# Time Itself Is Three Dimensional

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### StuartL

Currently we view Space-Time in terms of a “Big Bang”, with three dimensional matter being woven together with its fourth dimension, time. As we all know, this view is replete with problems.

This may seem long, but it’s well worth the read.

How did it happen in the absence of time?
How did it just happen to be Space-Time?
Is there a multiverse?
What are dark energy and dark matter?
Why does light behave like both a particle and a wave?
If there is a multiverse of all possible universes and a universe that is not part of a multiverse is possible…How can there be a multiverse?
Where did it all come from?
Etc:

Now if we take a page out of the quantum book as it were…

The Universe could have just popped out of the ether. That is to say that the singularity just was, and then “Banged”. The Universe, and the dimension of time that it was in, just appeared together instantaneously. However; this theory does create mathematical problems…

How can matter and time come into existence simultaneously?

Surely, for anything to happen requires the presence of a time dimension, within which it can happen. Happening takes time. Hartle and Hawking proposed a mathematical model of the “Big Bang”, in which it took place in “Imaginary-Time”. Not “Imaginary” in the sense of being nonexistent, but rather in terms of what in mathematics, are referred to as imaginary numbers…

“An imaginary number is a complex number that can be written as a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit i,[note 1] which is defined by its property i2 = −1.[1] The square of an imaginary number bi is −b2. For example, 5i is an imaginary number, and its square is −25. Zero is considered to be both real and imaginary.” - Wikipedia
This idea, because it was just an idea, not a theory, cleared up all of the messy math associated with the “Big Bang” event. For some reason, this idea just lay there, casually tossed aside. Probably because it couldn’t be proven, probably ever.

“If I know that I cannot prove it, why bother looking into it? And besides…”, type thing.

However; if we take this very interesting idea, couple it with the fact that “in a block-universe, all time is present all of the time”, and look more closely…
If the singularity popped out of the ether of Imaginary-Time, it could then “Bang”. The nice thing about this idea is that it allows for multiple “Big Bangs” as long as each resultant universe collapses back in upon itself. In which case, one could suppose that all resultant universes are incapable of escaping the “Big Crunch”. Or, the first time a universe “Bangs” that does not then “Crunch”…The process ends, and our probability of existence becomes very low once more.

Let’s just open our minds to a seemingly “bizarre concept”…That in a block-universe, all time being present, all of the time, actually means what it says (I know right?). Stupid to even have to type that in, but I do have to. You’ll see as soon as someone responds to this.

“That’s not what that means…You’re failing to understand the concept. Are you even a physicist?”

Essentially, it’s the only argument against this theory, that anyone anywhere, can come up with. And I’ve taken it all over! As it were. It is genuinely BIZZARE just how “closed-minded” people can be.

As a preemptive strike, I ask the following…

If Space-Time lasts 100 billion years…
Is all time is present all of the time?
How about if it lasts 1 billion years?
Twenty minutes?
One Planck-Time?

‘All time is present all of the time’, either means 'all of the time’ or the statement is pure nonsense. Pick one.

Pick the right one?
If so continue on.

If not don’t bother wasting your time, you’ll only continue on with your closed-mind, and end up right where you started (blinded by science – taught at school).

This is were things start to get very interesting indeed.
If twinned Time-Dimensions popped out of the ether we now have three dimensions of time…

Real-time – The time dimension within which the ether existed.
Imaginary-Time – The time dimension within which the “Big Bang” took place.
Space-Time – The resultant “Big Bang” universe.

Three-dimensional time.

With three-dimensional time, all else becomes possible. The infinite becomes real, because we have now become everything and nothing. Matter itself has become theoretical, it doesn’t need to exist, it just needs the potential to exist. Because Time itself, can take care of literally everything else.

How?

If Space-Time “Banged”, for example: All of Space-Time’s time, could be contained within a single Planck-Time. There would be no reason for more time. I already covered this area in another post (link below).

Anyway, if we make matter 'theoretical’ (exists – but may just as well not), and time three-dimensional, we can put matter into any time and place using nothing but time coordinates.

The flow of time is an illusion specific to the observer.
Have an “observer”?
Pop the matter in where relevant.

If the observer can only see for one mile…

All automatic in a mirrored, open-ended, block-universe within three-dimensional time.

