Cosmological Cycle of Time
This final chapter argues, in philosophical terms, that the speed of light and the speed of zero are attributes of the same event; that time is a cosmological cycle in contraction and that we are accelerating through time.
Part 6. of the paper Time's Paradigm
"Mathematical formulas do not express reality, they express functions. Reason debates reality, and questions functions...
Only time will tell."
CHAPTER 6. Travel
In the last chapters, we have been considering the implications of the hypothesis, here called Universal Contraction (UC). It states that all matter is in collapse, being the fundamental reason for a perceived flow of time. If we increase our velocity, our mass reduces (we contract) more slowly than observers on our Earth standard frame of reference, making it appear that we have increased in mass while our clocks slow down. Equally, by travelling slower through the cosmos, we contract more quickly than normal, this would amount to us being propelled more swiftly through time.
UC is not a great leap into the unknown, we are simply looking at Special Relativity (SR) from a different perspective; no grand, new formulas required. What it does is help us visualize the inconsistencies of supposed constants such as space and time, which are manipulated and warped by the necessity for a constant light speed (c). Now we can see why time slows, we can see how mass might appear to increase, lengths contract, and so on...
To recap: Contraction of matter is uniform, it arises from pressure exerted by space in a contained and static Universe, and it is contraction of our three physical dimensions simultaneously, thus implying a fourth, time. This can be referred to as the 'cosmological cycle of time', a deceleration and constant contraction from the speed of light to zero velocity.
The established, standard model for velocity is linear, where the speed of light (c) and zero velocity (z) are limits at each end of this 'so called' speedometer. However, these end velocities are defined by their finality, and thus, the velocity of any body between them can be precisely extrapolated. This gives rise to a problem, as explained before: progress is not possible between established points or moments. Special Relativity, in its favour, had to conclude that (c) was invariant on a linear speedometer, thus avoiding relative establishment and allowing acceleration in time and space.
Alternatively, UC offers a cyclical speedometer, where (c) and (z) do not exist; these two ends are conjoined in a circuit, like a clock or wheel whose illusory spokes are simply named for our convenience. These redundant velocities, (c) and (z), are then attributes of every possible position in space. At all times we move towards and away from both. In addition, (c) is both the beginning of time and the end of velocity, while (z) is both the end of time and the beginning of velocity - in essence, time and velocity are the same cycle!
At light speed contraction does not occur and clocks stand still. That is not to say that time stops flowing, it is simply that our clock cannot function. At the other end of this scale, we can assume such a thing as zero velocity. If we stopped moving through space, became stationary, as it were, then contraction to non-existence would be instantaneous; time would fly by as we careered towards the future.
But, to stop moving! All bodies in physical existence are made up of atomic particles, all of which are gyrating about in considerable motion. Then there is the macro world we perceive: We are in constant motion; our planet is revolving at great speed.., our solar system, even faster... Indeed, our galaxy is whizzing around at thousands of miles an hour, and also hurtling at tens of thousands of miles an hour across the universe towards the Virgo cluster.
In Search of ZERO VELOCITY:
To some this should be abandoned as a futile quest. Besides; as we know, motion is relative and nothing is therefore at rest in the Universe. However, confronting this issue reveals some surprising results. "Never up, never in," as they say on the golf course.
Just how close are we to zero velocity (z)? It is normally stated by physicists that we on Earth are a very long way from relativistic speeds (with a cheeky grin). The fact is, no matter how close we are, it will always appear as if we have an insurmountable hill to climb. Likewise, a stellar system moving through the Universe at near light speed (c) from our point of view, also has the amazing ability to make its inhabitants believe that they are nowhere near the speed of light, due to time dilation and Lorentz contraction.
We tend to think that a theoretical rocket in relativistic thought experiments setting off from Earth, leaves at (z) and accelerates all the way up toward (c). That is how we see it from our Earth perspective, however, from other inertial frames of reference this may not be what is observed. Others may see that our Earth is already travelling at great speed in the opposite direction to which the rocket was launched, so the rocket is hardly accelerating at all.
This means that true velocity relative to the Universe is incalculable with today's understanding and formulas. We just don't know how fast we are really going and can only calculate relative to other bodies who also don't know how faster they are going. In total, the whole concept of motion is a nonsense.
