What İs Time, How To Reach Beyond

What İs Time And How To Reach Beyond


İn the universe we can observe movement of material bodies and elementary particles into space only and not into time. Existence of time as a physical reality into which movement happens is an unproven preposition.

The idea here is quite revolutionary: time is what we measure with clocks. With clocks we measure duration of movement of material bodies and particles into space. This is what time is as a physical reality: time is motion.

Motion runs into space only and not in time, motion itself is time. Time is running into space only as motion, time is not running into space on its own, space itself is a-temporal. The concept of space-time is here developed into the concept of a-temporal space in which time runs only as motion.

Before, now and after do not exist into a-temporal space, they exist only into the human mind as psychological time into which we experience motion. We have to distinguish between physical time that is motion and psychological time (mind structure) into which we experience motion.

motion (physical time) - eyes (perception) - mind (psychological time) - experience

We “regulate”, “we tune” our psychological time with “clock time”. Clocks are mechanisms that run into a-temporal space only and not in time. Clock running itself is physical time. The speed of physical time is decreasing with the increasing of the strength of the gravitational field.

Time as “past”, “now” and “future” is a human dimension, it does not exist into the universe that is a-temporal, we could say also “eternal”, without a beginning and without an end. This is what some recent cosmological theories show: there was no creation, there was no beginning, universe is a self renewing system. The idea of the beginning of the universe is “borrowed” from religion. Universe is an a-temporal phenomena into a permanent dynamic equilibrium. *
We experience universe, nature and our life into time, we are not aware that past, present and future are existing only insıde of us and not outsıde, that life runs into space that itself is a-temporal. How to reach “beyond time”, beyond “temporal experience” into “a-temporal experience” of the universe, of the nature, of ourselves ? Simply: by watching (witnessing) the mind. This is what meditation is all about: how to slip out of the psychological time and have a direct experience. Different mystic path use different techniques, result is always the same: direct experience of the universe. They call it “eternal here and now”, “God”, “Brahman”, “Tao” ......., Einstein called it NOW.


Direct experience is timeless, is real, is objective, it is free of mind elaboration, it is not rational, it is not psychological, it is “conscious experience”. Conscious experience make us aware of the sacredness of the world. “Conscious experience” is the platform for communication beyond “religious”, “national”, “racial”, “cultural” or any other experience that keeps us separated from the universe.

Universe itself is God, there is no God beyond the Unıverse. Timeless experience shows that clearly. On this planet we are all brothers and sisters, together with animals and plants (that is the fact, we are aware of it or not) we are a consistent part of a wast universal evolution that leads us home: into eternal here and now into direct experience of time as a motion into a-temporal space.


İnternet Sources:

- * Sorli A. Fiscaletti D. (2005). Active Galactic Nucleus As a Renewing Systems Of the Universe Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 6 www.ejtp.com

- Sorli A. (2004). Time Is Change. Episteme, Perugia, Italy, Number 8
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep8/ep8.htm

- Sorli A., Sorli I. K. (2004). The Scientific Basis For The Development Of Human Consciousness. Episteme, Perrugia, Italy, Number 8, http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep8/ep8-sorli2.htm

- Sorli A. (2004), Timeless Space. Scientific and Medical Network
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/Leadarts/sorli_space.htm

- Sorli A, Sorli I. (2004). A-temporal Gravitation, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 1, Num 2 http://www.ejtp.com/articles/EJTP4

- Sorli A, Sorli I. (2004). A-temporal Universe, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 3, Num 3 http://www.ejtp.com/articles/EJTP7

- Sorli A. Sorli I. (2004). Mathematical Time And Physical Time In The Theory Of Relativity, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 1, Num 4 http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv1i4p25

- Sorli A. Sorli K. (2004). Mind And Scientific Experience , NEUROSCIENZE.com
Vol 1, Num 0, http://www.neuroscienze.net/pdf/380.pdf

- Sorli A., Sorli I. (2005). A-Temporal Gravitation And Hypothetical Gravitational waves
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 5 www.ejtp.com

- Sorli A. Sorli I. (2005). Consciousness As A Research Tool Into Space And Time, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 6 www.ejtp.com

- Sorli A. A-Temporal Universe (2005) Scientific And Medical Network http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/Leadarts...i_atemporal.htm

This post has been edited by amrit on Jul 6 2006, 03:50 AM

I think that it was Eistein who remarked that time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Someone amy wish to correct that attribution if I'm mistaken.

