Change In Perspective (Page 10)

Change in perspective

Page 10:

If you come to a full stop outside of earth (matched) and gravity affects time then you should be experiencing faster time than those on earth (they age slower). Then we can add in velocities.

According to relativity the astronauts outside are younger because of the rate they are moving.

But if we (the earth) are pulling on space this means we are pulling on time, and although you have different velocities time should be different still. We already know this.

If black holes warp space (time) with gravity then this means there is a fold in space between you and the earth even if the change is minute. Where even coming back down to earth means traversing that fold. How can we experience an unbroken trip (perspective from space to earth) if that is the case? Where two people in each time zone can both have the same outcome in the the same realm of existence, but one of them is traversing the fold?

How can light be possible in this current relative (space-time) case? How can it be passing through all of this? (I’m about to bring up mirrors again). Time is basically nonexistent for light in comparison to us on short distances. Also if it stops or we loose visibility at the event horizon of a black hole then this means we are actually seeing folds in space. (If time is linked) (light isn’t supposed to experience time)

How could it be possible that a mirror (or any reflective surface) can be viewed in space just outside of the earth where the light sends information and time changes in such a way for it that it is moving independent of the folds/bends? Where it’s speed somehow negates the fact that time and space are folded between the mirrored surface and the earth, because gravity is pulling on the space but somehow not between light to the mirror and the earth? How can we be capable of physically viewing the fold when looking at a black hole, but not seeing it when we are looking out to the astronaut?

If you argue that light traverses the fold faster than we can perceive then you are saying it also breaks the fold because we can communicate with those at the mirrors end with no break in either perception from the beginning of their trip to the end, and they can come back down to earth where earth is older, but there is no change in the perception between the two people where no contact was ever broken.

This is true because the people on earth maintained contact and then generated (emitted) a wave of light which did not exist prior to the departure, and the light then completed the trip before their perception could.

How can light take about 3 seconds to the moon and back where the astronaut winds up less than 1 second older? (draw this out)

Picture again holding eye contact through a telescope from departure to a point in time that the astronaut is in space, and then seeing a flash of light that you sent in the mirror they are holding. Has your perception has just witnessed time travel? It has in a sense.

You watched the astronaut leave, set up in space, and then a light particle which did not exist before departure was created and sent to them and back to you, finding its way into your field of view, but you never saw any break in contact with the astronaut who is now younger than you are because of their trip. That particle just managed to find its way into a timeline that did not previously exist to it, and it did it over time.

So how can this be rethought? What if B was looking at a fire on earth, and someone 1 light year away watched the events take place? In 1 year they see the past. They see the action of the light going from A to B and back over 3 seconds, but not the traversal of light to B, where only B sees the light due to its direction.

This means they too are viewing the fold in space, because they cannot see the path of light to B. The same as when light disappears at a black hole, so you set up a mirror to allow for them to see the path from A to B instead.

Now there is no fold, but time still passes, but nothing changes for you. No change in time happens happens for you. No velocity or gravity changes were made. Now light cannot be independent of both time and space if the same particle source can be viewed both ways from the same location.

According to relativity the light particle (or any object which moves at that speed) should also be younger than you are because of its velocity. Meaning that it potentially just became older than it actually is. To further push the idea, imagine sending a newborn baby to the astronaut at the speed of light and back instead. You see it in the mirror, then in your view in person. This baby has just found its way into your timeline. It did not exist prior to the astronauts departure.

If you add the third viewer, you now have a measurement based on a spot on the mirror where light is being blocked. What does this tell you? The absence of light is showing you that you can send information by not sending it at all, but its also telling you that the existence of the baby is not dependent on space, or that time cannot be linked to it.

This is exasperated if astronaut were to be at a location which has much stronger gravity, because it is bending time at a stronger rate (time moving even slower for them) – more drastically bending space, and further showing that light is not dependent on the bends in space, or that there is even a space “fabric”. Remember that the light which was once bent is now traveling in a straight line because you directed a mirror towards a new point. You know this because you were viewing the folds before you could view the direction of the light.

This seems to say, look – space doesn’t exist. Don’t think of me like that.

Black holes can’t be bending light into themselves. Space isn’t bending, but the light is. Gravity pulls it into the hole, and our perception of it is that of the non mirrored perception. We lack the direct point, but gamma rays tell us that light does make it back out when directly pointed at us. It is in a different form, but it is not traveling faster than light. I don’t see how this only has to happen at the event horizon. It seems that it should be possible from the inside as well. (What about the big bang?)

Again, a reminder that we have proven a fold can be completely unwoven without changing time just by sending light through it.

Basically it seems like time doesn’t have anything to do with space. I am still having trouble wrapping my head around some parts of this – along with the fact that we are so engrained in old ideas that it would probably be huffed at by anyone reading. I also haven’t done any of the detailed math, because I don’t know how to yet. Versions of something that didn’t exist before can be hard to believe, but it seems like this can help explain things without breaking them. Velocity does seem to have a tie to time still.

Basically I am thinking of light (newly emitted) as a baby, in all of these scenarios the baby just winds up older than it was. It is our perception that made things so confusing.

It is difficult to remember that you broke the fold by adding a mirror. All the relative stuff still stands, just now we have an easier explanation for some other ideas. Which I am getting into right now:

The gravity at the new location changed how old you were relative to the baby by a significant amount, but the baby was only there for a very brief period of time, and was traveling at the speed of light the entire time. Almost no time passed for it, but you did see it, and you never stopped seeing the astronaut either.

Now the astronaut makes it back and is younger than you, but not younger than the baby. This gets confusing when you consider that the baby is also seemingly younger than itself (on someone else’s timeline) according to how long it’s been perceiving this universe. It is on a timeline that it shouldn’t be a part of. It has left and come back.

This tells me that perception also plays a big role in what we consider to be space-time. Which doesn’t exist. I think it’s becoming more important to stick to our perception and velocities for now, and I think it’s even more important to never question the thought that this can be wrong, we only see things that so closely resemble the whole, and once we can determine and influence all outputs can we start to read what created the inputs, but we also have to imagine the outputs and creation of inputs first to understand the outputs.

You look at baby in mirror
Only two years passed for you, but baby is younger than that difference bc of speed
Third observer saw it all, no time changed for them, then the babies shadow in the mirror
No fold

Still getting there:

Time has grown at an uneven rate, but remained linear

We need to get to the point where we can experiment with light and entanglement from distances. Using refractions to view new angles. Relativity holds, but the electrons do not. Again everything remained linear, just not space-time.

We can tell that we can cause particles to be influenced from the future now. Does this also mean we can influence them before existence by influencing presently existing particles first? What are all the objects which can be affected in such a way?

We cannot yet prove that it is possible to travel back in time physically, but that we can influence it from the future. Does this not indicate that we can? Might time travel mean creating/influencing a being into existence? Removing time from space allows for light to make the trip.

So there are still things that need to be proven through experiment. I am going to think about black holes some more in this new context.

If we were to instead count gravity as a form of velocity and used only velocities to determine relative time, then this removes the need to fold or bend space. Suddenly even black holes make more sense. Where light can eventually be stopped if the black hole grows large enough, or it’s being taken apart inside and there is actually a mass inside in this case, plus it might explain gamma rays and would explain why we saw a neutron collision grow brighter.

Where the rays were building due to intense gravity and periodic or interval release happening on a small enough scale that it was viewed as all at once, when really it was blinking on and off, very quickly – because it was not large enough for us to perceive the changes.

Giving the possibility that much larger bursts come from much larger black holes, in spread out intervals, because it takes more time to release the rays due to heavier gravities (velocities) (competing velocities). I have started to think of black holes as the universes conservation of energy, or a very efficient recycling bin and compressor of information. – No more infinite folds

All the other stuff still seems to make sense.

This brings the possibility for gravity and threshold decays being inflatable and that they may add, divide, subtract, etc from each other based on vicinity or other variables, and explains why galaxies exist and probably why they form around black holes so often.

The gravities are all combining (still considered velocities), and adjusting thresholds and decays based on surroundings.

I am having some trouble with gravity waves because my math isn’t there yet. But it seems like this fits in with inflatable thresholds and decays based on weights, where weight likely affects decay times for gravity, and where gravity is a velocity too. The collision of heavy objects probably briefly inflates the numbers which gives you a ripple until the decay settles. Just like how light could escape from a black hole in intervals. All of this requires space not being linked with time.

I am very excited to start thinking about electricity and magnetism. It seems like if PSO is gravity then there is probably a reason so many things have a charge, or are magnetized (even if gravity seems to be independent of it all). I want to find the item that would cause particles to behave in such a way in which they begin to create gravity. I am also starting to question whether we even need more dimensions, or if we began to use them to explain things that we couldn’t with the current laws.