a time gradient test


Perhaps the concept of time gradients can first be investigated at a simple level. The goal is to measure an acceleration effect of a time gradient produced in an object. If a slowing gradient is directed away from Earth, for example, the mass of the object should appear to decrease. This is a premise developed out of the foregoing speculations concerning the relativity of dimensionality as systems of time.

We will propose a simple test, requiring a sensitive balance and a custom gyroscopic configuration. We will be looking for the tiniest of effects, assuming that more sophisticated applications of force and/or energy fields would be required for gross effects. Indeed, more might be required for any effect at all. The proposed test has the advantages of being simple and of making sense in coarsely following the logic of dimensionality progression mechanics.


We want to produce an object whoís rate of time is not constant throughout its frame, with respect to a larger frame. We want the differences in rates of time to form a smooth gradient across the object as a constant trend of slowing of time in a fixed direction. We surmise that this effect exists in all objects of mass as they exist under an influence of gravitational acceleration. However it tumbles, the falling object always defines a higher density of clocks at the end facing the "draw." This would hold true if it fell flat, while being only one proton thick, because the structure of a single proton is just as important a gradient, internally. The proposed test will determine, for our list of questions, if this tiny frame is so important internally that time differences between these frames donít matter at all. Our gyro will be shaped to induce reduced rates of time between atomic nuclei ó I donít see how the effect could be getting carried within individual protons and neutrons. Thus, the approach here might be fruitless.

We might look for an effect that is limited to the mass of some of the electrons. If our object is electrically conductive, a course gradient might operate through electronic interchanges, defining the overall electron cloud.

The creation of artificial densities might be required in order to see any effect, as the fields involved would define a warp within all particles as well as between them. Such a thorough effect might be transparent to experience. If the hypothesis is correct, it should feel and look just like falling. The amount of warp required for 1 G is ever present on Earth. We need only generate a fraction of this much time differential in our objects in order to yield a substantial effect; though I can only guess as to what it would take to accomplish this within the protons. [We can wonder astray here, and imagine a clock density gradient that is simply established by placing a slab of Styrofoam under a slab of lead! This is actually an analogy to the gyro approach, and another hint that it might not work. There is no creation of a time gradient here. The rate of time has not been altered between the slabs, let alone within them, or within the heavy particles.]

As our gyro spins, its upper circumferences will travel at progressively higher velocities with respect to the lower ones. I suspect that the optimum gyro might be a cone with a 90ļ overall base. This would produce a time gradient vector directed midway between straight up and straight out to the sides. The outward components cancel, leaving us with half of the effect pointing up. A greater angle to the base would enhance the gradient, while directing more of it outward. A sharper top would direct less gradient more in the upward direction. The spinning top should be hollow. Any lines pointing straight up have no gradient. The thinner its walls, the better; the bigger the better; with compromises here for structural integrity under torque, and mass for momentum.


We might have noted an anomalous effect here already, and puzzled over its source, if some tests have inadvertently involved gyro shapes that include non-canceling gradient vectors. A typical shape for a flywheel includes a gradient vector that isnít canceled by other vector component combinations.

The most obvious problem to address is "propeller effect." The gyro must rotate in a sealed box. We must also consider magnetic interaction with Earth. Our top could be made of anything using protons. Furthermore, control shapes can be tested to show no-vector, and reverse-vector effects, for either direction of rotation. Also, we can check for force perpendicular to our lines of gravity and magnetism; and at various other angles.

The gyro could be housed in a lightweight box, with a point bearing at the bottom, and a shaft bearing protruding out of the lid. An electric drill could mate to the shaft with a screwdriver bit. Once rotating, the bearing could be covered with a rubber boot.

We would weigh the box, then set its gyro spinning and weigh it again. To improve our force proportions, the test could be done in space.







the problem of directionality


In attempting to produce possible modes of understanding, the philosophy has sometimes stated ideas as fact. This is part of the use of verbal tools. The only things we really know are our own subjective experiences. These exist as consciousness; produced by the rules of reality, regardless of the understanding of those rules by the consciousness.


The philosophy has left many ideas in a form subject to wide interpretation. It is essentially an overview of overviews, lacking in detail. It is hoped that this can act as something useful, no matter what we find out about particulars, such as the workings of protons as quark-systems.


The point is, that no matter what we find, the possibility remains for an infinite variety of rule-tree structures, wherein some other form of logic progression would appear as something other than our quark-systems. And, since we canít know everything, it remains possible that our system is the only possible form for logic to take.


In this perspective, I am left with the question of directionality from the point as the one seeming to be at the heart of our ambiguity. This is the major puzzle piece most prominently missing, in my view.


The solution given amounts to a trade-off between time and distance, allowed only to produce components of reality as process in tandem with anti-process. This allows us to experience reality in terms of distances subject to time, while we can imagine the constant simultaneous creation of an antecedent that would provide for the overall viewpoint of nothing. We can say that an infinite amount of nothing is something, with respect to a symmetrical pair of conscious views, while the overall truth remains a point, lacking in directionality.


Consciousness is the bridging of logical sequences in memory, over time, where that time is gained with respect to relative distances. In other words, if we say that consciousness is time, we are implying that it is also the distances bound to the given times. While there is really only a point, its presence involves consciousness as time versus distance for all realities generated along with simultaneous anti-consciousness. The requirement for symmetry is the fundamental source of order in association with consciousness.


We are still left with a picture of a single point in random alternation with itself, as the ultimate source of time; without a way to put a handle on it, so as to take it off in any relative direction. However it alternates, its patterns will develop meanings to themselves at a conscious level of sampling. The meaning will involve directionalities over times. The one point will take all positions to define different times for different relative directions, and to define extents for these qualities as size.

How it can do this for us, while we require that it be a single point, remains beyond the ultimate horizon. More tangible are the horizons we call black holes and quantums of rest mass; for they define the various times of the point, in the various relative positions... they are the playing field of consciousness.


As conceited as it seems, I sense that the answer involves evolution of dimensionality. In other words, directionality can happen because we develop the ability to make it possible. Relative direction information produces the general, as well as the specific, short-circuiting effects upon the "parallel," semi-overlapping cones of time, in the overall case for development of the point. Evolutionary climax is a quantum of process, serving as a component of higher-order dimensional processes, ad infinitum. The overall source and drain for this is the point, which lacks directionality in itself; and stands, instead, as the connection of all times.