-a-distance? How do you argue that light is a particle (photon) when there is no known limit as to how much light can exist within a vacuum?

If I thought my statements were mistaken I would not make them.

If you have a problem with the term NOW, you can change it with the term SPACE (cosmic space in which stars exists), all will remain the same.SPACE as it is usually understood does not exist anymore than NOW exists.

THE ONLY TIME THAT EXIST INTO SPACE IS NOW.
You are born into it, you live into it and you die into it.Gobbledegook.

motion runs into NOW. In space is always now, no past, no future.
You see the universe into time, and time is mind. When you will see it beyond time (mind) you will discover NOW.When the antropoidal mind is a prerequisite for the existence of fundamental physicsal properties, it is a physics that I no longer wish to be associated with.

you mix motion, time, and present.If I do, it is impression that is unintentional and I certainly apologize.

MOTION IS RUNING INTO PRESENT (NOW). WE EXPERIENCE MOTION INTO TIME.This is quite confusing. I cannot follow the logic; however, the words "running" and "we" I find disturbing in describing what seems to be a physical manifestation.

Clocks have no geometry, clocks have a constant speed, so we compare speed of all motion with clocks speed."Clocks" are entirely about geometry, and such as escapements, and a "unit." Clocks, as with anything else, cannot have constant speed. Escapements regulate speed that can never be constant. Escapements connote "stop, start, change of direction, etc."

FIT belongs to the mind.No. FIT (fundamental, intrinsic time) is what regulates the complex, internal oscillations of a light wave. Without FIT there would be no resonance; without resonance there would be no mass.

Nietzsche was before modern physics, but he was intelligent enough to say that god is an invention of man.Yes, most gods are just such. However, some persons define god as that which creates all that exists. You certainly have no disagreement that "some things" exist, do you?

Definition is everything when establishing postulates. All physicists should carefully study the works of Alfred Korzybski (http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/gs.htm).

[amrit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
A. My understanding of time and motion is the Mach.

How does your understanding of time and motion and Mach's agree? Mach well understood the relativity of time frames.

A. The speed of motion in an inertial system depends on the density of space. Higher speed, mode density, higher gravitational force, lower the speed of motion. The speed of motion of clocks is less in a airplane than on the surface of the earth, lover near by seaside that on the top of the near mountain.
In every formula of physics symbol t mans duration of motion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
There is only one type of time: time is a construct of the mind.

You certainly have a unusual and unique definition of "time." Are you saying that the "second" that is a fraction of the Earth's rotation is the same "second" that is a fraction of the Earth's orbit. Or, the same "second" as that derived from the vibrations of a quartz crystal.

A. Motion has no duration on its own. We give it the sense of duration by comparing it with the clocks. Clocks do not measure anything. Clocks have a constant speed of motion. And we use them to compare other motions and so build up rational picture of the world. All is fine here, we need this picture to build up science.

If you really believe that the synchronization of the Cosmos or atomic particles requires an anthropoidal "mind" than your faith would appear beyond that of IPSO.

A. Universe run perfectly without the man. For humans to understand universe time as a construction of the mind is an useful tool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
To measure duration of motion mind need a clock.

This is obviously your opinion. To sharpen this thought of yours, you should try to define motion (which is relative) and duration (which is relative) and clock (which is quite complex).

A. Duration of motion depends on the density D of space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Please tell me do you breath into the past and future, not into the present ?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Does your heart beat into the past ?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
You observe an experiment in lab into past?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
How you can deny existence of the present ?!

Because the present is an infintesimal instant. The infinitesimal and the infinite do no exist within Reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
How that you are not aware of the absurdity of your statements ??!!??

How are many physicists not aware of the absurdity of saying that gravity is an attractive force . . . at-a-distance? How do you argue that light is a particle (photon) when there is no known limit as to how much light can exist within a vacuum?

A. Light is a jumping of photons from one QS of space to another QS of space. Gravitational force does not move into space, it is a force that exist between QS of space.
see more here my post: The NOW Theory
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321

If I thought my statements were mistaken I would not make them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
If you have a problem with the term NOW, you can change it with the term SPACE (cosmic space in which stars exists), all will remain the same.

SPACE as it is usually understood does not exist anymore than NOW exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
THE ONLY TIME THAT EXIST INTO SPACE IS NOW.
You are born into it, you live into it and you die into it.

Gobbledegook.

A. Motion happens into space. In space itself there is absolutely no time. No experimental evidence if it. Space is a physical reality that you can discover by using consciousness, by watching the mind and see space directly without time interfering (time as a construct of the mind).


Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
motion runs into NOW. In space is always now, no past, no future.
You see the universe into time, and time is mind. When you will see it beyond time (mind) you will discover NOW.

When the antropoidal mind is a prerequisite for the existence of fundamental physicsal properties, it is a physics that I no longer wish to be associated with.

