Some Issues with Time

Jan 2, 2024
66
6
35
Visit site
Some issues with Time.

Just to make a start on this difficult subject.

  • In our 3d space cannot sensibly be considered absolute as movement modifies the perception of each- other's clock time quite apart from the experiments in the past that looked for a spatial Ether.
  • A more holistic view over all spacetime to date provides a different view. The Age of the Universe for example is an absolute measurement
  • It can be argued that if some object ‘Z’ has never been accelerated (thought experiment) then it has only time as a measure (absolute) whereas any object (say a galaxy) that has moved in space will display a different time to that of ‘Z’
  • Similarly, there is no way of thinking of space as absolute unless of course nothing ever moved (?)
  • So, taking an average of all galactic movements maybe could be used to identify “still”.
  • The diagram (!) below I made using letters so it is inadequate and crude. However, the circle represents the universe as if it were a sphere (dropping 2 dimensions). The horizontal line is distance and the vertical is time.
  • Imagine both lines passed through the centre of the circle (through the origin) so that they became diameters. A radius pointing up then is time and the point where it intersects the circle is “now” in our universe and its length is expressed as years. Similarly, a horizontal radius from the origin (The Big Bang) shows the distance in light years.
  • The radius is a valid ‘spacetime Interval’. It describes Special Relativity, time dilation and distance dilation. Explanation: Take any radius – preferably in the top hemisphere- and draw it to intersect the circle. Then by dropping a line down from the intersection to the horizontal line and similarly a horizontal line from the intersection to the vertical line: you have all the geometry needed to use Pythagoras to determine the dilation of time and distance for any spacetime position determined from where you drew the radius. I heard Brian Cox mention its validity on TV. It may have been as a result of my communication with his office – or not. I just thought it was original and worth mentioning as an original description of the Special Relativity theory.

  • The diagram has miraculously disappeared so reading the above will have to do. Ok so if we can hold the imaginary circle and radius in our head it is clear that where the vertical radius intersects the circle can be considered as our place in time and space. But any position on the circle could be considered, in reality, our place in space and time. If we had simply stood still (with no spatial movement) the radius would represent the direction in space-time that time pointed.
  • So, if you follow me so far (!) time can be represented by any radius and more, by any radius within a sphere. This relegates time to a process occurring in 4 dimensions rather than the 4th dimension itself.
  • Time then becomes to us (as a flatlander equivalent) the result of the universe expanding: that is a radial dimension of 1 second =299792458km
  • Note though that time running in an opposite direction would be perceived to be negative. On opposing sides of the sphere then their time would appear to be negative; although to them it is positive (if you exist anywhere on the circle time would appear positive)
  • Antimatter is an electron in time negative for example. So, the other side of the n-sphere is antimatter (?)
 
Jan 2, 2024
66
6
35
Visit site
Some issues with Time.

Just to make a start on this difficult subject.

  • In our 3d space cannot sensibly be considered absolute as movement modifies the perception of each- other's clock time quite apart from the experiments in the past that looked for a spatial Ether.
  • A more holistic view over all spacetime to date provides a different view. The Age of the Universe for example is an absolute measurement
  • It can be argued that if some object ‘Z’ has never been accelerated (thought experiment) then it has only time as a measure (absolute) whereas any object (say a galaxy) that has moved in space will display a different time to that of ‘Z’
  • Similarly, there is no way of thinking of space as absolute unless of course nothing ever moved (?)
  • So, taking an average of all galactic movements maybe could be used to identify “still”.
  • The diagram (!) below I made using letters so it is inadequate and crude. However, the circle represents the universe as if it were a sphere (dropping 2 dimensions). The horizontal line is distance and the vertical is time.
  • Imagine both lines passed through the centre of the circle (through the origin) so that they became diameters. A radius pointing up then is time and the point where it intersects the circle is “now” in our universe and its length is expressed as years. Similarly, a horizontal radius from the origin (The Big Bang) shows the distance in light years.
  • The radius is a valid ‘spacetime Interval’. It describes Special Relativity, time dilation and distance dilation. Explanation: Take any radius – preferably in the top hemisphere- and draw it to intersect the circle. Then by dropping a line down from the intersection to the horizontal line and similarly a horizontal line from the intersection to the vertical line: you have all the geometry needed to use Pythagoras to determine the dilation of time and distance for any spacetime position determined from where you drew the radius. I heard Brian Cox mention its validity on TV. It may have been as a result of my communication with his office – or not. I just thought it was original and worth mentioning as an original description of the Special Relativity theory.

