A new look at an old direction in time.

[petm1]

"Mass is the past" that is always relative in space because "space is the present" we all share via photons. Our memories of past events and our thoughts of the future are all in the mind of the observer.

Past and future are the two direction of time that we see no matter which direction we look in space while thinking of ourselves as the present. Think of all signals as being emitted in the present from some form of mass. This make my past as being made up from the signals I have already received, memories, my present are those signals I am receiving now, sight, and my future are those signals I have yet to receive, imagination, all of these are relative to me. Mass on the other hand is always relative in the present from the past and into the future. My thinking is as an observer the one second frame of reference my consciousness provides to receive and then process information is anchored in the past by my body as I move into the future.

What if the math were right and big bang was a white hole? Outward motion, all arrows going out from a point, a focal point of motion with the smallest motion as the most energetic. How big would this focal point have to be before it broke apart into individuals focal points, must have been repulsive energy at that time.

Today we still feel this force at the rate of 9.8 meters per second per second of out ward acceleration we call gravity. Newton saw this force as an attractive force with the apple fell from the tree to the ground, also noting that all mass fell at an equal rate. Still holds today.

Einstein told us not only can we think of gravity this way but we can also think of it as the earth dilating out to meet the apple not as a force but a outward motion. Maybe the skydiver has a true look at our temporal motion, an affine space of dilating matter.

The present is the edge of the universe I see from the outside only, matter, held in place by individual but continuous motion from big bang. It is the simultaneous nature of atoms themselves as proven by gps and used as the basic time of cosmology that makes me think that atoms are not vibrating but are dilating. The dilating momentum of energy is the mass we measure and the reason that mass resists a change to its position.

The difference between emission and reception upon reception is the space we see with the cmbr the inside of this temporal puzzle we think of as the past. Do you think that it is paradoxical to think of the largest common denominator of all sets started the smallest while the smallest common denominator of all sets started at the largest because "time" being both, accounts for the twist between this single motion.

We count time yet measure space using a mobile ruler called a photon. We plot these images as a kaleidoscope of present moments from the past within our minds. But make no mistake the center connection we call mass is real in time toward the past.

The apple falls to Earth, the Earth dilates out to the apple. Both describe the same motion, one is attractive the other is repulsive, we see one and measure the other. The apple does not feel the force of gravity, we measure this force when the apple lands on the accelerated frame. I for one believe my instruments the gravity wave is measured by the accelerometer.

The tides can be accounted for using a warping of space time, not a force at all. It is the different lengths of a second, slower tick rate, that we measure the deeper in a gravity well that is this warp in my mind. I think that the negative, attractive, force of gravity in space equals the positive acceleration, outward, we measure as the lengthening second here on Earth.

[Blaggard]

You seem confused mass and energy are indeed creating a force we call gravity, the universe was formed at its beginning from this fundamental force, from which after matter coalesced, all other forces were created contained in matter under energy concerns there in.

As to whether it's a white hole or not is a moot point, I think the singularity or point space and time idea is more consistent but who knows?

The past is not different from the future per se, it's just the future is an event that has not happened yet, and the past is probably based on memory and hence faulty.

The apple falls to Earth, the Earth dilates out to the apple. Both describe the same motion, one is attractive the other is repulsive, we see one and measure the other. The apple does not feel the force of gravity, we measure this force when the apple lands on the accelerated frame. I for one believe my instruments the gravity wave is measured by the accelerometer.

An arbitrary concern that means only that two masses attract each other, by warping the field of space time, there is no repulsion with gravity because the space-time metric bends in such a way on the fabric of reality that it is only attractive, for anything to repulse it would have to break the universes natural laws, hence gravity is a non euclidean bending of space, because energy is always positive, negative energy is absurd, hence it then attracts only, the other forces may do either but there is no correlation in charge parity and time that says that they can not.

The present is the edge of the universe I see from the outside only, matter, held in place by individual but continuous motion from big bang. It is the simultaneous nature of atoms themselves as proven by gps and used as the basic time of cosmology that makes me think that atoms are not vibrating but are dilating. The dilating momentum of energy is the mass we measure and the reason that mass resists a change to its position.

I presume you are talking about inertia, and yes mass has a rest mass hence due to it, but energy has no rest mass, so it is consistent to say that energy is not the same as mass or matter objects but it is contingent and equivalent.

We count time yet measure space using a mobile ruler called a photon. We plot these images as a kaleidoscope of present moments from the past within our minds. But make no mistake the center connection we call mass is real in time toward the past.

The photon is anything but a mobile ruler, but it does rule the laws of gravity, it is constant, it never propagates below the speed of light in a vacuum and it has no inertial or rest mass, as far as can be determined. The centre we call mas is moving, in what direction past to future or vise a versa we cannot know, the direction of time is a moot point if you exist in a universe like ours.

Welcome to the mad house by the way.

[jackles]

hello yes space is indistinguishable across the time dimension.space is of course nonlocal and omni present to all observer frames of reference.space is sizeless omni presents both inside and outside thought.inside and outside up and down man and woman are a presentation of omni space.

[petm1]

Mass is the past no matter how you measure it or look at it. Mass resists change in its motion because we do not see it as it is, in the present, we see it as it was in our minds. Don't let your memories of past events fool you mass as the past is what anchors us in the present. Why do you think sum over histories works?

Thanks I like mad.

[Blaggard]

The sum of all histories or the path integral is a non classical representation of the non real status of wave theory.