I do have a potentially interesting volume that I haven't yet gotten around to reading: "A World Without Time; The Forgotten Legacy of Goedel and Einstein" by Palle YourgrauBasic Books, 2004. ISBN 0-465-09293-4 )h.c.) in case anyeone wished to investigate further of this work by a high-powered logician and a high-powered physicist.

Einstein says that NOW is out of the realm of science
the concept of a-temporality is bringing NOW into physics

and there is no arguments against a-temporality concept

existence of time as a physical reality into which material change happens is an unproven preposition

material change itself is physical time that runs into a-temporal space

This post has been edited by amrit on Jul 8 2006, 09:58 AM

Amrit, you just reinvented geometrodynamic concept proposed by Wheeler in 1954, because you don't know about history of physical models of time (although you're specializing into it, it seems). The geometrodynamic theory doesn't uses time at all, it replaces it by the curvature of space. Such insight was not confirmed as vital, the reason is, the time is quite different quantity than spatial ones (the wave equation clearly illustrates this) and the replacement of time by space curvature is followed by the lost of information. It can be useful formalism in general relativity scope, but it doesn't help us to seamlessly integrate the GR with QT. If it would be able to do it, You can be a pretty sure, we would use it already as base of some TOE theory. It's a reason too, why the later concepts of a-temporal space (see for example J. Barbour, P. Yourgrau, P. Lynds, Ron Larter and many others). Bohm also states that all things are "timeless and unitary". You can consider the Motl's article about timeless physics. It's evident, you're just reinventing a wheel, here, furthermore is evident, you're not able to derive any useful prediction using such wheel. For example, is quite difficult to express an acceleration without time and to derive the Newton inertial law (together with wave equation) as well without time quantity.

The time can be measured by the same way, like the energy, for example. You can't see it, just to measure it. Does it necessarily mean, the time as a physical quantity isn't part of our perceivable reality? I can say easily, space is a mind construct, into which we experience motion into time... Try to close your eyes a walk a few times across some room. The time will become a quite useful part of reality in estimation of distance for you. The blind people experience time as physical reality just because a-temporal space is construct of mind for such people. I can understand, why the time is slightly more general quantity then space, but the example above given means, the timeless concept is the generalization of reality by nearly the same way, as the spaceless concept of time.

Furthermore, even the primitive organisms, like the bacteria are having a biological clock built in it. For such bacteria is important to reproduce in regular intervals, not too fast, not too slow. If such bacteria would reproduce too fast, the generation wouldn't undergo a sufficient selection pressure and the amount of mutation would increase above the optimal value, because each the reproduction cycle and RNA/DNA replication in live cells is source of possible defects and mutations, of course. On the other hand, the long reproductive cycle wouldn't be sufficiently responsive to the changes of environment, as the speed of evolution depends on the frequency of mutations in population.

It seems, the Nature doesn't care too much, whether the time is considered as real by some human creatures or not - but it simply uses it in optimization of life evolution (and possibly in evolution of matter, too) as a free parameter. The Aether Wave theory (AWT) doesn't waste time by sterile discussions, whether the time, space or energy are real quantities or not. It simply uses all of them in dynamic equilibrium for description of Universe evolution. AWT supplies easy and intuitive way to understand, how both the time and space are interconnected together without need to substitute time by space or vice versa.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jul 8 2006, 11:03 AM

Ideally, in Relativity, there should be no conflict between time and space and the distance between objects should match the time they take to interact. If this isn't the case then, to me, it simply seems to indicate that our construction of the space is wrong and not the order of observed events. I agree that time likely has no continuous analog domain but instead operates as delays, but the main point is that space only serves a purpose when something is happening within it and for science to have any real benefit it needs to be able to predict things and prediction requires a future, and requires time.

