The Consciousness Barrier

PERCEIVED LIMITS TO SPACE TRAVEL

As unlikely as it may seem, the real barrier to our traveling throughout the universe is not distance or the limitations of our technology, but the movement of our own consciousness. Remember that the way we see the universe depends not only on what it is but on what we are. According to this theory, for which I have provided abundant evidence throughout this blog, any object including a spacecraft actually exists in four spatial dimensions.

But we only experience it in three and perceive the fourth dimension as time. The fourth dimension of the spacecraft is along the direction in space in which the strings composing it's matter is aligned and stretches across the universe. Our consciousness moves in this direction along the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains, which we perceive as the passage of time.

Suppose we wanted to visit the bright summer star Antares in the constellation Scorpio. The star is about 600 light years from us. This means that even if we could travel at the speed of light, it would take 600 years to get there. This seems like an insurmountable barrier to the journey.

But actually, according to my theory, all we have to do is to point our spacecraft at Antares and it is already there. As soon as we take the spacecraft to open space where there will be nothing to interfere with it's journey, as soon as we point it in the right direction and start it's engines to give it momentum, it arrives at Antares immediately. The journey takes no time at all.

As you probably know, Newton's Law of Inertia states that an object at rest or in motion remains that way until acted upon by an outside force. This is why a spacecraft only needs to be set in motion in the right direction and it will continue moving when it's engines are turned off. A spacecraft sent to explore the planet Venus might spend only ten minutes in powered flight. In my cosmological theory, this is because of the straightness of the strings comprising matter in four dimensions, of which we can see only three.

Our spaceship would arrive at Antares as soon as it was pointed in the right direction and given momentum. The problem for us is that the spacecraft exists as a bundle of strings parallel to the bundle comprising earth and it spans the distance from the earth to the bundle of strings comprising Antares not directly, but at a very slight angle. The bundle of strings comprising the spacecraft would look like a diagonal line connecting two parallel lines if it would be seen in four dimensions. Our consciousness moves along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, as I have described.

The trouble is that our consciousness will not reach the point across from where the spacecraft reached Antares for thousands or millions of years, depending on what we perceive as the speed of the spacecraft which is actually the angle at which it spans the distance. Suppose that a bridge was built across a river, but was built as a very long bridge between two points on opposite shores that were far from adjacent.

It is not a slow journey but rather like a slow person crossing the very long bridge that already exists. The angle at which the strings of the spacecraft spans the distance to Antares depends on the force we put into it at the outset of the journey, which will result in what we perceive as the speed of the spacecraft. If we point the spacecraft at first one star and then another, it was actually at the first star for the period of what we perceive as time until it was pointed at the other star.

But, of course, our consciousness was not across from the point on the first star to see the landing. The reason we cannot now travel to Antares is not the limits of our technology. It is that our consciousness moves along the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we percieve as the speed of light and we have no ability to alter this. So, we seek technology that can get us around this limitation and see it as a technical limit that we cannot travel to Antares when in fact, any spacecraft that we pointed at the star and set in motion would already be there.

It may seem as if there is a gap in this theory, because we should see evidence that a spacecraft had, in fact, arrived at it's destination, even though it didn't. But there really is no gap. Consider the following scenario:

A spacecraft is launched toward the moon. It will fly in a direct straight line to the moon, there will be no orbiting of the earth or moon during the flight. The spacecraft will not land gently on the moon, it will crash into the moon and leave an impact crater. It will fly at a velocity which will get it to the moon in three days.

After two days, there is a change in plans. The spacecraft is recalled to earth and never reaches the moon.

Now, here is the conundrum. If objects, such as the spacecraft, are actually bundles of strings in four-dimensional space, of which one of the dimensions is what we perceive as time, then the spacecraft should have actually been on the moon for the two days, until it turned back to earth. We would never see it on the moon (assuming we had a telescope powerful enough) because our consciousness would not have reached that point opposite the moon until three days had passed, which is why we perceived the flight to the moon to require three days.

The spacecraft would have been on the moon for two days, but in our future dimension. The spacecraft's two days on the moon would not have begun until three days in our perspective of time had passed, and by the time our consciousness had reached that point the spacecraft would no longer be there because it had been recalled.

