1973.08.x - Hatonn & Oxal

[artichoke]

Here I have some comments on ayadew's interesting interpretation of Oxal's remarks:

...
... It might either be a typo (from L/L Research) or not, as: "The relationship between the two is the third power [of] displacement in either."
May it be?:

T3 / 3 = S Time in 3 dimensions has the relation = Space in 1 dimension. This is another reality, Time/Space
S3 / 3 = T Space in 3 dimensions has the relation = Time in 1 dimension. This is our 'physical' reality, Space/Time

Please correct me if I'm wrong at the Time/Space | Space/Time definitions.

I read this the same way you do. But an expression like T3 / 3 = S is interpreted without really dividing by 3, and it's not an equality but saying the dimensions are T^3 x S . Equality seems like something Oxal would understand -- Oxal's my favorite channelled geek -- so I am surprised that we have this difficulty.

My subjective conclusions of time-dimensions:

Time is here projected upon 1-dimensional space, since that is the only way I can understand time, and the way Time/Space must be defined.

Space/Time is defined by time, we can move around in our 'physical' reality but all changes takes linear time.
Time/Space is defined by space, we can move around in 'time' but it's made up by the frozen moments of the 'physical'.

I say 'physical' because there are no real physical objects, only signals translated by our minds.

I may not be sure what you mean by that sentence. Somehow there's enough agreement that we all agree on physicality. If I'm going to drive into a ditch, my wife next to me can see the same ditch and tell me to avoid it. It seems quite inefficient to tell us all a story simultaneously, keeping everything synchronized, rather than just allowing physicality to exist under our 3D physical rules. Occam's razor and all that.

While moving inside time-dimensions you may not influence the physical world [space] only perceive, it seems.

Likewise in space-time S^3 x T, by moving in space one cannot affect the movement of time. Except perhaps for relativistic effects (time in an accelerating frame slows down as perceived from a non-accelerating frame.)

T1 = Time is X. 'Time' is= linear, as in our currently perceived world. An arbitrary X can be picked from [all time divided by infinity]: every physical moment frozen. You exist subjectively in X and may only move forward or backward or standing still in the linear 'time'. In our current reality we seem to move forward.
Thus you cannot really perceive true time as it really exists [only from memory].

Can you move backwards or stand still? Bigger question: why in the one-dimensional view can one not control the movement in the one dimension?

This you can do in:

T2 = Relative Viewpoint is Y and 'time' is X. Time is actively perceived as linear from an arbitrary viewpoint. Your perception of time is altered depending on Y's relation to X.
You may perceive an infinite amount of X from an infinite amount of Y. You may now exist in Y while observing X, but you may only exist in 1 Y at the same time (alike to T1 being limited to 1 X at the same time).
Thus you can perceive all 'time' subjectively.

Can you perceive only a moment of X from each moment in Y? Or can you see all of X from the vantage point of any moment in Y? And the question from above, repeated: why in the two-dimensional view can one not control the movement in the two dimensions?

T3 = Relative Viewpoints are Y, Z and 'time' is X. Time is actively perceived as linear from two arbitrary points, id est may be perceived as backward and forward simultaneously = You exist in all time simultaneously. You may perceive an infinite amount of Y relating to an infinite amount of X. You may now exist in Z observing Y observing X.
Thus you can perceive all 'time' objectively since you can see all subjective variations of Y.

But here you do have control. Why in the three-dimensional view can one control the movement in the three dimensions?

I do not know what Z is, or what happens when you alter the viewpoint of Z.
This would require a 4th dimension. I cannot understand a 4th dimension.

I may not understand your model. To me, the difficulty would come in T2: what is two-dimensional time. As for four dimensions T^3 x S, we are used to four dimensions S^3 x T and there would be some analogy. T^2 x S seems just as unfamiliar to me as T^3 x S .

As from the T1 definition: 1-dimensional space is the essence of 1 point of all physical moments frozen. They are infinite in every moment that space exists.
As from the T2 definition: "Y" here becomes something able to understand these "essence of physical moments frozen". You can see it from different viewpoints, you see can see how all time affects 1 reference point.
As from the T3 definition: "Z" here is something to understand that there exists more than 1 reference point simultaneously, you see ALL the "essence of physical moments frozen" from ALL ways. Here you understand True time.

Perhaps your final comments contain some answers to my questions but please explain further.