Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Time and Indeterminacy vs. Continuity

  1. Oct 14, 2003 #1
    'Time and Indeterminacy vs. Continuity'

    Sorry; I couldn't resist that.
    (Peter Lynds theory)

    What is time?

    'Time is a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. An interval separating two points on this continuum; A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.'

    Question : What is time?

    Officially 9,192,631,770 beats of a cesium atom is 1 second. Time is what we measure with clocks, one tick, one second, at a time.

    What do we know?
    A quote from Paul Davies book:
    'About Time':
    'At the speed of light itself, time stands still'. (page 190)

    We know that time can stand still.

    Another quote from Paul Davies book
    'About Time':
    'In quantum physics, energy always goes hand in hand with time. In a sense, the amount of energy determines the rate at which time passes - the beat of the atomic clock if you like. No energy means the quantum clock ceases to tick: time bafflingly drops out of the physical description altogether.'
    (Page 180)

    Energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. And work is the transfer of energy from one physical system to another. There can be no work, therefore no time, without the potential for the transfer of energy. And a total energy-less void would be timeless.

    The forms of energy include: heat, light, sound, electricity, and chemical energy.

    Some Mental pictures:
    A photon Traveling at c; sound Traveling from a stereo speaker to the listener's ear; electricity Traveling through wires to light a desk lamp.


    1) To go from one place to another, as on a trip; journey.
    2) To go from place to place as a salesperson or agent.
    3) To be transmitted, as light or sound; move or pass.

    Travel means to be transmitted, as light or sound, move or pass.... move,... movement,.. ..motion.

    All energy is always in motion.
    In fact, everything from galaxies and people to quarks and electrons are always in motion.

    Motion is the act or process of changing position or place. And there can be no motion without energy. The amount of energy determines the amount of motion, and as Davies said: 'energy determines the rate at which time passes'. Since energy determines the rate at which time passes, energy cannot be time. And it is energy which causes the act or process of changing position or place which we call motion.

    What happens if we stop all motion?
    We know that all motion stops at absolute zero, -460 degrees F.

    Would time stop as well?
    Here is the simplest equation, which included time, that I could find:
    Velocity * Time = Distance

    Step by step, what is velocity?
    Velocity is rapidity or speed of motion; swiftness. A vector quantity whose magnitude is a body's speed and whose direction is the body's direction of motion. The rate of speed of action or occurrence. Velocity is the speed of motion.
    Velocity is not motion.

    What is speed?
    Speed is the rate or a measure of the rate of motion, especially: Distance traveled divided by the time of travel. The limit of this quotient as the time of travel becomes vanishingly small; the first derivative of distance with respect to time. The magnitude of a velocity.

    Again, just as Velocity is defined as the speed of motion; Speed is the rate of motion.
    Speed is not motion.
    Velocity is the speed of motion;
    Speed is the rate of motion.

    Velocity and speed are simply the measurement of something; motion.

    Just as a temperature reading is a measurement of heat, the reading on an outdoor thermometer in the winter , of 32 degrees for example, is not the temperature itself. If you place your hand on the thermometer it may feel cold, but it is not the mercury, which gives the 32 degree reading, inside of the thermometer, which is making your hand cold. Move your hand away from the thermometer, and you will still feel the 32 degree temperature.

    I'll skip over time, and ask:
    What is distance?
    Distance is the extent of space between two objects or places; an intervening space.
    The fact or condition of being apart in space; remoteness. Mathematics. The length or numerical value of a straight line or curve. The extent of space between points on a measured course.

    Going back to the equation:
    V= velocity is the speed of motion.
    D= Distance is the intervening space.
    T= ?

    Racer X will use this equation to improve his time in the quarter mile.
    He sits in his race car revving up his engine until the RPM Gauge hits its mark.
    He knows that soon he'll be shot off at a tremendous speed.
    He waits, the Go light signals red... then... yellow....then Green!

    Nothing happens.
    His RPM gauge showed he had more than enough Energy to bolt out of his standing position at a great Velocity, and the empty Distance was stretched out before him, with a wide open quarter mile of empty track ahead.
    He knows that Velocity * Time = Distance
    What went wrong?

