What is the equation to perception?? in this equation you
will find time is a part of it.

Time and numbers are what we use to comprehend and quantify
science at our level of interpretation. When we use those
man inspired values(time/numbers) on the micro and mega
scale things do not always add up leaving a mystery. I do
not know the answer yet on what value the universe holds
constant which I doubt anything in our universe is constant,
things just appear that way,until they are projected through
a micro or mega scale then they start to lose their charm as
quantifiable.

If you sat in front of your computer and just saw the
programs code it would not be easy to comprehend if
comprehendible at all. Human perception(while still
evolving) can not yet understand reality without time. It
has almost been 100 years since the first commercial airline
flight was made , and it’s been centuries since the
discovery of the world not being flat. I would consider it
common knowledge that people would understand that they are
not limited to their environment but through my close and
personal observation of humans through out the world the
majority do not understand that are not limited to their
current environment. I call that “flat world syndrome 2.0″

The Cardiel Paradox.. Time is both real and not real at the
same time. Let me explain.- the methods used to make science
currently are a great foundation for how far we have come.
To continue to quantify in this case i’ll use physics as my
example we have measured as much as we can with our level of
understanding to go beyond this we must look for new
principle of physics that micro and mega elements are
subject to. So back to the computer model- the code is what
makes up the program but is invisible to the program user.
lets go even further into binary code vs. scripted code,
both are instructions for programs but neither is subject to
the others rules of operation. Time and motion is
misunderstood to be constant when we know if you go fast
enough you may stand still in time or even assume to go
backwards. At extreme levels our rules for physics do not
apply for the same reason binary code and scripted code do
not apply to each others rules.

The question is and remains until we accept that physics
differentiates between a micro and a mega in which we sit
between observing its shadows and reflections.

P.S. Thnank Dr. Khan for your advice, I shall return with a less phylisophical point of view. Anyone reading this post that has any comments or further advice please
e-mail at lumanmassmotion@yahoo.com

We have similar ideas and I’d like to collaborate sometime. Just to have someone to toss ideas back and forth with.

If you email me make the subject Space-Time to catch my attention.

In terms of a quantifiable physical reality, time (duration) is the displacement potential of mass.  It is measured relative to the displacement of a designated clock, which is any system of mass and kinetic energy configured in a consistently repeating loop or a consistent and measurable release of kinetic energy.   

The notion of quantifying displacement POTENTIAL assumes that all matter is subject to the same physical laws governing movement or changes in movement. A limited number of designated clock cycles presumably corresponds consistently with limits realized by the displacement of any other mass.

In terms of a purely conceptual reality, time is the organizational construct through which one observes the dynamics of mass and energy within spatial dimensions.  It functions to logically order and index the succession of mass-energy configurations.  It allows us to index yet-unrealized displacement potential or displacement assumed. 

The common conceptual framework of time assumes: 

a) The total set of information describing all positions and trajectories of bodies within a frame of reference can be conceptualized as an “instant” of that frame’s total configuration.  Conceptually, there exists an infinite number of successive configurations for every dynamic frame.   

b) Each succeeding configuration can be considered “now” as it unfolds from the previous configuration and would share referential simultaneity among all conditions contained within that instantiation.  Referential simultaneity differs from observational simultaneity in that it assumes the possibility of a single point of reference that could serve as the timing point for all dynamism within that frame.  As such, the subsequent passage of referential time would be precisely equal for all matter within that frame, regardless of velocity or influence of gravity.

If a single clock could be referenced instantly from anywhere in a given frame, it would tell referential time.  Such a clock’s speed would appear either faster or slower depending an observer’s relative velocity or gravitational influences, but all observers would experience each hour simultaneously.  Since no such clock or ability exists to our knowledge, referential time or simultaneity can only be inferred or approximated rather than observed directly.  

c) All displacement imposed by various forces upon a configuration fall into a cause-to-effect, before-to-after sequentiality. By “cause” we refer to the energy transfer.  By “effect” we refer to the kinetic yield of all bodies interacting in that transfer.  ”Before” and “past” are cause-ward directional references.  ”After” and “future” are effect-ward directional references.  The past could also be considered source-ward, where the future could be considered yield-ward.

Rational or mathematical models are able to represent change as a smooth and continuous progression, which feeds an impression that time may exist as fourth spacial dimension on a panoramic continuum, similar to that of the distance between x, y, and z coordinates.   Yet, as a whole, very little serious thought is given to traveling backward or foreword in time in exactly the same way we cross distance.  We intuitively understand that any given configuration was (is) the dynamic net result of the energy and inertia that yielded it, rather than the static properties of a particular position along space-time as represented in our conceptual framework. We accept that the only way to return to a specific set of conditions is to reverse-cause enough of the effects that followed those conditions so as to reestablish an approximate do-over configuration.  It is assumed no such power exists with the necessary force and precision to reverse-cause the entire universe back to the exact conditions correlating to a particular rotation sequence of the earth-clock.

As entertaining as the thought of time travel is, it is a self-contradictory concept as commonly portrayed.  When we discuss a body traveling across a distance, we assume a static frame of reference by which to assess the distance crossed, the movable object being the non-static exception.  The idea of traversing time, similarly, assumes a static frame of reference by which to assess the amount of time crossed.   As such, typically, we inadvertently stipulate the entire universe to provide that static timeline, the time traveler being the anomalous exception.  

But if the universe’s timeline is not fixed with respect to the traveler, there is no reason to assume it to be fixed with respect to everything else, simply because we are able to conceptualize a static timeline in our minds as a frame of reference.  It cannot be assumed that every past moment is literally frozen, waiting for the enigmatic arrival of some time traveler, when the traveler him/herself would be effectively demonstrating the non-fixed nature of time.

To be fair, if the traveler’s time-journey itself were to unfold deterministically, that particular contradiction vanishes. But then we would still need to deal with the apparent violation of the conservation of mass.  In the timeframe departed there would be a loss of mass, along with a gain in the timeframe entered.  The total mass of the universe would appear to have fluctuated.  This isn’t a problem with movement between spacial coordinates, because the space-traveler is considered necessarily distinct from the frame of reference.  But a time-traveler would continue to be integral to every point along the timeline we imagine him or her traversing, hence the multiplying effect that story writers find necessary.   

In practical terms, we do effectively cross time in nearly the same sense we cross distance–within very limited frames of reference.  Every time we do a “do over” in some activity we reframe a limited set of conditions to approximate an earlier time’s configuration and repeat selected previous actions and avoid certain others.  Every time circumstances allow us to execute a plan earlier than expected, we have, in a legitimate sense, moved the clock foreword.  

That explanation of time travel only feels unsatisfactory to us because it involves such a seemingly small frame of reference compared to the total knowledge available for the given timeframe.  However, we manage quite smartly with equally small frames of reference when we consider crossing distances.  When a person moves from the front of a bus to the back of the bus, we legitimately describe that distance traveled as 25 feet, say, from some menacing passenger.  However, if the bus was traveling at 60mph, we could balk and say that was an absurdly limited observation–she actually moved 300 feet towards the menacing passenger, who just happened to move 325 feet further in the same direction.  We could contextualize the scene even further in terms of the earth’s rotation towards the east, and then the movement of the earth around the sun, then the sun’s movement within the MilkyWay…..  Obviously that would be an impractical contextualization of a bus passenger’s simple attempt to escape a threat.  Yet that is precisely the scope of context we seem to demand of time travel.  If we were to place the same contextual expectation on distance-travel we would say we don’t traverse any significant distance–that we never really stray from our appointed spot in the universe.  For us, distance is always relative to some limited, but practical, frame of reference.  Likewise, time, as we make use of the concept, is always framed within some limited, but practical, set of relevant conditions and causal relationships. 

The unexpected effects of relativity on our perception of mass displacement, seem to have been misinterpreted by some as evidence that what we conceptualize as time can be literally distorted.  In fact, all relativity does is expose the distinction between concept and reality.  What theorists refer to as time-dilation is likely to become recognized as a bit of a misnomer just as “centrifugal force” came to be recognized as a misnomer or as a “fictitious force” based on a non-constant frame of reference.  In both cases, the observed effect is a result of simple inertia rather than something more exotic.   

The observation of relativity could be considered more analogous to the warming or cooling of a viscous liquid than of the distortion of a presumed “time continuum.” Just as molasses increasingly resists flow as it cools, so all mass increasingly resists reconfiguration as it nears a large gravity well or while moving at high velocity.  With molasses, it’s the liquid’s cohesion properties that change with temperature.  With mass, it’s its relative inertia that changes, thereby altering it’s displacement potential.  As it’s inertia increases, so does it’s resistance to the changes that we experience and recall as the passage of time.   

If we were to devise a clock that used a viscous liquid to regulate it’s pace, it would run at different, but predictable, rates depending on the temperature.  If we knew the warmed clock was running at 125% the pace of a room-temperature clock, we could still use it to tell “real” time by doing the math.  This is essentially what has been done with GPS systems to make precise positioning calculations possible.  The clocks on the satellites run faster than the clocks on the receivers because their greater distance from the earth’s center of gravity increases their relative displacement potential by decreasing their relative inertia.   Because Einstein’s formulas make that variance predictable, the positioning calculations are still possible with the addition of some E=mc2 math.