[dipayankar]

It just shows you have a finely tuned sub conscious mind...

Originally Posted by sillysally I time traveled last night in my dream. I saw a woman holding a newborn baby in a house I recognized. The woman looked like my childhood friend (I was in her house) but it wasn't her, it was a younger version of her mother holding my friend as an infant. She is a year older than me and I wasn't born yet when I had this vision of her being held.

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by dipayankar It just shows you have a finely tuned sub conscious mind...

I didn't even have a conscious. Do we need to be conscious for a subconscious to operate? She was born in May 1971 and I was born in April 1972, she was a brand new baby. I have never gone back in time like that in a dream. I am convinced that we can time travel this way, but only into the past (possibly the future but in this manner only after death) as viewing. RP made a thread about accessing all past events, I think we can. I always wondered where I was before I was born, I was remote viewing. Haha.

[dipayankar]

We can go back in time to the past, because we know of the past. Since we do not know the future, we cant dream of it. For me time travel is when we physically travel to the past or the future..

Originally Posted by sillysally I didn't even have a conscious. Do we need to be conscious for a subconscious to operate? She was born in May 1971 and I was born in April 1972, she was a brand new baby. I have never gone back in time like that in a dream. I am convinced that we can time travel this way, but only into the past (possibly the future but in this manner only after death) as viewing. RP made a thread about accessing all past events, I think we can. I always wondered where I was before I was born, I was remote viewing. Haha.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi Greg... again I caome back to my stupid question. Where is space expanding to? Is it within itself, or is it expanding to some other dimension that we humans cant comprehend??

Hi Dip .... Actually this is not the same as your first question. See below.

Originally Posted by dipayankar Graybeard.. why is that from the mythical midposition, we only move forward and not backward??

Dip .. I have read many of your posts and I know that you know as much, most probably more, than me ..

However ... I think that the equations of GR show that Spacetime is distorted depending on mass. Where does this distortion take place ... the equations, so far as I know don't infer boundaries or perimeters.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that there are none. We can't conceptualise GR using our Newtonian senses ... LOL

The expansion of space consists of increasing distance being 'created' between ourselves and all other objects not gravitationally bound to us. This does not necessarily infer a 'place' that is required for this expansion ??

Within itself is probably the most logical answer, there can be no 'outside' to space.

I, along with you, admit that this is puzzling ... But the puzzle may be within ourselves. Our entire viewpoint since time began has consisted of ourselves occupying a place in the cosmos somewhere. We have never had sufficient cause to change this outlook before. But now, when we come to talk about the cosmos itself, it may be that the cosmos (being the set of all places) does not require a place to be in.

The set of all sets does not contain itself, this is a fallacy. Its simply a definition of all sets, space is a definition of all places.

cool bananas ... greg

(on re-reading this, it probably doesn't help much)

[everymansmedium]

Hello Greg:
I have not had much time lately. I have been meaning to make a comment here relative to you initial thoughts about time. Better late than never.

My look at time:
Whenever I encounter a communication that is about the nature of time, that also involves examination of fundamental particles. I simply avoid the communication for I feel that it will result in nothing of value. My reason for this is what I see as the limits of observation. Whenever one examines a particle, as long as time is not part of the equation you may observe a particle. A particle is matter, matter requires space. Whenever you bring both space and time into the same equation for the purpose of examination of a fundamental particle you result with uncertainty.

The thoughts that I have had as to the nature of time and space indicate a reason for this uncertainty. Also the very same reason has the ability to explain what appears as the red shift, and the apparent acceleration of the expansion of space. The shape of the fields the result with both space and time (the membrane) can give indication of expansion, contraction, and acceleration.

A look at what I see happening by using a look at our existence medium from the eye of the divine. The reason I say from the eye of the divine is because the look that I propose is not possible to see.