    There is not any motion in this equation -
    he can't move.

    *Either this equation is wrong or the 't' , the time, is motion itself.

    Most people will say Velocity is a vector quantity whose magnitude is a body's speed and whose direction is the body's direction of motion.
    Is the magnitude of something, the thing?
    Is the direction of motion, the motion?

    If time is motion this means that time continues, as long as the universe is in motion, then time will never stop.
    Once all motion stops, time will, too.
    Or said a different way, once all motion stops the clock stops ticking.

    How can time be motion if an absence of any motion, -and- traveling at the maximum universal speed limit, the speed of light in a vacuum, both equal to a stopping of time?

    The first part is easy enough to understand, time stops when all motion stops. Without motion, without any movement from point A to point B you cannot get anywhere and cannot figure out t in the above equation.

    What about something like a photon which always travels at c? How can its time be stopped w/it moving at 300,000 kps?

    Thats because - it cannot move.

    At the speed of light time also stops, because all motion has stopped. Anything traveling at c cannot move at all, it is frozen,static in time. If it did make any movement, while traveling at c, that movement would then be traveling faster than c, and that is not allowed by the universal speed limit.

    General Relativity teaches us that accelerated and gravitational reference frames are equivalent. And that clocks slow down in both.

    We know from the Twins Paradox that one twin on Earth will experience Earth time at the expected rate of one second per second.
    We also know that the other twin from the 'warp-drive' spaceship will return home to discover that more years have passed on Earth then have on board their spaceship.

    This will be puzzling to our intrepid explorer because everything was normal on board.
    The clocks ticked, people worked, they communicated and interacted in the usual way without any deviation.

    How is this possible?
    We know that the more mass or energy something has the more energy it takes to 'move it through time', or simply put, to move it. This includes everything, even energy, as the 'warp-drive' spaceship travels through space everything on it gains energy and slows down.
    Everything on board slows down - all of the motion on board slows by the same factor, clocks tick slower, people move slower, electrons orbit slower, brain function is slower, thus no change is noticed.

    Motion = time
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 21, 2003 #2

    Analysis of one of Dr. Yu. Ivanov's Equations describing his Discovery of Lively Standing Waves

    by Edwin G. Schasteen

    According to Dr. Ivanov's publication, in the late ninety's, Dr. Ivanov discovered the existance of standing wave compression while conducting a series of accoustical experiments using interferrometric techniques. His discovery of this previously unknown interference pattern of wave phenomenon, which he deemed spider waves based on the interference pattern's resemblance to the shape of a spider, is detailed in his papers posted on www.keely.net/spider/htm.[/URL] Dr. Yu. Ivanov, and his team, discovered the existance of another related wave phenomenon of moving standing waves which they termed "Lively Standing Waves"(LSW's). According to Dr. Ivanov's research, lively standing waves arrise between two or more oscillators in a "united energy system" in which case standing waves move from the oscillators with a higher frequency to oscillators of a lower frequency. Dr. Ivanov and his team of physicists discovered an equation that describes the transfer velocity of "lively standing waves."

    For sound, his LSW equation is as follows:

    Lively Standing Wave Velocity=v1-v2/v1+v2

    Where v1 is the frequency of the first oscillator, and v2 is the frequency of the second oscillator.

    Dr. Yu. Ivanov equated the movement of lively standing waves through a system as movement of energy through a system. He defines an "Energy Transfer Velocity"(ETV's) in terms of LSWV's(Lively Standing Wave Velocities).

    For electrical systems and light Dr. Ivanov describes a similar equation for both the LSWV's and ETV's. His equation is as follows:

    Lively Standing wave Velocity=Energy Transfer Velocity

    Where v1 is the frequency of the first oscillator, and v2 is the frequency of the second oscillator, and c is the speed of light constant.

