Time ... and space

[inavalan]

I would really like to understand Seth's explanation of "time", and also of "space".

I guess that part of my difficulty arises from Jane's wording of the information she channeled, as she didn't get it worded out, but as chunks of knowledge (this is the way channeling works, as telepathy does too).

My current understanding of "time" and "space", which I haven't yet correlated with Seth's teachings, is that our physical time and space are, for the entities that materialized as us, the same way we think about time and space in our dreams. The time and space in my dreams are independent of the time and space I experience here, on Earth. Dream events can appear to happen sometime in my past, my future, or out of my timeline, no matter my "now".

(As a side note, I believe that for the entity that incarnated in me, I, my problems, my well-being, as well as all the other people and situations I'm aware of, all these are thought of by this entity very similarly to the way I (here and now on Earth) perceive me-in-my-dream, his problems, his well-being, as well as all the other dream characters and situations. Nothing more, nothing less.)

So, it isn't that all things happen in the same moment, and in the same infinitely small point-space, but that I instantly can focus my attention anytime and anywhere into my dream's time and space. Using my imagination, I can affect and create the reality of my dream any way I want to, and if I become lucid in my dream I can do all of those from inside of my dream.

Surely, there is no way to irrefutably prove any such ideas and models, but I really can't swallow the simultaneous-time concept, the eternal-now, and such. I tend to agree with somebody on an older thread that wrote that he believed that Jane mis-channeled this subject, through the filter of her understanding and beliefs.

I'd be grateful if somebody understood Seth on these, and could point to the paragraph that spells it out, hopefully, to my understanding.

Thanks.

[Deb]

Surely, there is no way to irrefutably prove any such ideas and models, but I really can't swallow the simultaneous-time concept, the eternal-now, and such. I tend to agree with somebody on an older thread that wrote that he believed that Jane mis-channeled this subject, through the filter of her understanding and beliefs.

I'd be grateful if somebody understood Seth on these, and could point to the paragraph that spells it out, hopefully, to my understanding.

Maybe not a paragraph, but a session... you know me. Wordy. And I have seen articles where science, or physics, consider simultaneous time.

Even though I don't have a complete understanding of the time/space thing, I think trying to answer your questions will give me better a understanding. That's usually the way things go for me. Up to now I've just accepted I don't truly comprehend them and have resigned myself for the time being to accept Seth's word on simultaneous time and (the illusion of) space.These are two concepts that Seth had tried to explain over and over in the books, using different analogies, so he understood how difficult they are for someone currently existing in F1 to fathom. Time and space seem to be part of the construct here in F1 in order for us to be focused and functioning in this reality.

Here below is what I thought was one of Seth's best attempts to explain time, his walking in the forest analogy. I'll have to find material on space later when I have more time (lol). I remember one explanation involving a doll on a dresser. And let me say again, The Early Session books are chock full of really valuable material. This is very long, but I couldn't just do an excerpt because it's all tied together. Just click the plus sign in the spoiler to open the box. Note to myself: Read this as many times as it takes for it to really sink in.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

[jbseth]

Hi inavalan, Hi Deb, Hi All,

Great reply Deb. That's exactly where I would have gone (the spacious present tree analogy) regarding time. As far as space goes, I'd say TECS ESP Class Session June 23, 1970:

I have said this before also. If you were able to focus your attention upon the dissimilarities, merely those that you can perceive but do not, then you would be amazed that mankind could form any idea of an organized reality. I look now between the two of you (looking at the couch where Natalie S. and Arnold were sitting). When the others look at our friends here on the fancy blue couch, they see a picture of true organization. There is an individual here and an individual here on the blue couch with space between. The picture is equalized. It appears perfect and organized. However, the space between our two friends is not vacant. You merely perceive it as vacant because you do not perceive what is there. And so the picture is very organized.

As soon as you realize however that the picture is not complete, then you must begin to ask new questions, and the old idea of the perfect organization is gone. Now as you know, you do not perceive the atoms and molecules that swim about the room nor the atoms and molecules that fill this space between our friends, nor the forces—the field forces—that exist. The couch serves to unite them since they sit upon it. And what do they sit upon? Do you all know—emptiness that you perceive as solidity. Now, without your particular physical perfection you would not perceive the couch as solid. And consciousness that has different perceptive mechanisms than your own is unaware of our now famous blue couch. You make the organization your thoughts perceive as organization. You enforce the organization and indeed create it.

