A HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF TEMPORAL DISPERSION INTO PARALLEL REALITIES Proven and/or Accepted Fundamentals: 1) Acceleration is not reversable, ie: there is no such thing as "negative    acceleration" 2) Time passes more slowly for objects undergoing acceleration than for    objects which aren't Conclusions arrived at: 1) Acceleration, by slowing the "rate" of time of the subject, effectively    moves that subject into the future more rapidly relative to others who    are not under acceleration 2) An application of "conservation of temporal continuity" would imply that    the projection into the future must be at the expense of portions of the    present. Like skipping pages in a book, some events are lost. 3) The reality in which those events do occur, and the    reality in which they are skipped, must necessarily differ, and therefore    they cannot be the same reality. The act of acceleration moves the subject    into the future of a different universe than that from which he started. 4) Since acceleration is irreversable, so are it's effects, so the transition    to the "alternate future" is permanent and irreversable. 5) The only way to experience the totality of reality is to exist in a state    of zero acceleration (zero-G). Acceleration, like time itself, is irreversable and monodirectional. Acceleration is "done bun, can't be undone". Any acceleration is permanent. "What about putting on the brakes? What about 'deceleration?'" That is only a directional or axial distinction, which has no bearing on time and force. When you "slow down" after accelerating North, you are in effect accelerating South. You're simply adding to your total acceleration, but in the opposite direction. Force has no respect for direction, otherwise the universe would be polar, and there would be "antigravity" (replusion of mass), and such abstracts as "negative energy" and "negative acceleration". When you push the gas pedal, you are pushed back in your seat, when you push the brake, you are pushed FORWARD in your seat. You feel the same force, but two opposite directions: assward and forward. Any change in direction ("delta- V") is acceleration. Thus, an orbit, whether gravitational/natural or artificial by way of rocket propulsion, constitutes a constant, ongoing acceleration. Linear acceleration and artificial orbits require energy expenditure. To break out of an artificial orbit needs only a cessation of energy expenditure because you're going from a constantly changing direction in uncurved space to a single unchanging direction. A "natural" orbit, however, requires an energy expenditure sufficient to counteract the acceleration of gravity, because of the curvature of space, which implies a change in direction (a "straigt line" in curved space is a circle.) However, if, (in space for a more frictionless example), you accelerate for a length of time, and then cease to accelerate, then you go from positive acceleration to zero acceleration (but NOT negative acceleration) and then become "zero-G" status. You have decreased the acceleration, from positive to zero, but you have not reversed the affects of the acceleration on your time-displacement. The confusion arises from acceleration being an exponential measurement, and not linear. In terms of dimensional analysis, accleration is measured in 1-d space divided by 2-d time (or, 1-d time squared). In terms of commonly used units of measure, acceleration is measured in (meters per second) per second, or (feet per second) per second. (I have supplied the parentheses to highlight the hierarchy (how poetic!)). If your velocity is constant, you are under zero acceleration because your speedometer is constant. If you are speeding up, your speedometer is moving toward the right, and acceleration is the amount of movement of the needle of the speedometer per unit of time (second, minute, hour). So if your speedometer goes from 80 mph to 90mph in 10 seconds, your acceleration is one mph per second (or 1.46 feet per second per second). So, in summary, you can decrease your rate of acceleration from positive to zero by simply "letting off the gas pedal", but you're figuratively stuck at "80 mph" forever. Your thrust expended to reach that speed is non-refundable. Only by "paying more" can you change that speed. You don't "gain it back" while braking, but rather expend more of it in order to change direction ("stop", "turn" or "reverse"). Linear acceleration and artificial orbits require energy expenditure. To break out of an artificial orbit needs only a cessation of energy expenditure because you're going from a constantly changing direction in uncurved space to a single unchanging direction. A "natural" orbit, however, requires an energy expenditure sufficient to counteract the acceleration of gravity, because of the curvature