URI: 
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       <
       form action=&amp
       ;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
       ost&
       quot; target=&am
       p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
       ;_s-xclick&a
       mp;amp;quot;&amp
       ;amp;amp;gt; &am
       p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
       ;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
       ;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
       ;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
       ue=&
       quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
       ;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
       ;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
       alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
       e=&q
       uot;submit&a
       mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
       &quo
       t;&g
       t; &
       lt;img alt=&
       amp;amp;quot;&am
       p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
       /en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
       ;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
       p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
       mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
       amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
  HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Theology, Anthropology & Archaeology
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 20654--------------------------------------------------
       Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: November 17, 2020, 5:30 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       Albert Einstein concluded that the past, present, and future all
       exist simultaneously. Is time travel possible? Has anyone built
       a successful time machine? What classified German UFO technology
       does the US government posses, and can they manipulate
       space-time? Is there a Secret Space Program?
       18 minutes
  HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-HswUSsAFA
       #Post#: 22131--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: December 12, 2020, 8:40 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81VxXEIBnnU
       #Post#: 29632--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: May 18, 2021, 1:55 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Maximus the Confessor’s ‘
       Aeon
       ’
  HTML https://www.academia.edu/21527248/Maximus_the_Confessors_Aeon_as_a_Distinct_Mode_of_Temporality
       as a Distinct Mode of Temporality
       Dr Sotiris Mitralexis University of Winchester & City University
       of Istanbul
       Abstract: In this paper, I shall focus on the semantic content
       of
       α
       in Maximus the Confessor
       ’
       s works, particularly in the instances in which he employs it as
       a distinct form of temporality, i.e. not as simply meaning
       ‘ἷtἷὄὀity’
       . I focus on
       α
       as aMaximian
       terminus technicus
       in spite of the diverse meanings that he himself ascribes to
       the word in certain cases
       .
       I will also
       ἷὀgagἷ with thἷ ὅtatuὅ
       ὁἸ timἷ aὅ humaὀity’ὅ
       slavery
       , aὅ humaὀity’ὅ
       enemy
       
       iὀ εaximuὅ’ thὁught,
       for this is integrally connected with the notion of the Aeon and
       especially with the need to transcend both time as
       
       and temporality in the form of the Aeon in striving for ever
       well-being. The greater context of this investigation is the
       understanding
       ὁἸ εaximuὅ’
       conception of temporality as a
       threefold
       one, consisting of (a) time as
       
       , the temporality of the sensible realm and the numbering of
       motion, (b)
       α
       i.e.
       thἷ χἷὁὀ, a ‘timἷ
       withὁut mὁvἷmἷὀt’ aὀἶ
       thἷ tἷmpὁὄality ὁἸ thἷ
       iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ ἵὄἷa
       tion, and(c) the transformed temporality of the ever-moving
       repose (
       
       
       ἀ&
       #57373;
       ).
       Maximus the Confessor is widely credited with accomplishing a
       philosophical and theological synthesis of rare depth and
       fecundity. Among the numerous fields (as we would divide them to
       today) in which his contributions bear relevance are ontology,
       cosmology, and philosophical/theological anthropology, to name a
       few. However, not adequate attention has been given to his
       complex and nuanced understanding of temporality, despite a
       number of contributions shedding light to aspects of this
       subject and to which I shall refer below. It is my
       ἵὁὀviἵtiὁὀ that a
       thὄἷἷἸὁlἶ
       thἷὁὄy ὁἸ
       tἷmpὁὄality ἵaὀ ἴἷ
       tὄaἵἷἶ iὀ εaximuὅ’
       wὁὄkὅ
       , a theory that, in its threefold structure, has a noticeable
       degree of originality in spite of the Confessor building on
       diverse elements from the thought of his predecessors and
       contemporaries in order to arrive at this synthesis.
       1
       This conception of temporality consists of (a) time as
       
       ,the temporality of the sensible realm and the numbering of
       motion, (b)
       α
       i.e. the Aeon, a
       ‘timἷ withὁut mὁvἷmἷὀt’
       aὀἶ thἷ tἷmpὁὄality
       ὁἸ thἷ iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ
       ἵὄἷatiὁὀ, aὀἶ
       (ἵ) thἷ
       transformed temporality of the ever-moving repose (
       
       
       ἀ&
       #57373;
       2
       ) that is both absolute timelessness and the temporality of
       deification, the consummation of the very nature of time
       —
       having thus implications for a number of theological and
       philosophical subjects beyond temporality itself.
       IἸ wἷ
       uὀἶἷὄὅtaὀἶ
       εaximuὅ’
       ἵὁὀἵἷptiὁὀ
       ὁἸ tἷmpὁὄalit
       y this way, then the ambiguous
       α
       cannot be accurately rendered as
       ‘ἷtἷὄὀity’ iὀ ἷaἵh
       aὀἶ ἷvἷὄy ἵaὅἷ,
       aὅ thἷὄἷ wὁulἶ
       ἴἷ
       two
       
       kiὀἶὅ ὁἸ
       ‘ἷtἷὄὀity’ with
       ἶiἸἸἷὄἷὀt
       ἵhaὄaἵtἷὄiὅtiἵὅ&
       #941;
       Iὀ thiὅ papἷὄ, I ὅhall
       Ἰὁἵuὅ ὁὀ thἷ
       ὅἷmaὀtiἵ
       content of
       α
       
       iὀ εaximuὅ’ wὁὄkὅ
       
       in the instances in which he employs it as a distinct form of
       temporality
       ; I shall focus on
       α
       as a Maximian
       terminus technicus
       in spite of the diverse meanings that he himself ascribes to
       the word in certain cases
       .
       This polysemy in the
       1
       Analyzed extensively in Sotiris Mitralexis,
       Ever-Moving Repose: The notion of time in Maximus the
       Confessor’s philosophy through the perspective of a relational
       ontology
       