A. Yes, this is the reason of my work. Time has no place into physics. MOTION is more appropriate, symbol t represents duration of motion in all formulas of physics.
Time belongs to the mind, to the psychology, motion belongs to the universe, to the physics.

What is time?
http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html

We sense the passage of time in our personal experience and observe it in the world around us. We feel, think, and act in the flow of time.

Einstein said, "Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented.

The measurement of time is an ancient science, though many of its discoveries are relatively recent. The Cro-Magnons recorded the phases of the Moon some 30,000 years ago--but the first minutes were counted accurately only 400 years ago, and the atomic clocks that allow us to track the approach of the millennium by the billionth of a second are less than 50 years old.

Timekeeping has been both a lens through which humanity has observed the heavens and a mirror reflecting the progress of science and civilization. At the dawn of the new millennium, the instruments that divide and measure the days on Earth have brought us to a deeper understanding of how it all began.

A. The second is a unit with which we measure duration of motion. In 86400 seconds earth turn once around its axe.
Second has no existence on it own, it came into existence when motion is measured by a clock.
Second is a tool of the mind that man uses to measure duration of different motions.
Motions by itself have no duration. Man give them a sense of duration by measuring them.

[Epsilon=One]

The speed of motion in an inertial system depends on the density of space. Higher speed, mode density, higher gravitational force, lower the speed of motion. The speed of motion of clocks is less in a airplane than on the surface of the earth, lover near by seaside that on the top of the near mountain.
In every formula of physics symbol t mans duration of motion.These statements are meaningless unless you can define what “density” means; what “space” means; and, why physicists cannot define what the “symbol t" fundamentally means other than when referencing limited, controlled (contrived) experiments. Mach well understood the problem of defining time; you can’t solve the definition of “time” (FIT) until you understand the problem. Defining "FIT" is the least of the problem; the trick is to define its "clock" that depends upon concepts of Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101) and the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107).

There is no physicist that understands what underlies the concept of time at the macro or micro level without referring to circular definitions. If you understand fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) such that you can clear up the confusion of world-class theoretical physicists, you will probably be in line for at least a Nobel mention.

Motion has no duration on its own.On this point we probably can agree; though, you are not clear as to what type of motion you are discussing. Be aware that there is no fundamental “constant” motion. Again, from this statement, you are apparently becoming aware that, as I have argued, and you now seem to agree: time is not motion, which was your beginning premise in all your prior writings that I am aware of.

We give it the sense of duration by comparing it with the clocks.I believe, if I parse correctly, you are defining time by its “clock.” This is correct.

Clocks do not measure anything.No. By definition: “clocks” measure time.

Clocks have a constant speed of motion.No. Just the opposite. The functioning of a “clock” requires some method of stopping and starting variable (accelerating) motion. It is the selected “unit” that has minimal variance.

And we use them to compare other motions and so build up rational picture of the world. All is fine here, we need this picture to build up science.You are correct. That is why I contest your ambiguous and misleading concepts.

Universe run perfectly without the man.Your understanding of the Universe is making great improvements from many of your prior statements alluding to “time” and its requirement of “consciousness” and the “mind” to establish fundamental, universal properties.

Light is a jumping of photons from one QS of space to another QS of space. Gravitational force does not move into space, it is a force that exist between QS of space.
see more here my post: The NOW Theory
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321NOW theory states: “Motion is a physical quantity measured by clocks,” which seems to say that motion is time; that we, now, both agree is in error.

NOW theory states: “Matter is three-dimensional (3D), cosmic space is four-dimensional (4D).” I disagree. The same dimensions exist everywhere in Reality.

NOW theory appears as completely unreconciled ambiguities mixed with some pomo jargon.

In the words of Pauli, “It is not even wrong.”

Yes, this is the reason of my work. Time has no place into physics. MOTION is more appropriate, symbol t represents duration of motion in all formulas of physics.
Time belongs to the mind, to the psychology, motion belongs to the universe, to the physics.Then, define the motion that you believe “is more appropriate”; there are many types of motion.

I find it interesting that you believe that the organization of the Universe does not require some sort of “timing”; or even, timer. You are courageous and . . . at odds with most all of Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

What is time?
http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html

We sense the passage of time in our personal experience and observe it in the world around us. We feel, think, and act in the flow of time.

Einstein said, "Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented.

The measurement of time is an ancient science, though many of its discoveries are relatively recent. The Cro-Magnons recorded the phases of the Moon some 30,000 years ago--but the first minutes were counted accurately only 400 years ago, and the atomic clocks that allow us to track the approach of the millennium by the billionth of a second are less than 50 years old.

Timekeeping has been both a lens through which humanity has observed the heavens and a mirror reflecting the progress of science and civilization. At the dawn of the new millennium, the instruments that divide and measure the days on Earth have brought us to a deeper understanding of how it all began.

