**VERIFICATION**

**1. Absolute reference frame**

Motion is the quantum propagation of information through the static space elements grid. So there is an absolute frame of reference, the quantum space grid.

Since this absolute frame of reference is invisible, one consequence of its existence would be an additional invisible velocity vector in the visible relative motion of bodies. An example would be an undefined velocity vector relating to the motion of our planet through space.

Special and General Relativity account for all known relative information between two massive entities allowing for accurate measurement of the gravitational force.

If it can be experimentally confirmed that the force of gravity is actually measured to fluctuate relative to Earth's rotations through space, this would indicate the existence of an undefined reference frame.

Fluctuations should be aligned with Earth’s cycles. All the following conditions should be confirmed as periodic gravitational fluctuations:

- Earth’s rotation around its axis
- Earth’s rotation around the Sun
- Axis rotations relating to both the above

It is imperative that all the above conditions should be verified if indication of the grid’s existence is to be substantiated.

Solar rotation around the galaxy would also account for gravitational influence, yet the time frame does not allow for conclusive results. Depending on the measurements’ accuracy, galactic rotation may be ignored.

If measurements of the gravitational constant G can be accurate enough, and if they can indicate such periodic fluctuations outside the margin of error of instrumentation, then this would account as an

*indication of validity*for the Quantum Space Elements proposal.

If indication of validity is observed, then more elaborate experiments could be performed using existing accelerators. Measuring gravity fluctuations around the ring, and throughout the acceleration curve, would perhaps provide more than just an indication of validity.

*Note*:

In QSE terms, the Earth's motion through the grid translates into different CT states, according to Fig.5 of the quantum relativity section. Those states are unaccounted for by the traditional methods used to calculate the value of G, since the absolute reference frame is ignored. According to QSE, Earth's orbits in space can be described as points moving in parallel along the

*Conscious and Absolute Time Lines*on the above mentioned figure and in an eternal cycle.

The diagram below demonstrates this in a somehow exaggerated version for the sake of clarity. In reality the displacements within the curves are almost undetectable, since the orbital velocity of planets is incomparable to light speed and therefore to the frequency of the universe. The CT differential is very small at those speeds, but not zero. Accurate experimentation techniques should be able to verify those unaccounted for fluctuations of CT as fluctuations of the gravitational constant G aligned with our planet's orbital cycles.

**2. Time Geometry (quantized time)**

According to the discussion in the quantum relativity section, the necessary transition time between any two events occurring in the universe (ΔΤ) manifests itself at velocities close to the speed of light. This is because only at this speed CT diminishes and becomes comparable to ΔΤ. When those two dimensions of time (ΔΤ & CT) get to be of similar order of magnitude, then the apparent linearity of events (the continuous flow of events) should break down. Experimentally observing events materializing at such special conditions should produce a non-continuous flow.

More specifically, an experiment measuring the actual speed of accelerating particles (the actual distance travelled over time and not the inferred speed through energy gained), would at some point observe further acceleration in quantized steps as opposed to a continuous flow asymptotic to light speed. Such an observation would produce evidence of quantized time and ΔΤ; the undetected dimension of time.

What is being suggested is that the particle's energy is not linearly related to its speed. Energy is stored within the particle before it is translated into speed in quantized steps. These steps are detectable only at relativistic speed, which means only at the special condition of events materializing at a frequency that is fast enough to be comparable to the frequency of the universe.

Executing this experiment would require a dense grid of observations each at different values of energy gained plotted against actual speed. If an even increase of energy gained is observed to produce an uneven acceleration curve, this should be attributed to quantized time.

Since ΔΤ is of unknown magnitude it is not possible to estimate the speed above which ΔΤ would become detectable. Most certainly this will be very close to the speed of light. The diagram below is indicative and may exaggerate the effect of ΔΤ in the motion of particles and at speeds that can be experimentally achieved. Depending on the density of the observational grid and on the accuracy of the experiment, ΔΤ should be detectable within the current limits of accelerators.

It is redshift that holds the key to verifying retardation. Time-flow rate is invisible and so it cannot be observed directly. It must be mathematically inferred by the following process:

If those distorted images of distant galaxies were mathematically reconstructed by use of time variables (instead of space or energy variables), then perhaps galaxies would have to rotate faster in the distant past. Every periodic event would have to be accelerated. Cosmic constants would become time-dependent.

It is understood that even if proposed time deterioration is mathematically coherent, this would still be just an indication; an alternative solution bound by its own assumed conditions. However, this indication would be a good place to start.

**3. Retardation**It is redshift that holds the key to verifying retardation. Time-flow rate is invisible and so it cannot be observed directly. It must be mathematically inferred by the following process:

*Observation:*The current observational evidence available is cosmological redshift.*Interpretation:*In 1929 science was more than ready (and perhaps eager) to accept the solution of expanding space. Observations indicating expanding space were aligned with theoretical necessity. There was little room for second thought. It is now 2017 and for the purpose of this discussion space is to be treated as a constant. The convenience of expanding space must be abandoned.*Reconstruction:*All available images of old (distant) universe are distorted because of redshift. Standard models reconstruct those images by assuming expanding space. If this solution is abandoned, there aren’t many available options to use as variables. Energy dissipation (tired light) has already been unsuccessfully considered.If those distorted images of distant galaxies were mathematically reconstructed by use of time variables (instead of space or energy variables), then perhaps galaxies would have to rotate faster in the distant past. Every periodic event would have to be accelerated. Cosmic constants would become time-dependent.

It is understood that even if proposed time deterioration is mathematically coherent, this would still be just an indication; an alternative solution bound by its own assumed conditions. However, this indication would be a good place to start.

This theory is a private proposal by a non-physicist. For actual modern science please follow

*Wikipedia, Britannica**,*or other.This work is licensed under a

*Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.*Updated: December 10, 2017 - Track modifications