We’re going to be a little more speculative now.

There have been several hints about this in the latter part of this book.

The proposition is this:

*Since there are three distinct velocities, as we have shown, it is extremely likely that these three velocities express different dimensions of time.*

Up until this moment, we’ve always discussed time in the conventional sense, that is, as a unified ‘wave’ of sorts that runs linearly from the past into the future, a river of sorts, wherein the only physical reality is that short segment in between that we call the past and the future that we call the present. And while we will not assert that there is any reality to the past or the future, that does not preclude the possibility that time, like distance, may be ‘volumetric’ in nature.

We’re not contradicting our assertion that velocities are the only true measurements, and that each velocity has an associated time factor. But up until this point we have not discussed the possibility that each of these velocities may have a different ‘flavor’ or ‘color’ or whatever adjective you might choose to use, of time.

The author realizes that he’s spent the better part of this book trying to convince you that distance, or rather, some sort of movement in space, cannot be divorced from time; that time is not an independent dimension that can be somehow determined without a firm relationship to the defined motion. But still, it is worth consideration that the ‘time’ portion of each of those velocities may not necessarily be shared with those of the others.

That there may be a separate time that is associated with linear velocity, with rotational velocity and with vortex velocity.

They may not even be synchronous in all situations.

This might be very hard to prove, hence the emphasis on ‘speculation’ here.

But, in its essence, is it so much harder to conceive that there are three separate dimensions of time when people much more knowledgeable that we believe, with all of their hearts, that there are 11 or 13 or how-many-ever dimensions of only space that are somehow curled up, or in a ‘brane’ or invisible to us for some other reason that escapes creatures of such limited knowledge and insight?

The author would argue that the assumption that there are, in fact, three separate dimensions of time is both logical, consistent and plausible based on the findings that we’ve made with respect to the new dimensions thus far, and that the relationship between them is evidenced in the equation presented for light energy a few chapters back:

**E*** _{light}* = f

**(V**

_{l },

**V**

_{l}ω,

**V**ω)

And that that relationship is actually a cross product expressed as:

**E*** _{light}* =

**V**

_{l }X

**V**

_{l}ω X

**V**ω

since all of these velocities have been shown to be ‘perpendicular’ to each other by reason of being distinct dimensions.

And this is another one of the derived revelations of this geometry. Energy is actually a t^{3} equation.

Einstein really discovered this with his famous equation:

E = mc^{2}

Except he didn’t realize that the ‘m’, the mass, should have a time factor too, since it exists in and travels through time and in this equation represents an energy (and actually, a vector) that also must have a time dimension and that must be included in the formulation.

And actually our new equation is not too far away from his, because if you assume that **V**_{l} is the linear speed of light, and **V**_{l}ω is the vortex component (the wavelength and frequency from Planck’s equation, ), then **V**ω represents inertia, which of course, is associated with mass. So, if you make the scalar replacements and use the dimensional equivalents you get:

E = (^{ω}/t) * ( ^{l}/t) * ( ^{l}^{ω}/t) = m * c * c = mc^{2} = l^{2}ω^{2}/t^{3}

Which we have derived independently, from our equation for light.

Some will say that this derivation is not comparable to Dr. Einstein’s formulation, that it is too superficial, and does not represent a meaningful relationship between motion, time and overall energy. To them, the author would like to point out that the Einstein equation is a momentum equation, based on some pretty broad assumptions and is the root of a quartic equation that you have to say, leaves the solution in some question since there is no realistic way to consider the speed of light to the fourth power as a real number.

If you use imaginary numbers, you get imaginary results.

But, whatever. This chapter is about a speculation, anyway.

And the speculation is this: Energy is a t^{3} quantity, and as such, has time ‘volume’.

…

To get notified when new posts are up, find the author on Twitter (@O_penurmind) or Facebook.