Time out of whack.

(Photo: AstroMSseqF_063aL Rich Murray, Wiki Commons 2.0 Generic.)


Max Planck said at certain levels, for example at very short distances, or very high temperatures, under all sorts of unusual conditions; the regular laws of physics just don’t apply anymore.

While most believe that time cannot be changed, sometimes cause and effect don’t mean much because effects sometimes happen before their causes. It is generally believed that the universe is infinite in time. It has lasted forever and will go on forever.

As a philosopher, I find myself defining my terms with ever-greater precision. So one has to ask, what is the difference between infinity and forever? Is there a difference, or are they the same thing?

There are those who believe in creation by God in six days. Some scientists have speculated about a continuous creation. Stephen Hawking described time like an anaconda, one that has swallowed a pig. He likens us to microbes, as if humans were e. coli in the belly of the pig—no matter how far we look, no matter which direction, we will never see anything more than the inside of the belly of the pig. He even speculates that the anaconda might swallow several pigs in succession, each of them traveling down the body of the serpent. It has been speculated that time might run backwards if and when the universe begins to contract back to its point of origin, a singularity.

No matter what you know about a system today, you have no way of predicting what it will be like tomorrow.

Was the universe created by vacuum fluctuations, where particles appear out of nowhere, and then subside, and energies go back to a zero state, with the universe going on unchanged? These particles have been described as ‘temporary,’ which in this case can last anything up to 10 to the power of 66 hours.

Some speculate there are multiple dimensions in space-time. My favorite is the fifth dimension, but some believe there are nine, eleven, or even twenty-six dimensions, and in theory the likelihood is that there are an infinite number of dimensions…and yet we simply don’t know how or where to look for them.

If a particle appears from ‘nowhere,’ and then disappears again, where did it come from? Where did it go to? Did it come from ‘null-space?’ Where exactly is 'nowhere?'

There is no such thing as empty space. It has been supposed there is some kind of universal frame, a vector rigging field which pervades all of space. The term ‘neo-ether’ has been used to describe the invisible something that fills the universe. We have to accept the notion that something exists everywhere. Some kinds of data remain forever unknown, for example the proofs of the existence of God. The ontological argument is that God cannot be proven not to exist, so therefore He must exist.

If you put a slot in a bead, and make a Moebius strip out of paper, and put a dot of ink on the bead, and then thread the bead onto the strip, you will note that after one revolution the bead is rotated 180 degrees. In order for the bead to return to its original position and orientation, it must go twice around the loop. A geometric circle has 360 degrees. For an electron it apparently has 720 degrees. In this case the circle is a two-dimensional abstraction that has many, or even infinite dimensions rotating around its radius…at least that’s what I say.

A force is that which makes things do things. There are so far only four known forces in the universe. These are the electrical, of which magnetism is a manifestation, then there is gravitation, which is different from magnetism. Then there are the weak and strong nuclear forces. It is theorized that all these forces existed as one super-force in 'Planck time’ at the moment of creation, which is described in event terms at something like 10 to the minus 54 seconds after the Big Bang. If all four forces evolved from the ‘first force,’ what is the likelihood that further evolution will occur? Perhaps we are witnessing such an event in our lifetimes. Time has often been described as the fourth dimension. Objects have height, width, and depth, and exist over a period of time. But this is either an assumption, or perhaps it is simply dead wrong.

The temporal force may be considered the fifth force discovered thus far in the universe. It is speculated that another force exists in the universe, one that cannot be measured or quantified in any way. It has been called ‘God’s Love,’ for want of a better term.

Much effort has been expended in the search for the so-called ‘God Particles,’ but to no avail. As a scientist and a philosopher, I have no problem with the notion that God created the Universe, but I doubt if it can be proven except anecdotally.

With the Planck force, there would be more energy than you can safely imagine.

Wormholes have been described and accepted theoretically by scientists. They are about 10 to the minus 33 centimeters in diameter, with a duration of 10 to the minus 43 seconds. You can create a wormhole by heating a volume of space to 10 to the 27th degrees Kelvin or compressing some matter down to the black hole or neutron star densities. Don’t try this at home.

