Conversation

Are some people toxic

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
so to the question at hand.. YES.. many are.. like ones I mentioned

the most amazing thing is how you fall for this.. how you let them poison the already thickened soupl below you above you and at your level.. how you just don't seem to care.. people care about food on the table and that is it.. their own money their own cube and that is it.. this created gen x and millennials to also be this way.. it caused it to happen.. and of course the younger millennials and zoomers which are a horror show but you are heavily depend on them for the re routing im talking about.. they seem to be less scared than boomers and let authority driven.. it is good and bad but it can work very well to detoxify you first and foremost

whatever you do DO NOT let the AI set in.. you are done when it happens and then years into the future in 1980.. yes its the future shit happen to OTHER species who look for answer with your damned time and don't seem to find it either

it is a big problem for your timeline also very hard to understand if you belong in the 20-21 centuries but yes there is awakening I will admit that.. you are awakening just very weak for now
 
I posted this once and I'm going to post it again. My personal belief of it here is that time is all about everything which has to do with existing and or existence, which includes both change & !(not)change in state of existence. I believe that our time dimension is the dimension of the distribution of existence, which includes the distribution of both change & !change in state of existence(Can you see how the distribution of existence = temporal duration here?). I believe that the direction of time is all about the direction in which something exists, which includes the direction in which it maintains & undergoes change in state of existence(can you see inertia here?). I believe that the rate of time is all about the rate at which something exists(this has something to do with manifestation which by its very nature is a component of existing), which includes the rate at which it undergoes change in state of existence(slowing down an objects ability to undergo change in state during an applied outside force sounds a lot like relativistic mass to me!). In fact it is of my opinion that any person of sound mind should know if he or she wants to travel through time by continuously moving backwards through time must do so in such a way that allows them to move forward through their existence & change of state of existence while everything else around them is moving backwards through its existence & change in state of existence. This is why I believe that if a person wants to travel through time by continuously moving backwards through time all they have to do is figure out how & why it is that they exist & undergo change in state of existence in the direction that they do and then flip/reverse this direction. The thing you've got to understand here is that we humans exist because there is something that makes us exist. Which in turn means that if a person wants to travel backwards through time he or she is going to have to trigger that which makes them what they are to travel backwards through time. Think about it!
 
Harte said:
First, space is anything but static. It twists and turns with the masses flying through it.
Second, what you call space here is actually spacetime. The energy you claim that space has comes from particles that generate various fields. All these fields carry energy, but that energy is at the lowest possible energy level for the fields to exist, which is why they call the energy of space "zero-point' energy.

Zero point energy is made up of both types of the ONLY energy anyone has ever experienced - kinetic and potential.
Now, if you pick a single point (assuming the universe is not continuous) and compare the energy level at that point to the energy level of the same point in the past (or the future,) there could be a difference in the sum of the energies carried in the fields I mentioned. But that's true of any kind of energy generated for any reason. A hot cup of coffee contains energy. A hour or so later (or earlier) that energy is no longer there. I could go on with more examples of energy changes over time, but why? It's obvious the energy itself doesn't come from time, or go into time. So time doesn't have energy.

Harte
Click to expand...

Hey @Harte I wanted to ask you a question based on the first part of what you wrote above. You said & I quote...

"First, space is anything but static. It twists and turns with the masses flying through it.
Second, what you call space here is actually spacetime. The energy you claim that space has comes from particles that generate various fields. All these fields carry energy, but that energy is at the lowest possible energy level for the fields to exist, which is why they call the energy of space "zero-point' energy."

Now if what you wrote is true then somehow these various particle generated fields must cause and or give rise to what we know & experience as being spacial area. At the same time though & while the outbound expression and or emission of these various particle generated fields must combine together with time to cause the 2 dimensional area known as spacetime these various spacial causing particle generated fields themselves cannot be time. Because if they were the distribution of their outbound expression and or emission would dimensionally align with time and not at a right angle to time. Which in turn should mean that dimensionally these various spacial causing particle generated fields & time must be 2 very different things and as such dimensionally they must be something in their own selves. At the same time though the only way that these 2 very different dimensional things can cause and or become the 2 dimensional area known as spacetime is if both of them not only directly connect to each other dimensionally, but, as I'm sure you already know, this direct dimensional connection must be at a right angle to each other. Thereby giving these various spacial causing particle generated fields & time the ability to cause the simultaneous sideways and or right angle distribution of each other thereby causing and or becoming the 2 dimensional area known as spacetime. So now my question for you here is this. Being that time must directly connect at a right angle to these various particle generated fields do you know if Scientists think that time is some unknown kind of particle generated field or if they think it's something else?
 
Quantum P. Newtonian Am.T said:
Hey @Harte I wanted to ask you a question based on the first part of what you wrote above. You said & I quote...