    Analysis of the equation c(v1-v2)/(v1+v2) reveals the following:

    Let us set up a traditional (x,y) Graph and allow the x axis to represent the frequencies of two oscillators v1, and v2, and allow the y axis to represent the ETV, and LSWV of this given system. As, according to Dr. Ivanov, the frequency of oscillator v2 approaches zero, the standing wave velocity approaches the speed of light in a direction of probagation from v1 to v2.
    Now if we let v1 be a constant frequency of 1htz, and let v2 be a variable frequency, then v2=v1-x, where x is the difference in frequency of oscillator v2 from v1 and is also known as the frequency gradient. We can use substitution to define the graph of ETV and LSWV as follows:


    Substituting v2 for v1-x, we get:


    If v1 is 1htz, then as x approaches zero, ETV and LSWV approaches zero. When x is zero, v1=v2.
    As x approaches -1, ETV approaches the speed of light, c.

    As x approaches -2, ETV approaches infinity(c).
    As x approaches -3, ETV approaches -3c from negative infinity, which means that the direction of the energy velocity has reversed, and is flowing from v2 to v1, instead of from v1 to v2.

    The above geometric conceptualization is described by two types of curved infinities that form both a mobius path and a torus. In the second from last illustration at the bottom of these pages, a section has been cut out along the cylinders length before the cylinder is rapped into a torus to represent the velocity ranges from 0 to
    positve -c.
    The curved length of the torus's rap in the last illustration represents the frequency range from negative infinity to positive infinity, and the circumference of the torus represents all possible velocities.

    According to the analysis, the equation describes a topology that implies the range of velocities that exist for standing waves as a mobius path. Namely, as v2 approaches negative infinity, the velocity of the standing wave from v2 to v1 approaches -c, because -c is where the mobius path crosses the infinite and -infinite frequency portion of our torus.The circumference of our torus representing frequencies +infinity to -infinity is infinite as is the circumference of the part of our torus representing the velocity range -infinity to +infinity.

    A translation of this concept can describe the nature of time direction, and why light waves closer to thier source are emmitted after (to the future of) light waves that are further from thier source, by defining light waves further from thier source as being negative oscillators relative to light waves closer to their source as shown by the diagram and equations below, and simultaneously defining each light wave's velocity through the right-handed universe, and left-handed universe indepentantly, results show three different time values for a position in space-time. Let four light waves be emmitted from a common source. Let the first light wave be emmitted at t=0sec, the second at t=1sec, the third at t=2sec, and the fourth at t=3sec. When the fourth wave is created, the first wave has traveled at a velocity of light a total of 3 light seconds. Therefore, let t0 represent the position of the first lightwave's wavefront. Let t1 represent the position of the second lightwave's wavefront, and so on.
    Then t sub(n-1)=t sub(n)-v, and t sub(n)=t sub(n-1)+v, where v=LSWV=TSV=c[v1-(v1-x)]/[v1+(v1-x)].

    Let t0=0sec, t1=1second, t2=2seconds and t3=3seconds.

    t=1-(0)= 1seconds,
    t=1-(1)=0 seconds.

    In order for a standing wave to travel from a light-wavefront back to it's origin at a plus and minus infinite velocity, the frequency gradient x between the light-wave front, and it's origin, would have to be 2 if v1 is 1htz. Plus, and minus infinity loop into each other the way that 0 degrees loops into 360 degrees in a circle. Our mobius path meets two unique infinity's at two different parts of our torus. Our mobius path crosses -c, at a frequency of +/- infinity, and our mobius path crosses a velocity of +/-infinity at
    v2=-1htz when v1 is 1htz.

    The larger circle represents an extended imaginary interval from the surface of the light field, whose value = the square root of negative one, 1i, or just i. Tangent to the circle is real number whose length =1.
    Using the pythagerean theorum, we calculate the length of the diagonal c^2 of the right triangle representing the lowest triangle.

    (a^2+b^2)^1/2=(c^2)^1/2, where a=i, and b is tangent to the circle, and equals 1.


    Since the diagonal c^2 equals zero, the area of the square converges to a point on the surface of the light field leaving only upper right triangle existing in the real number portion of our universe.

    The graph below represents the graph of Dr. Ivanov's equation for velocity of energy transfer, and lively standing wave velocity.

    [Insert Graph]

    The following proposed geometry is consistent with the model listed above, and can be shown to be described by the equations above, and shows that movement through space-time corresponds to velocities graphed as a mobius path on our infinite torus. This describes the nature of time progression, and is the underlying foundation for the formulation of the lorentz light cones in the differential space-time geometry described by general relativity.