[...]

Now, you each generally agree, I am sure, that you sit upon a couch. You do not perceive the same couch. You only perceive your own idea constructions. You cannot perceive those of another. Telepathically you transpose your ideas in line with what you know of the other person's thinking. You agree that the couch is here. Now, it is true that within your physical system—for I know this will come next from our friend Florence—you can measure your couch. I expect at any moment anyone will get a ruler and measure it and then say to me that the couch is so long—how can you say it is not one couch? However, within your physical system the instruments themselves are distorted and, of course, they will agree with what they measure. There is no reason why they should not. Telepathically you all agree upon the placement of objects and their dimensions.


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi inavalan,

I don't know if this will help or not but I found some answers for myself to this issue of simultaneous time in Jane's book, "The Education of Oversoul Seven".

In this book, Oversoul Seven is an entity that has 4 lives.  Proteus, in the 22nd or 23rd Century, Livia in the 20th Century, Joseph in the 16th or 17th Century and Ma'ah who lived something like 35,000 years ago.

In this book, there's a point where Ma'ah, at her time, is looking at some tiles on the floor of a building. In addition to this, Proteus, in his time, has seen these same tiles from an archaeological dig of this building. In the next moment in Ma'ah's reality, she get angry, grabs a rock and severely scratches up one of these tiles. Then, the next day, when Proteus goes and look at these same tiles, he notices that one of the tiles that wasn't scratched up in his time yesterday, is now severely scratched up.


If you're looking for scientific proof that what Seth and Jane says about space and time will necessarily match up with what science tells us about space and time, then I'm not sure you're going to be able to find it.


I do think however that there seems to be some truth to the statement that people do perceive, what they choose to believe. Thus there are scientists who firmly believe in the reductionist concepts and seem to perceive that life actually works that way, while others who believe in Seth, or some other channel, or some medium, or some religion, for example, has to say.


- jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Oh, by the way, the ESP Class Session that I mentioned above, on June 23, 1970, is located in the Appendix of "Seth Speaks".

-jbseth

[inavalan]

Thank you @Deb Thank you @jbseth

I'll check out your suggestions.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

In something I downloaded from this forum, Seth said that time and space was the duration of an event. Or that which encapsulates the duration of an event. The parameters an event exists within.

That weirdly makes sense to me.

[inavalan]

Hi All,

In something I downloaded from this forum, Seth said that time and space was the duration of an event. Or that which encapsulates the duration of an event. The parameters an event exists within.

That weirdly makes sense to me.

I guess this means that my event, meaning my life on Earth, is associated with a unique set of (time,space) coordinates, that form a "slice" of time and space that is mine only. Each incarnated personality has its own "slice" ...

Any (time,space) point from that "slice" can be accessed randomly form the "above" reality, and could also be accessed by us, while alive here on Earth, if we learned to control our focus of attention ...

[T.M.]

Hi Inavalan,

Yes Seth was talking about an event(s) that have significance(s) to the person involved in the event.

[Deb]

All those imply a succession of events in Seth's level of Reality, a kind of "time" that flows in a single direction. It is like from his vantage point any point in our "time" can be accessed in any order, but this isn't the same for Seth's level of "time".

Or, maybe I just unconsciously try to validate my current dream like model of links between our identities and our personalities' Realities.

The personality, even as you know it, is never static, always changing, and even the ego is not the same from one day to the next.

It seems to me like this topic and the one about the Long Island Medium have reached a confluence! I find that very interesting. Your mention of Seth being able to access events in any order reminded me of him explaining how when he would see the session attendees from his perspective, he would see all of their incarnations at one time and would have to make an effort (or use Jane's vision) to focus on which incarnate personality he was addressing at the "time." Two quotes below, to me they also fit in what T.M. said about events that have significance to the person, in this case it would be the personality (ego).

Focus can be attributed to many characteristics of our current plane of existence, so we can concentrate on what we came here to do. Space and time are root assumptions in this system ("those laws upon which you agree in any system of reality" SS Appendix 06/23/70).

