Recently I was sent a link to an article about the holographic principle, which is a theory that attempts to explain how our universe is actually a 3D holographic projection of a 2D surface. It seems to somewhat line up with some of the nonsense I have in my head, and I found the article interesting, though lacking some detail, it did job of explaining everything on a level that is relatively easy to comprehend (OR… I completely misinterpreted the entire thing… but let’s pretend I’m awesome instead).
Somewhere muddled in the comments, was a link to this page, where a user named “photo guy” took the time to type up exactly what I thought about the concept of “time”. It’s almost like the guy reached in to my head grabbed my wiggly brain thoughts, googled them for some better vocabulary and quotes, and then typed them up. So below is a straight up copy and paste of his post:
While not a physicist I’ve been delving for 50 years. So here’s my contribution to the theory of everything.
I agree that we should stop considering ‘time’ as a force in and of itself. We need to drop it from calculations regarding the cosmos.
That idea goes against the grain I know, but that’s what this ‘new theorys’ section is for, eh? And I’m happy to find others who think similarly… Unfortunately I’m not up on conversational lingo so to be clear I’ve gone more verbose, in plain english, with a little setup preamble and some ‘reiteration’ too.
Humans ‘imagine’ so they’ve come up with a way to know when to set down for dinner when the food is ready. It’s been very helpful for humans to be able to sync in our society. But it’s a convenience thing. An illusion built around physical structures. Not really a force in itself that can be measured or managed.
So used to using time in society, it’s a difficult concept to accept that everything in the cosmos is just ‘happening’, at any instant you measure it. That there is no real ‘past’ or ‘future’, time dilation, or anything that can be folded or traveled in, connected with those happenings. That there is simply a natural and physical progression of changes going on. Whether it be towards growing, decaying, moving from point A to point B, or what have you. Things just ‘happen’ caused by forces that ‘can’ be measured.
Everything in the cosmos ‘happens’ on it’s own. Nothing in the cosmos needs ‘time’ to do what it has to do. It just does it, using other means.
Everything is constantly at a *point* of change, where every object will be found to be changing at its own particular rate. Everything changes in various degrees relative to everything else. Similar to cutting the side off an apple and the outside face being smaller than the inner face. That is simply the physical ‘point’ where the change happened. The rate of change (in face sizes) being dependent only on how far out from the core the measurement is done. Which of course has nothing to do with ‘time’. Or other slices done at different locations.
Likewise the observed relative age of an object compared to another is not a ‘time’ difference but a physical difference. The slowing of the mechanics of the basic elements of one object more than another. Similar to putting a steak in the freezer. Life goes on outside the freezer.., and time does not change in the freezer either. But the steak has slowed down. It may think it has traveled through time when it’s warmed back up, but in reality it was merely being kept younger physically. The cosmos does something similar., using other means.
The speed of light is thee maximum speed. The speed of the galaxy. Nothing can surpass it. It is a standard we can all rely on. That speed may be ‘approached’ by electrons and other bits and particles but never exceeded. They being the same bits and particles that make up everything in the cosmos. So we know the faster moving of them will be changing slower, or less, over any given distance travelled. And every physical trait of what they’re a part of will then have the same lower rate of change. So it will be less ‘used up’. Kept physically younger than what did not move as far or as fast.
I like to use electrons in this posit. Maybe they’ll turn out to be something else, even more basic perhaps..? But the idea is here.
I understand most electrons are already traveling as fast as they can, at some speed near c. And usually they will be orbiting a nucleus while helping to make up a particular atom.
When that atom moves from point A to point B, an electron in orbit around it has a longer path to travel than if the atom had stayed at rest. Since electrons can’t speed up to make up for that extra distance, they will take longer to orbit the moving atom. Orbits in line with the direction of travel will do moving elliptical orbits.., and those perpendicular will follow along in a spiral. Both will simply be keeping up with the nucleus which is traveling in a straight line. But the orbits in both cases will show the same extra distance traveled to complete each orbit.
So if the electron’s orbit takes longer it will naturally and physically slow down that atom’s ‘operating cycle’. All that it’s supposed to be doing as its normal function. Being part of molecules, etc. That slowness would then be in those molecules and on up to whatever structures they were a part of.., such as humans and spaceships.