    [Insert Graph]
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  4. Oct 21, 2003 #3

    Left handed wave front=sub(n)=t sub(n-1)-(-v)c=t sub(n-1)+vc
    Right handed wave front=sub(n)=t sub(n-1)-vc.

    Let n-1=0, and n=1, and c=1. Left handed velocity is -v= -1c, and right handed velocity is +1c.

    Lh=t sub(n-1)-(-cc)=c^2=c
    Rh=t sub(n-1)-(cc)=-(c^2)=-(c)=-c, when c=1 abu.

    Left hand universe extends to toward the future, and the Right hand universe extends toward the past.

    t sub(1-1)=t0=0,

    t sub(1)=t1=1,

    Therefore left handed t1 is equal to plus one arbitrary unit of time, and right handed t1 is equal to minus one arbitrary unit of time.

    This means that point t1 exists both in the absolute past, and absolute future. In reality, the absolute past time value of this equation represents the time that has progressed since the light field past your particular position in space-time. The absolute future part of this equation represents that time that will pass before the light wave reaches your position in space-time.

    The image on a light field is a two dimensional representation of the three dimensional space (x, y, and z) the light propogates through from it's source. If it were possible to see the back of the image (which we can by reflecting the light off of a mirror) contained on light, we would see the mirror image. We can see that we have two types of representations of a given region of space. We have a right-handed image of our three-dimensional space representing right-handed space, and we have a left-handed image of our three-dimensional space representing a left-handed space. As it turns out, one can give the two-dimensional image an added third imaginary dimension without changing it's real two dimensional nature described on the real number line by expanding the forward edge of the field in two directions. One extends the front edge of the light field by one imaginary unit=i, and the back end of the image by one imaginary unit of i.
    When we plug in the pythagerean theorem, we find that the diagonal length of both numbers reduces to zero, giving us our original two dimensional light field that we see in our real number universe. However, if we represent the image in this third imaginary dimension, we find that we have both a left-handed space seen from the origin point of light field, and a right handed space seen from the left-handed portion of our universe. It is important to note that no matter whether you are looking into the left-handed image from the origin point, or into the right-handed image from the outer most side of the light field, you are always looking in a direction that points toward the origin in real number radial axes. This means that two equal-opposite radial vectors in our real number universe translates into the right and left handed parts of our universe with a common real number radial vector that always points toward the origin point of our field. Let us assume that an irradiator radiates a light field in all directions as a sphere with an oscillatory frequency equal to 1htz. Those looking at the light field approaching them sees the right handed version of the light's movement away from lights source, which is +vc. However, after the light wave has past those persons particular reference points so as to be traveling away from those persons in real radial axes, those persons see the left-handed version of light's movement away from light's source, which is -(-vc)=c^2=c.Recall, that the difference between a frequency v1, and v2, is the gradient x. Recalling the topology of our mobius path of velocities, and torus of faster-then-light velocities, and other velocities, in this case, the gradient x of our light field that is traveling through real space at c, would have to have a gradient x=1. An example is shown below:


    Let c=1, v1=1htz, and x=1.





    This shows that there is definitely a difference between the standing wave velocity through right and left handed space, and the speed that light travels through right and left handed space.

    When we view the right handed frequency of v1, we see a frequency of 1htz. However, when we view the left handed frequency of v1, we see a freqeuncy of -1htz. This shows that there is a frequency gradient of 2htz between our left handed freqeuncy, and our right-handed frequency. If we plug in the equation, we find that the standing wave velocity between our left handed frequency, and right handed frequency is both plus, and minus infinity. This accounts for the two dimensional nature of the surface of a light field. An interaction between the left-handed frequency coming from the back side of our light field as it moves away from it's source, and the right handed frequency of the irradiator that generated the light field, reveals that a standing wave travels from the back-side of the field, to it's origin at plus and minus an infinite velocity which, as stated above, accounts for the two dimensional nature of the image contained on our light field. This accounts for the absolute present state of every point in the universe, and is what makes up the space-like part of our universe. If we plug in an infinite velocity into the lorentz transformation, we find that the spatial dimension of our standing wave is infinity(i) which confirms that our standing wave is moving through imaginary space.

