The problems in defining a measurement for time

As I have written in a number of my previous blogs, according to ancient science, time does not exist. Time is just an abstract appearance in the fifth dimension for a series of changes that exist in the other dimensions. What is present is a “series of changes” in the underlying truth that can be linked together, and this is called kAla. Tracing the sequence for formation of reality that is provided in the ancient science: there exists various natures of an underlying truth that are diffusing into each other. This produces a distribution of concentration of various natures that can be traversed. When traversed, these natures have a variation in concentration that can be detected, stored and used in analysis to draw conclusions that forms a fifth dimension. This variation when traversed sequentially manifests as energy which is basically the potential for the concentration of nature to vary. Inertia is when the concentration and nature does not vary. When this is traversed, a pattern emerges which is found to be repetitive and hence oscillations of that pattern are present, forming thermal energy i.e., internal energy of the traversed path. If from some start point the series of changes detected is stored and recalled and used for analysis, then this gives rise to distance, dimensions and directions and forms the fifth dimension in which forms observables and individuals. This is a high-level bird’s eye view. If a detailed study of this needs to be done, then these “series of changes” need to be mapped and modelled to keep track and referred against to form higher concepts over this. This measurement will then form the abstract concept called time.

The major question is: How do we measure these series of changes without getting tied down by the deficiencies that a measurement system typically creates. As I have indicated in the book “Surya Siddanta: Emergence of empirical reality“, the measurement system of modern science is a relative measurement system. For example: measurement of a second is: “the duration of 9,192,631,770 [cycles] of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom”. This assumes that changes of a caesium 133 atom and the changes of earth’s position are both occurring at the same rate. So, if I say earth takes 24hours to rotate on itself, it is considered that it is (24*60*60*9192631770) cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between the two levels of caesium 133 atom. So, why is this a problem? It has ignored the working of reality.

As I have describe in “View of matter and space“, according to ancient science we can view this whole reality as a network of nodes (which can be observable or not) connected together via bonds and this whole network is changing at varying speeds at various points, to move forward, the forward here is a direction of change. So, what emerges from this is, a view where not all nodes and bonds are moving at the same rate in the forward direction (which is the “direction of time” as we have defined it in modern science). This implies: if I took a cross-section of this network by stopping any and all changes, the resultant got should be one frame of this whole space which is the sum total of all that we observe and can’t observe, with all its matter, 3-dimensions, matter, light elements and so on. If I were able to observe each and every point in this frame, record its value and compare it against the next frame, which is a cross-section of the network that I take after “one transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of caesium 133 atom”, then, it does not imply that all the points recorded have changed equally between the two frames. There can exist points that have changed and points that have not changed. The changes need not be a multiples of our definition of the smallest change. By defining a measurement which is dependent on caesium 133 atom, we have forced every change to be in increments of changes of caesium 133 atom which may or may not be correct.

More over if we further read the ancient science, it suggests that an individual observable is formed due to a second layer of traversal over the first layer of traversal of the “series of changes”. To understand what this is saying, imagine a painting with 3D ridges and valleys forming some topography on a cylinder. Around this let’s say we encircle another cylinder of plain sheet of paper with a single slit to observe the characteristics of the painting directly below the slit. Now, when we move this cylinder, a moving image of the painting can be discerned in some manner through the slit. This is just the first layer of formation of reality.

Fun with Zoetropes - Art of Play

Let’s say now we add another moving layer over this with a slit and attach a paint box dripping paint as this second layer moves over the plain sheet of paper in the first layer. Further let us say that these two layers are moving at different speeds. What would be visible through the slit in the second layer? The ridges and valleys of the underlying painting, the visible painting from the first slot along with the dripped paint from the second layer forming a totally different pattern of existence without actually affecting the actual painting multiple individual slits get a different view in that second layer.

The ability to observe properties of the nature of the truth is equivalent to the slit in the various layers. The network or bhUmi is the first layer of moving layer created over which observables or individual existence is created which is the second layer with its own ability to observe properties which is the slit in the second layer. To note here is that even if the second layer does not move, the motion of the first layer causes the second layer to detect change. Hence, the time that we perceive is not just because of change only in this “I”, but a complex appearance which is a combination of changes detected to form the network and changes detected by us as individuals.

