Full Text: Helland Observation of Time and resulting Theories
Mike Helland
The world is devised of many layers. In the world that you and I
perceive, people interact with one another. And our world is made on
top of another layer, that of the atom. The atoms build every
3-Dimensional object that we observe.
The way the atoms are held together is done at another level: the
world of particles. Three of the four forces that occur in this layer
bind the atoms together and make them work, while the last one,
gravitation, is the force that makes them move.
At the level that gravitation works, something is different.
Time changes levels. The mere fact that gravitation causes something
to move means that the result is time. Well, a new layer of time.
There is still a more fundamental version of time that exists where
particles like the graviton exist and move around. It just isn't apart
of the time you and I can comprehend. Which sort of makes sense; you
couldn't see the thing that created time inside the time it created.
From now on "time" will mean the time that we observe, and I'll be
specific if I reference the fundamental version of time.
What's really happening is that the time created by movement must be
perceived at the speed of light. Therefore, time exists at the speed
of light.
If an object, then, is moving faster than the speed of light it must
exist at a level where the perception of time is not limited to the
speed of light. Another way to say this is that its mass must be less
than mass of light. I think everyone assumes that light has no mass.
But hypothetically speaking, if light existed at the level that time
was perceived at, that is where mass would start to be observed. But
that doesn't mean that is where mass starts to exist. I suspect there
are objects with smaller mass than light. Perhaps light's mass is C in
the e=MC^2 formula.
We can also say about that object, that if interactions that object
had while moving that fast, any results in the world above would
appear as instantaneous in time, even if the visible results were
light years apart in space. Because our perception of time is limited
by the speed of light, anything moving faster than the speed of light
is incomprehensible, imperceptible, and therefore, infinite.
Results that we've observed that work this way are entanglement, and
the mechanics of gravity. Both of which are hidden just beyond the
privacy of a limited perception. Although, those actions and their
associated particles are not timeless. In their own layers of time,
they are moving at finite speeds.
We can now see that Relativity exists as one notion, not General and
Special. And we can add another observation to sit next to Newton's:
Gravity makes things move, and time is created.
In addition, we should be able to understand why time is curved. As if
it was the anti-derivative of a more fundamental time. And by being
confident in our limitations of perceiving time, we imagine that the
incomprehensible values that lie outside our limits would manifest
itself in terms of infinity, and even irrational numbers.
In some ways this could be looked at as an acceptable Grand Unified
Theory. You might say there's a problem with that because the four
forces cannot be described with the same calculation, or formula. But
we now have the intuition to think of science in more terms than of
formulas, we can think of this as a system defined in multiple
formulas and calculations ordered in a computer program. That set of
rules would be the GUT.
But there is something more important in this. By implying that the
graviton is moving faster than the speed of light we can say with
confidence that the mechanics of gravity are not occuring in our
space-time. The specifics are in a world that is hidden from us by our
limited perception of time. Which means we should see that digging
into this unified theory any further will not allow us to perceive
what we conclude is unperceivable... that is, until we clearly
understand how perception works.
Specifically, there are a few things I think I've introduced here that
are original:
1. We understand where our time does not exist, and that the movements
we observe creates time at the level of observation
2. The distinction between our time and the time that exists at the
quantum level, allows us to admit that particles perceptible in our
time, and particles not perceptible in our time will still act
rationally in their own common time. This is the link between General
and Special Relativity
3. The prediction of a 5th force in nature that explains how we
perceive light
With that last prediction, I will also assert that every form of
existence in our perceivable space-time, wether it be an atom or a
tree, also "perceives" in space time in the same fundamental way we
do.
7-12-03
updated 7-16-03
Mike Helland
RazroRog
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:a6db6e7.03071...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> What's really happening is that the time created by movement must be
> perceived at the speed of light. Therefore, time exists at the speed
>
>
> Gravity makes things move, and time is created.
>
you are mathematically adept (preferably graduate level), study some "real"
(respected) General Relativity textbook like "Gravitation" by Misner,
Thorne, and Wheeler. Since you are interested in the subject, these will
help you obtain a more accurate picture with which to expand your own
thoughts.
regards,
raz
Mike Helland
Forumals don't make things real. Scientific observations make things
real. Did you read my post all the way through?
RazroRog
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.03071...@posting.google.com...
relevent to what I stated??? By "real" I only meant, in the post's context
of papers and textbooks, the manner that physicists and students of physics
formally approach the subject - in contrast to non-technical, popular
accounts of the subject. Since physics is essentially mathematically
modeling the workings of our physical surroundings I see no reason to
object. BTW - even observations don't "make things real". Real is what is
physically actual. Obesrvations may or may not confirm various theoretical
predictions of some theory but they nether, in the long run, "prove a
theory", nor do they have anything with making what is already real - real.
Regards,
raz