When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
"disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
consensus and have no objective link with time?
> When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
> either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
> if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
> consensus and have no objective link with time?
you also have to take into account the effect of possible and
probabilistic "universes", and their relationship to the time and
"present moment" -
where does the wave get "collapsed", so to speak? and, if it gets
collapsed for one observer, what happens to the rest of those
probabilistic states? what are the relationships between all those
probabilistic / possible universes? and, how does "time" factor into
this?
very quickly we can see that this is a problem of infinite complexity,
seemingly.
the interesting thing about time is that it's a phenomena that is
perfectly aligned with direction of entropy -
without the existence of entropy, i wonder whether we'd have time
alltogether!
/goran
On Jul 14, 6:09 pm, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
> either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
> if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
> consensus and have no objective link with time?
Yes, time is a complicated object.
I agree entropy aligns with the concept of time, otherwise is like St
Augustine said:
If nobody asks me about time, I perfectly know what it is, If someone
does ask me, then I simply dont know..
I would risk Time is also aligned with Temperature, and in general
with any concept made of two references, like longitude, distance,
I also like to think there are no instants, or "points" or "places" in
time, as these are spacial references.
Nice to see you back
Carlos
On 16 jul, 11:44, Goran <goran.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you also have to take into account the effect of possible and
> probabilistic "universes", and their relationship to the time and
> "present moment" -
> where does the wave get "collapsed", so to speak? and, if it gets
> collapsed for one observer, what happens to the rest of those
> probabilistic states? what are the relationships between all those
> probabilistic / possible universes? and, how does "time" factor into
> this?
> very quickly we can see that this is a problem of infinite complexity,
> seemingly.
> the interesting thing about time is that it's a phenomena that is
> perfectly aligned with direction of entropy -
> without the existence of entropy, i wonder whether we'd have time
> alltogether!
> /goran
> On Jul 14, 6:09 pm, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi to all,
> > When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
> > either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> > "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> > points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> > who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> > you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
> > if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
> > consensus and have no objective link with time?- Ocultar texto entre aspas -
As the "time", as the "space" are exactly how Emanuel Kant supposed:
cathegories of the human perception.
I have the PROOF of it.
In fact, through the log in e-base, named "of the nature", it is
possible to "see" (with the intelligence) 1/4 of "time's" presence of
the Eath Volume, which is 10.8 multiplied by 10^21 m^3.
We "see" this 1/4 of 10.8, in the first 2 numbers of
2.7182818284590450 (the first 17 numbers of the e-base of the
logarithms of the nature". In fact, 2.7, multiplied by 4 PRESENCES of
"TIMES 1/4", gets 10.8.
Now the very interesting is the remaining part of the number 2.7
1828 1828 4590450.
In fact, all this number, is number of TIME.
1828 +1828 = 3656 units that are 365.6 tenths how 365 "DAYS" and 0.6
"HOURS", part of the Sidereal Year of 365 days, 6 hours, 540 seconds
equal to 9 primes, 9.54 seconds.
These last MINUTES TIMES are gotten from 459045, how its inversion in
540 seconds +9.54 seconds.
Where is the real MEANING of this inversion? It is valid because TIME
and SPACE are opposits, and 4590450 is SPACE, expressed in DEGREES.
They are the sequence of the 45° +90° +45° = 180° = Pi.
To schow WHY, we must see in the 10 cycle the SPACE and in its
inversion 01 the decimal TIME of the cycle.
So is is true between 20 and 02; 30 and 03; 40 and 04; in our case 045
and 540 senconds equal to 9 primes.
These MINUTES TIMES exist in a year because the unitary model of all
the masses, because 10^3 = 1,000.
This 1,000 is ABSOLUTE how ALL THE cycle of the mass. Its REAL UNIT is
only expressed how 999 units, or 999/1, in whic ONE UNIT is taken to
can number the remaining 999.
Very well, this 999, IN TIME, are 9 primes, 9 seconds and 9 thirds,
these last equal to 9 third minutes.
So the YEAR of the EARTH (Sidereal) has these littles 9 primes and
9.54 seconds because thei are relative to the PRESENCE of the 10^3
REFERENCE, of the mass.
The MASS is THE TIME.
In fact 10^3 electrons, each big a.m.u. 0.00054, are equal to the 0.54
seconds of the MINIMAL TIME of the Year.
We PERCEIVE the TIME in the Sun's light when we pereceive the MASS of
a WAVE after a WAVE.
We PERCEIVE the SPACE of its when we see this phenomenon in lateral
way. So, in a dusty room in which a suns's ray is passing we see a
line of SPACE of light, all existing in the same time. On the
contrary, the observer that perceives that same ray in his eye, see
THE TIME.
It is the same ray! But one observer see only the SPACE, the other
only the TIME and the MASS.
So do you understand that TIME and SPACE are only 2 different WAYS to
PERCEIVE the same Phenomenon.
Good by!
Romano Amodeo
On 14 Lug, 23:09, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
> either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
> if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
> consensus and have no objective link with time?
I have a weak scientific background, I could understand Goran and
Carlos's posts but not yours Romano.
Let's just try about great theories and try to be intuitive. Just try
grasp the "image" given to your mind when you try to think about time.
Personally I imagine a "moment" within a defined space (area). Is
there an explanation of this inevitable link between space and time.
Einstein showed clearly that we're in Space-time continuum; to me it
means clearly that they're linked, but it doesn't explain why I am (we
are) not able to imagine time without "materializing" in it. Isn't the
human mind able to grasp such a complicated concept or is it linked
with the western structure of mind?
I'm talking about western mind because of Ornementalmind's post "Time
is but our memory and images of the past, our projection of
events into the future coupled with the only thing that exists, the
present...now. "
To me this post means "Time is an illusion" as its believed in some
eastern cultures (Buddhism). In this case, is the eastern view (about
time) sharper than western one?
"It was taught by the Buddha, oh Monks, that . . . the past,
the future, physical space, . . . and individuals are nothing
but names, forms of thought, words of common usage,
merely superficial realities"
On Jul 16, 5:58 pm, amoram <ra.amo...@libero.it> wrote:
> As the "time", as the "space" are exactly how Emanuel Kant supposed:
> cathegories of the human perception.
> I have the PROOF of it.
> In fact, through the log in e-base, named "of the nature", it is
> possible to "see" (with the intelligence) 1/4 of "time's" presence of
> the Eath Volume, which is 10.8 multiplied by 10^21 m^3.
> We "see" this 1/4 of 10.8, in the first 2 numbers of
> 2.7182818284590450 (the first 17 numbers of the e-base of the
> logarithms of the nature". In fact, 2.7, multiplied by 4 PRESENCES of
> "TIMES 1/4", gets 10.8.
> Now the very interesting is the remaining part of the number 2.7
> 1828 1828 4590450.
> In fact, all this number, is number of TIME.
> 1828 +1828 = 3656 units that are 365.6 tenths how 365 "DAYS" and 0.6
> "HOURS", part of the Sidereal Year of 365 days, 6 hours, 540 seconds
> equal to 9 primes, 9.54 seconds.
> These last MINUTES TIMES are gotten from 459045, how its inversion in
> 540 seconds +9.54 seconds.
> Where is the real MEANING of this inversion? It is valid because TIME
> and SPACE are opposits, and 4590450 is SPACE, expressed in DEGREES.
> They are the sequence of the 45° +90° +45° = 180° = Pi.
> To schow WHY, we must see in the 10 cycle the SPACE and in its
> inversion 01 the decimal TIME of the cycle.
> So is is true between 20 and 02; 30 and 03; 40 and 04; in our case 045
> and 540 senconds equal to 9 primes.
> These MINUTES TIMES exist in a year because the unitary model of all
> the masses, because 10^3 = 1,000.
> This 1,000 is ABSOLUTE how ALL THE cycle of the mass. Its REAL UNIT is
> only expressed how 999 units, or 999/1, in whic ONE UNIT is taken to
> can number the remaining 999.
> Very well, this 999, IN TIME, are 9 primes, 9 seconds and 9 thirds,
> these last equal to 9 third minutes.
> So the YEAR of the EARTH (Sidereal) has these littles 9 primes and
> 9.54 seconds because thei are relative to the PRESENCE of the 10^3
> REFERENCE, of the mass.
> The MASS is THE TIME.
> In fact 10^3 electrons, each big a.m.u. 0.00054, are equal to the 0.54
> seconds of the MINIMAL TIME of the Year.
> We PERCEIVE the TIME in the Sun's light when we pereceive the MASS of
> a WAVE after a WAVE.