At present, real vehicles launched from Earth are only investigating our Solar System and, relative to the Sun which is considered at rest, we make our calculations. And it works! We have not yet, developed a craft capable of relativistic speeds, so know nothing of the potential. Any thought experiment concerning distant stellar systems cannot simply assume that such random and local concepts for motion apply elsewhere and at such supreme velocities - the Universe is a big place.
Is Light Speed an illusion?
The cosmological cycle of time described earlier says we are in constant deceleration flowing through time from (c) to (z), in one direction only. Therefore, we can only arrest this deceleration, not reverse it. We began our journey through the Universe at light speed, but we have since left (c) behind. Arresting our deceleration gives the impression that we have returned to (c). That would have been the case had we stopped deceleration the moment it began, but since then, this fictitious horizon has been drifting further and further below (c), unbeknownst to us.
Moreover, to stop our positive deceleration would constitute the identification of a defined point, which could then only be described as the speed of light. The energy required to halt the contraction of matter would be infinite, amounting to a force equal and opposite to the gravitational influence of the entire Universe. Thus, our notion of light speed is that it is always just out of reach, whereas, in fact, we misconceive its true speed and wrongly fixate on a horizon that is slowing down.
Setting out into the cosmos, we might think we will eventually reach relativistic speeds, but the reality will be that we have merely reduced our rate of deceleration. We might see our rocket approaching distant solar systems at speeds approaching (c), but this is merely a relative misunderstanding.
The speed of light will always elude us. It is always going to be faster than us even though we may consider we have caught up with it, because it is receding. Likewise, (z) will always be seen to be just out of reach.
Take the linear model for velocity and wrap it around like a band, so that (c) and (z) join and become the same spot, like midnight on a clock. Each so called 'point' around it will be a velocity, which we could crudely imagine as perpendicular to the cyclical deceleration of the circumference. In the same way we can look at time and say that, any point around its circumference is our perceived clock speed perpendicular to the flow. In fact, as both these cyclical models are one and the same, velocity on one side, opposes clock speed on the other; as one increases the other decreases. Assuming clock speed to be a synonymous function for atomic/molecular energy, we then have equilibrium.
Every nominated point on this giant wheel we are describing above remains at the same distance from every other point, regardless of local variations in speed. Relative motion does not apply to this fourth dimensional flow of contraction/deceleration, it only applies in the three dimensions of space we perceive. This inter-connected and unalterable wheel is our Universe, the sum of all material existence. It is constant, contained and perpetual. Light travels invariantly as it has no mass and is not constrained by the cycle of time. It therefore reaches its target at the same time it launched. It travels, as it were, in straight lines between points, and does not flow around the circumference.
An issue raised in an earlier chapter was the consensus that any light is emitted at a static point in the Universe. Photons are not influenced by the speed of the platform from which they are beamed, states SR, and they set off without accelerating - already travelling at light speed. This idea further solidifies the notion that zero and light speed are one and the same.
How does light get emitted at the atomic level? A particle collides with an electron which then loses energy as it drops down a level, and that energy is expelled in the form of a photon. We can illustrate this by suggest that the static point from which a photon is emitted is the point at which a colliding electron has been stopped in its tracks - instant deceleration.
The misconception, therefore, that our launch pad, the Earth, is at rest, is not as silly as it seems. Any and all points on the cyclical wheel of Time can be both stationary and the speed of light, and anything in between. So, any velocity can be anything you want, and decelerating to (z) is actually acceleration to (c).
Deceleration, a Paradox.
Oddly, though this cosmological cycle for time says that we are all decelerating, it can be suggested in line with SR that there is no such thing as deceleration: Deceleration in one frame of reference can always be seen as acceleration, in another, even when returning to our original point of departure (the frame of reference where the journey initiated). In this paper it is regarded as the Beta-celeration Paradox.
In any accelerating path there will be many points considered by other observers to be at rest with respect to their inertial frame of reference. So, an astronaut in a rocket, beleiving she is accelerating, may actually be seen by these outside observers to be decelerating towards one of their rest points. However, when our astronaut passes through one of these so called 'static points', she feels nothing. She does not experience any slowing down, then speeding up as she passes through, because that point does not exert any influence upon her, it does not really exist for her.