Heisenberg stated the ‘uncertainty principle.’ It is a statement of probabilities, and uncertainties. You know the electron must be there, but you can never say where it will be at any given point in time.

According to the Feynham diagrams, when a particle goes from point A to point B, it splits into two and one of them must be going into a separate universe. Essentially what he’s saying is that a particle can be in two places at once—but where?

A diagram of all possible paths the particle may take looks like a girl’s braid of hair.

Just as when you sprinkle iron filings around a magnet, revealing magnetic lines of force, it has been postulated that there are temporal lines of force.

If you follow the lines of force—i.e. timelines, no problem. If you cross the temporal lines of force, energy builds up and a puncture is made in the fabric of time. At some point there is too great an imbalance in the system, but reality heals the wounds made in itself.

An object crossing time lines builds up potential as it moves. The pull of an object snapping back to its own time would release a huge amount of energy in the space-time continuum or matrix. Hence the mass limitations, which permits only very small objects such as the particles mentioned in the vacuum fluctuations part of our theory to elude the laws of space and time conservation. Time is subjective, perhaps even imaginary.

Time is closely linked to our perception of it, although many would tell you ‘there is only one moment’ as a fundamental truth. This is ‘the past is gone, the future never gets here’ line of thought. Perception is reality, and truth very often depends on who you ask—or who is asking. An acceleration is a force measured over time—therefore time must exist—or you can’t actually have an acceleration. Is it the same time all over the universe? Or the further away from the singularity you go, is it earlier? Or later?

If you burn 100g of matter, you may well end up with 10g of ash, and release 90g of gasses, which should be confirmed by Avogadro’s Law. If you put 100 Newtons of energy into a system, you shouldn’t get any more than 100 Newtons out of it. A body at rest tends to remain at rest unless some external force acts upon it. A body in motion tends to remain in motion unless some external force acts upon it. This is the Conservation of Momentum.

Does time follow the laws of conservation? One might assume that it does, however, if we know anything at all about the universe, is that ‘anything is possible.’ If time exists in the form of quanta, then it may be likened to a dotted line. In the gaps, the norms of physical and chemical laws may not apply.

This may be written as a corollary of Murphy’s Law. “If anything can happen, it probably will eventually,” in a universe where nothing is impossible. If we believe that the universe sprang forth from a singularity, either time existed before it, or it was created at that moment. Also, was space created at this time? Or did it exist previously, therefore giving the new universe somewhere to expand into?

If time sprang forth from the singularity, there is no such thing as a parallel universe.

They must all be on a slight angle from each other. There might be an infinite number of alternate universes. Each of these would be reality to an observer encapsulated within them. Incidentally, if there were two singularities, then two time-lines might cross or intersect. This would allow crossing from one time line to another, but only theoretically.

I can’t prove that. My instinct tells me there would be paradoxes that are irreconcilable. In my opinion, time does not stretch out ahead of us. It's like we are on the end of a timeline that is progressing forward. In that sense, we have the ability to change the future, at least for ourselves, and of course everything we do affects something else in the universe.

Author's Note: While this is by no means the full story, nor even particularly up to date, this represents research from various sources. A very small part of it ended up in my upcoming book, 'Time-Storm on A-5,' which will be available in a couple of weeks as an e-book in various formats and on various platforms. Shortly after that, it will be available as a 5 x 8 paperback on Amazon and Createspace.

Finding Time.

c2011Shalako


When I first started on the road to professional success, a long and dusty trail, I was basically using the internet to seek out new markets, send e-mails back and forth, and for research. I wasn't on any social platforms or networks at the time.

Even then, I had some sort of routine. At first, I had to promise myself to check the e-mail inbox at about the same time every night--say about ten p.m., and that way if anything should require attention, I had time to think about it, and I coould do whatever needed to be done. And I could send it off or submit it the next morning.

All very businesslike. Now that I am engaged on numerous social platforms, I need to keep track of notifications, account passwords, and I literally keep a list of the places I am on. Seriously. I even make notes of new social networks when I hear about them. I don't always sign up, but I check them out.