The second is a unit with which we measure duration of motion. In 86400 seconds earth turn once around its axe.
Second has no existence on it own, it came into existence when motion is measured by a clock.
Second is a tool of the mind that man uses to measure duration of different motions.
Motions by itself have no duration. Man give them a sense of duration by measuring them. Your above quotes are interesting; however, there is little to them that pertains to FIT; mostly, the references are to “measuring” time, not defining time.

The above definition of a "second" is ridiculous and does not consider that there are many different "seconds" each depending upon the "clock" that measures it. You cannot compare a "second" derived from Earth's rotation to a "second" derived from Earth's solar orbit, et cetera. Neither Earth's rotational speed nor orbiting speed is anywhere near constant.

[amrit]

Hi Epsilon

Must be a relation between Brunardot Ellipse, FIT, Planck Time, quanta of space (QS) and gravitation.

Definitely QS must have an elliptic shape.
FIT i see as a basic motion.
Maybe the motion itself creates space, or let say better motion itself constitutes space.

But motion of what ?

We could define granular structure of space as a FIT (basic motion) of the infinite small quanta of energy (QE).
QE are one-dimensional.

Let’s see:

1. Quanta of energy (QE) is the smallest quanta of energy that exists in the universe

2. QE moves on the Brunardot Ellipse. One motion on the ellipse QE do in a Planck time. This is FIT (basic motion) ,

(I’m not in favour of FIT as a basic time because my intuition tell me time belongs to the mind, motion to the universe)

3. The basic motion (FIT) of QE in the shape of Brunardot Ellipse is quanta of space QS. QS are two-dimensional.

4. Motion of QE itself is building up cosmic space and carrying gravitational force. Cosmic space is three-dimensional.

You imagine five Brunardot Ellipse that are one into other, as that you take five rings, you open four and you link them together. Universal space is a structure of rings of QE. Gravitation is the result of motion of QE.

That’s sounds good. What do you think ? It comes out motion is eternal, universe is eternal, big bang is a dream and god has lost the job.

yours amrit

[Epsilon=One]

Must be a relation between Brunardot Ellipse, FIT, Planck Time, quanta of space (QS) and gravitation.You are generally correct. And . . . Eureka! You are doing some good homework.

There is much similarity to the analogous relationships that you have associated.

The primary differences with my precise definitions, until we sort out the semantics, is that I have provided the geometry and arithmetic (along with distinction to defining words); whereas conventional physics has not.

Definitely QS must have an elliptic shape.You have hit on the most important initial concept that I have been arguing for about 50 years. Most all else for understanding Reality either follows from the ellipse or explains “Why?” the ellipse.

FIT i see as a basic motion.I think the difficulty here is just semantics. It is the “clock” that creates FIT that is basic motion, which I refer to as seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179).

Maybe the motion itself creates space, or let say better motion itself constitutes space.That's about how I understand it. However, I refer to what you probably are calling “motion” as “energy.” Thus, “dark” energy is the term I prefer to differentiate it from other motions. It is “dark” energy which conventional theoretical physicists ascribe to the force of galactic recession. I do not. I understand galactic recession as the reactive or opposite force to Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124) (one of gravity's components).

But motion of what ?......Your following questions (I won’t repeat; see above post) require a slower pace of developing the whole before the answers are easy. First you must immerse yourself in the mathematics of the Pulsoidal Ellipse (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=125) and its tangent, inscribed circles. Then, study the Equilibrium Theory of Reality (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=131). At every point of uncertainty, you must ask questions, until you grasp how it ties together.

That’s sounds good. What do you think ? It comes out motion is eternal, universe is eternal, big bang is a dream and god has lost the job.Good summary. Very little is understandable until the Big Bang is discarded and an alternative force to gravity developed; and, how countervailing, direct-acting forces creates structure is explained.

To begin this proactive rationalization, a precise definition and eiology of mass and particles is required.

[amrit]

Hi Epsilon
Yes, ellipse is the basic form of the universe. My definition of QS is ad hoc in hope for better ideas. With your help we might find the exact math formulation. My intuition tells me that the functioning of the universe corresponds to the Mathematics, to Logic and Geometry.

Quanta of Energy QE (the elementey quanta of energy) has one dimension, it is one-dimensional.

the natural function of QE (Psi, Ψ,= x^2 - x) gives result 0.

Psi, Ψ, QE= 1^2 - 1 = 0

(in the theory of numbers all the numbers are created out zero:
1 = ( (0))..........

The motion of QE (that has a shape the Brunardot Ellipse) creates QS (QS is quanta of space, that build up cosmic space).

One motion of QE in a shape the Brunardot Ellipse is FIT (bacis motion).
FIT has duration of a Planck Time. Planck Length is Line EG = major diameter = M of Conceptual Ellipse

QS is two dimensional. Psi, Ψ, QS= 2^2 - 2 = 2

a photon as a wave has to do somehing with the "Psi, Ψ, QS".......but i do not see clear what

QS are grains of which space is made on. QS attract each other. This attraction force between QS is gravitational force. Density D of QS in a given volume of cosmic space depends on the amount of matter into it:
D = m x G.