       (ἐἷὄliὀμ
       όὄἷiἷ Uὀivἷὄὅität
       ἐἷὄliὀ, ἢhϊ
       diss., 2014). Chapter III.5. is devoted to the
       ὅtuἶy ὁἸ εaximuὅ’
       α
       and formed the basis for the present paper.
       2
       E.g. Maximus Confessor,
       Quaestiones ad Thalassium II. Quaestiones LVI-LXV
       , eds. Carl Laga & Carlos Steel Corpus Christianorum Series
       Graeca 22 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1990), 65.544-6 for this ambiguous
       notion
       ἑὁὀἸἷὅὅὁὄ’
       ὅ
       uὅἷ ὁἸ wὁὄἶὅ
       wὁulἶ ὀὁt ἴἷ aὀ
       ἷxἵἷptiὁὀ, ἴut
       ὄathἷὄ a vἷὄy
       ἵhaὄaἵtἷὄiὅtiἵ
       topos.
       I
       will alὅὁ ἴὄiἷἸly
       mἷὀtiὁὀ thἷ ὅtatuὅ
       ὁἸ timἷ aὅ humaὀity’ὅ
       slavery
       , aὅ humaὀity’ὅ
       enemy
       in
       εaximuὅ’ thὁught, Ἰὁὄ
       thiὅ iὅ iὀtἷgὄally
       ἵὁὀὀἷἵtἷ
       d with the notion of the Aeon and especially with the need to
       transcend both time as
       
       and temporality in the form of the Aeon in striving for ever
       well-being (
       ἀ
       
       ὖ
       
       α)έ Thuὅ
       iὅ εaximuὅ’
       thὄἷἷἸὁlἶ
       tἷmpὁὄality
       ἶiὅἵlὁὅἷἶ
       not merely as an idea of exclusively ontological and
       cosmological relevance, but as crucial for
       thἷ
       ἑὁὀἸἷὅὅὁὄ’
       ὅ
       aὀthὄὁpὁlὁgy aὅ wἷll
       , to which I will hint towards the end of this paper.
       Whilἷ εaximuὅ’ ὀὁtiὁὀ
       ὁἸ thἷ χἷὁὀ
       (α
       )
       3
       as a distinct, second form of temporality is expounded in
       specific passages of his work, the reader is faced with the
       problem of
       εaximuὅ’
       ἶiἸἸἷὄἷὀt
       uὅagἷ ὁἸ thἷ tἷὄm
       α
       in different contexts throughout the Maximian corpus.
       4
       Apart from the meaning illustrated in the dual definition of
       
       and
       α
       in
       Ambigua
       (PG 91 1164 BC), which will be shown as the primary definition
       of the Aeon, Maximus also uses the term in different contexts in
       order to signify eternity as unlimited duration,
       5
       or a great amount of time/a century,
       6
       
       ὁὄ hiὅtὁὄy, ὁὄ
       ύὁἶ’ὅ tἷmpὁὄality
       in contrast to our own
       7
       etc. This becomes quite pronounced in instances where Maximus
       uses the word
       3
       
       χὅ wἷ pὁiὀtἷἶ ὁut
       iὀ thἷ ἴἷgiὀὀiὀg, a
       pὄὁἴlἷm with maὀy
       ὅἵhὁlaὄly
       aἵἵὁuὀtὅ ὁἸ
       εaximuὅ’
       uὀἶἷὄὅtaὀἶiὀg
       ὁἸ thἷχἷὁὀ iὅ
       thἷ laἵk ὁἸ
       ἶiἸἸἷὄἷὀtiatiὁ&#
       8000;
       ἴἷtwἷἷὀ thἷ
       ‘ἷtἷὄὀity’ ὁἸ thἷ
       χἷὁὀ aὀἶ thἷ
       ‘ἷtἷὄὀity’ ὁἸ thἷ
       ἷvἷὄ
       -moving repose, r
       ἷὅultiὀg iὀ aὀ
       ἷὄὄὁὀἷὁuὅ
       aὀἶ iὀἵὁmplἷtἷ
       ὄἷaἶiὀg ὁἸ thἷ
       ἑὁὀἸἷὅὅὁὄ&
       #941;
       ώὁwἷvἷὄ, ἢaul
       ἢlaὅὅ’
       aὄtiἵlἷ‘Tὄaὀὅἵἷ&
       #8000;ἶἷὀt
       Timἷ iὀ εaximuὅ thἷ
       ἑὁὀἸἷὅὅὁὄ’
       ,
       The Thomist
       44:2 (1980), pp. 259-77, is a valuable
       ἵὁὀtὄiἴutiὁὀέ
       ἠὁtἷ ἢlaὅὅ’
       mἷὀtiὁὀ ὁἸ thἷ
       εaximiaὀ aὀἶ
       ἑappaἶὁἵia
       n notion of
       α
       (distance, interval, extension) and its relation to temporality
       in p. 260, as this plays a major role in our treatment of the
       subject.
       ἢlaὅὅ’ aὄtiἵlἷ
       ‘Tὄaὀὅἵἷὀἶἷ&#800
       0;t
       Timἷ aὀἶ Etἷὄὀity iὀ
       ύὄἷgὁὄy ὁἸ
       ἠyὅὅa’,
       Vigiliae Christianae
       34 (1980), pp. 180-92,
       iὅ a gὁὁἶ
       iὀtὄὁἶuἵtiὁὀ tὁ
       thἷὅἷ
       ἵὁὀἵἷptὅ
       pὄiὁὄ tὁ εaximuὅ’
       ὄἷὀἷwal ὁἸ thἷmμ
       iὀ ἴὁth aὄtiἵlἷὅ,
       ἢlaὅὅ’
       contradistinction of the Neoplatonic understanding of eternity
       and return to the biblical and patristic one is particularly
       noteworthy. David
       ἐὄaἶὅhaw’ὅ ‘Timἷ
       aὀἶ Etἷὄὀity iὀ thἷ
       ύὄἷἷk όathἷὄὅ’,
       The Thomist
       70 (2006), pp.311-366, contains a very interesting subchapter
       on Maximus, but heavily depends on the
       Scholia
       to the Dionysian Corpus, which are now attributed to Maximus
       only to a very limited extent and cannot be relied on for
       iὀvἷὅtigatiὀg εaximuὅ’
       viἷwὅέ
       
