[dipayankar]

First of all.. wish you a very Happy Birthday (belated of course).

Second, when we say that space moves into time, we need to have an explaination as to why space moves into time and what forces are at work here. Then only we can explain to people that gravity is just an illusionary force..

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Hello Dipayankar: If gravity is the result of space moving into time, then there is the force responsible for that movement of space into time and the gravity is a reaction that we see. The initial force is to move space into time. The secondary action is the reluctance of any mass that is contained within that space causing the space to warp because of the movement of space into time. If you and a friend are the passengers in a vehicle that has an inflated pillow for a seat and backrest. When the car accelerates and you sink into the pillow and your friend also sinks into the pillow. Will not the two of you come together because of the warping of the pillow when the car accelerates. What then is the force that caused the two passengers to come together and how does it relate to the initial force that was to accelerate the car forward. What we could be experiencing is a action that is a reaction to a reaction to the initial action. You must get to the force before you can look for any character of the force that is responsible. We are not spitting anything. New space is being created by time. It is simply the nature of the next dimension to create infinitely more of what was the last dimension. Once again I will try to simplify. If you have a 2 dimensional plane. Like a piece of paper. To create a new dimension you draw right angles to every conceivable point on the plane. This will create a volume that is 3 dimensional. Now think of that volume like a stack of paper. The single sheet is a 2 dimensional plane. The stack of paper is now a 3 dimensional volume. It takes many sheets of paper to make a cube volume. This I hope gives you the idea of what is happening between space and time. Time is the 4th dimension it quite literally is continuously creating new universes as it increases the 4th dimension. This is the very same principle as adding sheets of paper to the stack as you increase the 3rd dimension. We know that 2 objects can not occupy the same space. When you add the 4th dimension time the space today is not the same as the space tomorrow more than one object can occupy what we consider the same space. IT IS NOT THE SAME SPACE. Space is created under our feet as we step. We the observer is always the center of the universe. We cause the change that requires the many worlds theory of quantum physics to create the many worlds. How much more do we need to see before we are no longer blind to what is and has been before our very eyes all of our lives. This place is created for the existence of LIFE by an intelligent entity that may be the universe itself. There is no other reason for the existence of this place. Do we still need a TOE. I can tell you from experience all you need to do is ask the right questions and wait and listen for your answers. You will not wait very long. The trick is the learning how to listen and giving what you hear the test of time to be sure of where your answer came from. I am really getting tired of the need to be dishonest with people so they get to hear what it is that they want to hear and how they want to hear it. Even if the words are the same if I am honest about where they came from no one will listen. They would rather be told “it just comes from the imagination.” The other one that is liked is “that person is very creative”. Now where do you suppose that this creativity comes from and the imagination as well. When you begin to realize that it is not coming out of thin air it will begin to come much faster. How many times have you asked your teacher a question about something you really wanted to know, then have the answer pop into your head before the teacher gets a chance to answer. When I was a child I had to learn to keep my mouth shut when this happens as it causes anger in the teacher if this happens too often. My friends we are truly on the verge of revelation when we will all experience the connection between all life. The finality of this will truly be judgement as all will know what we all know. This is evolution of life step 3 life of life of life. The Collective Consciousness, The Holy Spirit. Now you know what Everymansmedium means. I guess I get to say this today on my birth day. This is my birthday present to myself. Today I get to be honest. John EMM.

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by dipayankar First of all.. wish you a very Happy Birthday (belated of course). Second, when we say that space moves into time, we need to have an explaination as to why space moves into time and what forces are at work here. Then only we can explain to people that gravity is just an illusionary force..

Hello Dipayankar:
Thank you for the happy birthday wish.

