A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

[Kuznetzova]

Discussions like this remind of me simulated universes. A character inside the world of a video game, never subjectively experiences any bumps in time, even if the owner pauses the "game" and come back to it 3 days later. The character is locked inside the magisteria of the game world.

VoT keeps using the phrase "lose time" , when there are much better ways to express this in english. For example, "goes out of synch" is really what he meant.

[Mike Strand]

Interesting, Kuzetzova! The phrase, "goes out of synch", especially. Is it possible to pause just one of the characters in the video game, let the game go on with the others, and then reactivate the paused character?

[The Voice of Time]

Discussions like this remind of me simulated universes. A character inside the world of a video game, never subjectively experiences any bumps in time, even if the owner pauses the "game" and come back to it 3 days later. The character is locked inside the magisteria of the game world.

VoT keeps using the phrase "lose time" , when there are much better ways to express this in english. For example, "goes out of synch" is really what he meant.

No, it's not a matter of going out of sync. It's a matter of loosing "could-be-experiences".

[The Voice of Time]

V of T, you wrote:

Figuring out the average, the one average location, of the entire universe, does not yield much, because the usefulness of finding an average is not in the location, but in its comparison to other locations (think objects or processes if that helps), because when you find a good average, you don't have to worry so much about distortions elsewhere, because your time field is not so different from other time fields. Now excuse me if the word "field" confuses you because I don't really know how to use it myself, but think of it as meaning a boundary of "space".

On this account probably more useful than the average of the universe is the average on a planet, in a city, in a solar system, in a big desert, in a galaxy, or in your house. Simply because the time field of some location vast distances from your location doesn't matter that much to you.

Then let's go with the average of your city Oslo. Maybe you could show us how to calculate this average (the data required, and a formula), and how to use the result, or what it means.

It's not possible by any means I know. I already stated early that this isn't a feasible project, it's just an interesting thought, and maybe one day some guy or girl finds a way to experiment with it. Something like a city is impossible, you'd need a fantazillion people all checking each other, for instance.

And by the term "fantazillion" I hope you understand "some many millions of millions I don't care to think about it and probably would have problems trying".

[Mike Strand]

V of Time, thanks for your modesty and honesty concerning your interesting idea.

About your term, "fantazillion". Presumably this is a huge but finite number. However, even infinity and the different types of infinity have been dealt with to some extent by mathematicians. Many infinite sums have a finite value. For example, the sum 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +...+ 1/2^n + ... adds up to 2. (2^n means 2 multiplied by itself n times). Many distributions consisting of an infinite number of values have a finite average.

So don't despair -- you may come up at least with an algebraic formula in terms of variables which you may be able to define, even if collecting the data for any specific case were difficult.

[Kuznetzova]

No, it's not a matter of going out of sync. It's a matter of loosing "could-be-experiences".

Could I get a brisk explanation of the neologism you are using here?
Or maybe a quick citation to an earlier post?

[The Voice of Time]

No, it's not a matter of going out of sync. It's a matter of loosing "could-be-experiences".

Could I get a brisk explanation of the neologism you are using here?
Or maybe a quick citation to an earlier post?

These three processes are all, as specified how above, put into relation to each other in an epistemological sense. Further, as they can all now be compared, we want to find out which one is the most dependable regardless of which other process we choose to compare it with, this is a fundamental challenge of time's capacity for treating things equally and not varying as you vary what is used to measure time with, that is; what process is used to measure other processes. In the end is given a calculation which shows that between 3 given processes, the one completed not first and not last will principally be the most equal-treating, in other words, the disparity left when choosing this one, the disparity compared to both of the others, is less than if choosing some of the others, and in so doing you will not, and this is the cookie of it all: you will not "loose" time, as in processes, in that you don't count all things in the same rhythm, because if the rhythm is different you'll have different results

Rhythm here doesn't necessarily mean "equal intervals occurrence", it means just "taken any amount of sequentially passing time, that is, time seen as objects occurring after one another, and whatever sum of individual intervals from one occurrence to the next, this sum gives you a rhythm which may or may not have a pattern to it".

Further more we have the examples between the building, the clock and the hail. Or forget about the clock, just let's say we count drops falling from the roof. Now the building gives us a lot of surrounding focus, because the building has a timeless character, it differentiates very slowly, and so we absorb differentiation from the surroundings instead. The rain drops falling from the roof, is in this instance rather slow, but much faster than the building at differentiating. And the hail, at least, differentiates very fast, so we can hardly keep focus on anything else, maybe it even distorts our sight and our ability to hear so practically isolates us in its differentiation on our personal conscious world. If we watch the building, we will notice a lot of things we could rather be without, and which happens around the building. If we follow the hail, we'd see nothing of that which surrounds us. If however, we follow the rain drops, we'd be able to notice some amount which isn't too slow, but not too fast either, and so statistically, we'd notice surroundings elements of better importance, as hail unables us to notice importance, and the building feeds us with too much surroundings, meaning a lot of unimportant things will enter our minds.