       4
       Which, to different degrees, is also the case with almost any
       important term Maximus employs, making it
       ἷxἵἷἷἶiὀgly
       ἶiἸἸiἵult Ἰὁὄ
       thἷ ὄἷaἶἷὄ tὁ
       ὅquaὄἷly
       ὅyὅtἷmatiὐἷ thἷ
       ἑὁὀἸἷὅὅὁὄ’
       ὅ
       uὀἶἷὄ
       standing of core notions such as
       
       ,
       π
       (mode) etc. Throughout the secondary literature concerning
       Maximus, an abundance of attempts at systematizing Maximian
       terminology can be found (instead, for example, of accepting the
       fact that only
       approaches
       
       tὁ εaximuὅ’ thὁught ἵaὀ
       ἴἷ attἷmptἷἶ, withὁut
       ἵlaimὅ ὁἸ
       ἶἷἸiὀitivἷ
       aὀὅwἷὄὅ),
       ὁἸtἷὀ
       yiἷlἶiὀguὀὅatiὅἸa&#798
       9;tὁὄy
       ὄἷὅultὅ aὀἶ
       lἷaἶiὀg tὁ
       miὅuὀἶἷὄὅtaὀἶi&#
       8000;gὅ
       ὁἸ thἷ
       ἑὁὀἸἷὅὅὁὄ’
       ὅ
       tἷaἵhiὀgὅ—
       a tendency that is gradually being corrected.
       5
       E.g. Maximus the Confessor,
       Quaestiones ad Thalassium I. Quaestiones I-LV,
       eds. Carl Laga & Carlos Steel,Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca
       7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1980), 38.52:
       6
       E.g.
       Quaestiones ad Thalassium II
       , 56.140-2:
       
       7
       Maximus the Confessor,
       On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua
       , ed. and trans. Nicholas Constas,Vol. I, Dumbarton Oaks
       Medieval Library 28 (Cambridge, MA and London, 2014), p. 309,
       which is also PG91,
       11κκἐμ ‘It muὅt ἴἷ
       aἵἵἷptἷἶ that thἷ
       ἷtἷὄὀally ἷxiὅtiὀg
       ύὁἶ [
       
       ἀ
       
       ] …’έ
       Siὀἵἷ ἑὁὀὅtaὅ’
       ἵὄitiἵal
       ἷἶitiὁὀ(vὁlέ I
       aὀἶ II aὄἷ
       ϊumἴaὄtὁὀ ἡakὅ
       εἷἶiἷval δiἴὄaὄy
       βκ aὀἶ βλ
       ὄἷὅpἷἵtivἷly)
       ὀamἷὅ εigὀἷ’ὅ
       Patrologia Graeca
       column of ea
       ἵh ὄἷὅpἷἵtivἷ
       paὅὅagἷ, whilἷ maὀy
       ὅἵhὁlaὄὅ ὅtill
       ἶἷpἷὀἶ ὁὀ
       ἢύ’ὅ
       Ambigua
       , wἷ will uὅἷ
       ἑὁὀὅtaὅ’
       critically edited text while simply citing
       Ambigua
       
       with ἢύλ1 ἵὁlumὀὅ
       Ἰὁὄ thἷ
       ὄἷaἶἷὄὅ’
       ἵὁὀvἷὀiἷὀἵ&#7991
       ;,
       aὅ ἢύἵὁlumὀὅ
       ἵaὀ ἴἷ ἷaὅily
       tὄaἵἷἶ ἴaἵk tὁ
       ἑὁὀὅtaὅ’ pagἷὅ, whil
       e the opposite is naturally not the case. When directly
       uὅiὀg ἑὁὀὅtaὅ’
       tὄaὀὅlatiὁὀ, wἷ will
       ἵitἷ ἑὁὀὅtaὅ’
       pagἷ ὀumἴἷὄὅέ
       Sἷἷ alὅὁ
       Scholia in De Divinis Nominibus
       ,CD4.1 and PG4 229 A-C:
       Aeon
       meaning eternity in the sense of unlimited time by employing
       the word in its plural form
       α
       , i.e. the ages.
       8
       Maximus differentiates between the singular,
       α
       , and the plural,
       α
       , in a way suggestive of this by employing both forms in the
       same sentence with different meanings
       9
       —
       but again, this is not characteristic of the whole of his work
       and cannot be systematized in such a way. When speaking o
       Ἰ thἷ ‘tἷmpὁὄality’ ὁἸ
       ύὁἶ iὀ
       ἵὁὀtὄaὅt tὁ ὁuὄ
       own, Maximus sometimes refers to it as Aeon or aeonic and
       sometimes as
       ἀΐ,
       ἀΐ,ἀ&#
       57344;,
       10
       
       iὀ ὁὄἶἷὄ tὁ
       ἵὁὀtὄaὅt
       ύὁἶ’ὅ ‘tἷmpὁὄality’
       tὁ thἷ χἷὁὀ aὅ
       wἷll
       11
       —
       however, the Confessor does not adopt a systematized distinction
       of
       