> We PERCEIVE the SPACE of its when we see this phenomenon in lateral
> way. So, in a dusty room in which a suns's ray is passing we see a
> line of SPACE of light, all existing in the same time. On the
> contrary, the observer that perceives that same ray in his eye, see
> THE TIME.
> It is the same ray! But one observer see only the SPACE, the other
> only the TIME and the MASS.
> So do you understand that TIME and SPACE are only 2 different WAYS to
> PERCEIVE the same Phenomenon.
> Good by!
> Romano Amodeo
> On 14 Lug, 23:09, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi to all,
> > When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
> > either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> > "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> > points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> > who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> > you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
> > if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
> > consensus and have no objective link with time?
> I have a weak scientific background, I could understand Goran and
> Carlos's posts but not yours Romano.
> Let's just try about great theories and try to be intuitive. Just try
> grasp the "image" given to your mind when you try to think about time.
> Personally I imagine a "moment" within a defined space (area). Is
> there an explanation of this inevitable link between space and time.
> Einstein showed clearly that we're in Space-time continuum; to me it
> means clearly that they're linked, but it doesn't explain why I am (we
> are) not able to imagine time without "materializing" in it. Isn't the
> human mind able to grasp such a complicated concept or is it linked
> with the western structure of mind?
> I'm talking about western mind because of Ornementalmind's post "Time
> is but our memory and images of the past, our projection of
> events into the future coupled with the only thing that exists, the
> present...now. "
> To me this post means "Time is an illusion" as its believed in some
> eastern cultures (Buddhism). In this case, is the eastern view (about
> time) sharper than western one?
> "It was taught by the Buddha, oh Monks, that . . . the past,
> the future, physical space, . . . and individuals are nothing
> but names, forms of thought, words of common usage,
> merely superficial realities"
> On Jul 16, 5:58 pm, amoram <ra.amo...@libero.it> wrote:
> > As the "time", as the "space" are exactly how Emanuel Kant supposed:
> > cathegories of the human perception.
> > I have the PROOF of it.
> > In fact, through the log in e-base, named "of the nature", it is
> > possible to "see" (with the intelligence) 1/4 of "time's" presence of
> > the Eath Volume, which is 10.8 multiplied by 10^21 m^3.
> > We "see" this 1/4 of 10.8, in the first 2 numbers of
> > 2.7182818284590450 (the first 17 numbers of the e-base of the
> > logarithms of the nature". In fact, 2.7, multiplied by 4 PRESENCES of
> > "TIMES 1/4", gets 10.8.
> > Now the very interesting is the remaining part of the number 2.7
> > 1828 1828 4590450.
> > In fact, all this number, is number of TIME.
> > 1828 +1828 = 3656 units that are 365.6 tenths how 365 "DAYS" and 0.6
> > "HOURS", part of the Sidereal Year of 365 days, 6 hours, 540 seconds
> > equal to 9 primes, 9.54 seconds.
> > These last MINUTES TIMES are gotten from 459045, how its inversion in
> > 540 seconds +9.54 seconds.
> > Where is the real MEANING of this inversion? It is valid because TIME
> > and SPACE are opposits, and 4590450 is SPACE, expressed in DEGREES.
> > They are the sequence of the 45° +90° +45° = 180° = Pi.
> > To schow WHY, we must see in the 10 cycle the SPACE and in its
> > inversion 01 the decimal TIME of the cycle.
> > So is is true between 20 and 02; 30 and 03; 40 and 04; in our case 045
> > and 540 senconds equal to 9 primes.
> > These MINUTES TIMES exist in a year because the unitary model of all
> > the masses, because 10^3 = 1,000.
> > This 1,000 is ABSOLUTE how ALL THE cycle of the mass. Its REAL UNIT is
> > only expressed how 999 units, or 999/1, in whic ONE UNIT is taken to
> > can number the remaining 999.
> > Very well, this 999, IN TIME, are 9 primes, 9 seconds and 9 thirds,
> > these last equal to 9 third minutes.
> > So the YEAR of the EARTH (Sidereal) has these littles 9 primes and
> > 9.54 seconds because thei are relative to the PRESENCE of the 10^3
> > REFERENCE, of the mass.
> > The MASS is THE TIME.
> > In fact 10^3 electrons, each big a.m.u. 0.00054, are equal to the 0.54
> > seconds of the MINIMAL TIME of the Year.
> > We PERCEIVE the TIME in the Sun's light when we pereceive the MASS of
> > a WAVE after a WAVE.