"You think that the bodies that you have are permanent, but it is highly difficult for me to see the specific bodies that you now occupy, since I see you in all your reincarnational involvements and some of them have been highly involved indeed!"
—TECS1 ESP Class Session, January 14, 1969

"I see each of you now with Ruburt's eyes closed as you have been in past reincarnations and as you will be. And with Ruburt's eyes closed there is some difficulty for I must focus psychically in order to find you as you think you are now, for I see all of you. I see all of what you are. But it is difficult for me, with Ruburt's eyes closed, for me to see you as you imagine yourself to be at this particular point in space and time. With Ruburt's eyes open, I can see you as he sees you as a particular personality in this particular space and time and then, you see, I can place you within your own development."
—TECS1 ESP Class Session, March 12, 1968

For a little comic relief, a jingle "it's about time, it's about space" has been running through my head for the past day. I had no idea what the song was related to, other than a tv show. Well, I found it, a tv show I no doubt watched when I was a kid. It's about two astronauts that travel back to the stone age by accident. I have no memory of the show other than the jingle.

Be prepared for some amazing special effects, lol.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I think that when Seth tells us that all time is simultaneous, he literally means just that.

Seth had some interesting things to say about "time" in NOPR, Ch 9, Session 635, which I've posted below.

In this session, he says that "all time is simultaneous". He also says that our present self, our future selves and our past selves are all still happening. Then he says that the reason why we don't realize this is because our linear-attuned consciousness can't perceive on that level.

I suspect that this (our linear-attuned consciousness, which can't perceive on that level) may be the reason why we have such a hard time, understanding / grasping / believing the concept that all time is simultaneous.







NOPR, Chapter 9, Session 636: (Bold font is mine)

Just prior to the first paragraph below, Seth is talking about "natural guilt" and he says that, "It is meant as a precautionary measure, a reminder before and event." Following this he says: 

"Do not do this again," is only the afterward message. I am placing these concepts within your time scheme because in your terms they were born out of it. But the fact is that all "time" is simultaneous.

In a simultaneous time, punishment makes no sense. The punishment as an event, and the event for which you were being punished, exist at once; and since there is no past, present and future, you could just as well say that the punishment came first.

[...]

Now: The greater your "period" of reflection, the greater the amount of time that seems to pass between events.

You seem to think that there is an expanse of time between reincarnational existences, that one follows the other as one moment seems to follow another. Because you perceive a reality of cause and effect, you hypothesize a reality in which one life affects the next one. With your theories of guilt and punishment you often imagine that you are hampered in this existence by guilts collected in the last life — or worse, accumulated through the centuries.

These multiple existences, however, are simultaneous and open-ended. In your terms the conscious mind is growing toward a realization of the part it has to play in such multidimensional reality. It is enough that you understand your part in this existence. When you fully comprehend that you form what you think of as your current reality, all else will fall into place.

Your beliefs, thoughts and feelings are instantly materialized physically. Their earthly reality occurs simultaneously with their inception, but in the world of time, lapses between appear to occur. So I say one causes the other, and I use those terms to help you understand, but all are at once. So are your multiple lives occurring as the immediate realization of your being in the natural extension of its many-faceted abilities.

"At once" does not imply a finished state of perfection nor a cosmic situation in which all things have been done, for all things are still happening. You are still happening — but both present and future selves; and your past self is still undergoing what you think is done. Moreover, it is experiencing events that you do not recall, that your linear-attuned consciousness cannot perceive on that level.
 

-jbseth

[inavalan]

... Here below is what I thought was one of Seth's best attempts to explain time, his walking in the forest analogy. ...

@Deb Thank you for the TES2 Session 54 quote. Very interesting, but I might be thick enough not to get it about such statements:

• "time as you think of it does not exist" ... so, is there a time, but not as we think of?
  
• "the cause and effect theory does not follow" ... I should've expected this, but really, no cause-effect?
  
• "we will call the whole forest, if you can conceive of it, the spacious present" ... so, is it "present" because he calls it so? still the forest has many trees, even if you do not see them in space.
  
• "There is no past, present or future in your terms within it, but only a now" ... but in so many places Seth talks in terms of before and after events. Even "event" implies something happening, a before and an after, not only in my terms.
  
