I would prefer to wait for the publication of the second edition for describing how a transporter would work, but there are enough question about why time expands outside of a gravity well and not within one (even though in NLT it's pretty clear once you understand the fundamentals) and how you would test conservation of mass (determining if there is as much time going non-linear as going linear) and the like that I need to cover at least some of the details here and we'll save the details for the presentation at Stanford or the Cern.
If you look at earlier "chapters" what you see is that by modifying time coordinates, you can move anywhere in the universe instantly, but not why or how you would do it. In addition, I mentioned that if such occurs it must occur in nature to some extent and, of course, it does. While this does not "prove" NLT, it does validate it as a legitimate theory explaining phenomena that traditional fundamental physicists fumble with (not by solving the equations, I'm not going to do that at least not yet, but by putting the solutions off on non-linear time).
In order to provide this relatively simple solution of building a functioning transporter and allowing instant transportation anywhere in the universe we have to look at what happens in nature, we have to talk about what astronomers mostly miss in defining the universe (at least according to Non-Linear Time Theory) which is why expansion occurs the way it does in the universe and what it teaches us. This takes us to the next question:
Why does the universe expand only outside of "gravity wells" (gravity wells are where in traditional time-space physics space is viewed as "dented" by mass so that a funnel shaped depression is often shown in drawings of the effect, but we "know" the answer is that time is being pulled to non-linearity which has the same effect.
First, Why does the universe only expand outside of these gravity wells? What does gravity show us about non-linear time going linear (and vice-versa)? We know gravity is a weak force. We also know it can be concentrated and least to the point where we leave space and therefore go non-linear (see earlier chapters). So what does this tell us about time going linear? Wait for it...Time going linear must be a correspondingly weak force as it shows in our universe. Now if enough time goes non-linear together with the same coordinates, you get the entire universe and the big bang. But we've had that and now we have this huge set of coordinate space and we have these gravity wells which did not exist at the time the universe started and we still need to make all this relevant to a working transporter allowing you to instantaneously transport yourself anywhere in the universe!
So first, let's determine why time only goes non-linear in open space far outside of the gravity wells. In order to understand this, it is helpful to think of a set of tree roots growing out from a tree in proximity to a concrete slab. Where do they go? If you said "right through the slab" you might be right eventually. But in the immediate time frame they go under the slab. Why? Because there is less resistance. It is likely that the expansion of space is driven by time going linear and creating space (just like it did at the big bang) and there is too much pressure around gravity for this to be easy, because...wait for it...like it's counterpart gravity it must be a very weak force. So concentrated gravity can overcome the weak tendency of time to go non-linear just as sufficiently concentrated time can cause time to go non-linear (as in black holes) and lose its time and space coordinates or at least make it where they are increasingly non-changing to varying degrees until the change goes to zero outside of space and time as we know it (or maybe I should say as we experience it).
Someone who doesn't understand NLT might expect space to expand from the "center" of the universe. But since space doesn't really exist except as a manifestation of time going non-linear, "where" is arbitrary. The only thing we "experience" appears to be changing coordinates. Hence, there is no "force" to overcome in changing coordinates, only to overcome the weak, but concentrated effects of gravity. Hence time should expand anywhere where gravity doesn't effect it.
Now what does this tell us about the universe and mass. Either the creation of space is offset by time going non-linear or the universe should show an increase in mass. If it were to show an increase in mass, this increase would reflect the activity of non-linear time. If the mass does not increase, it should mean that time (in the form of mass and energy) is going non-linear (presumably in black holes) as fast as space is being created.
Note that both of these are "observed" phenomena just as fusion and fission are observed and both are observed consistent with the dictates of non-linear time theory.
So how does a "real" transporter work?
First, you must create a gravity vacuum at the point you want to end up. Now some of you are saying, that you have to escape gravity to do this, but that is not the case and we have examples that have been pointed out in earlier entries that discuss how this is done.
Second, you have to create at the point where the mass exists a concentration of matter sufficient to drop out of the universe which, fortunately, is essentially the same process as the first step.
You have to be able to control the coordinates at the point in the universe where the time goes back to linearity (i.e. where the coordinates begin to change) but this should be done by operation of the first step.
Since we observe this phenomena in the universe as the creation of space from concentrations of black holes (presumably) it stands to reason that we can do it operationally using the techniques we already use to create non-linear space in supercolliders.
Can we do the same thing with time? It is just a coordinate of non-linear time. Can I go back in time and tell myself all the mistakes I've made before I make them, can I tell you? That, and a more in depth discussion as to how this is done, is for a future entry.
No comments:
Post a Comment