The Time and Motion Relationship

NO-MATH ESSAYS IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS
By Thomas Garcia
 Copyright ©1996/Revised 2010/All Rights Reserved

ESSAY ONE:
THE TIME AND MOTION RELATIONSHIP

When asked about the nature of time, I can only answer in terms of my own frame of reference, and that is, as a student of human group interactions and as an activist in the American sociopolitical arena, and with a layman's whetted interest in science and an analytical eye out for straight thinking in the formulation of objective thought.

Where it concerns time theory, my candid inquiries have led me to propose that the passage of time varies at a rate set inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete matter in space, and therefore time to me is a distinct property of matter.

I believe this very simple time and motion relationship, which I defend with logical arguments, is at least as relevant to science today as is the incredible concept of Albert Einstein's Space-Time Continuum. By the end of this essay, I hope to have convinced the reader of the validity of my claim.

It seems obvious to me that while we've known for some time now that the rate of the passage of time depends on the speed of objects, we have not used this information as well as we should have. That may be simply because we to tend to consider ever more-exotic and complicated concepts that purport to explain to us the riddles of light, energy, motion, and space. Consequently, we have not put as much importance as we should into what we do know about time.

That may well be the reason why, after all the centuries of people asking each other "Just what is time?", we have progressed essentially no farther in the science of Physics than Albert Einstein's standpoint of time and space interdependence and his premise that they are both flexible and dependent upon the state of motion of an observer. [J. Ray Dettling, "Time Travel: The Ultimate Trip" (Science Digest, September 1982) pg82]

Indeed, it is difficult to figure out time. We cannot get beyond Dr. Einstein's premise of an interdependent relationship between time and space because it bonds the two as inseparable absolutely and forever, where one cannot exist without the other. Unfortunately, the result of that is the creation of a virtual "blind alley" from which there seems nowhere else for us to go. The premise discourages any in-depth consideration of the idea that there may be more relevance to time other than the usual understanding of it as simply the Siamese twin of space but not much more than that.

When we think about time, it is usually as a "continuum" or "fabric" of our universe in which all things exist equally subject to the "force" of time's irresistible and unwavering flow. However, such a concept requires time to have or to be a force of its own - it requires that time must either be energy or must contain energy. Since we know nothing about time having such energy, such a belief can only lead us into a blind alley where we find we cannot explain certain "loose ends" or apparent natural contradictions. For one, how could time possibly have the energy to be a force?

In order to support the idea of the existence of a time and space continuum, scientists have had to come up with the notion that there must be such things as time and space fluctuations in the form of time and space "warps," "curved space," "time dilations," and so forth. For many of us, though, it is just too difficult to imagine the warping of time and the curving of boundless ace in any way other than as the literary trick used in science fiction stories as a relatively quick and easy way to travel around the universe. It is a task too difficult for us because we have not yet evolved to the point where we can mentally extend the concept of ordinary space far enough to reconcile in our inquiring minds how it could be possible for empty space to "do", "act", or "perform" any sort of physical act.

For scientists to take ideas from science fiction is a risky adventure, as it can too easily become a case of the tail wagging the dog, as it were. "Absolute space," commonly explained as empty space, is better defined as "…physical space independent of whatever occupies it." The term "physical space" is not used above to mean that space is a substance made up of discrete objects, but rather that space exists whether there are objects in it or not. Of course, we agree time passes and matter moves; yet can we really bestow to empty space the capacity to do something like warp, curve, flex, or bend?

In addition, if physical space could do something, how would we ever know it since we can only see through it? Even so, if we wish to (perhaps only to resolve these nagging questions), we can imagine the reality of time being something quite separate and independent indeed from the reality of space, and we shall later discuss just how this may be done. For now, however, let us talk about "time warps" and the like.

In some textbook examples of Special Relativity theory, two observers take accurate measurements with their synchronized clocks of the amount of time it takes light to travel from a ceiling lamp to the floor of a train car. One of them measures the light while seated inside a moving passenger train, while the other stands beside the tracks and measure the light fall as the train moves past him. In a surprising conclusion, the experiment proves that time passes slower for the observer riding on the train in comparison to the rate of the passage of time for the other observer standing alongside the railroad tracks.

However, how could that possibly be true if light travels at a constant speed for all observers? Moreover, why would we say it applies only between the two observers? As I will explain next, it is true, and it applies only within the reference frames of the two observers because the relevant difference between them is that they are moving at different speeds with respect to each other.

