1. THE TIME WAVE by Ray RUSSELL 9th November 2011.

Time, I believe, is accepted by the scientific community to be a different thing from Space; I would like to suggest it is not.

The current view:
1. The universe is made up of many different places in space existing at one common moment in time.

The suggested view:
2. The universe is made up of one common place at one common moment existing at many different times.

Common moment>different places vs. common moment>common place

Common moment>different places: I am here and now and you are there and now, we exist in different places but at the same moment. This idea is currently what the scientific community is basing all of science on and I will show exactly where it is at fault.

Vs.

Common moment>common place: I am here and now and you are here and now, we are in the same place at the same moment but each moment and place exists at a different time. I will show how this idea conforms to the natural universe AND is a superior idea.

***To help understand this idea please note: Time is the collection of moments, not the moment itself and Space is the collection of places, not the place itself ALSO different means not the same, separate means not in the same place or moment only.

If I can assume everyone agrees that every point in the universe exists in the present moment now, the question is how is every point also in the same place here?

The suggestion is that one place can be all of places IF each place exists at a different point in time.

Consider, if you will, what only one place is, without another place all you would have is your starting point, i.e. there would be no other points to give measure, there would be no space and no time, no boundaries, no there and no then, just here and now, the only here and now, to have only one place is to have a SINGULARITY and to have a singularity is to have only one place, this means that if a singularity exists then by definition nothing else can.

IF a singularity (WITH NO BOUNDARIES) exists at different times or dimensions in time, together the singularity would exist in what I call a Time Wave (WITH TIME BOUNDARIES), where every crest of the wave forms a boundary of time containing the singularity HERE AND NOW (…<>here and now<>here and now<>….), no two crests would exist at the same time allowing the singularity to exist seperately resulting in time and space i.e. if any two crests existed at the same time there wouldn’t be two crests there would only be one and if all crests existed at the same time there would be no time and space. The result of the next crest of a Time Wave is the next moment in time AND the next place in space, the distance between two points being a measure of both distance and time, this shows how the suggested view properly describes the natural universe.

To point out the faults with the current view of the universe, firstly the moment now is a singularity, it exists absolutely always and absolutely everywhere fitting the criteria of a singularity, if only one place is a singularity and a singularity is only one place, the moment now should be the only thing that exists, but in the current view many places also exist so the singularity now could not, this shows how the current view is at fault. The suggested view on the other hand describes the universe being made from a singularity, the moment now and place here being that singularity, each moment and place exists in a different time and space so the moment and place are not different they are just separate, conforming with the natural universe. Secondly the current view does not allow time to exist at all, it only allows for the single moment now, not the next moment. The suggested view on the other hand allows the separate moment now and place here to exist in a different time and space, this allows for a next moment and place to exist, the suggested view is superior because it allows now to be a singularity and allows for time, as the current view does not this exactely where it is at fault.

I challenge anyone who would suggest there own here and now is different from any other here and now, to show how this is not based purely on intuition without any scientific basis at all i.e. I see myself here and now and I see all other places there and now, I suggest what you are seeing is a separate here and now not a different one. It is just as intuitive, if not more so, to suggest we all experience a common here and now, indicating a fault with our own intuition i.e. I know I experience here and now and intuitively I know you experience here and now. I would suggest that rejecting this idea off hand would be due to a lack of imagination not a lack of science.

IF everything comes from a singularity then I suggest everything has to be that singularity, if only one place and moment is a singularity then a singularity must be only one place and moment. Consider if you will, what a singularity is, it could be a single point and you could imagine every point in the universe to be a different singularity, but this is just imagining different points and is the same as the current view. Or it could be a single point and you could imagine it is every other point in the universe, but for this to be possible each separate point would have to exist at a different time; this is the suggested view. Perhaps you don’t believe in a singularity at all, perhaps instead you imagine many different points make up the universe and don’t bother to consider where all these different points came from. So what do we really know about the universe, we know about matter, we know absolutely all matter is made from atoms so every different thing is made from just the few things on the periodic table, we also know absolutely all of these atoms are made from just a few things, mesons and borons, ect and I believe the theory is these few things are all made from just energy, it is clear the scientific evidence is not heading toward a universe made from many different points but just a single one. The last consideration is perhaps everything came from God and honestly that would be fine, but umm, to me this is just saying the singularity is god. Strangely, should the suggested view be accepted as correct, the religious view of an Omni pant God would have been more accurate than the current scientific view of different places, to quote John Lennon, “Strange days indeed.”

If you are not yet confused by one place being all other places then you should not be confused by the prospect that every person is every other person. Every living thing would have separate experiences, personalities and values but it would be the same living thing that was, is and will have the experience, personality or value. Each and every living thing would be the singularity existing at a different moment and place in time and space, every living thing is just as much you as you are; they just exist in different space and time.

