Continua, Time and Space; Time as a Geometric Function

There can be no motion without time.Time is experiential and self-referential. I don't believe it's moving forward so much as outward, from the singularity. 'Now' is only a self-referential 'Now'. It's different for anyone and everyone, directly related to your position. A function of geometry. If you could view from 'anywhen' 'no-when', outside our 'timeline' you would have a better perspective of 'time'.
It's easy to understand the geometric functions of space, but, time not so much, at first.
Einstein has proven, with his theory of special relativity that space and time were connected, related. I believe the substance of our space uses time as a geometric function to allow motion, in our particular universe and from our particular perspective there. Time is motion, or the precept of motion. There can be no motion without time.

If space where nothing but a void or vacuum, how could it be warped by a large mass, such as a star, neutron star or black hole?

Time isn't a dimension at all, by definition. It says it's a coordinate dimension, but with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, you can't have a coordinate while in motion, only speed and direction. To have a coordinate, time would have to stop.
From our perspective time appears to have speed and direction. It seems fluid, but it could actually be jagged, stopping and starting and we wouldn't perceive it. Anyway, since it appears to have velocity, time has a starting point, it comes from somewhere and it's moving away.
It seems to me that time is actually a waveform,* moving outward from the big bang.

Relativity states that as you approach the speed of light time slows compared to your original location. What if you were going in a large circle? A small circle? Just spinning at that speed? What about a singularity? How can you have angular momentum without any measurable dimensions?
Some people say our universe is infinite, I think that's just in comparison. Because we are so tiny. We have limited perspective and no large measuring device, lacking in apparent ability, Limited perspective. Imagine you're far outside our universe, looking at the expanding bubble, about the size of a grape or small plum. We'll give it an age of say 20 billion years. (just a guess) So that universe is 20 billion light years across, and it's not infinite. What's it expanding into? That's interesting!
It also seems likely that our space has three apparent dimensions because that is the most stable. The universe, makes things as simple as possible, but no simpler.

*I see time as a path you are walking on, but the path dissolves as you keep stepping, and it doesn't exist in front of you, it only exists right under you, at that point. It appears under the next step and disappears upon lifting the previous. It exhibits the properties of a sine wave.

Our measurement of time is circular, angular momentum, but we're using time to measure time. All measurement is relative, you need a reference point, something outside to compare to. The only thing that qualifies here is our memory of the past. That doesn't actually exist. it's a fallacy. What would our description of time be if we had no memory of the past? What would a clock seem like to you?

The Problem with Numbers

Numbers are an artificial abstraction created to quantify our reality, not a natural aspect of our environment. There are no numbers or straight lines laying around or floating around anywhere. We assume because someone told us mathematical information, we believe it. Numbers are used to quantify our environment. Mathematically the gestalt leap of including the "zero" is wonderful. As for as I can tell numbers are analogous to holding rocks in your hand to verify cattle in someone's pasture or amaranths of oil in a ships hold. (or fractions thereof)

In our overzealous haste to quantify our environment, we overlooked intrinsic aspects of that environment. We started counting things and numbering them, assuming control over them and reverifying it. We really knew what was going on. And we could prove it with math! It's like the theory of mind, in engineering. A beautiful human trait, but fallacious. As soon as we label something, we limit our ability to further know it. I'm going to use two different definitions here. To know somethings means to accept it without question and to understand it means to have actually separated it into parts to realize how it works. To understand something completely, you will have to destroy it. As for as I can tell, we understand a whole lot. We don't actually understand electricity, but we know how it works. Verified every time you flip that switch. I don't understand completely why light bends going around a star, but I could make a gravity lens with the proper conditions. What I'm getting at here is, you don't have to understand something to know it, to utilize it. You don't have to keep questioning things to utilize their value, holistically. In the endeavor of quantification you miss the truer aspects of reality. Its the quality of your environment that is relevant. Thats what gives it its true value. I REPEAT. Its the quality of your environment that is relevant. Not the quantity.