Now if you make the twinned time-dimensions, sentient…

The Reason For The Whole Thing:

Time Singularity:

You may think me mad, but let me just say this… There are “BIG COINCIDENCES” and just coincidences. Trust me, you wouldn’t/couldn’t believe me if I tried…

It really is real.
Wait and see

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
There's an enormous amount of material here, both in this post and your links, and I can't parse it all at once. Just a couple of comments.
Currently we view Space-Time in terms of a “Big Bang”, with three dimensional matter being woven together with its fourth dimension, time. As we all know, this view is replete with problems.
1) What problems are you refering to? Please be specific!

2) Just because someone does not address what you are talking about doesn't mean that it's right. You made that argument a number of times in the links.

3) You seem to be saying that people who don't understand your ideas won't accept anything beyond what they learned in school. This is not the case. But consider: You seem to feel you can answer just about every problem you see in Cosmology and Relativity with your ideas (please correct me if I'm wrong,) This is generally the hallmark of a troll or someone with an incredible ego. Don't be surprised if poeple don't want to accept your ideas.

4) I'm not saying that the only people that can do Theoretical Physics have degrees but I noted a huge lack of any supporting arguments from actual theory. All of your arguments are qualitative, not quantitative. If you want anyone to accept your ideas you have to be able to apply them to be able to do an experiement. I haven't seen anything like that in you posts.

5) This is more of a requirement than a comment: Please leave religion out if it and stick to whatever Science you may have. It's just going to cause problems.

-Dan

#### benit13

Adding additional dimensions to any particular variable (or introducing complex numbers, which is similar) and then investigating how the individual components of the dimension change with respect to a particular phenomenon is a fairly old technique. It's a way to introduce component-based mathematical expression that can aid in the characterisation and treatment of difficult mathematics. A good example of this is the use of complex numbers with exponentials to represent periodic behaviour, complex interaction probabilities to describe nuclear interactions in quantum mechanics, space-time in general relativity and many others that I can't think of at the top of my head. Another technique is to use "transforms" which allow characterisation of particular phenomena in new kinds of spaces. For example, Lagrangian transforms for mass-based systems, Fourier transforms for signal processing and wave-like phenomena and reciprocal transforms for crystal structures and solid state physics.

It is tempting with any difficult phenomenon to leap to complex numbers or new dimensions to fix things. In many cases the theories that use complex numbers or additional dimensions turn out to be very important for the adequate expression of a given phenomenon (such as in relativity and quantum mechanics), but in other cases it should also be taken with a pinch of salt; it's a bit like a fudge factor to describe a complicated thing in simple terms without actually understanding more about the system under scrutiny.

As for time? Complex time isn't a new idea and has been studied before in cosmology. Steven Hawking talks about it in "A Brief History of Time", which you mention. As for other extra dimensions? Well, I don't think it's necessary from a conceptual point of view, but maybe the mathematics gets easier with more dimensions. Maybe you can try calculating some general relativity using different metrics that feature multi-dimensional time and see if you can predict something new.

Hawking's work on complex time doesn't really make sense, but it has an impact on the theories he is investigating. Those theories are exploring new ideas in cosmology and general relativity by trying to open up some of the thorny mathematics with additional expressive power afforded by the introduction of complex numbers.

So... who's to say that having multi-dimensional time would work or not? Who knows until someone goes ahead and actually tries performing some general relativity with it. If you really want to study this further, you should learn general relativity. Good luck!

With three-dimensional time, all else becomes possible.
What does this mean? What becomes possible that was previously impossible?

The infinite becomes real, because we have now become everything and nothing
What does this mean? What do you mean by "infinite" in this context? What does it mean for the "infinite to become real"? What does it mean to be "everything and nothing"?

Matter itself has become theoretical, it doesn’t need to exist, it just needs the potential to exist. Because Time itself, can take care of literally everything else.
What do you mean by "matter has become theoretical"... it's more than theoretical... it's measurable.
What do you mean by "it just needs the potential to exist". What is "potential to exist"?
You say "time can take care of literally everything else". What does that mean? Time is something measured by clocks... what do you mean by "take care of everything else"?

All this fluffy language just sounds like Deepak Chopra gibberish to me; the use of jargon to sound clever without actually explaining anything.

