Time does not exist. What we perceive as “time” is actually change. Our brains remember one moment and add it to the next, possibly incrementally. This gives us the impression that something has passed. One may ask, what about sleep? Because we are not remembering incremental changes while we sleep, it seems like no “time” has passed. However, changes have occurred. In the most intimate respect, changes have occurred in our bodies, including apoptosis. What we call “time” is better thought of as “rate of change”. In the most extreme example, at absolute zero, no change occurs; in this case “time” has stopped. If change ("time") stops at absolute zero then it follows that that the rate of change increases with increasing energy, whether actual or potential. So, if we perceive “time” as it actually is, rate of change, it is far from constant. The rate of change is different everywhere. There is no ultimate clock ticking away at the center of the universe. If we think about Einstein’s famous space-time continuum, it is actually a space-rate of change continuum.

 

Speaking of Einstein, that brings a situation to mind that seems to disprove my hypothesis, but before we address it , another concept needs to be addressed first, location. One might ask, what about change in location? That would assume that there is some ultimate anchor or starting place when in fact there is none. One can relate one’s position to something else, the Earth to Mars as an example, but there is no reason to chose any object as point zero over any other. You could be justified in claiming the Earth is the center of the universe, or Mars, or Rigial Kentaurus, or any object you choose. They are each worthy of the title. You could decide that you are the center of the universe; it would be just as valid. There is no ultimate marker to fix a position in the universe. Ultimate location does not exist.

​

So, back to the conundrum, "time" dilation with increasing speed. Experiments have confirmed that this actually occurs. It would seem with increasing energy, "time" (change) should be occurring at a faster rate, not slower. However, being that my description of "time" is the correct one, it leads to an interesting conclusion: what is perceived as acceleration is actually deceleration. It all relates to the concept of location. As a thought experiment, lets assume a spaceship takes off from Earth and "accelerates" to 75% of he speed of light, at least that's the way it appears. However, what is actually happening is the Earth is receding at 75% of the speed of light because the spaceship is slowing while the Earth is continuing at it's same rate of speed. The perception all comes back to location. What is the center of the universe, the spaceship or the Earth? The rate of change ("time") is slowing aboard the spaceship because the spaceship is slowing, less energy. One might then think about the destructive potential of a high rate of velocity object crashing into a a planet. Doesn't that mean that the object (spaceship) that crashed into the planet was in a high energy state (higher rate of change)? It all comes back to the perception of location. Did the high speed planet actually crash into the low speed object (spaceship)? To the people on the planet it looks like the spaceship is approaching them. To the people on the spaceship it looks like the planet is approaching them. Who is to say?

​

In order for a spaceship to be able to decelerate so dramatically, which would require as much energy as the hypothesis that it is accelerating, then one would have to come to one additional conclusion: the entire universe is traveling at the speed of light. If this were not true, it would not be possible to decelerate to any significant degree.

 

If “time” is actually change, and location does not exist in any real way, is time travel possible? If considered on an elementary particle level and a particle decomposes but then is recomposed, this is “time” travel; fundamental change (“time”) has been reversed. How this could be accomplished on the macroscopic level seems impossible. If such massive reversal is caused to occur, it would require an enormous amount of information to record the original state and the energy consumed would be prodigious.

​

All right, I admit my hypothesis is a little rough around the edges and I have not thought of a way to test it, yet, but it is an interesting rabbit hole to go down. Speaking of rabbit holes, I will soon invite you to join me as we jump down the rabbit hole of gravity and dark matter.