Is, Ts, INFINITY
by John Northern
Copyright November 1, 2015
Infinity gives hope to every living entity on planet Earth. Every idea that exists in the realm of our imaginations exists in manifest form somewhere among all the infinite spatial bodies, including all the heavenly bodies that have yet to be discovered, and all the galaxies, the solar systems, the planets, and all the other known forms of matter in all the vastness of infinite space. This means that anything you can think of exits somewhere in infinity. But these ideas can only exist if the conditions are right. The manifestations of these ideas are real as long as they do not violate the laws of physics, nor the philosophical laws of logic, and as long as the ideas can transform to Tspace. If these ideas have become a part of reality and if they exist somewhere else in infinity, then they can exist on Earth. The ideas and the hopes of humankind to find a cure for all the diseases, for all poverty, and to live in a peaceful world can become a reality. In this paper it will be shown that any idea that can transform to Tspace is a reality somewhere, and can become a reality on Earth. A better understanding of infinity will impact the human race dramatically in a positive manner if, and only if, the human consciousness of the Earth is guided in that direction.
Table of Contents
The History of the Concept of Infinity
Space, Matter, and Energy are infinite
Time dilation does not exist
How Will the Understanding of Infinity Impact the Human Race?
Ideas are created in the imagination (Is, or Ispace); but in related human worlds, or other finite worlds, most of them never become a reality—they never transfer to Tspace (Ts, or three dimensional reality where all things real exist). Consider the medical scientist who had an idea of finding a cure for cancer, but never did; instead, he became old and died, and the idea of him discovering a cure for cancer never became a reality. Or consider the young physicist who had an idea of inventing an antigravity machine that uses crystals instead of fuel, but she never did. Or consider the young man who had an idea of becoming a millionaire by the time he was twenty-five, but he never did. Or consider Zeno’s paradox. Zeno had an idea that the javelin could never reach the target, but this idea never became a reality. And the list goes on and on. But on the other hand, those ideas that can translate to Tspace have already done so somewhere in infinity. These realities may not exist in our finite universe, but since they exist somewhere else, then they can exist in our world.
The ideas that do manifest in reality can be good or bad, or somewhere in between. The idea of war in which people kill each other, on purpose, is a bad idea brought about mostly by greed. The idea of over-populating the Earth is a bad idea. The idea of people banding together to feed the homeless is a good idea. And there are many ideas that become real and belong on the continuum somewhere between the extremes of good and bad. The point is, the ideas that can enter Tspace are infinitely varied, and it depends on the people and/or the consciousness of the people which ideas will become real.
From a professional point of view, the Big 3 (scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians) research ideas, and finally, if the ideas can become a part of reality, then the ideas enter the world of technology, where inventions are made. Since ideas and abstractions can only exist in Ispace, then much of the time, the Big 3, do their work in Ispace.
The idea and the use of Ispace and Tspace were successful in solving Zeno’s paradoxes and Russell’s paradox, because Ispace and Tspace separate the ideas in the imagination from what is real, and also because Tspace is only composed of space and matter, which greatly simplifies the tenets of the problems. By separating the ideas from the facts, there is a better understanding of the problem(s). Too often ideas are created in Ispace, and from those ideas, statements are made which cannot translate to Tspace. Nevertheless, the statements are made as if they are a part of reality, and this becomes an error, which can lead to illogical assumptions, conclusions, and paradoxes.
In many situations, infinity is a difficult concept to understand and to work with for mathematicians, philosophers, and scientists. For centuries they have tried to broach this subject, but as it turned out, there was little success, and eventually they learned how to work around infinity instead of with it. But Tspace lays down strict rules for infinity, and this clears up a lot of the confusion created by infinite concepts in Ispace and Tspace.
In the past, many logical problems created by infinity have been unsolvable, but the purpose of this paper is to lessen the problems and to show that infinity has the answers to all questions.
This means that a cure for any particular disease can be found. This means there is an answer for poverty. There is a solution to bring about a peaceful existence for everyone and every country upon the Earth. There is a means for addressing the overpopulation of our beautiful planet. It may seem unrealistic to have such a positive existence, but somewhere in infinity there is a planet that has these qualities, and this means that it can exist on Earth.
The History of the Concept of Infinity
“Infinity commonly inspires feelings of awe, futility and fear. Who as a child did not lie in bed filled with a slowly mounting terror while sinking into the idea of a universe that goes on and on, forever and ever? Blasé Pascal puts this feeling very well. ‘When I consider the small span of my life absorbed in the eternity of all time, or the small part of space which I can touch or see engulfed by the infinite immensity of spaces that I know not and that know me not, I am frightened and astonished to see my self here instead of there … now instead of then.’” 1
“The infinite! No other question has ever moved so profoundly the spirit of man; no other idea has so fruitfully stimulated his intellect; yet no other concept stands in greater need of clarification than that of the infinite.” 2
Before delving into the topic of infinity, the concept must be clearly understood. “Infinite” is described by Webster’s Dictionary as being,
"1. adj. absolutely without limits, endless || too great to be measured on any imaginable scale, God's infinite mercy || (loosely) very great || (gram., of a verb form) not limited by person, number or mood || (math.) of a value or series the limit of which cannot be defined or expressed 2. n. something infinite [fr. L. infinitus, unbounded]" 3
The meaning of infinity can be simplified to mean “Never ending” or “without limit.” Anything infinite has no beginning, no middle, and no end.
During ancient times, it is not known if people pondered the infinite; however, one can speculate that as humankind became more knowledgeable they became interested in the concept of infinity. There was at least one ancient society which believed that ‘infinity’ held a negative connotation—the ancient Greeks.
