Time!

[Rift Zone]

Solid matter is an illusion.  At our scale it's a rather convincing illusion, but it is illusion none the less. When we think of atoms we might have a tendency to think of little balls. We might think of something solid. We imagine it to be a thing, or a few things clumped together. It's nothing like that. If we could see an atomic nucleus in the every day sense of the word/at a comfortable scale we would not see "things", we would see energy... That nucleus has the personality of a Tesla coil.

Perhaps the best way to picture a particle would be to imagine the schematic for a lithium atom.   A common representation includes some center structure and three orbits around it.  Since we're concerned with individual particles, not the atoms they form, let's ignore the center structure and focus on the schematic for the electron orbits themselves.   Just as space has three dimensions that are all perpendicular to another, so do particles' structure...   E=mc^2 is true not because "energy" has the capacity to transmute forms, it's true because the inherent form NEVER changes; particles are literally made of light, lots of it, in mutual association.  So the character of that structure we're talking about within particles is fundamentally indistinguishable from the structure of light , with the exception that light only has 2 axial elements while their mutually associated state (particles) have 3 axial elements.   Light, of course, has a crazy structure with elements that include angular momentum as well as transverse.  And extrapolating light's form into a 3 axial structure makes the system all the more complicated...  Of course, this is QM, being inherently complicated simply comes with the territory.   Another rough approach to picturing a particle would be to start with the schematic for the propagation of light. Light is a transpose waveform, writhing through eternity... Imagine rather, that the waveform isn't going anywhere. It's sitting still, writhing. Particles are a concentration of a lot of energy so imagine many waveforms there, writhing. Do you recall the spherical/circular/three band/time-space travel thing popularized in the movie "Contact". Imagine the structure of those bands are more like chain-lightning than actual bands. Are you familiar with how those things move? They are kind of weird. To make matters worse, we must make them weirder still: since this is a transpose system, we must also imagine the bands shrink to nothing then back again, just like light does. Now reconcile those thoughts: the standing waveform and sphere thing in action. If we did it right we have about the best model of a particle humanity has ever produced (the precise model I'm working with may be a bit more refined... -no peeking, you'll know when I publish the math). It is mostly open space. I suggest to not worry if you have difficulties visualizing the structure of particles.  Just keep in mind the structure of particles dynamically exist throughout the volume.  Particles are mostly open space themselves, and their structure is constantly on the move. 

As for time, imagine our particle again. Imagine that mess isn't writhing or osculating, that photon isn't propagating, that we took a picture of it or something. I think we would all agree that picture would represent an instance in time. Subsequent instances could rightfully be construed as propagation of time. Time is exactly that. Time is energy's capacity to transmute, its ability to writhe, to propagate. It is no more complicated than that. The inherent structure of energy/matter gives us time.   Time is an emergent property born of particles' dynamic nature.  It is not tied to anything else. The universe as a whole has no direct association with time. The existence of the universe did not bestow us with time, having energetic constitutes did. Conglomerations of mass within the universe are able to evolve because their constitutes are energetic. Humans make a bigger deal out of time than the universe does. The universe exists independent of time.

[Also: A quick look at the properties of time along with a little conservation of energy will completely refute the notion of time travel. It's not a technical feat, it's pure fantasy.   When you look into the night sky you see stars. That essentially means you have absorbed and incorporated energy into your being that originated all across the cosmos. Likewise, your body temperature exists far above absolute zero. That means you have been a radiation source that has been lighting up this section of the galaxy since you were born. The energy that makes us is essentially transient and it is so deeply and intricately interwoven into the rest of the universe we could never be isolated from it. Time travel is asking the universe to completely reconstruct itself without your energy -Not gonna happen; no rebuilding the universe unless you're here to join us. Besides, time does not exist as a dimension, there's nowhere to go. Thinking of time as a dimension is a very effective and beautiful way to track how the universe is interacting, but that model does NOT directly apply to the nature of the universe. The only thing we can infer from the existence of time is that the universe's constitutes are dynamic.]

