How much effect do you think we have on space and time?

[narnug]

I found something very interesting. It was not by accident. I knew where to look, I understand the "map".

It appears that humanity has effect on how active the sun is. If humans are active, then so is the sun. If we go into a recession, so does the sun.

Here is a link to a chart I made using information taken from liable sources (yes handmade LOL, took me less time then figure out on PC):

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Chart.pdf?w=e67a3683

The chart shows cosmic ray count and periods of global financial recessions over a period of almost 40 years. And they interact. Amazing. I don’t know if you share my opinion of how HUGE information this is.

The periods of recessions are estimated/determined by manmade rules of how you define a recession. There for they might be just a little off the reality (when human activity hits the bottom in each recession).

The cosmic ray count is correct, at least we can assume that.

The information regarding recessions are taken from common sources. You can verify them your selves with minor internet search.

The cosmic ray count is taken from here:

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

I want to ask you what you think about this.

I have thought about if this connects to harvest or anything in that direction but I have come to the conclusion it does not.

I ask you to be honest if you take this information any further and quote this post. Forums like this is about as "deep" as I can get into the scientific community.

All my best.........narnug

Email: narnugatgmail.com

[Fuqin]

Well I’m assuming your using correlations , the problem with data that correlates is the data’s propensity on a chart to move in one of two directions only, so if we chart butterfly populations , earthquakes and asteroid sightings the data can come out looking related even thought there is no relation , if you think about it if everything in the universe could be analysed then 50% of everything might look related given X + Y coordinates ,everything dose something but limiting that something to 2 directions makes half of it look related , at least that’s what I think.

[narnug]

Thanks for the reply Fuqin.

You have a valid point.

How ever if you look at the graph this is something more then 50/50 in my opinion.

For example you have recessions on each side of the year 2000 and exactly then the cosmic ray's measure a "W". They did not go straight up (the rays) They took a dive again with the recession right after 2000.

I can not write that as a coincidence. That is just me and my opinion. This is just too precise.

Amb

narnug

[Gregorygregg1]

Thanks for the reply Fuqin.

You have a valid point.

How ever if you look at the graph this is something more then 50/50 in my opinion.

For example you have recessions on each side of the year 2000 and exactly then the cosmic ray's measure a "W". They did not go straight up (the rays) They took a dive again with the recession right after 2000.

I can not write that as a coincidence. That is just me and my opinion. This is just too precise.

Amb

narnug

You assume cause and effect. I note that tempers rise with temperature. Does this mean setting angry increases the radiant energy of the sun?

[narnug]

Since I did not create the information I see three possibilities.

A: This is just a coincidence and one has nothing to do with the other.

B: The activity of humanity effects how active the sun is.

C: The activity of the sun effects how active humanity is and causes financial recessions if it is low.

(Please add possibilities if you think I am forgetting some important ones.)

I have thought about this, believe me. I searched for the information after I thought about this. I go for B.
And I also went for B before I searched for the information.

I will add that this is more complicated then "us making the sun more active". This is how we experience it, space and time. More active, more experience. Wont go into that in any more detail here.

Amb

narnug

[MM6]

As others have said, this is correlation. not causation. There's no plausible mechanism of interaction. Interesting correlation, though, although I wasn't able to view your graph.

[genemachine]

narnug,

Without knowing the details, on a plausibility scale of 1 to 10 - 1, your theory scores about -4. With details, I'm pretty sure you could take that to an unprecedented -7. I don't mean to be unkind in saying that.

If we are to consider the correlations could you please fix your broken link?

[narnug]

Thanks for the replies.

Sorry about the link. I cant edit first post so I'll try it here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7je44sebh7zeluq/Chart.pdf

Of course I might be wrong, that I know. The similarities are just so much that I doubt that it has nothing to do with each other.