Deceleration is the same as acceleration. In fact, the word 'deceleration' is frowned upon by those who demand we call it 'negative acceleration', instead. When you fire rockets to decelerate you feel the g-forces. You are adding energy to the system. You go from feeling nothing as you float along at a fictitious, incalculable speed to suddenly experiencing the change. This suggests we are all always accelerating; always adding energy; always gaining in mass - if we follow the basic assumption of SR.
Apparently, every direction you wish to travel is towards (c). That defies logic, but who said the Universe is logical? It suggests that we and every body in the Universe is continually going faster, getting more massive. More and more energy! If so, at some stage the Universe will not be able to contain itself. So, is acceleration also an illusion?
UC is the equilibrium for this peculiar circumstance. We are, in fact, all contracting in time, actually decelerating, we just haven't added that new information into our thought experiments, yet.
A linear scale of velocity is what we use to describe are movements in today's world. However, in a cyclical model, we might just as likely depart a platform at (c) heading for (z), as we could depart the same platform at (z) heading for (c). Acceleration or deceleration, take your pick.
Zero Velocity is in the direction of our origin. Not the beginning of any journey we take here and there on a daily bases, but only one, the most fundamental journey of all, where it all began: time and our beginning, our origin hidden somewhere in the Universe. We burst out into this Universe at (c), at that point we began our journey toward (z), and on reaching (z) we return to our origin, (c). Not by pointing towards it but, rather, by pointing in the opposite direction.
This still leaves us with the nagging question we began with: Where is zero velocity? Can we as physical entities ever hope to reach (z) in our relative, off-circuit meanderings, or do we just have to wait for the cosmological cycle of time to carry us there?
If we were to fire a particle in the opposite direction to its current trajectory through the universe and at its precise current speed, the particle - in theory - would cease to move. UC says, it would, as it decelerated, begin to shrink dramatically. The closer to zero velocity it became, the faster it would collapse. It would register a massive increase in the rate of clock time, or particle functionality. At (z) we can therefore assume that it would simply not exist.
All dimensions exhausted, our particle would have returned to the moment before real existence: That 'singular state', described in the last chapter. Now in contact with all things and without the constraints of distance, time or movement, our particle might even have the potential to then burst out in the Universe, at a place and time where our particle had originally emerged!
... A rebirth of our particle into existence - and at the speed of light.
Could the Big Bang be a place and a time that continually spews forth emerging existence? The Big Bang looks like a one-off; a cataclysmic, single explosion, from our linear perspective. Alternatively, from the point of view of cyclical time progression, it always exists. In real time, looking at the whole universe through time, we see the flow of all matter returning to this giant portal only to be ejected once again - a journey that is forever repeated.
The CERN Collider community has concluded that deceleration is the key to discovering exotic quantum matter believed to have existed at the very moment of the birth of our Universe - The Big Bang. By accelerating protons to near light speed and creating head on collisions, the protons are decelerated to stop, instantly. A splash of tiny sub-atomic particles is observed, shooting off in all directions. Had the protons reached zero velocity by less catastrophic means, we would observe the same particles in a concentrated implosion. What scientists are witnessing is the activity associated with an end of physical existence which, coincidentally, is a re-birth thereafter - or could it be the other way around?
Positive acceleration, or negative acceleration, it's all the same thing if you ask any body of matter. Those protons could be said to have accelerated instantly, on impact.
At the Atomic Level.
Time is a circuit. Time does not stop anywhere; mechanisms may fail, functionality at the particle level may become sluggish at great speed, like clocks that run slow; but time is continuous.
You reach the speed of zero, you contract with incredible force; then, as you enter a state of dimensional non-existence, that energetic momentum of contraction must continue to exist and so, therefore, be thrust out somewhere else. A catastrophic implosion reciprocated by an equal and opposite explosion of matter. And the laws of Thermodynamics are upheld.
