03-03-2009, 01:20 PM
Hmmm. A lot of material here. I'll try to address as much as I can, but query me further if I gloss over too much.
The umbrella is a great metaphor for protection, which is actually a form of concealment and hiding. That's actually another reason I like the analogy, it uses the umbrella to "reveal" a truth, rather than to hide it.
A few thoughts here. First, remember to separate "space" from the "matter" that resides there. Okay, so we know that both time/space and space/time exist simultaneously (at the same time) and simulspaciously (my new word, meaning occupying the same space). Furthermore, per RST, matter and anti-matter exist either simultaneously or simulspaciously. Matter can exist both simultaneously and in close proximity to other matter, and anti-matter can exist simulspaciously and in close temporal proximity to other anti-matter, but if some matter and some anti-matter occupy the same space at the same time, they cancel each other out, and return to unity. (Note: this is an aspect of RST's definition of the creation of matter through motion that I haven't really covered yet. As individual units begin to coalesce and form photons, then matter, they inherently create both matter and anti-matter in equal, symmetric but opposite portions. Due to this, whenever we attempt to account for all the matter in the universe, we are inherently missing 50% of it which is the anti-matter. By the way, this goes a long way to accounting for missing matter in the universe. Observe also that both matter and anti-matter create the same magnitude and direction of gravity.)
So, here's the next level of visualization. When viewing things in space/time you are seeing the matter "clumped" together in space to form our physical reality. The anti-matter which exists at this same time, is spread out though the three dimensions of space such that it rarely ever coexists with the matter. Similarly, in time/space, anti-matter is clumped in time to form its physical reality, but here, the "matter" that makes up our visible portion of the universe, (which exists in the same space in s/t), is inherently spread out through the three dimensions of time. The inverse relationships between time and space actually act as a safety mechanism allowing this dualistic universe to coexist without annihilating itself. So you see, it's a good thing that our matter which is close together in our 3-space is widely separated in 3-time.
Bearing all that in mind, I find that it is most easy to visualize movement through 3-time, as being identical to moving through 3-space. In either case (s/t or t/s), the aspect with the greatest number of dimensions is simply providing a stage on which to locate the matter (or anti-matter) needed to manifest that portion of the universe. Is this "right"? No, but I'm confident that it's impossible to "accurately" describe what time/space really looks like.
Just as we cannot accurately visualize a four dimensional cube (i.e., hypercube or tesseract), we cannot accurately visualize time/space. I believe that the descriptions we have (such as as you mentioned) are the projection of those t/s experiences into s/t. By the same token, I think that in dreams, we do travel through t/s and have t/s experiences, but upon awakening, what we remember is the s/t projection of those otherworldly experiences. I also think that there is a common ground, of sorts, between the two, which is in the form of symbols or icons that can more completely transcend the translation. (There's room for a lot more discussion here)
The Buddhist in me says to simply accept that which is. Does one understand why gravity is? Why men like sports? Why women like shopping? Why no one likes Dick Cheney (yes, we all love him, I know, but we don't have to like him, do we)? Okay, I'll stop before I get too politically incorrect (if I haven't already). You get my point, it's simply a fact inherent in our universe. I just see it as an elegant way to separate the two halves of the universe (s/t and t/s), because if the two did come together, they would destroy each other.
Okay, movement, like speed (40mph) is scalar. Velocity, the vector, includes a direction, or displacement, parameter. If you drive at 40mph to and from work, your speed was 40mph, but your velocity was zero, since you had no net displacement. Similarly, if you travel down Lombard street in San Francisco (the notoriously crooked street going down the hill) at 25 mph, your velocity would only be about 8 mph because you'd waste a lot of motion moving left and right in the turns.
The point is, that in s/t, space is three dimensional (i.e., a vector) and can be associated with a scalar time (i.e., you can divide a vector by a scalar quantity). Similarly, t/s has time as a vector and can be divided by a scalar space. You can also divide a scalar by a scalar. But it turns out that you cannot meaningfully speak of the ratio of two vectors with dissimilar units. So, there really is no meaningful definition of the dual vector representation of s/t. (You may need to refer to Buddha on this one too).
Is this helpful, or have I further muddied the waters?
Love and Light (and candid umbrellas),
3D Sunset
(03-02-2009, 03:20 PM)MisterRabbit Wrote: ... I've always been drawn to the umbrella as a symbol, but I never knew why. Because it protects from rain? no... maybe this is why.
The umbrella is a great metaphor for protection, which is actually a form of concealment and hiding. That's actually another reason I like the analogy, it uses the umbrella to "reveal" a truth, rather than to hide it.