Imagine that there are people in line all across the universe. They all have a universal clock that indicates the same time at every point simultaneously. They are told to push a button at exactly the same time as indicated on the clock. They all push the button simultaneously. However when they all observe each other. Each and every one claims that they alone were the one that pushed the button on time. They all feel everyone else was late. They can even show you that they can still see in the distance that people are still pushing buttons. It even appears that there will be people pushing buttons during the total existence of the universe.

This point of time (now) where the creation of past events happens, if seen as an event that happens simultaneously across the universe, This point of time that appears dimensionless and imaginary, if it is experienced across all space will also exist throughout all time, and is no longer dimensionless and imaginary.

I see both space and time as the result of a rotating field from a single bipolar primary force. Space and time are both in motion at the speed of light. The presents of space results with all the other forces that in turn result with what we experience as matter. The size of the finite space is defined by the point in the distance that time and space become non linear so as to make the return of light impossible. This results with an existence medium that a point of time (now) when experienced simultaneously across the universe from red shift to red shift will use all of the available time that the universe has to traverse all the space the universe has. The time defines the size of the space and the size of the space defines the maximum amount of time. This at first appears to result in an existence medium that is finite in both time and space. However I feel that because it is a rotating field this is simply one revolution of the field. Sense the time now still exists and is the result of an ongoing creation the finite space and time is renewed at each now. This resulting with a finite existence that keeps shifting frames so as to result with infinity.

From our point of view the time travels outward in all conceivable directions from every conceivable point in space at the speed of light. As you travel with time you do not experience that time that does not pass you. At the speed of light no time passes you. The time that you do not experience remains attached to the moving object still in the form of space. This results with the very same observations as indicated by SR. The inverse of this is also true as on half of this membrane there is (the mirror image of space time, as a result of the twist in the membrane.)

I guessed at the twist in the membrane as the reversal of time and space is needed for this to work as it does.


3 dimensional time with a single dimension of space from this point the space travels outward in every conceivable direction from every conceivable instance. This results with two existence mediums. One is of the physical the other is pure data or the spirit side.

Many have looked at this thought and call me crazy. However if you stop and think for a while you will see that it brings with it an answer for all things that could not be answered by any other method.

The ability to see all as coherent. The ability to see all as logical. I have yet to run into a logical conflict.
Do you see conflict? Do you see a fault in the logic?

John

[dipayankar]

Hi Greg.. I am atiny winy person and do not by any means know anything more than you people.

Second, I agree with you and am trying to comprehend a scenario, if I move out of this Universe and somehow am able to see the Universe from outside, what would it look like? Would I see any expansion at all????

Originally Posted by Graybeard Hi Dip .... Actually this is not the same as your first question. See below. Dip .. I have read many of your posts and I know that you know as much, most probably more, than me .. However ... I think that the equations of GR show that Spacetime is distorted depending on mass. Where does this distortion take place ... the equations, so far as I know don't infer boundaries or perimeters. The only conclusion to be drawn is that there are none. We can't conceptualise GR using our Newtonian senses ... LOL The expansion of space consists of increasing distance being 'created' between ourselves and all other objects not gravitationally bound to us. This does not necessarily infer a 'place' that is required for this expansion ?? Within itself is probably the most logical answer, there can be no 'outside' to space. I, along with you, admit that this is puzzling ... But the puzzle may be within ourselves. Our entire viewpoint since time began has consisted of ourselves occupying a place in the cosmos somewhere. We have never had sufficient cause to change this outlook before. But now, when we come to talk about the cosmos itself, it may be that the cosmos (being the set of all places) does not require a place to be in. The set of all sets does not contain itself, this is a fallacy. Its simply a definition of all sets, space is a definition of all places. cool bananas ... greg (on re-reading this, it probably doesn't help much)

[Graybeard]

John .. I have had great difficulty with your post. It seems to be saying something that I don't seem able to grasp. I'll break the paragraphs down and you can let me know where I am going wrong

Originally Posted by everymansmedium My look at time: Whenever I encounter a communication that is about the nature of time, that also involves examination of fundamental particles. I simply avoid the communication for I feel that it will result in nothing of value. My reason for this is what I see as the limits of observation. Whenever one examines a particle, as long as time is not part of the equation you may observe a particle. A particle is matter, matter requires space. Whenever you bring both space and time into the same equation for the purpose of examination of a fundamental particle you result with uncertainty.

Yeeessss .... meebbee ... I read this in a roundabout way as restating the Heisenberg principle. But so far as I recall we have not touched on QM in this thread ? If you are leading to the point that our observations are limited in this first para then ... OK I'm with ya!

Originally Posted by everymansmedium The thoughts that I have had as to the nature of time and space indicate a reason for this uncertainty. Also the very same reason has the ability to explain what appears as the red shift, and the apparent acceleration of the expansion of space. The shape of the fields the result with both space and time (the membrane) can give indication of expansion, contraction, and acceleration. A look at what I see happening by using a look at our existence medium from the eye of the divine. The reason I say from the eye of the divine is because the look that I propose is not possible to see.

Once again I take this as emphasising that our observations are limited. Altho now I am uncertain if the uncertainity you are referring to is a QM uncertainity ??

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Imagine that there are people in line all across the universe. They all have a universal clock that indicates the same time at every point simultaneously. They are told to push a button at exactly the same time as indicated on the clock. They all push the button simultaneously. However when they all observe each other. Each and every one claims that they alone were the one that pushed the button on time. They all feel everyone else was late. They can even show you that they can still see in the distance that people are still pushing buttons. It even appears that there will be people pushing buttons during the total existence of the universe.

I think I understand the analogy you are giving here. I have heard similar analogies ... altho wouldn't any given observer see some people press early as well. When you say 'told to push a button' the transmission of this information would be subject to the same laws affecting the experiment ??

Originally Posted by everymansmedium This point of time (now) where the creation of past events happens, if seen as an event that happens simultaneously across the universe, This point of time that appears dimensionless and imaginary, if it is experienced across all space will also exist throughout all time, and is no longer dimensionless and imaginary.

I read this as the 'Now moment' exists forever ...

Originally Posted by everymansmedium I see both space and time as the result of a rotating field from a single bipolar primary force.

I don't understand what a 'single bipolar primary force' is ?

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Space and time are both in motion at the speed of light. The presence of space results with all the other forces that in turn result with what we experience as matter. The size of the finite space is defined by the point in the distance that time and space become non linear so as to make the return of light impossible. This results with an existence medium that a point of time (now) when experienced simultaneously across the universe from red shift to red shift will use all of the available time that the universe has to traverse all the space the universe has. The time defines the size of the space and the size of the space defines the maximum amount of time. This at first appears to result in an existence medium that is finite in both time and space. However I feel that because it is a rotating field this is simply one revolution of the field. Since the time now still exists and is the result of an ongoing creation the finite space and time is renewed at each now. This resulting with a finite existence that keeps shifting frames so as to result with infinity.

John, I am sure its not your fault but I am unable to join these sentences. I would need an explanation (an explanatory sentence in between each sentence) for each one in order to comprehend them. I don't have the same grasp of it as you do. Remember... I only got a small brain .... Could it be that you are saying that 'Matter' thru motion or mass, defines its own space ... this has always been an unpronounceable thought in my mind.

Originally Posted by everymansmedium From our point of view the time travels outward in all conceivable directions from every conceivable point in space at the speed of light. As you travel with time you do not experience that time that does not pass you. At the speed of light no time passes you. The time that you do not experience remains attached to the moving object still in the form of space. This results with the very same observations as indicated by SR.

Yes ... I understand this. I have my own concepts but using them I grasp what your saying here... whew !!

Originally Posted by everymansmedium The inverse of this is also true as on half of this membrane there is (the mirror image of space time, as a result of the twist in the membrane.) I guessed at the twist in the membrane as the reversal of time and space is needed for this to work as it does.