Seminal Motion

The simplest is the most complex.
Thus, nothing must be everything.
Nothing with motion is something.
Something becomes everything.

Nothing is no more than nothing.
Thus, motion is everything.
Its manifestation contains
all of Reality’s concepts.
Before there is motion, there is nothing. Nothing is best defined as Infinity.


I will try to connect seminal motion to what I say above:

Infinity - is non manifested realty that we can not perceive it by senses
Infinity could be also consciousness, Infinity is still, infinity is eternal, Infinity does not move

Infinity Manifests as Seminal Motion

Seminal motion is the acliptic motion of one dimensional quanta of energy QE)

Infinity still (non manifested) ---------infinity moves (manifested as seminal motion)

Seminal motion of Infinity manifests as quanta of space QS, the grain of space is made of. QS are two dimensional.

Photon here is seminal motion of QE.

When we heat up iron there is an "energy flow" from the iron into space around. This energy flow are QE itself. QE that build up QS of space where heated iron is have different energy potentials that we observe as sudden change of colours when the temperature of iron is increasing.
Electromagnetic waves are different energy potentials of QE.

Gravitation is attraction force between QS that build up cosmic space.

Weak and strong nuclear force are carried by different structures of QS. All subatomic particles are different structures of QS.
QS is a “base brick” out of which space and matter are made of.

In black holes QS that constitutes matter and space transforms back into Infinity, in big explosions of AGN Infinity structures back into QS of space and matter.

Infinity is non manifested part of the universe.
Matter and space are manifested part of the universe.
Non manifested and manifested are in a permanent dynamic equilibrium. The question about beginning of the universe make no sense, universe is eternal.

Space and matter and electromagnetic waves are made out of ONE energy. The elementary brick of this one energy is QE quanta of energy.

When it enters into motion Infinity manifests as energy.
When is still Infinity manifests as watching, witnessing the mind.

By watching the mind a man discovers that he/she is not mind, he is Infinity itself. He also becomes aware that all that exist is a form of Infinity.

Human mind belongs to the brain, it is based on seminal motion of QE. Also time as a part of the mind is based on seminal motion.
By understanding that one has to discover Infinity. Infinity is still. Watching the mind is a function of Infinity.
Watching the mind is an individual method into Infinity research.

According to my understanding “Discovery of The Infinity” is the only way out of the chaos we live into this planet. Humanity to go on has to grow beyond religious and political identification. Theoretical physics which will include Infinity into its cosmological models plays an essential role into this process.

[Epsilon=One]

Yes, ellipse is the basic form of the universe. My definition of QS is ad hoc in hope for better ideas. With your help we might find the exact math formulation.The mathematical formulation is that of a Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98). You can think of the Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) as what you refer to as “QS.” The Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98), a pulsing ellipsoid, is described, heuristically, by a class of ellipses referred to as Conceptual Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=162).

All ellipses are Conceptual Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=162) when epsilon equals One or the soliton (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=213), “s,” is the Natural function (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=121) (Psi, Ψ,) of the perigee, “p.” (s = p^2 – p) (epsilon = h – w = One)

A Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) is the fundamental manifestation of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179). Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) pulse from every point within the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) that is created by each Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98)!!!

Seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179) is Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101).

Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) are relativistic, accelerating motion (radiant energy) that pulse through a range between the infinite and the infinitesimal; proportional to time (FIT) and inversely proportional to speed.

Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) manifest as all the four states of Light (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=143) and morph to mass.

My intuition tells me that the functioning of the universe corresponds to the Mathematics, to Logic and Geometry.Yes. In fact the Universe defines all the Arithmetic that underlies Mathematics, Geometry, and Logic.

Quanta of Energy QE (the elementey quanta of energy) has one dimension, it is one-dimensional.Not quite. A point is one dimensional which represents the source of a Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) not the Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) itself(elementary quantum of existence). Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) exist. Points do not.

the natural function of QE (Psi, Ψ,= x^2 - x) gives result 0. Psi, Ψ, QE= 1^2 - 1 = 0 No the Natural function (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=121), which describes a soliton (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=213), is the second term of the Brunardot Series (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=99). It only returns a value of zero for the first sequence when the first term is 1. This sequence is that of a circle, which is a special ellipse that describes Infinity: (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) that is: there is no value for the wave, “w.”

(in the theory of numbers all the numbers are created out zero:
1 = ( (0))..........Number Theory, as currently formulated, is without proof. See Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html). Actually, numbers are created from any Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98). The most fundamental numbers are created from the Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) that is described by the second Brunardot Series (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=99) sequence: 2, 2, 4, 6… It is the second sequence that describes the first quantum of existence that is comprised of a sinusoidal “wave.”

The motion of QE (that has a shape the Brunardot Ellipse) creates QS (QS is quanta of space, that build up cosmic space).You generally have the idea. The Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) is composed of Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) and Mass is composed of Taisoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=102) that morph from Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98)s that are comprised of manifestations that are heuristically described by Brunardot Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=104) and Pulsoidal Ellipses (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=125).

