Eventually, we will go over the things which we "know" or which are "intuitive" in the e-hologram model, but for now, let us just cover issues as they come up.
One good thing about e-hologram theory is that it provides lots of answers to the question of what occupies a vacuum. One reason, of course, is that there is no vacuum required.
Space (and all dimension) is a function of time which is inherent in all of our math. For example, e=mc^2 has the speed of light in it which includes time.
But however you view this, how do you explain the movement of on block of matter/energy with one time (common to block) moving through a vacuum which must have some aspects of space and therefore must have several independent times (obviously any particle in a complete "vacuum" would have separate time from the space itself).
Time may or may not be a type of awareness, although that appears to be relevant. Space may or may not be a function of time, but that appears to be foundational to e-hologram theory, otherwise you have space time and we lose a block of unified field theory. We cannot unify other forces with gravity if gravity is not the tendency of matter/probability/etc to return to the hologram. Without this or another unifying principle we might as well talk about loops and stings and we don't ever get past o-space.
We cannot fully comprehend in this blog entry what time is, but there are some things which we know. To understand what e-hologram theory says about time we need to cover what we know about time.
First, time is effected by both gravity and space; or, in e-hologram theory, gravity and space are a function of time. In E-relativity "relative velocity" and "increasing gravity" "slow time". This is why you eventually expect to stop aging as you drop into a black hole. If you accept that gravity is the tendency to give up time and that time is fully stripped in a black hole, then you can see gravity removing time gradually which has the effect of slowing time relatively but only for objects falling into the time stripping gravity. The question that is asked by this is why does the tendency to remove time slow it relative to unstripped time. Likewise, why does relative speed have the same effect. Relative speed indicates the same effect as giving up time which should be consistent with hologram concepts.
E-hologram theory makes this more intuitive because speed, being a function of dimensions, doesn't exist in the hologram. Therefore, time doesn't change, instead the dimensions change.
Let's look at some equations: Time dilation (Lorentz):
TD=1/sqr(1-v2/c2)). The difficulty of measuring TD being a function of the large size of c^2.
Velocity is a relative concept (the difference in speed between the two observers). In e-hologram theory V^2 can be further reduced as (t1(vector1)-t2(vector1))^2 which are the dimensional differences along one vector of two different times to define the "times" (time 1 and time 2) attached to the different observational points. This means that time dilation can be defined in terms of two separate times with light being defined in term of time. The solution approaches infinity as v approaches the speed of light and if it were to surpass the speed of light time would run backwards which is where a lot of time travel stuff comes from and is why I speak in terms of "apparent" rather than actual faster than light travel. The reason to substitute t1 and t2 for velocity is because this allows us to cut out impossible variations and it helps to explain the constancy of light and the failure to be able to combine the speeds of matter with the speed of light to get light to go faster (light has its own time, t3 which can vary in theory but it isn't additive to mass times)
Likewise light (without mass) can be affected by gravity (relativistic-ally) because time
attaches discretely to matter (and perhaps non-discretely) to energy and time may be stripped from either (as seen at black holes) and hence both would show gravity; the tendency to give up the time in e-hologram theory.
This is the concept of blended time where there is the tendency of masses in proximity to share the same time is not supported by light because time would tend to slow by mass. Time would become the same for mass which is combined (hence the whole planet has the same, blended time) and light would slow in proximity to mass. If this were true for energy, then as light passes through matter, the times of the light and the times of matter tend to combine and perhaps this is shown by absorption and emission, although other explanations seem better.
Light may be a wave, but the time may be discrete (or light may be photons and time may be discrete) allowing for duality of light and may also allow for the treatment of matter in the same fashion.
The question of dark matter can be at least one of four things:
1) it may be singularity with a different time, but in proximity to the tie we live in;
2) it may be "damaged/different/defective" time with different dimensions;
3) it may be the singularity itself; that is it may be tendency/possibility to which time hasn't attached
4) it may be tendency after time has moved on to the next tendency
All of these are different sides of the same coin.
The exact nature of dark matter, The question of how time attaches to light or matter will have to wait till later.
No comments:
Post a Comment