"First, space is anything but static. It twists and turns with the masses flying through it.
Second, what you call space here is actually spacetime. The energy you claim that space has comes from particles that generate various fields. All these fields carry energy, but that energy is at the lowest possible energy level for the fields to exist, which is why they call the energy of space "zero-point' energy."

Now if what you wrote is true then somehow these various particle generated fields must cause and or give rise to what we know & experience as being spacial area.
Click to expand...
No. The particles carry energy, they don't make spacetime.

Time is looked at as a dimension in Physics. In M Theory, there are two different time axes, and 9 physical axes. Time is not understood to have a particle model.

Harte
 
Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding Zero Point Energy, in particular, the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention...Professor John Wheeler and Physicist Richard Feynman calculated the zero point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single electric light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the Worlds oceans..

But according to Einsteins theory of General Relativity, any such energy would tend to move towards the centre of Gravity, and the experimental evidence from both the expansion of the Universe, Dark Energy, and the Casimir Effect shows any such energy to be exceptionally weak et al...Therefore, the Cosmological Constant Problem exists, and it is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in Physics...Many physicists however, believe that the "Vacuum holds the key to the full understanding of Nature"..

For what its worth, i have always believed that Time per se, is a "sequencer", with some form of energy, that prevents everything in the Universe from happening at the same time....The power of the energy form needed to prevent everything from happening in the Universe at the same time, would be in the highest order of magnitude, without harming matter....Therefore i prefer to along with what Feynman, Wheeler and others had to say about Zero Point Energy...
 
Harte said:
No. The particles carry energy, they don't make spacetime.

Time is looked at as a dimension in Physics. In M Theory, there are two different time axes, and 9 physical axes. Time is not understood to have a particle model.

Harte
Click to expand...

So I misunderstood what you were saying, you'll have to forgive my ignorance. Now let me see if I got this right. You're saying that while spacial area is different from these particle generated fields these various particle generated fields fill the void of spacial area with kinetic & potential energy. Is this correct Harte?
 
Quantum P. Newtonian Am.T said:
So I misunderstood what you were saying, you'll have to forgive my ignorance. Now let me see if I got this right. You're saying that while spacial area is different from these particle generated fields these various particle generated fields fill the void of spacial area with kinetic & potential energy. Is this correct Harte?
Click to expand...
You could consider them to actually BE the energy of zero point energy. But energy is not space. And space doesn't have an "area." Use the term volume or chunk or whatever if you say something about space.

Harte
 
TimeFlipper said:
Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding Zero Point Energy, in particular, the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention...Professor John Wheeler and Physicist Richard Feynman calculated the zero point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single electric light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the Worlds oceans..

But according to Einsteins theory of General Relativity, any such energy would tend to move towards the centre of Gravity, and the experimental evidence from both the expansion of the Universe, Dark Energy, and the Casimir Effect shows any such energy to be exceptionally weak et al...Therefore, the Cosmological Constant Problem exists, and it is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in Physics...Many physicists however, believe that the "Vacuum holds the key to the full understanding of Nature"..

For what its worth, i have always believed that Time per se, is a "sequencer", with some form of energy, that prevents everything in the Universe from happening at the same time....The power of the energy form needed to prevent everything from happening in the Universe at the same time, would be in the highest order of magnitude, without harming matter....Therefore i prefer to along with what Feynman, Wheeler and others had to say about Zero Point Energy...
Click to expand...

Hey @TimeFlipper I wanted to run something by you based on the bottom part of what you posted above. However at first it might seem like what I'm about to say is in opposition to what you're saying, but it's not, I promise you.

So now if time is a "sequencer" which prevents everything in our universe from happening all at the exact same time then under the terms of dimensional physics time by its very nature causes the 'distribution' of the actions & the changes in actions of things across itself. Which means that if time is a "sequencer" which prevents everything in our universe from happening all at the exact same time or instance & if the source of an object's change in action comes from its inside or from its outside then that object is going to maintain its present action across time until it comes to the source of its change in action in time. At the same time though if time is a "sequencer" which prevents everything in our universe from happening all at the exact same time or instance & if the source of an object's change in action comes from its inside or from its outside then that object is going to continue changing its action across time until it comes to the moment in time that this source stops causing and or applying change. In fact it is of my belief that this is why in mathematics it's always 'Change /(across or over) Time'. Even frequency of vibration or oscillation is the distribution of cyclic change /(over) time.

You see TimeFlipper, just like you, I believe that time is a kind of sequencer. The thing here though is that I believe this sequencing requires the use of distribution, which by its very nature is not only dimensional but it is also directional. In turn it is because of this I believe that the only way to properly explain time as a sequencer is to use the dimensional physics of the distribution of time. In fact while I was writing this reply I came up with a wild and crazy idea about spacial volume & time. What if spacial volume isn't what we think it is and or experience it to be?
 
Last edited:

Top