It may be that I don't understand your ideas clearly but to me space doesn't need to exist as long as interactions within the universe still keep occuring in the same the same way with every object detecting these in the same order - as long as these events are occuring in the same fashion then whether or not we imagine particles or waves travelling linearly through emptiness in order to affect the next object doesn't really matter as long as when it finally "gets there" it does the same thing in either case. Time is just a rough way of describing this sequential order of interactions and the reason time is a difficult concept to work with in physics is because there's no way to know simultaneously what's going on everywhere at once, which removes the direct ability to have a concrete universal reference for time. Instead we use the approximation of space to attempt to correlate times but due to limited understandings we mispredict the delays in interactions some and the "blame" here would seem most appropriately assigned to space and location and not in, what I define as the reality that consists of what physical property changed.

As a hypothetical example, let's suppose we had an experiment where some radio towers were set up to send out a pulse every second. Now we set up a detector at some random location and measure the order in which the pulses are received. Due to our perception and understanding of space (let's ignore everything else and assume this was done in the middle of empty space) we'd expect to be able to witness the closest tower pulse first, then the next closest tower etc. until the furtherest tower pulsed (assuming all these delays were less than one second). Now if we witnessed something else and saw some of these pulses out of the expected order, what's the most likely source of this error? To say time is at fault seems to imply we're suppose to doubt that the order we detected them in was real, whereas saying the error lies in our understanding of space means we witnessed the events correctly but that our predictions of the order were incorrect because we made incorrect assumptions about the space in which this all occured.

A newborn child has little of any understanding of space or distances, just as such an infant can't understand a language or correlate how moving a steering wheel affects the motion of a car, or how to correlate motion of their hands to catch a tossed ball - these are learned skills, but for science the reality is that an eardrum vibrates when exposed to pressure waves in the air, car collisions release a lot of kinetic energy upon impact, and a tossed ball can still hit you even if you don't understand how to catch it, yet. In this sense, space exists as a learned attribute, represents knowledge and is a goal of science in understanding completely. It may be that space is the true mental reality, whereas time is the true physical reality and to the extent that they don't match, if you can't alter time then you need to update your understanding of space or be left in an incoherent chaos of unpredictable interactions.

I recognize I'm using the typical ideas from relativity of constant light speed in a vacuum and that there are many problems trying to correlate this space with the space we perceive containing mass, inertia and gravity but the worst scenario here seems to be that there isn't a single set of spacial coordinates that works for all phenomenon and that multiple metrics for space might be needed (though some transformation should be possible between them even if it isn't simple to calculate), but the main point again is that when there's a discrepancy over expected results it's not the results themselves at fault but the expectations and time seems to be correlated with the results whereas space is a mental construction that defines the expectations.

Amrit, you just reinvented geometrodynamic concept proposed by Wheeler in 1954, because you don't know about history of physical models of time (although you're specializing into it, it seems). The geometrodynamic theory doesn't uses time at all, it replaces it by the curvature of space.

no no a-temporality concept and Wheeler concept are two different things

according to a-temporalty concept (ATPS Theory):

1. space has a granular structure
2. density D of quanta of space depends on the amount of matter (D = m x G)
3. density of space determinate its curvature
4. speed of physical time (motion) depends on the density D of space, more space dense, slower speed of motion
5. with clocks we measure speed and duration of motion into a-temporal space

Steven A It may be that space is the true mental reality, whereas time is the true physical reality and to the extent that they don't match, if you can't alter time then you need to update your understanding of space or be left in an incoherent chaos of unpredictable interactions.

