# Thread: using "time" in equations

1. It would go without saying, maybe even be assumed, that "time" represents a linear "cause and effect" standard between events we measure (in time, in linear time, like simple cause to effect). Yet, some very fundamental phenomena, like light for instance, behaves as though on a dual energy front, waves perpendicular to each other, not as a linear relationship, yet we still use time as a linear measurement device to measure light. I have searched physics texts for the reason for this, and no explanation is given. Would it not be more accurate to suggest, when measuring light, for instance, that time also has properties like light, time essentially representing a binary condition perpendicular to itself?

With e = m c(squared), is not the insinuation with “c” that light is a unitary thing, when in fact it displays a dual energy front? Could not therefore a dual use of time provide a better interpretation of e = m c(squared)?  2.

3. if you were to graph it, the curvature of time that is, it would be labeled on the z axis as the z coordinate; (x,y,z) rather then the normal (x,y).

if time is in fact circular(not linear) then the z axis would show that time loops back around to the origin of 0 where x and y intercept along with z is equal to 0.

A complete slope encompassing 3 dimensions.  4. How would that z axis approach "infinity", as time invariably must, as well as satisfying "zero"?  5. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
How would that z axis approach "infinity", as time invariably must, as well as satisfying "zero"?
linearly speaking time does in fact go to infinity. However if time is circular then the axis it is being portrayed on will, no matter what, return to the origin which is when x and y =0, (0,0), or with z (0,0,0). in that case time would in fact end but would also start over. You could go so far as to call it an infinite loop much like in java script. So in order to measure this loops depth or length (how long it will take to get back to the origin) one must add another axis, nae another dimension. This alternate dimension to time could be considered the velocity of time.  6. And so what equations have you been able to derive using this axes-construction?  7. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
And so what equations have you been able to derive using this axes-construction?
I do not show you the way. I merely provide you with the path   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