Time Travel and Twin Paradox

TWIN PARADOX: Imagine you live with a school of fish in a deep eddy of a river under a weight of constantly flowing information. You exert yourself and swim for a season to a shallow pool. While you are at the shallow pool, a far less accumulation of river weight will pass over you. Even as you return, you will never accumulate the same weight of information as passed over the school while you were gone. Perhaps the paradox of the twin traveling from a deep eddy of the river of space-time may be analogized in that way. The river of information in itself may not be real, but the frame-dragging experience of it ages the fish in segmented accumulations of experience.

ESCAPE VELOCITY:  That body which expends local energy, while gathering and expending distant energy, in order to escape a dense local frame of inertial energy, will seem to age slower than that which does not depart the more massive local inertial frame.  This begs questions:  How far does a local inertial frame of influence extend?  And how quickly and geometrically does its pull dissipate?  The answer would seem to be only to such point as the escaping body is able to assume an inertial orbit.

.
VECTORING TIME TRAVEL:  I suspect that to accelerate one's physical body (material machinery) beyond the speed of light, while maintaining one's separate illusion that surrounding substance is real, would be to push-pull (frame drag) oneself into a parallel universe, as required in order to preserve one's illusion that substance-in-itself is real.

.

MATHING TIME TRAVEL:  However, suppose Will is the superior reality, and it abides, perpetually and instantaneously, with the only NOW. In that case, it would seem that Information about what is signified in mathematically segmented measure (platonic geometry) would be communicated among separately normalized iteratons of such Will. Each iteration would entertain a seemingly separate perspective within an illusion of space-time.

.

It may be only hubris that defends our relatively infantile comprehension of Beingness. It may be that some quality of Will is the superior reality, of which all our quantitative, measurable physics is derivative. The existence of our physical formations in space-time may be only stubborn illusions, entirely dependent for their seeming vectors of substance upon nothing more than fluxing whims of a Will that has perpetual and instantaneous capacity to normalize itself among plural iterations of measurably segmented perspectives.

.

If so, it would be as important for such a superior essence to be not only a prime mover, but also a prime halter. Measurable, digital, if-then sequences necessitate means for testing whether an "if condition" has been met, in order to halt and redirect its vector. This gives rise to appearances of granulated chronologies, i.e., the illusion of time.

.

I recognize such speculation does not rise to the level of a theory. Theories must be testable. However, a sort of preliminary test IS available. If I am right, then there is no real material past or future, only a perpetual present in which we experience mathematically granulated sequences of appearances, which pass for time. If instantaneous communication across vast reaches of space is eventually shown to be possible, then the idea of a shared "nowness" across the cosmos would be implicated. There would not be "time travel," because materially measurable time-in-itself does not exist. Only Will, playing with math (geometric forms) is the real, superior existent. Except as applied by Will, math-in-itself exhibits no consistent vector. If math is conserved to anything, it would seem to be zero, i.e., no-thing-ness.

.

If instantaneous transmission of information is possible, why have we not yet devised how to do it? Well, in respect of comprehension, we seem to be in relative infancy. We do not live very long in respect of the "granulated time" that is required to move apparent bodies via rules of measurable physics. Suppose we received an instantaneous message from afar. If we required physically, measurably-segmented confirmation to believe it, we may have to live through a long series of events. Suppose we did believe the message. Even then, we have not devised means for replying, nor for feeling confident about a conversation. Until we solve the problem of aging and death, we will not soon get directly measurable confirmation that information can be exchanged in present nowness across vast reaches of space. So, how can we test the possibility in ways less ambitious? I suspect physicists are actually working on that.

.