[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by neutralino As a side comment, I would recommend anyone interested in the fascinating subject of time, and especially why we see it flow from only the past to the future, to have a read of the book entitled "The River of Time" by Igor Novikov.

Hey Neutralino,

Side comment or not, you are making me curious. Do you mind explaining Novikov's idea in short here?

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

" Thanks for your reply. Does this satisfy you, Profpat? "

Ask and answered Fredrick, Thanks.

Best to all,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Profpat,

Austin send me three pictures of streams; I picked this one. Wouldn't it be wonderful to live near this stream?

I think I can come up with a new view for space and time within one picture. This time it is an ocean of energy that remains invisible except for some spots on the surface where waves are created. Since our universe is for a large part outward moving energy, the waves in this picture are ongoing in one direction only. There is no beach in sight.

Though the waves can easily be followed with our eyes, the waves themselves are constantly renewed. The invisible matrix underlying our universe behaves like the water molecule that is pushed forward-upwards before arrival of the wave and with the wave, and then backward-downwards again with and after the wave. The circular movement of the water particle that basically remains in place portrays the underlying movement of energy, while the wave crest is the materialization of the energy (the remainder of the ocean remains invisible, only the waves are visible). Spatial matter is angular energy.

For us, the waves appear to be real, strong and sturdy, but it is only sustained by the movement of the whole. If the movement would not occur, the waves would not be materialized.

Matter as on-going energy creates our spatial dimensions. The time is attached to the object, to the wave. Its movement from point A to B (and beyond) is a movement that takes place in a time frame. The time frame is based on the movement of the wave, which in its turn is based on the movement of the whole. Time, however, is not directly linked to the movement of the whole, but it is limited to the wave.

Since the wave is directional, we can place future in front of the wave, and past behind it. Yet this can also be a good analogy because it shows how time can differ. Two waves may run at a different speed; and each wave has a moment where movement speeds up (when moving to the crest of the wave) or slows down (afterwards). As we all know from a pond and two pebbles, waves do not interfere with each other, but continue on. Naturally turbulence can become much greater when two waves approach each other (especially under special circumstances), but they do not annihilate each other.

The complexity of materialization is probably best captured by a surfer. The surfer was born in the waves (the board was born in the waves, too) and she surfs her own wave from day one, probably shaky and insecure, then more and more secure, till the last day she falls off the board, the board disintegrates and the ocean swallows her, or when the wave dies out.

Just like we have all probably experienced how a day in our early youth appeared almost a week when older, the surfer has a time experience all of her own. Others have their time experiences. Time is connected to their energy, not to anything else.

Thanks again, Austin, for the great picture.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick I understand that battling about the basics of mathematics is far less interesting than talking about infinity, hot and cold fusion, and a multiplex of universes, but if the basics are not all-encompassing in scope, if they are flawed in any respect, then the answers we find are automatically off. We agree science is limited one way or another, but my question to you is if you are willing to look at the basics of science, willing to discuss an eternal scientific limitation? It doesn't mean science can't bring truths and evidence, but it involves science as only capable of bringing evidence of the result, and not of the real thing itself.

Hi Fredrick, I see what you are saying, but to me, you are joining science to the metaphysical side of your own thinking, in the responses above. I have stated many times that science and metaphysics must be understood as two separately operating law systems, at root. By being such, one can not, yet, join them without corrupting the other. This does not mean they will not join in the future. My point is, they will be joined by science, and not by metaphysics. The science will include the metaphysics, when all is completed...

At present, science being the incompleted framework, that is limited by its own incompleteness, may not be so, in the near future. But, as far as stating science, or myself, as having anything to do with religion, is missing the fundamental point of what a-priori and empirical science is all about. Science can only be science by respecting the limits of its foundational laws, of such a priori logic and empirical experimental proofs, and simply uses imaginal theories, as a tool to further the quest, for real a-priori logics, maths, and empirical experimental proofs___This is not religion___Science is a facts-only based undertaking. Though you are clearly correct, to point out that much of "what is called sceince", though truly not science, does contain much, that should not be classed as science, but that is the nature of the beast, humans being the falible creatures they are.

