ProLogue - (01-30-20) - Polio
Introduction - (02-05-19) -
Chapter 01 - (02-05-19) - A Connection to a Bumblebee -
Chapter 02 - (02-05-19) - Seven -
Chapter 03 - (02-05-19) - A Rat Race on Steroids -
Chapter 04 - (02-05-19) - Finding the Beginning -
Chapter 05 - (01-30-20) - A Cat in a Bubble -
I believe Scientists (and other groups) become infected by #groupthink because they have little knowledge and interest in learning about other fields, like the philosophy and sociology of science .
| |
| – | Sabine Hossenfelder supports my view. | |
| – | Sabine Hossenfelder is an author and theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Analog Systems for Gravity Duals group. She is the author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, which explores the concept of elegance in fundamental physics and cosmology. - Wikipedia. | – |
| – | Sabine has written an article entitled: "Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years - Physicists face stagnation if they continue to treat the philosophy of science as a joke." From her article, I quote (emphasis mine) - As physics has progressed, the foundations have become increasingly harder to probe by experiment. Technological advances have not kept size and expenses manageable. This is why, in physics today, we have collaborations of thousands of people operating machines that cost billions of dollars.
With fewer experiments, serendipitous discoveries become increasingly unlikely. And lacking those discoveries, the technological progress that would be needed to keep experiments economically viable never materializes. It's a vicious cycle: Costly experiments result in lack of progress. Lack of progress increases the costs of further experiment. This cycle must eventually lead into a dead end when experiments become simply too expensive to remain affordable. A $40 billion particle collider is such a dead end. The only way to avoid being sucked into this vicious cycle is to choose carefully which hypothesis to put to the test. But physicists still operate by the "just look" idea like this was the 19th century. They do not think about which hypotheses are promising because their education has not taught them to do so. Such self-reflection would require knowledge of the philosophy and sociology of science, and those are subjects physicists merely make dismissive jokes about. They believe they ARE TOO INTELLIGENT TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING. | – |
| – | I hope you will read her entire article as it supports much of what I believe.https://iai.tv/articles/why-physics-has-made-no-progress-in-50-years-auid-1292 |
Chapter 06 - (02-05-19) - Getting to Nowhere -
Chapter 07 - (02-05-19) - The Middle -
Chapter 08 - (02-05-19) - Size Doesn't Matter -
Chapter 09 - (01-31-20) - Before the Start, After the Future -
For convenience, let me repeat: When quantum physicists were told the expansion of the universe was speeding up, not slowing down as expected, they did not want to give up on the Big Bang Theory. It had explained too many things. So they invented dark matter – or was it dark energy, or maybe strange vacuum energy – anything to counteract gravity and push the universe apart. I wonder if our esteemed scientists are not looking for another band aid fix, like Einstein's Cosmological Constant (he called it “the greatest mistake of my life”).
I go on, but want to note here that I now have backing for the scientific establishment. Sabine Hossenfelder has given us insight into why quantum physicists did not want to give up on the Big Bang. I have also encouraged (elsewhere in this e-book) that science take a closer look at the data already collected by space observatories for proof that dark energy, dark matter, and even the Big Bang do not exist. Now a team of cosmologists have done exactly that.
Note: SN (Super Nova) Cosmology refers to the belief that distance can be determined because a certain type of exploding star always has the same brightness - Commenting on the result, Prof. Young-Wook Lee (Yonsei Univ., Seoul), who led the project said, "Quoting Carl Sagan, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', but I am not sure we have such extraordinary evidence for dark energy. Our result illustrates that dark energy from SN cosmology, which led to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, might be an artifact of a fragile and false assumption."
Please see Prof. Young-Wook Lee's entire article at https://m.phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html?fbclid=IwAR17ARN2VXrkQmyAanUcxxwN1CN_c3HN001Hy_SFgz56WnpAS9kjc7UI79M
Chapter 10 - (02-05-19) - Sleep Well -
Chapter 11 - (02-05-19) - On the Road to Reality -
Chapter 12 - (02-08-19) - Wood, Not Bumble -
- It has always amazed me that most humans are so arrogant that they refuse to recognize the intelligence of the creatures around them - they say mankind is at the top of the evolutionary chain.
In this Chapter, I have said "A cell is so large that, whether or not it lives in a man or a wood bee, it may well be able to support the chemical reactions needed, not just to make life possible, but to actually think. The power of neural networks made up of many cells tied together is close to infinite."
I recently saw a video of a white blood cell called a neutrophil chasing a bacterium. The bacterium desperately tries to escape, while other bacteria calmly go about their business (I think one was trying to infect a red blood cell). It seems to me that all participants are aware of their surroundings and situation - to me, some kind of thinking is the most likely explanation.
SEE -
https://buff.ly/2UrlCty
SEE
https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/global/top;period=1y;all=1;hashtag=null;query=%23science%2B%23biology%2B%23immunology%2B%23GIF%20
SEE -
https://www.minds.com/media/939977270095396864
OR GO TO MY PAGE ON (CLICK ON -
FACEBOOK )
Chapter 13 - (02-05-19) - Trapped in the Here and Now -
Chapter 14 - (02-05-19) - Finding the Proper Expert -
Epilogue - (03-26-19) - One Man's Foot -
- From E-Book (Repeated for Convenience)
EPILOGUE: ONE MAN'S FOOT
I don't want to forget my foot. It has stayed here in this universe we know and love while my mind has wandered somewhere else. Now I think of my foot and know I should return here and look around. Can I find anything that supports my strange thoughts? Does what our universe looks like indicate that Never Never Land may really exist?
I have invented what I call the Never Never Land Theory – what I will call “My Theory”. Perhaps the best known theory about reality and our universe is the Big Bang Theory – the BBT. Can I show that my theory is better than the BBT?
Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity did not replace classical physics and Newton's Laws of Motion. For most of the world we see around us, classical physics was, and still is, adequate. For almost all practical purposes, it is just as good as Einstein's theory. Why then is Einstein's Theory considered a better view of reality than that provided by classical physics? Why is it considered superior?
The short answer is Einstein answered questions that classical physics did not. Classical physics could not, for example, explain where the sun got enough energy to shine for five billion years. The answer, nuclear energy, was not just academic – it led to massive industries in our real world.
In the same sense, I want to show that my theory is superior to the BBT. Then we can see if there are practical benefits.