Steven A space is real, space is physical, you walk into it
your walking into space is physical time (motion is physical time)
why you make things more complicated as they are ?

This post has been edited by amrit on Jul 8 2006, 12:41 PM

Albert Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler".

Without time quantity you're not able to derive any law of physic, which uses acceleration or derivation with time. Discussion about timeless concept is just a waste of time for me, it's a matter of philosphy, but not practical physic.

zephir you do not understand concept of a-temporality at all
bodies accelerate in a-temporal space not in time
clocks tun in a-temporal space


luckily they are some people they understand a-temporal concept that will enter main stream in a few years

Discussion about timeless concept is just a waste of time for me, it's a matter of philosophy, but not practical physic.

zephir physics is not copping wood
without an adequate theoretical model physics will stagnate, see just gravitational waves research, 20 years of groping into dark and searching for a dark cat that exists only as a mind speculation

concept of a-temporality clear up that GW are pure illusion a theoretical mistake.......
and many other thinks: the biblical story of the beginning of the universe that is a pure case of intellectual primitivism

universe is eternal, no creation, universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium

and many other things will change with a-temporality concept
you understand ıt or not zephir
world goes on

A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Time Of The Signs:
'Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space.'
- A (popularly deluded) bumpersticker mentality.

Actually: terrestrial time standards are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega). A month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute.

Therefore, a second of time, for example is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth in its annual orbit around the sun.
Sums up the bumper-sticker inspired hallucination. Its about time.

- K.B. Robertson, TOTAL FIELD THEORY: Gravity is the 4th Dimension
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

The atemporal concept is more than 40 years old, Amrit, and it was proposed by J.A.Wheeler, David Bohm, J. Barbour, P. Yourgrau, P. Lynds, Ron Larter and many others, but with no success and no progress in theoretical physic has appeared in connection with such concept till now. You're not able to propose any new testable predictions using it, not to explain something existing phenomena, Amrit - it means, such concept is solely useless.

Despite the possibility to express the time quantity by density and or curvature of space and/or by many other ways under lost of information at the price, the time quantity has it's robust place in physical and system of units, in acceleration concept in particular (which is used by Newton inertia law, for example. As you're not able to express Newton inertia law without time, it's evident, the time quantity cannot be substituted easily by motion and/or by other quantities the less. The time quantity is used widely by Nature in so called biological clock of different organisms and living cells by the similar way, like the adaptations to other quantities, so it's obvious, the time is not just product of our mind and it exist independetly to our conciousness. The "time=motion" postulate can be easily disproved by example of fully chaotic motion, where no time arow and causality exist at all.

Furthermore, your theory of "atemporal space" has no explanation for observation of gravitational waves and such of this is in contradiction with experiment and observations.

For example, in 1974 by Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor astronomers working at the Arecibo Observatory, who were studying pulsars—system of orbiting neutron stars with the name PSR1913+16 that spin rapidly and emits sharp pulses of radio energy with extraordinary regularity. Long-term measurements of the pulse arrival times revealed that the rate of rotation of the system was increasing, and in just the way that Einstein predicted 63 years before, with precision better than 1%. From 1982 onwards the error bars are almost too small to be seen, and lie right on top of the predicted spin-down line.



It means, the Hulse and Taylor had identified a source of gravitational waves and in 1993, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for this work. Do you have some own theory, which is able to predict the observed result with the same or better precision , Amrit? Of course not, but you're impertinent enough to criticize other theories.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jul 20 2006, 08:27 PM

zephir about binary system i answer you in post "time space and gravity"
regarding a-temporality of space i change my mind
space is temporal as time exist in space as material change

but gravity is a-temporal as no motion of wave is needed for gravity to act

TİME İS MATERİAL CHANGE (MOTİON) İNTO SPACE
gravity is a-temporal carried directly br the "curvature-density" of space

This post has been edited by amrit on Jul 21 2006, 04:56 AM