The history of the concept of infinity can be studied through the use of infinity in mathematics from the ancient Greeks to modern times.
“As there is no record of earlier civilizations regarding, conceptualizing, or discussing infinity, we will begin the story of infinity with the ancient Greeks. Originally the word apeiron meant unbounded, infinite, indefinite, or undefined. It was a negative, even pejorative [derogatory] word. For the Greeks, the original chaos out of which the world was formed was apeiron. Aristotle thought being infinite was a privation [depriving] not perfection. It was the absence of limit. Pythagoreans had no traffic with infinity. Everything in their world was number. Indeed, the Pythagorean discovery of incommensurables, for example the square root of 2, would require a clear concept and understanding of infinity.
“Yet, to the Greeks, the concept of infinity was forced upon them from the physical world by three traditional observations.
Time seems without end
Space and time can be unendingly subdivided
Space is without bound” 4
But they continued to avoid the concept of infinity as often as possible. And sometimes this was accomplished by using only potential infinity:
Potentially infinite vs. Actually infinite:
“One of the most important contributions that Aristotle had made to the study of infinity is identifying a dichotomy between what Aristotle calls the ‘potential infinite’ and the ‘actual infinite.’” 5
Potential infinite is a never ending process over time. A potential medical doctor can become an actual medical doctor, but a potential infinity cannot become an actual infinity.
Potential infinite is something that is never completed. More and more elements can be added, but never infinitely many. There can be an infinite number of finite objects. A finite number of anything can never become infinite. An example of the potentially infinite is a series of numbers. A number can always be added to the series, but the series will never become infinite; e.g., 1, 2, 3, … .
To describe this in Tspace, the actually infinite is all the matter that exists in three dimensional reality. And Potentially infinite are things that exist in a finite reality.
It is obvious that the Greeks wanted nothing to do with infinity. Often times they went out of their way to avoid it.
“The Greek inability to assimilate infinity beyond the potential-counting infinity had a deep and limiting impact on their mathematics.” 6
“Euclid avoids the infinite in defining a line by saying it can be extended as far as necessary.” 7
If you are interested in the history of infinity through mathematics, then a good start would be The History of Infinity, by G. Donald Allen.
This small chapter on the history of the concept of infinity is obviously just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. There are many websites that discuss the history of the concept of infinity in venues such as infinity in mathematics, or infinity and the mind, infinity in metaphysics, in physical science, in deductive logic, in religion, and in many others, but to get involved deeper in the history of the concept of infinity will take us further from the thesis of this paper. What was covered gives a perspective on infinity that is not usual among the lay person. Who would have ever thought that infinity was looked down upon by the Ancient Greeks? Also, there are ideas in this chapter that will be used in the chapters to come.
1. Rudy Rucker, Infinity and the Mind, The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite, Bantam Books. Google ‘history of infinity and look for https://math.dartmouth.edu/…/Infinity
2. http://web.pdx.edu/~caughman/AmyDraft501.pdf. Google ‘history of infinity.’
3. The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Deluxe Edition, Copyright © 1992 by Lexicon Publications, Inc., Danbury, Ct., ISBN 0-7172-4576-4, 1993 edition.
4. The History of Infinity, G. Donald Allen, website address: math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/infinity.pdf., pg 1.
5. Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite, the Middlebury site network, pg. 1.
6. The History of Infinity, G. Donald Allen, website address: math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/infinity.pdf., pg 3.
7. The History of Infinity, G. Donald Allen, website address: math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/infinity.pdf., pg 3.
Space, Matter, and Energy are Infinite
Once again we are delving into the concept of infinity, and this chapter shows how confusing infinity can be when using logic to explain it.
That being said, in this chapter it will be the intent of this paper to prove, by using logic, that matter and energy are existent throughout infinity and that it is not limited to the known, finite Universe, nor to any other finite reality.
So let’s get started.
Empirical knowledge is knowledge acquired by the use of the five senses, i.e., vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Firstly, matter can be studied and recorded by viewing the colors, the texture, the hardness, the electrical conductivity, and so on. Matter can be differentiated by smelling it, or tasting it, or by the feeling of the granularity or smoothness, and in particular cases matter can be studied and recorded by the sound it makes in particular circumstances. And secondly, matter can be studied through experimentation, mostly by combining or subtracting certain chemicals to see how they behave. Of course, most, if not all, forms of matter have been studied and described by the use of empiricism.
Over the years more and more equipment has been developed for the discovery of knowledge using the five senses. And our knowledge of matter on the Earth, and knowledge of matter on other planets is now quite extensive. In the study of cosmology, with telescopes, it has been discovered that the Earth revolves around our sun, and that our sun is the center of our solar system. And then it was discovered that many solar systems exist in a galaxy, and that our solar system is near the edge of our galaxy, and finally it was discovered that there are many galaxies in the known Universe. Telescopes and radio telescopes have become more powerful with the continued advancement of technology and more and more information has been gathered about the known Universe.
Empirical evidence is the most reliable means for gathering information about matter. But there are times when what has been observed through empiricism is confusing and must be explained by other means; and also, there comes a point when questions need to be answered and knowledge needs to be gathered about matter beyond our five senses. This is the time when the philosophy of logic becomes useful. And so, logic is of vital importance when it comes to understanding the known Universe and the infinite Universe.
Since the Big Bang theory depicts the creation of the known Universe, it can help us answer the question of whether or not matter is infinite in its existence. In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest who had received his doctorate in sciences form MIT, introduced the Big Bang theory to the world of science. Later, in a scientific paper that he had written he stated that
“. . . the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time.” 1
“At a press conference in the 1930s, where Lemaitre presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, ‘This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.’” 2
“In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart, . . .” 3
“In 1965, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, . . . “ 4
Later, because of the measurements of the redshifts of the supernovae, scientists came to understand that the expansion of the known Universe is accelerating.