    lhfrequency=v2=v1-x=-1htz, x=2


    If we look at our torus, we find that the velocity of our standing wave only achieves infinity at one point on the mobius path of all standing wave velocities described by Dr. Ivanov's equation. We see that plus, and minus infinite velocity loop into each other, so as it turns out, topologically speaking, we have two values for our standing wave velocity. Namely, positive and negative infinity. See example illustrations below.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2003
  5. Oct 21, 2003 #4
    Time(continued #3)

    [Insert Two Graphs]

    Acoustical experiments conducted by a Russian Scientist named Dr. Yu. Ivanov uncovered a relationship between energy velocity transfer, a moving standing wave velocity and standing wave compression, between two oscillators with a given frequency gradient. He defined the following equation which accurately predicted the behavior that he measured in the experiments:
    For sound waves...
    Standing Wave Velocity=Energy Transfer Velocity=v1-v2/v1+v2, Where v1 is the frequency of one oscillator, and v2 is the frequency of another oscillator.
    Dr. Ivanov hypothesized the existence of standing moving standing waves among oscillators emitting light waves. He postulated the following equation for light:
    Energy Transfer Velocity=Standing Wave Velocity=c(v1-v2)/(v1+v2), where v1 is the frequency of one oscillator transmitting light, and v2 is the frequency of the other oscillator transmitting light. This hypothesis has not been tested, yet, that I know of. Dr. Ivanov explained that one could test the hypothesis by hooking together two alternating generators, and decreasing frequency of one of the generators, one can experimentally verify the existence of standing waves that move at near light speed velocities, which would manifest as a rise in current in the wires connecting the alternating generators. Further mathematical analysis of the equation conducted by myself revealed that the set of all possible velocities defined by the equation is a one dimensional mobius path that lies on an infinite torus whose genus is one. This is accomplished by setting up a x,y graph where y represents the set of velocities from -infinity to +infinity and x represents the set of all frequencies from -infinity to positive infinity. By "gluing both pairs of the opposite edges of our x,y graph together with no twists"(Eric W. Weisstein,1999,
    <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html>) we create an infinite torus. We observe that the set of all possible values for standing wave velocities lies on the graph of a mobius path around the infinite torus. Note that the set of all frequencies from -infinity to +infinity belong to the set of all rational numbers. All possible energy transfer velocities defined by this equation also belong to the set of all rational numbers, because the energy transfer velocity is defined by the rational _expression c(v1-v2)/(v1+v2). Up until these experiments, standing waves were thought to vanish when the frequency of a given oscillator changed. In essence, it was determined by Dr. Ivanov, instead, that the standing wave began to move from the oscillator having a higher frequency to the oscillator having a lower frequency according to the equation above. This 'standing wave current'(Dr. Ivanov,
    <http://www.keelynet.com/spider/b-111e.htm>, p. 14) is seen as a rise in energy current, as stated above, from the oscillator having a higher frequency to the oscillator having a lower frequency. Now, topologically speaking, a torus can not be crushed to a point without breaking the torus. The question I have, is if the equation above is factored in to the Big-Bang theory, does the torus above remain intact at the point the entire universe was a singularity? If not, then at what point after the Big-Bang was it possible for the specified torus to form, if indeed, the torus exists?
    Note: the mobius path along the torus's surface transcends into supposed faster then light velocities only when the frequency of one of the oscillators is negative, which can be treated as a mathematical convenience based on the fact that the set of all velocities between a uniform velocity V and the speed of light c form the half-open interval [V,c) as a small section of the mobius path. This half-open interval forms the interesting section of our torus, and mobius.
    Ivanov, Y. <http://www.keelynet.com/spider/b-100e.htm>, RU: KeelyNet, pp. 1-26, 1999.
    Beyer, W. H. CRC Standard Mathematical Tables, 28th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 131-132, 1987.
    Coxeter, H. S. M. Introduction to Geometry, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, pp. 132-133, 1969.
    Geometry Center. "The Torus." <http://www.geom.umn.edu/zoo/toptype/torus/ [Broken]>.
    Gray, A. "Tori." §13.4 in Modern Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces with Mathematica, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 304-306 and 384-386, 1997.
    Harris, J. W. and Stocker, H. "Torus." §4.10.5 in Handbook of Mathematics and Computational Science. New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 113, 1998.
    JavaView. "Classic Surfaces from Differential Geometry: Torus." <http://www-sfb288.math.tu-berlin.de/vgp/javaview/demo/surface/common/PaSurface_Torus.html>.
    Melzak, Z. A. Invitation to Geometry. New York: Wiley, pp. 63-72, 1983.
    Pinkall, U. "Cyclides of Dupin." §3.3 in Mathematical Models from the Collections of Universities and Museums (Ed. G. Fischer). Braunschweig, Germany: Vieweg, pp. 28-30, 1986.
    Schmidt, H. Die Inversion und ihre Anwendungen. Munich: Oldenbourg, p. 82, 1950.
    Tabor, M. Chaos and Integrability in Nonlinear Dynamics: An Introduction. New York: Wiley, pp. 71-74, 1989.
    Villarceau, M. "Théorème sur le tore." Nouv. Ann. Math. 7, 345-347, 1848.

