S
seekingObjectivity
Guest
I had some interesting thoughts come to mind as I was reading the Cassiopaean transcripts and I thought I would share them with YOU ALL.
[NOTE: I think I should mention that I am definitely not a physicist nor a mathematician and the content of my questions and thoughts will probably more or less make this apparent. But I really would like to understand the connections between Quantum Theory and Classical Theory. Thanks in advance for your constructive criticism!]
I have a few questions regarding time as it is described within the framework of General Relativity Theory. It seems to me that time may be considered as a principle of subjection placed within an objective principle, that is, the natural laws of the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels. Since time is relative requiring a reference point for measure then it seems a measurement thereof requires the participation of at least two points in space as accurate and precise as the observers instrument may be it must be subjective given its relative nature. If it is subjective then it must necessarily be impossible to know exactly the relationship of these two points in space and their relationship in time simultaneously, right? (Because otherwise would imply objectivity would it not?) However let's suppose there is placed within the construct of space an infinite "line" of zero dimension. With the introduction of this dimensionles infinite "line" then if one were attempt the same measurement with the purpose to deduce the relationship of these two points and their relationship to each other in time using the dimensionless "line" (a stretched point) as a reference then wouldn't it be possible to know exactly the relationship of each point to this reference "line" and its associated time? Does using this dimensionless infinite "line" as a reference for measurement be used to know exactly each particles position in space at any particular time? Does this suggest that time within the construct of space has a rate? And this rate is subjectively perceived by each particle to be constant which is manifested during an act of measurement, that is, perception. If so, then does that imply the existence of a somewhat quasi-absolute reference "axis" of time allowing such exact quantities to be realized? If so, then isn't Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle not totally correct?
Doesn't the introduction of a dimensionless "line" imply the introduction of a different type of observer that has a represention as an infinite "line" to the perception of any particular space-point? But in space there is no up, no down, no left, nor right so a dimensionless infinite "line" is not a line for there exists zero reference to either "end" and therefore knows not of going up, down, left, right relative to the other, thus, it either eventually meets itself giving rise to a loop or it does not meet and gives rise to a spiral? If it meets itself in a loop then isn't it but a point within the construct of hyperspace referencing a quasi-absolute time? (I may be getting concepts confused) If it does not meet then isn't it a spiral and has a representation as an infinite "line" in hyperspace referencing all manifestations of any particular quasi-absolute time and is closer to representing an absolute time reference? So now within the the construct of hyperspace there exists both a point and an infinite "line". The point represents a particular quasi-absolute time reference axis? So what might this infinite "line" confer? If all points contain within its construct a quasi-absolute time axis then the relationship between two hyperspace points depends not on time in a relative sense but absolutely?
I'd like to go back to space with subjective time. It seems that this reference line is not something existing outside the particle but existing within each particle itself. However, for some point A to "see" point B then this reference axis must agree with each other within the framework of each particles relative experience. If such reference axes did not agree any measurement within this particular construct of space would either be impossible and/or relative and though exact time and exact location may be known for both points A and B a subjection must be introduced that has an associated amount of error related to either/or Points A and B subjective time rate experience. If so, then might the reference axis for such measurements be that of the spiral?
Now back to hyperspace, if similar concepts are applied at this level then the relationship of hyperspace points A and B being measured referencing the spiral space "time" reference i.e. infinite hyperspace "line" that exists within each hyperspace point. This line references all possible quasi-absolute time axes as points on it's axes. Each point in hyperspace contains within itself all of its existence within a particular framework of space-time that may or may not be the same particular framework as another hyperspace point, say, B. If it is the same particular framework then a relationship must be established:
1. Hyperspace Point A and B is coexistent and measurements to a particular quasi-absolute time reference set gives experience and placement thereof exactly, thus learning is shared constantly, thus it is probability inclusive.
For (1) it seems that all possible experiences shared reside on a particular learning curve i.e. of a particular soul operator operating upon a wavefuntion. Each subjective experience of all possible experiences is ultimately connected to a particular step/quantum level of learning via subjective time referencing via objective quasi-absolute time referencing. Each experience of a particular soul unit represents a specific wavefunction and maybe perception collapses the wavefuntion to a chosen reality perception. Each collapse references experience learning profile to all possible space-time set combinations to all possible quasi-absolute time sets. Maybe such chosen reality perceptions represent an operator operating upon the particular soul wavefuntion that gives experience learning profile of all possible references as an eigenvalue index (or unstable gravity wave utilization?) of a soul's conscious choice operating on itself.