In theory, by eliminating motion we might achieve a so called worm hole'. Not from a black hole - the singularity considered at present which assumes an infinite density of compressed matter with an extraordinary gravitational field - quite the opposite: a massive collapse of matter while approaching zero density caused by immense universal pressure which registers as an extraordinary gravitational field.
We need to consider what might happen to its atoms when our object reaches the point of becoming near stationary in the universe. With almost no inertial energy left, atoms will be immensely potent and be in near perfect symmetry, they might have unrealistic tendencies, might gain a super-existence not observable in everyday circumstances.
Such a bizarre phenomenon might, to a degree, have already been witnessed. Those experiments earlier mentioned, about reaching the temperature of absolute zero, have produced some extraordinary revelations about the effects on atoms that are hardly moving. They appear to lose all sense of reality and logic; they seem to lose their identities - a very peculiar thing - behaving sluggishly. The researchers used light and magnetic fields to reduce the temperature of the soup (Bose Condensate) in to which these atoms were introduced. In effect, they chilled them, extracted their energy; thus slowing them down, until they were practically standing still. But the laboratory where these experiments were being conducted was, of course, moving. It was on this planet...
Physicists from various fields are in agreement that a Zero-point Energy must prevail and some energy remains, even if atomic particles reach the temperature of absolute zero - their equations demand it! Of course, at present, there are no formulas concerned with existence beyond absolute zero, and no consideration that outside of relative motion there might be induced deceleration by a cosmological cycle of time.
Looking Back at Time.
What might our cyclical, four dimensional Universe look like? From a visual perspective the centre might be a tiny speck of near stationary objects rushing towards non-existence, while the outer shell is brimming at the speed of light. Some type of hyper-doughnut could describe the connection between its centre and its shell, as has been proposed before, to some extent, by others.
The opposite might also hold water: that the centre of our Universe is a hot pot of objects near light speed, and the outer extremities of less dense material is where velocity and gravitational influences are reduced to such an extent that contraction is almost instantaneous. This latter example is no doubt more aesthetically pleasing to those proponents of Big Bangs.
Quite possibly, a need for uniformity such as a doughnut shape is unnecessary, Chaos being more appropriate. Things could be popping in and out of existence all over the place in the Universe, with random disregard: A kind of Quantum foam affair ..?
Unfortunately, we, with our simple 3d perception, cannot fully visualise these incredible mechanisms at work.
It is no wonder then, when we ask why we cannot see or experience a moment in the past, like us getting up to go and make a cup of coffee, it is because this past existence of ourselves is both a moment millions of miles away and we were much more massive.
Distances between things were larger; everything was huge in comparison with now, because we are in constant contraction as we proceed through time. However, we are all together in this; at any moment in time everything around us appears to be proportionally the same as it was before, so nothing appears to change.
If we could go back a few minutes in time, but somehow stay magically the same size as we are now, what would we see? Our past self would be a giant, perhaps the size of the Empire State Building.., moving as if in incredible slow motion through a kitchen the size of Manhattan Island.
Look up, take a deep breath.., and marvel! Because you will never actually be able to experience this in reality; not even, I suspect, if one were to truly travel back in time.
What of light? Remember a chapter ago, you were reading about a light bulb hanging from the ceiling? Go back to that moment and say it was an hour or so ago. Relative to our frame of reference in the present, now, it might have taken a couple of seconds for photons from that bulb to reach your eyes, because the distance they needed to travel was a few million miles, in your current perspective.
Atoms in a giant, past body from yesterday might be the size of the London Eye and, if visible from our present frame of reference, have electrons lazily rotating about a nucleus like those hanging pods. A peculiar but compelling scenario! Such motion of atomic particles and photons through the Universe, then, would now be quite impossible for us to perceive. Would we really see this giant of ourselves as a human at all? Being able to see all those individual atoms making up human form, to be able even to see between them; are we sure we could actually see this giant at all?
By accepting that a past giant's clock was ticking much more slowly than ours at this present time, then the speed of light remains constant for all moments. But we can only see what is ours to see. It is easy to fool the eye and thus cognitive perception, even in our present macro state: a sheet of red and white stripes seen from a distance appears to be pink. The smaller or closer you get in relation to an object you are looking at, the less its overall form makes earlier sense; like looking at a bed sheet with a microscope.