Mathematics goes on whole numbers (like counting rocks). Its easy to make that assumption. Seems logical. Look at the wall. The distance to the wall is three(rocks). Now that we've quantified it. We're done assessing value. We assume we know that. We own it, as it were. The knowledge and the space. Assumption. I say it's not the volume of that space that gives its relevance. It's the quality. What's happening there, is what makes that place unique in all the universe, any-when. When you start to qualify things, places, whatever. You may start to really know something. You don't have to understand something to know it. I'll expound on that again. Let's say you're my friend, and I accept that. But if I don't, I might want to understand what makes you my friend? Why are you my friend? What makes you different than someone else? To understand. So in my quest to understand, I destroy you and some other people taking you apart looking for the friend aspect of you, what makes you different. If I would have accepted you as my friend without question, we'd be ok, but mans inquisitive nature, overlooks the qualitative aspect verifying quantities. I should have just said, "I know you're my friend, accepted it it without question." To me, thats the difference between knowing and understanding.

Back to the distance between you and the wall, three rocks. If you'll picture the surface of the ocean, you'll start to get at what's going on in that space. The qualities that make it unique. There are many waveforms interacting and passing through there. Numbers can't accurately quantify those qualities. Any attempt to actually do this changes its very nature. Accepting it and utilizing it as is, may be the new order of the day. The actual value of that space may be realized. Put your hand out towards the wall, palm facing the wall. Between your hand and the wall are many waveforms interacting, resonance, harmonizing and dissonance, thats the nature of our universe. These are its relevant qualities. It's like music. That is a more accurate depiction. If you could multiply a G chord by a C, it would be a better form of mathematics.You could more accurately quantify, asses value to that space by its qualities. Numbers are abstractions and resonant factors are actual.

More in the numbers quandary, soon. I'm not done, at all!

My conditioned teaching and learning has limited my ability to know.

The Problem with Language

The language we use to define our reality is limited by its very definition. We assume we know something because a word defines it. Consider the source. Who made up that word? Why? Did they have expert knowledge? By accepting that word, and its definition, you're limiting your ability to further understand anything about that, whatever. Do men really have the ability to describe anything not man. Personally I don't think people can accurately describe themselves , much less anything else. The language I'm using now is predominately noun based, it's a quantitative language. I think a qualitative or verb based language may more accurately describe your environment.


I believe what is going on around you is more relevant than the things around you. The relationship between things is more important than the things themselves.


Let's go back to the beginning of the development of language, the why of it. The language was developed to control our environment, to assume we know something, to assuage our fear of the unknown. To live without fear, to live longer, to feel good, not scared. To assume. Once something is defined, you think you know it, you understand it, you can predict its behaviour. You can survive. Once this happens though, you instantly limit your ability to know it further. So in early mans' overzealous haste to define his environment fueled by the need to survive and furthered by the notion that this newly acquired knowledge would also increase the quality of life. He overlooked the true nature of his environment and limited future knowledge. Where is the need to know if you think you already know something? A tree for instance, man describes a tree from mans' perspective, limited. Did you ever consider how the tree would describe itself to you? That might be a more accurate definition. You might say trees don't talk. How do you know? Have you ever been a tree? Well they don't speak English in way that you can currently understand and your definition limits your need/desire to further your knowledge. You assume you already know. Trees were around before men, I wonder what they would be preferred to be called? Have you ever called someone by the wrong name? Repeatedly?


Everything in your environment has the ability communicate the same way you do, by the means of waves traveling through the environment. You assume because you're not currently hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling or tasting it, its not happening. Really? If you look at things in your environment from their perspective you start to realize that everything might be a bit different, that your understanding and your ability to understand are limited by the definitions of the words, assumptions and the language itself. These are all abstractions, constructs of the human mind, an excellent tool, but self-limited and not natural, found in nature. A rock might have a life and you might have to sit with it for a few billion years to get this through your tiny little skull.


Action or verb based languages seem to me to more accurately define the environment, Whats going on. Its the relative characteristic of the environment that accurately depicts the qualitative aspects, the relationships things have with each other. I believe that's more important than the things themselves. Before you read this, as for as your concerned I didn't exist, you didn't know I existed. Now there is a relationship that we have based on this communication,that's the value. This can be expressed as a mathematical equation. But I also have a huge Problem with Numbers.

Quantum Mind

While going over the collapse of wave function, I had a thought about the mind in regards to conscience and quantum variance and the complementary aspects of potentiality vs actuality. It occurred to me that the unconscious and subconscious mind are playing out all possibilities for the next best possible future and then actualizing it. The Quantum Hussy.
Earlier I was inclined to think that there was some form of quantum variance in the brain, ( electron tunneling ?) then looking at the system differently , holisticly, I could see the action was taking place regardless of the mechanism.