       /
       α
       /
       ἀ
       , whereas he often clarifies that no kind of temporality
       whatsoever can be applicable to God. And (to make things worse)
       there are passages in which Maximus refers to
       ἀ
       simply as eternity without change and alteration,
       12
       practically equating it with the Aeon (as the state of
       tἷmpὁὄality ὁἸ
       iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ
       ὄἷalitiἷὅ aὀἶ ‘timἷ
       withὁut mὁtiὁὀ’) aὀἶ
       ἷὄaἶiἵatiὀg aὀy
       hὁpἷ ὁἸ a
       solid
       
       /
       α
       /
       ἀ
       distinction. However, and apart from this variety in the use of
       terms, Maximus
       does
       propose a second form of temporality beyond normal time (
       
       ) and its extensions in duration
       (ἷxtἷὀὅiὁὀὅ that
       ὄἷaἵh up tὁ thἷ ‘agἷὅ
       ὁἸ thἷ agἷὅ’)έ χ
       Ἰὁὄm ὁἸ
       tἷmpὁὄality that iὅ
       inverted time
       , as it is time without motion
       —
       whereas the main characteristic of time is that it is the
       numbering of motion. I
       . Quite logically, due to the numerous different commentators
       that authored the
       Scholia,
       the differences in the use of the terms
       α
       and
       α
       throughout the
       Scholia
       can be profound, often offering contradictory illustrations
       thereof.
       8
       E.g.
       Ambigua,
       1βηβ έ
       
       9
       
       Ambigua,
       
       1γκλ ϊμ
       α
       
       
       α
       
       ,
       α
       
       αα α
       
       αα
       .
       10
       E.g. Maximus the Confessor,
       Capita de caritate
       , in Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo (ed.),
       Massimo Confessore -
       Capitoli sulla caritá. Ed. criticamente con introd., versione e
       note
       , Verba Seniorum, collana di testi e studipatristici, n.s. 3
       (Rome: Ed. Studium, 1963), 2.27.3, as well as 4.3.1:
       
       
       ἀυ
       
       υ&#
       57411;
       
       π
       
       
       
       Θ
       . As mentioned earlier, Maximus attributes
       ἀ
       to the uncreated
       
       (
       Capita de caritate
       , 1.100, 2.27), thus differentiating
       ἀ
       from the Aeon, the beings in whom had had a beginning and a
       generation, while the
       
       had not.
       11
       
       Iὀ εaximuὅ’
       Capita theologica et oeconomica
       (located in PG90, 1084-1173), PG90 1086 B
       ,
       1.6, we find a clear example of the
       ἀΐ
       attributed to God and the Aeon attributed to the creatures that
       are not under time:
       ‘χἴὅὁlutἷly
       ὀὁthiὀg that iὅ
       ἶiἸἸἷὄἷὀt
       Ἰὄὁ
       m [God] by substance is seen together with him from all eternity
       [
       
       
       ἀυ
       ]: neither the Aeon, nor time, nor anything dwelling in them
       ’, tὄaὀὅlέ
       ύἷὁὄgἷ ἑέ
       Berthold,
       Maximus the Confessor: Selected Writings
       (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), p. 130. And:
       Ambigua,
       11κκ ἐμ ‘[ύὁἶ] iὅ
       thἷ ἵὄἷatὁὄ aὀἶ
       Ἰaὅhiὁὀἷὄ ὁἸ
       ἷvἷὄy agἷ
       [α
       ] and time along with everything that exists in them. Yet [one]
       will not conclude from this that any of these things has in any
       way existed together with God from eternity [
       
       
       ἀυ
       ], for [one] knows that it is impossible for either of two
       eternally coexisting [
        ἀυ]
       pὄiὀἵiplἷὅ tὁ ἴἷ
       thἷ ἵauὅἷ ὁἸ thἷ
       ὁthἷὄ’ (tὄaὀὅlέ
       ἑὁὀὅtaὅ, vὁlέ I,
       pέ γίλ)έ
       12
       E.g.
       Ambigua,
       11ἄλ ϊμ ‘it iὅ ὀὁt
       pὁὅὅiἴlἷ, ὀὁὄ
       ὄatiὁὀally
       ἵὁhἷὄἷὀt, tὁ
       ἵὁὀὅiἶἷὄ aὅ
       ἷt
       ernal that which is not always the same [
       
       
       
       
       ὡα
       
       ἔ
       
       ἀ
       ], nor immune from change and alteration, but instead is
       scattered and
       ἵhaὀgἷἶ iὀ a myὄiaἶ
       ὁἸ wayὅ’ (tὄaὀὅlέ
       ἑὁὀὅtaὅ, vὁlέ I,
       pέ βἅἅ)έ
       
       Draft
       —
       please do not cite. Final version in The Heythrop Journal: DOI:
       10.1111/heyj.12319
       transformation of the temporality in which that person is
       operating. Contemplating the
       
       while being in the temporality of
       
       would not make sense in a Maximian framework: a(seeming)
       cessation of motion
       would be necessary, a
       time devoid of motion
       ; the participation in the Aeon, i.e. the temporality of the
       intelligible realm. Our conclusion is that, from the perspective
       of theological anthropology, the Aeon as
       εaximuὅ’ ὅἷἵὁὀἶ
       mὁἶἷ ὁἸ
       tἷmpὁὄality wὁulἶ ἴἷ
       iὀἶiὅpἷὀὅaἴlἷ
       Ἰὁὄ hiὅ ὁvἷὄall
       ἵὁὀἵἷpt
       ion to
       havἷ philὁὅὁphiἵal
       ἵὁhἷὄἷὀἵἷέ
       ώumaὀity’ὅ aὅἵἷὀt
       Ἰὄὁm thἷ ὅlavἷὄy
       ὁἸ timἷ tὁ thἷ
       ὄaἶiἵal
       ontological freedom of deification and the ever-moving repose
       cannot be effected in a single
       ‘jump iὀ
       tἷmpὁὄalityήmὁtiὁὀ’&#94
       1;
       χἷὁὀiἵ
       tἷmpὁὄality wὁulἶ ἴἷ a
       lὁgiἵal
       and necessary stage between these extreme realities of the human
       person. From the sensible realm to the intelligible creation and
       then beyond createdness, to the uncreated God. From practical
       philosophy to natural contemplation and then to theological
       mystagogy. From time as
       