Once fully engaged, it is easy to get too involved in discussions, posting and re-posting links, watching out for hot leads and new markets, meeting all the new people and learning something about each and every one of them.

The question of course, is when do you find the time to write at all?

Under a previous business model, an author might spend an average of two years writing a book and bringing it to the shelves on day one. The promotional efforts would go on for weeks or months. The more successful the book; the longer the promotion, a notion Stalin was not unfamiliar with. He would allocate resources to the most successful generals, and woe to the unsuccessful ones, who would either be annihilated by the enemy, or shot by their own side for their failures.

Like Stalin, no one wants to throw bad money after good. And time is money.

I'm lucky to be able to work at this full time, without having to balance a lot of distractions and demands.

So far this week, I've written over 11,000 words on my major new detective story, which may end up as a novella or novelette. I've also mown the lawn and did a little bit of shopping.

If the searing orb of the sun would come out, I would go for a bike ride.

It's a matter of maintaining a balance; otherwise you fall off the bike.

Time In A Bottle. And Why Gravity Bends Reality.

Time is not a physical constant. While time can be measured precisely at a given location, the effect of gravitation on time is that it expands and contracts.

Yet it is my sense that time does not stretch, but perhaps the gaps between quanta of time may become enlarged. Like Formula One cars, the gaps between them open up as they accelerate onto the straightaways, and the ‘cars,’ or quanta, bunch up under braking and turning—and turning, or ‘lateral acceleration,’ is indistinguishable from gravity. Gravity bends light, so why not time, or even ‘reality’ itself?

In a 1971 experiment, atomic clocks were carried on supersonic aircraft. One traveled east, (in the direction of Earth’s rotation,) and the other traveled west.

After the globe-encircling flights, the clocks on both planes either gained or lost time when compared to a ground-based atomic clock.

This was confirmation of a predicted effect of relativity. Mathematics predicted it, and experiment confirmed the existence of time dilation. Now, it seems to me that the speed, or velocity of the aircraft, relative to the magnetic field, is what causes the actual time dilation. The aircraft are crossing magnetic lines of force, which causes the temporal distortion.

Let us assume that we can isolate this one variable in the equation. Now solve for all other operations, factors, sets, etc. This answer is fine if there is no motion, (or no gravity.) Now, hit this ‘answer’ with your last variable-factor, i.e., ‘velocity in a magnetic field of x-force.’ This isolated variable means the answer we end up with is not a constant, it can be ‘accurate to the tenth decimal place,’ and even ‘precise,’ without ever quite being correct.

That is because there really is no correct answer. Would time distort in the presence of gravity but in the absence of motion? Good question, but if it does, it must distort less than it would at a higher velocity. The answer is that the dilation is both variable and a constant. This is a necessary fiction, in some sense. It is the correct answer mathematically, but philosophically, ‘wrong.’ The trouble is you have nothing else to compare it with, in keeping with our notion of ‘relativity.’

You can cut something in half an infinite number of times, and each quantum of time is a separate and distinct entity. Could we cut a quantum of time in half, and what would happen if we did? Would it break reality? Would it sever the time line, and yet that is a contradiction, for it cannot start twice…? If a quantum exhibits characteristics of both a wave and a particle at the same time, is it divisible at all?

Can we do both, or neither, at one and the same time, or separately?

If you made yourself really, really, small, you would see the forces of the universe at work—you would see magnetic lines of force, and stretching off into your future, little white marks like the lines on a highway. The nearest quanta look ‘big’ and the farther they are away, they look ‘small.’ At some point, they appear to be a continuous white line. These are quanta of time.

You would see electrons buzzing around in their orbits and the little strings that keep them from flying away, and the links between molecules.

You would see things that only God has ever seen before. Statistically speaking, at a temperature of absolute zero, there will still be molecular motion. Statistically speaking, it ‘must’ be happening. No one can ‘prove’ it, except mathematically. Is time temperature dependent? Would time stand still at zero degrees K? My personal opinion is that time marches on regardless.

