Thinking about time.

[ealvizo2012]

Thinking about time.
Talking about the time is very complicated especially puzzling concepts of the Cassiopaeans, mainly for what they say in densities higher than 3, there is no left or right, which is equal to saying that there is no space, which is same as saying that there is no time, not even a body or left eye or right ... then the perception of vision should be at 360 degrees (if any view) from a dimensionless point.
Another roll is totally different to know.
It appears that the third density is not so real, that is totally contradictory to our common sense, especially when I hammered on the finger, or see the distance that is the Andromeda galaxy. How is it possible that there is no distance to the Andromeda Galaxy? What is there not the Andromeda galaxy?
Better not nail me on that roll, I might go insane ...
On the other hand if the third density is not as real can be advantageous for higher density beings, either to help us to sharpen their awareness or to drain off some kind of energy that they need. Sure they can drain off energy that we need to remove yourself silly.
I deviated from what I want to say, if the third density is not so real it may be advantageous because if an event can not like us back and correct the error, ie the third density reality is only a dream, a dream very Real.
Suppose we take the time, get the 2015, then 2020. After 20 ... and somewhere in that time the reptilians say "anything to anyone," destroy the Earth and the Sun, easy just a dream. Did I dream again? I think so.
Friends Do not feel that we are repeating a dream? What I can not determine from it when we are in the loop.

Goodbye.
Sorry, I do not understand English well

Pensando sobre el tiempo.
Hablar del tiempo es muy complicado sobre todo por los conceptos desconcertantes de los Cassiopaeos, principalmente por lo que dicen que en densidades superiores a la 3, no existe la izquierda ni la derecha, que es igual a decir que no existe el espacio, que es igual a decir que no existe el tiempo, ni siquiera un cuerpo, ni ojo izquierdo ni derecho… entonces la percepción de la visión debe ser a 360 grados (si es que hay visión) desde un punto sin dimensión.
Es otro rollo totalmente diferente a que conocemos.
Parece ser que la tercera densidad no es tan real, que es totalmente contradictorio a nuestro sentido común, sobre todo cuando me doy un martillazo en el dedo, o veo la distancia a la que está la galaxia de Andrómeda. ¿Cómo es posible que no haya distancia a la galaxia de Andrómeda? ¿Qué acaso no existe la galaxia de Andrómeda?
Mejor no me clavo en ese rollo, puede que me vuelva loco…
Por otra parte si la tercera densidad no es tan real puede ser ventajoso para los seres de densidades superiores, ya sea para ayudarnos a que tomemos mayor conciencia o para extraernos alguna clase de energía que ellos necesiten. Claro pueden extraernos energía que ellos necesiten para que se nos quite lo tonto.
Me desvié de lo que quiero comentar, si la tercera densidad no es tan real puede que sea ventajoso porque si un evento no nos gusta podemos regresarnos y corregir el error, es decir la realidad en la tercera densidad es solamente un sueño, un sueño muy real.
Supongan que dejamos correr el tiempo, llega el 2015, luego 2020. Después 20… y en alguna parte de ese tiempo los reptilianos dicen “nada para nadie”, destruyen la Tierra y el Sol, fácil solo es un sueño. ¿Se pude repetir el sueño? Yo creo que sí.
Amigos ¿No sienten que estamos repitiendo un sueño? Lo que no logro es determinar a partir de cuándo estamos en el bucle.

Adiós.

 

[mkrnhr]

Talking about time is complicated even without involving density concepts. What is time? Nobody knows for sure. Also, even if our perception of the 3D reality is subjective, it does not mean that it does not exist. 3D exists, but how it exists relatively to other densities is another issue, and it is possible that we cannot understand fully that relationship as long as we exist within the limits of this reality.

 

[Muxel]

From Ark's paper, "The Theory of Kairons"
Available here http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4716

I have put in Bold the parts that might help your understanding.