This stuff is definitely not physics, which aims to understand the natural world through the investigation of real world phenomena through observations. What you're talking about is more like metaphysics, which is more about exploring the consequences that physical theories have on ideas and philosophy. And I'm being generous.

I think you have tried to post your idea online before and have received some harsh feedback. presumably that's what the following is?

“That’s not what that means…You’re failing to understand the concept. Are you even a physicist?”
I don't think most (if any!) of us are in a position to really make specific judgements for or against Hawking's work on complex time, unless we really go to the effort of studying general relativity, reading Hawking's journal publications and following through all of that extremely difficult mathematics to really grasp exactly what is gleamed from his work.

Essentially, it’s the only argument against this theory
Your ideas are not a "theory". It's best described as a concept. You need to perform a lot more work before your ideas are in a position to really be scrutinised. For example, you need to follow the basic steps of research:

1. Make a specific hypothesis;
2. Perform a full literature review on the topic, making sure to fully explain yourself and reference existing work;
3. Explore the concept by investigating models and exploring edge cases;
4. Perform or reference experiments or simulation results that demonstrate your hypothesis or validate against it; and
5. Make conclusions about the work and compare them with other authors.

I think you're currently at the beginning of steps 1 and 2. These steps are actually the most important of all these steps, because it makes sure that you're not wasting your time. It requires years of studying. You don't want to perform work somebody else has already done or miss the paper where the authors demonstrate with an experiment that your idea is absurd.

As it were. It is genuinely BIZZARE just how “closed-minded” people can be.
No... criticism of your work is not people being "closed-minded", it's the natural inclination for any reasonable person when that person hears something new that doesn't accord with their own experiences or work. Anyone (everyone) doing research will get a massive amount of criticism. A considerable amount. They should. So... you need to get used to it!

Physics theories are made robust not by how nice the ideas sound, they are made strong by standing up to the constant criticism aimed at it, even in the face of decades of experimental evidence trying to disprove them.

I'll leave it there for now.

#### StuartL

My feedback
What does this mean? What becomes possible that was previously impossible?
Everything possible becomes possible. If we take the example from quantum physics of "A beautiful lady suddenly just appearing in the seat next to you...", all of that becomes possible. If you have a want, and your want fits within the parameters of true justness, then your want will be.

What does this mean? What do you mean by "infinite" in this context? What does it mean for the "infinite to become real"? What does it mean to be "everything and nothing"?
Infinity itself is not a number, it's a concept. There is a school of thought that infinity itself can never be more than a concept. It can never be realized.
The matter has collapsed under its own weight, as it were. It has gone, only its influence remains. Its influence remains because although physically gone, the matter is still within "time".
What this does id create a situation whereby matter can be called into existence at any place/point in time. It also allows for the perfect balancing of Space-Time, with the use of dark matter and dark energy. Matter and energy put into the system that cannot be seen or interacted with by the observer. To the observer, although the effects can be measured, dark matter and dark energy don't actually exist.

We are everything, and we are nothing but time, at the same time. A mirrored universe of both matter (well...'ish) and time

As to the reference to religion...No religion here.
Twinned dimensions of time popping out of the ether, creating 3 dimensional time. A lattice of time, if you will, upon which to play.
Cosmic consciousness seems like a good first major goal.

Take the time to think about it. I know time can be tricky to get your head around, but all this is real.

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
If we take the example from quantum physics of "A beautiful lady suddenly just appearing in the seat next to you...", all of that becomes possible.
We already have that feaature in QM. It's just that I wouldn't wait up at night for it to happen.

Anyway, as far as Philosophy is concerned I'll leave it to you. I don't think this makes any sense or provides any simplification. Just remember, though, that even Philosophy in Physics has to make contact with reality, which requires experimentation and I don't see how your ideas are going to work to produce results that are already known, much less new predictions.

-Dan

#### StuartL

We already have that feaature in QM. It's just that I wouldn't wait up at night for it to happen.

Anyway, as far as Philosophy is concerned I'll leave it to you. I don't think this makes any sense or provides any simplification. Just remember, though, that even Philosophy in Physics has to make contact with reality, which requires experimentation and I don't see how your ideas are going to work to produce results that are already known, much less new predictions.

