The Theory of Time-Systems 2

Time passes at the same rate for two objects that are traveling at 150,000 miles per second and which are in a one-point-five G gravitational field REGARDLESS of their location or direction of travel in the universe.

Time passes at the same rate for two objects that are traveling at 0 miles per second and which are in a one-hundred G gravitational field REGARDLESS of their location in the universe.

Time passes at the same rate for a million objects that are traveling at 1,000 miles per second and which are in a zero G gravitational field REGARDLESS of their location or direction of travel in the universe.

Each of these paragraphs has described a time-system.

The Theory of Time-Systems already exists as well as the Theory of Gravity or as the Theory of Relativity; what is unique about the Theory of Time-Systems is that no one has previously stated it.

Long ago when I began my series, "Why? The Universe Expands," I asked, "What would a second dimension of time be like?" I believe that I may have an idea. Although an illustration would be very useful here, I will try to explain the concept in words instead.

When one looks at the five illustrations that I attached to the first part of "The Theory of Time-Systems", there arises a similarity from an art lesson; that of perspective, particularly one-point perspective.

When one draws a road that goes off into the distance, although in reality the sides of the road are parallel, when they are depicted in a drawing (reduced to two dimensions) the parallel lines are drawn converging to one point, showing that the lines at any given point are further away from the observer. Each measurement on the two-dimensional drawing is different; however each measurement represents the same thing: the width of the road.

So it seems to be with Time-Systems. Although each one is a different length when measured within itself (in a one-dimensional time), to an outside observer all of the Time-Systems represent the same thing. This same thing is the list of said events. All of the Time-System arrows go from Event A to Event C. The differences in their lengths come about because we are restricted to a one-time-dimension existence.

When a being of two-time dimensions depicts my illustration of different-length time-systems in two time dimensions, the events A and C (like the sides of a road in three dimensions) become parallel.

But what does that mean? Is that a true comparison?

In what way can we understand a second dimension of time given that we have somehow added a dimension by way of illustration? We still have not answered the question, "What are the characteristics of a second dimension of time?" We still only know one: Forward & Back... like a straight line.

I have read the phrase somewhere, "sideways in time". Is this a true reference to the second dimension of time?

We see the different time-systems. It is a simple matter to move from one to the other. While this may be "sideways in time", it is rather meaningless. After all, nothing bizarre happens when one changes time-systems. Therefore, the movement from one time-system to another does not equal moving in another dimension in time. One is simply changing the rate of one's motion in relation to the fabric of space-time and/or changing the amount of gravitational force in which one finds oneself.

Can it be that there is no second dimension of time? Scientists can use math to show how it would work. But does that mean that there is an understandable concept in existence?

Although I have voiced the Theory of Time-Systems, have I come any closer to understanding what time is?

I believe that I have.

For essential to time is motion. And all is in motion. Can an object remain in one place in relation to the fabric of space-time? Conceptually, yes. This would be Absolute Zero.

However, we are told that Absolute Zero cannot be reached... just as we cannot reach the Speed of Light. So here are the lower and upper bounds of the Universe.

I brought up the idea of something that does not move in relation to the fabric of space-time itself to lead up to this: if something moves not at all, time does not pass for that thing.

While time may pass elsewhere, no time passes for the thing that moves not, that changes not. One may protest all day and all night, but since nothing changes for that thing, time effectively does not pass for that thing.

This has been the underlying notion to the title, "Why? The Universe Expands." All that happens is due to Universal Expansion and all things are affected by Universal Expansion. That thing that would not be affected by Universal Expansion (something at Absolute Zero) cannot exist.

It follows the logic behind the answer to the question, "What would happen if the irresistible force met the unmovable object?" The answer lays within agreement to definitions. How would one define an irresistible force? A force that could not be resisted; any object that it would encounter would have to be moved. Therefore, in its universe, there is no unmovable object. Therefore, the irresistible force can never encounter an unmovable object. And vice versa.

I state that all happens because the Universe expands.

(More to come... but what?)