Professor write ups: "Why time appears to speed up with age"

[Woodsman]

But working backwards from spread-out matter to figure out what form the original shape was, looks computationally really hard, if not impossible due to the inherent nature of entropy and chaos which affect matter as it progresses through 'time'.

I don't know that working backwards would have to be any harder, computationally speaking, except maybe for a computer that isn't designed for that kind of operation. When the frame of reference changes to "computing", we would probably look at "entropy and chaos" differently as well. Perhaps what is "entropy and chaos" in one direction is just evidence of randomized data, or "noise" that would make perfect sense in the other direction?

In the model, nothing must ever be lost because when the direction reverses, everything must return where it originally was else any missing 'data' could seriously crash the system, or at least cause a glitch or something that might completely throw out the operation during that particular cycle of work.

At any rate, from what I remember of the model, as 'computation' is done and there is a "carry" of sorts, the 'extra' unneeded data is temporarily stored elsewhere - perhaps encoded as a crop circle in a wheat field on a planet in the Orion system? :P

I admit I haven't got a full understanding of the "Bennett Machine" but I gathered the problem with "Reversible Computing" was that it isn't possible unless there is absolutely zero loss of energy in the computer system doing the work. Certainly, from God's perspective, there isn't any loss of energy/data, so theoretically, as you say, it should be possible to work backwards to the original state. In the example of flow calculation in a system studying fluid dynamics, I imagine that things quickly get beyond recoverable. Consider trying to work out an original state in water which has traveled a significant distance from the point of measurement. Like, out into the ocean where countless other forces are now adding their energy to the original water sample.

The C's talk about probability, and their own inability to predict with accuracy future states in chaotic systems, implying that even at 6th Density, whatever serve as computers aren't tough enough to tackle such problems with 100% accuracy. Interestingly, now when I consider things, it actually seems more reasonable to think that it is easier to work backwards exactly because we have hard records of what happened, but only if we take those records into account while reverse-computing the model. Starting with just the final state and trying to work backwards without the advantage of recorded history of a model's established progression is probably just as difficult as working forwards.

~Added Later~

Very interesting. May I offer a comment or question or two?

Of course! That's why I'm posting. Working in a vacuum pretty much guarantees failure.

1. We are all water molecules flowing down stream. Upstream is the Past, and downstream is the Future.
2. Jim, the time-traveling Water Molecule, gets into a little underwater rocket ship and travels downstream.
3. Jim travels for one day, his time, and then stops his rocket. The energy spent by the rocket allowed him to move faster downstream than the other water molecules around him, and so he winds up somewhere in their future.
4. In the future, all of Jim's friends are fifty days older while he has only aged one day.

You lost me on number 4. In that example, Jim is 50 days ahead of his friends, yet his friends are 50 days older?

I'm probably missing some of your background thoughts here. :)

Yes, the example is awkward. -More so than I realized when I first put it down.

To make it work, we would have to think of water molecules not as points traveling down the stream, but rather as threads which are not actually moving at all. Rather, the apparent flow of the river is the constantly advancing focal plane of attention which creates the perception of 'time'. (4th Density molecules, perhaps?) What Molecule Jim has done is jump his personal focal plane ahead by fifty days. It took him personally, one day to do this. The more I think about it, the more it seems that physical motion in our 3D reality may actually be the same as time travel! (We just don't notice it unless we are moving really, really fast.)

Moving from one point to another in our 3D world takes 'time'. The beginning point and the ending point are a length of 'time' away from one another. Perhaps at close to the speed of light, our linear motion is actually noticeably out-pacing the speed at which the river of time flows. It doesn't matter what direction we pick, because all directions move forward in time, but the speed at which we cross space, any speed, directly adds to the speed at which we are already moving through 'time'.

If we increase our speed close to that of light, and time slows down and the amount of 'space' being crossed seems to speed up, doesn't that mean the entire system is shrinking? Perhaps at the point where the speed of light has been approached, the passage of time is barely even noticeable because the entire system is the relative size of something ready for another 'big bang'?

Well, the thing about relativity as I understand it is that to the traveler, everything always seems normal from his own reference point. Only the observer is able to measure time behaving differently.

Here's one which baked my brain when I first encountered it. . .

The speed of light, I discovered, is not actually a limit on speed. It's just a limit on what can be observed. That is. . .

1. You board a rocket ship and fly away from the Earth increasing your speed until you get close to the speed of light, the "universal speed limit".
2. You look out your window and see that you are approaching another planet which is apparently also moving at near to the speed of light in the same direction as you.
3. Relative to that planet you are not moving very fast at all. You decide to land.
4. You get out of your rocket ship, spend a week or two exploring. Everything seems normal and still. You refuel your rocket, collect supplies, etc.
5. You launch again, same direction as before, hit the boosters and again accelerate once more to near the speed of light, leaving the new planet far behind you.
6. So now, relative to the Earth you originally left, are you traveling at twice the speed of light?

I asked this question of an engineer who works with satellite technology and who needs to work relativity into his equations, and he told me that, yes, you ARE traveling at twice the speed of light, but you are no longer visible to the original planet Earth. Once you passed the speed of light, you have vanished into another state of being where no information can be passed between yourself and an observer on Earth.

So technically, we can have a whole other layer of reality, entire planets and galaxies existing right over top of us, but which we cannot see because they are traveling beyond the speed of light. We would also be invisible to them because no information can pass between our two realities.