I don't get the membrane..

Originally Posted by everymansmedium The ability to see all as coherent. The ability to see all as logical. I have yet to run into a logical conflict. Do you see conflict? Do you see a fault in the logic?

John .... LOL ... in order to fault the logic I would first have to grasp it. I feel as I read it that it is saying something almost on the tip of my tongue. A sort of 'deja vu' feeling that I'm missing the point by a fly shit.

Do you have any illustrations or diagrams as it would make it so much simpler for me. I understand that you are busy with your AI code and this is not your main focus.

Light Cone by WIKI

Its a good post, unfortunately you are not talking to a scientist, just someone who is slowly finding out that he knows a lot lot less than he thought ... LOL

cool bananas ... greg

[dleviwing]

Greg;
It’s called gibberish but in all fairness to John, there are many PhD’s that promote it also.

[everymansmedium]

Yes I am talking about the Heisenberg principal. I have just read the majority of the thread also some others I may have blended them in my mind a bit if the subject was similar. I thought I remembered NB communicating some such information relative to both time and QM. I see QM as a necessary branch of math to cover areas of physics that is not presently covered by other more rational systems. We have ways of understanding many areas of physics that use specific methods that were developed to cover specific disciplines. I see QM as one of these. I feel that QM will be part of the TOE when complete as will all disciplines, however I do not feel that this is the place to look for it as it is not so yielding of its truth as other systems are more likely to yield to common sense, logic, and simplicity
---------------------------------------
I am indicating that I have a different reason for the observations of both, the uncertainty principal and the red shift.
Whenever we try to explain the fundamentals of our existence medium we always result with a point that can not be explained at the very basis of our physical laws. We try to define this beginning of all things by trying to explain in a cause and effect followed by another cause and effect. This always leaves the trail in a dead end where we can not follow. My thought is to have an overall look at the system and let what we know define what we can not answer. We know that the basis of all things must not be in line with our present laws of physics. We know that the laws of physics must require a change in order to result with a totally coherent system My ability to generate simulations of natural phenomena in predicate calculus was very good. So my thought was to see what would be required to make a simulation of our universe. This is a thought that runs in the reverse direction to the normal way to observe our universe. This is a, “what could I put here in order to make it work “ type of system. Rather than “what is here that can account for this” type of system. The (what is here system) results in a search to find something. (this could be like finding a needle in a haystack) This is a (“what could I create to make the system work as it does”) system that results in a creation process rather than a search process.

The membrane is a construction or simulation of what is needed to see what we are experiencing.
That makes the membrane the flexible part of the concept. As it is created to fit what it is that we see.

So the primary force needed to be bipolar and seen as a rotating primary field of both space and time where space and time are each the result of a separate pole. This also makes them reversible.

It is this working backward that is yielding answers to many questions. I find this to be a reasonable way to work as it leaves the foundation as the flexible part of reality, as it is also from the present system.

This method is what yielded the picture that I have today after 37 years of effort.
--------------------------------------------------------
( wouldn't any given observer see some people press early as well) The light that travels to the observer takes time to travel. This says that each person is closest to their own event and see this as the first thing following the NOW. All others are after this. You can see that the future does not exist because it was the presant now across the universe that is still yet to be observed as if it has not yet happened. Only the past exists the presant is the point that the past is created.
------------------------------------------------------
I read this as the 'Now moment' exists forever ...
12-31-07
The observation of it as a single instance across all space exists through out all available time in the universe. However at each NOW instance this frame of observation of the universe is updated so as to indicate the same amount of time and space remains in the universe today as did last year or millions of years ago. This results with the finite observation of an infinite universe. Done in the same way as the dimensionless point of NOW that exists through out all time depending on your point of observation.