In short I have shown how the current view is at fault because now is a singularity and many places could not exist if a singularity exists and I have shown how the current view does not allow for a next moment, it only allows for now. The suggested view has shown how the natural universe could be made from a common place that exists at different times and how time can exist because a boundary of time allows a singularity to exist in the next moment, but for an idea to be accepted it must answer questions that the current view cannot. The Time Wave idea excels in giving a superior answer to quantum duality, I hesitate to point out anything other than the obvious, that is the Time Wave idea suggests a particle acts as both particle and wave because every particle is a singularity, one particle is every other particle. The Time Wave idea also gives some insight into religion, it answers questions about life and death, that being we come from the singularity, we live every life and die every death, we are not different we are only separate. If you are waiting for the second coming of a saviour, I believe it won’t be one of us, it will be all of us knowing we are all the same one.

Siting Young’s Double Slit Experiment and the question, “what does the observer have to do with deciding a particle or wave”, the Time Wave idea suggests the particle and the observer are the same singularity. Currently science has no answer for these quantum phenomena calling them weird and suggesting the only way forward is finding a new way of looking at the universe, the Time Wave idea gives a clear and concise answer to quantum duality and the connection between the particle and observer, it is an eloquent answer found not by some new discovery but just by looking at the universe in a new way.

This idea is a back to basics idea but I predict that getting science on the right base will allow us to blaze a path of new scientific and religious discovery. The question of whether there are different places or just separate places may be very hard to overcome because the human ego will insist we are not the same person and it is all too easy to just imagine each place as a different place. I believe the evidence is clearly and substantially in favour of places being separate, not different but what I believe the evidence is indicating means nothing if no one else does.

I will reserve how this idea can also clearly explain gravity, electromagnetism and other phenomena, if this idea is not to be accepted or perhaps not understood, there is no point continuing, good luck, I don’t care who is right or who finds the answers just as long as the right answers are found, don’t stop questioning everything.

2.

3. Thanks to mathematicians, many talk of "timespace". However we use a rocket to get to the Moon and not a Tardis, because we travel through space only. To cope with living we have invented the concept of time. However time is just change and there are no units of time in reality. If you allow that there is, then there are gaps between these units when no time, and so nothing exists so no reason for another time unit to occur.

Singularities are an unproven idea which many are now distancing themselves from since they are impossible.

While it is generally accepted that energy and matter are interchangeable in someway, they are so different from each other that it is not really likely. It is more likely that the energy we get from matter in e=mc2 is just the binding atomic energy, leaving particles we cannot detect as they have zero energy (such may be a form of dark matter in the universe).

As to the double slit experiment, what size is a wave? On our scale they can be a ripple in a puddle or a tsunami. Why should we think that photons come only in one size? If the strict conditions for that experiment (as in gaps the photon has to pass through) split a photon into two waves, then the experiment is simply explained.

As to god, if he can do anything, he can make it up as he goes. People made of cardboard with ink for blood living on the Sun? No problem. Evidence for a god would be the unnatural. Not the natural.

4. The only thing I am suggesting concerns different places vs. a common place, science is currently based on different places while I suggest a common place, nothing more. You suggest this is travelling through time on a Tardis and seem to indicate I believe in a God making people made of cardboard with ink for blood living on the sun. How old are you, please behave?

The only question a scientist should be asking is does an idea work, is there any evidence?

The timespace you refer to I think is 3+1 and is still in the form of different places, not what I am suggesting.

I wasn’t aware the Double Slit Experiment had been explained, can you simply state what the observers role is in changing the particle to a wave is? I have clearly explained the connection between particle and wave and the reason for quantum duality, if you cannot then the common place idea must be superior to many places idea, but please show how this is not correct.

I did not indicate a God that can do anything, all I said was,” The last consideration is perhaps everything came from God and honestly that would be fine, but umm, to me this is just saying the singularity is god.

What size is a wave? A good question but already explained, “IF a singularity (WITH NO BOUNDARIES) exists at different times or dimensions in time, together the singularity would exist in what I call a Time Wave (WITH TIME BOUNDARIES), where every crest of the wave forms a boundary of time containing the singularity HERE AND NOW (…<>here and now<>here and now<>….).”

The size is of the wave is of no consequence but they would be all the same size. If you were to change the singularity anywhere in the universe it would have to change them all.

Let me point out again how well this idea works, I do believe the speed limit of C cannot be exceeded but quantum physics explains there can be immediate communication between points at opposite ends of the universe, the idea of the singularity clearly explains this phenomenon, quantum duality, the connection with the observer, allows for time when the current view doesn’t and this is just scratching the surface. I do not think this is proof, just a body of evidence that you may not have bothered to read with care, don’t understand or are just ignoring.

The idea of a singularity is an affront to the human ego, I know this will be very hard to overcome and may even result in some bazaar comments but you are scientists, all I ask is you look at the evidence with an open mind.

Never stop questioning everything.

5. Originally Posted by rrussell1965
I wasn’t aware the Double Slit Experiment had been explained
What needs explaining? It is a very well understood experiment.

can you simply state what the observers role is in changing the particle to a wave is?

None.

Actually, I'm not sure the question makes sense. Particles don't "change" to waves. These are just our way of describing/categorising certain properties of quanta. They have some attributes that we normally associate with wave and others we normally associate with particles. Obviously, they are neither particle nor wave; the duality arises from our attempt understand them based on our understanding of the world we are familiar with.