After the big bang theory was developed to explain the creation of the known Universe, questions began to pop up; e.g., where did the matter come from for the big bang to happen? So, an answer had to be created, and some scientists answered this question by stating (and this is a very lenient paraphrase) that there was a bunch of energy floating around in space, and when the energy came together it created matter. And then the matter was so compacted that the repelling forces caused the matter to blow up in space thus causing the matter to expand ever outward. So the next question was asked, ‘where did the energy come from that was floating around in space?’ But this question cannot be answered, because there is nothing else to fall back on.
Is the Big Bang real? This theoretical situation can exist only if the Big Bang does not violate any of the laws of physics or the laws of logic, and if the Big Bang is able to translate to Tspace. Lately the Big Bang theory is starting fall out of favor with some of the scientists because there are too many discrepancies. There are those scientists who are saying that too many hypotheses are being created to explain the discrepancies, and that there are still more discrepancies that have not been explained away.
“Since its beginnings, the Big Bang Theory has evolved to rely on a growing number of hypotheses to explain observations.
Neucleosynthesis theory: to explain the colder than expected temperature of the universe,
Luminosity correction for galactic evolution: to explain the failure of the Tolman test,
Inflation: to resolve the flatness problem, the uniformity of the CMBR temperature and the monopole problem,
Dark matter: to explain the problem of galactic rotation curves and the dynamics of clusters and groups of galaxies,
Dark Energy: to explain the acceleration of distant supernovae.
. . . .
Many questions remain unanswered concerning the Big Bang theory:
Why don’t Quasars follow the Hubble law?
Quasars appear as small objects yet are very energetic. What is their source of energy? Why don’t we see the quasars nearby?
What causes the asymmetry in the temperatures of the CMBR on opposite sides of the sky?
Why doesn’t the timescale of quasar intensity variations increase with redshift?
Why are mature galaxies seen in the early universe?” 5
There are other websites and other papers written expressing doubts in the Big Bang theory. However, it’s not the intention of this paper to prove nor disprove the Big Bang theory. There are an infinite number of finite situations that can exist in infinite space, and the Big Bang is one of them. The Big Bang could be an explanation of any finite part of the infinite Universe, but only under the right conditions.
In order to demonstrate that matter is infinite, space must be understood. When studying the Big Bang theory it becomes apparent that most scientists think of space as an entity and not as nothingness.
“Prior to the singularity [that single point in space where matter exploded creating the Big Bang], nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing.” 6
But is space forever existent? In the known Universe, space exists so that matter has a place to reside. It exists between all the heavenly bodies, and it exists between all the molecules, atoms, subatomic particles and between all the matter of all the dimensions. Matter moves through space and forces are exerted through space. There can be small particles in outer space, and there can be energy in space; especially the energy of attraction and repulsion between the heavenly bodies.
The definition of space according to the internet dictionary is,
“1. the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur.” 7
And space can be described as nothingness, but with the ‘where and when’ added. If you take away the ‘where and when,’ then what is left is nothingness. If you add the ‘where and when’ back, then you have space. You can only have the ‘where and when’ if matter is present. The relationship of matter to matter creates time and gives location. So, before the Big Bang occurred there was only nothingness—space without matter; and time did not exist. After the Big Bang occurred space was created, and also matter, energy, and time were created.
Since space is the nothingness in which all things exist, space has no shape. It is neither curved nor flat.—it is only nothingness with matter and energy present.
Finally, entropy, also known as heat death, must be defined and understood before matter and energy can be proven to be infinite in space. Entropy is the amount of useless energy compared to the amount of useful energy in a system. If entropy is zero, then the amount of useful energy is 100%. If entropy is 100%, then the amount of useful energy available is zero.
“It is nearly universally accepted that the universe began in a much more compact and ordered state than it is now. If the Big Bang hypothesis is right then the universe began in a state of zero entropy. We can observe the matter in the universe spreading out and cooling down (i.e. cosmic microwave background) even now. If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to this, then we can see that the universe will continue to spread out and become less ordered and if it survives for long enough will eventually end in the ‘Heat Death’ when all of the matter has reached equilibrium and the entropy is at its highest. There may well be almost infinitesimal fluctuations but other than that the universe as we know it will be dead.
“On a final note it may seem that a black hole would violate the second law of thermodynamics because a singularity is the most ordered form of matter possible and should have an entropy of zero. However Stephen Hawking showed that the entropy of matter absorbed by a black hole is stored in the surface area of its event horizon and as such is released back into the universe as the black hole decays by Hawking radiation.
“Answered by: Edward Rayne, Undergraduate Physics Student, Cambridge, UK
“Our universe is marching very, very slowly towards equilibrium!
“Answered by: Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley.” 8
At this point in the chapter a logical explanation will prove that matter and energy are infinite in infinite space. Hypothetically let’s state that a finite amount of energy was floating around in space and that it created the Big Bang. Since something cannot be created from nothing, this finite amount of energy would have to have been existent for infinite time before it generated the beginning of the known Universe. If this were true, if some action were going to happen with this finite amount of energy, then no matter how large the finite quantity of energy was, the Big Bang or Big Bangs would have happened an infinite time ago, or an infinite existence ago. Let’s analyze the logic again. Any actions involving finite energy, in infinite time, that could happen has already happened. And because of entropy, the energy and matter involved in the Big Bang(s) would have decayed to useless energy long before our present known Universe. So, if finite universe(s) were created by the Big Bangs, the effects of entropy would have caused nearly all the energy to transform to useless energy, and all those Universes would have already come to their end—no life could exist today.