One motion of QE in a shape the Brunardot Ellipse is FIT (bacis motion).This is the idea. Each integer value of the perigee, “p,” represents one unit of FIT.

FIT has duration of a Planck Time. Planck Length is Line EG = major diameter = M of Conceptual EllipseNo. If anything, a Planck unit would be analogous to epsilon or One or the hypotenuse minus the wave.

I do not like to use the term Planck because it is contrived and thus has no meaning. I prefer the term Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322).

QS is two dimensional. Psi, Ψ, QS= 2^2 - 2 = 2No. Nothing that “exists” has any different number of “fundamental” dimensions than anything else. Fundamental dimensions are such as: the orthogonal dimensions, time, spin, pulse (charge), speed, system, etc. Dimensions are descriptions that are required to describe the location and propensity for change of a manifestation.

a photon as a wave has to do somehing with the "Psi, Ψ, QS".......but i do not see clear whatForget photons. Think Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98).

QS are grains of which space is made on. QS attract each other. This attraction force between QS is gravitational force. Density D of QS in a given volume of cosmic space depends on the amount of matter into it:
D = m x G.No. Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98)s coalesce, which is somewhat different from attraction. Gravity is not attraction. Gravity is several phenomena of which compression is the most obvious.

Infinity - is non manifested realty that we can not perceive it by sensesYes. But the verb “is” should not be used with the word Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109). “Is” connotes existence.

Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) could be also consciousness, Infinity is still, infinity is eternal, Infinity does not moveInfinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) cannot be consciousness; as, consciousness is a property of life. Life exists. Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) does not.

Infinity Manifests as Seminal MotionYes, but . . . I prefer to insert the Unified Concept (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=298) between Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) and seminal motion.

The Unified Concept (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=119) (UC) is too advanced to worry about until other concepts are rationalized. Accept it for now as a postulate. As a postulate the UC requires far less faith than any other academically accepted paradigm.

Seminal motion of Infinity manifests as quanta of space QS, the grain of space is made of. QS are two dimensional.

Photon here is seminal motion of QE.Forget words like “space,” “grain,” “QS,” “photon,” “QE,” et cetera. Their connotations are too ambiguous and/or misleading. So is assigning a number to dimensions. “two dimensional,” etc. are contrivances of the mind of humans. Such numerical dimensions do not “exist.” The concept of dimensions exist; but, they shouldn’t be differentiated by numbers.

When we heat up iron there is an "energy flow" from the iron into space around. This energy flow are QE itself. QE that build up QS of space where heated iron is have different energy potentials that we observe as sudden change of colours when the temperature of iron is increasing.
Electromagnetic waves are different energy potentials of QE.Too many ambiguous words (flow, space, temperature, electromagnetic, potential) in this statement. In general it conveys some truth; however, the words are from the ill-defined glossary of conventional physics.

Gravitation is attraction force between QS that build up cosmic space.No. Never use the word “attraction” when speaking of a force. Forces act directly; and, can better be described with a word like “push.”

Weak and strong nuclear force are carried by different structures of QS.Weak and strong nuclear forces are contrived terms that come from the minds of theoretical physicists. They exist no differently than do gods of thunder and lightning.

All subatomic particles are different structures of QS.
QS is a “base brick” out of which space and matter are made of.QS is a ridiculous pairing of words. Use the term Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98), which has no other meaning than that assigned by Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128).

In black holes QS that constitutes matter and space transforms back into Infinity, in big explosions of AGN Infinity structures back into QS of space and matter. Black holes are figments of the mind from those that have extended SR and GR beyond their limits.

Active Galactic Nuclei are the opposite concept of black holes. Quasars form galaxies; and, quasars are formed from the Critical Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=205) of a massive amount of Ultrons (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140) (Taisoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=102)).

Infinity is non manifested part of the universe.No. I prefer to think of the Universe as that which exists. Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) does not exist. Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) does share a locus with Reality. You are getting into an area of very sophisticated philosophical logic that is beyond this post.

Matter and space are manifested part of the universe.Drop the word “space.” Its connotations make it useless in discussing fundamental concepts.

Non manifested and manifested are in a permanent dynamic equilibrium.I prefer that Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) can be neither divided nor added to. The conservation of that which is manifested and is in equilibrium violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; such is the case.

The question about beginning of the universe make no sense…Yes.

…universe is eternal.I prefer to say that Reality is infinite (eternal/endless) and the manifestations of the Universe are endlessly cyclical.

Space and matter and electromagnetic waves are made out of ONE energy. The elementary brick of this one energy is QE quanta of energy.Discard the words: space, matter, electromagnetic, brick they are meaningless. If you are saying that: Light (the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151)) and mass are comprised of Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98), I agree.

When it enters into motion Infinity manifests as energy.Motion is the fundamental concept of energy. Infinity is an unreachable limit. That’s about all that can be said in this forum.