From the viewpoint of the outside observer who took his measurement as the train went by, the light traveled "distance x" in moving from the ceiling to the floor, plus "distance y," which is the distance the train moved in the time it took for the light to travel to the floor of the car. For him, a line tracing the path of a single light particle as it fell would show a diagonal line of travel drawn downward but curving in the direction of the train's movement.

For the passenger, the light fell plumb downward from the ceiling light bulb to the floor of the train, but for the outside observer, the same light did not fall straight downward. For him, the falling light curved as it fell simply because the train was moving faster than he was as it passed by. For the observer in the train, however, the light particle traveled only the "distance x" because the falling light was moving down but not moving past her since she was on the same train as the light she measured.

For the train rider, then, a line drawn based on her observation would be a straight vertical line because she is moving along inside the train with the light as it falls. Thus, there is no "distance y" involved in her measurement.

In comparing the length of the two lines, the diagonal curved line is longer, meaning that it must have taken more time for the light to reach the floor, so far as the outside stationary observer is concerned, but less time than that as it pertains to the measurements of the observer moving along with the train. If for the stationary observer the event took, e.g., two seconds to occur by his clock, and if for the train passenger it took, say, only one second to occur by her clock, it means that in this bilateral relationship, time passed for the stationary observer at twice the rate that the train passenger underwent.

Therefore, he aged faster, or more, than the passenger in the moving train. This experiment clearly illustrates the time and motion relationship of inverse proportionality in that the observer moving relatively faster than the other observer accrued and underwent a slower time rate. It may also explain why so many of us seem to seek and enjoy moving at speeds faster than those deemed safe for a given situation. Perhaps we know subconsciously that we age slower than those who move slower than we do!

The above is an instance where we have obtained two accurate but different time measurements of the same event; yet, that is very difficult to believe! The speed of light is constant; it could not be a change in its speed that caused the differences in the two measurements. If the speed of light did vary in order to accommodate the situation, that would explain the time difference and we could say the speed of light arbitrarily "adjusted" to that particular situation; then it would be necessary for scientists to claim that a mysterious time and space warp event occurred.

If it was the case, however, that the speed of light varied instead of the rate of the passage of time (as opposed to just the passage of time), then time could be a force of the universe, and if that was so, it seems all objects in the universe should age at the same rate.  Even though we might agree on this, we would still need to wrestle with a question similar to the one we had with space, i.e., a force must have energy to it.

We define energy in Physics as the capacity, ability, or power of a body or system to do work. Power is the measure of the rate of doing work, but it is also defined as the force or strength employed to do the work. A force in physics is a physical influence that tends to change the position of a massive object, equal to the rate of change in the object's momentum. [Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]

Therefore, the term "energy" may be correctly applied in several ways. It can be kinetic or potential energy, or a power, a force, and/or a strength, depending on an author's specific use of it. It can be an imaginary math construct or a physical reality. However, when used as a physical reality, it can only apply to a physical reality. Time is a physical reality in our universe. It passes, we age, therefore, we exist, if only temporarily. Yet time is not an object; it is only a property of any given mass. It is not a body or a system and it has no mass to it; thus, it cannot be or contain energy in any of the ways we define energy.

That does not mean it has no energy, because it may have a different type not yet discovered. We have no rational explanation as to why time passes for a mass, but we know there is a cause for any effect and energy seems always to play a role in the cause. We think that if we could stop time, nothing would age. As silly as that may sound, my model of the universe proposes that time passes only for objects having mass and thus, motion. I propose that the rate of the passage of time varies between objects of unlike mass and motion, but when or if a given object could be made to lose its mass, it would lose its motion and no longer age.

If it is not so that the speed of light varied during the experiment, then the reason for the time differences must indeed have to do with the fact that the measurements performed occurred while the observers were in a different state of motion relative to each other. The experiment above shows that the rate of the passage of time varied for each observer at inverse proportion to their particular states of motion. Up to this point, many may already agree with that conclusion, as I do, but the reason why that occurs is not explained well by Modern Physics today in my opinion.

Within the context of Einstein's time-space interdependence premise, it is said that both time and space must at some unknown point warp, fold, flex, bend, dilate, or curve to reconcile the differences in the rates of the passage of time as measured by our two observers. The premise is a conclusion necessarily adopted to explain the time differences, I believe, since we know the speed of light does not vary in the vacuum of space. Beyond that context, though, it is extremely difficult if at all possible to apply such physical terms to time and space because neither is a discrete object which we can easily study and measure.