Since this is a philosophy forum I think that many of you agree with me that physics just cant coupe with all there is in our universe. If there is not a boson or a string or what ever that explains it it does not exist, or at least just put in the drawer. I am not talking spiritually even though so many describe what you can not describe with "matter" spiritual, or super natural. Time and space and their "behavior" of being relative to each other are impossible to describe with particle physics as I see it. Those two things, time and space and their relativity, are the result of a "system" that we live in.
How can particle physics describe the relation between parents and children, twins, brothers and sisters or other close individuals that can feel if there is something wrong from 1000nds of miles away?
They can't do it. There is more to the whole picture.
All we are and all we do we can thank our sun. If it was not there we would not be here. Is it so far stretched to think that if one finds what seems to be a connection that he/she assumes that there just might be a connection.
I say again that I know I might be wrong. But I am going to stick to this for a while because the larger picture of this is the most convincing "model" of our universe that I have been able to "see". A model that does not explain only half and the rest is put in the super natural or spiritual drawer. It takes all in in a way it can be understood and explained, well at least till the question "who created all this" comes...LOL.

I do not want to start a monologue but I am more than ready to share that larger picture if any are interested. Not asking anyone to beg me to do something, it is not my style. If I see some interest it will make me glad to be able to continue.
I would not be so stubborn regarding this if I had found the "connection" first and then built a theory around it. I went the other way and found that what I suspected to find was there, which to me lessens the possibility for this to be only a coincidence. At least it makes the odds less.

And by the way, my larger picture might of course just be some bull****.

Amb

narnug

[Fuqin]

Well this isnt phlosophy , this is the science section, and all you have is coincidental data not even the suggestion of a possible cause at least nothing that makes any sence yet

[narnug]

It is kind of my problem, I am not from around "this neighborhood".

If I was to say that if you would add a time of reference into equations that describe relativity a "missing link" would be added. Would that help?

To describe better I might say that to see which of two runners wins a run you need a time of reference to "see" who comes first. If you would not have a time of reference both runners would come in at the same "moment" no matter how often they would compete.

Everything is a part of something larger and what is larger gives the "time" of reference.

This might be something old, I dont know. I did not get the classes many of you maybe got.

If I am wasting your time I am sorry.

Amb

narnug

[Fuqin]

Well at the moment I have time to spare and I finally have access to a lap top rather than using my phone, apologetics aren’t necessary either, well not to me I’m no scientist but I read a little , Im just curious as to what kind of explanation you may have for the data you’ve presented.
Out of a),b) and c) you selected the most controversial namely that ‘we’ have an effect on the sun B), but then you latter state that ‘all we are and all we ‘DO’ we can thank our sun’ this sounds more like C) and is defiantly contra us effecting the sun , I had chosen A) because I have in fact made this mistake of correlating unrelated things and drawing conclusions from them ,sometimes things can have uncanny coincidental correlations , but it dose not necessitate evidence of causality,
Recommended reading:- Stephen Jay Gould Life’s Grandeur
Coincidence itself I think is something worth exploring perhaps in metaphysics or something . As regards C) this is almost believable I can understand at least a relationship chain between the sun , crops and the economy however this needs evidence to support the data, so if the correlations you’ve presented are as uncanny as you say ,it might be worth further investigation but that’s up to you , however you seem to not want to follow C) my moneys on A) J

[narnug]

Thank you Fuquin.

I see your points and would be rather ignorant if I would not consider them very well. Thanks.

Like I said I am not from this "neighborhood" so to speak. There for I often start to explain my self from the wrong end, it seems the right one for me.

If you are still curious why I have so much opinion in humanity that I choose B I will try to explain. Ask you to try to stay with me if I get this all in some strange order.

In my last post I am trying to explain it a little. This is regarding relativity, at least how I understand it.