of space, which implies a change in direction (a "straigt line" in curved space is a circle.) Acceleration alters the experience of time, and in so doing, changes the identity of reality (the universe) itself. Now, having feebly attempted to explain what acceleration is, what are it's effects? Aside from the most common answer, which I've just explained is not totally accurate: "you go faster". Toss that one. Ok, the next most obvious: you "weigh" more, opposite whichever direction you are accelerating. Inertia, which is your own mass at rest, becomes "gravity" when your mass- direction or mass-speed is changing. Another not so commonly understood effect is that your time goes slower, proportional to your acceleration. This can get confusing, so let me try to clarify "slower", in terms of time, because it is somewhat counter-intuitive. To illustrate, I'll recruit a couple of reluctant "guinea-pigs". "A"braham is in a quite deep/severe "gravity well", and "B"eelzebub is in zero-g status. While Abraham's rate of time is "slower" than Beelzebub's, he is actually moving into the future faster than Beelzebub. His perception of Beelzebub's movements would appear "fast", and Beelzebub's perception of Abraham's would be "slow". f/e: Abraham's clock ticks only once for every ten ticks of Beelzebub's.   Now, is time "granular"? Or is it fluid? Since most aspects of the universe seem to be "granular", I will venture a risky conjecture that time is as well. In other words, time occurs in "frames", just like movies. In size, probably related to the Plank Length, or having to do with the speed of light. As you may have deduced, absolute zero-G would be the benchmark of time, because that is the "fastest that time can go". The slowest that time can go is not the speed of light, but the acceleration of light (C squared) The former corresponds to the fastest film available, and the latter to a still photograph. To embellish the analogy, consider two different shutter-speeds, or "sampling rates". Abraham's camera takes one frame per second, let's say. Beelzebub's takes 1000 frames per second. Since these "frames" are "reality" to the subjects, they will not know that there are gaps: the "time" between the frames. Consider the relative size of the gaps for Abraham vs Beelzebub. Abraham's gap is a whole second, while Beelzebub's is only a millisecond, a thousandth of a second. What for Abraham is a single gap between frames, one second, is for Beelzebub 1000 gaps. That means that 1000 "events" are taking place in Beelzebub's reality that aren't taking place in Abraham's. 1000 heartbeats, 1000 cesium atom vibrations, 1000 random quantum interferences. Hence my reference to temporal dispersion: Abraham, by definition, cannot be in the same continuum, the same reality, as Beelzebub, because things are happening in Beelzebub's timeline that aren't happening in Abraham's. Back to the film-camera analogy, think of the slow- frame camera: you could stick your hand in front of the camera for a half-second, then pull it back again, between shutter-cycles. Abraham would have no clue. If you did this in Beelzebub's continuum, he would very obviously see it. Now think of that "hand" as quantum fluctuations. Now think of "temporal dispersion" based on these "gaps" between the frames of our reality, and the effect that acceleration has on the rate of time, or the "frames per second" of our individual cameras. Each and every acceleration shifts us into an entirely different timeline because it alters the total quantity of events that transpire between two time-points of the subject versus everyone else. Zero-G is the highest frame- rate available, and acceleration of light (ouch!) is the lowest, and we are constantly moving between, but only very very minutely, in a very narrow range (as bio-units, we can't vary much) as we walk, stop, drive, stop, fly, stop, ride, stop, etc. As we accelerate, we push toward slower frame-speeds, and encounter increasing randomness and turbulence. Every instance of acceleration displaces us from our original reality into a different one, due to the contrast between our sampling rates. The projection into the future is at the cost of the "richness", or "density", or "robustness" of the present, because in doing so, you're "skipping over" a certain percentage of events that are taking place in the "slow version" (faster shutter-speed) of reality. Applied to subatomic components, this may be related to the particle/wave discrepancy. A component that is in orbit, like an electron, is undergoing constant acceleration as long as it is trapped in that orbit. Its direction is constantly changing, therefore its acceleration is a constant value. If the electron is knocked out of its orbit into a linear trajectory, or "beam", its acceleration drops to zero, and remains at zero until the electron