If we think that the rate of the passage of time (or, the rate of aging) is universal, i.e., that time is a seamless "continuum" in which all things are held equally subject to its immutable flow, then it becomes necessary indeed to invent time and space "warps" and to imbue space and time with characteristics impossible to confirm. The necessity arises for some of us, I think, when confronted with such natural inconsistencies of the type shown in the experiment above and we cannot come up with better explanations for them.

If we can agree that in our experiment above the rate of the passage of time varies for the observers due to the difference in their states of motion, then it becomes easier to agree the reason for that is because each observer measured the same event from within their respective frames of reference and within a time rate corresponding to his and her own state of motion.

Remember that both measurements in our train example are accurate and so, essentially, the only difference in the situation between the observers is that one is moving faster than the other at the instant they each measure the same light traveling from the ceiling to the floor inside the train car. They are both moving through space along with planet Earth, but each has a different state of motion while on the surface of the planet.

The stationary observer is at constant velocity with respect to the earth, but the train passenger is not because, while the train has all the motions imposed upon it by the moving planet, it also has the added motion relative to the earth (and thus also with respect to the stationary observer). This experiment has more recently been explained using observers on earth and in spaceships, as noted below, but it may be more easily understood using the planet as the reference base.

In the resolution to the so-called Twin Paradox (another common textbook example), it is proposed that a twin who goes off in a spaceship for a few years returns to greet a much older twin brother or sister on earth because Nature apparently grants a slower time rate to the accelerating space traveler.

That has prompted many to work out mathematical calculations that purport to show how that is a possibility. However, out of the many resolutions to this paradox which have been proposed, not one explains why nature should grant different time rates to moving objects. This is another example where there has been for some time now widespread agreement that the time rates of discrete objects are set inversely proportional to their states of motion, although I've found no one yet willing to agree with me on that particular point.

I have found very little information about time as a theoretical research subject. Centuries back, the argument was whether time passes in a continuous flow or in brief spurts. The issue was not resolved then and it has been forgotten today, perhaps rightly so if it is as unimportant an issue as it seems. If someone has lately argued time concepts in print, I missed it and so I have felt compelled to poke further into what to me seems quite an important discovery about time. I have come to believe that at any time when it seems Nature simply and freely "grants" us something, we should be wary of accepting her "gift" too readily because in doing that, we could miss a good clue.

Greek philosopher/scientist Aristotle argued that all heavenly objects travel around the earth because it is in their nature to do so. That had a ring of logic to it then, and even though apparently he offered no better explanation as to why it was in their nature to do so, many accepted the proposition, probably because there were never any exceptions observed, or perhaps it just suited them to accept it. We know now that under that "logic," there could not have been any exceptions, as today heavenly bodies still seem to revolve pell-mell around the earth. The effect is still the same now as it was then.

People apparently acted too eagerly in accepting Aristotle's logic as easily as if the question of "why" is of little importance to our insatiable thirst for knowledge. I could not accept the non-explained apparent time and space warps offered by the Modern Physics people any more than they could accept Aristotle's logic.

It would be nice, however, for us to think we can know why nature would choose one observer over another as in our examples above. For some time, I have felt there must be a reason why Nature would "gift" one observer over the other with a slower time rate, based on my belief that the nature of the universe is one of cause and effect and that the "why" of any effect better defines the cause of it. Any apparent paradox, therefore, is explainable by its cause once we discover the cause of the effect.

However, the concept of cause and effect has its detractors in that some adamantly disagree it is a reality of the universe, while others use its counter-concept to explain something they cannot otherwise explain.  The idea that ours is a universe based on chance is an alternative explanation to that of the cause-and-effect explanation, although most people do not argue it against the better-accepted concept of cause-and-effect. Many do use it, though, when they explain effects as something without a cause or, as above, as gifts of nature.

A gift is something given to show gratitude or give pleasure, and since it is a gift, it takes nothing from - and more often provides an advantage to - the recipient. To explain an effect whose cause is unknown by calling it a gift from nature or something else that is not a definite explanation is to deny the concept of cause-and-effect and argue instead for the concept of chance. Using physical terms like "warping," "bending," and "curving" to explain the effects provided by time, space, and light is only a partial and thus insufficient explanation of that which is being observed.