The astute observer might notice this essay impacts facets of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They won't reconcile because both are behavioral models which have no understanding of the actual structure of the universe. They work great for telling how things behave but they fail when it comes to telling us what it is.   For instance: time is a dimension? Would someone care to explain how time manifests in that view? Precisely how does that 4th dimension interact with our dimensions to produce all these wonderful properties??? Actually no, let's utilize some intellectual integrity here and admit some of the shortcoming of Relativity...  You see, considering time to be a fourth dimension essentially renders it as an abstract concept to the universe.   Time is not an abstract concept to the universe!  Time is a very real phenomenon.  Likewise, time dilation is a very real phenomenon, born of very real mechanical and tangible circumstances.   Relativity is incapable of telling us anything about it!   Relativity does tell us how to calculate *some* values, but it utterly fails when it comes to providing any sensical description of what time actually is, how related phenomena arises in the universe, or how it interacts with other known traits of the universe.    What Relativity tells us is how things behave; it is rather incapable of telling us why things behave that way because it doesn't understand/address the physical nature of those things.   

Back in the day Einstein and Bohr were having a chat about Quantum Mechanics. Bohr was essentially saying the mathematics of QM *was* the essence of the particles it was describing. Einstein disagreed. Academia sided with Bohr, still does. Einstein was much closer to the truth than we give him credit for. Einstein was a little to tightly bound to his logical structure to get it entirely right; the universe is not deterministic as he thought it to be. And he should have had a chat with Feynman -mother nature isn't spooky, she's clever!  However, in spite of Einstein's denial of much of QM, I feel as though Einstein wins that argument... he was right!   The argument was about causality more than anything...  -mice and men don't determine anything; the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is smoking crack; particles and events are not arbitrary. Particles do have definite structure; it's a dynamic structure, to be sure, but a decisive one none the less. The universe doesn't resolve out of every possibility, whatever goes down was more or less coming. The indeterminism of our universe arises from how those our particles interact, their dynamic nature makes that tricky. This is where Bohr comes in: we can't know the precise state that particle, or how it will interact with another particle in another unknown state. Particle physics (QM/the Standard Model) cannot distinguish the forest from their proverbial trees. They still think the math of behavior translates directly into the math of structure. -Um no, it don't work that way. What we really need is a structural model of particles that wave probability equations can be derived from: note our particle above!

Wave/particle "duality" is not an answer, it's an admission of ignorance. Again, note our particle above... Particles behave like waves -yea, because their inherently dynamic structure behaves in a wave-like fashion. Particles behave like point like entities -yea, because fundamental particles may dynamically exist in a relatively large volume but they will only interact at a single point... Oh, have you done a double slit experiment with them yet? You'll love it! Keep in mind that structural model of particles represents the structure of the wall your slits are carved into, not just your projectiles. Is QM suddenly more sensical to you?   What if I told you that the physical cause of time dilation was the structure of particles getting slowed down thanks to the structure getting "caught up" with gravitation?   4th dimension, indeed...  -good luck with that, modern science!

[Bluenose]

Bollocks

[Rift Zone]

Bollocks

How so?    feel free to substantiate that.

[Tank]

Solid matter is an illusion.  At our scale it's a rather convincing illusion, but it is illusion none the less. When we think of atoms we might have a tendency to think of little balls. We might think of something solid. We imagine it to be a thing, or a few things clumped together. It's nothing like that. If we could see an atomic nucleus in the every day sense of the word/at a comfortable scale we would not see "things", we would see energy... That nucleus has the personality of a Tesla coil.