Let hyperspace Point A represent the mathematical summation of soul experiences within a particular space-time. Let hyperspace Point B represent the same but of experiences within a different space-time than A. The set of sharing quasi-absolute time references exactly represent a set of soul experiences of all probable experiences.
The infinite experience reference "axis" and exact learning profile are connected to all hyperspace points with such relationship to each other and (see below) to those perturbations of energy exchange that have become karmically linked thus altering the learning profile of that particular soul. Thus it is a looped spiral of all possible loops.
2. Hyperspace points A and B are intermittantly co-existent and measurements to a particular quasi-absolute time reference set gives experience as intermittantly shared, thus learning is experienced relatively giving error to placement/experience, thus quanta probability inclusive?
(2)Subjective perception could represent a perturbation altering energy profiles for each causing the collapse of each wavefunction via perturbation altering eignvalue index. Each soul unit gives reference to both experience learning profiles resulting in a balancing or imbalancing of energy (or possibly Karmic indices indicating some type of quanta matrix relationship?).
In this relationship it might be that hyperspace points A and B are not of the same soul, rather, possible members of a particular soul group. Thus each hyperspace point A and B has its own particular representation as part of different souls. "A" shares a experience/learning profile relationship with "B" and thus have eigenvalue indices that place them within a particular Lie group? Each hyperspace point within the Lie grouping is connected to unique reference "frames", thus each resides within the infinite spiral set of quasi-absolute time reference "axes" with unique mapping? Maybe appearing as cylinders within cylinders within cylinders ad infinidum with its essence connected to the looped spiral of all possible loops? Each cylinder representing a particular Lie grouping...energy profile being balanced in each so the shape of each might be that of a cylinder but narrow towards the middle. However all are connected....so maybe some sort of helical connection as well?
3. Hyperspace Points A and B are co-existent and measurement to any particular quasi-absolute time reference set is empty and non-empty to the set of all quasi-absolute time reference sets.
If so then such hyperspace point experiences are not of the same soul, are not of the same soul group, thus each soul is at a different energy level within the framework of the cosmic learning curve. (different orientation?)
4. Hyperspace points A and B are not co-existent and measurement to any particular quasi-absolute time reference set is empty, thus If hyperspace point A exists then B is Non-being and vice versa. If hyperspace points A and B are of Non-being then A and B do not co-exist.
????
[NOTE: I think I should mention that I am definitely not a physicist nor a mathematician and the content of my questions and thoughts will probably more or less make this apparent. But I really would like to understand the connections between Quantum Theory and Classical Theory. Thanks in advance for your constructive criticism!]
I have a few questions regarding time as it is described within the framework of General Relativity Theory. It seems to me that time may be considered as a principle of subjection placed within an objective principle, that is, the natural laws of the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels. Since time is relative requiring a reference point for measure then it seems a measurement thereof requires the participation of at least two points in space as accurate and precise as the observers instrument may be it must be subjective given its relative nature. If it is subjective then it must necessarily be impossible to know exactly the relationship of these two points in space and their relationship in time simultaneously, right? (Because otherwise would imply objectivity would it not?) However let's suppose there is placed within the construct of space an infinite "line" of zero dimension. With the introduction of this dimensionles infinite "line" then if one were attempt the same measurement with the purpose to deduce the relationship of these two points and their relationship to each other in time using the dimensionless "line" (a stretched point) as a reference then wouldn't it be possible to know exactly the relationship of each point to this reference "line" and its associated time? Does using this dimensionless infinite "line" as a reference for measurement be used to know exactly each particles position in space at any particular time? Does this suggest that time within the construct of space has a rate? And this rate is subjectively perceived by each particle to be constant which is manifested during an act of measurement, that is, perception. If so, then does that imply the existence of a somewhat quasi-absolute reference "axis" of time allowing such exact quantities to be realized? If so, then isn't Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle not totally correct?
Doesn't the introduction of a dimensionless "line" imply the introduction of a different type of observer that has a represention as an infinite "line" to the perception of any particular space-point? But in space there is no up, no down, no left, nor right so a dimensionless infinite "line" is not a line for there exists zero reference to either "end" and therefore knows not of going up, down, left, right relative to the other, thus, it either eventually meets itself giving rise to a loop or it does not meet and gives rise to a spiral? If it meets itself in a loop then isn't it but a point within the construct of hyperspace referencing a quasi-absolute time? (I may be getting concepts confused) If it does not meet then isn't it a spiral and has a representation as an infinite "line" in hyperspace referencing all manifestations of any particular quasi-absolute time and is closer to representing an absolute time reference? So now within the the construct of hyperspace there exists both a point and an infinite "line". The point represents a particular quasi-absolute time reference axis? So what might this infinite "line" confer? If all points contain within its construct a quasi-absolute time axis then the relationship between two hyperspace points depends not on time in a relative sense but absolutely?