Can we save time in a bottle? I don’t know.

In a previous monograph, I referred to reality as a ‘bubble,’ expanding outwards from a point of singularity. Reality does not exist inside the bubble, it is in fact the skin of the bubble itself. Points relative to each other on that ‘bubble’ of reality will expand away from each other as time goes on. This is simple topology.

So-called ‘reality,’ is a one-dimensional plane surface that is not flat—it is a hollow sphere, made of a material of infinite thinness. We live inside of that material. We cannot go ‘forward,’ in the direction of expansion, for that is the future and it hasn’t happened yet, and worse, it may never happen. We cannot go back, for that is the past, and to go back into the past is to change the unchangeable. All we can do is to remain in our matrix, an infinite expressed in one-dimensional topological terms.

My little handheld calculator only goes up to eight digits, and with my education, I don’t mess around with powers and scientific notation and stuff like that.

In order to understand things, we must describe them. The language must necessarily be precise. In that sense, by taking three lines from the encyclopedia, and constructing my own premise, I am ‘looking for truth,’ or ‘knowledge,’ insofar as that is possible.*

Setting the math aside for the moment, what I am really trying to say is, ‘truth may be sought by a careful analysis of language,’ for language is a tool for seeing things inside of our own heads.

The more words we have, the better we understand them, the more knowledge that opens up to us. When you consider that mathematics is really just a language of great precision, one that we can use to describe things in objective terms, then it becomes apparent there are some serious gaps in my own education.

*One of the ‘variables’ in writing is the level of education, or even merely the interest of the reader. It’s pretty likely someone much more knowledgeable than I will simply move on, while another person might be overwhelmed, and another might be intrigued by the possibilities. Some might see it as an absurdity, or find it boring. If you made it this far, thank you and have a good day. You really are a beautiful person. (This really is bullshit, Louis. -ed.) (Yes, I know. But it's good bullshit. -Louis)

Time, Physics, and Metaphysics. A Parody.

by Louis B. Shalako

c2010

All Rights Reserved

Max Planck said at certain levels, for example at very short distances, or very high temperatures, under all sorts of unusual conditions; the regular laws of physics just don’t apply anymore.

While most believe that time cannot be changed, sometimes cause and effect don’t mean much because effects sometimes happen before their causes. It is generally believed that the universe is infinite in time. It has lasted forever and will go on forever.

As a philosopher, I find myself defining my terms with ever-greater precision. So one has to ask, what is the difference between infinity and forever?

There are those who believe in creation by God in six days. Some scientists have speculated about a continuous creation. Stephen Hawking described time like an anaconda, one that has swallowed a pig. He likens us to microbes, as if humans were e. coli in the belly of the pig—no matter how far we look, no matter which direction, we will never see anything more than the inside of the belly of the pig. He even speculates that the anaconda might swallow several pigs in succession, each of them traveling down the body of the serpent. It has been speculated that time might run backwards if and when the universe begins to contract back to its point of origin.

No matter what you know about a system today, you have no way of predicting what it will be like tomorrow.

Was the universe created by vacuum fluctuations, where particles appear out of nowhere, and then subside, and energies go back to a zero state, with the universe going on unchanged?

Some speculate there are multiple dimensions in space-time. My favourite is the fifth dimension, but some believe there are nine, eleven, or even twenty-six dimensions, and in truth the likelihood is that there are an infinite number of dimensions.

If a particle appears from ‘nowhere,’ and then disappears again, where did it come from? Where did it go to? Did it come from ‘null-space?’

There is no such thing as empty space. It has been supposed there is some kind of universal frame, a vector rigging field which pervades all of space. The term neo-ether has been used to describe the invisible something that fills the universe. We have to accept the notion that something exists everywhere. Some kinds of data remain forever unknown, for example the proofs of the existence of God. The ontological argument is that God cannot be proven not to exist; so therefore He must exist.

If you put a slot in a bead, and make a moebius strip out of paper, and put a dot of ink on the bead, and then thread the bead onto the strip; you will note that after one revolution the bead is rotated 180 degrees. In order for the bead to return to its original position and orientation, it must go twice around the loop. A geometric circle has 360 degrees, for an electron it apparently has 720 degrees.

A force is that which makes things do things. There are so far only four known forces in the universe. These are the electrical, of which magnetism is a manifestation; then there is gravitation, which is different from magnetism. Then there are the weak and strong nuclear forces. It is theorized that all these forces existed as one super-force in ‘Planck time’ at the moment of creation, which is described in event terms at something like 10 to the minus 54 seconds after the Big Bang.

With the Planck force, there would be more energy than you can safely imagine.

Wormholes have been described and accepted theoretically by scientists. They are about 10 to the minus 33 centimetres in diameter; with a duration of 10 to the minus 43 seconds. You can create a wormhole by heating a volume of space to 10 to the 27th degrees Kelvin or compressing some matter down to the black hole or neutron star densities.

(Don’t try this at home.)

Heisenberg stated the ‘uncertainty principle.’ It is a statement of probabilities, and uncertainties. You know the electron must be there, but you can never say where it will be at any given point in time.

According to the Feynham diagrams, when a particle goes from point A to point B, it splits into two and one of them must being going into a separate universe. Essentially what he’s saying is that a particle can be in two places at once—something even a ghost can’t do. A diagram of all possible paths the particle may take looks like a girl’s braid of hair. Just as when you sprinkle iron filings around a magnet, revealing magnetic lines of force, it has been postulated that there are temporal lines of force.

If you follow the lines of force—i.e. timelines, no problem. If you cross the temporal lines of force, energy builds up and a puncture is made in the fabric of time. At some point there is too great an imbalance in the system, but reality heals the wounds made in itself.

An object crossing time lines builds up potential as it moves. The pull of an object snapping back to its own time would release a huge amount of energy in the space-time continuum or matrix. Hence the mass limitations, which permits only very small objects such as the particles mentioned in the vacuum fluctuations part of our theory. Time is subjective, perhaps even imaginary. Time is closely linked to our perception of it, although many would tell you ‘there is only one moment’ is a fundamental truth. This is the ‘past is gone, the future never gets here’ line of thought. Perception is reality, truth very often depends on who you ask—or who is asking.

If you burn 100g of matter, you may well end up with 10g of ash, and release 90g of gasses, which should be confirmed by Avogadro’s Law. If you put 100 Newtons of energy into a system, you shouldn’t get any more than 100 Newtons out of it. A body at rest tends to remain at rest unless some external force acts upon it.

Does time follow the laws of conservation? One might assume that it does, however, if we know anything at all about the universe, is that ‘anything is possible.’

This may be written as a corollary of Murphy’s Law; “If anything can happen, it probably will eventually,” in a universe where nothing is impossible. If we believe that the universe sprang forth from a singularity, either time existed before it, or it was created at that moment. Also, was space created at this time? Or did it exist previously, therefore giving the new universe somewhere to expand into? If space existed previously, what existed outside of the point of singularity?

If time sprang forth from the singularity, there is no such thing as a parallel universe, they must all be on a slight angle from each other, although there might be an infinite number of alternate universes. Each of these would be reality to an observer encapsulated within them. At one time, philosophy and mathematics were closely linked, but they have tended to drift apart. In a world of increasing specialization, no one has the ‘big-picture overview.’ This is indeed unfortunate.

A friend of mine once went to the library and took out a book on metaphysics. He returned it a day later, and the librarian asked him what was wrong with it.

“The damned thing’s all about religion,” he told her.

Recently Stephen Hawking postulated that the universe might have come into being without help from God. Yet a news report in the last year or two noted that scientists, I think this was at CERN, were looking for 'the elusive God-particles,' which may help to account for the breakdown in conventional physical theories at the quantum or nanoscpoic level.

What if time exists in discrete, 'quanta' or particles, particles which share some of the characteristics of a wave?

Is time a dotted line, and if so, what happens in the gaps?

(Editor's Note: Compiled from sources. Louis really isn't that smart.)