(I was like writing way to much and erased it. I will try to be simple)

Some explain time as a movement. I can relate to that but want to take it one step to the side and call it sequences. Everything that can receive energy and release/use it has a sequence. You, me, animals, flowers, water, rocks,,,mostly all matter. The sequences are not at the same speed. You have much more sequence then a rock for example. You can create your own sequence by using energy but the rock needs "help". All the sequences on Earth have one thing common, they all exist within the sequence of the solar system. That is the ruling time within that system. Then you have larger sequences which the solar system obeys to.
The time of reference, the sequence of the solar system is the most important thing I am talking about.
Lets try this:
Lets say you start a journey into space and one day later I want to catch up with you. You are travelling at some speed creating some sequence-speed for your self. I need to go faster then you to catch up with you. I travel faster creating a faster sequence for my self. According to the larger sequence which we both obey, my time slows down more then yours since I can make more use of it (the time of the larger sequence). To think about time like this makes it so obvious why it is relative and so easy to understand why time slows down when you travel faster. Its just like "well of course it slows down". It slows down according to the time of reference but in fact it is so you can have more time to make a faster sequence. If that would not happen you could not move. You would be stuck in space (and there would be no space but that is the next step).

This is the start of it. It is hard to explain this. This (and the rest not explained here) is why I thought about comparing cosmic rays and financial recessions. I thought of that because if the universe works something like this then you can explain how more activity here on Earth would make us experience our surroundings (space and time included as surroundings) in a different way then if we are all kind of "chilling out"(creating less sequence and there for "time"). And that is why I choose B.

Well, dont know if you understand me Fuqin. Believe me, I see this very clear in my head, however correct or incorrect this might be. But it really seems to make sense to me. It even gives possibilities to how space can bend and twist and shrink and grow............at least to me (should I ask for a white jacket,,,,lol)

I will think about your advice regarding this and see if I can find flaws in my thoughts.

Well thanks again

narnug

[Marshall]

Hi people,
Narnug wrote today asking me to move this thread to a Philosophy forum.
I want to oblige/cooperate.
I don't see any branch of Philosophy that it fits into.
If anyone has an inspiration or feeling of certainty about where the thread belongs, please post a suggestion here, or if you prefer write me a PM.
For the time being, at least, I thought it could be at home here in O&E because it seems to resist classification.

My gut feeling is that the root of Religion is the sense of *sympathy with Nature* and that Narnug's idea that we and the sun respond to each other and are connected with a kind of mutual responsiveness is a primitive root-religion idea based on (perceived?) coincidences.

Not just the Solar activity but also the flight of birds and whether the thunder was on your right or your left, or the sighting of an unusual animal in the forest, could be associated with some human event (good or bad) by coincidence. And who is to say? Perhaps the Sun IS linked to human events! So the idea should be treated with respect.

The one idea that I disagree with is that science is based on numbers and philosophy is based on words. It seems to me that much science is based on reasoning that is primarily verbal, not numerical. So one cannot make a clean distinction along these lines.

Narnug was suggesting that because he thinks only in words and not mathematically that therefore the thread should go to Philoosophy. I don't see that. It could stay in the Science section and find a home in Alternative. But I'm thinking why not go with the author's suggestion and try Odds and Ends.

[Fuqin]

Narnug ill do you the courtesy of trying to follow your thinking here , but to clear things up a little and to give you something to consider I did a quick Google and found this link it pertains to what I’ve been saying about correlations and I hope you can accept it as a gesture of the spirit of enlightenment
http://www.conservapedia.com/Correlation

Ok I’m not being picky by the way Im just seeking clarification ,you mention relativity ,
There’s two kinds that often I find get amalgamated some how in conversations , there is philosophical relativity ( relativism )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

And the theory of relativity (physics)

