The idea of three dimensional time is not new in Science, but I came my own way to the conclusion that time must be three-dimensional. A handicap is that we don't know what time is, nor energy and matter either. This leaves room for "wild" speculations and various theories, as long as they are not in conflict with our observations. A true theory must explain what is observed and by necessity exclude what is not. Not even Einstein's theory of Relativity satisfies this definition all the way through and so it still is a theory.

Nevertheless, our observations are illusive, because everything we observe, comes to us through signals of finite speed. This means that we cannot observe the present moment of the world around us, not even our own body (the pain comes AFTER the injury). What we observe and see as "reality", is instead a picture that the human brain composes from signals of the past, into one of a "present" moment.

Considering light signals, if want to see events that happened simultaneously indeed happening simultaneously, they must all be on the same distance from us. In the case of sound signals, this is quite clear. If two persons on different distances scream loud, you will hear the one who was closest to you first. They screamed at the same time, but for you they did not. For light signals the same applies, but as their speed is so terribly high, our eyes can't observe the tiny time differences in everyday life, but they are there nonetheless. On larger distances however, the effect becomes significant, especially when we observe outer space.

1) From the postulate that "the world" exists right now, including the whole of the Universe, that we can't observe what it looks right now, we can conclude that we, as observers, are in the center of our observable world. As such we can imagine our world to consist of an infinite number of spheres in time, each sphere being a moment in past time. All events that happened on the same time-sphere, were simultaneously and we will observe them simultaneously, but only those.

2) If the whole of the Universe exists "right now", everything in it must be on the same time-sphere, the sphere of "right now", which is the "Universal Being Time" (UBT). We cannot observe this UBT, even though we truly exist there. Instead we observe events and objects, situated on an infinite number of past time-spheres around us, each having been the UBT at the moment they transmitted the signals that we observe "now" in our "Observable Being Time" (OBT). The OBT is created in our brain and is thus not physical reality. Indeed, we exist in an other Universe (UBT), than the one we observe (OBT). Our world, the OBT, is an illusion of our senses, in conjunction with the finite speed of light.

As a result, our physical laws, including Einstein's theories of relativity, describe this illusion more or less correctly, but there is no theory to date, that explains the "real" world behind them. In my view, time, the UBT is absolute, but relative in the OBT and that is what Relativity describes. Therefore it cannot exclude by necessity what is not observed, neither does quantum mechanics, all describing the illusionary OBT.

This all leads to the concept that time is three-dimensional and spatial distance, a three-dimensional illusion of our senses. An indication of the correctness of this could be the cosmic background radiation, a remnant of the Big-Bang, that is all around us, equally strong (or rater weak) in all directions.

I postulate that this background radiation comes from the limits of the OBT, the "limits" of the Universe, but these limits are those of the OBT, that travels with us. No matter how fast we would travel, even with almost the speed of light, we would not come a meter closer to these limits. Furthermore, at the moment of the Big-Bang, both the UBT and the OBT were in a singular time-point and we are still in that very same point - the UBT, that we can't observe. There is only the present moment - tomorrow never comes! The OBT expanded and that is what we observe - the expanding Universe and we are right in the center of it - so is any observer in any however distant galaxy.

The following description starts with the analogy of an expanding balloon, the surface of which behaves similar to the a.m. UBT-sphere. The main conclusion from this analogy is, that there can be absolute motion, without the need of an absolute frame of reference. This is the crucial point in the whole of the following theory. If it would require an absolute frame of reference, it's predictions would be inconsistent with our observations, the constant speed of light and as such, with the confirmed parts of Einstein's theories. Where Newton's and Einstein's theories correctly described the illusion of our observable universe, the following theory tries to explain the metaphysics behind it.

Preface:

By the definition of inertial systems, it is known that any two observers in constant motion relative one another and observing the same object that is in an accelerated motion, do measure the same value of that acceleration. They also measure the same value for the speed of light, i.c. the speed of photons. Is there any basic physical difference, apart from the size of it, between the speed of mass particles and the speed of mass-less particles such as photons? In that case we would be missing a definition of 'motion', or 'speed' in particular, that makes the distinction. Any speed of any entity, whether its has mass or not, is expressed as traveled distance per unit of time. If all observers at rest in inertial systems, that move relative each other (at constant speed), do measure the same acceleration for the same objects, wouldn't it then also not be conceivable to see the equally same measured value of the speed of light, to be that of photons in acceleration?