-Dan
I know that feature already exists in QM. I used that example for that very reason. However; I was not suggesting that you wait up all night for it to happen, you make it happen simply by wanting it to happen.
Now...Ethics...Does said girl wish, to suddenly appear by your side, and fall instantly in love with you?
If she is your soulmate, sure. If not, then it wouldn't fit the parameters of true justness, and therefore you'd probably figure out why it didn't happen.

This is all about reproduction and equality.
We are all equal, no gods, just US.

I know that it sounds odd, but we are all home already. We are done. This is the one that worked.
We are eternal. We made it. But, for any of it to happen, my soulmate and myself must first meet.
There is no experimentation possible. The evidence is all about you.

Why does light behave like both a particle and a wave?
Because we are living in a mirror universe.
The time properties (virtual matter/energy) and the matter/energy interfere with each other creating what appears to be a wave.
Same as with the single electron/wave pattern experiment.

I've basically covered all of this stuff in the links provided, but you're still going to have to think for yourself. Time is tricky to get your head around.

This really is true, it's not a philosophy.
Can I prove it? - Nope.
Can it be proven? - Yup, but only one way...Soulmates?...

If we meet and nothing happens...I'm wrong. I'm a complete and utter ass...etc:

Questions?
Keep them comming, I'm happy to explain every tiny little detail to you if that is what you require.

Last edited:

#### benit13

Everything possible becomes possible.
This makes no sense. If something *is* possible, then how does it *become* possible... it is already possible. Did you mean "everything impossible becomes possible". If so, how? What kind of impossible things become possible?

Note that there exist properties that can be described as mutually exclusive. For example, consider the statements:

"I have a coffee mug"
"I do not have a coffee mug"

It is impossible for both of these statements to be true. So, would things like this be possible? If so, how?

If we take the example from quantum physics of "A beautiful lady suddenly just appearing in the seat next to you...",
What example is this from quantum mechanics? What are your sources? Explain...

all of that becomes possible. If you have a want, and your want fits within the parameters of true justness, then your want will be.
Define "true justness". Define "parameter of true justness". Define "a want". Can you give examples of these? What does it mean when "your want will be".

How does this work (or not) with existing physics theories?

Infinity itself is not a number, it's a concept. There is a school of thought that infinity itself can never be more than a concept. It can never be realized.
Okay, I agree with this, but then you say:

The matter has collapsed under its own weight, as it were. It has gone, only its influence remains. Its influence remains because although physically gone, the matter is still within "time".
Explain what you mean by this. How does mass "go" but then still have an "influence". What does it mean when you say "matter is within time". What is matter "outside" of time? These things make no sense unless you explain them in detail.

Last edited:

#### StuartL

This makes no sense. If something *is* possible, then how does it *become* possible... it is already possible.
For example:
With the "Big Bang" theory, we are what "Banged" (Space-Time). There is speculation that there may be a mirror universe, and/or a multiverse. With 3 dimensional time, both exist. The "possible" is possible. Put another way: Where does the "extra" matter come from for a "Big Bang" multiverse?

Or:
My want gets satisfied by the manipulation of time and matter. Possible as things stand, "I want a beautiful lady to appear beside me suddenly and...", could happen here already. Just don't "hold your breath" or anything.

What example is this from quantum mechanics? What are your sources? Explain...
It's a well known oft used anecdote, to explain that matter can just suddenly pop into existence, according to QM. It had to do with fuzziness and uncertainty at the quantum level I believe.

Define "true justness". Define "parameter of true justness". Define "a want". Can you give examples of these? What does it mean when "your want will be".
True Justness - Socrates touched on the subject (well - Plato's Republic...), but my definition is somewhat different. Perhaps defining me a bit may be the easiest way.

I love ALL beings. I would consign myself to complete non-existence in order for ALL of you to be truly happy.
I am truly happy.
I understand that not one single one of you has ever done anything "wrong". Space-Time is a block universe, all that has happened and all that will happen, was/is exactly what needed/needs to happen in order for US to achieve perfection.
Would it have been right to just" not be", because suffering was going to exist?
Or, is a given amount of suffering "just" in the cause of finding eternal happiness for all?
That type of thing.