Thus, UC suggests we cannot appreciate events either before or after now, because they are not of a relevant size; giving new meaning to those Minkowski layers. No universal clock, no laser beams to keep us all in line. We can only receive information that resonates in space at a given moment proportional to our state of awareness.
Within our Solar System this is no great concern, as our Sun is the 'mother ship' to whose supreme velocity we are all tied. But this does pose a problem beyond: If a spaceship rushes off from here at great speed into outer space, it will soon become detached from our neighbourhood, and at some stage it will have a velocity very distinct from ours. So, it should begin to disappear, loose contact. At what stage? We must ask, where is the cut off point at which we can no longer perceive the craft as it has slipped out of our reception and proportionality? Would it be a slow dissemblance of reality? Could it be abrupt and obvious? Or might it be a cascade of irregularities that ends in nonsense?
This paper prefers nonsense. Limits always seem to produce nonsense, as does Zero Kelvin. But, until such time as we send a craft out at relativistic speeds, or become aware of an alien craft of such great velocity entering our space, we cannot know. The study of sub atomic particles will probably not answer this question, although quantum physics is already grappling with such bizarre anomalies.
Let's look at photons of light again for a moment. They must also appear to be in contraction as they propagate. Otherwise, light waves from a distant galaxy would be so huge by the time they got here in relation to our dwindling size, we would surely not observe such photons as light, at all. As discussed earlier, space is contracting around us, electromagnetic radiation is the resonance of space and not an entity unto itself, so an apparent but unobservable reduction in size must follow.
Moreover, we could take the view, as has recently been proposed by an international consortium of scientists, that light is slowing down. If matter and associated space is in contraction, then the speed of light cannot be constant, it must reduce in velocity with time; however, to observe and measure from our contracting frame of reference will be erroneous – we must stand back from the Universe and observe in isolation.
We are, contracting through time from the past to the future. And objects that inhabit our stretch of the Universe, here, today, that are actually of the past - of some far away galaxy that was here - are still here, all around us, but they simply do not excite our senses in such a way as is detectable from our present perspective. They would be travelling at immeasurable speeds, be of immeasurable size and we would, in theory, pass right through their ancient aura without noticing a thing.
Our eyes have evolved to respond to what is useful, and being aware of this present moment is just that; they are made of atoms that can respond to photon excitement, now. If we had somehow evolved to see things in the future, then we would be oblivious to our present existence - the gene pool of which appears to have failed.
Time Travel, FASTER-THAN-LIGHT:
In light of the above proposal, 'Proportionality', we can return to the earlier debate concerning an astronaut on a four year voyage at relativistic speed to Alpha Centauri, and assert that she would not encounter this stellar system where she thought it would be.
Alpha Centauri and our planet Earth are in motion, they will be converging as they travel, getting closer to one another as they themselves contract in size. Rather than two cosmic bodies running parallel to one another, their drawn trajectory will appear as if a funnel, in geometry a trapezium. Here is the scenario:
Alpha Centauri would have slipped ever onwards in contraction and be much smaller now relative to the astronaut's moment in time. Had she reprogrammed her spaceship to intercept Alpha Centauri at an earlier moment by calculating the clock time lag she was experiencing, then she could reach the mark where both would be of proportional size for the moment, and so, visible to each other.
Equally, on returning to Earth, she would need to do the same calculations, otherwise she would arrive at the pre-programmed location, to find Earth nowhere to be seen. On the other hand, having re-calculated her trajectory she would then return to Earth in about four months, appearing no older to anyone. What we would all find amazing is that she managed to travel eight light years and get home in less than half a year. We didn't see it happen, so was it an illusion? Whose illusion?
She can only observe Earth as it was when it was bigger and proportional to her, so she will return just a few months after departure - or she will be lost forever, searching at the wrong time and in the wrong place, in a far away corner of our Universe, at the point of that funnel mentioned earlier.
So, those on Earth who welcomed the astronaut home after just a few months, would have to accept she travelled many times faster than the speed of light, intersecting the path of a distant star long before she was predicted to do so, and then returning just as fast. They would not have been able to observe this phenomenon, because light and associated emr waves would not have been able to keep up with her.