• "Therefore there is no need, really, to think of a given group of entities before the birth of your planet. I have said that all the entities who would ever dwell upon your plane did exist, and actually have a hand in on the creation of your planet" ... so there was a birth of our planet, and the entities existed before that, isn't it?
  
• "Nothing can be static, and believe it or not, nothing is." ... change implies different phases, a succession, something that was one way (was = past) and is different (is = not a past anymore).

Why I don't give up on understanding "time"? Because one of the first q&a I had with inner knowledge was:

what is time: consecutive segments that aren't in order, just our physical bias concatenates them, because of our expectation

Later, investigating deeper, I was given that the dream-time (time perceived while in my dreams) is unrelated to my awake-time (time perceived when I'm awake). So, I can dream about one of those dream-time segments, then later dream about another dream-time segment that can be in any relation with the previous dream-time segment.

This sound like what TM was writing, doesn't it?

All this is like the life-between-lives regression, where no matter from which past-life you pass on into the afterlife, you can end up only in the same "current" afterlife.

Or, no matter when the scenario from my dream takes place (childhood, present, tomorrow, in another Universe, ...) I wake up in the same "current" time when I fell asleep.

But, Seth seems to say something different.

I'll probably just put this on hold for now, and revisit it later (in my terms  ).

[inavalan]

NOPR, Chapter 9, Session 636:

Thanks @jbseth . It still doesn't make sense to me. Until I'll get it, I'll continue using my similarly-with-dreaming time model as a working hypothesis.

The "there is no cause-effect", in my current understanding, means only that our successive incarnations don't happen in Earth time chronology, so whatever happens to me during this life may be influenced by something that will happen in a future life (in my terms ), and not necessarily only by a chronologically-past life. I'm talking from the perspective of the thought-forms our thoughts create, and which affect how we create our reality.

[inavalan]

I just found this discussion about "Understanding simultaneous time", with contributions from 2015 to 2018. Interesting to see how others struggled with this concept.

https://sethtalks.com/t/understanding-simultaneous-time/314

[inavalan]

There is also this compilation of various concepts (2004), including "time" about 2/3 of the document:

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

[chasman]

I just searched at finding seth for "spacious present".

hope it is of some help:

https://findingseth.com/q/'spacious+present'/

[inavalan]

I just searched at finding seth for "spacious present".

hope it is of some help:

https://findingseth.com/q/'spacious+present'/

Thanks! There are some interesting quotes in this collection.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

I got that from, Members only section, downloads. All Seth's Exercises compiled, on Batfans link.

I'm not sure which exercise though, as I kind started reading through the material as a book addition.
If I recall correctly, he said time was the duration of an event(s), space was where the event(s) happen.
It's based upon personal significances to the individual.

I know Seth says we can relive an event. Even to the extant of personally altering it, follow the road not taken, and find a different outcomes, especially after death.

I just took it all to mean that, if an event is highly significant to us in some way, it's with us till we've played out all options that interest us, about it, then it fades away.

What I was searching for when I found the material, was a literal as I could get definition of what time is. I was thinking of it in an objective way. Turns out it may all well be subjective.

[Deb]

Wow guys, thanks for all the things to read!

In my mind I can "get" the concept of simultaneous time to a degree, thanks to Seth's explanations. But when I really think more deeply of what that means, I get lost. The same way I feel when I contemplate infinity: eventually I'd hit a mental wall, not being able to comprehend no beginning and no end to anything.

I wonder if Lynda Dahl has much about that in her books? She's usually really great about simplifying Seth. I have three of her books, I'll see what I can come up with. The SethTalk forum and Andy Hughes paper are promising. Andy's marked copy cites where he found the information, but he seems to have given up. I'm not even sure if he's still alive, his last edits were 10 years ago. I also have Paul Helfrich's Seth the Ultimate Guide book and Barrie's latest Q&A book. It may take some time for me to look through all of these books and add here what turns up.

I've pretty much accepted that I can't fully understand the concepts of time and space as explained by Seth, because I'm living in this system where we chose to have time and space. I've been okay with that.

