Theory of time space and movement

[Teotihuacan]

No, I had no endorsement of Mr. Haselhurst's theory, nor to my knowledge has it been accredited or veryified, I just thought it interesting in parallel. Obviously, something he'd thought of in the Past, which we were just finding Now. Or discussion of it.

 

What I was saying in regards; was that when I read what you had said, my relpy was expanded from something I had written in the past. That became "new" to you. Just as what you had written was "new" to me, when I read it. Even if you had written it long before I ever thought of it.

 

I think there is a problem with the same time space, called the Strong Force. But you do raise an interesting point, about the intranuclear passage of time. What is it like at the subatomic level, where particles can achieve very high speeds?

 

Whether or not there is a zero point in time, tied up to the fastest natively observable, is still quite debateable. Some particles, however small, may already be going faster than c. That was part of the Genisis probe research. Now, maybe another 3 -7 yrs. or more.

 

Fascinating theory, though... some sort of photonic lock on time.

 

Kindov beats mine; like an internalized quantum of moment, related to the binding capacity of Fe+ ions in our blood, and therefore the amount of O2 we have available at the cellular level for expendable energy.

 

I may need to revise my thinking that Time is merely a man made contrivance to get "work" done for nothing, and as far away from universal understanding as we might get.

 

But I must apologise, it does appear a little at odds, now that you mention it. I'm afraid I was asking about many dimensions in time, and you were answering with many dimensions of time. Or, vice versa?

[RICHARDBATTY]

No' date=' I had no endorsement of Mr. Haselhurst's theory, nor to my knowledge has it been accredited or veryified, I just thought it interesting in parallel. Obviously, something he'd thought of in the Past, which we were just finding Now. Or discussion of it.

 

What I was saying in regards; was that when I read what you had said, my relpy was expanded from something I had written in the past. That became "new" to you. Just as what you had written was "new" to me, when I read it. Even if you had written it long before I ever thought of it.

 

I think there is a problem with the same time space, called the Strong Force. But you do raise an interesting point, about the intranuclear passage of time. What is it like at the subatomic level, where particles can achieve very high speeds?

 

Whether or not there is a zero point in time, tied up to the fastest natively observable, is still quite debateable. Some particles, however small, may already be going faster than c. That was part of the Genisis probe research. Now, maybe another 3 -7 yrs. or more.

 

Fascinating theory, though... some sort of photonic lock on time.

 

Kindov beats mine; like an internalized quantum of moment, related to the binding capacity of Fe+ ions in our blood, and therefore the amount of O2 we have available at the cellular level for expendable energy.

 

I may need to revise my thinking that Time is merely a man made contrivance to get "work" done for nothing, and as far away from universal understanding as we might get.

 

But I must apologise, it does appear a little at odds, now that you mention it. I'm afraid I was asking about many dimensions in time, and you were answering with many dimensions of time. Or, vice versa?[/quote'] On the point of speed if you think of a photon being produced already traveling at c and now trapped at c. An object produced at more than c could exist but not in time.