So at the third day from launch when the spacecraft had originally been scheduled to reach the moon, if we looked at the moon's surface, the way some may interpret this theory, we should see an impact crater from the spacecraft's landing and also dents in the spacecraft from the landing when it returns to earth. Even though the spacecraft never actually reached the moon from our point of view because it was recalled.

Yet clearly, we would see neither the impact crater nor the dents in the spacecraft.

On the moon's surface the strings comprising would try to "bounce back" to their original position, because that would be the lower energy state that the surface had in the first place, after being distorted by the impact. But the mass of the spacecraft prevents them from doing so, holding the strings of matter comprising the moon's surface to the new configuration of the crater. This is true even if the spacecraft is in the crater only in the moon's past, because remember that we are in four dimensions of space and matter is actually strings extending into what we perceive as the past and future. But when the strings of the spacecraft are forced to realign by the bend representing the turn back to earth, the spacecraft is removed from the moon's surface altogether, including the moon's past dimension, after having spent the two days there.

Since the spacecraft is no longer present on the moon, not even in the moon's past, the strings comprising the moon's surface at the site of the impact crater are free to rebound to their original position and, no trace of the spacecraft landing remains. The same thing happens with the dents in the spacecraft caused by the landing.

If we move the spacecraft after it has hit the moon, from our point of view, the impact crater and the dents in the spacecraft will remain. But that is because the spacecraft is actually still on the moon for a span in the dimension of space that we perceive as time, and this holds the strings of matter comprising the surface to the configuration of the crater.

However, if we redirect the spacecraft from landing on the moon, from our point of view, it is removed from the moon altogether and no trace of it's landing remain because the strings comprising both the moon and the spacecraft are able to bounce back to their original positions. An impact crater on the moon can only mean that the spacecraft, or object which caused the crater, is still there in the moon's past.

If you have difficulty relating to this portrayal of the moon and the spacecraft, a ball thrown at a freshly-painted ceiling in a room, but which falls short of reaching the ceiling, operates in exactly the same way. It should leave an impact mark on the ceiling, but it doesn't.

This entire scenario proves once and for all that it is the "Frontier Model" of the movement forward of all of our consciousness along the dimension of space that we perceive as time which must be correct. We are all in the present at once. I described both this and the "Different Points" model in the book "The Theory Of Stationary Space" because at the time I wrote it, I had not yet decided between them.

The Frontier Model of consciousness progression means that the spacecraft landing on the moon in our future cannot strike and kill a person, or other living thing, which would then come back to life when the spacecraft was removed from the moon altogether.

When a spacecraft lands forcefully on the moon, or any other astronomical body, leaving an impact crater, the strings composing matter in four-dimensional space bend to accommodate the new strings, composing the body of the spacecraft, that are now pressed against them. Given what we know to be the nature of these strings of matter, they should snap back to their former position if the spacecraft is removed from the crater it has created. This is simply because the new positions of the moon's strings after the impact forming the crater must be a higher energy condition than the former surface without the crater and matter in space always seeks the lowest-energy condition, which is why planets and stars are spherical.

But yet we could remove the spacecraft from it's impact crater, whether on the moon or on earth, and the crater will remain.

My theory explains this very simply. The spacecraft is still present in the crater in the past direction of the dimension of space that we perceive as time. It is still holding the walls of the crater in place, whether the spacecraft is in the crater in the present or not. Even if the spacecraft was only in it's crater for an instant, from our point of view, that is all it takes for it to hold the walls of the crater from snapping back to their pre-impact configuration.

This must mean that when we move something, such as the spacecraft out of it's impact crater on the moon's surface, we are moving it relative to our future but not our past. We obviously have moved the spacecraft out of the crater with regard to the future or else it would still be there. But we cannot have moved it with regard to the past or the strings composing the surface of the moon would revert to their lower-energy pre-impact configuration and the crater would cease to exist.

So, does this mean that time is something that is really "real" outside of the consciousness of living things? Because when we move an inanimate object, we are clearly moving it with regard to our future but not our past and if time does not really exist then this does not make sense.