I need to relate to you what I think our BBT experts see when they look at our universe. There are a lot of these experts. I don't think they are all saying the same thing. When they find things their equations do not explain, they often speculate. These interesting speculations are neither more nor less valid than yours or mine.
I am tired. I am tired of thinking longer and harder. I am tired of googling obscure words and topics. I will write in English, not incomprehensible mathematical equations. The results will be that some of the details may be wrong, or, at least, not exactly right. Feel free to improve on what I write – but when you are finished, ask yourself: Does what we observe point to our experts' view of reality or a Never Never Land?
If we gaze out into the universe, we are looking into the past. When we look at Jupiter, we see the light that was reflected from its surface, perhaps an hour ago. We are seeing Jupiter as it was an hour ago. When we look at a far away galaxy, we are seeing it as it was several billion years ago. We are seeing this galaxy as it was when it was part of a smaller universe.
Our scientists believe that the first galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang. The universe was much larger than a grain of sand, but much smaller than it is today. These far away, dim galaxies are at the outer range of our most powerful telescopes. You would expect that since the universe was smaller then, the galaxies would be more closely packed. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case.
The expansion of the universe started everywhere and is still going on. The BBT experts believe this because they see ancient, far away galaxies no matter which way they point their telescopes. My theory believes the universe is expanding everywhere, but it did not start. But I am getting ahead of myself.
Our BBT experts think in terms of a minimum time, a minimum distance, and a minimum size. When they see every galaxy in sight moving away from what they think is a central point, they can imagine a time when everything was closer together and more condensed. With lots of calculations, they have determined that everything was in the same place about 14 billion years ago. Assuming there is a minimum size, our Science has calculated the density and temperature of our universe when it was about the size of a grain of sand. Both were close to infinity. Today, with galaxies spread all over the place, it is hard to determine the density of the universe. On the other hand, after some impressive measurements and calculations, science has made a major discovery. The calculated temperature, after 14 billion years of expanding and cooling, of our universe is almost exactly equal to the measured value. The experts have excitingly claimed that this result proved the Big Bang Theory. Our cosmic-sized universe had started as a microscopic dot. If there is no minimum time and size, my theory must duplicate these results before moving on to explain phenomenons that BBT fails to adequately address.
The BBT experts were excited about the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, the remnant heat left after the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years. Its measured value is slightly above absolute zero – this agrees with the experts' calculations. Our science considers this CMB results a cornerstone of the BBT.
Our science believes that there are certain laws of nature that are universal. The speed of light, for example, is the same everywhere. We have mentioned the proton-electron mass ratio which our Science has shown is the same here and in a galaxy six billion light years away.
My theory predicts that CMB radiation is a law of nature – it is constant everywhere.
Radiation is the same as temperature. For clarity we can speak of the temperature of the CMB. My theory states that the temperature of the CMB is the same everywhere. The BBT believes the temperature of the CMB falls as the universe expands.
Can we decide which view is correct? Maybe.
We need “fair” measurements of CMB. Some could be close by, but some might have to be near the outer bounds of the observable universe. Astronomers observing the universe without preconceived notions might be able to do the impossible.
The BBT believes the universe started as a microscopic dot and was soon the size of a grain of sand. If this grain of sand universe were here and now, it might blow past our face and settle on a yardstick. It might come to rest between the smallest graduations – two lines set a tenth of an inch apart.
****
Epilogue - (02-05-19) - (addition 1 -->
According
to the BBT, every particle in our universe, gazillions of
them, are
confined to this grain. Each particle could be the size of a
BB, all
compressed together. The pressure and temperature would be
immense.
If, as NNLT proposes, there is no minimum size, or it is a
gazillion
times smaller, each BB could be smaller than a speck of dust
– with
each speck tied to the timeless chromosome. Particles float
in a
vast, expanding space. Creatures like us could live there.
Both
the BBT and NNLT address the Past and Future and get the
same
answers, but for different reasons. The BBT says there is a
minimum
time, Planck's time. Now lasts for a Planck's time. Before
this Now,
there was the Past. After this Now, the Future starts. BBT
says we
cannot see the Future – it may not even exist. NNLT says
both Past
and Future exist and agrees that we cannot see the Future.
It is the
existence of Now that is in question.
According
to BBT, our grain of sand universe could not float past our
face and
settle on a yardstick – it is gone, in the past. According
to NNLT,
our grain could be anywhere and everywhere.
One
of the universal laws of physics is that the speed of light
is
186,282 miles per second. In terms of our yardstick, light
can travel
the length of about 327 million yardsticks each second. Very
fast –
but if our grain of sand universe tried to use our yardstick
as a
unit of length, as the BBT wants, the speed of light for our
grain
universe would be a gazillion times faster. While light
takes
billions of years to cross our universe, it would cross the
grain of
sand instantly. NNLT sees this as a problem and solves it by
changing
the yardstick. Light in the grain still transverses 327
million
yardsticks in a second – but its yardsticks and seconds are
not the
same as ours – both are a gazillion times shorter.
The
BBT says The Big Bang is in the past, long gone. For the
NNLT, past
and future are more nebulous. They depend on how you look at
it. The
Big Bang did not happen and Now may not exist. Before
calculating the
distance to where the BBT says the Big Bang should be, the
NNLT asks
if the measurements are in our yardsticks and years, the
yardsticks
and years of the universe when it was a grain of sand, or at
some
point in between. Thinking about this makes my head swim,
but since I
am the only NNLT expert, I would guess the NNLT would say
the Big
Bang occurred 10 – 12 billion of our years ago. A good
mathematician or even someone who is not tired could come up
with an
equation.
Even
for short distances, like for less than a few billion light
years,
the BBT and the NNLT do not view past and future in exactly
the same
way.
We
have discussed two observers, one on earth and the other
near
Jupiter. If light takes an hour to travel this distance,
each can
only see the other as he was an hour ago. The “real” version
of
both is in the others' future. If these two observers each
had a
powerful telescope, they could watch the other living his
past life.
Why? Both observers are moving into the future at the same
speed –
the speed of light.
Both
the BBT and the NNLT believe you cannot see the Future – the
finite
speed of light keeps you from seeing any future events. The
NNLT can,
however, give more detail (if part of this explanation is
wrong, it
doesn't invalidate NNLT).