The idea of space moving into time is the natural result of the generation of time as the 4th dimension. I am not sure that moving into time is the correct term. It appears to create a totally new space as time/the 4th dimension increases like I explained in the last email. The stack of paper that increases into the 3rd dimension by adding new sheets of paper. But gravity could be the result of the creation of space as well as movement into space. Though it would be easier to explain if it is the result of movement instead of creation. I do not know much about creation, I think neither does anybody else. So I guess that could result in what we see as gravity as well.
The question then becomes "How is new space created?"
Then the question:
"is there space created to cover the many worlds as indicated by the many worlds theory of quantum physics as well as what is needed by time."
I guess if you can create one new universe at every instance you can also create all that is needed by the many worlds theory as well. This kind of thinking has the ability to make explanation for almost anything.
I am not sure where to go from here or if there is anyplace we can go from here except to communicate in speculative mode as we are right now.
There is obviously evidence of the creation of space. In seeing that, what does that tell us about our ability to determine other information. We may not be able to go beyond this point except by the revelation that there may be more to our ability to simply know because of our interconnection to this creation and creator. This appears to me to be the next direction of man.
That truly is the quantum leap. You know by my last post how I feel about this kind of thinking. But for everybody else to pick up and join in this kind of thinking will no doubt bring about the revelations of mankind to the next level of evolution, and ultimately to totally shared knowledge that results in judgement day amen.
John

[everymansmedium]

Hello friends:
Did you notice the change in subject heading for this thread. I see this as ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE of the fear that is generated when I say what is real in a 100% honest manner.
NOTE I DID NOT CHANGE THIS SUBJECT HEADING
It is just much to frightening for people to see this subject as real.
Well BOO! I just turned you into a fool.
John

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Hello friends: Did you notice the change in subject heading for this thread. I see this as ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE of the fear that is generated when I say what is real in a 100% honest manner. NOTE I DID NOT CHANGE THIS SUBJECT HEADING It is just much to frightening for people to see this subject as real. Well BOO! I just turned you into a fool. John

Hello Friends:
I yield to the indication that this is just a philosophical argument. The reason that I reacted the way that I did is that I am quite aware that the mathematics that indicates what takes place when a new dimension is generated also indicates the creation of what ever was in the last dimension.

Because we a dealing with time, the concept of now becomes a point where the 4th dimension is increasing
It is obviously the point of creation. But because we do not know anything at all about creation it must be a philosophical argument. Besides to determine that anything is being created is an indication of a non deterministic action. This is a lethal thought to any organization that is based on the ability to determine.
So I guess it is only natural that there be some kicking and screaming as the systems that are based on the ability to determine the future outcome of things must adjust there potency down to a more reasonable level.

So I guess I take offence to any that claim more value to any specific way of attempting to find the truth, over any other. It is all just philosophy. Most importantly it may be discovered that we truly exist within an existence medium that is not deterministic.

I may consider another thread to deal just specifically with this issue of creation at the point of NOW.
This would be truly a close look at time and space.
I also think it is near time for a thread for my TOE.

John

[dipayankar]

Hi John,

First lets look freshly at the relationship of space and time and why space should have the requirement of moving into time. In that equation I am sure there would be some term which would explain gravity...

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Hello Dipayankar: Thank you for the happy birthday wish. The idea of space moving into time is the natural result of the generation of time as the 4th dimension. I am not sure that moving into time is the correct term. It appears to create a totally new space as time/the 4th dimension increases like I explained in the last email. The stack of paper that increases into the 3rd dimension by adding new sheets of paper. But gravity could be the result of the creation of space as well as movement into space. Though it would be easier to explain if it is the result of movement instead of creation. I do not know much about creation, I think neither does anybody else. So I guess that could result in what we see as gravity as well. The question then becomes "How is new space created?" Then the question: "is there space created to cover the many worlds as indicated by the many worlds theory of quantum physics as well as what is needed by time." I guess if you can create one new universe at every instance you can also create all that is needed by the many worlds theory as well. This kind of thinking has the ability to make explanation for almost anything. I am not sure where to go from here or if there is anyplace we can go from here except to communicate in speculative mode as we are right now. There is obviously evidence of the creation of space. In seeing that, what does that tell us about our ability to determine other information. We may not be able to go beyond this point except by the revelation that there may be more to our ability to simply know because of our interconnection to this creation and creator. This appears to me to be the next direction of man. That truly is the quantum leap. You know by my last post how I feel about this kind of thinking. But for everybody else to pick up and join in this kind of thinking will no doubt bring about the revelations of mankind to the next level of evolution, and ultimately to totally shared knowledge that results in judgement day amen. John

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi John, First lets look freshly at the relationship of space and time and why space should have the requirement of moving into time. In that equation I am sure there would be some term which would explain gravity...

