Time And Space

The thesis is this posting is to express the oppinion that Time is NOT the mysterious "fourth dimension" because it is not provable. Many scientists maintain that when the Universe was first formed there were ten or eleven dimensions and that they somehow "collapsed" down to four, or three. People say there was a "starting point" to the universe because they point out that all of the galaxies in the Universe are approximately same age. They further point out that the galaxies that are now farthest away, the ones most "red shifted" are "under-developed" and hence less "time" since "Creation" has passed since they were formed. I guess I'd have to ask these scientists just how many galaxies they had to fish through to come up with some that were "under-developed". Is this a universal phenominum among the most red-shifted galaxies we see, or they did they have to fish through thousands of galaxies to come up with an idea of what a galaxy out to look like that's much "younger" than our Milky Wal galaxy or any of the "comon place" galaxies we see in the sky normally. The whole four dimensional thesis is that along with the three dimensions we exist in spacially, that time was also formed. There is something immediately wrong with these theory because many of these same people who see the universe as we know it as an infinitely thin surfice of a soap bubble, will also have to observed that this bubble is a moment IN TIME. So right away you have an asymetry. Time right off the bat is not recconed equally among the three other dimensions.

It was the second weekend in the new decade, January of 1970, that I took to drawing what four-dimensional space looked like. I used sort of a checkerboard grid to illustrate various shaps of things in the fourth dimension. By this hypothetical construct I was able to create four different sub realms. There is the realm of our three dimensions. But there are also the realms including Time as a spacial dimension, but lacking either dimensions one, two, or three. You can picture one of those eight pointed stars, or a cross and an X superimposed on it to get the picture of looking in four dimensions. Some may say "If you can draw it, it must exist". Not necessarily. Because scientists have never "found" any of these three other "realms" where Time isn't Time as we knows it but exists as a spacial dimension. Of course these realms would be only seen as a plane, and an infinitely thin plane existing in our own space. Stumbling accross this "plane" by accident might prove problematical. It's kind of like belief in UFO's. No real scientist seems to have seen and studied one, but we take it on "faith" that they exist. The same could be said for "sixth dimensional psychic plane" space we have talked about before, where The Orion Federation and other governmental entities exist. This psychic realm too would only be seen as an infinitely thin "plane" in this universe. Only in the case of the Federation we teach both a "sixth dimension" called the psychic realm, plus the Time dimension. So instead of being an infinitely thin plane, it would be an infinatessible line, which would make a dot or "portal" on this plane of earth. What we would see would stuff going on in our Time so I as observer see events with the Orion Federation as changing and evolving, but in their own perception, they see Time as "all at once" past, present, and future. It would be one of these "portals" that Captain Kirk was trying to find when he was stranded in that seventeenth century realm and all the people around him thought he was practicing witch craft, particularly when the "voices from the portal" only seemed to be addressing him.

There is another way we can deduce that Time isn't a co-equal dimension with the other three dimensions in space, and that is because- - if we switch the metaphore from a soap bubble surface to blowing a bubble gum bubble- - the bubble keeps expanding and expanding untill it bursts. Many people would say the Universe will keep expanding (note "expanding" canotes we are leaving out time when we talk about "The Universe) and expanding untill the faboric of the Universe gets stretched too thin or something and bursts, perhaps as described in the book of First or Second Peter in the Bible. The universe and the heavenly bodies either burst, or explode or "melt" or in some caticlismic way, disappear. All of this involves physical action. This idea that Time is just like any other spacial dimention kind of flies out the window when we speak of other cosmic events occurring "In Time" because it implies that Time itself keeps on going when the other dimensions are gone. Of course many Biblical scollars say Time Itself comes to an end- - but that's a matter for a whole other discussion.

This is Saturday July 8, 2006 at ten to one. Leo Le Port is on. Leo says they don’t use ASCII code now because Asian letters have more than 250 characters, so they have something called Unicode, which is 16 bit, which gives you 65,000 individual characters if you want them. This guy was having trouble with his space bar terminating his E mail entries. Leo recommended using plain rather than “rich” text. Leo talked about parallax distortion. I didn’t entirely understand that optician talking about lens nodes. He said to put your camera on a lazy Susan and rotate it with two pencils lined up and when both pencils when seen through the focus window disappear, that’s your node. I understood more clearly when he said images around the edge look bent. This is the problem the Disneyland Bell Labs thing had. A straight line would be bent away in each segment. I was thinking about this and if the back of the film were completely flat you would exactly counteract the trigometric angle narrowing of parrellel lines we’ve talked about before when you’re looking off to the right or left. What a flat surface would require is a lens with a variable focal length depending on the angle. A round backing with identical focal length is what I suspect cameras use. If you used a flat surface the image would appear stretched- - tword the edge kind of like those maps of the world. Leo says that your standard nano-pod has only two megabits and not four and it’s the twos that have a thousand songs. I thought the fours had a thousand- - - because if the twos have a thousand songs that would represent a lot more than ten to one compression radio.

Leo often has talked about how copyright encryption turns ordinary users into pirates because we’re forced to learn to crack code. Leo says that the CD and DVD manufacturers are at a disadvantage because the machines they are played on have to know how to crack the code, so you just take the machine apart to find the key. Of course Blue Ray has been talked about for a year or two. The HDDVD has been out about a month and already the encryption code has already been cracked. It seems what you do is enter “print screen” after each frame. That sounds tedious but of course that’s what program writers are for. I guess there are all sorts of cracks for codes you can find on the internet. I must confess I haven’t really looked.

I have to take slight question to something Leo just said. He says if you want to encrypt your stuff use “True crypt”. Is that like Master locks, where there are roomers one key opens up all the locks? Penny Lane was named after James Penny.

I would like to comment mainly on the material in red. When I did that sun angle BASIC program last year I made a mathematical discovery. Picture yourself inside a giant hula hoop tilted 34 degrees a angle from perfectly vertical. Now as you look around in the hoop image, the image should form a flat line in your eye ball or whatever. If you look at the highest point it should be 56 degrees above the horizonal plane. Therefore half the way down tword the "west" it should be 28 degrees. Right? But it isn't. It's a straight line; it should be 28 degrees or exactly half. We are talking about the angle the sun makes at noon vs. three o clock in the afternoon. My point is that even though the hoop path looks straight it really isn't. Because if you were to face south and take a picture of the hoop on an east west axis, the hoop would appear curved. Because this is what straight lines become when photographed by wide angle lenzes. Straight lines become curved. This amounts to "paralax distortion" we were talking about in the red print above. The hoop is only "straight" if you're looking straight at it in your focus. If your focus is off skiew- - the hoop will appear curved. (Selah)