> > We PERCEIVE the SPACE of its when we see this phenomenon in lateral
> > way. So, in a dusty room in which a suns's ray is passing we see a
> > line of SPACE of light, all existing in the same time. On the
> > contrary, the observer that perceives that same ray in his eye, see
> > THE TIME.
> > It is the same ray! But one observer see only the SPACE, the other
> > only the TIME and the MASS.
> > So do you understand that TIME and SPACE are only 2 different WAYS to
> > PERCEIVE the same Phenomenon.
> > Good by!
> > Romano Amodeo
> > On 14 Lug, 23:09, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi to all,
> > > When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
> > > either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> > > "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> > > points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> > > who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> > > you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
> > > if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
> > > consensus and have no objective link with time?- Hide quoted text -
> AMA, both have their function and level within 'mind' ....both views
> of 'time' that is.
> On Jul 16, 2:38 pm, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I have a weak scientific background, I could understand Goran and
> > Carlos's posts but not yours Romano.
> > Let's just try about great theories and try to be intuitive. Just try
> > grasp the "image" given to your mind when you try to think about time.
> > Personally I imagine a "moment" within a defined space (area). Is
> > there an explanation of this inevitable link between space and time.
> > Einstein showed clearly that we're in Space-time continuum; to me it
> > means clearly that they're linked, but it doesn't explain why I am (we
> > are) not able to imagine time without "materializing" in it. Isn't the
> > human mind able to grasp such a complicated concept or is it linked
> > with the western structure of mind?
> > I'm talking about western mind because of Ornementalmind's post "Time
> > is but our memory and images of the past, our projection of
> > events into the future coupled with the only thing that exists, the
> > present...now. "
> > To me this post means "Time is an illusion" as its believed in some
> > eastern cultures (Buddhism). In this case, is the eastern view (about
> > time) sharper than western one?
> > "It was taught by the Buddha, oh Monks, that . . . the past,
> > the future, physical space, . . . and individuals are nothing
> > but names, forms of thought, words of common usage,
> > merely superficial realities"
> > On Jul 16, 5:58 pm, amoram <ra.amo...@libero.it> wrote:
> > > As the "time", as the "space" are exactly how Emanuel Kant supposed:
> > > cathegories of the human perception.
> > > I have the PROOF of it.
> > > In fact, through the log in e-base, named "of the nature", it is
> > > possible to "see" (with the intelligence) 1/4 of "time's" presence of
> > > the Eath Volume, which is 10.8 multiplied by 10^21 m^3.
> > > We "see" this 1/4 of 10.8, in the first 2 numbers of
> > > 2.7182818284590450 (the first 17 numbers of the e-base of the
> > > logarithms of the nature". In fact, 2.7, multiplied by 4 PRESENCES of
> > > "TIMES 1/4", gets 10.8.
> > > Now the very interesting is the remaining part of the number 2.7
> > > 1828 1828 4590450.
> > > In fact, all this number, is number of TIME.
> > > 1828 +1828 = 3656 units that are 365.6 tenths how 365 "DAYS" and 0.6
> > > "HOURS", part of the Sidereal Year of 365 days, 6 hours, 540 seconds
> > > equal to 9 primes, 9.54 seconds.
> > > These last MINUTES TIMES are gotten from 459045, how its inversion in
> > > 540 seconds +9.54 seconds.
> > > Where is the real MEANING of this inversion? It is valid because TIME
> > > and SPACE are opposits, and 4590450 is SPACE, expressed in DEGREES.
> > > They are the sequence of the 45° +90° +45° = 180° = Pi.
> > > To schow WHY, we must see in the 10 cycle the SPACE and in its
> > > inversion 01 the decimal TIME of the cycle.
> > > So is is true between 20 and 02; 30 and 03; 40 and 04; in our case 045
> > > and 540 senconds equal to 9 primes.
> > > These MINUTES TIMES exist in a year because the unitary model of all
> > > the masses, because 10^3 = 1,000.
> > > This 1,000 is ABSOLUTE how ALL THE cycle of the mass. Its REAL UNIT is
> > > only expressed how 999 units, or 999/1, in whic ONE UNIT is taken to
> > > can number the remaining 999.
> > > Very well, this 999, IN TIME, are 9 primes, 9 seconds and 9 thirds,
> > > these last equal to 9 third minutes.
