# BREAKING DOWN the PHYSICS

## Recommended Posts

Time Travel, whats involved?

I define it as manipulation of interactions of Mass-Space-Time

MASS can reduced to PROTONS and ELECTRONS. Combined these make NEUTRONS.

TIME can be reduced to FUTURE and PAST. Combined these make PRESENT. ??

SPACE can be reduced to X,Y,Z? DISTANCE, VOLUME, DENSITY?

What do think Rainman?

And where do you place positrons?

And where does perception, thought, and memory come into play. Is IMAGINATION the FUTURE of MEMORY? Is PERCEPTION then the PRESENT or NEUTRON?

• Replies 5
• Created

#### Popular Days

Interesting thoughts to get us started. Here are my thoughts that are brought to mind as a result of your thoughts:

Time Travel, whats involved?

I define it as manipulation of interactions of Mass-Space-Time

Here is an analogical way to approach what time travel might take: Start with what we know about space travel - When we look at vehicles (I use airplanes cuz it's my biz) we see that an unbalanced force, called thrust, is required to move any body through space. Newton showed us that the time rate of change of momentum would produce such a force. This is what gives birth to the concept of the jet engine and the jet equation for its thrust. If we ignore thrust components due to pressure differentials at the jet exhaust, we can write the thrust equation as the difference between the mass flow rate*flow velocity at the jet exhaust minus the mass flow rate*flow velocity at the jet inlet. Symbolically this is:Thrust = (M_dot_exit)*(Vel_exit) - (M_dot_inlet)*(Vel_inlet)

The compressor and combustor of the engine are what accelerate the mass flow to a much higher exit velocity than the inlet velocity. So you can look at the velocity difference between exit and inlet as a very real difference in the fabric of SpaceTime between these two physical locations. What is causing this difference? The other term in the equation: Mass Flow Rate (which is in units of Mass/Time BTW). This is the common denominator for all thrust applications the time rate of change of mass. (For future reference I call this quantity Matter, as we know from the subatomic realm that Mass is always changing over Time). But to focus on the result here we could say this:

In order to propel ourselves thru SPACE, we must manipulate Mass over Time to do so.

So now if our wish is to "propel" ourselves thru TIME, does it make analogic sense to say that we must manipulate Mass over Space to do so? I think it does, especially when you consider that Massive SpaceTime represents "orthogonal dimensions" that are related. When you morph two of them, you get a result in the other. And what is Mass/Space? DENSITY!

MASS can reduced to PROTONS and ELECTRONS. Combined these make NEUTRONS.

TIME can be reduced to FUTURE and PAST. Combined these make PRESENT. ??

Interesting way to phrase it. And in general I agree. But one thing we should note is that it is not a precise identity that Neutron = Electron + Proton. The Neutron is actually a tad heavier than this sum... attributed to a couple more subatomic particles....could be significant. As to the second statement, it would seem that this statement is verbally describing the classic light-cone diagram of spacetime, where the observer (in their relative present time) is at the central apex:

I think there is a lot of truth in what you say here. And the key we must understand is that all things (elements of Massive SpaceTime reality) are relative to the observer. Each observer has their own light cones attached to their observational apparatus.

SPACE can be reduced to X,Y,Z? DISTANCE, VOLUME, DENSITY?

What do think Rainman?

Drop the DENSITY and I am with you. Recall that DENSITY is decomposed into the mixture of Mass and Volume (Space^3) metrics. IOW...DENSITY = Mass/Space^3. But one thing to keep in mind about DENSITY, as we noted in our analogical thoughts above, is that:Mass Density will have a direct impact on the rate at which something is propelled thru Time

And where do you place positrons?

Simple, IMO. The positron is merely the anti-matter counterpart of the electron, right? Recall how I had discussed that we can view Mass as being an "orthogonal" ordered-triple just like Space, right? Well, we know that when we set up a set of orthogonal coordinate axes in Space at some reference point (say X-Y-Z) that we have both + and - X, + and - Y, and + and - Z. The same analogy is true for Mass...we have the basic particle (in this case, electron) and we have its anti-particle (the positron). So again, if we propagate the orthogonal model used for Space to Mass (and to Time) we see no lack of consistency...do we? In fact, it becomes very interesting when we begin to assess what we would mean when we would talk about these same concepts with orthogonal components of Time: +Past and -Past, +Present and -Present, and +Future and -Future. More on these in a subsequent post.
And where does perception, thought, and memory come into play. Is IMAGINATION the FUTURE of MEMORY? Is PERCEPTION then the PRESENT or NEUTRON?

It is getting late for me...we will get to these as we progress, but suffice it to say that since the role of the observer is so crucial to our relativistic universe, then all of these concepts that deal with observation are unique to Mind, which is the "antithesis" (if you will) of Matter (or what I prefer to call Massive SpaceTime). IOW, one needs the other to exist. There would be no stability of the Massive SPaceTime matrix unless there were Minds to hold it in place. And there would be no possibility of Minds were there not a stable Matrix of Massive SpaceTime for them to "grow" within.For now, to begin to give you some things to look into about these concepts of the Mind, I would suggest you look up the work of David Bohm and his concepts of an Implicate Order and "Active Information."

Kind Regards,

RMT

##### Share on other sites

whats IMO and IOW?

is that some teenage text messaging code like OMG MBF Jill JFMBF Jack?

##### Share on other sites

Sorry. Not so much text codes as (what I thought were) common internet acronyms:

IMO = In My Opinion

IOW = In Other Words

I see CubikDice has given us some sacred geometry links. That's nice, and I will acknowledge that a great deal of my own personal research has sought to bring forward the links between sacred geometry and "real" science... and such links are very real. Just wish Mr. Dice would have offered some commentary to go with the links.

RMT

##### Share on other sites

There has been a theory, that has been refined since the 80's known as a "fracton" the result of a fractal state of dressed electrons which are generated by transmetallics liquid states formed by massive scalar fields in materials with a high dielectric constant. The interesting feature of this "particle" is that it is 2D and has a periodic "edge" states. The propagations of these "particles" occur in dense spinor vector fields. As a supposition the particle is invariant to time as 2D plane function and is only observable as it period edge state, which given the spinor field density can occur in any point in time to it's intial Past/Future pointing dephased direction. The coordinate system is essence Minkowsian from it's transmetallic, with a ever persistant Hamiltonian in it's spinor propagator, that transistion to it's Jacobian identity as it's edge state. The subatomics (Neutrons, Protons) are held in X_zero state space as the result of the massive scalar constant leaving the mind and the imagination to experience the hyperspace observable. I hope this would shed some light on your question :D [/color]