After long deliberations, I was able to accept for my own peace of mind the following conclusions regarding time:

I. If we agree that discrete objects have a longer life-span (due to a slower time rate) than other objects which are in motion at a slower speed, then we must also say that for any object, time passes at a rate of inverse proportion to its state of motion regardless of its location within the universe.
2. If that is so, then the aging rate of the twin in the spaceship example above would be slower than on earth at any instant whenever the spaceship's speed would become faster in relation to the earth's state of motion in space, rather than at some arbitrary or unknown point in time and space.
3. Therefore, upon returning to earth, the traveling twin will have aged less as far as the earthbound twin, the planet itself, and everything else on earth is concerned, simply because the spaceship would have to accelerate faster than the earth's state of motion to first leave it then later return to it.

Another reason why the idea that time rates vary as a function of the state of motion of matter in space may be due to a Relativity claim that motion is meaningful only between two bodies moving relatively to each other. All observable matter is in motion; therefore, we cannot locate a stationary point in the universe from which to measure the motion of a single body. If we could, that would mean absolute rest exists, i.e., a place at rest in the universe to which the motion of moving objects may be measured. If such a point did exist, such measurements would be those of absolute motion.

For Einstein, the only type of motion there can be is relative motion, which means then that all of our measurements of motion may only be obtained by comparing the motions between two or more objects in space.  Nevertheless, is not his other premise (noted on page one in the second paragraph) that time and space are dependent on the state of motion of an observer - simply the one exception where motion is meaningful to something other than the relative motion between bodies?

The premise holds true when we wish to measure the motion of objects in space because that requires other bodies for comparison of their motions. I contend, however, that in the case where the rate of the passage of time for a single object is dependent upon the state of motion of that object, motion is meaningful to something other than just the motion between two or more bodies. I agree it requires more than a single object to perform such measurements, but the variance results whether or not a measurement occurs.

My contention holds true to measurements taken by observers whose states of motion differ, as they do in our moving-train and space-traveler-twin thought experiments. I've already noted above it is the difference in the states of motion of the observers as well as in the motion of the objects they measure that yields consequential outcomes in our measurements of time.

Some may infer from the above that the time rates of matter vary because observers in some way cause that by their measurements. From there, it would be easy to argue that time rates vary only when and if there are observers around to measure them. Yet, why would the rate of the passage of time not simply depend upon the state of motion of discrete objects, sans observers? The answer is, of course it does.

If we can agree a priori that the diagonal line in our moving-train example is longer (whether or not we physically trace the descent of the light particles), then we can agree time rates vary not just because someone is there to measure them no more than the sunrise depends on someone being there to observe it.

Can we not also validly deduce from all of the above that the rate of the passage of time for an object depends upon that object's state of motion and not simply on the fact that two or more bodies are moving relatively to each other? This is a relevant argument because, if it were true in all cases that motion is important only between two bodies, it could be argued then that time rates vary only when bodies in relative proximity move at relatively different speeds.

In such cases, they would affect each other's states of motion and thus each other's time rates as well at certain distances from each other. That interpretation has to do with the spatial positioning of bodies and that does indeed require the involvement of both time and space in an interdependent relationship as Einstein did already correctly note.

If it is true instead, that time alone is dependent upon motion, then the rate of the passage of time for any single object depends at any given moment upon its current state of motion in space. That would apply regardless of the speed or position of any other object except when the condition of any nearby body is such that it may affect our object's state of motion. A small point, admittedly so, but a relevant one nevertheless because, after all, why should space be dependent on motion?

In addition to that, if we accept the latter of the two arguments above as true, and if the reader is in agreement with my proposals so far in this essay, then we have achieved our goal of freeing the property of time from its binding ties to physical space. Space remains a property of the universe, but now we must recognize time as a property of matter and accept that the rate of the passage of time depends on the state of motion of that particular single object within the universe, and not upon an interdependent relationship with space.

We can say, if we wish to, that if time rates accrue to objects in inverse proportion to their states of motion, there must be universal time rates which apply to the continuous levels of motion of similar but discrete objects in space, where said levels are like those in the light spectrum and in the decibel levels of sound. There is then a particular time rate that accrues to the earth due to its specific state of motion in space as well as to any other object having the same state of motion, without regard to its location within the universe. As the Sun moves through space slower or faster than Earth, for example, its time rate varies from Earth's time rate due to their particular states of motion.

