What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 53
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Rest assured, the remaining 80% will again split into 16% and 64% (of the original number) and so on to infinity until everyone is on the moon.
What a predatory nature of humanity in your model! So exile everyone until they agree to live humanly, not to the detriment of their fellow man, but for the benefit of all! We don't need a rotten amount of weed-parasites if we are intelligent!
Honestly looked at it for twenty-four hours, but didn't see an angle there :-)
It's about the fact that in a uniagon, the outgoing side from a vertex is the incoming side for the same vertex.
Example: a drop-shaped 'line' connecting two points with matching coordinates. The angle is present because not only are the directions of motion to one side and the other side not the same, but they are not necessarily opposite in the coordinate system of the internal observer (the external one even less so).
And here is what we get if we assume that in different spatial directions (axes) the coefficient changes occur according to different laws --- { 1 ; 1/r ; 1/r^2 } ---
We can further complicate the dependence of the coefficients with a single time parameter t.
Or we can do something else and introduce into consideration a three-component vector t = {t1;t2;t3} with independent change of its coordinates.
There is an open field of research here.
.
As an appetizer, I'll make a video for a moving point in space, and see how t changes.
And here's what you get if you assume that along the different spatial directions (along the axes) the coefficient changes follow different laws --- { 1 ; 1/r ; 1/r^2 } ---
.
We can further complicate the dependence of the coefficients under a single time parameter t.
Or we can introduce into consideration a three-component vector t = {t1;t2;t3} with independent change of its coordinates.
There is an open field of research here.
.
As an appetizer, I will make a video for a moving point in space and see how t changes.
Better do it without coefficients, but in two-dimensional space on a Moebius sheet.)
Better do it without coefficients, but in two-dimensional space on a Moebius sheet.)
You have to think hard ;)
"We know in space the relationship of point to line, line to surface, surface to body. The same must be the relation of three-dimensional space to higher space."
What the author means is that a point is a cut of a line. A line is a cut of a plane. A plane is a section of a volume. A volume is the similarity of a point.
"Indeed, if we dwell on this thought and consider the profound difference between a point and a line, between a line and a surface, between a surface and a body - we realise how much new and incomprehensible to us must lie in the fourth dimension.
Just as in a point it is impossible to imagine a line and the laws of a line, just as in a line it is impossible to imagine a surface and the laws of a surface, just as in a surface it is impossible to imagine a body and understand the laws of a body, so in our space it is impossible to imagine a body having more than three dimensions and impossible to understand the laws of existence of this body. But by studying the mutual relations of point, line, surface and body we start to learn something about the fourth dimension, i.e. the space of four dimensions. We start to learn what it can be compared to our three-dimensional space and what it cannot be. And this is especially important, because it gets rid of a lot of deep-rooted illusions that are very harmful to proper cognition."
"We recognise what cannot be in the four-dimensional space, and this allows us to establish what can be there.
Let's try to look at these relationships within our space and see what conclusions we can draw from examining them.
We know that our geometry treats a line as a trace of the movement of a point, a surface as a trace of the movement of a line and a body as a trace of the movement of a surface. Based on this we ask ourselves the question: can we not consider a "body of four dimensions" as a trace of motion of a body of three dimensions?
What kind of motion is it and in which direction?
A point moving in space and leaving a trace of its motion in the form of a line moves in a direction that does not consist in it because there is no direction in the point.
A line, moving in space and leaving a trace of its motion as a surface, moves along the direction not comprising it, because moving along the direction comprising it, a line always remains only a line.
A surface moving in space and leaving a trace of its motion as a body also moves in a direction not comprising it. If it moves along one of the directions contained within it, it always remains a surface. To leave a trace of its motion in the form of a 'body' or a three-dimensional figure, it must move away from itself, move along a direction that does not consist in itself."
"By analogy, in order to leave the trace of its motion in the form of a four-dimensional figure, the body must also move in a direction that does not consist in it; in other words, the body must withdraw from itself, move away from itself. Further on it will be established how we should understand this.
For now we may say that the direction of movement along the fourth dimension lies outside all those directions which are possible in a three-dimensional figure."
"We regard a line as an infinite number of points, a surface as an infinite number of lines a body as an infinite number of surfaces.
By analogy, we may assume that a body of four dimensions should be regarded as an infinite number of bodies of three dimensions, and a space of four dimensions as an infinite number of three-dimensional spaces.
Then, we know that a line is bounded by points, a surface is bounded by lines, a body is bounded by surfaces.
It is possible that a space of four dimensions is bounded by bodies of three dimensions."
"By analogy, a three-dimensional body (cube, ball, pyramid) can probably be seen as a section of a body of four dimensions, and all three-dimensional space as a section of four-dimensional space."
"So what is the direction?
To answer this question, we must look generally whether we know motion in a direction that does not consist in three-dimensional space.
We know that all movement in space is accompanied by what we might call movement in time. Moreover, we know that even if not moving in space, everything existing is eternally moving in time.
And equally in all cases, when we speak of movement or lack of movement, we have in mind the idea of what was before, what is now and what will be after. In other words, the idea of time. The idea of motion, of any kind, as well as the idea of absence of motion, is inseparably connected with the idea of time. All movement and lack of movement takes place in time and cannot take place outside time. Consequently, before we speak of what motion is, we must answer the question: What is time?
Time is the greatest and most difficult riddle facing humanity."
It's hard to argue with that logic - so we have both the past and the future existing at the same time.
According to yogic philosophy - The movement of consciousness is perceived as time. Stop consciousness - space and time disappear. Here somewhere it was said about an altered state of consciousness, but it's hardly helpful in trading. It seems senseless to speak about any physical form of time. As for the market, expressing the price movement discretely, in the form of timeframes, simplifies the perception in the form of a chart and analysis of past events, no more than that, so it is difficult to build a stable TS. I think the TS should take into account the development of events in real time in addition to the use of different instruments. This is my personal opinion ...
I am not a great expert of yoga philosophy, but taking this viewpoint as a basis we have that our consciousness "moves" through these already existing worlds/realities/the 4th dimension. Based on this, we can say that time is the directional movement of consciousness along the 4th dimension. According to Vedic concepts, the smallest subject-carrier of consciousness is the atom. Consciousness must also be understood (in this context) as the ability/mechanism to integrate into more complex structures (by analogy, like a computer network). The latter definition "crosses out" the necessity of a human being (as a reasonable carrier of consciousness) for such a movement to exist. It is just that each subject has its own discreteness of this movement.
So, the past and the future emerged "simultaneously" at the moment this "master plan" was created. But, one would like to think that it is the carrier of rational consciousness (man) that has a possibility to create new (alternative) variants of future due to "energy of his will", if we consider three-dimensionality of time as multivariant.
...such a free flight of imagination. :)))
It's an interesting thing about time. Not only human beings with measuring instruments know about time, but plants, for instance, have their own bio-clock no less accurate. Every atom has its own clock.
The form of time is of course a joke. A marketing ploy so to speak and the branch, as you can see, has been filled with interesting material. There may be more to come.
Regarding the markets, time plays a huge role. The extent to which this factor is used will determine the quality of transactions.
But I don't understand why we have to go into the polarization of relic radiation and look for confirmation or refutation of the big bang. After all to comprehend the same, for example, gravitation only two things are enough: a simple optical telescope and a brain.
gravity on earth 9.81 m/s2
Gravity in the morning in bed under the blanket is 999.81 m/s2