ADDED 02-23-19 --
According
to the NNLT, if you exist in this universe (which is determined by
your connections to the timeless chromosome), the boundary between
past and future is moving at the speed of light. One second after you
experience now, you are experiencing a new now that is 186,282 miles
away. The “old you” is too far away to be seen.
This
“old you” is a light second away if we are thinking in three
dimensions – the part of reality we can see. Actually, the
gazillion particles in each of us could have a gazillion dimensions –
each under the control of timeless genes. Perhaps some of these genes
connect us to the past or the future.
The
BBT and the NNLT think about our two observers, one near Jupiter, the
other on Earth, differently. The BBT gives our earth bound friend
special status – his Now is real. His special status has led to
what we have called the “Twin Paradox”.
Suppose
our two observers are twins. One is named Jason and he travels to
Jupiter. The other, Ethan, remains on Earth.
Now
let us change the story. Jason travels not to Jupiter, but to a
distant star. For most of his journey there and back, he is traveling
near the speed of light. According to Einstein and the BBT, Jason's
time passes more slowly (although he is not aware of it). Ethan has
his own time, passing at a different rate. Jason will find that when
he returns to earth, he will be slightly older while his brother will
be many years older. If Jason travels far enough and fast enough, he
may return to Earth still young but find that eons have past here.
Einstein's
theory is called the Theory of Relativity because time (and other
things) are relative to the observer – to Ethan or Jason. Many
experiments have confirmed the Theory of Relativity and the BBT
believes it is true. The NNLT does not.
Experiments
that confirm Einstein's Theory are conducted in an environment where
time exists or is assumed to exist, namely, our universe. I would
hope that experiments could be designed that are shielded from the
effects of time, but it is more likely that the NNLT will find
support from Astronomers observing galaxies at the edge of the
observable universe.
ADDED 02-27-19
If
we now return Jason to his place near Jupiter, we can continue to
explore differences between the BBT and the NNLT.
The
NNLT gives no special status to either Jason or Ethan. Jason cannot
see Ethan's Now because it is in Jason's future. He can only see
Ethan as he was more than an hour ago. Ethan cannot see Jason's Now
because it is in Ethan's future. He can only see Jason as he was more
than an hour ago.
The
last paragraph is full of “time based expressions”, but that is
not how the NNLT views the “Now”s of either Jason or Ethan.
One
or more of a gazillion timeless properties may define the time
direction of both Jason and Ethan. We can only see and interact with
things in our world that have properties that are “close enough”
to our properties. When Jason and Ethan are separated by one light
hour, neither could ever stand next to the other and interact. If
this could happen, however, Jason might sneeze “at the same time”
that Ethan coughs. Just because the brothers are separated by a light
hour does not mean they cannot sneeze and cough at the same time. The
NNLT says each brother has his own Now, but these “Now”s are
close enough that we view them as the same time – even though time
does not exist.
The
BBT views the Now of Ethan as special and as the only real Now. The
NNLT views both Ethan's and Jason's Now as real. The BBT theory views
any past Now, either remembered by a twin or viewed through a
telescope by the other twin, as gone, dead, no longer in existence.
The NNLT believes there are a gazillion “Now”s and each is just
as real as any other. This has always been true and always will be
true – unless a Now is more than several billion light years away.
Then things get complicated.
We
are talking about entities whose timeless properties are close enough
that we might interact with them or, if not, at least they are close
enough that we can imagine what they may be like. I can imagine a
universe where the time direction is different, where things seem to
move from the future to the past, where the future is remembered and
the past discovered, where effect comes before cause. Beyond that, I
cannot imagine how a society living there would function.
We
can imagine standing beside our yardstick with its small grain of
sand universe resting at one end. We can then ask if the BBT or the
NNLT better describes the universe we see around us.
The
BBT says the grain of sand universe can not be there, but if it were,
it would be almost infinitely hot and dense – as well as, about 14
billions years in the past. Looking to the sky, we see galaxies
moving away. The BBT tells us all of these galaxies originated at a
common point. When we note that the far away galaxies are moving away
faster than the nearer galaxies (our Science has discovered
this fairly recently), BBT explains using exotic concepts like
negative energy of space, dark energy, and dark matter. Maybe some
other things, but I have tuned out. I am tired and my head is
beginning to spin. I don't like for my head to spin. Anyway, BBT may
have some valid points here. You decide.
Imagine
that our yardstick is touching another yardstick just to its right,
in fact, there is a long line of yardsticks laid out. There are
enough yardsticks to cross the universe.
If
you started walking, a mile later you would be passed 1,760
yardsticks. If you were in really good shape, you might continue
walking until you had passed 327,360,000 yardsticks. If you then
paused to rest, you could set up a telescope and look back and see
the first yardstick with its grain of sand universe. Light could
transverse the distance between you and that first yardstick in one
second.
*** ADDED 6/4/2019
If
you continued your stroll until you had passed (327,360,000 times 60
times 60) = 1,178,496,000,000 yardsticks, you would be one light
hour from the first yardstick – the distance between Jason near
Jupiter and Ethan on Earth.
If
our yardsticks were laid out between Ethan and Jason near Jupiter,
you could walk up to Jason, take off your space helmet, and start a
conversation. If you had been walking a brisk four miles per hour,
both you and Jason would be about nineteen thousand years old.
After
a short rest, you might decide to continue your journey. You could
walk out of the solar system and then turn around a look back toward
Jason and Ethan. If your eyes have held up for the 570,000 years you
have been walking, you could see Jupiter and, with a telescope,
Earth.
If
you continued your journey for another 444 million years, you could
walk out of our galaxy. You would be about 80,000 light years from
Earth.
Our
Science today has some very powerful telescopes. If you had one of
these with you, you might stop and turn it back toward Earth. If it
were not for the bright light of the nearby sun, you could see
Jupiter, you could see Earth, you could see Ethan as he was 80,000
years ago, you could see the first yardstick, and you could see the
grain of sand universe resting on that yardstick.
If
you had a spaceship that could travel at the speed of light, you
could save a lot of your time – or since time doesn't exist, what
feels like to you is a lot of time. You would have to travel 170,000
light years to reach the nearest galaxy. After a billion light years,
you could look around and see many galaxies floating through space,
some close, some far away. Using your powerful telescope, you could
see about two trillion galaxies.