You say you have your own understanding of relativity and that’s fine we all see the world differently that’s a relativism joke I think :)
Anyway you use the term sequences ‘ummm’ it kind of sounds like you are talking about causation at first and then it becomes more like a quantifying of motion, maybe you mean both anyway, however interesting angle you’ve taken ,so you suggest that time dilation occurs because at higher speeds there are more sequences I would normally think this was the opposite however it dose occurred to me that if your sequences were a way of describing mass then it would correlate correctly as accelerating objects increases in mass .
however and in general I think there is a perception here that many experience, that being that when one is as you put it being active there is a sense that time at lest feels, or is experiences as passing quicker than if one decides to sit and watch the grass grow.
An image also that I picked up from your thinking here is if I may put sequences aside and call it mass for a moment, more mass apparently dose slow time but for the man in the rocket accelerating ,increasing in mass and slowing it time , he wont have more opportunity to do more as he also is slowed down in time ,to him nothing has changed he is just getting some where quicker if anything he has less time to react to a situation.
now there is an interesting offshoot of this scenario and that is how the brain reacts to a situation that requires emergency action in a dangerous situation .
[disclaimer] ‘this is just a hypothesis of mine’
the sensation of time moving slowly in say an accident I think is a result of an instinct reaction that moves the mind to work abnormally fast in an emergency the latter recollections of which play back slower when the mind is running at normal speed , I bring this up because this is how slow-motion works in film and film uses ‘sequences’
to get slow motion footage you must first run the camera at say 75 frames per second faster than normal, so when it is played at 25 frames per second it appears slower, I think this is similar to your hypothesis .
Am I following you correctly ?

[narnug]

What is so great about having a discussion is that it allows you to get order to your thoughts and understand them better. Thank you for the discussion Fuqin.

I read your reply and could not answer right away. I mowed the lawn and made dinner while thinking about it because it has been so hard for me to keep what I am trying to describe clear in my mind even though I can "feel" it so clear.

What I am trying to describe is adding another factor to the equation.

How I have understood relativity(in a simple way) till I started to think of that which lead me to create this thread is that there is time and if you go fast it slows down and light is a independent factor that never changes.

I want to use what we call time as a reference and give each "body" its own time according to how much energy it revieves in that time of reference.

Lets say that there are three brothers and they live in a universe just like ours but that universe has only a lifetime of one minute.
This lifetime of one minute is their time of reference.
They will all get light shining on them all the time during this one minute and just like in our universe the light is a independent factor meaning that it will always go as fast no matter how fast each of the three brothers will travel. They need the light to stay alive, they need to use energy in other words.

The first brother travels to a cold place and freezes very soon. He gets one minute worth of light but is not able to use it since he is frozen. The poor bastard was only able to enjoy 30 seconds of the time of reference.

The second brother "sits and watches the grass grow". He gets a light worth of one minute since he lives at the same "speed of time" as the time of reference.

The third brother straps him self to a rocket and travels so fast that he is able to slow his time down by 1 according to the time of reference. Since the light is an independent factor and does not obey the time of reference he receives 2 minutes worth of light in the one minute their universe existed according to the time of reference.

This is something in the neighborhood of what I am thinking. If your time slows down you are really "getting more" if there is a time of reference since the purest of energies, light, does not obey it/is independent.


This could even indicate that our universe is infinite. This could not work like this otherwise.

Well or that I am soooooo wrong,,,,LOL. But that is alright. I will learn from it if that is the case.


I am not discarding your good advises and opinions Fuqin. I just need some time to go over them. A day, a week, a month, dont know. But I will carefully consider them. At the same time I hope I could explain my self better. If so, you are to thank.

Thank you

All my best

narnug

[Fuqin]

Hi narnug I think I get you now ,however the brother in the freezer has no advantage over the brother in the rocket their universe is 1 min long and that doesn’t change,
the misconception about the brother in the rocket is that if time for him slows down everything around him will actually appear to him to accelerate , so the brother watching the grass wins! he has one min , the brother in the rocket still gets the min but he wont be as old at the end of it and it will seem to him the time will be a much shorter period of time than a min.
To illustrate this concept furthered there is the black hole scenario ( lots of mass in its proximity) works the same as your rocket (scenario) two brothers one brother on earth he’s a farmer , the other an astronaut goes on a mission to observe black hole activity in a station that orbit’s the black hole it’s a 6 month mission for ‘HIM’ but for his brother he has been away for 6 years , the increase in mass has ‘SLOWED’ down time for the astronaut in doing so his brother has aged 24 times faster or at least for the astronaut that is the effect , so can you see how slowing down is similar to freezing ’I hope’ , any way I must go now time is short : )

[narnug]

You are correct Fuqin.

For the brother strapped to the rocket to get two minutes worth of light their universe has to be infinite.

I think I am just not very good at explaining. But I did mention the above.

If you travel fast time slows down. If you travel fast in space it is enough to use energy only once and you gain some speed instead. There is nothing to stop you so you just keep on going in your slower time. There is nothing to interact with.

We are constantly using energy here on earth. Even if we are not doing anything we breathe and think.

Maybe using energy is what effects time and space. Not speed. When you interact with "empty" space using energy you maybe only have to do it once because maybe space is only one thing, not many like you and me. When we use energy to interact with other matter we get no more worth then the energy we used since we are interacting with countless of atoms, friction.

This is kind of why I want to call all interaction between "bodies/matter" sequences. And everything has it. From a single atom in your body to your body as a whole. Everything is part of a larger sequence. We are only small sequences that make up a small part of the solar system, our time of reference.

Why should there be so much difference between using energy once or using it constantly when it comes to effecting time.

Here on earth we spend our energy interacting with other matter all the time. If using energy is what effects time but not speed itself then it is very understandable, at least to me, why we experience more activity on the sun when we are using more energy ourselves and maybe effecting our time in a way that we make it slow down and experience all around us going faster like you mentioned, including the surface of the sun.

Like the third brother we get more light.

This is of course hard to imagine because our larger sequence of reference does not seem to change. Sun comes up and sun goes down, and we always count that as 24 hours.

I really think we effect space and time much more then known/accepted today.

I say it again. Why should there be any difference between using energy in space and using energy here on earth when it comes to effecting time?

If time is movement/sequences we are constantly moving here on earth. But not in one direction more like moving through time. And when we are active our speed grows giving us slower time which makes us see the sun speeding up.

It is fantastic thinking about this. I just love it.

All my best

narnug

[Fuqin]

Maybe using energy is what effects time and space. Not speed.

Well yes thats true I think there are many ways to look at it I’m not really knowledgeable about physics but I know there is something called Mass and energy equivalence , I think it works like this , the more energy you put into an object the more its mass increases , in fact I think its interchangble mass is a property of energy and visa versa so in your scenario there the rocket receives a certain amount of energy and then its of on a frictionless free ride (no need to impart more energy ) however that’s not entirely true space is full of dust gravity and a host of exotic practicals that do offer friction, having said that and for the sake of argument lets ignore that and say there is a hypothetical space that is completely frictionless , the hypothetical rocket is accelerated to a point where say its mass is multiplied and time for the rocket man Slows down and it remains so as you have pointed out , without furthered need of more energy,
this is Because the energy potential remains intact within the objects mass ,no friction to convert the mass back to energy ,so i think i agree with your observation here it is not the speed its the energy that has created inertial mass in the object ,((hmmm I think that’s right I felling a bit vague on this)) in any case it’s the mass/energy that is effecting time relative to and for said rocket , inertial mass and gravitational mass work much the same I think,
so speed really has nothing to do with it I would think.
I have to think a little more on the rest of your post.

[narnug]

I am all smiles Fuqin. I am so glad that finally someone understands at least something of what I am thinking. Yehhhh. Thank you for your efforts.
I have to add that I know of course that understanding is not the same as to agree.

It is hard, at least for me, to hold on to this thought if it is interrupted. If I start to go a little off it like I have to do sometimes when discussing this I lose it. Then I have to kind of go through a thinking process to catch it again, to "see" it. Kind of reloading it in.

I have been able to connect this to everything that comes my way. Explain my surroundings through this.