A photon of light has no mass and is not influenced by time. It is subject to the contraction of space between bodies. It is a product of space, it is present only in space and reduces with it. As explained earlier, space does not exist beyond material existence. However, material objects have mass and contract dependent upon their velocities with certain autonomy. When considering the path of Alpha Centauri over time relative to our planet Earth, we see that Universal Contraction will bring them ever closer together. Thus, while a photon of light takes many years on its true course down the cone to Alpha Centauri and back to Earth from our perspective, the astronaut travels exactly the same distance, but does it in just a few months.
This phenomenon is illustrated diagramatically in the supplement, Einstein's Light Clock Revisited. Alpha Centauri and our planet Earth are converging, as space and matter contract over time. Seen from a point of view external to our imposed perception by Universal Contraction, both the astronaut and the photon of light travel the same distance: she in 4 months, the photon of light in 8 years.
If there was a universal clock, then from the perspective of other frames of reference, the astronaut could not travel faster than light. However, the reality is seen to be different.
We can only perceive things that travel well under the speed of light, so, in essence, the subjective interpretation could be that (c) is a limit. However, that does not stop our astronaut from travelling, relative to her passage through time, at much greater speeds. We can measure electrons, protons and muons travelling at near the speed of light, but we are only measuring their energy levels at impact to determine velocity, not their true speed. If our space traveller was smashed into a wall, she would also read energy levels at near the speed of light, even though she was actually travelling way beyond it! It's simply a matter of Time.
It means also, that those travelling at relativistic speeds will see that slower moving objects appear to be decelerating. At such speeds contraction is slower than for others, they are gaining slightly in size relative to slower moving bodies contracting more quickly, so their perception must lag behind in order to see things of proportional size. If they were able to accelerate to the speed of light, they would see everything in the Universe grind to a halt. However, nothing actually would.
Moreover: If a conscious body travels at light speed and observes, as prescribed by the Lorentz Factor, that distances have all reduced to nothing, then theoretically one need only point the spaceship at a distant galaxy and instantly it would be there. Warp Speed! That a clock or any other mechanical device won't function at such speeds is understandable but irrelevant. The body would instantly disappear, as observed from Earth, because it would increase in size beyond our perception. This suggests once again that (c) is the same as (z), that both exist devoid of distances and space and motion. Our 'point of origin' and our 'singular state' are the same thing.
The conscious body explained above, would not be instantly transferred to a distant galaxy, but from her immobile perspective, she would be. She could then return to almost the same place and moment of departure, and interact with those who just saw her leave. Her practically instantaneous journey out and back was only possible because she and her colleagues understood that it is time that needs harnessing, not motion.
Our understanding of reality as seen here on Earth, is an uncertain perspective; we see the illusion of motion and perceived awareness and so we seem to progress, while light speed and no speed are unrealistic limits. Yet, we need only bend our linear concept of velocity so that the two ends (c) and (z) meet, producing a circuit, and in so doing they will create a system that is perpetual; deceleration and acceleration will be the same, and everywhere along its length will be both zero velocity and the speed of light. And the balance of energy in the system is exactly zero.
A simplified analogy of our Travel through Time:
We are all free rolling down the hill of time. But, say, a bus driver wishes to slow his roll by trying to reverse back up hill: so he lets out the clutch slowly and it and the wheels begin to dig in; his bus slows until its descent is practically halted; but at that moment the wheels spin and he is held at rest; neither descending nor ascending; the weight of his bus and its design will not allow him to reverse back up. Meanwhile, we all carry on rolling, and others from behind pass him by on our way downhill, and perceive that he has returned to the top of the hill.
please click to view or download TIME'S PARADIGM the full 1.3mb article in Adobe pdf
Home - pt1. Destiny - pt2. Time - pt3. Infinity - pt4. Dimensions - pt5. Velocity - pt6. Travel - pt7. Wrapper
Find us on: Facebook
or to contact the Author, please follow: Contact
Top of Page
A synopsis of a work in progress. Copyright: A. Graham, 1988 - 2016
No unauthorised use of the material published or the concepts described herein is permitted.