Therefore, seen from a rest state.., such a traveling ship would take longer to rust.., the clock would take longer to move to the next second marker, as the GPS satellite clocks do. And of course for the passengers to grow older.
So.., with everything being equal, the speed of light is like the finish line on a race track. But during the race that finish line is constantly moving further and further away from the horses running towards it. And with their various speeds, each horse will be dropping back from the finish line by different amounts. All the horses will be spaced out on the track and their distances from each other will become longer and longer. That lengthening being their relative ‘physical ages’.
It follows that if an atom were travelling at the speed of light, its electrons would be racing in a straight line alongside or behind, trying to get around the nucleus. But they wouldn’t be able to. Some say this is stopping ‘time’. But for those particular atoms it would only be the equivalent of having their individual functions stopped… Like being cryogenically frozen solid. Except for some freezer burn, nothing changes.
But that’s not time dilation nor time travel. Because there is no time to dilate. Just an illusion caused by the various rates or speeds that an object’s basic elements work at. Each variation brought on by it’s particular velocity, and gravity.
Calculations need to be done on what is real. Distance is real. It can replace all calculations that use time.
The distance a bit or object travels in a particular measurement can be compared to the distance light traveles in that same interval. The measured objects would then have a speed of perhaps .9999999 c to 0 c. Units of distance can be substituted for units of time. Parsecs instead of light years.., etc.
‘Velocity’ needs no distance vs time definition at all. Light speed is the maximum speed. The speed of the universe. It is 100% velocity. It goes *fast* and it *can’t* be slowed. No matter how fast you’re travelling.
So doesn’t that *prove* it..? It does to me.
Velocity brings on inertia which is gravity by another name. Gravity therefore seems to be thee cause of the various rates of physical ‘slowerness’ in everything that moves in the cosmos.
For one to say that gravity does NOT affect electrons, they must argue that velocity over distance (inertia) is not gravity. And also explain how an electron’s orbit would NOT be made longer by the distance the atom travels. Or how the electron would be able to make up for it otherwise. Not to mention what keeps the electrons circling their nucleus in the first place. Gravity..! Or not…??
We also consider gravity of nearby large objects. Such as the moon causing the tides. What basic part of water is being pulled on.? If not thee most elemental parts of both hydrogen and oxygen, would it not pull one more than the other? And perhaps turn the water into it’s constituent gases..? But not. So it seems the moon’s gravity is pulling on both kinds of atoms equally.
It may be pulling only the nuclei, only the electrons, or both. Any of which will add distance to an electron’s path around its nucleus. But I tend to go with just the electrons being affected.
Accelleration is inertia, and is the gravity that counters the gravity of the nucleus. It follows that the electron’s path would be further distended by the gravity of the earth in one direction as well as the moon in the other. An electrons orbit could be made to look quite wobbly in fact.
Going beyond slowing down atomic functions and differences in the rates of physical change.
Atoms have a positive charge when they’re short of electrons. Negative when they have too many. What then if the atom is in balance with the correct number of electrons but because of velocity they’re more ‘distant’ from the nuclei than they ‘should’ be. Electrons with distended orbits are more distant so one should expect to see a slight positive charge on ALL atoms. That all atoms would have an ‘offset’ in the positive direction. Negative atoms as well. They being less negative than they would be otherwise.
To go further, do we have a cosmos full of slightly more positive than negative atoms trying to repel from each other..? Except for those who have lumped up by coincidental collisions, etc., which slows down their velocity and so reduces their positive offset. Being ‘captured’ they become part of a larger mass gravity object which overpowers their their individual, weakened, repulsion tendancy.
There’s more on how atoms may be both dark energy in a free near c state, and dark matter in the captured state.
That where they were wisping closer in the cosmos there were more collisions for them to be ‘captured’. That being the ‘web’ or structure that galaxies seem to have formed on.
All this is over my head as far as the exact properties of an atom, etc… I understand that electrons are now considered to be some kind of blur but they apparently ‘work’ the same. In any case, I’ll leave the details to anyone who cares.
My contention is that time should be replaced in calculations of the cosmos. Can someone say why it cannot.? Disregarding of course that it’s needed to support all the current speculations I’ve been hearing in the last couple of years. That’s putting the cart before the horse.