One
of the closer ones is our Milky Way. Looking back, you can see an
Ethan from a billion years ago, standing next to a dim grain of sand
universe. Using your spaceship, you could return and talk to him.
Thomas Wolfe wrote “You Can't Go Home Again”. Maybe he was
wrong.
You
turn your telescope in another direction. Any direction. You can
barely make out a dim far away group of galaxies. Are they moving
away? Or it is you?
Does
what you see lend more support to the BBT or the NNLT?
When
the BBT looks outward into the cosmos, it sees a gazillion galaxies
moving away. It sees space as expanding from a single point carrying
these galaxies, and ours, with it. There is no outside of this space.
Science
writers try to illustrate this situation by drawing dots on a balloon
– each dot representing a galaxy. Since they cannot draw a
gazillion dots, they usually settle for three, one representing our
galaxy, and two others. The writers then note that as the balloon is
inflated, the dots move apart. They may also note that the further
apart two are, the faster they separate.
The
galaxies we see are not uniformly spread out across the universe.
There seems to be strings of galaxies separated by vast voids of
nothing. I think I understand the explanation of a lot of BBT
scientists for this (I am not sure – they speak geek, not English).
When our universe was young and grain-size, it contained areas that
were slightly cooler and more dense. As the universe expanded,
gravity collected these areas, ultimately forming galaxies with
intervening voids. Some science writers have called these galaxy-void
structures fingerprints from the Big Bang.
The
BBT believes in time and time started with the Big Bang. What does
this say about the super hot, super dense material in the grain of
sand universe? Was the material that became our galaxy, our sun, our
Earth, us special? Was it near the boundary between space and
non-space while other galaxies sprang from deeper in the grain. They
would appear later and, just as our observations seem to confirm, be
in the past.
Still,
I don't think that is exactly what the BBT is saying. I apologize,
all of this is hard to visualize.
The
BBT sees all of the grain growing at the same time. As the grain
grows, some parts gain cooling material leaving voids. After a
billion years, the first galaxies with voids would form – this
early galaxy-void structure could be similar to or the same as the
cosmic fingerprints our Scientists have seen stretching across the
cosmos.
It
is also interesting to note that our Scientists believe that the
universe did not become transparent until the first atoms formed.
This would be when the temperature of the CMB had fallen to about
3000 degrees Kelvin. Until this point, you could not see around the
universe (light was reabsorbed as soon as it was produced).
Based
on their calculations, our BBT experts believe that the early
universe became transparent at the same time or a little before
galaxies appeared. Our BBT experts believe, not based on their
calculations, that the universe became transparent before the
galaxies appeared – after all, galaxies are made of atoms and it
took time for atoms to form galaxies. The NNLT believes the CMB has
always been slightly less than 3 degrees Kelvin, the universe has
always been transparent, and the galaxies have always existed.
If
there are fingerprints on our billion year old universe, we may have
telescopes that can see them. Study of their structure might support
the BBT or the NNLT.
We
would not expect to find an earlier version of our galaxy among those
in the billion year old universe. Gravitational forces could churn
nearby matter, building and destroying galaxies. These local effects
would dwarf space expansion.
The
BBT does not believe in the future. It hasn't happen yet and the fact
we see no future galaxies in the sky seems to prove this. It gives
special status to Ethan's Now on Earth and says Jason's Now has not
yet happened. The BBT says that the future is any place you have to
travel faster than the speed of light to reach, and, since you can't
travel faster than the speed of light, the future does not exist.
What
happens if we apply BBT thinking to the vast universe we see when we
look outward? Our galaxy is made from a scrap of material that has
been carried outward by expanding space. We can look back almost to
the dot from which we came. We can also imagine another scrap of
material – galaxy being carried in a different direction.
If
we viewed these two galaxies in two dimensions, as if they were on a
sheet of paper, our galaxy could be viewed as moving from a dot on
the left, horizontally across 14 units to Now. In this case, each
unit is one billion light years.
We
could view the second galaxy as moving up, vertically. The BBT views
space as expanding at a constant rate so this galaxy would also be
14 units from, and directly above, the dot. How far from us is this
galaxy? The BBT experts and millions of math students could quickly
find the answer.
The
two lines we have drawn plus a line from our galaxy to the other
galaxy form a right triangle. The third line is the distance between
the two galaxies. The Pythagorean theorem states that this distance
is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the other
two sides; or, in this case: the SQROOTof ((14 times 14) plus (14 times
14)) = SQROOTof (196 plus 196) = SQROOTof (392) = 19..8.
The
two galaxies are 19.8 billion light years apart.
The
BBT experts would say that we and our galaxy obviously exist, but the
second galaxy does not. They reason as follows: When the universe was
a grain of sand, both galaxies (or their ingredients) were obviously
very close. Now, 14 billion years later, they are separated by 19.8
billion light years. To get this far away, the second galaxy would
have to move faster than light (about 263,000 miles per second). This
is impossible, so the second galaxy does not exist.
*** ADDED 06-27-19
We
have calculated the distance and speed of this other galaxy as we see
it Today, 14 billion years after the Big Bang. We are saying the
Distance (14) = 19.8 billion light years and Speed (14) = 263,443
feet per second. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we can calculate
other values, for example, the distance we would have observed a
billion years ago – Distance (13); or the speed a billion years
after the Big Bang – Speed (1); or the distance a billion years in
our future – Distance (15); or the speed half way back to the Big
Bang – Speed (7). Below is a table where we have done this:
Distance
(15) = 21.2 Speed (15) = 282,260
Distance
(14) = 19.8 Speed (14) = 263,443
Distance
(13) = 18.4 Speed (13) = 244,625
Distance
(12) = 17.0 Speed (12) = 225,808
Distance
(10) = 14.1 Speed (10) = 188,173
Distance
(8) = 11.3 Speed (8) = 150,539
Distance
(7) = 9.9 Speed (7) = 131,721
Distance
(6) = 8.5 Speed (6) = 112,904
Distance
(4) = 5.7 Speed (4) = 75,269
Distance
(2) = 2.8 Speed (2) = 37,635
Distance
(1) = 1.4 Speed (1) = 18,817
For
the last four billion years, the speed of this other galaxy has
exceeded the speed of light. Light from this galaxy has not had time
to reach us and since this speed is increasing, it never will. The
BBT experts speculate that space can expand faster than the speed of
light, but have only used this idea to explain early,
pre-grain-of-sand expansion, not to support the transportation of
galaxies.
When
we left Jason in his light speed capable spaceship, he had traveled a
billion light years, to Distance (13). The BBT doesn't know what
Jason is seeing or even if he exists. The only Jason Ethan and the
BBT knows about is a billion years in the past. Perhaps Ethan would
agree that even the past Jason couldn't see the other galaxy –
besides not existing, it is still too far away for the past Jason to
see. According to BBT experts, this galaxy would only spring into
existence when Jason had traveled more than four billion light years
and was between Distance (10) and Distance (9) and was more than nine
billion light years from the Big Bang. The BBT would not expect this
galaxy to appear like the Andromeda Galaxy, a few million light years
away and easily seen. It would be a fuzzy distance object that Jason
could barely discern through his powerful telescope.
If
Jason happened to be of the BBT persuasion, he would believe that he
could only see galaxies as they appeared in the past. A closer galaxy
might be 100 million light years away and he was seeing it as it
existed 100 million years ago. Another galaxy might be a billion
light years away and he was seeing it as it existed a billion years
ago. Jason would then decide that the fuzzy remote galaxy that had
just appeared must be within ten billion light years. Otherwise, it
is further away than the Big Bang, which is impossible. We might also
note that if Jason continued his journey, when he arrived at Distance
(1), the distant galaxy could be no further away than one billion
light years.
I
don't want to forget my foot. I am still in this universe, but I am
with Jason billions of light years away. My foot is firmly planted on
Earth when Jason and Ethan said good-bye. My leg is getting pretty
long.
I
need to think a little more about this remote Jason and how the BBT
and the NNLT interprets his observations. Then we will return to
Earth and see if we can imagine experiments or observations that
might confirm or debunk the BBT. Maybe things we already know, once
reinterpreted, will show the Never Never Land Theory is a better,
more comprehensive explanation of reality.
Science
writers often excitingly report facts. They are excited because they
don't consider the big picture. They forget the importance of scale.
Consider,
for example, what is called the Local Group. This is our galaxy and
more than fifty other close by galaxies that are held together by
gravity and are moving through the universe together. They are being
pulled toward an area of intense gravity called the “Great
Attractor” which is about 250 million light years away. We can't
see the Great Attractor – our line of sight passes near the center
of our galaxy which blocks our view. Since we and the sun are
revolving around the center of the galaxy, our view will eventually
clear. We shouldn't have to wait more than forty or fifty million
years to see what we are moving toward – or maybe we should say,
falling into. Anyway, patience is a virtue.
A
science writer will also breathlessly report that our galaxy, in
fact, the entire Local Group is moving at a phenomenal 1.3 million
miles per hour. This is 361 miles per second.
Now
let us change the scale. Jason has traveled to Distance (7) and is
considered by the BBT to be half way to the Big Bang. He decides to
stop and look around. He is twenty eight times as far from our Milky
Way Galaxy as is the Great Attractor. Light from our galaxy would
need seven billion years to reach him. If Earth was on a collision
course, closing at a rate of 361 miles per second, Jason wouldn't
have to worry for at least 3,600 billion years. The galaxies in the
sky would be frozen. Each would be rotating, but so slowly that Jason
would have to watch for millions of years to notice any changes.
Jason
believes in the BBT, so he expects to be in, after all this
traveling, a smaller universe. As he has traveled, he has expected
more galaxies to pop into view. There should now be more than two
trillion galaxies in the universe and the temperature of the CMB
should be higher.
To
confirm what he has found, Jason decides to travel to Distance (1) or
even closer to the Big Bang.
Jason
is now within a billion light years of the Big Bang, but we need to
continue to remember that the BBT worships Ethan's Now as somehow
special. Jason is in Ethan's past – in this case, about 13 billion
years in his past. This past is dead and gone. There is no Jason
sneezing at the same time as Ethan coughs. Ethan thinks this ancient
Jason lived in a smaller, hotter universe. He could never see Ethan
who really exists because Ethan lives 13 billion years in this
non-existent Jason's future.
The
NNLT does not believe any of this. It believes that, for the most
part, the traveling Jason would continue to see the universe the same
as the stay at home Ethan. One exception would be Jason's view of the
sky. When he was not near a galaxy, the sky would be full of
unchanging galaxies and dark voids. Any star he could make out
through his telescope would be confined to one of the galaxies.
IGNORING THIS ONE EXCEPTION, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT WE NEVER NEEDED TO LEAVE EARTH. IF EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT CONFIRMS OR CONDEMNS ONE OF OUR COMPETING THEORIES, WE CAN FIND IT HERE.
Before
we return to Earth, however, let us linger with the traveling Jason.
The
NNLT says two particles are in the same universe if their respective
properties are “close enough”. A particle can have a gazillion
properties, but we are concerned here with the ones that determines
our experience of time. These properties are timeless, but they have
something like a direction that works with timeless genes. This
direction determines how a particle views time. Here we will name one
group of particles Ethan and another group Jason.
The
NNTL is based on the concept that “it all depends on how you look
at it”. Jason and Ethan can only be in the same universe if their
mutual time properties are directed toward the Big Bang. They both
feel this is their past. Additionally, their mutual time properties
must be directed toward another Big Bang – one neither can see.
This is their future. Both must be on this line to be in the same
universe. There can be a gazillion versions of each, all feeling that
their border between past and future is a unique, special Now.
Another
possibility is there is only one Big Bang with a structure similar to
Earth with its magnetic field. Many school children have seen the shape of his field when they shake iron filings onto a sheet of paper above a hidden magnet. The filings align themselves so they show the magnetic field around the magnet. This field moves out from the north pole of the magnet before eventually returning to the south pole. In our case, a line emerges from the North Pole
with a gazillion “Now”s attached and moves toward the future.
Eventually it circles back and returns to the South Pole.
If
Jason and Ethan are in the same room, each is seeing the other as
they were in the past. Light moves so quickly, however, that the
“real” versions are identical to the past versions and the two
can interact.
When
Jason is near Jupiter and televises back to Earth, it takes about an
hour for his image to arrive. Ethan sees a past version of Jason, an
old Jason. Now the “real” version of Jason, the time when Jason
and Ethan have the same Now, is no longer visible. The old Jason is a
light hour from the “real” Jason. The old Jason is too far away
to be seen by the “real” Jason. The “real” Jason is in the
old Jason's future.
After
an hour, the old Jason will become the “real” Jason. He will have
a “real real” Jason in his future.
Ethan
would also have an old Ethan from his past – the invisible Ethan
from an hour ago. Ethan could not see the old Ethan, but the “real”
Jason, through his telescope, could. They are both moving into the
future in the same direction, at the same speed.
In
our universe, one billion light years is a pretty decent hike. The
NNLT predicts that, even when Jason and Ethan are separated by this
incredible distance, they will continue to view each other and their
gazillion versions, the same as they do when they are a mere light
hour apart.
When
Jason and Ethan are separated by a billion light years, each can see
a billion year old version of the other. This old Jason and old Ethan
have the same Now.
When
you separate Jason and Ethan by seven billion light years, however,
the apparently permanent rules fall apart. The NNLT view of reality
changes.
At
seven billion light years of separation, neither Jason nor Ethan can,
no matter how powerful their telescopes, see an earlier, older
version of the other.
If
Jason has moved toward the Big Bang and is now at Distance (7), his
universe and everything in it would have shrunk. Jason would seem to
be, if Ethan could see him, half as tall (This is not to say that
Ethan and Earth are special. If Jason had traveled away from the Big
Bang, out to Distance (21), he would be the giant, twice as tall as
Ethan).
If
Jason's spaceship could come close enough to light speed, he could
have arrived at Distance (7) a few seconds after leaving Ethan.
Everything would seem normal to him, but his yardsticks would only be
eighteen inches long. The speed of light would be about ninety three
thousand Ethan miles per Ethan seconds, i.e., light has slowed down.
Why
can't Jason and Ethan ever view an old version of the other?
From
Ethan's viewpoint, he is moving into the future at a normal 186,000
miles per second. Jason is in the past and is moving to the future at
93,000 miles per second. Jason's light will never catch up and Jason
will fall further and further into the past.
From
Jason's viewpoint, he is moving into the future at a normal 186,000
miles per second. Ethan is in the future and is moving to the future
at 372,000 miles per second. Jason could never see a version of
Ethan.
Jason
could continue to shrink while Ethan grows, but, with all obvious
connections severed, past and future no longer have meaning. Both are
outside our universe. We could imagine a gigantic Ethan standing by
a yardstick, looking down at Jason's grain of sand universe. Jason
might live a gazillion lifetimes while Ethan is starting to blink.
Ethan is a statue, never moving – like a timeless chromosome.
One
more question before I remember my foot and return to Earth: Can you
think of any non-obvious connections?
.
. . .
Our
expert cosmologists have used many amazing instruments to observe and
understand the universe. They have used much of what they see to
validate the Big Bang Theory.
I
do not know all of the details of these observations, but I know
enough to discuss and ask questions. I want to know if these
observations or observations we could make support or debunk the BBT.
I want to know if these observations or observations we could make
support or debunk the NNLT.
We
have detected about two trillion galaxies in our universe. Almost all
of these are far away. Unless we are looking toward the center of our
galaxy where there may be intervening gases and nebulae, we should
have a clear view. If we can see a galaxy five billion light years
away – Distance (9), we should be able to see a closer galaxy at
Distance (11) if the closer galaxy is “close enough” to our line
of sight. Similarly, if we can barely make out a galaxy near Distance
(14), we should be able to see galaxies at Distance (13) and Distance
(12). We could label these respectively as type 13 and type 12
galaxies and ask questions about each type.
I
suspect our BBT experts have already done this and have had to invent
some strange concepts to explain the results. Why do I only suspect
and not know what our experts have done? Unfortunately, Google does
not always give simple answers to simple questions.
We
have been talking and doing calculations based on galaxies great
distances from Earth – the Big Bang, we have said, occurred 14
billion years ago. Galaxies near that event are almost 14 billion
light years away. Before we ask questions about types of galaxies, we
need to discuss if these distances are accurate.
Our
Science is confident that the Big Bang happened, but is not exactly
sure when it happened. To make calculations easier, I have been using
a figure of 14 billion years ago; Our Science thinks it is closer to
13.8 billion. How did they get this figure and what if they are
wrong?
If
we want to label different galaxies so we can study their locations
and motions when the universe was much younger, a time when the
universe was much smaller, we need to know when the Big Bang
occurred. This kind of labeling, this kind of study, may support or
condemn one of our two competing theories.
Notice
that if the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago, the remote
galaxies our instruments can detect are type 14 or type 13. On the
other hand, if our universe is only 12 billion years old, these types
do not exist and we are really seeing type 12 and type 11 objects.
If
the universe started 14 billion years ago, it was half the present
size 7 billions years ago; and one-fourth the size 10.5 billion years
ago. If we live in a 12 billion year old universe, 10.5 billion years
ago the universe would have been one-eighth the present size, i.e.,
only half as large. Pinpointing when the Big Bang occurred is very
important.
Once
we know exactly when the Big Bang happened, we may be able to decide
if it happened at all.
One
way BBT experts calculate the age of the universe is to use Cosmic
Microwave Background (CMB) radiation maps. Two different instruments
have been launched into space, one in 2001, the other in 2009. Both
showed that the temperature everywhere in the observable universe was
2.725 degrees above absolute zero. These measurements were from the
present day universe. Our Science apparently has no way to directly
measure CMB when the universe was smaller.
Our
Science does, however, feel that it can measure tiny fluctuations in
the CMB as it pans across the universe. At one place, CMB may be
2.7249999. At another place, CMB may be 2.7250001. From this data, we
can produce maps that show CMB at different points in the universe
and average CMB – for example: 2.72499997. The map and average
produced using the two instruments were slightly different – this
resulted in a slightly different estimate for the age of our
universe.
BBT
experts believe that when our universe was just one-hundred-millionth
the size it is today, the CMB was 273 million degrees (the universe
at that time would still be 140 light years across – hardly a grain
of sand). Based on this high temperature and the two estimates for
the CMB today, the BBT experts felt they could figure out how old the
universe was. The answer using data from one instrument was
13,772,000,000 years. Using data from the other, the answer was
13,820,000,000 years.
If
the initial temperature, 273 million degrees is wrong, the calculated
age of the universe would also change, perhaps drastically.
Despite,
or maybe because of, Google, I have a hard time understanding how the
BBT experts came up with 273 million degrees. I think they are saying
this was the temperature when the universe was 70 years old (it had
been expanding for 70 years and was now a bubble that light could
cross in 140 years?). At this point, atoms of hydrogen could form.
These atoms reflected light waves making the universe opaque,
blocking our view of the earlier universe. After 380,000 years
(during which time the atoms formed stars and galaxies – these
could not be seen due to the opaqueness of the universe – it was
like the universe was full of smoke), the now more diffuse atoms let
light travel unimpeded. We could see things.
I
have also seen estimates that the universe did not clear until it was
much older. I am not sure how or if this affects the experts'
calculations.
There
are other ways to determine the distance to remote galaxies – those
that we see when they were living in smaller versions of our
universe. These techniques get complex fast, but one I might mention
involves supernovae type 1a. A supernova is a
star that suddenly increases greatly in brightness because of a
catastrophic explosion that ejects most of its mass. A type 1a
supernova, our cosmologists believes, occurs when a white dwarf star
is accumulating matter from a nearby star.
It can suddenly turn into a supernova, with a very high, but exact,
specific brightness.
We
believe that in a galaxy the size of ours, a type 1a supernova occurs
about every fifty years. The last one reported was in 1680. We may
be drastically overdue, but more likely, they have occurred toward or
on the other side of the galactic center. Intervening stars or
nebulae have blocked our view.
BBT
experts believe they can determine how far away remote galaxies are
by observing type 1a supernovae. If they see a supernova in a galaxy,
they believe its apparent brightness is determined by how far away it
is – this is an inverse square law – if you double your distance
from a light source, it will appear one-fourth as bright. Since our
experts believe any two type 1a supernovae have the same actual
brightness, if one occurring in one galaxy appears one-fourth as
bright as another in a second galaxy, the first galaxy is twice as
far away.
We
have today advanced instruments (I am thinking here of the Hubble
Telescope) that can automatically survey many galaxies. If a type 1a
supernova only happens every fifty years in a galaxy like ours, we
must watch many galaxies simultaneously if we expect to see one. We
have to monitor over 5000 galaxies to be likely to see one supernova
every three days.
Buried
in the data we have already received from Hubble may be strong
support for either the BBT or the NNLT.
According
to the BBT, our universe is 13.8 billion years old. Using type 1a
supernovae, we can see galaxies that are, respectively, one-half,
three-fourths, and seven-eighths of the distances to the Big Bang (or
6.9, 10.35, and 12.075 billion light years).
The
NNLT thinks these remote galaxies and everything else is physically
smaller. The BBT is not taking this into account when they look at
supernovae. We should ignore galaxies we think are 6.9 billion light
years away, and only be concerned with those 10.35, 12.075, and
12.9375 billion light years – in fact, when a BBT expert thinks he
is seeing galaxies that are 6.9, 10.35, and 12.075, he is really
seeing galaxies that are 10.35, 12.075, and 12.9375.
If
our universe is indeed 13.8 billion years old, the NNLT can now make
a remarkable prediction. NNLT believes that as you move toward the
Big Bang, time passes more and more quickly. For a galaxy 10.35
billion light years away, time passes twice as fast, at 12.075 it is
four times as fast, and at 12.9375, eight seconds pass for each
second we experience. NNLT predicts that if Hubble has monitored 5000
galaxies at this distance, it will have recorded more supernovae than
expected. Instead of seeing one about every four days, we would see
one about every twelve hours.
It
will be a blow to the NNLT if there is no difference in the number of
supernovae observed as we move toward the Big Bang. Differences noted
that do not conform to these predictions argue that our universe is
not 13.8 billion years old.
We
could assume other values for our universe's age and see if there is
the predicted 2 – 4 – 8 to 1 time change (based on supernovae
observed). For a 16 billion year old universe, for example, we should
look at galaxies at 12, 14, and 15. For 14 billion, we should look at
10.5, 12.25, and 13.125; For 12 billion, look at 9, 10.5, and 11.25;
For 10 billion, look at 7.5, 8.75, and 9.375; For 8 billion, look at
6, 7, and 7.5.
When
we look at a star in the eastern sky and another in the western sky,
the BBT tells us that the material in each star came from the Big
Bang. If we could follow this material far enough back in distance
and time, we would come to a single point, the Big Bang. No matter
which way we gaze, we are always looking toward the Big Bang.
If
the two stars we see could last forever, the BBT believes that half
way to the Big Bang, when our universe was young, the distance
between these two stars was half of what it is today. If we went back
to the grain of sand universe, the distance between the two stars
would be too small to measure. If the universe was a little older and
the size of a marble, no matter which way we looked, it would be as
if we were gazing down on almost the exact same spot on this small
colored orb.
If
reality were simple and as the BBT believes we are looking at only
one Big Bang no matter which way we look, we might see the same
galaxies as our different gazes move close to the Big Bang.
Unfortunately, groups of galaxies near our own time can form gigantic
gravitational lenses that bend the ancient light in myriad ways –
the bottom line is how we see these early galaxies depends on the
direction we gaze. Perhaps we could map the locations and strengths
of these lenses and then correct our views – maybe we need glasses
to look at the universe. Then we could see clearly galaxies near the
Big Bang.
We
know that there are large areas of space that contain few or any
galaxies. The existence of the largest known was inferred (not
observed) in 2013. This is the KBC void that is roughly spherical and
is about two billion light years across. A couple of interesting
facts that may or may be relevant: Our galaxy is in this void – if
we are in the center, we would have to travel almost one-fourteenth
of the way to the Big Bang to get out of it; and, there may be three
million large galaxies within this void, yet it is so large it is
still considered a void.
The
KBC is inferred, not observed. Wikipedia explains: “The
void has been used to explain the discrepancy between measurements of
the Hubble constant using galactic supernovae and Cepheid variables
(72-75 km/s/Mpc) and from the cosmic microwave background and baryon
acoustic oscillation data (67-68 km/s/Mpc). Galaxies inside the void
experience gravitational pull from matter outside the void, yielding
a larger value for the Hubble constant”.
What
if these “discrepancies between measurements” are not wrong? Can
we find an explanation that does not require a sphere of nothingness
that stretches across two billion light years?
There
are voids in space we can view directly. The largest is the Giant
Void in the Northern Galactic Hemisphere which was discovered in
1988. It is about two-thirds the size of the KBC.
When
we look at voids we don't see remote, ancient galaxies. Perhaps
gravitational lenses keep the Big Bang from ever appearing to lie in
those directions.