> > > So the YEAR of the EARTH (Sidereal) has these littles 9 primes and
> > > 9.54 seconds because thei are relative to the PRESENCE of the 10^3
> > > REFERENCE, of the mass.
> > > The MASS is THE TIME.
> > > In fact 10^3 electrons, each big a.m.u. 0.00054, are equal to the 0.54
> > > seconds of the MINIMAL TIME of the Year.
> > > We PERCEIVE the TIME in the Sun's light when we pereceive the MASS of
> > > a WAVE after a WAVE.
> > > We PERCEIVE the SPACE of its when we see this phenomenon in lateral
> > > way. So, in a dusty room in which a suns's ray is passing we see a
> > > line of SPACE of light, all existing in the same time. On the
> > > contrary, the observer that perceives that same ray in his eye, see
> > > THE TIME.
> > > It is the same ray! But one observer see only the SPACE, the other
> > > only the TIME and the MASS.
> > > So do you understand that TIME and SPACE are only 2 different WAYS to
> > > PERCEIVE the same Phenomenon.
> > > Good by!
> > > Romano Amodeo
> > > On 14 Lug, 23:09, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi to all,
> > > > When I try to imagine time the first image that comes to my mind is
> > > > either a big empty space where events are all happening together but
> > > > "disposed" from the left of the scene to its right, or a line which
> > > > points represent events. I guess this is normal for someone like me
> > > > who never dealt with relativity theory. Is it the case for those of
> > > > you who did? Is it normal to have this conception of time? what's time
> > > > if not the seconds and minutes that are the simple result of a
> > > > consensus and have no objective link with time?- Hide quoted text -
In answer to your "So???", when you earlier asked "In this case, is
the eastern view (about time) sharper than western one?" I thought
that you were presenting the apparently differing views as being in
some sort of opposition. IF I misunderstood you underlying motivation,
I appologize.
On Jul 16, 3:17 pm, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:13 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > AMA, both have their function and level within 'mind' ....both views
> > of 'time' that is.
> > On Jul 16, 2:38 pm, AMA <andalibmed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > I have a weak scientific background, I could understand Goran and
> > > Carlos's posts but not yours Romano.
> > > Let's just try about great theories and try to be intuitive. Just try
> > > grasp the "image" given to your mind when you try to think about time.
> > > Personally I imagine a "moment" within a defined space (area). Is
> > > there an explanation of this inevitable link between space and time.
> > > Einstein showed clearly that we're in Space-time continuum; to me it
> > > means clearly that they're linked, but it doesn't explain why I am (we
> > > are) not able to imagine time without "materializing" in it. Isn't the
> > > human mind able to grasp such a complicated concept or is it linked
> > > with the western structure of mind?
> > > I'm talking about western mind because of Ornementalmind's post "Time
> > > is but our memory and images of the past, our projection of
> > > events into the future coupled with the only thing that exists, the
> > > present...now. "
> > > To me this post means "Time is an illusion" as its believed in some
> > > eastern cultures (Buddhism). In this case, is the eastern view (about
> > > time) sharper than western one?
> > > "It was taught by the Buddha, oh Monks, that . . . the past,
> > > the future, physical space, . . . and individuals are nothing
> > > but names, forms of thought, words of common usage,
> > > merely superficial realities"
> > > > As the "time", as the "space" are exactly how Emanuel Kant supposed:
> > > > cathegories of the human perception.
> > > > I have the PROOF of it.
> > > > In fact, through the log in e-base, named "of the nature", it is
> > > > possible to "see" (with the intelligence) 1/4 of "time's" presence of
> > > > the Eath Volume, which is 10.8 multiplied by 10^21 m^3.
> > > > We "see" this 1/4 of 10.8, in the first 2 numbers of
> > > > 2.7182818284590450 (the first 17 numbers of the e-base of the
> > > > logarithms of the nature". In fact, 2.7, multiplied by 4 PRESENCES of
> > > > "TIMES 1/4", gets 10.8.
> > > > Now the very interesting is the remaining part of the number 2.7
> > > > 1828 1828 4590450.
> > > > In fact, all this number, is number of TIME.
> > > > 1828 +1828 = 3656 units that are 365.6 tenths how 365 "DAYS" and 0.6
> > > > "HOURS", part of the Sidereal Year of 365 days, 6 hours, 540 seconds
> > > > equal to 9 primes, 9.54 seconds.
> > > > These last MINUTES TIMES are
