Nathan Sharfi, Overland Park, KS USA

Equation Info

[ ∞ = הי = Qt ]

Please excuse the mess - as I am sure there a bunch of typos (I am still working on this site).

The equation above has nothing to do with my tag name "Concept Infinity" in general. This equation is part of a greater theme of my own mathematical work in playing with "string theory." Basically, string theory is the search for a simple equation to describe the universe (using basic quantum physics and relativity).

Note: "Concept Infinity" is just my "tag name" that I use for my film projects. It is actually credited as "Concept Infinity Productions" and is totally not related to any of my math or physics theories.

String theory attempts to resolve all the bigger questions that relativity cannot answer. I first heard about it watching Tech-TV late one night. Apparently, there are physics spending their entire life trying to figure this out. For me, when I heard about this idea, it sort help push me find out my real questions with quantum physics and relativity. Although I am not expert on this, it did encourage me to read a lot on the web and buy a number of books (none of which for the record I ever finished - Just being honest).

Anyway, on a similar note, I spent most of my life trying to resolve some issues with E=MCˆ2. I in my own search, I have found my own questions (or perhaps what I considered or still consider flaws) in the theory of relativity. I do not deny that relativity is a "powerful" and "working" idea, but I do deny that it answers all my own personal questions about how time is related to speed of light.

On the idea of "string theory", I have sort of got myself stuck on the idea that Life = Time (see equation above) and that is the basis of how I got from point a to b to c sort of speak.
(Relativity being part "a", Quantum Physics being part "b"... and String Theory being part "c").

On the idea that Life = Time, I am not claiming that life and time are the same. Instead, I am claiming that they are equal mathematically. That both are infinite and therefore equal. It is a simple answer to a very deep question. I have been told that string theory is so simple it answers all questions about life. I believe my obsession of years has found this to be an worthy answer. Proving it or getting anyone to buy in to reasoning, is a whole another idea.

Note:
הי - Is the Jewish word for life.
Qt - Is "my" symbol for Quantum time, which I believe would be represented as "m(n)" by scientists.

The main problem with this theory is two problems.

Questions:

So what?
Basically, so what? Answer: You have to think differently to find the right questions. We are looking at the world as if it is flat, when in fact it is not. It has many levels of "reality" and they are "relative to one-another" as Einstein would perhaps agree. If you do not find what they have in common, you create false answers to questions, even if the data proves otherwise. (conflicts)
How is this useful?
What does time and life have in common. Can they in fact be equals and does this solve other riddles of our existence. If this does not solve anything, it is in fact completely useless as an equation. I don't have a real answer yet except that - if this is in fact true, all the rules change of what we already know. In fact E=MCˆ2 now has an entirely different meaning. Therefore this is not only useful, but relevant.

Anyway, here is my bold questions that shakes up everything. I do claim this question as the one question that lead me up to my current theory I pose and share.

Is time linear?
-- According to everything we have been taught this seems simple, forward & backward.
-- Just for fun, do a search on Google.

This question is important, because it answers how we measure time. I mean, should we even count time in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks and years. Currently, we base time on the speed that it takes our earth to travel around the sun.

Moreover, does gravity affect time?
-- Relativity says yes!
-- Again, do a search on Google.

I believe the results of these questions are valid tests that prove that many of our current ideas are perhaps based on "out-dated" ideas and therefore provide false results. It is similar, I propose, to the idea we had when all science was rooted in the idea that our sun revolved around us, or that the earth was flat.

These ideas took me over 20 years to create (7th grade to about 32 years of age). There is (what I believe to be) a blunder in the whole concept of relativity. My early questions were based solely on the idea that when you approach the speed of light, time slows down.

If in fact you believe in the big bang, we have proof that the explosion that created our universe is accelerating Time. I have grown to believe this should be the center of the universe, not our sun which we have always used in discussing the universe since we realized the earth is not the center of the universe. We need to stop describing the speed of light by how fast we travel around the sun, but instead by how fast the universe is accelerating as it expands. (a very different number).

Again, we need to find that value (which we may already have) that describes the universe in acceleration, and use that for our constant that describes time and more importantly, the speed of light. My theory is Time is not moving at a constant rate and linearly, but "expanding" exponentially. Therefore, to say the speed of light is a constant, becomes flawed. Again, this is just "my" theory, but it is mine and I own it. (please give me credit for anything you take off this site!!) This would throw of the idea perhaps that we can ever approach the speed of light and might answer other questions about how time is manipulated by gravity and things like black holes and the speed of light.

Note: On a side question. Another question I have asked myself many times, is light and time really relevant to each other in any way. If something has not happened yet, does the fact that we can see the light mean anything. Would it create light, and is that really a real thing. To put it another way - if I throw a rock and you see me throw the rock. Are you seeing the rock, being thrown or just the light. Anyway, my point is, the light is just an image of what is happening, it is not what is happening. If we go faster than light, we are not moving in time, but perhaps our light will just have to catch up with us. We pass our "image" perhaps, but that has nothing to do with time. Time is not affected by this in any way. We do not disappear, but come a different form of light or energy perhaps, but it is irrelevant to time. Anyway, this is a side question. Another important questions I have asked myself over and over - and it brought me to many of the questions and answers I am sharing on this web page.

Anyway, to make a long story short. I know this is not easy to understand, and it goes again everything everything we have been taught. My thoughts came to me a few years ago when I got into a heavy discussion with my friend Jacob Fishman (Summer 2002) about if time could be described as a vector. We like to create time lines of our own history, but is that in fact an accurate way to describe time. I was also curious, if we could describe it that way, applying Einstein's theory of relativity, could we in fact go forward and backward in time. And what would this look like if you tried to draw it on paper (the fact I am an artist plays heavily into all this).

The second important question I was asking at that same time was if time is how we measure the speed of light. How does that effect relativity. I mean, we say the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a contact and that always equals 299,792,458 meters per second. However, the word "second" in this number is based again on that idea that time moves at a constant speed. I am curious if time is a problem in the equation E=MCˆ2 where C="the speed of light" and that we have over looked a major flaw on how we measure speed and ultimately on how we describe energy. If time is in fact accelerating, than the methods we currently use to measure time are out-dated and pre-historic. I do believe this to be true based on my own research, questions I have asked, and answers I have found.

Anyway, I don't want to spend much more time tonight explaining this online, but I am sticking with my equation. I know I am all over the place on this discussion, but that is okay. This page is not to answer all your questions, but to explain why I put that funny equation on the top of the page.

It took many years (almost 20) for me to question time travel vs. the speed of light before I started to ask if time was linear. It them took a few years (about 1-2-3 years) for me to get form my realization that we measure time as if we are the center of the universe to where I am with my current ideas about string theory. I do have to say, they are still a bit of a mess and since I am not a mathematician by trade (even with my heavy math background), all I can do is relax and keep meditating over these ideas. I know people will question me. A few people may even try to steal my ideas. However, I know that if I share them openly I might learning something and make some interesting friends along the way.

As you can see, this is still a work in progress. I still have more questions that I have answers. But at least today I don't feel like I am asking all the same questions I used to. Some are the same, but many are new.

I might also mention, I do hope to write many books someday.

These ideas are protected by law. By posting them on the web, I force a copyright ( By your witnesses [plural] ).