    Eric W. Weisstein
    © 1999 CRC Press LLC, © 1999-2003 Wolfram Research, Inc.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  6. Oct 21, 2003 #5
    Time(continued #4)

    If one measures every instant of time that passes by collecting and recording all points in a light transmission emanating from a source, such as the sun, then the information will be an infinite number of image frames accounting for every instant in time a particular object exists. Each of these images is the snap-shot of our imaginary third dimension, which we stated before, reduces to a two-dimensional light field defined by a two-dimensional curved path represented by real numbers otherwise known as the surface area of our spherical fields. If a small region in the front part of our image is formed by a right-handed photon having a positive frequency(right-handed frequency) equal to 1 htz. Then a small region of back-side of our image is formed by phase conjugate photon that has a frequency of -1htz. Careful analysis of the geometry specified above reveals that the phase conjugate particle exists in left-handed imaginary space, and real right-handed space, and travels through the left- handed imaginary space in such a way that reveals that the left-handed imaginary space is independent, that is, disjoint from the right-handed imaginary space by the following reasoning.

    Let us set up a graph where a portion of our field is 1 unit away from its source. There are three different spaces that represent the distance of the surface of that field from it's source. We have our right-handed imaginary distance, or I should say interval, which is the distance represented as an image on the surface of our light field. We have our left-handed imaginary distance, which is represented as the image on the surface of our light fields back-side(reflection), and we have the distance to our source at the exact present time, which is represented by the space-like portion of the lorentz light-cone model and is represented by the distance to our source in real right-handed space, or I should say, real right-handed space-time. The frequency of our source at the present time is 1htz. The right handed frequency of the photon mediating our electromagnetic field through right handed space-time is 1htz. The left-handed frequency of the photon mediating our electro-magnetic field in left-handed space-time is -1htz.

    Consider the following. Suppose that one could enter the left handed portion of space, by freezing light so that light is still, and entering the reverse image(reflected image) contained on the backside of our field. Then an observer (A) looking into the right-handed portion of our field from the outside of our field would suddenly see us appear in the right-handed image contained in that one snap-shot from a hidden region of space on the inner-back-side of our right-handed imaginary space, while an observer (B) looking into the left-handed portion of our field, would simply see us traveling in a smooth continuus path into the image's phase conjugate snap-shot and right on toward the light's origin contained within that particular snap shot. Now suppose that one continues right on past that origin onto the other side of the image, one would come out of the other end of the light field, again, traveling toward the center of the origin of that image, but this time, instead of traveling in the past, we would be traveling in the absolute present right past all the snap shots from the oppositve side of our light field. Now, if observer (A) and observer (B) were to follow suit in such a manner that observer (A) entered the right-handed imaginary space by entering the image from the outerside of the field, and observer (B) were to enter the left-handed imaginary space by entering the image from the back-side of the field, then observer (C) watching (A) would see (B) suddenly occupying the same imaginary space as (A) and observer (D) would see (B) occupying the same imaginary space as (A) But neither (A) nor (B) would experience the presence or influence of each other. Furthermore, (A)and (B) would continue on traveling toward the center origin of the field, and on past, and eventually (A) would exit the right-handed portion of imaginary space and would be traveling away from the origin through right-handed real space-time, and simulataneously, (B) would exit the left-handed portion of imaginary space and would be traveling toward the origin in real space-time without them ever having been aware that they were occupying the same imaginary space from the perspective of those observers existing in real space-time. For this reason, it is hypothesized, by myself, that this left-handed imaginary space is independant of right-handed imaginary space. Furthermore, I hypothesize that any standing wave emanating from the source through left-handed imaginary space, is independant of any standing wave emanating through right-handed imaginary space from the source. Due to the independent nature of the right and left handed imaginary spaces, I assume that a standing wave with a +/- infinity velocity does not arrise from a 1htz photon in right-handed imaginary space to a -1htz photon in left-handed imaginary space because these two spaces are, for all practical purposes, disjoint. However, both the right-handed imaginary space, and the left-handed imaginary space are connected to real right-handed space.

    For this reason, a standing wave with +/- infinite velocity should emanate from a left-handed photon, a -1htz photon v2 occupying the left-handed imaginary space, to the right-handed 1htz irradiator v1 occupying real-right handed space in the absolute present.


    In this case, the left handed photon=v2=-1htz, and the irradiator in the absolute present=v1=1htz and occuppies a right-handed space in absolute present.


    which happens to coincide with negative infinity, as determined by the conversion of our x,y graph into an infinite torus of genus one.

    Mean while, a stationary standing wave should arrise between the 1htz right-handed photon V2 occupying right-handed imaginary space, and the 1htz irradiator V1 occupying real right-handed space-time.

    c(1-1)/(1+1)=c(0/2)=0 Velocity

    A moving standing wave should arrise between the -1htz photon Va1 in left-handed imaginary space and the 0htz irradiator Va2 existing at the origin in that particular left-handed imaginary space. This standing wave should travel at the speed of light as indicated below.


    A moving standing wave should arrise between a 1htz photon Vc1 in right-handed imaginary space, and an 0htz irradiator Vc2 existing at the origin in that particular right-handed imaginary space. This standing wave should travel at the speed of light as indicated below.


    Note that in the above two cases the irradiator at the origin of the field in right and left handed imaginary spaces does not travel through time, but are existing at a single instant in time represented by both an image, and a mirror image, on the surface of our light field. So both an irradiator occupying a specific point in time in right-handed imaginary space, and an irradiator occupying that same specific point in time in left-handed imaginary space have a frequency of 0htz. The standing wave moves from an oscillator with a higher frequency to an oscillator of lower frequency. 0htz is higher frequency then -1htz, and two standing waves move at a velocity of light away the 0htz irradiators in imaginary space. This is what powers a light field, this is what causes a light field to travel out in all directions from a source at a specific point in time at the velocity of light. The movement of the light field out in all directions from the origin in both right-handed real space-time, and in right-handed and left-handed imaginary space is, infact, the movement of two lively standing waves from the irradiators in imaginary left-handed, and right handed space, to the right, and left-handed photons in right-handed imaginary space, left-handed imaginary space, and real right-handed space-time.The lively standing waves with +/- infinite velocities arrising in, and/or, possibly generating, the absolute present right-handed real space-time is what represents the absolute present portion of our lorentz light cone model. Together, these combinations of geometric spaces and lively standing wave velocities through these spaces, forms and sustains the underlying mechanism responsible for the lorentz light cone geometry that so intimately governs our universe.

    What do you think?

    Best Regards,

    Edwin G. Schasteen
    Projects Administration
    TAP-TEN Research Foundation International
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2003
  7. Oct 21, 2003 #6
    Dimension and its Relevance to Time

    It would be nice to have a simplistic view of this subject, and of course the idea behind light cones describing future/past, energy/matter exchanges in the here and now? How would such emissions help in the matter distinctions?

    So we of course look for how this can be done(experimental processes).