I'd like to go back to space with subjective time. It seems that this reference line is not something existing outside the particle but existing within each particle itself. However, for some point A to "see" point B then this reference axis must agree with each other within the framework of each particles relative experience. If such reference axes did not agree any measurement within this particular construct of space would either be impossible and/or relative and though exact time and exact location may be known for both points A and B a subjection must be introduced that has an associated amount of error related to either/or Points A and B subjective time rate experience. If so, then might the reference axis for such measurements be that of the spiral?
Now back to hyperspace, if similar concepts are applied at this level then the relationship of hyperspace points A and B being measured referencing the spiral space "time" reference i.e. infinite hyperspace "line" that exists within each hyperspace point. This line references all possible quasi-absolute time axes as points on it's axes. Each point in hyperspace contains within itself all of its existence within a particular framework of space-time that may or may not be the same particular framework as another hyperspace point, say, B. If it is the same particular framework then a relationship must be established:
1. Hyperspace Point A and B is coexistent and measurements to a particular quasi-absolute time reference set gives experience and placement thereof exactly, thus learning is shared constantly, thus it is probability inclusive.
For (1) it seems that all possible experiences shared reside on a particular learning curve i.e. of a particular soul operator operating upon a wavefuntion. Each subjective experience of all possible experiences is ultimately connected to a particular step/quantum level of learning via subjective time referencing via objective quasi-absolute time referencing. Each experience of a particular soul unit represents a specific wavefunction and maybe perception collapses the wavefuntion to a chosen reality perception. Each collapse references experience learning profile to all possible space-time set combinations to all possible quasi-absolute time sets. Maybe such chosen reality perceptions represent an operator operating upon the particular soul wavefuntion that gives experience learning profile of all possible references as an eigenvalue index (or unstable gravity wave utilization?) of a soul's conscious choice operating on itself.
Let hyperspace Point A represent the mathematical summation of soul experiences within a particular space-time. Let hyperspace Point B represent the same but of experiences within a different space-time than A. The set of sharing quasi-absolute time references exactly represent a set of soul experiences of all probable experiences.
The infinite experience reference "axis" and exact learning profile are connected to all hyperspace points with such relationship to each other and (see below) to those perturbations of energy exchange that have become karmically linked thus altering the learning profile of that particular soul. Thus it is a looped spiral of all possible loops.
2. Hyperspace points A and B are intermittantly co-existent and measurements to a particular quasi-absolute time reference set gives experience as intermittantly shared, thus learning is experienced relatively giving error to placement/experience, thus quanta probability inclusive?
(2)Subjective perception could represent a perturbation altering energy profiles for each causing the collapse of each wavefunction via perturbation altering eignvalue index. Each soul unit gives reference to both experience learning profiles resulting in a balancing or imbalancing of energy (or possibly Karmic indices indicating some type of quanta matrix relationship?).
In this relationship it might be that hyperspace points A and B are not of the same soul, rather, possible members of a particular soul group. Thus each hyperspace point A and B has its own particular representation as part of different souls. "A" shares a experience/learning profile relationship with "B" and thus have eigenvalue indices that place them within a particular Lie group? Each hyperspace point within the Lie grouping is connected to unique reference "frames", thus each resides within the infinite spiral set of quasi-absolute time reference "axes" with unique mapping? Maybe appearing as cylinders within cylinders within cylinders ad infinidum with its essence connected to the looped spiral of all possible loops? Each cylinder representing a particular Lie grouping...energy profile being balanced in each so the shape of each might be that of a cylinder but narrow towards the middle. However all are connected....so maybe some sort of helical connection as well?
3. Hyperspace Points A and B are co-existent and measurement to any particular quasi-absolute time reference set is empty and non-empty to the set of all quasi-absolute time reference sets.
If so then such hyperspace point experiences are not of the same soul, are not of the same soul group, thus each soul is at a different energy level within the framework of the cosmic learning curve. (different orientation?)
4. Hyperspace points A and B are not co-existent and measurement to any particular quasi-absolute time reference set is empty, thus If hyperspace point A exists then B is Non-being and vice versa. If hyperspace points A and B are of Non-being then A and B do not co-exist.
????