It can be stated that the mere existence of observable space, matter, and energy concludes that they are infinite. If only a finite amount of energy, no matter how much or what kind of energy, had existed, and whether or not it had created space and matter and a finite Universe, as in the Big Bang, then that energy would have decayed into uselessness an infinite existence ago, and I would not be here writing this paper, because no life would exist. Try to picture that in your imagination. If somehow, finite energy had been floating around in nothingness, then since something cannot be created from nothing, that energy would have to have been floating around for an infinite time. And that energy would no longer be useful. One might argue that there were two quantities of energy floating around, but the answer would be the same—they both would have decayed an infinite existence ago. So, one might argue that there were googolplex quantities of energy floating around in space, but again the answer would be the same. Any finite number of quantities of energy would have decayed into uselessness an infinite existence ago. Only if energy were infinite could it still be present. Some people have a difficult time imagining infinity, if you are one of those, think of it this way: if you go back in time, and back and back and back and forever and forever back, you will still never come to a place where that finite energy decayed into useless energy, because the time where the energy transformed into useless energy was so far back that it tests the sanity of our imaginations.
Let’s consider another hypothesis. What if our finite known Universe has always existed? What if there was the only space, matter, and energy in existence? And what if there was no Big Bang to create it? But nevertheless our Universe has always been in existence? Could this be a real situation?
Finite energy does not have an infinite shelf life. Unless there is more energy to pump into the known Universe from another source, the finite energy will decay into useless energy, and it will no longer be able to create movement in matter. This relates to the second law of thermodynamics as follows.
“The second law of thermodynamics states that every energy transfer increases the entropy of the universe due to the loss of usable energy.” 9
We can conclude from this that eventually the known Universe will die when all usable energy is lost.
If you don’t believe in the Big Bang, then a finite amount of space, matter, and energy would still have suffered the same fate as the matter and energy in the Big Bang. Entropy would have eventually caused all the suns to burn out and become nothing more than cinders of ash, and all life would have ceased to exist. Most of the scientific community, if not all, are in agreement that our finite Universe will eventually decay into lifelessness. But in this case, it would have happened an infinite time ago.
Now, since we do have life, and a known Universe, and space, matter, and energy, and since something cannot be created from nothing
[creating something from nothing is totally illogical, and it’s absurd for anyone to even think such a thought. “So yes, humans can manufacture matter. We can turn light into subatomic particles, but even the best scientists can’t create something out of nothing.” 10]
Anyway since more finite energy could not have been created from nothing after the previous finite energy had decayed, this proves that energy cannot be finite. Energy is infinite, and since energy can create matter (theoretically) (It may be that energy and matter are dependent on each other for their existence), then matter is infinite, and energy and matter transform back and forth infinitely, but in finite realities. And this means that space is infinite. Throughout the existence of infinity, space, matter, and energy have always existed and will continue to exist forever. Throughout infinite space, finite matter and energy are continually changing from one location to another and from one level to another. They always have, and they always will.
But what if Professor X stands up and says that pure energy does not decay. If that’s true, then one would have to believe in the Big Bang, because this finite amount of pure energy would be the only thing that could have created space and matter. But now the answer is the same: a finite amount of pure energy would have caused the Big Bang an infinite time ago, which means the energy would then have had a relationship with matter, and the matter would have used all the energy.
Let’s take this a step further. Use your imagination to view this logical proof from a different perspective. Create a timeline. Use ‘now’ as the beginning point, and then go backward in time forever and forever and forever. Since something cannot be created from nothing, the finite energy, that created the Big Bang, has existed forever. It has been floating around in nothingness for an infinite time; but consider the logic in this. Since the history of finite energy goes back infinitely, then finite energy cannot be placed on the timeline. The fact is everything ages and degrades to the point of demise, even Universes. The timeline progressing back into history goes forever, but nothing finite can last forever. Going back into time infinitely shows that the only things that can last forever, and the only things that can be placed on the infinite timeline are those things that are infinite. Anything finite cannot become infinite; therefore, since our known Universe has space, matter, and energy at this time, then space, matter, and energy are infinite.
Simply, in order for matter and energy to be infinite in time it must be infinite in space and vice versa. The preceding logic, that proves that space, matter, and energy are infinite, cannot be refuted.
Now that we understand that space, matter, and energy are infinite, let’s tackle two puzzling observations of the Big Bang theory—the expansion of the known Universe and the acceleration of the distant supernovae.
This has been a concern of cosmologists, but using Occam’s Razor it won’t be difficult to hypothesize a different scenario.
"Occam's razor: a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287 -1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but, in the absence of certainty, the fewer assumptions made, the more likely it is the truth. ... . In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic [discovery tool] to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. . . . ; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable." 11
Instead of using the Big Bang theory, which contains many hypotheses, it would be simpler to state that our known Universe is passing close to heavenly bodies outside our known Universe, which have a tremendous gravitational pull on our Universe, and hence, there is both the expansion of our known Universe and the accelerating supernovae on the edge of our known Universe. All of this, of course, is speculation, since it cannot be proven empirically nor logically.
One last comment, now that we know that space, matter, and energy are infinite, a statement about perpetual motion can be made.
Another logical support that matter and energy have been existent forever in time and space is the phenomenon of perpetual motion. Perpetual motion cannot exist in any finite reality. This has been proven experimentally by scientists and logically by philosophers over the years, but since space, matter, and energy are infinite it is easily understood that infinity is the only perpetual motion machine in existence; wherein usable energy and the different forces created by energy will always be available and will always be changing forms from one type of energy to another; and wherein energy and forces will be acting upon matter infinitely; and wherein motion will never cease.