Moreover, if another similar star in another similar galaxy far away moves through the universe in a state of motion similar to our sun, its time rate should be about the same as the time rate of our star, in accordance with Einstein's Principle of Equivalence that natural law applies throughout the universe. Only in that sense is it appropriate to think of time as a "fabric" that permeates the universe or a power imposed equally on all the things that exist in the universe.

If motion is necessary for an object to have the property of time, it means time is dependent upon motion, and if the time rate of an object varies in inverse proportion to its state of motion, then the rate of the passage of time must increase as an object's state of motion slows, and vice-versa. Therefore, as an object's time rate increases, its "lifetime" is "used up" (relatively) sooner. This means that the near-absence of motion in matter is likely another natural boundary of our universe, like the near-speed of light and the near-Absolute zero temperature.

There are natural boundaries set for ordinary matter and when objects come too near those limits, they change into other forms of mass and energy in order to exist beyond those limits. Matter is comprised of mass and energy, and so long as it has both, it has motion and thus the property of time as well. We have found, however, that matter can exist in both an ordinary state as well as in an extraordinary state. However, I contend such matter can only exist devoid of energy, as we know it, even though current theory proposes the existence of dark matter that contains a mysterious "dark energy" acting to keep the galaxies together while expanding space.

I have developed an alternative explanation to the "dark energy" theory in Essay II, but the point of this essay is to show the true relationship between time and motion. My next essay, entitled The Ether Found, explains how the terms "negative mass" and "dark energy" have come into use. I argue therein that a medium for light does exist, and I explain what it is clearly and in precise no-math prose, which makes it easier for us all to review and understand. If you have enjoyed this essay, I think you will like my other No-Math Essays as well.

It is necessary, I feel sure, to clarify my meaning of the phrase "state of motion," as I use it herein so often. When we speak of an object's state of motion, it is usually in reference to its velocity or momentum. Yet there is always motion within all matter too, including the molecular kinetic energy activity in gases, the atomic vibrations in matter, the motion of particles through space and matter, and also the "outward" motion of matter resulting in the continuing expansion of the universe. I include all motions of discrete matter in the phrase referred to above. In fact, we may say that everything visible in our universe is in motion, which means that if there is matter invisible to us, it more likely exists without motion.

We think of the passage of time as being continuous because it passes for all visible matter everywhere and all the time and we do not see any breaks in it as it passes. Nevertheless, we know of things like television, where pictures presented to our eyes move so rapidly that they emulate real life, appearing to exist in time without any breaks at all. There is in our universe discreteness where matter is concerned, but there is also apparent non-discreteness in some of the varied forms of energy that we know exist. Light appears to our eyes to be continuous but we know it is actually waves and discrete particles. Thus, we should know better than to assume there can be no discreteness in the passage of time.

In fact, a very long time ago, people considered the idea that time exists in minute discrete instants, which occur one right after the other just like a movie uses frames of pictures to make us think that a movie is presented to us en vivo. If time is discontinuous, they reasoned, then in-between each instant of time, all motion could stop. Then we (and the universe) may either simply cease motion or perhaps disappear at those in-between instants.

It could be, they argued, that we are being created repeatedly at the beginning of each instant of time. However, then the relationship of cause and effect would be broken because that would leave only the element of chance ruling the universe. In a universe without cause and effect, there would be no way to explain why we should restart at the same place where we left off.

Fortunately for us, that was a very weak argument in a cause and effect world, it could be explained in that instead of being re-created continually, we could simply be in a state of "not running" between each instant of time, as when we are, e.g., "not running" a movie video. The movie is not deleted each time we turn it off; it's still there on tape or disk ready to be run, and when we do run it again, it is the same as when we last viewed it.

If time exists in discrete packages in a cause and effect world, then it seems plausible that time could restart at the same place it was when it last stopped. It seems, therefore, we have no way to know whether time is like a river or a sandy beach. Of course, the ancients did not have video way back then....

Furthermore, the premise is an extremely remote possibility simply because cause and effect is obvious in our everyday existence. For example, as I type these words, my fingers hit the letter keys and that causes the same letters to appear on my CRT screen (the effect). If we are recreated every instant and chance has overthrown cause, shouldn't my accurate typing at some time or another result in unintelligible printing? I contend that the rate of the passage of time varies between discrete objects, but that proposition does not conflict with the idea of the discontinuous passage of time.

