Time causes Gravity. -Explained in 7 minutes and 43 seconds. (A cool video I found)

Woodsman

The Living Force
This concept may be old news to some of you, but for me... Gravity and Time are puzzles I've been trying to wrap my head around since I was a kid, with only limited success.

Over the years I'd periodically spend entire afternoons burning through brain glucose trying to penetrate the mysteries of advanced physics, with only the most meager of gains. I'd gotten used to the fact that I was probably going to remain a hopeless ignoramus for the rest of my days, but that didn't stop me; I just sort of enjoyed the brain burn process. (I suspect it might appear to any witnesses indistinguishable from garden variety daydreaming, and it rather feels that way, though it does always leave me ready for a nap afterwards. Whatever people may say, there is some serious heavy lifting involved with hard thinking.)

Anyway, a few weeks ago, when approaching the same set of unsolvable problems, "What is Time?" "How does Gravity work?" "Wave/particle duality" (etc.), I was rather surprised to discover that new avenues of thinking opened up to me. I even wrote some of them down.

I find it interesting that very shortly after, I noticed YouTube videos on the subject popping up in my subscription feed. -Several of which were far more lucid than my inept scribblings.

Here's one in particular which makes the whole Time/Gravity thing seem kindergarten simple:


Isn't that nice? Doesn't that help clear things up? It makes me feel like reading the C's transcripts isn't quite so hopelessly wasted on my dumb hamster brain!

Of course, it's just a piece of the puzzle, but it certainly clears away a lot of chaff for me. Anyway, I figured this might be useful to others.

I wonder if the Wave isn't providing some energy toward this kind of perceptive breakthrough..?
 
Doesn't that help clear things up?

Thanks for the video Woodsman, the person explained simple and clear ways that easy for me to understand!
So the gravy is lighter higher places/densities than lower. It does make sense, that’s why different densities perceive times differently.

And I had to go back to researching transcripts that related to the gravity, to make sure that I understand correctly. It seems correct!

March 23rd 2013

Q: (L) Are you saying that gravity waves are a property of a different realm?

A: Mostly.

June 22, 1996

Q: (L) Is 3rd density awareness the only density with perception of time?

A: No.

Q: (L) Well, what others?

A: 4,5,6,7.

Q: (L) But I thought that time perception was an illusion?

A: YOUR perception of it is an illusion. Remember the example of the dogs and cats riding in a car?

May 31, 1995

Q: (L) Am I correct when I say gravity is time?

A: Close.

Q: (L) And gravity is the manifestation of time as put into effect by the limitation of third density consciousness illusion?

A: Closer.

Q: (L) Can this be expressed mathematically?

A: Go for it

July 4th 2009

Q: (L) I think that's because once, somebody made a big deal out of them saying "remnants of Atlantis" and they meant descendants. (A*l) Do they mean that if our environment wasn't so polluted that we could have super powers? (L) They said "cosmic environment".

A: Gravity is different now.

Q: (A*l) What happened to gravity? How'd it change?

A: Travels of the solar system through space. You are heading for another such changes soon.

Q: (A*l) Are we going to become super again?

A: Some will.

Q: (A*l) Me? (J) Is A*l going to become super again? (laughter)

A: If you are prepared.

Q: (A*l) So I need to like load up? Lock and load? (A**) Eat your spinach! (L) Seriously, the spinach is the main thing! (laughter) (Allen) At Chaco Canyon, they ate lots of spinach. (A*l) We can like teleport and visit each other in our rooms?

A: Wait and see!

Q: (A**) So we'll be able to like feel and see numbers?

A: Hear colors...

November 4, 1995

Q: (J) It's all about perception!

A: In 4th, you see full circle from any vantage point.
 
I don't like how he throws "gradients" at us as if it is some magic word that explains everything.

"Gravity is just time curving into space". How poetic. Now try to use that statement to make a practical inference about objects in motion. I'll be waiting.

It's not entirely unlike politicians using slogans and paramoralisms to give us a sense of ethics and morals where there are none.
 
Last edited:
I don't like how he throws "gradients" at us as if it is some magic word that explains everything.

"Gravity is just time curving into space". How poetic. Now try to use that statement to make a practical inference about objects in motion. I'll be waiting.

It's not entirely unlike politicians using slogans and paramoralisms to give us a sense of ethics and morals where there are none.
I can't say I understand your criticisms.

The gradient idea is true; imbalances of one sort or another are responsible for every action you can think of. I didn't get the impression that he was trying to distract or fool viewers through hand-waving; he was just making a reference to a function which clearly provides a foundation block in the construction of his knowledge structure. I found it immediately relatable.

Perhaps he should have gone to some effort to explain what he meant, (and very likely did at some point; he's accumulated quite a library of videos where he tries to explain his thinking.)
 
That is fair, but I think you overestimate the value of that analogy. The purpose of an analogy is to allow you to transition to the actual explanation - the one which can actually be put to work. And the one which is absent in this video. And when learned, the light of that understanding unveils the old ambiguities and omissions as blockages and the analogies as confounders, all to be discarded as soon as they are no longer needed. You know you've come full circle when the new understanding can become an analogy for something else, something not quite like it but similar.