Of course, this would be a strange kind of acceleration, because it results in an invariant speed. As we will see in the following analogy of an expanding balloon, such accelerations can exist, must exist, to establish a constant speed. However, these accelerations occur in 3D-time, not in our observed spatial world, where the same object appears to have a constant speed. Hence, if photons are accelerated in 3D-time, they yet have a constant speed in the spatial world of our observations. If we would apply this on mass objects as well, we would have to conclude that:

• Any object that under practical conditions has a constant speed relative an observer, must be applied a force on, in order to maintain that motion. When that force is no longer active, the motion of the object will become accelerated again. This means that no object, that moves freely, can have a constant speed and indeed, show me only one freely moving object, in, on, or outside Earth (no friction), that does have a constant speed. Our observations show, that all motions in the (nearby) universe are accelerated! One may object that all such motions are under the influence of gravity and therefore are not free motions. In respect to newtonian perceptions, this would be a correct objection, but since Einstein we know that gravity is not a force and thus the observed motions are free motions. To avoid confusion, it would be better to say, that a free motion is, when there is no exchange of mechanical energy with the environment (no change of internal energy), regardless whether such motion is, or appears to be accelerated, or not.

• As a consequence, whenever the relative speed between freely moving objects is constant, the objects involved must per above assumption be at rest (because there is no acceleration). Hence, constant speed and rest are equivalent ...the equality principle of Special Relativity! The apparent motion must then be a property of the geometry of time-space. This applies in particular on the recession of the distant nebulae; they must be at rest!

We can illustrate this by considering points that are painted on the surface of an inflated balloon. As the balloon expands, the distance between the points increases and if they were physical observers, they would conclude to have a constant speed relative each other (if the balloon expands at a constant rate). In reality however, these points are not moving on the surface of the balloon; they are fixed and thus at rest! 'Rest' implies here that these points do not have an angular velocity (seen from the center of the balloon) relative each other, whereas a point moving over the surface of the balloon, would have such a velocity relative all fixed points on that surface. Nevertheless, as we define speed as the change of distance per unit of time, we must agree with the observers on the surface of the balloon, that the fixed points recede away from each other at a certain speed (the expanding universe).

   Fig. 4.1
In fig. 4.1 we see this illustrated in a 2-dimensional section of a sector of the balloon. Points A and B are fixed points on the surface of the balloon at a distance So from each other at a given moment in time. During the time t the balloon expands further at a rate of k m/s and the radius of the balloon increases to Ro + k.t The fixed points have then moved to A' and B' at an increased distance S between them (but the angular distance, f has remained unchanged). We consider an object m that leaves point A with a constant speed V, pointed in a tangential direction to the surface of the balloon. We can see that if this object would not be attached to the surface, but has the expansion speed k , it will relative observer A continue to move in the direction of V, leaving the surface and never to return there again. If it is to move over the surface towards B , we must therefore assume it to be attached somehow to the surface. If we for a moment consider the balloon not to be expanding, the object would then reach B with the same tangential speed V, as would be for a normal circular motion. If the balloon is expanding, the radial speed k is added to the motion. We move the vector V from B to B' and add the expansion speed k . The path that the object m follows in 'space' is shown by the dashed, curved line between A and B'. The speed and the direction of the motion along this dashed line is shown by the vector Vr , that is the vector sum of V and k at any moment in time. Because the object is attached to the surface, the vector V is always pointed tangential to that surface. The speed vector Vr is then always directed at an angle a to the normal of the surface.

Mind, that the real speed, or rather the direction of the object's impulse 'in space' is Vr in which direction it would move away from the surface if it was suddenly de-attached from it (an observer in the point of de-attachment would then see it move away relative him in the direction of the vector V ). The situation is the same as if the object m would be attached to an arm (instead of an expanding surface) that lengthens at the rate k , while having the speed vector V directed perpendicular to the instant position of the arm. ( It 'spirals' away relative the fixed point around which the arm rotates, as shown in the computerized presentation of fig. 4.2 below.)

   

    Fig. 4.2
The object m moves along the dashed line, as shown in fig. 4.1 . This line is part of a spiral, the leading radius of which rotates at an angular velocity df_m/dt . The object started with the same relative speed in A as with which it arrives in (passes by) B' .For these observers it appears that the object's motion over the surface of the balloon must be accelerated; otherwise its speed relative "moving" B' would be less. If we imagine that the moving object would draw a line with a pencil on the surface, we will realize that this line becomes stretched by the expanding surface. One can sort of say that the stretching speed of the surface is added to the objects own constant speed and the total motion over the surface becomes accelerated. In fact, this is not true, because we can assume the object to move freely over the surface (no friction) and so the surface can not add any speed to the object, but it would still arrive in B' with the same speed as it left A. However, the true motion is along the spiral at constant speed Vr and in 3-dimensional space; there is no motion over any surface! The apparent motion over the surface, is an imaginary one for us. but for two-dimensional observers on the expanding surface of the balloon, it IS the real motion and therefore the cause of events have a quite different appearance for them. If the moving object would be a foton, they would say that the speed of light is invariant with the motion of any observer...where did we hear that before?

In order to analyze and understand their world of perceptions, we have to look at the dynamics of it on the next page.

Background