I'd suggest studying someone like Lee Smolin's new book, "The Trouble With Physics", and Einstein's newest release of "Special and General Relativity", which clearly states Einstein's own clear warnings to the world community, as far back as the twenties, about not mis-interpreting his very own work, which the world has massively done. There's also an excellent modern commentary, at the end of this book, about the history of what science is, and is not. Einstein himself, clearly states the same, in the very beginning of the same book, as he did early on, as the theory was being developed.

Just as a clue, take humankind out of the universe, and there's no relativity. Nature, herself, is absolute in substance and motion. It's just man's application of measurement, that creates all the foolish confusion. Nature is what she absolutely is... BTW, Einstein always stated his ideas only pertained to a very small part of universal motion, and not to our general Newtonian motion and substance universe, except to a very slight Lorentzian level, as my statement of his, in my signature, clearly shows...

There's just been far too much mis-interpretation, entering our science. It's best to get the real fundamentals, from the horse's mouths...

And finally, I don't accept that science has eternal scientific limitation... We must overcome this illusion... Mathematics has limitations, but our a-priori logic is unlimited, except to the total truth___Then that's, I suppose, a limitation of sorts...

Regards,
Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

You have said that Einstein has incorrectly interpreted his own work, so how can anyone be sure of the correct interpretation other than to be sure of themselves in how they are interpreting it?

Also, how can science, at any time, be considered anything other than limited unless the scientific community somehow invents an infinitely-powerful accelerator or manages to rip a hole in spacetime to see what's inside?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Lloyd, You have said that Einstein has incorrectly interpreted his own work, so how can anyone be sure of the correct interpretation other than to be sure of themselves in how they are interpreting it? Also, how can science, at any time, be considered anything other than limited unless the scientific community somehow invents an infinitely-powerful accelerator or manages to rip a hole in spacetime to see what's inside?

Einstein admitted his own mis-interpretations, more than once... To be sure of yourself, in your own interpretations, start with absolute substance and motion, and work out the mechanics completely, for oneself. It's not that difficult... It's just all the confusion of others' ideas, that pollutes the science-fair...

As far as limited, what's the big deal...? That's one of the foundational tenets of sceince, to be limited. Without limits, there's just a hodgepodge of confusion... New discoveries in science just raises the limits, of what we know...

As far as accelerator, the Hadron will be on line next year... Anyone for the Higgs Boson...? BTW, spacetime is your bailywick, not mine...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hi Fredrick, I see what you are saying, but to me, you are joining science to the metaphysical side of your own thinking, in the responses above. I have stated many times that science and metaphysics must be understood as two separately operating law systems, at root. By being such, one can not, yet, join them without corrupting the other. This does not mean they will not join in the future. My point is, they will be joined by science, and not by metaphysics. The science will include the metaphysics, when all is completed... Regards, Lloyd

In other words if the foundations are unstable then the whole structure will suffer.

Also as to the limitations of "truth" the ideal would be knowing the things we don't know as opposed to thinking we have the "right" answers when they are wrong.

[N0B0DY]

And who decides what is right and wrong? The scientific consensus that changes every day?

[Tina]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY And who decides what is right and wrong? The scientific consensus that changes every day?

SCIENCE HAS TO ADMIT THAT "TRUTH" IS A RELATIVE TERM.

I think science can establish some facts though.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Tina SCIENCE HAS TO ADMIT THAT "TRUTH" IS A RELATIVE TERM. I think science can establish some facts though.

Your statement, Tina, is the very problem with metaphysicist views about science. If science took the stance of "truth" being relative, it destroys the very foundation of science. So, science must be founded on what is empirically and a-priori logically know to be true, and not the relative exaggerations, that plagues modern thought. Einstein long ago warned about this very problem, showing up in the interpretations of his relativity theories, of which he applied to only a very small portion of Lorentzian measure. This is where relative belongs, and nowhere else, as the universe, less man's measure mis-understandings, is an absolutely true entity, functioning as its mechanical fundamental self, and I think always will, for quite some time...

True science uses no relative terms, except where Einstein's Lorentzian measure is necessary to accurize Newtonian or classical maths, and then it's only millionths of millionths cm differences. The rest of science(most of it) is straight classical first order Euclidian math.

Regards,
Lloyd