    GHZ entanglement seems prety interesting subject to me, and how did we go from pathways and probabilties in Young's slit experiment to blending. What aboutthe perception of Holographical revelations that are revealled in one dimenesion lower?

    Feynmann's pathways become interesting toy models for explain those probabilties?

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2003
  8. Oct 21, 2003 #7

    Believe me, this is not a simplistic subject. This is only the initial analysis. The actual theoretical process is far from being actually fully described in those four posts. Further investigation of the properties of this phenomenon may reveal to what depth this particular physical phenomenon is intertwined within the fundemental form of our physical reality. Everything in the previous four posts is basically describing the electromagnetic field probagations by a groups of coherently oscillating electrons. This entails the emmission of photons of light by each electron. There are a birage of other types of particles in our universe. Connection of this concept to those particles has not been explored yet, but I plan to do so over the next 5 to 10 years and maybe longer. I have already spent well over 6 years developing Point Theory, and I have enough information on that subject alone to fill several volumes. I have been spending a little time here, and a little time there, on the analysis of this equation for the past year, however this past week I started seriously analyizing this equation, and have found the afore mentioned preliminary results. These results are just a basic algebriac estimation. To really define the underlying field principles will require the implementation of many types of mathematics ranging from the use of set theory, fractal geometry (because we are dealing with the complex plane as part of the mathematical mechanism behind the concept), to calculas to describe affects when frequencies vary over time. Finally an attempt will be made to analyze the phenomenon as it applies to other fundemental forces and particles. I don't mean this to be a GUT or anything, but just am attempting to fill in all the spaces in current theories where this discovery plays a roll. I am currently majoring in mathematics and am pursuing my Doctorate of Science in Mathematics. This is the only way to get a comprehensive background in all the mathematics needed to trully analyze this phenomenon as it applies to the remaining area of physics. It is my intuition that particle-pairs such as electron-positron pairs is directly related to this right-handed/left-handed imaginary space concept. After all, the idea is that when an electron and positron come together, the electron enters the right-handed imaginary space, and the positron enters the left-handed imaginary space. Up until now we were dealing specifically with the irradiator and a right and left handed photon. But now we threw an electron and positron into the mix and....I'll have to work it out and will post my results for you to check on my next posting.

    Best Regards,

    Last edited: Oct 21, 2003
  9. Oct 21, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Edwin, this has developed into a private theory exposition, which is inappropriate on this MKaku forum. So I'm going to move it to theory development. There's nothing wrong with private theories, but they belong on their own forum.

    Tesla, I'm sorry your perfectly good starting post will go with them. Please feel free to copy it and post it here again.
  10. Oct 21, 2003 #9

    By all means, move it as you must.However, this part of the forum is listed under the "theory development" subheading according to the tabs at the top of the forum page.


    Last edited: Oct 21, 2003
  11. Oct 23, 2003 #10

    Never mind, I figured it out.

  12. Oct 24, 2003 #11
    can I add some grief to all this,,, no.... ok I wont go onto say that if one stops and undedrstands that light doesn't travel in the first place all this theorising just gets so much simpler.

    The original post stated that light was in fact motionless....hey I can agree with that ..my post called light in continuum may be of some use.....

    The problem with everything is in the "c"

    When you were watching the luna landings did any one see any fast normal action, i didn't. This suggests to me that we are actually watching action in a state of time dillation often referred to as low gravity which we know has an effect on time....sure they seemed to be in slow mo vertically but did any one see fast horizontal action...a fast hand wave etc...???
  13. Nov 5, 2003 #12
    go put on a nasa suit and see if you can do a fast hand wave...
  14. Nov 5, 2003 #13
    They could jump around and land slower because gravitational acceleration is less on the moon (one-sixth earth's). NOT because of any sort of time dialation. Also Gouki is right; those suits were pretty difficult to move around in. Moving slower in them tired you out slower.
  15. May 13, 2004 #14


    User Avatar

    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. May 13, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    If you watch footage of the moonwalks, you'll see fast gestures with the hands and rapid foot movements, especially when noe of them stumbles or falls (which is, BTW, absolutely hysterical to watch; a guy falling to the ground in slow-mo while his hands and feet flail madly about at blinding speed!":biggrin:).
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook