Persistence of Time

Time is the concept that is preventing us from analyzing the universe because it's an unnatural construct. It is a means of accounting for motion when trying to explain an active system in static terms. Time, basically, is an illusory effect of varying rates of motion.

If you have two identical ships with identical loads and identical amounts of fuel (and all the other crap that makes them identical, just for argument's sake), and they launch in a straight line in the same direction, then one gets to the end before the other, we say that it got there faster, or, it got there in less time.

But the reality as I see it is, it is not a matter of time, but a matter of propulsion. Each ship is moving under a different amount of force. Considering that the universe is expanding, the slower ship would actually be travelling a greater distance than the first ship because we can never be motionless relative to the Universe. That difference in force on a subatomic scale and subsequent distance variance cause the illusion of time passage on the super-atomic level. Time is an unnatural concept used to describe a natural phenomenon.

It's a short cut. It is a way of cheating the fact that we do not have an accurate frame of reference with which we can judge our own motion relative to every other body in the cosmos. We don't know how much farther the slower ship travels, so we say that it just takes more time to get to "the same spot", which is never the case. It is simply covering a greater distance under the influence of a lower force of propulsion.

It may even be possible that the second ship reached the ending position relative to the boundaries of the universe in the same amount of "time" that it took the first ship to get there. Because that ending point is constantly moving, there is no way to know for sure exactly how much farther the second ship travelled. Since we don't know that distance, we can't divide it into a proportion of distance:time as we can the first ship.

(Ship 1 travels one light year in two years for a ratio of 1:2, while ship 2 travels [x] distance in two years and six months for a ratio of [x]:2.5. If an expanding universe allows for distance [x] to be 1.25 objective light years, then the ratio remains 1:2. This would mean that the second ship still travelled one light year in only two years, with the last quarter light year taking another six months. Time is thus a non-factor, and may even be constant. Of course, this implies that cosmic bodies are not simply floating freely, rather they are embedded in (something) that affects and even guides their movements, like oil through water. To believe that space is empty between bodies is to believe that the 5% of luminous mass that has been accounted for in the universe is enough to explain everything.)

Time is relative to us because we are the only ones who perceive it. It is a human construct. It has nothing to do with space, and therefore has no bearing on an object's motion through space.

It is a simplification of a vastly finite amount of smaller actions and reactions that doesn't account for differences in conditions among similar actions and reactions (think Chaos Theory). These subtle differences in conditions are imperceptible to us as they naturally occur, so we perceive them as distortions in time. Time is not relative because time does not actually exist.

Time is a handy measuring device, but it shouldn't be used to make calculations, because it is an inherently flawed variable.

It should not be a measure of how long it takes each space ship to reach the same destination. A more accurate measure would take into account the amount of force used, as well as energy production and dissipation. There is a reason that one ship gets there "before" the other, and there are mathematical calculations possible to account for this that don't overlook subatomic conditions.

Screw time. I refuse to believe in it.


**Author's note: This may be expanded at any time, either here or on a later posting. It's fun stuff, attempting to prove Einstein wrong.