An explanation of time itself


Time is a dimension which can be likened to expansion.


We each see a different perspective of space and time.

Just talking to others makes it clear that they see the time (that they alone occupy) from a different view from our own. This human experience supports the notion that time is different in different places. More of that later.



It is clear that we are each travelling through a different 'thread' of 'linear' time and that each thread occupies a different part of space.... we cannot pass through each other.

It is impossible to regard all time as linear unless we take into consideration that time is different in different places. It is therefore only linear to each individual for that individual's own perception of time. We therefore have everyone travelling along a parallel path occupying our own little space as we go.



Therefore we must consider the general path of linear time to be many paths in parrallel.

There must be an infinite number of possible paths.

Each path has an infinite number of possible destinations.

In order to accommodate this state, the universe would have to be expanding as time increases.



We can observe the expansion of the known universe, thus supporting this notion.

Only an expanding path of time can support the observed motions of expansion of the whole visible universe.

If matter is expanding at a different rate to 'space' (the gap between items of matter) then gravity needs no mystical force..... it is simply inertia. Within this theory the rate of expansion does not need to be homogenous throughout the universe and therefore 'time' does not need to be constant.



( A 'black hole' could be where time is not expanding. It would appear to us to be shrinking but it would not need the ridiculous mathmatics of worm holes and curved space, string theories etc.)

The only constant that we need is the speed of light which seems to fit this requirement.









Sideways time

Some philosophers call the time which runs parallel to any event 'elsewhere' but say that it can also be regarded as time which is at right angles to us when using the linear concept of the passage of time.

If we were able to observe events in this time zone we would be looking sideways by comparrison to our ability to look backwards using our memories, photographs, films, video and sound recordings. We attempt to look forward in time by mathmatical calculation based on past observations.

Sideways time is what is going on 'now' in other space zones... while you are participating in this space zone by reading this.

In 'sideways time' I might very well be thinking how to explain my views at the same 'time' as you are reading this. It is only by looking back in time (with memories recordings and photographs) that we will ever know that these two events were concurrent.

Could it be that each of us creates time and that there is no 'future'. This is a very odd thing to say but it is very logical. No-one will ever be able to prove this theory wrong. It only requires the knowledge that 'existance' is a state and that there is an opposite state of non-existance.

This doesn't mean that there is a vacuum.... which is perceived to be an abscence of matter.... which is 'space'. Could there be non-existance itself?

The argument for 'NOTHING' is supported by the same argument that there is no god. Some scientists believe that there is no god. I simply believe that there is a state in which there is no existance.









Space and matter can be quantified. The each have dimensions and matter is attributed a quality known as 'mass'.

'Nothing' does not exist and therefore cannot be quantified, but how does this help?

The belief in 'nothing' resolves the problems of having to explain 'infinity' and the mathmatical problem of explaining that infinity is curved etc. Using our imagination when thinking about science it is difficult to imagine 'infinity' and scientists agree that it is impossible to observe 'infinity'.

However 'infinity' is allowed as a mathmatical concept, whereas 'nothing' seems not to be allowed. Why can we not allow a scientific 'essence' of equal mathmatical importance to infinity, but alongside the two essences of 'space' and 'matter'. Space and matter can be regarded as 'something' and then abscence of both can be regarded as 'nothing'.

NOTHING can form the boundary of the universe, beyond which there are no natural laws, no dimensions and no possibility of explanation. We do not need to imagine 'infinity' in this model of the universe.







Time being expansion has only one boundary, which is nothing.

It does not require a starting point as it is not linear.

It is a fact that it exists therefore it 'is'.

It is like conciousness itself and philosophers have explained this by saying 'I think, therefore I am'. Without conciousness there is no need for an explanation therefore there is no explanation.

(It might now be apparent that I am attempting to answer my own curiosity about the meaning of life and is there life after death. That might be true, but I have arrived at this point of argument by following scientific reasoning and applying the basic rule that a theory is good until it observed to be untrue.)







We are all priviledged to have access to increasing amount of information about observed truths and arguments about these 'truths'. The internet allows us all to test our theories in the light of scientific knowledge.

There seems to be proof that each part of the expanding universe occupies more NOTHING which then becomes fixed, then forms the past which is then unchangeable.

It seems that time is creating mass and space which passes into the past instantly. We can view this and use the laws under which it is created to assess what will be created as a result of our actions.

This allows the situation in which we each have individual choice but are all governed by the rules of nature which have been fixed in the past.







This not only satisfies mathmatical and scientific arguments but is a powerful concept in our social behaviour.

Everything we do has an effect on everything else at the instant of doing it.

Like the arguments for the irreversibility of thermodynamics, each of our activities contributes to the state of the past which we are contributing to all the time that we are existing.


'The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on...........'

We cannot go back in time as that would cause a scientific paradox. All we can do is to behave in a manner which we calculate to enhance what we each regard as 'good'.

We cannot alter the laws of nature. The best we can do is to understand those laws and use our conciousness to shape a past which we find satisfactory.

If 'sideways time' exists, then that might be what some philosophers have described as 'life eternal' and there is no argument against the possibility that our conciousness is freed to move sideways in time when we are no longer capable of expanding into the 'future'.

This very sentence does not exist on the nearest star until 3 years 'time'.

I also have theories to explain thermodynamics, electricity, gravity etc etc etc. etc. ...... isn't it all interesting????
OK..... what right do I have to such theories?..... I think....... therefore I am.


Do you think???