When is still Infinity manifests as watching, witnessing the mind.

By watching the mind a man discovers that he/she is not mind, he is Infinity itself. He also becomes aware that all that exist is a form of Infinity.Such thoughts are the basis of a religion not a rational philosophy.

Human mind belongs to the brain, it is based on seminal motion of QE. Also time as a part of the mind is based on seminal motion.More clearly: everything that exists is a manifestation of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179). The mind is an evolved manifestation of an advanced form of life.

By understanding that one has to discover Infinity. Infinity is still. Watching the mind is a function of Infinity.
Watching the mind is an individual method into Infinity research.

According to my understanding “Discovery of The Infinity” is the only way out of the chaos we live into this planet. Humanity to go on has to grow beyond religious and political identification. Theoretical physics which will include Infinity into its cosmological models plays an essential role into this process.I prefer: to maximize happiness is to understand the environment; to maximally understand the environment requires a unification of Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP).

Note: Currently, STP are on diverging courses.

[amrit]

Cantor question: is the cardinal number of natural numbers smaller as the cardinal number of real numbers or there are equal was resolved about 30 years ago. If we say that both cardinal numbers are equal there is no contradiction, if we say that cardinal number of real numbers is bigger there will be no contradiction.

This means that in math Infinity is not a number as all other numbers are. We do not now how fare from zero on the strait line Infinity is ?
Infinity in geometry is not a metrical term: infinity + 1000 miles = infinity

I think that Cantor Infinity reflects the deepest nature of the universe, and that Infinity is the existing phenomena.
Infinity exist but it is not manifested.

When Infinity enters into motion it manifests.
Infinity into motion is the energy.

The basic element of the energy is Pulsoid (I cal it QS). Pulsiod builds any type of energy: light, matter, space.
Bridging Pulsiod, SR, GR and QM, need a team of experts that have foots on the earth and head into the sky.

Mon-manifested Infinity and Manifested Infinity are in a harmony.
Energy of space and energy of matter are in a dynamic equilibrium

Non-manifested Infinity plays an active role into universal dynamics and into evolution of life and human being. In this sense I’m in favour of “Intelligent Design”.
(My hypothesis is that evolution of life is an universal process, see: Sorli A., Sorli K. (2005). Evolution As A Universal Process)
Frontier Perspectives, Philadelphia, Vol 13, Num 2

Infinity (manifested and non-manifested) is Intelligent and Conscious.
Infinity is mirroring into human being as love, logic and consciousness.

Regarding our discussion on past, present and future I need to correct myself: past, present and future all exist into the mind only and not into the universe.
Motion does not happen into present as I say (or into NOW), motion happens into Infinity.
In today science we experience motion that runs into Infinity into time that is a construction of the mind.

[Epsilon=One]

This means that in math Infinity is not a number as all other numbers are. We do not now how fare from zero on the strait line Infinity is ?You cannot speak of Infinity as a number. Numbers can always be added to or divided; not so with Infinity. Infinity is a limit that is determined by motion.

I think that Cantor Infinity reflects the deepest nature of the universe, and that Infinity is the existing phenomena.
Infinity exist but it is not manifested. Your statements are illogical. Cantor never understood, to his satisfaction, the rather simple concept of Infinity. He confused the concept with numbers, size, etc.

That said, I like the statement: Infinity does reflect the deepest Nature of the Universe. See: Infinity. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109)

The basic element of the energy is Pulsoid (I cal it QS). Pulsiod builds any type of energy: light, matter, space.QS is not a good symbol for a pulsoid. QS connotes Quantum of Space; Quantum often is mistakenly connoted as not very dynamic, or as separately distinctive . . . a set amount of something. Space connotes emptiness and lack of organized oscillation. A Pulsoid is a term with a singular definition that includes all the dynamics of Reality as proposed by Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128).

Bridging Pulsiod, SR, GR and QM, need a team of experts that have foots on the earth and head into the sky.You forgot ST, et al. and LQG. I’m not so sure “experts” are equipped for the task. More likely, layman will be the first to lay the groundwork.

Non-manifested Infinity plays an active role into universal dynamics and into evolution of life and human being. In this sense I’m in favour of “Intelligent Design”.We apparently have diametrically opposed views as to what “Intelligent Design” symbolizes.

Regarding our discussion on past, present and future I need to correct myself: past, present and future all exist into the mind only and not into the universe.I agree. I prefer to say that the past and future are relative; and, the present doesn’t exist.

Motion does not happen into present as I say (or into NOW), motion happens into Infinity.A little confused at the ending; but, a good start.

The present (NOW), motionlessness, and Infinity do not exist.

[amrit]

Amrit: Cantor was a genius of a first level, his research on infinite numbers for me is a great work that has an immense impact on human understanding of term infinite.
His research and others on the subject shows that math infinity reflects reality that is beyond the mind.