How do we know that we can observe changes in both layers and a combination of this is time? Let’s try this logic, if only changes the “I’s” make are the reason for time, let’s say I find a way to stop the changes that are due to this “I” which forms this individual called me (for example meditation is one such method or deep sleep is another such where the “I” should not make any changes to the environment and is just drifting). If I do this and come back into awareness to detect again, we find that time had not stopped, but has moved further inspite of us. Another indication is that “all of us experience time at similar pace even though we move at different rates of change individually”, indicating that we are contained in a single plane of change that we all detect. This common change that we observe even when the “I” does not change has to be the first layer over which we traverse. Thus defining time as a function of just a change occurring in the second layer is going to be fraught with problems. Defining time against a transition between two states of caesium 133 atom is equivalent to a comparing the change that “I” is detecting against another change of the observable called caesium which is also in the second layer and hence is not a reliable way to define time. Earth is also an observable in the second layer of existence. Thus defining a day as a single rotation and year as a full revolution again is unreliable because the reference against which measurement is done is not the base layer which is the cause for time. By doing so, we have assumed that both earth and caesium atoms have no second layer motion and is just drifting as a part of the first layer. But, even if we did this, we assume that the regions where the earth and caesium atoms are present are both moving at the same pace, which may or may not be true.

We need to find a way to define time as a function of changes in the first layer not as a function of an observable in the second layer. But the problem is the “I” is present in the second layer and anything observed is always a combination. So, how do we define time? What is the anchor against which measurement can be made? Why is anchor a problem? Let us consider the measurement of a year as the single revolution of earth around the Sun. We need a start point from which to start considering the earth’s revolution. This we have said is the position of earth when we have named it January 1st. We expect that by the time we count to December 31st it should have come back to the same point when it was the previous January 1st. But, how can this be the case? If earth is a part of a first layer that is moving, then the point when it was January 1st, should have drifted by the change in the first layer between January 1st and December 31st that we considered. So, if we look at the revolution of earth from this perspective, rather than it being an elliptical path, it has to be a helical path. Something similar to below:

The axis direction being the direction of movement of the change of the first layer introducing the drift in the position. We need to assume that earth’s movement is perfectly helical and the arms of the helix are not forming a cone rather than a cylinder for our measurement to hold. We also need to assume that the Sun has drifted in a straight line instead of a helix of its own. The time that we have thus measured is useful purely in short time frames hoping that the first layer’s drift does not affect the start point. When we consider larger times, this can no longer hold true. Even in shorter time frames, this just has a lesser effect. Thus, time rather than being accurate has small variations if not compensated for.

The measurement system that is used in ancient science is non-relative or relative to change itself and is something that can be adopted at any layer and holds true, that can be adopted at any point and holds true. If we look at this whole system, the only anchor that we can consider for series of changes is the reference point from which storage occurred and hence movement started. So, if we considered the first layer, the start point of reference is the point where the seven flows (sapta-rishi) started to form the first root thought from where the flow of change started. If we considered the individuals, then the start point is the point in the second layer at which the observable started its own flow and so on. Now, the next reliable data is that persistence (smara) is present which contains some modified version of the changes which is used to form this fifth dimension. So, what is reliable is that there exists a that very small change that impacts this persistence which we can observe. Anything that does affect this persistence is not observable by us and we cannot study it. So, the duration is defined as a function of this persistable change and is called vINADI and subsequently all other terms such as prANa and nADi is defined as a function of this smallest persistable change. Now, if we look at this definition, if we considered the first layer’s drift or flow, the smallest change it can persist is a vINADi, while we look at the individual the smallest change an individual can record is a change that is a combination of the first layer and the second layer and its change is a vINADi. But, what is to be remembered is that this is not a global time duration and varies for each individual and observable and the layers. So, how can this be used in an experiment external to the observable?

So, if we consider all these points, we find that time cannot be considered as a global passage of equal discrete quantities that can be used for any measurement. It has to be considered as a variant that varies in definition by the experiment that is done, the time taken to execute and observe the results, the region of execution of the experiment, the observer, the observed and many such parameters.

%d bloggers like this: