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)