Time Dilation does not Exist
Time is an important idea in Ispace and Tspace and in the realm of infinity. Therefore we will be studying several of the different concepts of time, and from this study logical conclusions will be ascertained.
The difference between Absolute time and Relative time:
“Sir Isaac Newton, in his publication of the Principia, stated that “Absolute time exists merely as duration; it is not equivalent to human measurement. In fact, Newton’s concept of absolute time is purely mathematical. Relative time is the time by which humans measure duration and change. Years, days, hours, minutes, and seconds are all examples of relative time.” 1
In other words, absolute time exists throughout the known and the infinite Universe without depending on any two bodies of matter being related through motion. It exists as a reality not dependent on space, matter, or energy. It could be viewed simply as ‘existence.’ For relative time to exist, however, there must be motion between two objects, such as the Earth and the sun, and then time is created as an abstract concept dependent on segments or units of the motion. Relative time is man made and does not exist in Nature, whereas absolute time does exist in Nature, simply because segments and numbers cannot be assigned to it, and because it is the existence of the Universe.
Since we will be discussing only relative time in this chapter, it is not important to dwell on the difference between absolute time and relative time; however, since absolute time does come up from time to time in books and articles, it is good to have the knowledge of absolute time.
The time that we use in our everyday lives, and the time used in most of the scientific equations is all based on the movement of the Earth around the sun. It is not based on the movement of anything else. Even nanoseconds are based on the movement of the Earth around the sun. We could say that that movement is measured in speed, and that the Earth is traveling 67,000 miles per hour. We can state absolutely that that speed is a constant and that for all scientific and logical practical purposes that speed will never change. This means that 67,000 miles per hour is a constant related to the Earth’s orbit around the sun. A day, an hour, a minute, a second, a nanosecond, etc. are distances moved by the Earth. An hour is 67,000 miles.
Since numbers do not exist in Nature, then neither does relative time (because time depends on numbers). So what you’re really saying when you say I went fifty miles in an hour is I went this certain distance while the Earth went this certain distance, and we don’t need to put numbers on it. To make it easier to picture, however, let’s use numbers. Since the Earth travels around the sun at about 67,000 miles in an hour, if you are traveling in your car at 50 miles per hour for one hour, then in reality you are traveling 50 miles when the Earth travels 67,000 miles. If you use the equation speed = distance divided by time, since time is the distance traveled by the Earth, then speed = 50 miles / 67,000 miles, which is actually the distance you traveled divided by the distance the sun traveled. The miles cancel out and what you are left with is 0.0007462, which is a comparison of the distance you have traveled compared to the distance of a 1.0 hour segment that the Earth has traveled.
So, if a scientist uses the equation speed = distance / time, in reality he is comparing the distance traveled by some object divided by time, which in reality is the distance traveled by the Earth.
Segments or units of the distance traveled by the Earth are used so that the distance traveled by other objects or by the time it takes us to perform certain actions can be compared to that of the Earth, for example, I could use the segment called an ‘hour.’ I could say that, without using any power tools, using only hand tools, it took me two hours to pull the trunk of the tree out of the earth (it was a small trunk.), and during those two hours the Earth traveled 134,000 miles. And also, during those two hours my wife went shopping and bought our weeks supply of groceries. It worked out well, because we have to be at my sister’s house at three o’clock.
As you can tell, we continually use the abstract concept of time and segments of time (the distance that the Earth has traveled) to help organize our daily lives.
But there are some scientists who have mystified time to the extent that it has become absurd. Using the concept of time, they have invented the idea of ‘time dilation.’
The definition of time dilation is as follows.
The idea of time dilation is one of the theoretical facets that is used to prove Einstein’s theory of Relativity. Time dilation can be viewed as time going slower on a spaceship traveling near the speed of light as compared to time moving normally on Earth.
The following statement is in favor of time dilation, and they are using the speed of light to prove their point.
“It took the light longer to make one complete send and receive cycle, but the speed of the light was unchanged. Because the light traveled farther and the speed was unchanged, this could only mean that the time it took was longer. Remember speed is distance / time, so the only way for the speed to be unchanged when the distance increases is for the time to also increase.” 2
The following are more examples of scientists attempting to gather empirical evidence to prove time dilation. They used atomic clocks for the experiments, and then they made the following interpretations of their observations.
“Time will actually appear to move slower near massive objects, because space-time is warped by the weight. These predictions have actually been proven. In 1962, scientists placed two atomic clocks at the bottom and top of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, the one closer to the massive center of the Earth, was running slower than the clock at the top. Einstein called this phenomenon ‘time dilation.’ … scientists proved the hypothesis true in the ’70s by sending an atomic clock into orbit. It returned to Earth having run much slower than grounded atomic clocks.” 3
“The accuracy of an atomic clock depends on two factors. The first factor is temperature of the sample atoms—colder atoms move much more slowly, allowing longer probe times. The second factor is the frequency and intrinsic width of the electronic transition. Higher frequencies and narrow lines increase the precision.
“It wasn’t until the 1990s that laser cooling and trapping of atoms was used in atomic clocks; and that ‘So-called high-finesse Fabry-Perot cavities for narrow laser line widths;’ and that ‘Precision laser spectroscopy;’ and that ‘convenient counting of optical frequencies using optical combs’ were used. Before the use of these four factors the atomic clocks were not as accurate.” 4
During motion, time changes. The flying clocks lost 59 nanoseconds during the eastward trip. The flying clocks gained 273 nanoseconds during the westward trip.
“Moving clocks go slower.” 5
“Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations . . .” 6
You age faster at a higher elevation.
“Time passes faster at higher elevations. … you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.” 7
This means your head ages faster than your feet. Does this sound illogical?