       
       tὁ thἷ χἷὁὀ’ὅ
       ἵἷὅὅatiὁὀ ὁἸ
       mὁtiὁὀ aὀἶ
       ἴἷyὁὀἶ, tὁ thἷ
       ἷxaltἷἶ
       
       
       ἀ&
       #57373;
       . The Aeon is
       thuὅ ἶiὅἵlὁὅἷἶ
       aὅ thἷ ἴaὅiὅ Ἰὁὄ
       thἷ ὄἷaliὅm aὀἶ
       ἵὁhἷὄἷὀἵἷ
       ὁἸ εaximuὅ’
       thἷὁlὁgiἵal viὅiὁὀ
       ὁἸ aὀ
       anthropology of deification, that is, the
       ἑὁὀἸἷὅὅὁὄ’
       ὅ
       aὀthὄὁpὁlὁgy
       par excellence
       .VCONCLUSIONS AND REMARKSAs noted at the beginning of this
       paper, Maximus uses the word
       α
       with different meanings in different contexts
       —
       most notably, he often employs its plural
       α
       meaning
       ‘thἷ agἷὅ’, a vἷὄy
       lὁὀg ἶuὄatiὁὀ iὀ
       timἷ, hiὅtὁὄyέ
       ώὁwἷvἷὄ, thἷ
       χἷὁὀ aὅ a
       ὅἷἵὁὀἶ
       mὁἶἷ ὁἸ
       temporality beyond time (
       ) iὅ
       ἵlἷaὄly tὁ ἴἷ
       ἶiὅἵἷὄὀἷἶ
       iὀ εaximuὅ’ wὁὄk aὀἶ
       ἵἷὄtaiὀἵhaὄaἵtἷ&
       #8004;iὅtiἵὅ
       thἷὄἷὁἸ
       ἷmἷὄgἷ iὀ thἷ
       ἑὁὀἸἷὅὅὁὄ’
       ὅ
       paὅὅagἷὅέ
       (i)
       
       The Aeon
       iὅ ‘timἷ ἶἷpὄivἷἶ
       ὁἸ mὁtiὁὀ’, iὀ a ἶual
       aὀἶ iὀtἷὄtwiὀἷἶ
       ἶἷἸiὀitiὁὀ
       ὁἸtἷmpὁὄality iὀ whiἵh
       timἷ iὅ ‘thἷ χἷὁὀ,
       whἷὀ mἷaὅuὄἷἶ iὀ
       itὅ mὁtiὁὀ’έ
       83
       This definition does not merely provide us with an
       understanding of the Aeon through our more familiar notion of
       time; rather than that, the interrelation of the Aeon and time
       establishes both of them as dependent on one another, as two
       irreplaceable sides of the same reality.(ii)
       
       The Aeon is also defined as constituting the temporality of the
       intelligible realm, the temporality of intelligible beings. All
       beings are divided into sensible and intelligible beings, and
       while time constitutes the temporality of the sensible, the Aeon
       corresponds to the intelligible. Here, again, both of these
       (sensible and intelligible, time and the Aeon) are vitally
       iὀtἷὄὄἷlatἷἶ
       aὀἶ
       iὀtἷὄἵὁὀὀἷ&#7989
       ;tἷἶμ
       ‘Thἷ ἷὀtitiἷὅ ὁὀ
       ἷaἵh ὅiἶἷ ὁἸ
       thiὅ ἶiviὅiὁὀ aὄἷ
       ὀatuὄally ὄἷlatἷἶtὁ
       ἷaἵh ὁthἷὄ thὄὁugh
       aὀ iὀἶiὅὅὁluἴlἷ
       pὁwἷὄ that ἴiὀἶὅ
       thἷm tὁgἷthἷὄ’έ
       84
       (iii)
       
       To be created is to have a beginning and to be in temporality.
       Both the sensible and the
       iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ aὄἷ
       gἷὀἷὄatἷἶ, ἴut
       thἷ ὅἷὀὅiἴlἷ
       havἷ ἴἷἷὀ
       gἷὀἷὄatἷἶ aὀἶ
       havἷ thἷiὄ
       ἴἷgiὀὀiὀg ‘iὀtimἷ’,
       whilἷ thἷ iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ
       ‘iὀ thἷ χἷὁὀ’έ
       Thὁὅἷ that aὄἷ
       ἵὁὀtἷmplatἷἶ ‘iὀ
       thἷ χἷὁὀ’, iέἷέ
       83
       
       Ambigua,
       1164 BC.
       84
       
       Ambigua,
       1153
       
       .
       