I hope you understand that the examples of processes I name are not taken to mean anything in and of themselves or have any real-world value, they are just dummy examples for showing off the step-by-step thinking procedure to reach conclusions on the matter.

At the end of the day, it seems we could call it a theory for statistically finding more importance in our world, as we "subscribe" to the changes in world phenomena following specific patterns (and those patterns makes out objects, like items, ever catching yourself staring at an item? That's the best example for what I mean by "subscribing", you were for the time, and subconsciously afterwards likely, subscribing to the phenomena's differentiation)

[Hjarloprillar]

soooo, ever read the thing thoroughly? problems getting through it?

Voice

I read 1/3 of way in. [to be honest]. And fell asleep.
It was at age 20 some doing.. now i am 50+. Its would be just another book. A heavier tome.. but
Other peoples ideas a good.
But. like to make my own.
----------------------------------------
Time

Is a law. Like gravity and em.
It applies across the board.. like gravity.
But unlike gravity it is a variable.
Dependent on what we call deltaV.
The old ' planet of the apes' thing that few understood. calling it magic.
[just like the matrix]

Time is the rate at which process occurs.
The only thing we know of that changes the rate is velocity relative to C.

what ask. is
Who or what set C
If the universe is random.
Why a LAW that like gravity makes all exist in a dance of processes.
why are there 3rd generation stars.
Why is life. A temporary anti entropic system.. possible.

Prill

[The Voice of Time]

I'm not sure if you're asking me or talking to yourself Hjarloprillar.

I honestly know nothing about stars or deltaV.

[Hjarloprillar]

Yes you do..

deltaV is velocity when you get in car and move you up your deltaV
Stars..
the biggest descrete object any human has observed. is right there.
you have never looked at sun.
93 million miles and it will blind you for life.. so do no look too hard.

yes you did and understood little.
I look at sun to confirm
that science is not a crock of shit.


likes the far stars.. it reveals reality But it does so by shedding all the energy man has used in history , every second.
sol is our star.
without it earth would be a dead DEAD world.
every atom aside from hydrogen in you body comes from a star.
the atoms that allow consciousness were made in a stars some 4 billion years ago.

mmm chocolate prill


a

[Hjarloprillar]

all a derivative interpretation.. if Einstein had not mentioned time at all. you would never have posted.
which is interesting 'path' in many worlds speculative theory.

[Tesla]

all a derivative interpretation.. if Einstein had not mentioned time at all. you would never have posted.
which is interesting 'path' in many worlds speculative theory.

Interesting topic. The problem with understanding time is our point of view, and viewing capability.

Light for instance, can do many weird things, and 'apparently' go here...or there...and if the 'apparent' is consistent, we trust the observation. But that doesn't make it true. It is just apparent. Time is like that. Before time becomes possible you need two points to measure, and the problem with the math of the big bang theory is the closer we approach T-Zero, the more absurd that point becomes, and eventually reaching 0, there is no time: no two points. That doesn't really mean anything besides we are missing something important and fundamental. But almost all but the most uneducated in science know that.

Delta V is simply change in velocity, in which if you speed up an atomic measure, it would be apparent the atomics are the same, and nothing has changed, until it can be looked at relative to a slower atomic measure, which to my knowledge has never been found. The relativity of the faster atomic rotations means a 'faster' breakdown because of 'faster' interactions, which would lead to an outside slower atomic observer of the object decaying quickly, whilst from the objects point of view, the time it took was the same as from the slower perspective. That’s the idea I have wrought from black hole theories, which are in no way proven.

mystery still abounds. it is known that if you could travel faster than light-speed, and go far enough away from the planet, you could look back at the planet and actually see it I the past, but in no way dos that make it possible to effect it, as you only can see what was, at that 'place' in time. space time, is more or less a location in an area, measured from different points. The two points are needed because one is first, and so time is started when the second is apparent for observation, which means time as space time, is basically a coordinate system. Velocity becomes important because time is measured by the length and speed of an object.

Now, none of this proves anything, and no matter how many agree, it still does not make it true, just plausible. Because of our limited viewing point relative to our location, speed, direction, and knowledge concerning what time looks like from a different time-speed. Such as is very plausibly different from the perspective of a sub-atomic particle.

Despite that, we have done great things with what we have observed, and will continue through our science to understand more, and validate what is theorized, or gain new theories in light of new information.

[Hjarloprillar]

Tesla.

Are you saying in above that atomic motion .. [say theoretic orbital speed of electron] is NOT altered by time dilation?
This is a fundamental question.
Cern shows however that collider results at say .9C occur faster than collisions at .99C. A boson [lives longer]
Ergo..........

I am no great mind at physics. I take the small bits of data and collate. This what a stochastician does.
Near all my so called big IQ is centered on this.
Speculative/imagineering is my world.
So far, across the board of human endeavor. It is 80+% accurate