This paper is not being written to prove nor disprove Einstein’s theory of Relativity, but this one particular aspect, using time dilation, is easily disproved.
The following are scientists who dispute time dilation. Even the scientists who ran the clock experiments admit that there might have been false readings. The authors of these experiments revealed some of the possible error sources:
“1. The number of the measured values was too small for a good statistical analysis;
“2. There were possible errors in the rates and rate changes used in the piece wise extrapolations. A preliminary study of the effect of adjustments in the calculated rates on the residuals between the calculated and measured time traces showed obvious distortions when deviations greater than 0.4 nsec per hour were arbitrarily introduced;
“3. Temperature or pressure changes could cause individual random and unpredictable changes;
“4. The instability of the portable cesium clocks used in this experiment was about 1 μsec per day and it was unpredictable . This instability for the three days trip (64 hours eastward and 81 hours westward) was then about 3 μsec, much greater than the predicted time difference of 275 nsec. It was therefore not reliable in principle to draw conclusions based on a single cesium clock experiment, as the authors admitted. In order to draw a conclusion, they employed four clocks and exercised some “proper accounting for these identified rate changes” to yield a time change in agreement with the expected relativistic time change within 23 nsec. Statistically, however, one should not expect an improvement of accuracy of more than a factor of two if four clocks instead of one were used, i.e., it is reasonable to expect the error due to instability reducing to one half, about 1.5 μsec, still large enough to swamp the expected signal of 0.275 μsec. One also fails to see how the reported error of 23 nsec was reached.” 8
There were further possible causes for error that were not mentioned by these scientists:
“1. Since the four cesium clocks are independent, we might as well treat them as four independent experiments, and see how many of them supported the time dilation theory. Although no value of time dilation for the individual clocks was furnished in reference , one can use Fig. 1 of the reference to ascertain them. The plot shows that no clock supported the prediction, although statistically we should expect two thirds, or at least two out of four clocks, to fall within one standard deviation, which is reportedly 23 nsec.
“2. The time differences were measured with an electronic time interval counter to the nearest nanosecond . The electronic time interval counter apparently did not have the required precision and stability to detect the time difference of the cesium clock.
“3. The experimental time difference Δτ was taken as the difference in the time rate changes of the clocks before and after each trip. These rates were determined by the linear fits to the average data for an interval of 25 hours immediately before and after each trip. The 25 hours period seemed to be rather arbitrary as one would naturally expect a period of 64 or 81 hours to be more appropriate. The sensitivity of the results to the length of period for determination of rate changes was not given. A good way of testing the reliability of the method employed would be to let the clocks sit in a laboratory for a few weeks, and see if a similar time dilation (about 0.3 μs) could be produced during a three day period by the same method of data reduction, without any clock being carried to a circumnavigating trip.
“4. The trips were subjected to many take-offs and landings, the effect of which was completely ignored, although the effect of temperature or pressure was briefly mentioned. Other conditions such as the stability of the power supply, the effect of acceleration on the clock as well as to the peripherals etc. may all play a role. When a precision of 10-12 ( 275 nsec per 80 hours) is pursued, all these effects need to be quantitatively addressed.” 9
Meson Lifetime measurements:
“Lifetime measurements of high energy particles have been claimed to be the microscopic evidence of the relativistic time dilation. It is well known that the decay times of radioactive isotopes, such as carbon-14, uranium-238 and potassium-40, are used to date archeological objects and rocks. Hardly anyone realizes that radioactive clocks, like any other type of clocks, are not perfect. A radioactive isotope can be used as a clock only under certain conditions, one of the most important being that the radioactive samples are not subjected to any collision. This condition, however, is not satisfied in any of the meson decay experiments to test relativistic time dilation. It is instructive to scrutinize these experiments theoretically and methodologically.
“It is claimed that muons or mesons from outer space have such a short half-life that they should not be able to hit the Earth’s surface, yet we find various muons and mesons hitting the Earth’s surface. Special Relativity [SRT] claims that this proves “time dilation,” that is, the life of the muon or meson is dilated by The New Time = The Old Time × 1/√1 – v2/c2. But what the Relativists conveniently forget is that SRT must also include length contraction, since it is required by the theory to occur every time there is a time dilation. If length contraction is added, then the length the muon or meson has to travel must be shortened by the same ratio as the time dilation, and therefore it is a wash. As such SRT has no explanation for why muons or mesons hit the Earth.” 10
“Even if we believe in the clock readings ‘observed’ by the experimenters, that would still not prove special relativity despite the swearing by the physicists. Imagine that the stationary clock at the observatory ticked 100sec while the clock in the east bound flight ticked 90sec and the clock in the west bound flight ticked 110sec (just to keep the numbers simple). Though these readings might appear to be consistent with the predictions of special relativity from the perspective of the centre of earth observer, the same is not the case from the perspective other observers. For example from the perspective of the observer on the earth, both flights were moving at equal velocity and hence both must have experienced time dilation by the same factor and should have read the same time. But this was not the case.” 11
“A physical scientific theory can not be considered even minimally acceptable, if it can not be seen by an expert as being internally consistent in its logical arguments, or deductions. In Essen’s case, an expert in time measurement has found the theory, which purports to be a theory about the nature of time, to be unscientific, so as to be judged, “not a theory“. Obviously, when an expert in time measurement judges a theory of time to be logically contradictory, that theory is clearly in trouble. It needs to fix its problems, or disappear as a scientific theory. A primary requirement of a scientific theory of physics is that it must have a translation into measurable procedures that are capable of repeatable verification. It is clear that Essen judges the relativity theory to be a failure, because it is unable to meet this very basic requirement.