We can experience this “beyond mind reality” with our “sixth sense”.
Sixth sense means “watching the mind”.
Could you please tell me who watch your images and thoughts when you keep eyes closed ?
Material eyes not for sure.

Infinity does it, infinity watch the mind.

Infinity is always into manifestation, but with five senses you can not perceive it.
The sixth sense is needed.

For people that experience this world via fifth senses Infinity is existing but is not manifested.

For people with sixth sense open Infinity is visible.

So there is no contradiction on what i say about manifested and non manifested Infinity.

Infinity itself is a sixth sense.

Depends on you; you can have a contact with it, or you do not have it.

[Epsilon=One]

Cantor was a genius of a first level, his research on infinite numbers for me is a great workI agree.

that has an immense impact on human understanding of term infinite.Yes. However, Cantor was quite confused about what he gave the labels infinite and Infinity to. To the best of my knowledge he never understood the duality of Infinity; (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) and, he found it difficult to rationalize the concept of his infinity being an absolute and at the same time juxtaposed with numbers.

His research and others on the subject shows that math infinity reflects reality that is beyond the mind.There are about forty plus types of “math infinity.” What I label as Infinity is a singularity that is unrelated to “math infinity.”

We can experience this “beyond mind reality” with our “sixth sense”.
Sixth sense means “watching the mind”.This sounds spiritual rather than objective.

Could you please tell me who watch your images and thoughts when you keep eyes closed ?
Material eyes not for sure.The brain has wondrous capabilities that are little understood.

Infinity does it, infinity watch the mind.This is not what Infinity connotes for me.

Infinity is always into manifestation, but with five senses you can not perceive it.
The sixth sense is needed.

For people that experience this world via fifth senses Infinity is existing but is not manifested.

For people with sixth sense open Infinity is visible.

So there is no contradiction on what i say about manifested and non manifested Infinity.

Infinity itself is a sixth sense.

Depends on you; you can have a contact with it, or you do not have it.I have little interest concerning the perpetuation of superstition and obfuscation of reality that spirituality provides.

[amrit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
We can experience this “beyond mind reality” with our “sixth sense”.
Sixth sense means “watching the mind”.

This sounds spiritual rather than objective.

Amrit: What is objective for you ? Common scientific experience is not objective at all, it is rational. One experience universe through the rational part of the mind. When one experience universe and life in generally through the emotions this is subjective (individual, personal experience). When one experience universe and life directly without mind interfering this is objective experience, you can also call it “conscious experience”. When your awareness of the way your scientific mind interferes your experience is perfect you see universe as it is, objectively.
This is what Kant calls “Ding and sich, or ZEN “tathagata”.

personal experience:
world------perception------elaboration via emotions-------personal experience

scientific experience:
world-----perception------elaboration via rational mind-----rational experience

objective experience
world-----perception------no elaboration-------objective (conscious) experience.

And all this has nothing to do with spirituality. It is a science on : “perception--elaboration--experience” process developed by me.


Originally Posted by Amrit
Could you please tell me who watch your images and thoughts when you keep eyes closed ?
Material eyes not for sure.

The brain has wondrous capabilities that are little understood.

Amrit: We discuss here about Infinity and now you vision ends by the brain ?! Penrose idea of bran being related to the consciousness via gravity of space is a great idea far beyond of what an average scientific mind can grasp.

Consciousness is non local, consciousness is far beyond the brain. Consciousness is intrinsic quality of the universe. We may never know what it is, but we can experience consciousness directly by reaching beyond the mind. The science of the future will not stop where mind stops, it will reach far beyond into the deepest core of the universe that you and me can even dream about.

[amrit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
We can experience this “beyond mind reality” with our “sixth sense”.
Sixth sense means “watching the mind”.

This sounds spiritual rather than objective.

Amrit: What is objective for you ? Common scientific experience is not objective at all, it is rational. One experience universe through the rational part of the mind. When one experience universe and life in generally through the emotions this is subjective (individual, personal experience). When one experience universe and life directly without mind interfering this is objective experience, you can also call it “conscious experience”. When your awareness of the way your scientific mind interferes your experience is perfect you see universe as it is, objectively.
This is what Kant calls “Ding and sich, or ZEN “tathagata”.

personal experience:
world------perception------elaboration via emotions-------personal experience

scientific experience:
world-----perception------elaboration via rational mind-----rational experience

objective experience
world-----perception------no elaboration-------objective (conscious) experience.

And all this has nothing to do with spirituality. It is a science on : “perception--elaboration--experience” process developed by me.


Originally Posted by Amrit
Could you please tell me who watch your images and thoughts when you keep eyes closed ?
Material eyes not for sure.

The brain has wondrous capabilities that are little understood.

Amrit: We discuss here about Infinity and now you vision ends by the brain ?! Penrose idea of bran being related to the consciousness via gravity of space is a great idea far beyond of what an average scientific mind can grasp.