It could be that time passes from one instant to the next, but each instant may be longer or shorter depending on the state of motion of discrete objects in space. It could be that time seems to "flow" for us because each instant passes too fast for us to be able to distinguish one from the other just as light waves pass by too fast for us to distinguish between them with our bare eyes. That would make us think that time flows like a universal sea, engulfing everything equally in its aging process, just as water engulfs any objects immersed in it. Water, though, has energy; while I have argued here that the property time has no such power.

If someone or something could slow down our time rates, perhaps we could get to a point where we begin to have "blackouts" between each parcel of time, but if we all have them at the same time, none of us could ever be aware that it is happening to us. In view of all this, it seems possible that time could be just like light - both at once continuous and discrete. Here now, like light, the property time displays a dual nature. Regardless where we stand on these ideas about time, however, we accept it as a reality of our universe.

We can know that time exists and that it's real, if for no other reasons than we can feel the passing of time and we can observe the aging process of things like flora and fauna. Our basic knowledge and experience regarding time is meager indeed. Even though much of what Einstein proposed in his Relativity theories has proven accurate, some of it seems so complex that if we wish to agree with it, we must take it on faith that it is valid. Complex explanations tend to be especially vulnerable to misinterpretation over time, but some are simply confusing in their presentation.

For example, Einstein's Space-Time (S-T) Continuum is a simple concept made difficult to understand. Russian mathematician Hermann Minkowski added time to Einstein's special theory of relativity as a fourth dimension to three-dimensional space. Einstein then used the concept to work out his general theory of relativity wherein gravitation is "…explained as the influence of bodies on the geometry of space-time (four-dimensional space, a mathematical abstraction, having the three dimensions from Euclidean space and time as the fourth dimension)." [Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]

The explanation above correctly identifies four-dimensional space as a mathematical abstraction, and I have seen it referred to as a mathematical construct. However, the explanation below, although from the same source, fails to use the same disclaimer and thereby makes it appear as if Einstein's S-T Continuum exists as a real place in our universe:

"Every particle or object in the universe is described by a so-called world line that describes its position in time and space. If two or more world lines intersect, an event or occurrence takes place; if the world line of a particle does not intersect any other world line, nothing has happened to it, and it is neither important nor meaningful to determine the location of the particle at any given instant. The "distance" or "interval" between any two events can be accurately described by means of a combination of space and time, but not by either of these separately. The space-time of four dimensions (three for space and one for time) in which all events in the universe occur is called the space-time continuum." [Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]

The last sentence above refers to the S-T math construct as existing where all (physical) events occur. However, physical events, i.e., real events, do not occur in the nether-universe of our imaginations wherein math constructs reside. Whether on purpose or unintentionally, the author seems to be saying the S-T Continuum is much more than a mathematical abstraction.Everything we see has and is in motion. Newton first noted we could not determine absolute rest by using other objects, and later Einstein explained that to mean all motion is relative because everything in the universe is in motion.

Einstein's STR has to do with the motion of objects that are at constant velocity with respect to each other, according to authoritative reviewers, but in physics that can only refer to objects moving at the same speed and in the same direction. The examples commonly shown to inquiring minds, however, have objects moving in opposite directions. Velocity defines a time, speed, and a particular direction, while "constant velocity" refers to more than one object moving at the same rate and in the same direction.

Albert Einstein and many other scientists came to believe that the universe is in a static condition, fully grown and of a finite size. The "inertia" of our mindsets presents formidable resistance to change, and so many of us tend to develop our theories and equations in ways that are consistent with our beliefs. It is evident today, at least to me, that is what happened then to cause creditable scientists to follow blindly one of their own "over the cliff's edge" rather than wait for confirmation for fear of "losing face."

The result of that in the end was to weaken the scientific authority with which they spoke. Cambridge University Lucasian Professor Stephen W. Hawkins, in his book, A Brief History Of Time: From The Big Bang To Black Holes, (New York: Bantam, 1988), offers some insight into that historical period:

"Even Einstein...was so sure that the universe had to be static that he modified his theory to make this possible.... Einstein introduced a new 'antigravity' force, which, unlike other forces, did not come from any particular source, but was built into the very fabric of Space-Time. He claimed that Space-Time had an inbuilt tendency to expand, and this could be made to balance exactly the attraction of all the matter in the universe so that a static universe would result."

The idea that ours was a static universe fell immediately with the discovery by Edwin Hubble in 1929 that the universe is instead in a state of expansion. The mathematics with which Einstein managed to provide Space-Time an "inbuilt tendency to expand" is very complex, and only a few of his peers claimed to understand his calculations.

Our own experience is that nature tends to end up having simple solutions more often than it has complex explanations. Einstein's space-time continuum is a mathematical construct useful to us, but not as a representation of reality. I do not think Einstein meant it to be taken as the latter; yet today, it seems many have come to believe it really exists! It is a very simple graphical diagram, for gosh sakes.

It is a 2-axis drawing used to simulate the tracking of objects through space and time. It is a tool of great utility to us, but it is not a real place in our universe; it does not exist anywhere but in our minds!  I take issue against that apparently common belief among those who subscribe to it only because it seems some have come to believe that such a place truly exists, going by their choice of words when writing or speaking about it.

I have tried to restrict my words here to the subject of the true relationship between time and motion, but I could not avoid complaining about the popular space-time continuum belief because of Einstein's proposal that space and time share an interdependent relationship. I think many have come to believe his so-called continuum is a real place because it has to do with space and time, both of which are realities of our universe, and from there it must be easy to "transfer" a fictional math construct into the belief it actually is real and exists somewhere in the universe. On the other hand, perhaps our schools are just no longer teaching that distinction.

END OF ESSAY 1

How to get more essays:

    

I have undertaken to develop a series of these essays solely to clarify the questions in my mind about the universe. I offer them to scientists and science fans alike in the hope they will encourage many to question that which others try to convince us is the reality in which we exist. This first Essay is free and available here to anyone and may be reproduced or distributed in its entirety without any change(s) whatsoever.

    I wish to thank in advance those who took time to get involved in this discourse and responded to this essay with questions and/or comments.

Subsequent essays will not be free but will be available hopefully within three months of each other. I expect this series to contain a total of eight to twelve essays offering more explanations related to other issues in physics that need review and revision and which can be used to stump your teachers and professors or to just agree or disagree with, and for that purpose I welcome any discussion from readers via email forwarded to me from:

elsnetmart@gmail.com

www.els-netmart.com

PROLOGUE

Initial explanations to all who for whatever reason(s) choose to frequent this blog:

Most of what I will post here was developed and copyrighted by me in 1996, but some of it has been revised and updated for this blog.  Most of what I was reading then was difficult to understand because I am a fan of science but not a physics scientist.  It took me six school semesters total to finally pass Algebra I and II in college and I earned a "D" in my last required Chemistry class.  However, I did earn a BA degree with a major in Sociology, and I was able to use those skills in my work with a state agency in a job I truly enjoyed as a career.

Clearly, I'm a math featherweight, but I love the sum of all that we have learned of our universe.  I struggled mightily to learn the issues of physics (but not the math).  It was not easy because most of the proof of physics is in the math, and those who want to transfer scientific knowledge to the public do not ordinarily excel in teaching it as well as they do in the research of it.  I was finally able to muddle through and learn a number of issues relevant to the business of the running of the universe.  Unfortunately, I have been forced to argue with some of the conclusions derived from the research because it turned out I am one of the most stubborn Doubting Thomases in the history of mankind.

I found I could not agree with much of what Modern Physics reports to its public almost daily.  Today, physicists are working feverishly to create matter from "nothing", and even though they have already claimed they're done so, I must object to that in view of what I know are alternative explanations to the causes of those effects we see and to all those riddles Mother Nature throws out at us at every turn.  What I report in this blog is complete information about time and how it works, but it is entirely my own opinion supported by rational analysis of the points involved which cause me to come to odds with the ultra-conservative Modern Physics scientists of today.

I cannot force the reader to agree with my conclusions, yet I cannot believe otherwise until I can be shown the knowledge I lack to be able to arrive at my conclusion of any single issue I take up.  I've taken up many issues besides this one about time, and I only wrote them for my own satisfaction.  I make them public in the hope others will see the reality of the current state of Physics which may be leading us astray.  If it only helps students learn what questions to ask of their science teachers, I can be happy with that.  I will be filled with joy whenever I may stand corrected, but I will be ecstatic to hear a new and better explanation for the true causes of the effects we see.

This essay about time is about ten pages long and I solicit your input positive or negative, but I suggest also that the reader ask a question about anything I have not explained well enough to be fully understood by any fan of science.  To read the essay, please go to my next post which should be in by tomorrow.