You mentioned black holes and that was one of the things I thought about all day while travelling on busses and trains.

If time slowing down/relativity has nothing to do with speed but all to do with energy and using it a black hole can form like this:
----------------------
An exploding star or something that releases unimaginable amount of energy very fast is in fact using that energy by releasing it.
If relativity is using energy but not speed then the "actions" of the star cause time to stop in that "area" of space.
All that comes close to the "area" in space is dragged into a time trap of no time. Nothing can come out because everything that is “sucked in” gets frozen in time.
This could be how black holes are born. Relativity through using energy, and allot of it. At one end you have light with no time and on the other you have blackness with no time.
--------------------
Correct me if I am wrong but I read once that Einstein suggested that gravity might be a time trap.

Now I can so understand why he suggested that. And now I can so agree to it.

Well, just got to the hotel room and have to take of my smelly socks. They have nothing to do with
relativity, I assure you. Just some mixture of hairy feet being closed in for too long.

PS: If any of my explanations are not clear to any of those reading this please just tell me. I can try to get my thoughts better through.
Amb
narnug

[Fuqin]

If relativity is using energy but not speed then the "actions" of the star cause time to stop in that "area" of space.

Ummm well keep in mind that as I understand it mass and energy are interchangeable but I’m not Sure you can conceder them the same thing at all .
It’s the Mass that effects space/time it distorts space and effects time , when mass is converted to energy the mass 'disappears' well not entirely I think ,
with the exception of light which is pure energy an no mass, and as we know light speed is as fast as it gets .
Energy as far as I’m aware has no effect on 'time' except where the energy is stored as potential within a mass , Either as lots of mass ( gravity ) or inertial mass velocity , but I do agree its not the 'speed', that’s a reaction of mass to energy ,
again let me make it clear I believe the current view is
it’s the mass that effects space/time
not the energy or the speed .
So energy is imparted to the mass
which reacts as speed
and the potential of the mass increases ,
Bending space and slowing time ‘I think’ ,
this is of the top of my head, so again if there is anyone out there who can clarify or correct me id be grateful

[narnug]

Quote from Fuqin:

"So energy is imparted to the mass
which reacts as speed
and the potential of the mass increases ,
Bending space and slowing time"

This kind of explains to me what I am trying to describe.

Then the question is how do you define speed. Is it something travelling in one direction in space leaveing something behind or can speed also be defined as a "body" that does not leave other matter behind but is still very "active" because of how much energy it constantly uses.
If that could be then it is a possibility that time slows down when you use energy no matter if you use it to go straight or in "circles". The "body" that is using so much energy can be at the same place as other matter that is not as active. I feel this very clear just hard to describe it.
The body's time has to slow down according to the larger time of reference to be able to interact with other matter in the larger time of reference. They(the body and other matter) somehow have to co exist even though they do not go at the same speed of time. The solution is to adjust their times so they can "stay togeather"

It might just be that friction is nothing but "time adjustment" between matter. If I use a lot of energy and there for change my time I effect my sourroundings and have to "drag" them with me. All is adjusting to each other all the time and we call it friction.

In my opinion using energy changes time....and space. I can describe it in 100 ways but dont know if any of them are good enough.

So again, if we are active we influence our surroundings, earth. By that we effect it in time and space. If earth's time is effected and slows down we experience our surroundings going faster.
And again, I know this is hard to think about or "see" because no matter what we allways count 24 hours in one day.