       Draft
       —
       please do not cite. Final version in The Heythrop Journal: DOI:
       10.1111/heyj.12319
       intelligible beings, possess beginning, middle, and end as well.
       To be created is to possess temporality: this elevates
       temporality to one of the primary criteria and characteristics
       of createdness,
       85
       a status that does not fully apply to spatiality as such, which
       is only a characteristic of the sensible world.(iv)
       
       The Aeon cannot be described as the temporality of the
       uncreated, for it has had a beginning, as well as everything in
       it.
       86
       
       ώὁwἷvἷὄ, Ἰὄὁm
       humaὀity’ὅ aὀἶ thἷ
       ὅἷὀὅiἴlἷ
       ἵὄἷatiὁὀ’ὅ
       point of view, the Aeon
       iconizes
       the absolute timelessness of the uncreated and
       refers
       to it.The apparent changelessness of the intelligible
       —
       from the perspective of the sensible
       —
       reflects the absolute motionlessness of the uncreated. And the
       temporality of the apparently changeless intelligible world, the
       Aeon, reflects the absolute timelessness of the uncreated.
       Thἷ humaὀ
       pἷὄὅὁὀ’ὅ
       ἷvἷὄ Ἰullἷὄ
       paὄtiἵipatiὁὀ iὀ thἷ
       χἷὁὀ aὀἶ iὀ thἷ
       iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ ὄἷalm iὅ
       thἷ
       first step towards the cessation of motion and deification, due
       to their function as imperfect icons of the uncreated.(v)
       
       Thἷ χἷὁὀ iὅ ‘timἷ
       ἶἷpὄivἷἶ ὁἸ
       mὁtiὁὀ’ aὀἶ
       ἵὁὀὅtitutἷὅ thἷ
       tἷmpὁὄality ὁἸ thἷ
       intelligible, which, however, are in some sorts of motion. While
       intelligible beings are in
       mὁtiὁὀ
       (‘ἷxpaὀὅiὁὀ’,
       ‘ἵὁὀtὄaἵtiὁὀ’
       ἷtἵέ), thἷ χἷὁὀ it
       self
       —
       their mode of temporality
       —
       is not susceptible to change. Intelligible beings are beings in
       motion that is generated and situated within a stable form of
       temporality, the Aeon. The Aeon is stable in that it cannot be
       ‘ἵiὄἵumὅἵὄiἴἷ&#7
       990;
       ἴy a ὀumἴἷὄ’έ
       87
       This i
       ὅ a tὄait ὁἸ thἷ
       χἷὁὀ that iὅ iὀ
       ἵὁὀtὄaὅt tὁ
       timἷ’ὅ Ἰlὁatiὀg
       and unstable nature.
       88
       (vi)
       
       The interrelation of time and space, time and spatiality is
       quite prominent in Maximus
       —
       see, for example, sections 36-39 from the tenth
       Ambiguum ad Johannem
       (PG91,1176D-1184A).This is a major difference of time and the
       sensible to the Aeon and the intelligible, for there is no
       spatiality, no dimension of space (e.g. in the emergence of
       ‘qualitiἷὅ’, iὀ thἷ
       ἶiὅtiὀἵtiὁὀ ὁἸ
       ‘ὅuἴὅtaὀἵἷὅ’
       ἷtἵέ) iὀ what εaximuὅ
       ἶiὅtiὀguiὅhἷὅ aὅ
       ‘thἷ
       
       iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ’
       89
       —
       which accordingly modifies what motion can mean when applied to
       intelligible beings. While the sensible move and change in space
       and time, the absence of the dimension of space accounts for the
       intelligible moving and changing against the background of the
       changeless Aeon.
       85
       
       Capita theologica et oeconomica,
       1085 A
       ,
       1.5.
       86
       Ibid.
       87
       Ibid.
       88
       
       Ambigua,
       11βί χ μ 
       υα
       
       
       υ
       φέ
       
       89
       We must here repeat that the sensible/intelligible distinction
       is a philosophical distinction that does not
       aἴὅἵὁὀἶ itὅ
       ἶἷlimitἷἶ
       ὄἷalitiἷὅ ἴut
       ‘ἴiὀἶὅ thἷm
       tὁgἷthἷὄ thὄὁugh aὀ
       iὀἶiὅὅὁluἴlἷ
       pὁwἷὄ’έ Thἷ
       iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ iὅ
       vἷὄyἸaὄ Ἰὄὁm
       ἴἷiὀg ‘aὀὁthἷὄ
       wὁὄlἶ’ aὅ
       
       uὀἶἷὄὅtὁὁἶ
       iὀ myὅtiἵal ὁὄ
       ἷὅὁtἷὄiἵ
       ἵὁὀtἷxtὅέ With thἷ
       wὁὄἶ ‘iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ’,
       Maximus denotes all beings and all of reality that are not
       perceived through sense-
       pἷὄἵἷptiὁὀ, whilἷ
       ‘thἷ ἷὀtitiἷὅ
       on each side of this division are naturally related to each
       other
       ’έ όὁὄ ἷxamplἷ, iὀ
       thἷ ἶiὅtiὀἵtiὁὀ
       ὁἸ ὅuἴὅtaὀἵἷ
       aὀἶ
       hypostasis, i.e. of homogeneity and the particular, it is only
       the particular that is sensible, that is accessible through the
       sense
       —
       not the homogeneity of the particulars itself, which is merely
       deducted from the hypostases(or, for those that attain to a
       fuller access to reality, contemplated as its
       
       
       α)έ
       ώἷὄἷ, thἷ
       ‘ὅuἴὅtaὀἵἷ’
       iὅ,ὁἸ ἵὁuὄὅἷ,
       ‘iὀtἷlligiἴlἷ’—
       without this making it less real, merely hypothetical or simply
       imaginary. The homogeneity of the particulars is neither unreal
       nor hypothetical nor imaginary: it is as real as the particulars
       of
       whiἵh it iὅ thἷ
       ὅuἴὅtaὀἵἷέ
       ώὁwἷvἷὄ,
       ὀἷithἷὄ
       ‘hὁmὁgἷὀἷitiἷὅ’
       ὀὁὄ ‘qualitiἷὅ’
       (ἷέgέ tὁ ἴἷ
       ἵὁlἶ, tὁ ἴἷ ὀἷw,
       tὁ ἴἷ
       colored, to be moist) occupy spaces. The intelligible is
       deprived of spatiality.
       
