reminded of the subjective view of time. The British daylight saving practice of
turning back the clock often stimulates the debate about having the same hour
again (like a mini groundhog day). Some would say that this is akin to going
back in time and having the same bit of life again. This view is interesting as
although it is a naive view based on an arbitrary agreement as to what
the time is, it does raise the question as to what time really is.
Simply putting the clock back does for lawful reasons mean that you are younger.
If you died at the time the clocks went back your time of death would be an hour
earlier (technically) and so you would be younger than your actual death and so
would have lived the same hour again as a dead person, so to speak! This is due
to the nature of the way we measure
time.
We used to measure time by the basic principal of
the cycle of the earth rotating about its axis and the earth travelling around
the sun. This was the basis for “telling the time”. Now it is done “more
accurately” by using the radioactive decay of a particularly predictable
isotope. But that in its self creates the question. How do we know the time is
accurate of the thing that is telling the time? Time is a rate of change of
something else and so is a derived dimension in this case. It works out that the
earth and sun are losing a few microseconds every year compared to the atomic clock which tells us the
“accurate time”.Thus the “correct time” no longer depends on solar cycles but
that of a piece of metal in a lab, and according to this theory, in a few
thousand years it will be breakfast time at
midnight!!
The point I am trying to make is that “telling the time is based
on an international standard, an agreed arbitrary way of telling how many
seconds have passed from one event to another. The concept of time however
differs when you talk of it as a
dimension.
If Time is a dimension that can be traversed as length, width and
height can then it would need to be a naturally occurring dimension that can be
decoded without measuring it. Length for example can be seen without taking a
physical measurement, so can height. Some people would argue that they feel time
passing faster on some days than others as they are busy and do not notice the
time pass. This opens up interesting questions also such as does time appear to
pass faster to an observer who does not deliberately measure it? Is measuring
time slowing it down? Does time have a
speed?
From a point of view of an enlightened or
illuminated one, it can be seen that time is a cornerstone of control. By giving
a framework into which all events must happen, we create a grid of limitation to
the possibilities that can be achieved. If time was no object we could work all
day on a project, just as if money was no object then we could build almost
anything we could imagine. Time is a way to control the mind into composite
finite blocks of memory. The natural order of day and night is superseded by
this arbitrary, man-made, measurement based dimension that has hijacked the
natural order of cyclical time. This is why when our thought cycles are faster
the “time” goes faster, it is because our minds are working faster than the
artificial framework and so will only remember a fraction of the “blocks” of
time. This appears to speed up time as our minds see fewer frames per minute of
the artificial time and so events pass faster compared to it. In this scenario
it would be possible to have the effect of time seeming to stop or even
reversing if the frequency of events was such as to cycle regularly at a
slightly slower rate than the frame rate of the human mind, however this would
need the events to be consistently the same over the period of observation. This
is similar to the strobe effect and does not actually change
time but gives the impression of time changing.
In Einstein’s theory of relativity he theorises that an event
appears to pass at a different rate dependant on the velocity of the observer.
Why would this be unless you were measuring the event with an arbitrary
timeframe based on a secondary observer’s point of reference? Again the issue
is not at what rate the observer’s position is changing, but at what “frame
rate” the observer is able to see. The rate of change of the horizon is
different to close by because the “Frame rate” is faster, there is more
noticeable change, more detail, and so it appears faster. If the observer is
looking up from a book every 40 seconds or so then the horizon will appear to
change at the same rate to the near objects as the observer has changed the
“frame rate”
In conclusion of the
previous points, there is a difference between real time, a perceived rate of
change based on natural events and the minds perception of them, and Construct
time, Which is the Man Made arbitrary framework which dictates everyone’s daily
lives.
So by putting our clocks back do we really become younger? Do we
really have more time? The answer is yes and No. Yes if you live in the
constraints of the man-made dimension, but No if you wake up with the sun and
sleep when it becomes dark, like we were supposed
to!
Construct time is necessary for the “Matrix theory”. The theory
that we are all living in a artificial reality. The construct must have a
running time as any artificial system does. Scientists are currently trying to
test for “the Matrix” by trying to construct an AR system and see how the small
particles follow the grid lines, but this will not work as particles do not
follow grid lines, they will exist only on the infinitesimally small grid lines
(reality lines) and this is because they will have a frame rate of the system or
a realty frequency which “vibrates” at the same rate as its passing over the
grid lines. This in effect means that particles only exist when you can observe
them (see quantum theory).
What the scientists need to look for is the effect of Construct
Time. If they were to give the experimental system a seasonal variance, the
particles would begin to exist in between the grid lines, or the grid lines
would change location, in effect causing the particle to exist out of the
normal construct of “space Time”. This would cause a shifting in the system and
cause glitches. This happens in real life and is why the clocks are
continuously changed every year or so to be in sync with the atomic clock,
however this is causing the shift mentioned earlier whereby the “System Time”is
becoming more out of sync with the “natural Time” and a glitch is inevitable
when the time is noticeably wrong to the observer (extreme e.g it is sun rise
at midnight on the equator) and the system has to be suddenly changed so that
it makes sense again. This also happens seasonally as the earth turns 365 ¼
days per solar year and so every 4 years the seasons are put out by one day
which is why the weather appears to be changing, Not Because Of Global
Warming!!!!
If we really do live in a Matrix style simulation then the
simulation will try to cover the cracks that are found by the scientist
experiments, and will try to adapt, this will also cause glitches as new
“upgrades”are installed. This leads to “fogging” of horizons to save system
memory and weather that is easier to simulate, or ways of keeping each observer
in a confined environment to limit the need for loading multiple scenarios, i.e.
terror threats and natural disasters. Has this happened more recently as people
have questioned this theory more?
The Truth is that there is a much more complicated and intuitive
way of explaining all of these phenomenon. An explanation that encompasses the
very existence of the mind, the universe, and what makes us, the stars, the
earth and the computer you are reading this on. The Truth is that we don’t
really exist in the way we are taught at all. And the next chapter will explain
this……..
(Extracted in part from the Book “The Truth about the meaning” By
D)
Further Articals will serialize this book over the next few
weeks