Hi Dipayankar:
First let me say thank you for the interest you show in these thoughts, and the questions that make me to refine these concepts. I read this earlier this evening before I went to bed. I felt very tired and I wanted to sleep on the answer before I gave it to you. As it happens I did not sleep well and got up to turn on the big screen. I use a 36 inch LCD so I do not need to wear glasses to read. My Christmas present to myself for Christmas of 2006.

I have come to the conclusion that I do not think that space is moving into time. I think it is more reasonable to see it as the creation of both space and time. Time is always moving, it is dynamic. The thought of time as a dynamic dimension, brings to my mind the instant creation of time at now. Resulting in the present/now and a history of past now recorded in the space that was created at that now. Time appears to create space as a natural process of adding a dynamic dimension. I know this does not help you to grab the tiger gravity by the tail. I am sorry about that. I also know that it indicates a non deterministic thought as the basis of time and space. I guess at this point I will try to again sleep on that thought to see if the tiger leaves his tail anywhere that I can grab it.
John.

[dipayankar]

Hi John,

Good for me I do not need reading glasses as yet. As I grow older, I probably would. I am slightly saddened by your abandoning the idea of space moving into time. This idea kind of solves two problems

1) Why is gravity a weak force? Probably because it is not a force and it is only a reaction.

2) Why cant we move into time? Because till space moves forward, we would not be able to do so. Like if you are travelling in an aeroplane, unless the plane moves forward, you do not move forward and second because the plane is moving forward, you cannot move back at will. I considered space to be our aeroplane that is moving into time....

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Hi Dipayankar: First let me say thank you for the interest you show in these thoughts, and the questions that make me to refine these concepts. I read this earlier this evening before I went to bed. I felt very tired and I wanted to sleep on the answer before I gave it to you. As it happens I did not sleep well and got up to turn on the big screen. I use a 36 inch LCD so I do not need to wear glasses to read. My Christmas present to myself for Christmas of 2006. I have come to the conclusion that I do not think that space is moving into time. I think it is more reasonable to see it as the creation of both space and time. Time is always moving, it is dynamic. The thought of time as a dynamic dimension, brings to my mind the instant creation of time at now. Resulting in the present/now and a history of past now recorded in the space that was created at that now. Time appears to create space as a natural process of adding a dynamic dimension. I know this does not help you to grab the tiger gravity by the tail. I am sorry about that. I also know that it indicates a non deterministic thought as the basis of time and space. I guess at this point I will try to again sleep on that thought to see if the tiger leaves his tail anywhere that I can grab it. John.

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi John, Good for me I do not need reading glasses as yet. As I grow older, I probably would. I am slightly saddened by your abandoning the idea of space moving into time. This idea kind of solves two problems 1) Why is gravity a weak force? Probably because it is not a force and it is only a reaction. 2) Why cant we move into time? Because till space moves forward, we would not be able to do so. Like if you are travelling in an aeroplane, unless the plane moves forward, you do not move forward and second because the plane is moving forward, you cannot move back at will. I considered space to be our aeroplane that is moving into time....

Hi Dipayankar:
The idea that it is creating space also has its direction. I posted some of this to the forums on yahoo over the past few days to see if there was any differing thoughts on this issue. I got a response that simply said. Of course it is the 4th dimension and yes it is obviously creating space and time at this point. That is all it said except for an invitation to join a group of string theorists. So maybe that is the natural progression of this thought.

Yes I agree, the idea of space moving into time would have its value as a possible cause of gravity. However it does not change the perception of seeing gravity as a reaction to something else. Possibly even a reaction to a reaction. This is the same problem that is encountered whenever one tries to determine the cause of any apparent force. It is always more likely to be a reaction that we experience than a direct action. The reason for this is because there is only one direct action and EVERYTHING that follows is a reaction to a reaction. If you look at the laws of probability relative to that thought then it is the most likely possibility that gravity is a reaction rather than a direct action as there are more reactions possible as compared to the initial action. We could think that when space is created that the space warps at the point where matter exists as a reaction to the creation of space. This is what I see as the most likely. But it still is less obvious because of our lack of knowledge of and the ability to determine the characteristics of creation.