1 Introduction
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity united space and time into one space–
time continuum. Julian Barbour in his book ”The End of Time” [1] proposed to
go even further by building a whole philosophy around the idea of timelessness.
Yet the fact is that what we human beings perceive, what counts, is not timelessness
and not even the continuous, linear clock time. What counts for human
beings are ”events”, irreversible discontinuities in time. This was the view of
Ilya Prigogine [2] who has stressed the need for second time, ”time of becoming”
in contrast to the ordinary time, time of ”being”. But how to implement this
idea in physics?
Prigogine suggested that irreversibility is somehow implanted into the fundamental
laws of microphysics. Yet it seems that we are still lacking the relevant
mathematical structures, structures that go beyond ”master equations”, structures
that apply to the very ways of how we talk about the physical reality.
The present paper is an attempt at constructing, theoretically, such a new
structure. This effort resulted from observing a natural duality between space
and time, and by exploiting this duality. Because time is one–dimensional, while
space is three–dimensional, this duality is not of a kind that can be immediately
seen at the classical level. Here time serves as a parameter for the dynamics,
space is an arena where the dynamics is taking place. And yet this duality
becomes apparent when we go to the quantum description level.1
Mathematical investigations of the structure of quantum theories have led,
starting from Birkhoff and von Neumann, to the concept of “quantum logic”,
a noncommutative generalization of the classical logic of Aristotle and Boole.
There are different ways of constructing examples of non-Boolean logics, one of
them being via the concept of “orthogonality”.
Normally, when discussing orthogonality, we have in mind orthogonality of
vectors and vector subspaces in a Hilbert space. But it does not have to be
so. We can, for instance, consider events in Minkowski space M and call two
events, x and y “orthogonal”, x⊥y, if they are can not be connected by a time–
like interval. This leads to a non–Boolean logic (M,⊥) that has the essential
properties of a quantum logic - it is a complete orthomodular lattice.
Since the orthogonality relation is invariant under the Poincar`e group, we
get a covariant logic and we can look for covariant representations of this logic,
where the Poincar´e group operations will be represented by unitary operators.
The simplest covariant representation of this “causal logic of the Minkowski
space” can be constructed from the solutions of a massless free Dirac equation.
But we can also consider a dual orthogonality relation x⊤y that holds if an only
if x 6= y and x is time–like or light–like with respect to y. This relation also
leads to a non-Boolean logic but (M,⊤), satisfies a somewhat weaker axioms
than (M,⊥). It is an ortho–modular partially ordered set, but not a lattice [4].
The term “Kairons” has been chosen for naming the wavicles giving rise to
this reversed space–time logic in reference to one of the two important Greek
gods of time. The standard, linear and continuous time is associated with the
name of the “dancer” time – Chronos, while the god of the discontinuous time,
the “jumper”, is called Kairos 2 The natural question that appears is: what
kind of a field equations lead to covariant representations of (M,⊤)?
In order to answer this question it is necessary to realize that the key element
is the “probability current”. In the case of the Dirac equation (massive or
massless) the probability current is given by the sesquilinear form jμ = ￣ ΨγμΨ
that is “conserved”: ∂μjμ = 0. Such a representation of the probability current,
that is standard in physics books, is somewhat misleading. In fact, the
probabilistic representation works also for a massless Dirac equation that is conformally
invariant. In such a case what we get naturally from the geometry is
not a vector–valued current, but a 3–form j that is closed dj = 0. That means
that (for solutions that have compact support on space-like hypersurfaces) the
integral of j over a space–like hypersurface does not depend on the choice of this
hypersurface; the physical interpretation of this fact reads: “the particle moves
along a time–like worldline and will be detected with certainty by any instant
measurement determining its presence.”
If we want to have a dual picture, where the roles of ”space–like” and “time–
like”are reversed, we need not a particle but a “wavicle”, an object located on a
hypersurface that is intersected by any “observer’s” time–like worldline. While
a particle is a singularity in space , a wavicle must be a singularity in time . For
this we need a current that is a closed 1–form, not a closed 3–form as it is for
particles. It is clear that it is rather impossible to deduce field equations leading
to such a current from an action principle. A direct approach is necessary. This
is the approach taken in the present paper.

 

[ealvizo2012]