       Draft
       —
       please do not cite. Final version in The Heythrop Journal: DOI:
       10.1111/heyj.12319
       (vii)
       
       Temporality, while being a
       α
       
       φ
       characteristic of createdness, is also an
       ὁἴὅtaἵlἷ tὁ ἴἷ
       ὁvἷὄἵὁmἷ, alὁὀg
       with all ὁthἷὄ
       ἶiviὅiὁὀὅ aὀἶ
       ‘ἶiὅtaὀἵἷὅ’έ Thiὅ
       appliἷὅ tὁ ἴὁth
       time and the Aeon. Even the Aeon must be
       tὄaὀὅἵἷὀἶἷ&#7990
       ;
       ἴy humaὀity iὀ humaὀity’ὅ
       taὅk aὅ a
       mediator.(viii)
       
       Thuὅ, thἷ χἷὁὀ
       ἴἷἵὁmἷὅ a
       ἵὄuἵial paὄt ὁἸ
       εaximuὅ’ aὀthὄὁpὁlὁgy
       ὁἸ ἶἷiἸiἵatiὁὀ,
       aὅ it
       is in this mode of temporality that the contemplation of the
       
       can be achieved, opening the way to the uncreated God. The
       participation in the a temporality of the uncreated is beyond
       time and the Aeon, beyond any conception of temporality, which
       is in itself a delimitation of createdness. However and as we
       have noted in the beginning, in speaking about deification
       Maximus introduces the notion of the
       ever-moving repose
       (
       