Karma and cause and effect lose meaning in an existence where everything and every probability and incarnation exist at the same time, and continue to exist. So someone claiming they are being punished for something they did in a past life doesn't make sense when there is no "past" -- incarnations and probabilities are simultaneous, not sequential, and the "past" as we define it is really just a different dimension or frequency (not the best words to demonstrate what I'm trying to say). So yes, we could peek into our other selves on a conscious level if we could break our stranglehold focus on only this existence. Seth said we psychically communicate with our other selves on a regular basis. When I start thinking about not only my other incarnations and probable selves, but that THEY all have infinite probable selves too, is where I get overwhelmed. Too much to consider.

Seth uses "I was" "I am" "is now" "changed since then" "I keep ... but ... I change"

All those imply a succession of events in Seth's level of Reality, a kind of "time" that flows in a single direction. It is like from his vantage point any point in our "time" can be accessed in any order, but this isn't the same for Seth's level of "time".

I'm trying to figure out all of this too. I wish we could just ask Seth and get an answer! I can say that Seth says repeatedly throughout the books, especially when he talks about time, that he had to use words that we could understand from our current perspective of linear time, so he used words such as past, present, future. He may well explain somewhere what he meant about time not existing "as we think of it." That does leave some question, did he mean time does not exist at all, or is there some form of time in F2 and other systems?

I think for my next birthday I'm going to buy myself whatever Early Sessions and Deleted Sessions I'm currently missing.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Since we all come from different backgrounds and we all have had different life experiences, I doubt seriously that there are any 2 people in this forum who would agree with each other on all the details and workings of every single idea and concept that Seth had to share with us.

I'd say that this is OK and probably just as it should be.  I'd also say that it is from these differences that we get the opportunity to learn and grow. 



When I think about this topic of space and time, I think about what Seth had to say about our physical senses. As I recall, he said something to the effect that they are "lovely liars".

When I stand on the Oregon coast and I look to the west, to the north and to the south out over the Pacific Ocean, all I see is water. Furthermore, this water goes all the way to the horizon and the horizon appears to be a straight flat line. 

When I observe the sky, I notice that both the sun and the moon appear to always rise in the east and set in the west. Along with this, I have no sense that the earth below me is actually travelling through space. It certainly doesn't feel like it's moving.

Thus, my physical senses seem to indicate that the earth is flat and that both the sun and the moon circle around the earth.

On the other hand, scientists tell us that the earth, the moon and sun are actually spherical in shape. Furthermore, they also tell us that the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, and the earth revolves around on its axis, once every 24 hours.

Thus, we can see that sometimes what our physical senses tells us about our reality, isn't necessarily true.


From Newtonian physics, it appears that in our reality, time occurs as we physically move through space. On the other hand, more recent learnings in physics, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity and quantum physics, tells us that spacetime, works much differently than what we had previously thought. Then later, Seth comes along and says that "all time is simultaneous".


To be clear here, I'm not saying that I know for a fact that Seth is correct when he says that "all time is simultaneous".  I'm just trying to point out how it might be erroneous to conclude that when Seth says that "all time is simultaneous", this can't be true because our physical senses and our physical experience in this reality don't appear to agree with it.


-jbseth

[T.M.]

Hi All,

When I was around 15 years old, I had what I call a 4 way dream. I became aware I was dreaming, and was involved with 4 separate dreams at the same time. One of the neatest experiences I've ever had.
It was surprisingly easy to keep track of and be involved in 4 different scenarios at the same time.
Sadly I've never been able, or consciously have remembered doing so again.
I wonder if this is a glimpse of simultaneous time.
Each dream had its own characters and time period. None of which I could tell at the time being related to each other.

[inavalan]

... scientists tell us that ... the earth orbits the sun ...

It seems that they changed their minds ... 

Technically, what is going on is that the Earth, Sun and all the planets are orbiting around the center of mass of the solar system. ...

The center of mass of our solar system very close to the Sun itself, but not exactly at the Sun's center (it is actually a little bit outside the radius of the Sun). ...

Also this.