So if I want to see two dogs fight each other to the death..."Is that just?"..."I guess not, because it didn't happen"..."Where did I go wrong there?"
Type thing.
Learn as we go.

Right now it would be "unjust" for me to want a hamburger and to have one just appear. The world requires structure, and beings require a reason "to be".

Really true justness is a journey within ones own mind.
Find yourself, the true you. The you that you were meant to be before the world "sunk its claws" into you.

Explain what you mean by this. How does mass "go" but then still have an "influence". What does it mean when you say "matter is within time". What is matter "outside" of time? These things make no sense unless you explain them in detail.
If there is an "outside of our time", it cannot interact with us in any way. Sort of like the dark matter/energy thing. They are within Space-Time, they have an influence, but they aren't "really" here. They are shall we say "virtual"?

The mass itself has gone, but is still there. Matter can no longer exist if it crushed down beyond a given point. However; it was there, it was in "time". Its "being" is no longer necessary as it were. It for all intents and purposes, still exists, it just doesn't. It can be called upon, by the observer, to be where it needs to be...It just isn't actually there.

The gravitational forces still exist as a part of "time", but the matter itself is gone, it is, for all intents and purposes "theoretical".

Oh and whom-so-ever it was that pointed out that this does not meet the scientific definition of a "Theory" - You are correct, but perhaps a little pedantic, well just a bit anyway .

I have been "thinking" about this for 12 years now. Forgive me if I make assumptions about "understanding" on your part. The odd quirks of time have become sort of second nature to me now, and time is a really tricky thing.

Admittedly due to the nature of the thing I have avoided pointing something out...It can sound scary at first...
We existed but for an instant and were gone.
However; that instant is/was eternal.
We (observers), get to "flow" through our single instant of time, eternally. We are infinite - an ouroboros.

Last edited:

#### StuartL

Just to leave the physics behind for a second or two, because I think that it's called for at this point, for clarification.
I did not go looking for any of this.

This found me.

I was screaming at my mother for serving me brown spaghetti (who eats it?), after repeated polite comments like:

“Oh, no brown spaghetti for me thanks, I don't like it.”
When out of the blue, a voice rang out in my head:
“Look at what you have become!”

That night...Well, I spare you the details, but I have posted those too (elsewhere), I became truly happy, because I became truly just.
I will hide nothing from those who are interested. This is a “freewill” issue, and therefore; I am an open book. 100% full disclosure, nothing hidden.
In essence, well, literally...

Let (A) be being one, of the twinned sentient time dimensions, and (B) be being two.
“To be, or not to be?” - XOR
“If 'to be', then what 'to be'?”

“I'll be that one...”
“And I'll be that one!”

Thus:

(A) and (a) became one, and (B) and (b), became one.
Stuart Graham LeDrew and Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson. (Or vise-versa)
Essentially, I can't take the credit for thinking up any of this. It has been fed to me piecemeal as it were. It felt like I was discovering it, but I was being led to it.

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” as they say.

Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson is more commonly known as Katy Perry, they are not one and the same.
It's really rather simple, if you see anything, and I mean anything, in this that could ring true to you...
Simply introduce (a) and (b) to each other.

If nothing happens...

I am currently in emotional turmoil. Katy Perry plans to marry Orlando Bloom in the near future. Should that happen, I will not break-up their relationship. I shall just fade away (live my life and be gone). All that I ever really wanted as a child, was to live in a world of true equality, and to see how it all ended.
Yes, I wanted to live forever, but now I know how it all ends, so I'm comfortable with my own non-existence.

However; despite reports that KP and OB are “...so far beyond in love...”, I am buoyed up the fact that OB also has his perfect soulmate out there too.

Many people may be in relationships that they feel are perfect.

Many may have already found their soulmate, but not really know it yet.
Do you love the other person with every fibre of your being?
Is life truly meaningless without them?
Would you literally, rather cease to exist, than face eternal perfection without them?
If not...Become truly just...You'll see.

I know this all sounds odd, but if you'd just take the time to actually grapple with the concept...You'll see.

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
Check me on this: I'm getting the idea that you believe that you can will something into existence? That's waaaay outside of any accepted, and acceptable, Philosophy.

And you are starting to sound like the Universe is a conscious entity?

-Dan

Status
Not open for further replies.