### Time enough

I tried to make this clear, but I am afraid it is about as clear as mud.

Time is a ratio and offset to change. I wonder why anyone would consider that things could act instantaneously. I do think that someone suggested that gravity acted instantly. If that were so, one object would be in a new position, the second would respond, and the first would be changed and all of this would happen instantly and so it would find its final relationship without any perception of it. Thus everything would happen at once and as a result, if it were true, and then if perception were dependent on this, it would simply be the ratio of subjective perception to relative change. If there were an infinite transform in any physical process, there would be some very bizarre consequences. Certainly there are gravity waves and even gravitational magnetism, but it seems that FGM is expressed and calculated as a different aspect by others. It is a complex subject and perhaps the relationship of gravity and charge is what makes it seem less confusing to me. F=q(v×B) is a valid transform, but I prefer to analyse from the underlying nature. Certainly V=I·R is generally true, but doesn't express all of what is taking place.

I enjoy all the movies about time travel like "Groundhog Day", "Dr Who" or "Retroactive". I don't consider them as valid portrayals of time-like things, but the concept is interesting to entertain.

The image is a work in progress to express the many logical dimensions of time, space and relationships. Time is different everywhere and in 4 dimensions it is possible to show the interaction of some of the aspects, but there are more logical dimensions to the process than the relative ratio of change. Each thing that is variable with respect to any other adds dimension to the relationships.

Self referential things tend to cause a great deal of confusion for most people. I suppose it is because it incorporates the possibility of infinite recursion. The second appearance of the entry to the rabbit hole in any trip down the rabbit hole is a bad omen.

The relationships are recursive and the relationships of infinites can be resolved. Cantor spent a lot of time with this and he did not resolve it to my satisfaction, though he certainly had some very good ideas.

It seems it takes more time to create illustrations and blog about the subjects than it does to understand and apply them. In this case I am writing a python script that generates the blender image and in this way, I can simply post the python code (blender 2.49) and it can be shared without transferring an entire blender context.

This is the relationship of space as time in a system of multiple reference frames that are actually absolute frames. The time wing is a basic feature of locked velocity systems. This is my interpretation of Maxwell's equations using a different transform. The ΣRδr (∫RΔr) ( I know that is x2/2 , and it is only part of the surface integral and what is of interest is the vector sum of the surface with delta r ) of the distance travelled is the cause of the appearance of gravitational magnetism. This leads to the production of a vortex under many circumstances, due to the fact that it appears to be a force against the line of motion. It would rarely appear or produce much effect, except in cases such as the collapse to a neutron star and would then ( I assume ) produce a noticeable and measurable side effect. Which would be gravitational induction in the direction of accelerated rotation. It is such a small variance under most circumstances that it would be un-noticed. I would guess that the collapse to a black hole would have much the same effect, but that is a much more complicated situation and I will have to do some few equations to calculate the scale of the effect. I don't consider electromagnetic or this to be real forces, just artefacts. I suppose this could account for some of the "dark excuses", but it is so hard to tell, as they have theoretical physics so tangled up, it could cause an AI to have a nervous breakdown.

I am having some problems with scilab ( with OpenGL) and I may have to do some digging in the source, as it contains some interesting tools and methods that I need to apply and don't want to rewrite from scratch.

Math HTML test.$\int _a_^b^\left\{f\left(x\right)1+x\right\} dx$ probably better as &int (a→b)f(x)/(1+x)δx