----------------------
I don't understand what a 'single bipolar primary force' is ?
12-31-07
This is part of the simulation of the membrane. It appeared that it was necessary for the primary field (gravity) to be a bipolar field of (gravity) and (continue) resulting in space and time as opposed to gravity resulting in space-time. This indicates the constant continue as the basis of time as the constant gravity is responsible for space. If the phenomena space, and time are each the result of one pole of a primary bipolar force. This bipolar force appears as the basis for the existence of all that we experience. You may now imagine a rotating force that results with field lines shaped as the membrane that I described. The membrane is likely composed of superstrings and may one day be described via string theory or m-theory.
So the membrane is created so as to be able to explain all the phenomena that we see. It still leaves us without the final connection that will finish the definition of the membrane.

-----------------
I t is the rotating gravity field that results with or defines the other 3 forces and (space,matter,energy).
It is the rotating continue field that results with or defines all else (time,being,creation)
I described a shape like that of a Mobius strip with a single dimensional edge and a two dimensional side with a twist of 180 degrees.
Please understand that this is an attempt to explain what I see by creating a foundation that would result in what we experience.
In this way both GR and SR can be explained. It also might indicate things about the universe that we experience. The red shift is a non linearity between time and space as is the uncertainty principal. The shape of the simulated membrane could account for these observations by it’s shape and a twist that reverses time and space. If this is used as an explanation then we result in a mirror image of our own existence medium. This thought then had other things that it began to explain. Also this thought was indicated buy the need for symmetry in the predicate that shows this membrane via PC. So everyplace that I turned in this I keep coming up with coincidences and more trails to follow. There is more than I can do by myself. I need help in this to follow up on some of these ideas that keep manifesting as a result of this method of thinking.

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

I don't get the membrane..
12-31-07
The membrane is a simulation tool. It is flexible because it does not necessarily exist. So it can be manipulated to result in an explanation of the reality that we find. What we find in reality defines the membrane. If we are lucky, we will then be able to also define this membrane that was defined by what we experience in reality by using super strings. Then we might consider the membrane to exist as it will have been defined by what we find in reality and also by the superstring theory.
At the very least this might show us things that are parallel to this thought and things that are the result of a symmetry with this thought.

--------------
#1: I am now retired. My time is my own. I use this time for my own research that had to wait until I was retired to put some time into.

#2: I originally got involved in AI programming because of its ability at theorem proving. The IA research showed coincidences that led to more research. The research into simulation of being has been a parallel to this sense 1987. My learning process to learn Prolog showed me the path to simulation of many things that began to give me information that showed me a picture of reality that I still try to give to others.

#3: Never once did I ever claim to be smarter, or have any more abilities than anybody else. What I will claim is that when I find things that I do not understand, I can not even have a good night sleep until I have some kind of resolution to these thoughts. So I guess what drives me is an obsession to understand what I experience. I could not sit in front of a TV set and enjoy anything that I see and hear unless I also understand the principals that allow me to see and hear what it is that I see and hear. So I guess it is an unrelenting curiosity that causes me to function.

The light cone that you show was an inspiration to some of my original thinking about the interface of our existence medium to the membrane and the mirror image existence medium. The difference was that I was considering space and time rather than light. Also the cone would be a segment of the sphere that exists on both sides. Like a 4 dimensional focal point of a spherical shape collapsing and inverting into another spherical shape that now expands outward as a continuation of the lines of force that just reversed there polarity. Thus resulting in each sphere being the mirror image of the other then to continue by the same process at each reversal resulting in a totally new frame of existence at each NOW.

I hope this is still understandable I had to shorten it as it would not fit in the space given to a post.
John

[everymansmedium]

The word gibberish is a bit harsh don't you think David.
I would rather say it is an attempted simulation. This in a way is nothing until it is proven. However the number of coincidences that are continusly turning up, also seem to defy random probability.

I see this method no worse than any other type of speculation. At least it yealds something to work with. better than hanging around sitting on thy hands.
John.