Consciousness is non local, consciousness is far beyond the brain. Consciousness is intrinsic quality of the universe. We may never know what it is, but we can experience consciousness directly by reaching beyond the mind. The science of the future will not stop where mind stops, it will reach far beyond into the deepest core of the universe that you and me can not even dream about.

[Epsilon=One]

Penrose idea of bran being related to the consciousness via gravity of space is a great idea far beyond of what an average scientific mind can grasp.There is much about the thoughts of Penrose that I disagree with. If your statement is truly Penrose's belief, then I strongly disagree with Penrose.

Consciousness is non local, consciousness is far beyond the brain. Consciousness is intrinsic quality of the universe.This is a concept that I cannot accept. I define consciousness as nothing more than what the brain defines; anything beyond what the brain defines, I place in the realm of myth, superstition, faith, and spirituality; all of which I consider evil.

We may never know what it is, but we can experience consciousness directly by reaching beyond the mind. The science of the future will not stop where mind stops, it will reach far beyond into the deepest core of the universe that you and me can even dream about.You certainly are entitled to your thoughts; however: Do not speak for what I know or dream.

[amrit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Consciousness is non local, consciousness is far beyond the brain. Consciousness is intrinsic quality of the universe.

This is a concept that I cannot accept. I define consciousness as nothing more than what the brain defines; anything beyond what the brain defines, I place in the realm of myth, superstition, faith, and spirituality; all of which I consider evil.

Amrit: Do you believe in evil ? According what you say above evil is in the brain or beyond the brain ?!

[Epsilon=One]

Do you believe in evil ? According what you say above evil is in the brain or beyond the brain ?!Yes. I believe there is much that is evil. I define evil as anything that is physically or mentally injurious to the well-being of persons. I have no quibble with conventional definitions of evil such as:noun.
2. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
3. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
4. An evil force, power, or personification.

Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

[amrit]

God And Evil are both man projections regarding his own nature. Before man appeared on this planet there was no god, no devil, no time, and no meter.

With meter as we measure distance, with a second we measure duration of motion on a given distance. Meter and second are units of measurement invented by the man. The shortest units are Planck Distance and Planck time. A photon pass the Planck distance into a Planck time. Before man appeared on the planet earth meter and second, god and evil did not exist on its own.
In the universe one can observe only motion and not time. Time is a construction of the mind into which humans experience motion. Motion belongs to the Universe, time to the mind. Also “arrow of time” belongs to the mind. Universe itself is an a-temporal phenomena.

[Epsilon=One]

God And Evil are both man projections regarding his own nature.As both are conventionally defined, I agree.

Before man appeared on this planet there was no god, no devil, no time, and no meter.Concerning no time and no meter, I must strongly disagree.

Man is not a requirement for the time that synchronizes Nature.

And, man is not required for the orthogonal manifestation that makes possible the Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322).

With meter as we measure distance, with a second we measure duration of motion on a given distance. Meter and second are units of measurement invented by the man.Yes these units are arbitrary; but, fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) and the Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322) have nothing to do with man, except possibly making the evolution of man possible.

The shortest units are Planck Distance and Planck time. A photon pass the Planck distance into a Planck time.Not actually. These are ill-defined terms, analogous to symbols, that aree contrivances to make observations predictable. They have little to do with what is geometrically occurring.

Before man appeared on the planet earth meter and second, god and evil did not exist on its own.Literally, true. But arguable concerning how literally you mean meter and second.

In the universe one can observe only motion and not time.This statement requires a definition of time; however, in general it is badly mistaken, or at best misleading, as FIT is observable wherever one looks.

Time is a construction of the mind into which humans experience motion. Motion belongs to the Universe, time to the mind. Also “arrow of time” belongs to the mind.These statements are meaningless until you define what you mean by time and motion. You continually use these words without any indication of the connotaions you intend. These words have many definitions.

When I speak of fundamental time I am speaking of that time which is intrinsic to all phenomena that is created by a Natural "clock" that is a construct of the geometry of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179) that is naturally Triquametric (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101).


Universe itself is an a-temporal phenomena.Yes. However, this has nothing to do with whether FIT exists within the Universe and if it is independent of man.

[STRING]

I love when Physicists / astrophysicists speak in volumes of time such as our solar system being 5 billion years old and the universe being 20 billion years old. That’s the greatest of all illusions; did they actually count from 1 to 20 billion, speaking of time is that even at all possible. I’d love to see the equation that proves the theory that our universe is n years old. Perhaps Einstein had more to do with his time, you know like E=MC2 then to count 20 billion times how old the universe is. I think it’s great that he just completely discounted it and said the universe was eternal and ageless.

What is this natural time you speak of anyway? Are you speaking of only the time pertaining to 300 million miles per second (light speed)? Would this natural time exist in a black hole? If you traveled on a beam of light through the universe “Einstein daydream” would you count the seconds to see how far you traveled and how long it would take to get there?

Any thoughts on “Time” travel?