Perhaps the best way to picture a particle would be to imagine the schematic for a lithium atom.   A common representation includes some center structure and three orbits around it.  Since we're concerned with individual particles, not the atoms they form, let's ignore the center structure and focus on the schematic for the electron orbits themselves.   Just as space has three dimensions that are all perpendicular to another, so do particles' structure...   E=mc^2 is true not because "energy" has the capacity to transmute forms, it's true because the inherent form NEVER changes; particles are literally made of light, lots of it, in mutual association.  So the character of that structure we're talking about within particles is fundamentally indistinguishable from the structure of light , with the exception that light only has 2 axial elements while their mutually associated state (particles) have 3 axial elements.   Light, of course, has a crazy structure with elements that include angular momentum as well as transverse.  And extrapolating light's form into a 3 axial structure makes the system all the more complicated...  Of course, this is QM, being inherently complicated simply comes with the territory.   Another rough approach to picturing a particle would be to start with the schematic for the propagation of light. Light is a transpose waveform, writhing through eternity... Imagine rather, that the waveform isn't going anywhere. It's sitting still, writhing. Particles are a concentration of a lot of energy so imagine many waveforms there, writhing. Do you recall the spherical/circular/three band/time-space travel thing popularized in the movie "Contact". Imagine the structure of those bands are more like chain-lightning than actual bands. Are you familiar with how those things move? They are kind of weird. To make matters worse, we must make them weirder still: since this is a transpose system, we must also imagine the bands shrink to nothing then back again, just like light does. Now reconcile those thoughts: the standing waveform and sphere thing in action. If we did it right we have about the best model of a particle humanity has ever produced (the precise model I'm working with may be a bit more refined... -no peeking, you'll know when I publish the math). It is mostly open space. I suggest to not worry if you have difficulties visualizing the structure of particles.  Just keep in mind the structure of particles dynamically exist throughout the volume.  Particles are mostly open space themselves, and their structure is constantly on the move. 

As for time, imagine our particle again. Imagine that mess isn't writhing or osculating, that photon isn't propagating, that we took a picture of it or something. I think we would all agree that picture would represent an instance in time. Subsequent instances could rightfully be construed as propagation of time. Time is exactly that. Time is energy's capacity to transmute, its ability to writhe, to propagate. It is no more complicated than that. The inherent structure of energy/matter gives us time.   Time is an emergent property born of particles' dynamic nature.  It is not tied to anything else. The universe as a whole has no direct association with time. The existence of the universe did not bestow us with time, having energetic constitutes did. Conglomerations of mass within the universe are able to evolve because their constitutes are energetic. Humans make a bigger deal out of time than the universe does. The universe exists independent of time.

[Also: A quick look at the properties of time along with a little conservation of energy will completely refute the notion of time travel. It's not a technical feat, it's pure fantasy.   When you look into the night sky you see stars. That essentially means you have absorbed and incorporated energy into your being that originated all across the cosmos. Likewise, your body temperature exists far above absolute zero. That means you have been a radiation source that has been lighting up this section of the galaxy since you were born. The energy that makes us is essentially transient and it is so deeply and intricately interwoven into the rest of the universe we could never be isolated from it. Time travel is asking the universe to completely reconstruct itself without your energy -Not gonna happen; no rebuilding the universe unless you're here to join us. Besides, time does not exist as a dimension, there's nowhere to go. Thinking of time as a dimension is a very effective and beautiful way to track how the universe is interacting, but that model does NOT directly apply to the nature of the universe. The only thing we can infer from the existence of time is that the universe's constitutes are dynamic.]

The astute observer might notice this essay impacts facets of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They won't reconcile because both are behavioral models which have no understanding of the actual structure of the universe. They work great for telling how things behave but they fail when it comes to telling us what it is.   For instance: time is a dimension? Would someone care to explain how time manifests in that view? Precisely how does that 4th dimension interact with our dimensions to produce all these wonderful properties??? Actually no, let's utilize some intellectual integrity here and admit some of the shortcoming of Relativity...  You see, considering time to be a fourth dimension essentially renders it as an abstract concept to the universe.   Time is not an abstract concept to the universe!  Time is a very real phenomenon.  Likewise, time dilation is a very real phenomenon, born of very real mechanical and tangible circumstances.   Relativity is incapable of telling us anything about it!   Relativity does tell us how to calculate *some* values, but it utterly fails when it comes to providing any sensical description of what time actually is, how related phenomena arises in the universe, or how it interacts with other known traits of the universe.    What Relativity tells us is how things behave; it is rather incapable of telling us why things behave that way because it doesn't understand/address the physical nature of those things.   

