1. Time is called "an aspect on the
relative motions of bodies".
Two parallel motions with the same velocity
cannot define any time, that is show any change, but 2 antiparallel
motions can. The two motions must be convergent or divergent
in the mutual relation. That presumes - or defines - a 0-pole,
a center - and a 00-pole, an anticenter.
It implies too that Time is described
through increasing / decreasing distances. As well as distances
are defined through relations between times. From one viewpoint
in the same way as the complementary poles 1a 1b
are defining one another, in "interaction".
Defining time - and distances - from relative
movements, doesn´t imply that they are more "relative"
than other physical quantities. Also surfaces and matter
are "relative" concepts. It isn´t likely
that a neutrino or a gravitation field experiences a floor
or an electron shell as a surface. And each concept must
be defined through a relation between two (or more) other
concepts as "poles". Definitions follows in this
the dimension model, arise as "outer connection"
à la "potentials" by a polarizing step.
2. Time out of converging motions?
Distance as quality (in opposition to "closeness")
is at the same time defined out of diverging movements.
What could justify that we - in some respect - see Time
as defined by the 1a-pole, out of converging motions?
Time and Distance seems to have a certain a parallel in
the M/E-components of an electromagnetic wave, they seem
to be complementary in a similar way. Electric charges in
motion give rise to magnetic fields (as distance changes
give time). And when the electric component in the wave
decreases, the magnetic component increases, and inversely:
it looks like a transformation between them. The relation
can be compared with the both halves of a hour-glass
In the walking of a human being, it is the divergence of
the legs that measures out distance. Convergence is represented
by displacements of the center of gravity, and this center
is representing an inner 0-pole. Convergence towards a pole
Time as originating from crossings of the "E0-line",
between paced distances, polarized to anticenters around
Another aspect on the polarity Distance / Time as counterdirected
divergent - convergent could perhaps be illuminated by the
factors kinetic energy versus potential
energy in a vibration. "Movements from"
in direction outwards leads to outside positions, distance
as relation between positions, expressions of potential
energy; while movements towards the middle line, equal to
kinetic energy or motion, express Time.
3. Space-time and time as "surface":
If we want to describe the world as "space-time"
and interpret space as 3-dimensional, time should be 2-dimensional
in a 5-dimensional model!
In expressions for energy we have the time factor squared
ccccccccccMass x Distance2
E = mc2 = -----------------------
ccccccccm x v2
Ek = ---------cccccccccEk
= kinetic energy proportional to
In a simpleminded reading: Time squared to a surface,
in the underground of Masses in a 5-dimensional space.
(We have Time squared too in the relation between orbital
times of the planets and the cube of their distance to the
A3 /T2 = a constant.
And space 3-dimensional.
The 5th dimension degree divided to a quotient!)
In the ordinary Cartesian coordinate system Time is introduced
as a 4th coordinate axis which usually is designated as
√ -1 (i), which hints a quadratic
time = -1.
Remember; Einstein's equations had also
the solution E= - mc2, which Dirac pointed
out and Dirac's hole theory became a consequence.
Hence we could imagine Time as a negative
"surface" - in direction inwards, built-in into
And the surfaces could have "negative
curvature" (where some surfaces are growing faster
than proportional to the radius squared).
Compare negative curvature inwards (a
principle in living structures), as invaginations and multi-layer
structures (see Biology).
See also "Einstein - some comments" here.
4. Time poles 0 and 00:
The "moment" is a 0-pole of Time, the eternity
its 00-pole. (But if we want to count from the starting
point of Universe, from "Big Bang", we have another
0-pole there, and the moment will be a secondary one, a
displaced center, or just a current origin.)
In the dimension model here "eternity" will be
that anticenter which is created of diverging motions "from
each other". And the moment, "the Now", will
be defined by motions "towards each other".
Motions "from each other" describes
an interval, draws out an interval. Motions "towards
each other" define a borderline or a meeting point.
Eternity as interval and as continuum.
The moment as a limit and as quantified.
The pole-exchange 0/00 from moment to eternity is a discontinuity
(a kind of quantum jump). With 0/00 equivalent to 5´,
the 5th dimension degree will also be a "turnstile
In relation to a point, a 0-pole, everything else is anticenter,
representing the 00-pole. Eternity as the 00-pole of Time
is according to this interpretation built-in everywhere
in our world. Near center and furthest out and everywhere
in between, in units of lower dimension degrees with relative
Time is coming to a standstill at both its end: in the
moment, "time 0", and at the other end increased
to infinite, where time has stopped in another sense, is
idle like a coordinate axis. Time has expired. Like velocity
ceases at the turning points in a vibration.
5. The past and the future as directions of Time:
the past the
The both directions of time will be complementary, in the
same way as matter / vacant space has been described as
(The "Now" or the moment is the Future´s
designing of the Past. Future and past could be said to
meet on all levels within a human being, in the chemical
processes and in the genes, in the inner organs as well
as on the surface. Each separate local event is a collision
between 2 (or several) things, and collisions create the
moment, center for new outward direction. Hence, the Big
Bang of Universe could be said to occur everywhere, in each
course, locally as well as centrally. )
What other kinds of expressions from the "empty"
future do we have as directed inwards towards the present?
We could probably see the future in motions with negative
Or in the all bonds between poles, between
units as halves on some level: the potential counterdirected
other half: expressed as "the still not realized",
as dream, as goal, as "needs".
We could talk about "want-projections"
into the future as a minus-field. Or about resonances between
past and future. At bottom then coupled via an underlying,
double-directed Time. Analogous to the relation Matter -
A usual expression for Time as something irretrievable one-way
directed, is that actions and events are irreversible: they
cannot be enacted backwards, as when a movie is turned backwards.
One way to formulate this could be what was said above
about pole exchange: that which a moment ago was the present,
the 0-pole, has been eternity, a 00-pole, by definition.
The gap of eternity has opened behind the back of the present
moment. We should need an "eternity of time",
as "the other way around" to come back to that
Another way to formulate the same thing is perhaps to say
that every motion and every event is just a part of the
entirety, and if it should be possible to reverse one event,
then also that which preceded the event has to be reversed
- and so on to the beginning of Time. Everything previous
exerts pressure (as a wall behind). Perhaps a reversing
would be possible if one simultaneously could give the whole