SECTION HOME         ALPHABETICAL INDEX
 The Society for the Diffusion of Knowledge
P.O. Box 964,
Kaunakakai, HI 96748
 
TIME

    There are several types of time:  instantaneous time, simultaneous time, inertial time at rest, inertial time at motion and time of awareness.
    Time of awareness is subjective and unique to every individual.  Both instantaneous time and simultaneous time are disallowed under the Standard Model and completely allowable within the framework of dynamic geometry and surface mechanics.  Inertial time is conventional to modern physics and applicable to objects in motion or rest, and yield strikingly different observational results relative to different observational inertial frames of reference.

TIME OF AWARENESS

    An example of time of awareness would be riding a bicycle while you are immersed in the thought of riding a bicycle.  If both the thought and the act correspond, such as riding along the same street in front of the same set of homes, and both the act and the thought start at identical places, they may or may not end simultaneously after traversing the same distance.  In recognition of this variation, one can expect the same from the machines we make to measure time.
    In both cases, you are experiencing time of awareness.  In both cases priorii are being processed by the brain.  In one case, the priorii are externally generated in the physical reality and in the other, priorii are generated internally either by the brain itself or by karma (spiritual reality).
    This is not at all unusual set of conditions, but rather common to scientific study;  all external observational results and measurement being processed internally by the observer's brain and somewhat biologically delayed to the actual physical events.

INERTIAL TIME

    In this understanding, both as an experience and rational assessment, the notion of a time continuum comes into play, an idea without rational support.
    For example, combining the invention of clocks with the relationship between speed and distance traveled evokes the well worn equation both popular and essential to physics:
d = s M t, where d equals the distance traveled at the speed s over the time duration t.  Einstein's relativity strokes it further by suggesting that d and t are immutably locked together by the notion of non-simultaneity as part of the wormhole of four dimensional manifolds.
    Undeniably, such a proposition works very well within a certain particular finite realm of of the Standard Model, but miserably falls apart within the realm of quantum physics, also a valid part of the Standard Model, which in the case of the latter, the PAST and FUTURE may flip-flop around NOW  (See Illustration.)  This is to say that the occurrence of the events and processes of quantum physics do not necessarily follow an ordinary and regular procession as noticed in macrocosmic behaviors, such as the orbiting and movement of ponderable masses, such as celestial bodies.
    Time is not so much a question of science, or even religion for that matter, but instead a philosophical proposition where we can unequivocally state that NOW exist, whereas the PAST and FUTURE do not.
    Just as it seems, as in the days of Similitude, any set of distant events could be considered to occur simultaneously, if not instantaneously, where between then and NOW we have somehow adopted a time continuum as propositionally superior, whereupon sits the long gone PAST and the yet to be FUTURE; hair brained concoctions in the least.  There is NOW no PAST and there is NOW no FUTURE. Indeed if this is wrong, then you are either reading this in the PAST or in the FUTURE, which truly doubt.
    Strictly speaking, no more could a time continuum exist, than could a space continuum.
    Sad as this may seem in respect to time travel in our runaway imaginations, along with time machines utilizing giga watts of power to get us to and from, we may say and believe that NOW exists, happily occurring everywhere instantaneously.
    Inertial time, the relationship between mass and itself, often expressed as:

F = m M a,
where a is the first derivative of speed (d/t)', is generally credited to Newton.
    Inertial time at speed is generally credited to Poinc<re, Lorentz and Fitzgerald.  The clocks designed to measure both inertial time at rest and inertial time at speed may or may not share a common mechanism.  As such ambient variations may or may not affect these different machines in different ways.  For example, clocks based upon the swinging of a pendulum will slow down at speed due to the mass increase of the pendulum, the same not being true of atomic clocks.
    In their case, the means governing the uniform and regular repetition of atomic cycles, specifically the rotation of a simple wave in orbit around an array, period wise, is invariant at different speeds.  Accordingly, a cesium atomic clock for example, would not be unaffected at different speeds, as substantiated by the fact that relativistic time variation has never been reported in modern space flight.
    It should be remembered, that from an imaginary abstract point of view, time is an essential concept, whereas from a purely ontological point of view time does not exist, serving neither as a keystone to physical principle, along with space and momentum, nor coming into existence with the sudden presence of ponderable masses, an essential conception to the hypothesii of Relativity and the Big Bang.

SECTION HOME        ALPHABETICAL INDEX