[inavalan]

This comes on my alley ... a little:

"A death is but one night to the soul. The vaster entity of which you are part follows your progress as easily as you follow your own through the days. As a rule most of you wake up in the same bed in the same house or town, but certainly you wake up as the same person in the same century. In those terms the entity wakes up as a different person each day, in a different century, each life seeming like a day in its level of experience. It carries the memory and simultaneous experience of each of those selves."
—NoPR Chapter 14: Session 655, April 11, 1973

[inavalan]

This makes sense to me:

Synonyms of simultaneous: coetaneous, coeval, coexistent, coexisting, coextensive, coincident, coincidental, concurrent, contemporaneous, contemporary, coterminous, synchronic, synchronous

coetaneous == of the same age or duration.
             the Spanish founding of San Francisco and the British colonies' declaration of independence from the mother country were coetaneous events that occurred on opposite ends of the continent

[LenKop]

I think another thing we forget when thinking of time, is the feeling of time. How time and space work from an emotive perspective are often not even considered.

Also, trying to understand time and space while within time and space might be one of the reasons our linear minds boggle at concepts such as simultaneous time.

'Now the origin of the universe that you know, as I have described it, was of course a master event. The initial action did not occur in space and time, but formed space and time.'

he goes on...

'You must remember , then, when you think in terms of origins, that the very word, "origin," is dependent upon time conventions, and a belief in beginnings and endings. Beginnings and endings are themselves effects that seem to be facts to your perceptions. In a fashion they simply represent beginnings and endings, the boundaries, the reaches and the limitations of your own span of attention.'

Dremas, "Evolution" and Value Fulfillment, session 919 (underlines are in the book)

The master event stuff is pretty cool.

Len

[jbseth]

I think another thing we forget when thinking of time, is the feeling of time. How time and space work from an emotive perspective are often not even considered.

Hi LenKop,

Are you referring to the idea that when someone's having fun, times seems to fly by, but when someone's doing something really boring or when they're waiting expectantly for something to happen, time seems to move dog slow.

I personally think of these types of situations as variations of "psychological time".

-jbseth

[LenKop]

Hey jb,

Yes, that kind of thing.

But something tells me there are far greater dimensions to it that we are not yet aware of as we are often caught in the struggle to analyze it.

My belief system associates 'psychological time' with a pleasant, internal exercise, which I believe it was (at least initially). I think many of those experiences (such as time flying, time dragging) are often either appreciated with hindsight, or are experienced without a conscious, creative effort (who would want to create a feeling of time dragging?)

For me it's always about the creativity. I think being able to make time fly, or make the moment longer, etc, consciously, would not only enhance life but also perhaps help understand time and space a little better.

Len

[jbseth]

Hi LenKop,

As I recall, it was while reading my very first Seth book, "Seth Speaks" that I really started to seriously think about time. Is time really a series of moments of equal duration, or is time actually influenced by our emotional states (happy – time moves fast, bored or sad – time moves slow). He also got me to start thinking about space in a similar fashion.

I understand what you're saying here about time and I think that we're probably on the same page.  Thanks for bringing this up by the way. 

-jbseth

[Deb]

Also, trying to understand time and space while within time and space might be one of the reasons our linear minds boggle at concepts such as simultaneous time.

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. We can't see the forest for the trees—we have a lack of an objective perspective.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Physicists tell us that an objects apparent motion in space-time, is very dependent upon the perspective of the observer.



A ball thrown sideways in a spacecraft travelling at a constant speed in a gravity-free region will follow a straight-line path. The distance that this ball travels depends upon the perspective of the observer. For an inside observer the distance travelled by the ball appears to be the length of the inside of the spacecraft as in Figure 1.

For an outside stationary observer, the distance travelled by the ball appears to be the much greater distance it travelled across space, as shown in Figure 2.

How far did the ball travel? The answer depends upon the perspective of the observer.




A ball thrown sideways in a spacecraft in a gravity-free region will follow a straight-line path. If the spacecraft accelerates at the moment, the ball is thrown, the shape of the path that the ball takes during its flight depends upon the perspective of the observer.

For an outside stationary observer, the ball appears to follow a straight-line path as it travels across the spacecraft, as in Figure 3.

For an inside observer, the ball appears to follow a curved line parabolic path as it approaches the floor, as in Figure 4.

What path did the ball travel as it crossed the spacecraft? Once again, the answer depends upon the perspective of the observer.



When Seth shares with us his concepts about how space and time works, maybe the reason that we have such as hard time grasping and dealing with these ideas, is because we see things from an inside (physical reality) perspective, and he sees things from an outside (physical reality) perspective.

- jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Physicists tell us that an objects apparent motion in space-time, is very dependent upon the perspective of the observer.



A ball thrown sideways in a spacecraft travelling at a constant speed in a gravity-free region will follow a straight-line path. The distance that this ball travels depends upon the perspective of the observer. For an inside observer the distance travelled by the ball appears to be the length of the inside of the spacecraft as in Figure 1.

For an outside stationary observer, the distance travelled by the ball appears to be the much greater distance it travelled across space, as shown in Figure 2.

How far did the ball travel? The answer depends upon the perspective of the observer.




A ball thrown sideways in a spacecraft in a gravity-free region will follow a straight-line path. If the spacecraft accelerates at the moment, the ball is thrown, the shape of the path that the ball takes during its flight depends upon the perspective of the observer.

For an outside stationary observer, the ball appears to follow a straight-line path as it travels across the spacecraft, as in Figure 3.

For an inside observer, the ball appears to follow a curved line parabolic path as it approaches the floor, as in Figure 4.

What path did the ball travel as it crossed the spacecraft? Once again, the answer depends upon the perspective of the observer.



When Seth shares with us his concepts about how space and time works, maybe the reason that we have such as hard time grasping and dealing with these ideas, is because we see things from an inside (physical reality) perspective, and he sees things from an outside (physical reality) perspective.

- jbseth

[Deb]

This is awesome jbseth! A few years ago I got into reading some basic physics and some biographies of people such as Tesla, Einstein, Hawking. I'm not sure if it was in the Hawking or Einstein book that something similar to what you explained above was explained. The Law of Inertia. The example given was in a moving train. If a ball is tossed up in a moving train, it will come back down in the same place in the train. The speed of the train traveling over ground has no effect on the ball.

But your post kicks it up a notch: To the person tossing the ball up and catching it, the ball had no horizontal motion at all. But if you consider it from the perspective of someone observing the train from the outside, the ball really traveled 1/4 mile or whatever, depending on the train's speed. So which is the correct answer?

Adding a curved track (or in your example a spacecraft on a curved path) adds even more to ponder about perspective. I love this kind of stuff. 

[jbseth]

Hi Deb,

Me too. That is, I also love this stuff. 

Some time ago, I came across an interesting physics topic on inertia. Let's say that you're driving north on a road and you have your slick surfaced cell phone laying directly in front of you on the dashboard of your vehicle.

As you travel along this northbound road, the road gradually curves to the left changing your direction of travel from northbound to westbound.  As you travel along through this curve, you notice that you cell phone slides across the dashboard over to the passenger's side of the vehicle.

The reason this occurs is due to inertia. As your vehicle gradually turns from a northbound direction to a westbound direction, the cell phones inertia, makes it want to continue travelling in the northbound direction. It is this inertia that causes the cell phone to slide across the dashboard.

Inside your vehicle, it appears that the cell phone is sliding across your dashboard, while in reality, the cell phone is actually just continuing along in the same direction that it had been travelling while it's the vehicle itself that actually changing its direction.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In Seth Speaks, Chapter 20 is the question and answer chapter. In this chapter, in Session 580, Rob asks Seth question number 20, which is:

"If everything exists now, or at once, how can it be added to through constant creation and expansion? Or to put it another way: If we are constantly creating, how can All That Is exist as complete now?"


In response to this question, Seth made the following comments which correspond with this topic that we are discussing here. First he said:

Everything in your three-dimensional system occurs simultaneously.


Along with this, he also said:

All That Is simultaneously and unendingly creates itself. Only within your particular frame of reference does there seem to be a contradiction between action that is simultaneous and yet unending. This has to do mainly with the necessary distortions arising from your time concept and the idea of duration; for duration to you presupposes existence continued within a time framework — predisposing to beginnings and endings.

Experience existing outside of that reference is not dependent upon duration in your terms.[...]


Further along in his answer, Seth said this as well:

(9:32.) All That Is is inexhaustible. Infinity rests within simultaneous action, in a way that you cannot presently understand.


Here's Seth's entire answer to this question.



-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Seth Speaks, Chapter 20 was the chapter on questions and answers. In this chapter, in session 580, Seth talked about the subject of this topic.