What size is a wave?
The wavelength is related to energy:

quantum physics explains there can be immediate communication between points at opposite ends of the universe
No it doesn't.

6. More importantly, the current view of science is not that, "The universe is made up of many different places in space existing at one common moment in time." Unfortunately, things are much more complicated than that. We can't really use a common moment in time except approximately.

7. Every discreet event in the past, present or future needs four coordinates to be described uniquely - 3 coordinates for a point in space, and one coordinate to specify the point in time. Together these form a 4-dimensional manifold, the spacetime, as described here in broad terms :

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This spacetime is globally well defined and described in terms of a smooth causally connected 4-dimensional Riemann manifold, with curvature. Both time and space are part of the same structure, so to speak. There is nothing special about the "present", it is just another point along the timeline of such a manifold. There are no singularities in this picture.
In your original post you state the following :

"The universe is made up of many different places in space existing at one common moment in time."

This is incorrect, because in space-time as referenced above there are both different places and different points in time, and there are different times for the same place and vice versa, and they all smoothly connect in a geometrical sense. Such a thing as a "common moment" can only be easily defined locally relative to some observer, as there is no global reference frame to measure time.
It appears your basic understanding of space-time is incomplete, as the basic premise of your model doesn't make any sense physically or mathematically.

8. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by rrussell1965
I wasn’t aware the Double Slit Experiment had been explained
What needs explaining? It is a very well understood experiment.

can you simply state what the observers role is in changing the particle to a wave is?
None.

Actually, I'm not sure the question makes sense. Particles don't "change" to waves. These are just our way of describing/categorising certain properties of quanta. They have some attributes that we normally associate with wave and others we normally associate with particles. Obviously, they are neither particle nor wave; the duality arises from our attempt understand them based on our understanding of the world we are familiar with.

What size is a wave?
The wavelength is related to energy:

quantum physics explains there can be immediate communication between points at opposite ends of the universe
No it doesn't.
Now Strange, with respect, you are confusing me. Light, can be either partical or wave, determined
by how it is measured, and more to the point, how it is measured in a given scenario.
nokton.

9. Originally Posted by nokton
Now Strange, with respect, you are confusing me. Light, can be either partical or wave, determined
by how it is measured, and more to the point, how it is measured in a given scenario.
nokton.
We can measure properties that we normally associate with waves in the macroscopic world (wavelength, for example); but we can also measure properties that we normally associate with particles; e.g. momentum, "spin" (another can of worms).

They are not particles or waves (and they certainly don't switch between these) they are [what they are] and have both wavelike and particle-like properties.

The trouble is that popular science descriptions, necessarily perhaps, talk about them as waves (in what?) or as particles (little billiard balls?) which causes confusion.

10. With respect I think saying the double slit experiment is well understood then saying the duality arises from our attempt understand them based on our understanding of the world we are familiar with is just saying you don't understand at all. Yes it is obvious "They", as you put it, have the atributes of both particle and wave but i have offered what "They" is, A Time Wave creates the duality, explained in full above.

Four coordinates is what we base CLASSICAL science on but it doesn't work for QUANTUM science, the TIME WAVE works for both.

The world we are familar with is a trick, that trick being a singularity seperated by time is all things, our universe just like any magic trick seems amasing and pehaps you liked being fooled but the trick is exposed and it is riduously simple just like any exposed trick is.

I have explained how it works and it is extarordinarly simple to understand, please try.

11. Originally Posted by rrussell1965
I have explained how it works and it is extarordinarly simple to understand, please try.
Well, I have tried and failed.

You say:
I see myself here and now and I see all other places there and now
But you don't. You see them there and as they were some time ago.

I challenge anyone who would suggest there own here and now is different from any other here and now, to show how this is not based purely on intuition
I think the theory of relativity does a very good job of formalizing the relationships between places and times (events). And, as has been pointed out, totally contradicts the idea of a universal "now".

On the other hand, your "time wave" is based purely on your own intuition and provides no basis for taking it seriously or integrating it with mainstream science, even if we wanted to.

12. "(...)Four coordinates is what we base CLASSICAL science on but it doesn't work for QUANTUM science, the TIME WAVE works for both.(...)"
Wrong again. Quantum mechanics is formulated either in 3 dimensions if it is a stationary problem, or on a 4-dimensional manifold if the system dynamically evolves :

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears you have very little understanding of the physics you are claiming to be wrong. This is unfortunately the case for most people attacking established physical theories - these attempts are mostly based on ignorance of basic principles.

13. Furthermore QED, which is one of the most accurate theories we have, is based on quantum mechanics and special relativity.

14. Hello Russel. I am having trouble following your theory in words. Could you show us the maths?

15. There is a difference between questioning scientific data and looking at the results in a different way, the math is already there, all i suggest is we look at the results from another perspective. A singularity that is nothingness but with the attributes of being here and now, this singularity existing adjacent to itself at a different times, the greater the distance the greater the time. This view provides what other views don't, the connection between different points in the universe, it is superior.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement