{"id":451,"date":"2013-11-07T22:23:16","date_gmt":"2013-11-08T05:23:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/?page_id=451"},"modified":"2020-02-18T19:49:06","modified_gmt":"2020-02-19T02:49:06","slug":"prsp-orig","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/?page_id=451","title":{"rendered":"Perspective and the Arrow of Time"},"content":{"rendered":"

Perspective as a Dynamic Phenomenon<\/h2>\n

<\/h2>\n

Can the phenomena of visual perspective be correlated to such diverse elements as gravitational waves, dark matter, an accelerating universe and the arrow of time?<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Illiad.I\"The fundamental premise of expanding matrix theory is that all energy, including baryon matter is expanding as it proceeds in time. This is not as far-fetched as it might at first seem. Banishing an unwanted expansion of matter at light-speed has been a perplexing problem from the advent of modern physical theories. It\u2019s not that well known because it has been considered an annoyance to be ignored, worked around or even removed by mathematical sleight of hand, i.e.\u00a0renormalization<\/a>, the Higgs boson<\/a> or<\/em>\u00a0a cosmological constant<\/em><\/a>. Also, Albert Einstein proposed all dimensions to be moving at the speed of light to create gravitational mass via inertial mass. Then too E=mc\u00b2 represents the universality of the idea that matter is equivalent to energy and that\u00a0waves and somehow the velocity of light is implicated in what material reality is. So…except for the fact that the idea of reality being embedded in an expanding matrix might be unnerving\u2026there is not any profound physical reason to reject the concept. In fact, new realizations about dark energy and it\u2019s relation to time and the second law of thermodynamics adds further support to this view. See: Dark Energy<\/a><\/p>\n

How Visual Perspective Reveals the Expansion<\/h2>\n

To test the idea of an expanding matrix causing visual perspective, let us engage in a thought experiment based on an assumption that; while remaining otherwise normal, the surfaces of all material objects (including the observer) and the space are expanding at a constant equal to the speed of light (without the anticipated inertial forces). A person with a modicum of knowledge of geometry knows that such expansion wouldn’t reveal any difference in scale, unless a way was devised to detect it. That’s what this treatise entails (in order to assimilate information in the rest of this treatise, try to develop an appreciation for where surface<\/em> fits into our sense of reality).<\/p>\n

The Experiment<\/h2>\n

Imagine that you could hold two rulers in your hands simultaneously, one in the present time<\/i> and the other borrowed from an instant in\u00a0the past;<\/em> according to the line of reasoning outlined here, the ruler borrowed from the past should be smaller than the one in our present.<\/p>\n

What the Experiment Reveals<\/h2>\n

Holding two such rulers simultaneously from two different instants of time is of course nonsensical. But we do know that every time we see an object, the photons carrying the image to our eyes had to originate from an earlier time than its arrival at our retina. The correlation to reality is that anything we see is actually an image from the past (albeit often only a microsecond from the past). Consequently the farther away an object is, the farther from the past is any light arriving to us from that object. Therefore, based on the assumption stated above, that all objects are expanding in size, when a light-image reaches our eyes, we are seeing it at the size it was at that precise\u00a0instant in the past that it left the object (unless the speed of the light was altered in transit by a lens or some other means). If objects are close to us, the fact that light travels so fast can make this detail seem either irrelevant or too complex to contemplate.\u00a0 However, we can start to make sense of it if we treat each distance as a discrete unit of time and concur that light would take a certain discrete unit of time to traverse each such distance.<\/p>\n

Fig.1 shows each length in the instantaneous present with all lengths expanding equally.<\/p>\n

\"Viewer_light<\/a>

Fig.1<\/p><\/div>\n

Using a Gauge Length<\/h2>\n

If we look at Fig.1, it’s easy to understand that the light from the nearest gauge length would take a certain time x<\/em> to reach the viewer’s eye.\u00a0 We can therefore assume that light from distance 2x,<\/em> being twice as far away from the viewer’s eye as distance x<\/em>, would take twice as long to reach his eye, meaning that on arrival, that image would be twice as old as image x <\/em>…so, if we’re assuming everything is expanding proportionally while this is happening, then older images must always appear smaller to the viewer than newer images. Another way of saying it; is that the image from distance 2x<\/em> is arriving from twice as far in the past,<\/i> when it was only half the size that it was an instant later when the light from it passed point x. <\/em>It must be kept in mind that in the instantaneous present…all lengths are actually the same.<\/p>\n

Appearance of Perspective<\/h2>\n

\"\"According to the stated hypothesis the ruler at position 2<\/em> should appear to the viewer as half the length<\/i> of the ruler at distance <\/i>1<\/em>. This means that for the other progressively more distant rulers, they should have an apparent size…1<\/sup>\/3<\/sub>, <\/i>1<\/sup>\/4<\/sub>, <\/i>1<\/sup>\/5<\/sub>,<\/i> etc. (as seen in Fig.2).\u00a0Light from these images will be delayed 3, 4, 5, etc. times longer in reaching the viewer\u2019s eye than light from the ruler at distance x. The apparent size will be the inverse of such distance, proportional to the length of x.\u00a0If you were to set up models to test these measurements, you would see that the results precisely match this assumption.\u00a0In this picture, it must be remembered that the apparent, receding distances are not real. They are the illusion (perspective) created by the expansion. When we see perspective, we know that diminished sizes are not real!\u00a0Visual perspective<\/i> then exists as a function of delayed information. <\/i>This can be summed up by saying that older images appear<\/span><\/em> smaller, because they were an inversely-proportionate size smaller, at that precise instant in the past when the light left them (even though they continue\u00a0their correct size in the\u00a0simultaneous present)<\/em>. It also adds additional validity to Einstein’s contention that matter cannot travel faster then the speed or velocity of light. According to this scenario, if even light traveled faster than the expansion, our reality would become crowded as we could not create distance from other objects. They would always appear close to us. (also see: (more on #6\u2026regarding c)<\/em><\/a>)\u00a0Time<\/i> therefore, has far more significance to the flow of reality than is conventionally attributed to it.\u00a0
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

Visual Perspective and Spatial Perspective<\/h2>\n

The preceding refers to visual perspective<\/em>. Visual perspective<\/em> should be thought of as functioning within an envelope we would call spatial perspective<\/em>. The distinction is necessary because the method of measurement is a gauge system. We must always have a gauge (1x)<\/em> to compare the size of the other objects to and the photons carrying the image need such an interval in order to create the time lapse for each measurement. An object touching the viewer’s eye would have no meaning as far as scale is concerned. It show’s an observer’s relative importance to the phenomenon of perspective but it also shows the crucial need of a gauge as an instrument of measurement.<\/p>\n

A Viewer Beyond the Last Ruler<\/h2>\n

What about a viewer beyond the last ruler?\u00a0 Looking back, what is he going to see? Whenever I’ve had a problem explaining such interplay, this is where the confusion has usually arisen and it is the cusp of understanding the entire concept. \u00a0Where\u00a0time<\/em> as a real entity emerges, not as a phantom creation of our minds. It resides in the fact that an expanding matrix infers an omni-state of asymmetrical expansion<\/em> for all energy in the universe, to be compared against the non-instantaneous transmission of light or energy. Additionally, any vector that traveled linearly at right-angles to the expansion, would be reduced in velocity by 2\u221a-1\u00a0(diagonal of a square minus one). The non-instantaneous quality is enhanced by the asymmetrical distribution of energy in all sub-matrices, the result of destructive interference. Such creates an illusion of space. Summarizing the above; time’s fundamental identity is narrowed down to a local “before” and “after”<\/em>. All other arrows of time are branches of this simple premise.<\/p>\n

Under identical circumstances in the same instant of time<\/em>, each ruler is always the same length, proportional to every other ruler.\u00a0 As they expand, they all expand at exactly the same rate so that at any given instant, their sizes are always identical…but that is in a\u00a0simultaneous-present-time<\/em>!\u00a0 Reality for a photon is like trying to move in molasses, it can’t transfer information fast enough to show us exactly the size a distant ruler is now!\u00a0 So it brings us old information from an instant (or millennial) in the past, when the rulers were smaller than they are now. The further in the past from which we are receiving information about an object, the smaller it will appear by any measurements we make of it. This translation in size is what we call perspective<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"Opposing<\/a>

Fig.3<\/p><\/div>\n

In Fig.3 you act as a third viewer watching the other two viewers.\u00a0 They and the rulers are equidistant from you, so they all appear the same size to you.\u00a0 But to each other, the distances are reversed, so the perspective effects are reversed for each of them, as explained above, each sees the rulers diminish in size towards the larger distances. It is critical to understand the difference between being seen by someone and seeing them in return (sending an image of yourself and receiving an image).<\/p>\n

If for example, you see a friend a 100 meters away from you, the images creating your view<\/em> of him are from his past<\/em>. As you walk towards him, the images you see of him move towards his present<\/em>, so that your present<\/em> and his<\/em> meet when you come together. So…light coming to you from any object, arrives from its past but as you approach that object, you are in a sense approaching its present<\/em>. This is a truer statement than one might expect, as no force or event can travel faster than the speed of light, so distance actually acts as a buffer between the physical present times<\/em> of two entities. This is how individual existence and our personal frames of reference arise. Although we can use the word “simultaneous”<\/em>, and we know what we mean, it has no universally dependable meaning and could betray us at any time.<\/p>\n

Light Intensity – Inverse-square law<\/h2>\n

Light, as part of the electromagnetic spectrum drops in intensity by the inverse-square of distance from its source. This is called the inverse-square law<\/a>. It is easy to see how an expanding matrix creates and enforces this law. If any light from a given source moves outwards towards a given surface, it hits the surface with a certain amount of intensity. However, if the distance from the source; t1<\/sub>, to that surface is doubled, this would mean that the surface would have doubled its linear size by the time the light reached it; t2<\/sub>. Hence, a square surface whose sides have one unit of length at the closer distance t1<\/sub>, would have sides with two units of length at the doubled distance; t2,<\/sub> resulting in the area of one unit at the first distance being four times greater at the second instant. So the same light would have to illuminate four times the area in the second (further) instance when compared to the first.<\/p>\n

t1<\/sub>( 1 x 1 = 1 ) \u00a0 > \u00a0 t2<\/sub>( 2 x 2 = 4 )<\/strong><\/p>\n

One might erroneously draw the conclusion that the drop in intensity is caused by the fact that light from the past had less energy than it does in the present and maintains this state in transit. Not so, the entire system, light included gains energy proportionally as the matrix expands. The intensity drop then is solely the result of the change in geometry. This is not to be confused with a case where a distant object, an airplane for example appears to be smaller and going proportionally slower than a nearer one. In that case, one is truly seeing the slower speed and the smaller size, because that information is from the past but carried by light, which in itself is continually upgraded to the present energy state. In the case of light, the measurement can only be made via the surface area of baryon matter, which in turn conserves that information. It is the increased surface that predicates a drop in intensity per unit surface area. This is ongoing because the expansion is ongoing and is in fact the arrow of time.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Transformation-space, Not Empty Space<\/h2>\n

This concept once grasped, relegates the idea that empty space alone can cause these effects to the\u00a0status of nonsense.\u00a0 True empty space or a flat Euclidean space could never produce the effects of spatial \/ visual perspective.\u00a0 These manifestations can only be caused by an expanding matrix…a transformation-space<\/em>. It is an effect that is time-dependent<\/em>. The crux of the matter then is to explain how such time-variables are embedded in what we think of as space. This is at the heart of what expanding matrix theory is about.<\/p>\n

Deviations in the Equivalence of Distance and Time<\/h2>\n

The concepts of distance<\/em> and time<\/em> are not necessarily reciprocal. Once a gauge has been established based on time, under certain circumstances the gauge may not prove consistent when converted to spatial measurements. This is nothing new. It can arise when a gravitational field enters the picture. The differences in meaning between speed<\/em> and velocity<\/em> can sometimes take this into account, however there is a slightly different reasons for this within the context of expanding matrix theory.<\/p>\n

Because at the fundamental level described here, everything to do with spatial and visual perspective is time-dependent, it follows that it would be wise to reiterate this information in terms of temporal values. The following is the method I have used for years.\u00a0 If anyone has a better expression for these values, please let me know.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Perspective as a Function of Time<\/h2>\n

Any image received from the past will have an apparent\u00a0<\/i>length<\/i><\/u>\u00a0<\/i>P\u00a0 <\/b>(for perspective), which is a value resulting from the time (t<\/b>) it takes the light-image to reach our eyes proportional to a (nearer)\u00a0gauge\u00a0length\u00a0<\/i>L\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

…so that P<\/b> equals L<\/b> divided by t<\/b>\u2026or\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 P = L\/t<\/b><\/p>\n

…where P<\/b> is the perspective value.\u00a0 <\/i>As long as there are no intermediary elements that would cause lensing, this method should always give the correct measurement within the same local frame of reference.<\/p>\n

To reiterate the preceding, for most everyday measurements, time can be replaced by distance (d), so that the above could be written; P = L\/d <\/b>.However, P = L\/t <\/b>should always be universally more reliable.<\/p>\n

Review and a Summation<\/h2>\n

To summarize expanding matrix theory, the fundamental concept is that all baryon matter in the universe is expanding linearly at the same rate; in such a way that all objects stay contextually proportional to all others. Or\u2026all objects are their proper size at the same instant of time within the context of their relative energy states and frames of reference. The system is driven according to a linear constant acting on a volumetric architecture, so that in real terms it becomes an acceleration that\u00a0affects the flow of time. This transformation does not happen seamlessly. In the physics of reality the seams that appear to reveal the expanding matrix\u00a0manifest themselves as forces<\/em> and as visual \/ spatial perspective. <\/em>In large measure, the acceleration of the expanding matrix is concealed by our frame of reference (the universe as a single moving frame of reference) via those effects outlined in special relativity for bodies in motion. However, the tip of the iceberg that reveals what is hidden below, is\u00a0perspective<\/em>.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

The Velocity of Light and its Ubiquity in Reality<\/h2>\n

The energy properties embodied in the equation\u00a0E<\/em> = mc<\/em>2<\/sup> demonstrate the equivalence of matter and energy<\/a>.\u00a0 The\u00a0established view of this is that although matter and energy are equivalent, they are two different properties of the same energy. Expanding matrix theory postulates that these two properties just look different from the frame of reference we call reality<\/em>. The common quality of both properties is expansion. In other words from a higher frame of reference, both properties are expanding as part of the matrix<\/em>, but each property is expanding at a different rate because of gradients within the system. In fact, each point-shell of energy radiating outwards from any center of mass is expanding at its own specific rate (slower inwards of surface…faster outwards of surface). This point of delineation is where the quantum world resides, with its many bizarre features.<\/p>\n

For the purpose of this article, all we have to concern ourselves with is the fact that the surface points<\/em> of all matter, everywhere in the universe are expanding at the same rate, a constant (c). Although c is the velocity of light, what is happening can be better understood if it is viewed not as a universal speed constant but as a constant related to scale (although other contexts are important, they will treated in future articles). The salient point is that every object in the universe measured linearly at surface, increases its size proportionally as it proceeds in time; at a constant (c). Conversely this means that every object was proportionally smaller in the past than it is in the present (or future). This includes, the field-space around all objects. It is out of this effect that visual and spatial perspectives appear. In this section, we\u2019ll examine how the logic proceeds to that end.<\/p>\n