“The essential feature of this inability to translate relativity theory into a physical theory is that relativity fails to incorporate within it a logically consistent theory of measurement in physics. This failure is directly related to its incorrect theory of units of measurement, and the procedures of conducting measurements. Hence, it is not directly capable of verification by valid measurement procedures. So in its essential nature, the theory is fundamentally not a theory of physics capable of empirical verification.
“The sociological problem demonstrates that belief in the validity of relativity physics is not a scientific belief, but a belief in a pseudo-science. Since relativity theory is inherently not empirically verifiable, it is essentially a pseudo-science, because the essential character of a science is its empirical verifiability. The demonstrable fact that relativity physics is claimed to be true, despite that fact that its verification is beyond physical possibility, is proof that it is a metaphysical pseudo-science and not a true physical science.
“In the final analysis this was Essen’s final conclusion. ‘I concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together with actual mistakes.’ L. Essen” 12
“A famous critic of the Theory of relativity is Nikola Tesla who called it a ‘…magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king … its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists… .’” 13
“One of the clocks was located at the NASA research facility in Greenbelt, Maryland, and another clock was slowly transported to the United States Naval Observatory in Washington, DC. Notwithstanding an extremely high stability of the clocks (hydrogen maser clocks are twice as accurate as the cesium atomic frequency standard), the experiment did not meet the expectations. The cause of the abnormal phase difference between the stationary and portable masers has not been explained.” 14
Finally, there is a greater gravitational pull on the clock next to the ground and a lesser gravitational pull on the clock at the top of a tower. So, obviously, the clock at the top of the tower is going to run faster. The gravitational pull on the clock on the ground slows the inner workings more than it does the inner workings of the clock at the top of the tower.
After having written many of the cons for the existence of time dilation, another line of logic will prove that time dilation does not exist.
At the beginning of this chapter absolute time and relative time were differentiated by stating that absolute time was not dependent on a relationship of motion between two bodies of matter. It is simply the existence of the Universe, or as Newton stated it, ‘it is simply duration’ (to paraphrase). Relative time, however, must have two bodies of matter that are related to each other through motion. For our everyday existence we use the motion of the Earth around the sun, and the Earth’s rotation on its axis to create our man-made concept of time.
But Professor X stands up and says, “We are not discussing everyday life on Earth, and therefore our clocks will not be based on Earth’s time; instead, our clocks will be synchronized with each other, so that when both clocks are at ground level on the Earth, they are ticking exactly in synchronicity. (If the atomic clocks were based on Earth time . . . , well you can understand that the movement of the Earth through its orbit around the sun cannot be speeded up or slowed down to accommodate the atomic clocks.)
To address this statement by Professor X, the definition of ‘frame of reference’ (or ‘reference frame’) must first be stated:
Frame of reference: “a framework that is used for the observation and mathematical description of physical phenomena and the formulation of physical laws, usually consisting of an observer, a coordinate system, and a clock or clocks assigning times at positions with respect to the coordinate system.” From this definition I have conceived a ‘primary’ and a ‘secondary’ frame of reference. A primary frame of reference can be realized by cause and effect.
To avoid misunderstandings, causality will be defined:
“Causality (also referred to as ‘causation’, or ‘cause and effect’) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second.” 15
Cause and effect cannot exist in relation to physical matter without motion.
Let’s use the example that some of the websites use to describe time dilation as a facet of relativity. There is a truck traveling down the road at 50 miles per hour. In the bed of the truck are two boys at opposite ends of the bed. They are throwing a baseball back and forth, and the baseball is traveling 10 miles per hour. There is an observer (perhaps another boy) along side the road watching the event. What he sees is a baseball traveling 60 miles per hour because the truck is traveling 50 miles per hour and the baseball is being thrown at 10 miles per hour. The baseball is traveling faster per unit of time than what the boys in the truck observe. The boys in the truck are in the primary frame of reference, because only now can there exist a cause and effect; and the observer along side the road is in a secondary frame of reference. But the observer is interpreting the event incorrectly. To be correct the observer must imagine himself in the primary frame of reference, which is in the truck watching the baseball travel 10 miles per hour.
Let’s use another example. There is a professional baseball game being played in the United States. The pitcher faces directly east. He throws the baseball 100 miles per hour. But the Earth is moving 67,000 miles per hour. So the observer on the moon sees the baseball traveling 67,100 miles per hour. Does this sound logical? Absolutely not. In the primary frame of reference the baseball is traveling 100 miles per hour, and it is unrealistic to think that the baseball is traveling 67,100 miles per hour. There can only be cause and effect in the primary frame of reference. By throwing the baseball, the pitcher causes the baseball to go 100 miles per hour. Now there can be several different effects. The baseball can hit the catcher’s glove—going 100 miles per hour. It can hit the batter’s bat. It could break the batter’s bat, or the batter could hit a homerun, and so on. There can be no cause and effect by imagining that the baseball is going 67,100 miles per hour. The ball will not hit the catcher’s mitt going 67,100 miles per hour. It’s not possible, and therefore, the secondary frame of reference can only be found in Ispace. It is not a reality. If, on the other hand, the Earth came to a sudden halt and propelled the baseball into space going 67,100 miles per hour (hypothetically). The pitcher and the Earth have now caused the baseball to travel 67,100 miles per hour. Now, this speed is in a primary frame of reference. And the effect could be quite catastrophic if the baseball were to hit a space station.
Let’s use another example. Let’s say our galaxy is traveling 1,300,000 miles per hour. Add that to the speed of the Earth and the speed produced by the pitcher’s arm, and the baseball is traveling 1,367,100 miles per hour. As you can realize, it doesn’t matter if an observer sees the baseball traveling at that speed. Cause and effect, which is reality, can only happen in the primary frame of reference. In reality, the baseball is traveling 100 miles per hour.