changes direction for whatever reason (a magnetic field, for example, or re-capture by another nucleus). While in orbit, the electron is in "chunky" or "jumpy" time, large-sized ticks, lower resolution or larger "pixels" (tixels?). When it is flying straight, it is in "fluid", or "graceful" time, small-sized ticks, for finely-tuned, higher resolution, smaller tixels in larger numbers. And what's really going on in those gaps? We can not know unless we go to zero-G. They are "missing time", a ghostly interval inaccessible to our direct observation. Can these "hidden events" influence our universe, or is there some law that prevents them from doing so? And would it be theoretically possible to "interleave" two existences, that is, to run the same shutter-speed, but out of phase, such that both exist between each other without any influence one upon the other? (However, that would have to be a carefully calibrated and synchronized experiment, an artificial construct, because remember that any acceleration will "push" the subject into a different frequency, a "phase-shift", such that random instances, if allowed to occur, would eventually cause the two phases to match up and become "visible" and consistant with each other.)   Now, to address the experimental, or theoretically experimental aspect. The forefather of this was the astronaut's clock experiment, where they compared clocks after ex amount of days in zero-or-low-Gee, and the clocks showed a difference. Things happened in their reality that could not happen in ours, simply because they were in- between (our) frames. Therefore the astronauts shifted to a parallel "universe". The men who came down were not "exactly" the same who went up (I wonder if their wives and families noticed! "Buzz just hasn't been quite himself since he got back from that moon- trip") - we lost them in transit and exchanged them for others who shifted into our reality.   How can we know? How could we measure this phenomenon? How can you judge the rate of time without "uber-time"? Perhaps by using the baseline maximum of zero-gee. It is not so easy to attain zero-gee, due to astrophysical laws. Offhand, one might assume that any orbital object is in zero-gee. Is it? To change direction in space requires acceleration, a constant and regular delta-V. Without gravity, a circular pattern in space would require constant application of force. Then, an object in a gravitational well (orbit) is appears to be undergoing acceleration, but the appearance is, again, due to the curvature of space rendering a flat-space circle into a curved-space straightline. Interstellar, and intergallactic locations might prove closer to zero-gee, but I suspect that the only truly zero-gee place is in the center of the universe, the "singularity", the origin of the "big bang". Where is that? Has anyone ever tried to figure that out? Let's send a probe there and do some tests. (joke, joke OK?) My point is, we cannot escape acceleration, and we haven't figured out exactly how it is affecting us, (except when we fall off a friggin ladder!) "we can't accept escalation, and we can't escape acceleration". That is, although we know it is changing the nature of our experience of reality (by changing our sample-rate of time-frames), we do not know the full implications of what the effects are. What would it really be like to live your whole life at "absolute stillness"? Versus what it would be like to experience your entire life at the acceleration of light (whatever that is!) Can any qualitative analysis be applied, any "value judgement" as to which mode is preferable? In the latter, your experience would be almost static, but you would traverse the entire existance of the universe. In the former, your experience would be highly dynamic, at maximum depth, but your life-span would be shorter. As "earthlings", our setting is largely determined by the gravity of earth, or rather the acceleration of earth's gravity: 9.8 meters per second per second. Being biologically adapted to gravity, we cannot personally experience reality under zero- G for long durations, unless we were to genetically modify ourselves to be adapted for it. And I don't think any object other than subatomic components can withstand the acceleration of light.   A postscript regarding the acceleration of light: Possible factors would probably be the orbital configuration (diameter, speed) of the photon, which would yield its orbital acceleration, and the amount of time that transpires in its transition from orbital path to "free-ranging" path, presumably therefore zero acceleration. That would be the "delta- V" of light, which would be a whopper of a number since the orbital acceleration must be tremendous (very small orbital diameter very high speed of 186,200 miles per second), and the length of time in transition very short.