It works because it has + or - infinity as its limits and Pn(x) as it's variable and time as its constant.

in other words the probability of n at x at time t is within limits infinite in both scope and directionality not chaotic but renormalised to adhere the particle motion to realistic degrees of freedom and not magic like a horse teleporting to the Andromeda galaxy or a cow jumping over the moon.

Change is what denotes mass, for the photon which is massless the speed of it is always c, for mass objects which have rest mass, it is always less than c.

There's not much more consequence than special and general relativity although of course GR and Quantum mechanics disagree about particle concerns atm, although that might change now the Higg's boson has been found.

In quantum mechanics, the state is a superposition of different states with different values of q, or different values of p, and the quantities p and q can be interpreted as noncommuting operators. The operator p is only definite on states that are indefinite with respect to q. So consider two states separated in time and act with the operator corresponding to the Lagrangian:

and

Dirac's work did not provide a precise prescription to calculate the sum over paths, and he did not show that one could recover the Schrödinger equation or the canonical commutation relations from this rule. This was done by Feynman.[4]

Feynman showed that Dirac's quantum action was, for most cases of interest, simply equal to the classical action, appropriately discretized. This means that the classical action is the phase acquired by quantum evolution between two fixed endpoints. He proposed to recover all of quantum mechanics from the following postulates:

The probability for an event is given by the modulus length squared of a complex number called the "probability amplitude".
The probability amplitude is given by adding together the contributions of all paths in configuration space.
The contribution of a path is proportional to . while S is the action given by the time integral of the Lagrangian along the path.

In order to find the overall probability amplitude for a given process, then, one adds up, or integrates, the amplitude of postulate 3 over the space of all possible paths of the system in between the initial and final states, including those that are absurd by classical standards. In calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to another in a given time, it is correct to include paths in which the particle describes elaborate curlicues, curves in which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth. The path integral assigns to all these amplitudes equal weight but varying phase, or argument of the complex number. Contributions from paths wildly different from the classical trajectory may be suppressed by interference (see below).

Feynman showed that this formulation of quantum mechanics is equivalent to the canonical approach to quantum mechanics when the Hamiltonian is quadratic in the momentum. An amplitude computed according to Feynman's principles will also obey the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian corresponding to the given action.

[petm1]

In calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to another in a given time

The single particle is the past, summing the histories follows its path, a moving point noted as time.

[Blaggard]

In calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to another in a given time

The single particle is the past, summing the histories follows its path, a moving point noted as time.

And so what is your point?

I'm not trying to get at you ptem1, but I am trying to get... at, you...

There's a lot of old tosh on any forum, there's a mighty lot of bs too. But there and often beside the point are a lot of people who care about it. Get annoyed by the usual usual, and want to make a decent discussion work without some chancer using odd tactics lying or whatever odd chancers do to promote odd chance. Welcome to the jungle nonetheless we apparently have fun and games. I am fairly sure likewise honey we know the names.

[petm1]

It works because it has + or - infinity as its limits and Pn(x) as it's variable and time as its constant.

In the real world of measurements there is no infinity and time is on equal footings with space, just opposites, after all it is time we measure as a variable. Planck is relative in the present but back in the past it was smaller.

[jackles]

like the way your seein it petm1.

[Cerveny]

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=25

[petm1]

Try this thought, everything you see is within your eyes. The space you think you see, out there, is in fact between the focal point and the retina always proportional to out there. The twist we see as observers, a point in space-time, is a pseudo-emission point within ourselves.

Thanks, jackles.

[Blaggard]

It works because it has + or - infinity as its limits and Pn(x) as it's variable and time as its constant.

In the real world of measurements there is no infinity and time is on equal footings with space, just opposites, after all it is time we measure as a variable. Planck is relative in the present but back in the past it was smaller.

There are no infinities in time and space, this is true, they are limits to which any concern in time and space approaches, the only infinite is the universe itself being all there is and it is unbounded as far as we know, and hence all that happens within it is all that can happen.

It's a technical infinity as it has finite size, but there you go.

How would you go about proving Planck's constant is not indeed a constant and was smaller or larger in the past ptem1?

[Ginkgo]

Try this thought, everything you see is within your eyes. The space you think you see, out there, is in fact between the focal point and the retina always proportional to out there. The twist we see as observers, a point in space-time, is a pseudo-emission point within ourselves.

Thanks, jackles.

True, but for the purposes of this thought experiment I think it might be useful to divide spacial unity from temporal unity. They probably work in a similar fashion when it comes to a conscious moment. But I think such a dichotomy would be useful.

[Cerveny]

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=24

[petm1]

It works because it has + or - infinity as its limits and Pn(x) as it's variable and time as its constant.

In the real world of measurements there is no infinity and time is on equal footings with space, just opposites, after all it is time we measure as a variable. Planck is relative in the present but back in the past it was smaller.

There are no infinities in time and space, this is true, they are limits to which any concern in time and space approaches, the only infinite is the universe itself being all there is and it is unbounded as far as we know, and hence all that happens within it is all that can happen.

It's a technical infinity as it has finite size, but there you go.

How would you go about proving Planck's constant is not indeed a constant and was smaller or larger in the past ptem1?

We start by using time and space equally, our accelerators measure an outward acceleration of 9.8 meters per second in time that we do not see in space. How would the world appear if this is the true motion of the earth and the illusion is the motion we do not see in space? Einstein's calendar, big bang, shows us that the universe we see was smaller in the past while keeping the our present pov, but if you were to run the clock backwards with a contracting earth, instead of a dilating earth, included with a relative Planck you no longer need the singularity with a bang.