Harte
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,562
Debate What is the very nature of Time?
- Thread starter Mr. Door-Chan_16
- Start date
-
- Tags
- time time travel
TimeFlipper
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,705
TimeFlipper
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,705
Would you consider that our collective sub-conscious mind, could be shared equally along the same moments, or segments of Time, between each human being?
Harte
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,562
The passage of time is the same for every observer in the same reference frame. The experience of that time can differ, depending on how much you're concerned with it.
Harte
Harte
Quantum P. Newtonian Am.T
Junior Member
- Messages
- 31
----!!! DISCLAIMER TO ALL OF THOSE WHOM READ THIS !!!----
I am not a properly trained fully qualified Mathematician, Scientist and or Physicist. In turn it is because of this that it is extremely important for you to hold all of the scientific information in which you are about to read as being in 'HIGHLY SUSPECT' of its truth. In other words just because the scientific information in which you are about to read contains fancy words and or neat concepts doesn't mean that it is true. CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL BEFORE YOU PUT ANY STOCK INTO ITS VALIDITY!
!!!---- END DISCLAIMER ----!!!
Actually Mr. Door-Chan_16 what you are asking is quite simple to explain. The trick to it here is that during the formation of the answer to this question not only do you have to see things through the eyes of the frames of reference of type, but you also have to see things through the eyes of the frames of reference of the manifestation of that type. In turn it is of my opinion that the best place to start doing this is by looking at charged subatomic particles.
It is to my understanding that for almost every type of charged subatomic particle there is there is another subatomic particle of an exact opposite charge, or anti particle. At the same time though it is also to my understanding that the polarities associated with these 2 exactly opposite charged particles are cancelling in reference to each other. Which should mean that in order for a charged subatomic particle to exist and or have manifestation not only must it be derived of that which makes it what it is but it cannot be derived of that which cancels it. Which under mathematical terms should mean that in order for a charged subatomic particle to exist and or have manifestation not only must it be 100% itself and or its type but it must also be 0% of that which is 100% !(not)its type. In other words it is to my understanding that when you compare a charged subatomic particle against itself and or its type it is 100% that particle type & when you compare a charged subatomic particle against its anti particle it is 100% !that particle type. In turn I believe that this is also true for when you are comparing something & nothing. In that I believe when you compare something against itself something is always going to come up as being its type, but when you compare something against nothing something is always going to come up as being !that type. Of course the reverse of this is also true. In that I believe when you compare nothing against itself nothing is always going to come up as being its type, but when you compare nothing against something nothing is always going to come up as being !that type.
So now it is to my understanding that associated with the physical manifestation of charged subatomic particles is the outbound expression of fields of polarity. At the same time though it is also to my understanding that while these fields of polarity seem to emanate out from their type of charged subatomic particle they seem to flow into that charged subatomic particle's exact opposite type of charged particle or anti particle thereby causing the force of attracting opposites. In turn it is because of this I believe that when you compare 2(or more) charged subatomic particles of the exact same type to each other through the eyes of their physical manifestation they appear to be white holes for the outbound expression of polarity in reference to each other & when you compare 2 charged subatomic particles of exact opposite types to each other through the eyes of their physical manifestation they appear to be black holes for the outbound expression of polarity in reference to each other. The thing you've got to understand here is that I'm not saying they are gravity black holes rather I am saying that they appear to be polarity black holes in reference to each other. At the same time though I also believe that this is true for when you are comparing something & nothing. In that I believe when you compare something against itself through the eyes of the physical manifestation of type something something is always going to come up as being its type or white somethingness, but when you compare something against nothing through the eyes of the physical manifestation of type something nothing is always going to come up as being !its type or black nothingness. Of course the reverse of this is also true. In that I believe when you compare nothing against itself through the eyes of the physical manifestation of type nothing nothing is always going to come up as being its type or white somethingness, but when you compare nothing against something through the eyes of the physical manifestation of type nothing something is always going to come up as being !its type or black nothingness.
In other words Mr. Door-Chan_16 I believe that one of the best ways to understand the differences in between both something & nothing is by picturing things from the frame of reference of being both of these things.
Mr. Door-Chan_16
New Member
- Messages
- 24
I thank you Quantum for that reply; I didn't really think or rationalize it well the day I asked that...
Though I do have a thought experiment, suppose you are reading this passage right now, knowing and understanding what I'm saying... you "can" read it technically, and you can think about it.
But can you "unthink" about what you've just read?
Of course, you can forget, but can you "remove" what is known to you simply by forgetting?
Forgive me of speaking philosophically, but I feel the need to say about it.
Though I do have a thought experiment, suppose you are reading this passage right now, knowing and understanding what I'm saying... you "can" read it technically, and you can think about it.
But can you "unthink" about what you've just read?
Of course, you can forget, but can you "remove" what is known to you simply by forgetting?
Forgive me of speaking philosophically, but I feel the need to say about it.
Quantum P. Newtonian Am.T
Junior Member
- Messages
- 31
Well Mr. Door-Chan_16 other than the death of brain cells I do not believe it is possible to completely & thoroughly or 100% remove information from inside the brain, I could be wrong here though. However I do believe it is possible to remove information in such a way that it doesn't enter into the focal point of conscious perception or mind's eye. You see based on my experience it is to my understanding that not only are there different form types of information inside the brain but based on my experience it is also to my understanding that some of these different form types of information compound onto the information of Boolean logic inside the brain. In turn this Boolean logic can be the information of truth & !truth, the information of importance & !importance and or the information relevance & !relevance(I'm sure there's more Boolean logic components but I don't know what they are). For me I find that whenever information that I don't want comes into my mind's eye I just define it as being !true, !important and predominantly !relevant and usually I never think about it again. However based on my experience it is to my understanding that some form types of information compound onto emotion/s & this information is hard to get rid of.
Treversal
Member
- Messages
- 408
Someone should know this...I recall reading that TT would exist if our universe rotated but it does not. And just recently I read that our universe used to rotate. So what does that mean for TT?