(sorry if my spelling is bad now. I am on a boat on my way home and do not have any spelling support at the moment)

All my best

narnug

[Fuqin]

Well there’s a lot of questions in your post ill try to tackle this bit by bit ( keep in mind I have only a fundamental understanding of such things )
Speed is just a measurement a mathematical abstraction that enables us to make a distinction between one object and another , I’ve put it like this because absolutely everything in the universe is moving including space/ time in fact it might interest you to know that space/time is expanding faster than the speed of light,
this gets tricky now ,
ill try to keep it simple ( I need to ha ha ha) .
[ now I could be really wrong about this but ] in relativity there is a point of reference called the observer you or another or both we’ve been using this language to form an understanding ( brothers’ ,farmers astronauts ,rockets ,planets etc… and for all intent and purposes and since an entity can potentially be anywhere so can the centre of the universe (in relativity) the centre or stationary point is everywhere (kind of ) and no where literally. Sigh! Confused ! I am! Anyway ill persist .
Everything has energy that is a thing mass /energy and lives in space/time , note space and time are inseparable one cant exist without the other ergo bend space bend time I hope your getting this ,
the fastest speed possible is light speed in a vacuum - 186,282 miles per second or 300,000 Km per second , the resson for this is light is electromagnetic energy with zero mass an object with any mass apparently cant reach light speed because its mass starts to border on infinite and something with infinite mass would require infinite energy to push it .
While in not sure of my next statement I believe it is this that would grant you the time standing still thing (zero time) or perhaps it can be found in the centre of a black hole , in any case you can see the problem with this ,particularly as it is considered that the universe is not infinite. Now speed is measured inside an expanding space/time but you’ll need one of the mega minds around here to explain to you why speed /velocity doesn’t include space time expansion , I think its actually very slow locally say within our galaxy but because the universe is so unbelievably large the most distant galaxies a receding from us at faster than light speed ehh! I DUNO :(
The co existence of different time frames that you mentioned is nothing really you just have to picture a time lumpy universe at least that’s how I think of it , wherever gravity exists .
As for 24 hrs in a day it’s a fact that atomic clocks on satellites have to compensate for the time differences between earth and themselves and since there orbits are elliptical ,in other words there altitude changes they undergo different gravitational stresses and compensate accordingly.


Read this its fascinating stuff right down your ally I think a bit technical but worth the effort I think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

actually that link is quit tecnical i understand a bit of it but not much ,ill see if i can find somthing less mathermatical and more layman intuetive .

[narnug]

Thanks Fuqin for sticking with me. LOL. I kind of feel I am burning up some time for you.

I can relate to all you write above. I have gone through it all (thought about it there is). So I "feel" you.

Since you mention satellites and in some way GPS I want to ask you what you think of the following. I used that thought to get to some of my conclusions that I have now.

-------

To be able to determine a location of something here on earth you need 3 points to calculate from. GPS uses sometimes up to 7 or 8 satellites (I think, at least airplanes and similar) but 3 can do the job, 2 can not. Like all know this is just triangular calculation.

Now imagine this from a very basic point of view.

Two runners will compete in a 1000 m. run. To run 1000 m. they will both need to use X amount of energy.
The runner who will win is the one who will use X amount of energy in a shorter period of "time".

To be able to determine which runner wins the race we have to have some 3rd factor.

If we do not have the 3rd factor both the runners will always be exactly equally "fast". They will both use X energy.

We need some 3rd factor to "see" which one uses X energy faster. To do that we use a ruling time, the time of reference.

All is a part of something larger and all that is smaller uses what is larger as the time of reference. That does not mean that what is smaller has to be at the same "speed" of time it just uses it as reference. 24 hours in a day is our reference.

------------

If this is very wrong than I have to go back to the "drawing board" and stop making a fool out of my self (written with a smile).

What do you think about this, that we also need 3 "points"/"measurements"/"factors" to determine time just like we need them to determine location?

All my best

narnug

[Fuqin]

No the winner always uses more energy , a V8 always beats a 4cylinder, but ev en if 2 vehicals are identical the one that wins will be the o.e that burns more fule ,70 km per hr takes more energy than 30km per hr

[narnug]

Well I know what you are talking about. There for I started to describe with this sentence:

Now imagine this from a very basic point of view.

It is not like you can sit on a beam of light either.

I can try to describe it in other ways what I am trying to put forward.