Maybe some sharp character might find some math that relates to this that will help to enlighten us. I can not see anything beyond this thought that I can do except to keep looking at this phenomena until something dawns in somebody’s mind. That all there is in mine for the time being.

STOP!
I just had a thought! There would be no gravity without mass the two words are each relative to each other.
Just had a thought of where it might be worth looking. It is always a reaction to mass. What makes mass reluctant to change / movement?
This relates to the amount of energy that is required to move it. The more mass the more energy is required to move it. Looking from the other vantage point of mass. (E=mc2) not only does mass relate to the amount of energy required to move it, it also relates to the amount of energy that it REPRESENTS. This might be a good place for some calculations to show a relativity between the amount of energy that it represents as compared to the amount of energy that is required to move it. How does E relate to the E that is required to move it. This should truly define gravity. It may show it as the weak force that it is.
The relative number that results might relate to other numbers that indicate still more enlightening relativity. I hope that I give you another route to get to where you want to be.
John EMM

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Hi Dipayankar: STOP! I just had a thought! There would be no gravity without mass the two words are each relative to each other. Just had a thought of where it might be worth looking. It is always a reaction to mass. What makes mass reluctant to change / movement? This relates to the amount of energy that is required to move it. The more mass the more energy is required to move it. Looking from the other vantage point of mass. (E=mc2) not only does mass relate to the amount of energy required to move it, it also relates to the amount of energy that it REPRESENTS. This might be a good place for some calculations to show a relativity between the amount of energy that it represents as compared to the amount of energy that is required to move it. How does E relate to the E that is required to move it. This should truly define gravity. It may show it as the weak force that it is. The relative number that results might relate to other numbers that indicate still more enlightening relativity. I hope that I give you another route to get to where you want to be. John EMM

Hello friends:
This thought that I indicate might simply be a different form of the same formula. M=C^2/E Is it viewed as M=(speed to accelerate to)^2/E ?
This is a good example of a spontaneous thought that did not stand the test of time.
John
http://unit-unity-community.com

[dipayankar]

Great idea... so a reaction to a reaction will weaken the initial force and hence Gravity is a weak force. Now how do we mathematically prove it??

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Hi Dipayankar: The idea that it is creating space also has its direction. I posted some of this to the forums on yahoo over the past few days to see if there was any differing thoughts on this issue. I got a response that simply said. Of course it is the 4th dimension and yes it is obviously creating space and time at this point. That is all it said except for an invitation to join a group of string theorists. So maybe that is the natural progression of this thought. Yes I agree, the idea of space moving into time would have its value as a possible cause of gravity. However it does not change the perception of seeing gravity as a reaction to something else. Possibly even a reaction to a reaction. This is the same problem that is encountered whenever one tries to determine the cause of any apparent force. It is always more likely to be a reaction that we experience than a direct action. The reason for this is because there is only one direct action and EVERYTHING that follows is a reaction to a reaction. If you look at the laws of probability relative to that thought then it is the most likely possibility that gravity is a reaction rather than a direct action as there are more reactions possible as compared to the initial action. We could think that when space is created that the space warps at the point where matter exists as a reaction to the creation of space. This is what I see as the most likely. But it still is less obvious because of our lack of knowledge of and the ability to determine the characteristics of creation. Maybe some sharp character might find some math that relates to this that will help to enlighten us. I can not see anything beyond this thought that I can do except to keep looking at this phenomena until something dawns in somebody’s mind. That all there is in mine for the time being. STOP! I just had a thought! There would be no gravity without mass the two words are each relative to each other. Just had a thought of where it might be worth looking. It is always a reaction to mass. What makes mass reluctant to change / movement? This relates to the amount of energy that is required to move it. The more mass the more energy is required to move it. Looking from the other vantage point of mass. (E=mc2) not only does mass relate to the amount of energy required to move it, it also relates to the amount of energy that it REPRESENTS. This might be a good place for some calculations to show a relativity between the amount of energy that it represents as compared to the amount of energy that is required to move it. How does E relate to the E that is required to move it. This should truly define gravity. It may show it as the weak force that it is. The relative number that results might relate to other numbers that indicate still more enlightening relativity. I hope that I give you another route to get to where you want to be. John EMM