       
       ἀ&
       #57373;
       ) which, being the end and perfection of motion beyond
       motionlessness itself, constitutes the
       third
       mode of temporality, i.e. the transcendence and annihilation of
       any
       temporality. Thus, a threefold conception of temporality can be
       traced in Maximus the Confessor, consisting of time, the Aeon,
       and the ever-moving repose.
       #Post#: 35008--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: September 17, 2021, 9:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The Mystery of Time and How to Master It for Self Development
       [Occult Lecture]
       The Mystery of Time and How to Master It for Self Development by
       Manly P. Hall
       1 hour 20 minutes
  HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIhrygjzHQc
       #Post#: 35994--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: December 2, 2021, 9:42 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Nikola Tesla Rediscovery of Free Energy - ROBERT SEPEHR
       Alternative forms of advanced mathematics have been found etched
       on Babylonian clay tablets dating back over 3,000 years. This
       non-linear holistic view of math was also revered by none other
       than inventor and engineer Nikola Tesla, who once stated that,
       “If you knew the magnificence of the three, six and nine, you
       would have a key to the universe.”
       36 minutes
  HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bqYMMbVv0Y
  HTML https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Sepehr/e/B00XTAB1YC%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
       Robert Sepehr is an author, producer and anthropologist
       specializing in linguistics, archeology, and paleobiology. A
       harsh critic of the out-of-Africa theory, Sepehr puts forth
       alternative diffusionist arguments involving advanced
       antediluvian civilizations, occult secret societies, ancient
       mythology, alchemy and astrotheology.
       #Post#: 36433--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: January 2, 2022, 12:07 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [img]
  HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/127154.jpg?h=528&w=940[/img]
  HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/december-web-only/michel-new-year-productivity-time-management.html
       There’s No Such Thing as Time Management
       Maybe productivity doesn’t matter to God in the frantic ways
       I’ve imagined.
       I used to be a lifetime reader of time management books. After
       the world shut down in March 2020, I got out of my pajamas to
       meet the challenge of an open schedule. I believed every article
       telling me that this was the propitious moment for cleaning out
       my closets, for organizing my pantry, for culling my photos.
       And early in the pandemic, I loved my newly organized garage; I
       was glad to have tackled the towers of paperwork I usually
       avoided. Productivity is, of course, a modern source of
       existential consolation. A good day is the day you get things
       done.
       But this new year, I won’t be hunting for a better planner. Nor
       will I be searching for the best new productivity app. For the
       first time, I will suffer no illusions this January that a new
       technique or a better consumer product will help tame the wild
       beast of time.
       Time management is illusory. Though time might be money, as
       Benjamin Franklin famously said, we cannot grow our portfolio.
       Sure, we can try to maximize the yield of the minutes, but as
       the pandemic continues to teach us, tomorrow is never
       guaranteed. Rather, we must steward our attention.
       Despite all my renewed productivity efforts early in the
       pandemic, I never managed to silence the beating bass of my
       anxious heart. I had plenty of time, productive time—and still
       suffered time-anxiety.
       As a Christian, I know time matters to God, but I’m beginning to
       think it matters less to him in the frantic ways I’ve imagined.
       It’s certainly true we’ve only recently conceived of time as
       measurable and instrumental, as something to be used or wasted,
       saved or spent. But even before the invention of the clock—in
       the medieval monastery—human beings have long been time-anxious
       creatures.
       As David Rooney writes in About Time, a few years after the
       first sundial was installed in Rome in 263 B.C., a character in
       a play exclaimed, “The gods damn that man who first discovered
       the hours, and—yes, who first set up a sundial here, who’s
       smashed the day into bits for poor me!”
       Time management can’t solve the crisis of mortality, this
       foreboding sense that the days and the years prove short. To be
       sure, I’ve developed some helpful skills from the many time
       management books I’ve read: planning ahead, breaking down larger
       projects into smaller tasks, ruthlessly eliminating the
       nonessential. But as Melissa Gregg argues in Counterproductive,
       it’s probably also true that I could have read one good time
       management book, given how few new ideas have been proposed
       since the early 20th century.
       What seems far more important than disciplines of time
       management are disciplines of attention management. The minutes
       are not ours to multiply. We receive them as a gift. What we can
       do, however, is cultivate the ability to inhabit those minutes
       with attention, or undiluted unfragmented presence. Simone Weil
       noticed the gains of attention in her spiritual life, when she
       began repeating the Lord’s prayer in Greek every day. Whenever
       her attention wandered, she started over again. “It was during
       one of these recitations that … Christ himself came down and
       took possession of me.”
       Many have noted we live in an attentional economy, which is to
       say that what is most valuable today are the seconds, the
       minutes we linger online—time that is sold to someone for
       profit. When Facebook went public in 2012, for example, they did
       not have a clearly articulated plan for generating revenue, but
       they knew that they owned the world’s time.
       Matthew Crawford notes in The World Beyond Your Head that one
       challenge in modern life is that our attention is not always
       ours to direct. We sit in an airport, stand in the line at the
       grocery, browse the daily headlines—and someone is there to
       blare their aggressively loud bullhorn, begging us to buy,
       subscribe, believe. Attention is a contested resource, and like
       a city without walls, it will be overrun unless we build walls
       and post sentries and fortify it against attack.
       The conditions today make it hard to attend, especially with a
       smartphone buzzing in our pocket. But just as time-anxiety is
       old, so too is the fight for attention. It was attention the
       apostle Paul admonished the Philippians to cultivate:
       “[W]hatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just,
       whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable,
       if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of
       praise, think about these things” (Phil. 4:8, ESV, emphasis
       added).
       Paul was saying: Your attention is valuable. Develop it for the
       good. When Paul instructed the Corinthians to “take every
       thought captive” (2 Cor 10:5), I don’t think Paul believed that
       attention was merely a rational faculty. I think he was more
       broadly gesturing toward the moral exercise of attention of
       loving the good and habituating ourselves toward it: “What you
       have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice
       these things” (Phil 4:9).
       Crawford argues that attention requires submission, which seems
       like a peculiarly Christian understanding. He knows the word is
       jarring, given that autonomy is often considered the highest
       good in modern life. Attention requires “submission to things
       that have their own intractable ways,” he writes, “whether the
       thing be a musical instrument, a garden, or the building of a
       bridge.” For Crawford, attention is never self-enclosed. It is
       not self-gaze. It is a form of devotion to the other. Attention
       requires not simply that we look up (from our phones) but that
       we look out—beyond ourselves.
       I’ve become more interested in projects today that are
       preoccupied with the cultivation of attention—books like Justin
       Whitmel Earley’s The Common Rule, which our church small group
       is reading together. Earley’s book isn’t devoted to the
       management of time. Instead, it suggests regular rhythms—in
       time—that call us into submission to our Creator, the one to
       whom all time belongs: daily habits like kneeling prayer and
       digital ascetism and weekly habits like Sabbath and fasting.
       This framework—of habits and a governing rule of life—is
       monastic. It’s an attention project. It’s not simply an
       individual exercise, however; it’s a communal one. Which begs
       the question of what churches can do to help their congregants
       cultivate the faculty of attention. In my own church context,
       I’d love for us to become less reliant on phones for operational
       business on Sunday mornings, making it possible, especially for
       those involved, to leave them at home, or at least silenced and
       effectively ignored. I’d love to see us corporately endeavor to
       think more carefully about our digital habits and practices
       throughout the week—because attention seems like an analog
       skill.
       I think attention is what Brother Lawrence learned to practice
       in the monastery kitchen, as he washed plates. He didn’t concern
       himself with time and its elapsing, but rather considered that
       all time was valuable insofar as it was inhabited with devoted
       attention:
       The time of business does not with me differ from the time of
       prayer; and in the noise and clatter of my kitchen, while
       several persons are at the same time calling for different
       things, I possess God in as great tranquility as if I were upon
       my knees at the blessed sacrament.
       Time management marketing preys on existential dread: that life
       is short, that we are mortal. Its tips and tricks might help us
       manage some of the unwieldly aspects of contemporary life and
       work, but it will not teach us how to, as Brother Lawrence said,
       “do all things for the love of God.” For that, we will need
       practice in attention.
       Jen Pollock Michel is a writer, podcast host, and speaker based
       in Toronto. She’s the author of four books and is working on a
       fifth: In Good Time: 8 Habits for Reimagining Productivity,
       Resisting Hurry, and Practicing Peace (Baker Books, 2022).
       #Post#: 38217--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: March 23, 2022, 1:32 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Nikola Tesla: The Man, Myth, and Conspiracy
       Nikola Tesla, one of the most prolific inventors of the 20th
       century, was the definition of a mad genius. We’ll learn of his
       3-6-9 code to unlocking the universe, his communications with
       extraterrestrials, his harnessing of ancient Hindu metaphysics,
       and his late-life romance with a pigeon… and all throughout
       we’ll weave through the wild conspiracy theories surrounding his
       lost inventions - Free Energy Generation and the Death Ray.
       1 hour 18 minutes
  HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2j9Gdn-8Z8
       #Post#: 39693--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: May 24, 2022, 8:12 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVK50ZfLcjs
       #Post#: 41253--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Time Manipulation and Space-Time Theory - ROBERT SEPEHR
       By: patrick jane Date: July 31, 2022, 6:55 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Does the Past Still Exist?
       Albert Einstein taught us that space and time belong together to
       a common entity: space-time. This means that time becomes a
       dimension, similar to space, and has profound consequences for
       the nature of time. Most importantly it leads to what has been
       called the block universe, a universe in which all moments of
       time exist the same way together. The future, the present, and
       the past are the same, it is just our perception that suggests
       otherwise.
       16 minutes
  HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwzN5YwMzv0
       *****************************************************