Quote: But trying to imagine time spreading out and space being linear is a whole different ballgame. I can sort of acknowledge it hypothetically, especially with the help of this illustration, but I still can't really see how it could be, or what it would be like to experience that.
A few thoughts here. First, remember to separate "space" from the "matter" that resides there. Okay, so we know that both time/space and space/time exist simultaneously (at the same time) and simulspaciously (my new word, meaning occupying the same space). Furthermore, per RST, matter and anti-matter exist either simultaneously or simulspaciously. Matter can exist both simultaneously and in close proximity to other matter, and anti-matter can exist simulspaciously and in close temporal proximity to other anti-matter, but if some matter and some anti-matter occupy the same space at the same time, they cancel each other out, and return to unity. (Note: this is an aspect of RST's definition of the creation of matter through motion that I haven't really covered yet. As individual units begin to coalesce and form photons, then matter, they inherently create both matter and anti-matter in equal, symmetric but opposite portions. Due to this, whenever we attempt to account for all the matter in the universe, we are inherently missing 50% of it which is the anti-matter. By the way, this goes a long way to accounting for missing matter in the universe. Observe also that both matter and anti-matter create the same magnitude and direction of gravity.)
So, here's the next level of visualization. When viewing things in space/time you are seeing the matter "clumped" together in space to form our physical reality. The anti-matter which exists at this same time, is spread out though the three dimensions of space such that it rarely ever coexists with the matter. Similarly, in time/space, anti-matter is clumped in time to form its physical reality, but here, the "matter" that makes up our visible portion of the universe, (which exists in the same space in s/t), is inherently spread out through the three dimensions of time. The inverse relationships between time and space actually act as a safety mechanism allowing this dualistic universe to coexist without annihilating itself. So you see, it's a good thing that our matter which is close together in our 3-space is widely separated in 3-time.
Bearing all that in mind, I find that it is most easy to visualize movement through 3-time, as being identical to moving through 3-space. In either case (s/t or t/s), the aspect with the greatest number of dimensions is simply providing a stage on which to locate the matter (or anti-matter) needed to manifest that portion of the universe. Is this "right"? No, but I'm confident that it's impossible to "accurately" describe what time/space really looks like.
Quote: How do you think this might relate to the descriptions of time/space that people have given us? Like NDE's and stuff like that? Could they help us to visualize how it would be?
Just as we cannot accurately visualize a four dimensional cube (i.e., hypercube or tesseract), we cannot accurately visualize time/space. I believe that the descriptions we have (such as as you mentioned) are the projection of those t/s experiences into s/t. By the same token, I think that in dreams, we do travel through t/s and have t/s experiences, but upon awakening, what we remember is the s/t projection of those otherworldly experiences. I also think that there is a common ground, of sorts, between the two, which is in the form of symbols or icons that can more completely transcend the translation. (There's room for a lot more discussion here)
Quote:... I just don't understand how moving closer in space is moving further apart in time.
The Buddhist in me says to simply accept that which is. Does one understand why gravity is? Why men like sports? Why women like shopping? Why no one likes Dick Cheney (yes, we all love him, I know, but we don't have to like him, do we)? Okay, I'll stop before I get too politically incorrect (if I haven't already). You get my point, it's simply a fact inherent in our universe. I just see it as an elegant way to separate the two halves of the universe (s/t and t/s), because if the two did come together, they would destroy each other.
Quote: Oh and please clarify the term scalar in how it relates to all of this. I've looked at definitions of it, ie a quantity possessing only magnitude like 40mph, but 40mph can't exist unless it's going someplace, like west, which makes it a velocity right?.
Okay, movement, like speed (40mph) is scalar. Velocity, the vector, includes a direction, or displacement, parameter. If you drive at 40mph to and from work, your speed was 40mph, but your velocity was zero, since you had no net displacement. Similarly, if you travel down Lombard street in San Francisco (the notoriously crooked street going down the hill) at 25 mph, your velocity would only be about 8 mph because you'd waste a lot of motion moving left and right in the turns.
Quote:So, is the point of time and space being scalar that they make each other a velocity, or motion?
The point is, that in s/t, space is three dimensional (i.e., a vector) and can be associated with a scalar time (i.e., you can divide a vector by a scalar quantity). Similarly, t/s has time as a vector and can be divided by a scalar space. You can also divide a scalar by a scalar. But it turns out that you cannot meaningfully speak of the ratio of two vectors with dissimilar units. So, there really is no meaningful definition of the dual vector representation of s/t. (You may need to refer to Buddha on this one too).
Is this helpful, or have I further muddied the waters?
Love and Light (and candid umbrellas),
3D Sunset