Let’s go back to the pickup truck. The baseball is traveling 10 miles per hour in the primary frame of reference. If the baseball were to hit the back windshield, it would hit it at ten miles per hour—not 60. Once again, cause and effect show the reality of the primary frame of reference.
Finally, there are two atomic clocks, which are in snyc. To keep the time, sub-atomic particles are being bounced back and forth, straight up and down between two mirrors. A spaceship, with one of the clocks, takes off from the Earth and nears the speed of light. In this example there are two primary frames of reference: the observer standing next to and watching the clock on the ground, and the observer in the spaceship watching the clock in the spaceship. They both see the beam of particles in the clocks traveling straight up and down. If the observer on the ground were to watch the clock in the spaceship, he would be in a secondary frame of reference, and it wouldn’t matter if he sees the beam traveling at an angle. All secondary frames of reference are found in Ispace and cannot be a reality.
Time dilation does not exist in the three-dimensional, real world—it exists only in Ispace.
6. http://www.nist.gov/public-affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm; year of experiments was 2010
How Will the Understanding of Infinity
Impact the Human Race?
A long time ago the definition of space was different than it is today. Space meant nothingness. But today space and nothingness are two different entities. Nothingness is simply nothingness, but space is nothingness plus matter and energy. If matter and energy are missing, then there is no space.
Today’s definition of space makes it easier to place space in its proper location. Since space, matter, and energy are infinite, even though matter is continually moving, space can actually have an address between all the objects of matter, and every address given to space will be unique to that volume of space—never will the addresses be the same, e.g., it could be said, ‘that one address is the space between the Earth and the moon, or the space between Europa and Jupiter.’
When speaking of an infinite Universe, in which space, matter, and energy are infinite, scientists and non-scientists often bring up radical ideas, such as meeting an infinite number of you’s.
“… if you proceed long enough you’ll find larger and larger identical regions of space, and eventually you’ll find an identical you.” 1
Two areas of space may be identical in matter and energy extending outward for a certain distance, but they will never have the same address, because eventually the matter and energy will no longer be identical, which means, in this scenario, infinity is very personal.
When using the imagination to travel the Universe—perhaps a googolplex of light years or more or less, it is probable that you will come to a planet whereat there is a person that is identical to you and the world you live in. But there is one concept that must be considered: even if you find another you or an infinite number of you’s, every you will be unique. Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, you will be in a different space than the other you(s). Since you and the other you(s) are in different spatial addresses, all the you’s are unique.
When considering an infinite Universe there are other types of absurdity that are brought up.
“For example, any event with any non-zero probability of happening, no matter how large the negative exponent, would be assured of actually happening an infinite amount of times somewhere in our very own universe (follows straightforwardly from induction over the law of large numbers).
“Such as a planet turning into a giant petunia for a moment before turning back.” 2
If an idea in the imagination violates the laws of physics and logic, then that idea will not become a reality. Keeping this in mind, however, many absurd ideas can become a reality, but all the facets of that idea must be considered in order to make sense. If a man can walk on water, what laws of physics are involved? Is he wearing antigravity shoes? Is there a large magnetic force pulling on him from above? Is there such a thing as mind over matter? If there is, it cannot violate the laws of physics. Can some laws of physics change from one galaxy to the next? Possibly, but there are a set of infinite laws of physics that never change. So, can the mind create a force beneath the feet that allows a man to walk on water? The forces of and created by the human body are mostly an unexplored region of science. But if a person could walk on water, then that person’s mind would have to lessen the force of gravity, or more specifically the force of attraction, on his or her body just enough that she or he didn’t go flying into space.
Can a planet be turned into a giant petunia? The laws of physics and the circumstances would have to be studied before that question could be answered. But if it did happen, it would have to happen in a real-life and a real-time situation—a situation which would not be absurd to the observers. And the same will be with all the absurd ideas that can come from the imagination.
What brings hope to the human race is that anything a person can think of is possible as long as the idea doesn’t violate the laws of physics, proves to be logical, and can be translated to Tspace. This means we can find a cure for any and all the diseases known to mankind. We can find answers to all our problems. We can create a beautiful life for everyone on Earth.
Does this sound like something that will happen in the near future? No. There are just as many bad things in infinity as there are good. And at this particular time in the advancement of the human race on Earth, the human consciousness is being pulled toward the good and the bad. There are those who are trying to beautify the Earth, trying to feed the destitute, putting forth the effort to bring peace, and so on. On the other hand, most of the rich keep hoarding their money, the warmongers keep promoting war, some religions think it’s good to kill other people, and so on; and the worst of all, the Earth is being overpopulated. China is enforcing population controls, but they are only one country. All the countries need to follow China’s example. If not, then the next world war is going to be over food.
In order for humanity to progress to a wonderful life for all, the human consciousness of the Earth must be working toward this goal. And it doesn’t seem that this is happening at the present time.
Nevertheless, since there is now a better understanding of infinity, scientists can now realize that there is an answer for every problem, and most imaginable inventions have a reality, and all diseases have a cure. Scientists, as they’re working on a project, don’t have to wonder if these things can become a reality. Infinity tells scientists that these things are a reality somewhere, which means they can become a reality on Earth. So, with the diligent work ethics of the scientists, there might be a small impact on the human consciousness and upon the Earth coming from this knowledge of infinity, but most of the people, for various reasons, will not be affected by this knowledge. Hopefully, sometime in the future, humanity will leave war and selfishness behind and create a better life for all.
To read the solutions for Russell’s paradox and Zeno’s paradoxes go to Johnnorthern.com