My answer is no, time is only a perception of living things. Our consciousness is moving forward along the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and this forward momentum factors into the vector of anything that we move. The result is that we can only move objects in our future direction, which is actually our fourth dimension of space, and not in our past direction.

To basically review the nub of the theory, there must be at least four dimensions of space and matter is not composed of the particles that we perceive but of very long strings and bundles of strings. Our bodies and brains are composed of such bundles of strings and our consciousness can be at only one place at a time along the strings, this place is what we perceive as the present. There is really no such thing as the speed of light, it is the rate at which our consciousness moves along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains. This causes us to perceive the speed of light as the maximum possible speed and to experience three of the dimensions as space, and the other as time.

The point at which our consciousness is positioned in it's progress, what we perceive as the present, is the only point at which we can move things in our three dimensions of space. We cannot detect it, but we are literally rushing into the future at what we perceive as the speed of light, which is why we perceive this as the maximum possible speed. Whenever we move an object, this movement in the dimension of space that we perceive as time becomes a part of the vector of motion. Since it is so fast, it is far and away the largest component of the motion vector.

The result is that whenever we move something in what we perceive as our three dimensions of space, we are moving it only in our future dimension. Thus, it is impossible for us to affect anything in our past dimension and when we remove a spacecraft from the crater it has made, the crater remains because the spacecraft is still there and holding the crater walls in place in the past dimension.

Suppose you were to reach out of the window of a speeding train and push something. If the train is moving at least as fast as you can move your hand, it will be impossible for you to push an object in the direction from which the train has come. The train represents the movement forward of our consciousness in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. The pushing against the outside object represents anything we do as far as moving things.

The scenario is logical enough so far. But today, I would like to make it more complicated (and interesting) by introducing a living thing. Suppose that there were plants on the moon and when the spacecraft impacted the moon in the future dimension, before being called back to earth, it killed a plant.

In the scenario that we have so far, the sides of the impact crater made by the moon in the future dimension snap back into place when the spacecraft is recalled to earth and so does not actually land on the moon, at least in our perspective. But the dead plant, crushed under the spacecraft, cannot snap back to life. Once a living thing is dead, that is the end of it.

So, when out consciousness reaches a point adjacent to the point of spacecraft landing, in the dimension that we perceive as time, we should see a suddenly and mysteriously dead plant if we had a powerful enough telescope. Yet, of course, we wouldn't.

How can we possibly resolve this?

The present in time of all living things on earth must be coordinated. There is no other way to explain the observed reality of the interaction of living things. All of our consciousnesses must be at the same place in time, all the time.

When I first came up with this theory, I wondered if one person could be in their present, but interacting with another person who might be in what they perceive as their past or future. But I decided that the consciousness, and the present, of all living things must be the same. When a mother gives birth to a child, it is impossible for their consciousnesses not to be coordinated. The baby could not be either in it's own future or past at that point.

This means that the future is lifeless, at least in our present. There is nothing alive on earth even one second in the future, from the perspective of our consciousness. The atoms composing living things are scattered all over in the future dimension and come into our bodies when we breathe and eat, and disperse when we die. The spacecraft which actually impacts the moon in our future dimension, as soon as it is launched directly at the moon, cannot kill the plant because the plant is not yet alive in the future. By the time the plant is alive in the future of the spot where it is located, the spacecraft in the future dimension will no longer be there. Therefore, it cannot kill the plant.

This scenario is only the case for objects given momentum in a straight line, which continues to the surface of some planet or moon. It does not apply to moons or planets in orbits, because those are in elliptical paths, and not straight lines.

In scenarios of this type, unseen dimensions of a moving object such as a spacecraft always extend to the future, never to the past. This is because we may have launched a spacecraft or an asteroid may be moving toward us from the past, but not from the future. As pointed out in this series, we can always move things laterally and in the future dimension because that is the way our consciousness is moving.

It is impossible for us to launch an object into our past because the movement, and thus momentum, of our consciousness is toward the direction in space that we perceive as the future. If you can push objects suspended in the air laterally from the open window of a train, you can push the object in the direction that the train is moving, but not in the opposite direction.