Back in the day Einstein and Bohr were having a chat about Quantum Mechanics. Bohr was essentially saying the mathematics of QM *was* the essence of the particles it was describing. Einstein disagreed. Academia sided with Bohr, still does. Einstein was much closer to the truth than we give him credit for. Einstein was a little to tightly bound to his logical structure to get it entirely right; the universe is not deterministic as he thought it to be. And he should have had a chat with Feynman -mother nature isn't spooky, she's clever!  However, in spite of Einstein's denial of much of QM, I feel as though Einstein wins that argument... he was right!   The argument was about causality more than anything...  -mice and men don't determine anything; the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is smoking crack; particles and events are not arbitrary. Particles do have definite structure; it's a dynamic structure, to be sure, but a decisive one none the less. The universe doesn't resolve out of every possibility, whatever goes down was more or less coming. The indeterminism of our universe arises from how those our particles interact, their dynamic nature makes that tricky. This is where Bohr comes in: we can't know the precise state that particle, or how it will interact with another particle in another unknown state. Particle physics (QM/the Standard Model) cannot distinguish the forest from their proverbial trees. They still think the math of behavior translates directly into the math of structure. -Um no, it don't work that way. What we really need is a structural model of particles that wave probability equations can be derived from: note our particle above!

Wave/particle "duality" is not an answer, it's an admission of ignorance. Again, note our particle above... Particles behave like waves -yea, because their inherently dynamic structure behaves in a wave-like fashion. Particles behave like point like entities -yea, because fundamental particles may dynamically exist in a relatively large volume but they will only interact at a single point... Oh, have you done a double slit experiment with them yet? You'll love it! Keep in mind that structural model of particles represents the structure of the wall your slits are carved into, not just your projectiles. Is QM suddenly more sensical to you?   What if I told you that the physical cause of time dilation was the structure of particles getting slowed down thanks to the structure getting "caught up" with gravitation?   4th dimension, indeed...  -good luck with that, modern science!

[No one]

[Old Seer]

Having encountered much of this during my lifetime, I have to ask. If life is an illusion how does one who claims such know them self that they're not under an illusion to claim such. That means that an illusion is a secondary illusion, and every illusion would have to be accompanied by another illusion. If matter is an illusion how does one know that. I see you mention "equations" in your presentation---How? does one find an equation for an illusion,. The equation would have to be an illusion. If you yourself are an illusion (being your physical is matter) then you don't exist to be under an illusion. If one can express the term illusion, then there has to be an origin of the illusion, and that would mean the the illusion would have to be generated by something real. Esplain. But  if you explain it, how am I to know what you explain isn't an illusion. So, you don't exist, so who/what am I talking to.

[Rift Zone]

Illusion?   na, it aint like that.    matter, solid things are an illusion.   we're made up of stuff that is very dynamic, that's all.   it's very real, it's just way cooler than we ever imagined it to be.   

[Old Seer]

l·lu·sion
iˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: illusion; plural noun: illusions

    a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
    "the illusion makes parallel lines seem to diverge by placing them on a zigzag-striped background"
    synonyms:   mirage, hallucination, apparition, figment of the imagination, trick of the light, trompe l'oeil; More
    deception, trick, smoke and mirrors
    "it's just an illusion"
    (magic) trick, conjuring trick;
    magic, conjuring, sleight of hand, legerdemain
    "Houdini's amazing illusions"
        a deceptive appearance or impression.
        "the illusion of family togetherness"
        synonyms:   appearance, impression, semblance; More
        misperception, false appearance;
        raresimulacrum
        "the lighting increases the illusion of depth"
        a false idea or belief.
        "he had no illusions about the trouble she was in"
        synonyms:   delusion, misapprehension, misconception, false impression; More

So matter then is a false impression. If everything is an illusion how would we know that. I think science fiction has been around long enough that people morphed into believe "it" rather then fact.
There are no aliens on planet earth. The distances are to great to get here, and being one cannot travel the speed of light, which would be needed to get anywhere in the universe reasonably, no one's spacecraft would last 2000 years. The periodic table says what in the universe and there isn't anything different anywhere else. Space is to overrun with micro meteorites and dust any space vehicle would be destroyed by the great cosmic sanding belt.
The problem here is--reality. The common denominator for making all these ideas work is "the super smart aliens". Apparently they can do or figure out anything. Physics is the same everywhere and there's no magic people or materials/matter. If things are an illusion then nothing exists to even comprehend there's such a thing that everything is an illusion. Question- How can one live in an illusion if the person themself would have to be an illusion. The universe wasn't constructed from magic, and it contains no magic.