Welcome to the site, about the book.. "A Brief History of Timelessness"
What is 'A Brief History of Timelessness' all about?
This site is all about the possibility that we may be completely wrong to assume a thing called 'Time' exists.
What makes this particular discussion unique is that rather than starting from the assumption that "a thing called time exists", and trying to work out the reality from there, A Brief History of Timelessness, starts without assumptions, and simply asks...
What do we actually observe?
This incredibly simple question, and starting point, seems to have been missed by virtually all experts on 'Time'.
In answering this question it is suggested...
We seem to observe that matter/energy exists, and,
This matter/energy seems to be able to move, change and interact in all directions.
From here, rather than just assuming a thing called time must exist for things to be able to exist and move, we ask a key question...
IF the matter in the universe just exists, moves, changes and interacts in all directions...
not 'heading into a future', and
not 'leaving a temporal past behind it'...
would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming there was a 'past' and/or 'future' and thus time?
It is this question and what it reveals as it is applied to common observations, and sophisticated theories that is at the heart of the possibility of timelessness, and that is examined in detail in these pages, videos, and the eBook.
Please enjoy the site
"Do you Believe in Time?", "Does Time exist?", "What is Time?", "Is Time-travel possible?"...
These may seem like valid questions, but they may also be mis-leading from the outset, because they all start by innocently apparently asking about a thing called "Time".
And if we ask about a specific thing, then we are
half way to assuming that thing may exist already, and if it actually does not
then we may never get to see this! Which may be why publications like "Scientific American" publish specials on 'time'
suggesting [Time] - It begins, it ends, it's real, it's an illusion. It's the ultimate paradox. All starting from the assumption a thing called time exists, without first testing our most basic observations and conclusions.
So instead, "A Brief History of Timelessness" starts by asking not the clichéd and scientifically unanswered question "what is time?", but instead the hopefully, far less leading question...
And from the easily checked assumption that "matter seems to exist, move, change and interact", the book explores the possibility that this alone may be enough to mislead us into possibly wrongly assuming a "past", a "future", and thus "time" all may exist.
What this site is, and is not about.
For some reason, some people seem to assume this site is about every complicated problem they can imagine, and that it suggests nothing exists, or that everything we think we know is wrong...
As such some people seem to add things I have not said, to what I’m saying, and then complain that what they have asserted makes no sense.
It is important to note, that all I am addressing throughout my work is the “theory of time”, and all I am doing is showing how that theory may be entirely unfounded, unproven, unnecessary, and moot – because everything the theory purports to explain, and all the apparent paradoxes it seems to present, seem to be able to be explained and resolved if we very carefully consider the possibility...
“what IF everything in the universe just exists moves and interacts, not ‘heading into a future’, not ‘leaving a temporal past’ ‘behind it’, and with no such thing as ‘time’ existing or being necessary for motion.
The reason for investigating this is because many
lay people and professional scientists seem to have addressed the problem of
time in rather incomplete and unscientific ways, jumping to conclusions and
accepting a complete lack of evidence, and circular logic in their arguments.
And becasue no other article or book, writer, or scientist, on the subject
of time, that i have found, has considered the above question and possibility, let alone considered
it and been able to dismiss it in favour of 'time' existing. Leading for example
professional publications like
“Scientific American” to conjecture,[TIME] “It
begins, it ends, it's real, it's an illusion. It's the ultimate paradox.”,
while I think ‘time’ can be shown to be
a (in places useful) misunderstanding, without any paradoxes. And The constructive aspect of this approach is
that it may eliminate and resolve all problems , questions and paradoxes
around the theory of time.
Eliminating an invalid component from our T.O.E or G.U.T, and for example solving the apparent “problem of time”, and explain why we may be wrong from the outset to assume ‘time’ with a direction seems apparent on a classical scale, but not on a quantum scale.