There is a distinction to be made regarding our concept of space; that for the purpose of measurement, the space that is<\/span><\/em> an object is different from what we interpret as the\u00a0empty space<\/em>\u00a0around<\/span><\/em> the object, even if we use the view of space as a field<\/em>. Our gauge is<\/em> the material we see as objects, the surface of the Earth etc. Space in the absence of\u00a0gauge-matter probably requires a modified definition. The relativistic distortions that it seems to impose shall be explained at a later time.<\/p>\n

In this same vein of thought, a physical object is not actually occupying field-space but is its own field-space<\/em>, a continuum of the exterior space.<\/p>\n

A Flaw in Logic?<\/h2>\n

There are some well-thought-out criticisms of the theory, which I’ve found valuable, especially if they are specific and not just a general unease with the concept. These force me to formulate the language needed to refine my communication skills. Rather than trying to do a blanket response to all of these in a single article, I think it is better to append a clarification on the same page as the query.<\/p>\n

As seen in Fig.2 above, each distance is progressively smaller proceeding towards the past. By adding all these modified distances together, one can be lead to assume that the real sum distance-time should be less than what the Fig.1 assumption would indicate.<\/p>\n

This is a good example of the dichotomy between reality and the actuality and how beautifully they mesh. It seems strange but they both appear true within their individual frames of reference. One important element though, overrides everything; not only is the matrix expanding, but the total available energy is also expanding!<\/em>\u00a0 That means the speed of light was proportionally slower towards the past. That is why if you see two identical objects (for example cars) moving, one near you and the other further away, the distant one will appear to be moving slower. At that light-instant<\/em> in the past, it was smaller and going slower than it is in your present-time. It was going slower because the fuel had proportionally less energy than it did a moment later.<\/p>\n

This may seem strange…but remember “everything physical had to come into existence”. <\/em>This could never have happened, unless “coming into existence”<\/em> were some prime cosmic directive<\/em>. That is to say; if there were no such directive…nothing should exist! <\/em>How could we assume that such a directive would produce our universe, then cease to function? I believe it has never wavered and that the expanding matrix<\/em> is the expression of that directive.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Visual perspective then is the most salient manifestation of the heartbeat of the universe, which is; that it is increasing in energy by an immense amount each second. The elementary forces are created by this phenomenon not a cause of it. Gravitation then is itself an expanding part of that matrix, appearing as a force…a consequence of our localized juxtaposition within the matrix.<\/p>\n

Stripping away all the extraneous ideas and concepts about space, within the context of this study it is difficult to emphatically say if a physical entity we perceive as “space”<\/em> even exists at all, except as the extension of matter. Euclidean space…the inert background upon which everything exists is responsible for neither spatial-perspective<\/em> nor distance.<\/em> Neither does it dilute the energy of the expanding matrix. Everything we have interpreted as space and distance is caused by the fact that light is not instantaneous, which is the same as saying that our concepts of space with qualities of distance <\/em>and perspective<\/em> are all functions of time<\/em>. The strange fact that we have a portion of our brain that actually creates our perception of space adds weight to this argument (see: Hippocampus<\/a>).<\/p>\n

To read an amplified discussion as to whether energy would interact with a space\u00a0<\/em>that is a true void<\/em> (…or “nothing”) see; Space(s) and Time in EMT<\/a><\/p>\n

next<\/a><\/p>\n<\/prepostseo>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Perspective as a Dynamic Phenomenon Can the phenomena of visual perspective be correlated to such diverse elements as gravitational waves, dark matter, an accelerating universe and the arrow of time? The fundamental premise of expanding matrix theory is that all … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":276,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-451","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=451"}],"version-history":[{"count":306,"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/451\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3407,"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/451\/revisions\/3407"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/276"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/expandingmatrix.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}