If you use X energy here on earth to "move" you can travel Y meters.
If you use X energy on the moon to "move" you can travel Y times A meters.

You need a larger frame/factor/(or what ever to call it) of reference to "measure" how much you get for what you "give".

I am trying to describe that to me it seems very reasonable that all has its own time. There is no shared time. But there is a time of reference for all there is. To be able to move you need to move according to something else that is using energy to create time for "it self".

The solar system has its time, we count that as our's. Earth has its own time within that time. I have my own time within earths time. My heart has its own time within my time. An atom that makes up my heart has its own time within my heart.
If my heart starts to use more energy it effects the rest of me. I might be running or something. When I am active (running for example) time around me seems to fly. When I am "looking at the grass grow" like you mentioned time seems to almost stand still around me. A day becomes very long when one is doing nothing(using no energy).

If we use more energy here on Earth (which we have been doing as a collective) Earths time slows down but Earth is still a part of a larger time/sequence which is using energy and has its own time, the solar system. If Earths time slows down within that time a result of that would be more solar activity experienced.

Some call this global warming. Just another way to describe it.


Amb

narnug

[Fuqin]

I am trying to describe that to me it seems very reasonable that all has its own time. There is no shared time. But there is a time of reference for all there is. To be able to move you need to move according to something else that is using energy to create time for "it self".

The solar system has its time, we count that as our's. Earth has its own time within that time. I have my own time within earths time. My heart has its own time within my time. An atom that makes up my heart has its own time within my heart.

I

f we use more energy here on Earth (which we have been doing as a collective) Earths time slows down but Earth is still a part of a larger time/sequence which is using energy and has its own time, the solar system. If Earths time slows down within that time a result of that would be more solar activity experienced.

Captain saint Lucifer! I’m so stupid some times ,sorry narnug , so your saying the galaxy as a closed system may have a general time frame of its own ,within it ! our sola system may have its own but is still subordinate to the galaxies time frame , so it would follow our earth has its own time frame, but is accordingly subordinate to the sun etc, etc. and so down the line there is us and the atoms within us , like Ezekiel’s vision, wheels within wheels within wheels, I don’t agree but I can see where your getting at I hope,

somthing of this is intriguing and I got confused with this initially, so if I have this right as we move around we use energy time slows for us however its perceived or observed by us as things happening quicker ( time fly’s when your having fun or somthing to that effect) and our collective business is having an overall effect, a feed back on the earth, much like planets have a measurable gravitational perturbation on the sun, got it I think, but again a cant agree, The earths spin is slowing, tidal friction from the moon, eventually the moon will leave our orbit , and although I’m not certain this, it suggests to me that the Earth in general is loosing energy however it is gaining mass we keep collecting dust and rock as we fly round the sun
however ill grant you something that occurred to me , that is your suggestion implies to me at least anyway that our mind is extraordinarily time sensitive in that even when we are say travelling in a train we are sensitive to some time dilation , even though if we measured it would be a tinner distortion in a moment than it takes the mind to have an experience.
Anyway interesting ,
I find as I get older time seems to go quicker a common experience ,I put it down to familiarity that is im less an less engaged in everyday things .
Have you ever noticed how when travelling to something it seems longer than travelling back from it ,that’s because the mind I believe is already familiarized with the journey there is less to take notice of . for a child a year is a lifetime for an adult it becomes a chilling experience to watch the years fly by.
Anyway it was a good chin wag none the less thanx for shearing. ;)

[narnug]

I think you get me Fuqin.

And of course we can disagree.

I have always said that it is good that we are all different and dont have the same views or opinions.

If we would all agree we would all want to marry the same man or woman. We would all want the same house and car. And we could by no means possible evolve in any way, we would never question each other.

It is just fantastic to have conversations with someone like you. Two identities that do not agree but make the effort to understand each other. That makes us richer, understanding the views and opinions of others, even thought we do not agree.

Thank you for the discussion Fuqin.

See you around.

All my best

narnug