The spoiler below contains Seth's complete answer to Question 20.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

-jbseth

[inavalan]

This is another interesting quote collection about Seth's conception of time and space, from:

http://www.gestaltreality.com/2010/06/15/seth-on-conception-of-time/

"Any event that you perceive is only a portion of the true dimensionality of that event. The observer and the object perceived are a part of the same event, each changing the other. This interrelationship always exists in any system of reality and at any level of activity. In certain terms, for example, even an electron "knows" it is being observed through your instrument.

...Time and space are each the result of psychological properties. When you ask how old is the universe, or how old is the world, then you are taking for granted that time and space are somehow or other almost absolute qualities.

...Space, again, is a psychological property. So is time. The universe did not, then, begin at some specified point in time, or at any particular location in space-for it is true to say that all of space and all of time appeared simultaneously, and appear simultaneously.

You cannot pinpoint the location of consciousness.

When you are dreaming you cannot pinpoint your dream location in the same way that you can determine, say, the chair or the bureau that may sit on the floor by the bed in which you dream. The inner location is real, however, and meaningful activity can take place within it. Physical space exists in the same manner, except that it is a mass psychologically shared property-but at one "time" in the beginning this was not so.

In the beginning, physical space had the qualities that dream space has to you now. It seemed to have a more private nature, and only gradually, in those terms, did it become publicly shared."

Source: Dreams, "Evolution", and Value Fulfillment pg.164-165

[LenKop]

So now practically speaking (but in a metaphorical way  )....

My beliefs are going straight, until I sense an impulse, question them and seek new horizons.

As I turn 'left' toward the new beliefs, my old beliefs suffer the same kind of inertia jb mentioned with the phone in the car, and continue to pull straight....

We wouldn't let the phone dictate the direction of the vehicle, but how many times do we allow the inertia of worn out beliefs to keep us on the same, no-longer-necessary track?

I have never thought of it this way, psychological inertia...

And when I first read the topic of time and space i thought 'here we go again'...

Thanks guys, this made my night

Len

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Once again I found some comments by Seth regarding the simultaneous nature of time. This comes from ESP Class Session, Feb. 8, 1968, which is located immediately after Session 193 in TES8:

"Your idea of time is false. Time as you experience it is an illusion caused by your own physical senses."

"You must perceive what you do of reality through your physical senses, but your physical senses distort reality."

"But everything in the universe exists at one time, simultaneously,..."

As we have seen, Seth has more or less said this exact same thing in many different places across the Seth information.


Below is a spoiler that contains Seth's comments about this topic in this ESP Class session.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

- jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In my last post, I made an error. One of my first sentences, should read:

This comes from ESP Class Session, Feb. 8, 1968, which is located immediately after Session 393 (not 193) in TES8.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

As I turn 'left' toward the new beliefs, my old beliefs suffer the same kind of inertia jb mentioned with the phone in the car, and continue to pull straight....We wouldn't let the phone dictate the direction of the vehicle, but how many times do we allow the inertia of worn out beliefs to keep us on the same, no-longer-necessary track?I have never thought of it this way, psychological inertia...

Hi LenKop,

What a great concept, beliefs have psychological inertia. I really like that.

For some time now, I believed that there was more than 1 definition of Seth's "psychological time". One of these was the meditative state, and the other was the concept that time itself is psychological in nature.

-jbseth

[chasman]

As I turn 'left' toward the new beliefs, my old beliefs suffer the same kind of inertia jb mentioned with the phone in the car, and continue to pull straight....We wouldn't let the phone dictate the direction of the vehicle, but how many times do we allow the inertia of worn out beliefs to keep us on the same, no-longer-necessary track?I have never thought of it this way, psychological inertia...

Hi LenKop,

What a great concept, beliefs have psychological inertia. I really like that.

For some time now, I believed that there was more than 1 definition of Seth's "psychological time". One of these was the meditative state, and the other was the concept that time itself is psychological in nature.

-jbseth

I agree.
I see the inertia as the current habitual response.
its the automatic response.
to paraphrase Newton, a habit will continue in the same old way, unless
acted upon by a conscious willful active deliberate choice.
another association or connection is this:

the habit will continue in a straight line (the official line of consciousness),
unless acted upon by my intentional choosing and acting force.