In this case we are given the idea of a flow gradient in a fluid as a dynamical analogy for the effect of gravity on an object. It is of course not exactly that. We are being taught something false in order to learn something true. A lot of people get tripped up because they fail to discard the analogy when it is no longer needed. If their work (whether it is personal work or work for someone else) does not depend on it, then most likely they never will.

A true explanation contains within it the logic necessary to model the system mathematically. You can literally translate such an explanation to a mathematical equation. If however it does not contain this information then not only can you not model the system mathematically, but you cannot even understand the system conversationally or logically. Because such deep understanding is rare, you may even be able to fool experts. It is only when you try to put that "understanding" to work, to do something real, that you realize something is wrong.

I discussed magnetic fields with a guy who works with them in advanced research. I was trying to create a model for a magnetic system for simulation. I quickly realized most educational material was not enough to develop a working understanding of the subject - something which would allow me to model any given magnetic system. Anything less than that was not worth my time because I had to have a way to understand and model every effect in a way that matched reality, some of which were obscure and not widely understood, and indeed spurred pages and pages of argument with the other engineers present who did in fact know enough to carry out their work but nevertheless could not have created a working model at the level of detail I needed. It was only as I struggled to construct the model that I was able to straighten out my thinking process, and the guy who's job depended on correct understanding came through every time even as the others would insist that something he said violated physical laws. Which wasn't true, they were just at the limit of their understanding.

I suppose what it comes down to is that there is a difference between theory and practice. And if your goal is to understand reality, practice is crucial. Wrong information is worse than no information at all. And if what you learn ever happens to really matter at some point, you will lament about having to unlearn the bad habits and accepted ambiguity that comes from educational material made by people for whom the success of their students (or lack thereof) does not really affect them.
 
Unfortunately, for me, he just moved the marble under the rug. Instead of "what causes gravity" he replaces it with "what causes time dilation"...
 
That is fair, but I think you overestimate the value of that analogy. The purpose of an analogy is to allow you to transition to the actual explanation - the one which can actually be put to work. And the one which is absent in this video. And when learned, the light of that understanding unveils the old ambiguities and omissions as blockages and the analogies as confounders, all to be discarded as soon as they are no longer needed. You know you've come full circle when the new understanding can become an analogy for something else, something not quite like it but similar.

In this case we are given the idea of a flow gradient in a fluid as a dynamical analogy for the effect of gravity on an object. It is of course not exactly that. We are being taught something false in order to learn something true. A lot of people get tripped up because they fail to discard the analogy when it is no longer needed. If their work (whether it is personal work or work for someone else) does not depend on it, then most likely they never will.

A true explanation contains within it the logic necessary to model the system mathematically. You can literally translate such an explanation to a mathematical equation. If however it does not contain this information then not only can you not model the system mathematically, but you cannot even understand the system conversationally or logically. Because such deep understanding is rare, you may even be able to fool experts. It is only when you try to put that "understanding" to work, to do something real, that you realize something is wrong.

I discussed magnetic fields with a guy who works with them in advanced research. I was trying to create a model for a magnetic system for simulation. I quickly realized most educational material was not enough to develop a working understanding of the subject - something which would allow me to model any given magnetic system. Anything less than that was not worth my time because I had to have a way to understand and model every effect in a way that matched reality, some of which were obscure and not widely understood, and indeed spurred pages and pages of argument with the other engineers present who did in fact know enough to carry out their work but nevertheless could not have created a working model at the level of detail I needed. It was only as I struggled to construct the model that I was able to straighten out my thinking process, and the guy who's job depended on correct understanding came through every time even as the others would insist that something he said violated physical laws. Which wasn't true, they were just at the limit of their understanding.

I suppose what it comes down to is that there is a difference between theory and practice. And if your goal is to understand reality, practice is crucial. Wrong information is worse than no information at all. And if what you learn ever happens to really matter at some point, you will lament about having to unlearn the bad habits and accepted ambiguity that comes from educational material made by people for whom the success of their students (or lack thereof) does not really affect them.
That's all likely true.

The point, however, of my posting this particular item and the presenter's aim I think, is in providing the viewer the conceptual framework required to wrap one's head around previously impenetrable concepts. I think this was achieved and I appreciate the fact that it cracked a frustrating brain nut for me which I'd been worrying over for decades.

I find people who are already well acquainted or even expert in such areas often tend to become territorial in their responses. Guys like Bret Weinsten report that the maths and physics departments he's worked with in university settings are often like schools of piranha; too many egos and senses of self-worth attached to dominance in particular mental pursuits.

I believe it; I've personally seen math types get into shouting matches over granular details incomprehensible to the layman, which seem from my limited perspective to even carry a subjective quality and thus may or may not even be strictly correct either way.

I think this video remains valuable for its intended audience.

It was part of a series which builds upon previously established concepts and provides significant and numerous payoffs with viewer investment. I recommend it.
 
Back
Top Bottom