Hubble
discovered that our space is expanding faster than it did in the
past. This fact conforms to the NNLT view of the universe, but BBT
experts had to try to explain. They had expected space to expand
rapidly carrying galaxies and clusters of galaxies outward. They
wondered if the universe contained enough mass with its attached
gravity to eventually stop the expansion. They saw two possibilities
– it would expand, eventually stop, and shrink back until there was
a Big Crunch; or, the universe would expand forever, always slowing
but never stopping.
What
Hubble saw, a universe whose rate of expansion was increasing, was
shocking. We also found out that stars did not know how to properly
revolve around the galactic center. How could we explain the strange
things we were seeing?
Our
resourceful BBT experts quickly decided to invent dark matter and
dark energy. They calculated that the universe must be composed of
68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, and 5% normal matter. Now they
could throw hidden energy or mass (gravity) where ever they needed
it.
It
is no wonder that cosmologists are married to the BBT. All other
scientists, engineers, people can happily continue on, no matter what
happens to the BBT. Want to build an atom bomb? - we know energy is
equal to mass times the speed of light squared. Want to send a rocket
to the moon? - use a bunch of calculus equations. Want to know how
far away a city is? - look at a map, someone has already measured the
distance and the distance will not change.
For
the cosmologist it is different. If the BBT dies, he will have to
reconsider every equation he has ever used in his career. Many, if
not all, will have to be discarded. Old mountains of data will have
to be leveled. New mountains will have to be built using new formulas
and new calculations.
BBT
experts believe that Hubble has recently found the most distance
galaxy, GN-z11. Its distance is about 13.4 billion light years –
meaning it formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang.
GN-z11's distance was calculated by analyzing the red shift in its
light.
Red
Shift, Blue Shift – in our present universe, our scientists know
the difference. If a light source, like a galaxy, is moving toward
us, colors that make up the light will be shifted toward the blue
end of the spectrum. The light source will appear blue. The faster it
approaches, the greater the shift and the bluer the object appears.
In fact, the light could be shifted to the ultraviolet which we can't
see – but our instruments can. Red Shift is the opposite – when
an object moves away, it becomes more red. The faster it moves away,
the more red it becomes. GN-z11 is very red.
All
of this has to do with whether or not a galaxy is approaching or
moving away. The NNLT believes all of this has absolutely nothing to
do with distance and all the headlines about Hubble finding new,
distance galaxies are meaningless. We can expect the same after the
more powerful James Webb Space Telescope is launched and becomes
operational.
How
and why do BBT experts think they can measure distances using red
shift? The answer is a multi-step, logical process.
The
first step is to believe that they know how to measure the energy of
a photon. A photon is a unit or quanta of light. This is part of
quantum physics that we know works in the modern universe. This
photon is a small particle that can not be divided into smaller
particles. We can measure the energy of a photon by noticing where it
falls on a spectrum – if it is what we consider a “green”
photon we know where its normal position is. If the light source is
moving toward us, all the protons, including the green one, will be
shifted and they will become bluer. A BBT expert would think the
photons had more energy. The opposite is true and the photons become
redder if the light source is approaching.
I
hate to bring in math, but we can say that the BBT experts believe
that the energy of our green photon is equal to planck's constant
times the frequency of the light. You can think of the frequency as a
reflection of the wave-like property of the photon. The more often
the wave goes up and down each second, the higher the frequency. If
the wave goes up and down less often each second, we could view the
wave as more spread out and the frequency is less. Since planck's
constant is constant, the energy of the photon increases (it becomes
bluer) if the frequency increases and its energy decreases (it
becomes redder) if the frequency decreases. The mathematical equation
is E = hv where E is energy, h is planck's constant, and v is
frequency.
*** ADDED 06-11-19
The
NNLT thinks that h, planck's constant, is not constant. It is either
directly, or indirectly dependent on the speed of light. The NNLT
thinks the speed of light can change, the BBT does not.
If
you think that the speed of light and planck values are not valid,
you have to rethink every scientific equation developed for at least
a century. Only then can you properly interpret what you see as you
gaze back billions of light years.
The
BBT experts believe h is a constant. The only way to explain the drop
in photon energy observed when looking near the Big Bang is to
assume the frequency has fallen. The photon's frequency was initially
high. They may even tie this to the higher energy near the Big Bang
and calculate CMB there. In a small universe, a galaxy doesn't have
much room to move away rapidly.
As
the light travels toward us, it passes through larger and larger
universes – perhaps a better way of saying this is the light is in
universes further and further from the Big Bang. The BBT believes
that being in an expanded universe makes a photon's wave length
stretch out – its frequency and energy drops and it becomes redder.
If the speed of light is constant, the distance to the remote galaxy
can be calculated, based on how red the galaxy appears. Strangely,
BBT experts don't mind letting the size of the universe affect the
frequency of light, but they adamantly refuse to let it change the
speed of light.
The
BBT is saying the energy of a photon is decreasing as it moves away
from the Big Bang and its wavelength is stretched out by expanding
space. If a photon from a remote galaxy came directly to earth it
would have a certain energy – a certain brightness. Another photon
from the same galaxy might be diverted by a gravitational lens,
travel a much further distance, and then be diverted by another lens
toward earth. According to the BBT, this photon would arrive with the
same energy, the same brightness. We might be able, after all, to see
the same galaxy in different parts of the night sky. Such
observations would support the validity of the Big Bang Theory.
The
BBT does not allow an early galaxy to move rapidly away – there is
no room – but the red shift may show we are moving away more and
more rapidly. This interpretation, as we have said, requires the
invention of dark things with strange properties.
Can
you imagine time not existing? If you can, maybe you should consider
the Never Never Land Theory.
9-17-19 - Throughout this e-book, I have spoken of Never Never Land as being an "area" where time did not exist. A better view may be it is where all possible times exist.
I gave an analogy where I said #God was on the other side a mountain, but you could not get there from here.
Maybe surrounding the gazillions of possible times is something you can't get to from here. It is the hardest of all possible things. It is true timelessness. It has no thickness, but moving through it is impossible - because time is required for movement.
Does this mean my entire e-book needs to be rewritten? I don't have the TIME for that. So I will say "NO", my e-book does not need to be rewritten !!