This seemed reminiscent to me of 4th Density.

Neat, huh? :)

 

[John G]

[quote author=Bud]
Back to the transcript, there seems to be no requirement that any observer be human or any other particular organism. It is just 'a' consciousness that is required. Since the C's do not specify if consciousness is really a property of the Universe, itself, then maybe Universe or some other aspect of Universe CAN have a point of view on an issue or itself that obsoletes man's internal idea of an "indeterminate state of reality" with respect to a certain issue and the current state of knowledge of it.

It's more a particular worldline's point of view that is required...

Required for what? Seeing around the idea of an "indeterminate state of reality"? I'm just wanting to see if we are talking about the same thing. :)

Required for seeing a particular outcome of the possible quantum outcomes. In other words each entity of whatever density would have its own decoherence (say via Ark's EEQT) of possible outcomes to get to one outcome. You and I picked an outcome to see the same thing but other versions of us could have picked other outcomes. There's supposedly a version of Laura who stayed married to her first husband. Since I came here via Ark's quantum future site only knowing about Ark; there's a chance I never heard of Cass/SOTT/FOTCM in that reality.

 

[Woodsman]

Poor Bud!

It looks like you are having several high-level discussions at once about some really complex ideas in this thread.

Good luck! I hope you are not being distracted from anything more important!

 

[Buddy]

Poor Bud!

It looks like you are having several high-level discussions at once about some really complex ideas in this thread.

Good luck! I hope you are not being distracted from anything more important!

What's more important than learning? :D But I understand what you mean. I have a few thoughts to add, but it'll have to wait till tomorrow. It's bedtime here! :)

 

[Buddy]

...the thing about relativity as I understand it is that to the traveler, everything always seems normal from his own reference point. Only the observer is able to measure time behaving differently.

What do you mean by 'observer' in this case, and how is this observer "able to measure time behaving differently"? :)

It seems to me, if an observer in this Universe is omniscient (can know all) then the observer cannot be considered constrained to any specific point of view because of what "point-of-view' means and what "omniscient" means. Additionally, a 'collection' of points-of-view is still a collection of constraints clearly defined by whatever is being seen from each point of view, and not necessarily an integrated whole picture that accurately reflects the system's state.

If an observer can see, or rather have, a point of view of what is going on with Jim, then the results of anything this observer can measure still relates to that observer's point of view, and only meaningful in that context, right?

So technically, we can have a whole other layer of reality, entire planets and galaxies existing right over top of us, but which we cannot see because they are traveling beyond the speed of light. We would also be invisible to them because no information can pass between our two realities.

This seemed reminiscent to me of 4th Density.

Neat, huh?

Neat, indeed. And very interesting. I do, indeed, see the 4D connection, but I don't, however, see any actual 'traveling' going on by one body relative to another in this example. Rather, it seems to me, one body has just increased its vibration rate relative to another body and this increase of vibration in the medium increases friction in that medium to increase the light of the 'higher' vibrating body as well.

An increase in vibration of Jim (for example) would seem to naturally re-vector him toward other groupings of frequencies where his new vibration 'fits'. If he appears to have disappeared or become invisible relative to someone's point of view, perhaps it is only because of the perceptual filters that function to filter out that extra information for that person (which would only be chaotic and confusing to him/her anyway like the way it was in 'infant-hood' when we had no idea what to distinguish from what in our visual field).

We know that one defining characteristic of a frequency wave is the visual "zig-zag", right? So, maybe an analogy of what I mean by vibration rate, friction, increased light and medium might make sense if we take the vertical up-and-down motion of the 'line', imagine it lateral, or sideways, or "the ground" and then think of the sailing term of "tacking", or 'coming about' as a metaphor or analogy (whichever fits better).

You go a little bit one way, turn, go a little bit another direction, turn, repeat cycle until you get where you want to go. Why? Because generally speaking, we want to make progress in the direction of one 'flow' against the direction of an oncoming flow, thus the need to zig-zag - thus a particular 'vibration rate'?

Of course, this is all just speculation, but it is interesting to roll around. :)

 

[wanderer33]

I have a take on this topic which may or may not be efficacious.

There may be a logarithmic process at work here in relation to metabolism. I believe that our metabolism at any instant directly affects our perception of time.
At birth the metabolic rate is very high. Let's say that at the moment of conception, the metabolic rate is at the speed of light. From that moment onwards throughout the life, the metabolic rate loses energy until at the point of death it stops. This is aside from the fact of accidental death at an early age for example which may interrupt this process. I'm thinking that our perception of time is in some way inversely proportional to the metabolic rate. This would imply that our perception of time, say in the womb, would be very long. In other words, our life in the womb, as far as instances or frames of conscious reality may occur, would be a very long time, longer than the conscious life out of the womb. Its interesting that small children think that a day lasts for a very long time. A year is forever for them. It is also the case that at the time of death an entire life flashes before one. Especially if death occurs at an advanced age.

Just a thought.

 

[Gonzo]

Hi Wanderer33,
Interesting avenue to consider.

If is may add to it...

If metabolism is the rate at which a body assimilates food information into the body, perhaps there is an esoteric or metaphysical version.

Assuming there exists such a thing as the subtle bodies (energy body or what have you), as well as the adage as above, so below, whatever happens in the physical has a correlate in the etheric.

So, perhaps the slowing metabolism is a slowing down of the rate of learning which is a slower rate of assimilating information which is a slower rate of awareness growth.

Gonzo