Thank mkrnhr and Muxel friends. You're right mkrnhr is difficult to know what the time without having the experience of how it is perceived in 4D and compare as perceived in 3D.
Muxel Ok, there is a paragraph that says: "Time is one-dimensional, while the space is three-dimensional, this duality is not of a type that can be immediately seen at the classical level. ... " This idea is Einstein, he considers the physical reality as 4 dimensions (x, y, x, t). Note that not only time is one-dimensional but also unidirectional. Three-dimensional space is bidirectional well because you can return on the three directions of movement, do not know what kind of duality is concerned, in Spanish such duality is black and white, positive and negative, good and bad, 0 and 1, but not the time and space are not opposites.
What I think is that time only exists in the psyche of the observer, so if we have two points (a, b) separated by a distance "d" if we move from "a" to "b" at a speed "v" It took us some time "t", if we increase speed to 2v we delay time t / 2, and we travel a distance 2d in time "t". If you look carefully the time "t" can only indirectly measure the distances or with clocks with hands, which are also distances, ie time is only an interpretation of the observer to measure distances, therefore involves three-dimensional space time, points reference, event and observer.
Short for me (3D) time is a property of space is not a fourth dimension.
Returning to the ideas that have captured the Cassiopeaans, (not necessarily accurate or certain) for the past is like having a row of slides and views, for the present, must be a moment between the past and the future but it depends on some form of memory and the future is present but lived in another space but that depends on the likelihood of some form not understood by me, well I really do not understand anything.
To go back in time and change one event we did not like, easy, create a micro universe insert it in the current universe on a slide before the event and change the event, that easy. And for the future is easier, we have to work on this. But not so easy if we think that according to the decision that we will make a reality or multiple realities, are multiple universes?, There and I can not afford my logic.

Goodbye.

Gracias amigos mkrnhr y Muxel. Tienes razón mkrnhr es difícil saber lo que es el tiempo sin tener la experiencia de cómo se percibe en 4D y compararlo como se percibe en 3D.
Ok Muxel, hay un párrafo que dice: “El tiempo es unidimensional, mientras que el espacio es tridimensional, esta dualidad no es de un tipo que puede ser inmediatamente visto en el nivel clásico. … “ Esta idea es de Einstein, él considera la realidad física como de 4 dimensiones (x,y,x,t). Noten que el tiempo no solo es unidimensional sino también unidireccional y el espacio además de tridimensional es bidireccional porque puedes regresar sobre las tres direcciones del desplazamiento, no sé de qué tipo de dualidad se refiere, en español dualidad es por ejemplo blanco y negro, positivo y negativo, bueno y malo, 0 y 1, pero no el tiempo y espacio, no son opuestos ¿Dónde está la dualidad?.
A menos que en la “lógica cuántica” sea una generalización no conmutativa de la lógica clásica…
Lo que creo es que el tiempo solo existe en la psique del observador, así si tenemos dos puntos (a, b) separados por una distancia “d”, si nos movemos desde “a” a “b” a una velocidad “v” nos tardamos un tiempo “t”, si aumentamos la velocidad a 2v nos tardamos un tiempo t/2, o recorremos una distancia 2d en el tiempo “t”. Si se fijan bien el tiempo “t” solo podemos medirlo indirectamente con las distancias o con relojes con manecillas, que también son distancias, es decir el tiempo solo es una interpretación del observador al medir distancias, por tanto el tiempo implica espacio tridimensional, puntos de referencia, evento y observador.
Resumiendo para mí (3D) el tiempo es una propiedad del espacio no una cuarta dimensión.
Regresando a las ideas que he captado de los Cassiopeaans, (no necesariamente exactas ni ciertas) para el pasado es como si tuviéramos una fila de diapositivas ya vistas, para el presente, debe ser un instante entre el pasado y el futuro pero depende de alguna forma de la memoria y el futuro es un presente pero vivido en otro espacio pero que depende de la probabilidad de alguna forma no entendida por mí, bueno realmente no entiendo nada.
Para regresar al pasado y cambiar un evento que no nos gustó, fácil, creamos un micro universo lo inserto en el actual universo en una diapositiva antes del evento y cambiamos el evento, que fácil. Y para el futuro es más fácil, tenemos que trabajar el presente. Pero no es tan fácil si pensamos que de acuerdo a la decisión que tomemos se crea una realidad o varias realidades, es decir ¿varios universos?, ahí ya no me alcanza mi lógica.

Adiós.

 

[Archaea]

I think that time is just another dimension of space, and that space time is a 4D block of sorts. But I've come to the conclusion that the 4D block, which is made of matter rather than space and time themselves per say, is fluid rather than static, and changes along with another dimension of "time." The general concepts I've built up from reading the various bits and pieces on this site indicate that our DNA has been encoded by 4D STS so that we "crawl" along this object/block uniformly in a single certain direction.

So DNA changes due to the wave might mean that our socially agreed concept of universal time would start to breakdown as different time crabs (people) start to crawl in all sorts of different directions. I'd like to point out, however, that this might just be something I've put together to try to understand how out perception of time could be related to our DNA, which is something I picked up from reading the C sessions. So I guess it's just something to think about for those who are interested. :)