''you're trying to conceive of some notion of being "close" to time, or a moment of time, that you consider is "now".''
This has been something i have postulated, but it's next to three other postulation i would love to entertain as well... but we shall work with this for now, because it's the one i tend to be biased on, for some reason.
Time, itself, in the external frame of relativity, may have a speed not so different to that which we feel pass us by. However, this shift could have effects, where consciousness might slow down and displace from the relativistic speed being carried out by the observer. So whilst there are simply accepted laws that allow time travel to apply to the ageing of an observer, there are no solutions to why the brain doesn't not only react to the relativistic time dilation laws, and laws associated, that it may act as a tardyonic nature (systems that move below the value of ''c'').
So, it comes for me now to ask, if there are solutions to relativity where time distorts the fabric of spacetime, where are the equations that violate the notion that two observers IN THE END, do not experience an absolute asymptotic time frame.
''Is that what the term "asymptotic time" is meant to mean, you mean it's more: "asymptotic observation" of time, or of an "external" time or moment? The perception of the external as an already existing thing or "experience", that doesn't "require" our presence to exist?''
I tend to not explain things properly, or some concepts i sometimes take for granted people will know. My bad.
Anyway, asymptotic time, is the notion or law that states that we all feel the same time passing. This is based on pure subliminal outlooks from our state of psychological natures. When i state, an absolute asymptotic time frame, it really is discussing an absolute clock for the observer, whilst in the external world, time isn't.
''The perception of the external as an already existing thing or "experience", that doesn't "require" our presence to exist?''
yes, it's weird i know. But since quantum mechanics can explain consciousness with time, and without, there seems to be some distinction that perhaps both require each other as ''references,'' and when i talk of references, when we say this perfectly from quantum mechanics, relativity and the observer-dependancy of measurement, we find an incompletetion in the mathematics, because now we have three compeating theories:
1) - That even without the mind, time can still exist, but only for single periods of Chronons, which are the billionth part raised to negative power of five. The Planck Time.
2) - That even with external time, the observer effect of Copenhagen state that time really woudn't exist without an observer, since the time we ever come to experience, HAS BEEN PROVEN, to exist as some kind of ethereal nature behind real time coordinates, where physics strictly claims from this interpretation, can only ever exist, do there is overwhelming evidence where some reduce the world down into a solisistic theory.
3) - Or that niether have any corrolation at all: A static time dimension for the mind, hencing the usage of an ''absolute asymptotic time frame,'' has some kind of ''reference theory*
*A principle i devised that states, that an observer measures the world in reference to the experience of what he or she comes to measure, but only in real time, or imaginary space. But anything we don't come to measure, only by thought of course, exists in imaginary time, or real space. The latter can only be measured by statistical theories(which i have heard recently) there are a few models about which are coming to some conclusions about which seem to compliment a lot of the things i have been talking about. But usually, imaginary time are complex functions that have infinite value of possibilities, and by even taking half the chunk of all the matter in the universe, which would be $$N=10^40$$, this chunk alone is far far far far far too diffidult to even contemplate, never mind integrating this massive amount of particles that there would be no chance in hell of ever reducing. This leads to the quite acceptable notions we should deal with real time experiences, rather than worrying about the imaginal outside the brain of reality, which can't take on such attributes.