  • The diagram has miraculously disappeared so reading the above will have to do. Ok so if we can hold the imaginary circle and radius in our head it is clear that where the vertical radius intersects the circle can be considered as our place in time and space. But any position on the circle could be considered, in reality, our place in space and time. If we had simply stood still (with no spatial movement) the radius would represent the direction in space-time that time pointed.
  • So, if you follow me so far (!) time can be represented by any radius and more, by any radius within a sphere. This relegates time to a process occurring in 4 dimensions rather than the 4th dimension itself.
  • Time then becomes to us (as a flatlander equivalent) the result of the universe expanding: that is a radial dimension of 1 second =299792458km
  • Note though that time running in an opposite direction would be perceived to be negative. On opposing sides of the sphere then their time would appear to be negative; although to them it is positive (if you exist anywhere on the circle time would appear positive)
  • Antimatter is an electron in time negative for example. So, the other side of the n-sphere is antimatter (?)
Remember these are just my thoughts and not any peer-reviewed stuff
 
Jan 12, 2024
29
2
35
Visit site
Your eloquent essay would be more accurate. Simplify your view. Where does time come from and leave Eisteing out of it. Nature does not have Einstein as an assistant. Also consider time as quantized.
Lets see what you come up with,

Good luck
 
Jan 2, 2024
66
6
35
Visit site
Your eloquent essay would be more accurate. Simplify your view. Where does time come from and leave Eisteing out of it. Nature does not have Einstein as an assistant. Also consider time as quantized.
Lets see what you come up with,

Good luck
Thank you for your compliment.
It seems to me that time is only a process happening in 4D. That is, it is the expansion of the universe that drives time. That the universe is like a shockwave travelling outward as a sphere within a landscape of static Quantum material. Static until the universe interacts and changes stuff. (collapses stuff). The shockwave is the universe and the universe only exists as a NOW.
The evidence for this view? Well, 1 light year =1 year. If the age of the universe is expressed as light years (as a radius describes a circumference. The circumference - represents the total universe) then for each additional second there is an additional distance added to the size of the universe which equals a Hubble Constant of 71 approximately. This represents the Hubble Constant derived from the CMB. If we use data from the Hubble Telescope and add in some 360,000 extra light years - (pre-CMB) we get about 67 for the Hubble Constant - if my memory is good. That explains the two 'different results puzzle'. The figures I have used are approx I cannot be sure I remember exactly but you can work them out yourself anyway. That the numbers are from two different methods I think defends any circular argument accusation
Bear in mind this is just my opinion!

No evidence for the following - it's just me going wild
We could expand this into fantasy and try to show that our universe is supported by a feeding Black Hole driving us into a connected White Hole forcing the expansion of space - from a different universe

For some science fiction, we could pretend that the shockwave is not unique and is followed by many more, each one slightly different as each modifies the Quantum stuff left by the proceeding one. This gets around the grandfather paradox. Go back in the following shockwave universe and murder your ancestors; as you were born in the older universe shockwave version you survive to carry out the evil deed.

Sorry got carried away!
 
Last edited:
I use square empty space and omnipresent time and length for my discernment of observations and measurements. This is in direct conflict with present theory. But it is much more enjoyable and satisfying. All can understand. PhD not required. And no secret handshakes.

And when we get different results, with changes of duration, angles and distances.....for the same dynamic......it would be expected and accounted for. I have no problem with this, never have. The change in duration, angle and distance always changes the observation and measurement, even of a sphere. Or a ring. Only an imaginary stationary single point can ignore motion relativity.

Not seeing the relative difference would not only puzzle, but would frighten me. It would remove any and all surety. About existence.

Of course it always depends on your/the reference, but thinking the EM has the same constant velocity to all observers is denying all reason. We cannot measure that velocity. There is no proof of such a statement. Hopefully in the future with better instruments we might confirm this dogma. I believe it will be false. At this present time, the change in phase and frequency proves it for me. Especially with a continuous wave function.

The only method, the only way to measure a constant velocity from all emitters......is with a perfectly stationary point in space. To all others it(c) too..... is relative. Simple interaction mechanics.

Only mathematics can deny reality. And only that by changing time and length. Cosmic math only works correctly with omnipresent time and length.

And it all fits with square math and intermittent light. Duty cycle light. Duty cycle light explains red shift in the proper manner AND explains the illusion of expansion. Space-width modulation.

But I have a twisted mind and probably need more medication.
 
Your eloquent essay would be more accurate. Simplify your view. Where does time come from and leave Eisteing out of it. Nature does not have Einstein as an assistant. Also consider time as quantized.
Lets see what you come up with,

Good luck
Why would any sane person consider time to be quantized? Time and space form a continuum meaning one cannot exist without the other. Have you never heard of time dilation or length contraction ?
I dont think we can leave Einstein out of it, when discussing special relativity.
 
Jan 2, 2024
66
6
35
Visit site
Why would any sane person consider time to be quantized? Time and space form a continuum meaning one cannot exist without the other. Have you never heard of time dilation or length contraction ?
I dont think we can leave Einstein out of it, when discussing special relativity.
Well, there's the rub!
Space is considered Quantized by some clever people. Sort of equidistant points linked by a sort of network. Not a good description... Will try to find some authorative reference for your consideration
 

Latest posts