The Death of the Sun
J.R. Silva Bittencourt
The Death of the Sun The image of the Sun that we see shining through the day (not the Sun itself) would be receding in the time that separates us from the true star, assigning it a negative nature. This is a characteristic of any projection. For example, the movie you watch on the screen in one of these rooms is in the past, in relation to when the light leaves the projector, even if it is impossible to measure that time frame separately. You might think that the example is not applicable to the observation of the images of distant galaxies, for the speed assumed by the light in the vacuum would create different access limitations. At the level of our subjective interpretation, however, the images will be forming by remote tracking in both cases, without depending on the distances involved. In this information tracking process we will no longer be able to measure any time interval that might have existed before this information was made available. Infinitudes have become equal on all levels of matter, because they can not be scaled out of time. The situation is not much different in the case of the Sun and the light it emits. Radiation will provide the raw material to be used by our brain in the formation of images, and when we can have a sense
of its existence, the dark matter of the Sun will be occupying any other place, forever placed in the "future". As you look at the movie screen you have the exact notion that there is a projector hidden in the room to your rear, separated in time from the very images it projects. In both the sun and the projector, the time retained during the light shift has the same meaning, since the separation would not depend on the distance module. Our notion of time is in some way linked to our sensoriality, for it manifests itself instantaneously from the input of information. In this case, we will be alone taking the place of the projector in the cinema, which will put us in the center of what is being observed. The images of the galaxies move away in the negative sense of time, just as an image is observed in a mirror, as we retreat in the direction of the present. If there is no time that can be measured before the scattering of light and radiation as a whole, why should we not think of the possibility that two isolated observers might be induced to think that they would see the same thing from the same moment of time? In short, we could say that the Sun and any other stars will not be in the future, in relation to the position we occupy physically in space. But they will
be in the future in relation to the moment when we become aware that they exist through their images. If the sun failed to shine this instant, you would not notice anything different happening before eight minutes passed. Until then, the image of the Sun would continue to dazzle us in the sky in an unrealistic way, or just from our point of view. The explanation for the phenomenon, given by astronomy and already mentioned above, is that we are outside the cone of light of the future of the Sun. Therefore, we think it is quite appropriate to say that within this cone time does not exist. Nor will we make any slip if we say that if it exists, we will never have an experimental method that will allow us to measure it directly. The official statement related to this cone of light implies that at the level of electromagnetic radiation all emitting bodies (including ourselves) are at the apex of their respective cone of light or "in the center". When this happens to the Sun, the contraction and consequent "stretching" of the net of space around it, theoretically brought about by its mass, would be putting Earth out of the cone of light of the star's future, virtually in another dimension of time. Therefore, at this moment we would not have been able to observe it directly. It's incredible, but
even though we're together with the Sun in the present, we record it as if our position was in the past! This stems from the observation that the formation of its cone of light is prior to the input of the information, so it receives the appropriate designation of "light cone of the future�. What is worse is that we are not normally aware of this, for we think that the image we see during the day is the Sun itself, and in this reversal of expectations we naturally conclude that it is in the past, for it is only in that sense of the arrow of time that the information can be traced. The error of evaluation is created by our natural deduction that the light of the Sun moves in space within our own cone of light of the past, which is a physical impossibility. If so, there would be no cone of light from the future of the Sun or any other star, generating uncertainty in their real positions. As an observer on the surface of the Earth you will be "simultaneously" occupying your own place in the virtual center, seeing the image of the Sun now projected in the past and occupying the only focus of the ellipse, created in time by the planet's orbit. The instantaneous observation of the universe's entire past, which would be extrapolated to the celestial vault by the projection of information, is justified by the
exclusion of the total time module that would have been expended by the light to "move" inside the cone of the future of the stars. The more modern view, introduced by Einstein's gravity, allows us to speculate that the motion of light in the vacuum could be only apparent, since it would have been accommodating itself to an earlier alteration in the very geometry of space (quantized field) with its generating inertia without depending on the influence of the masses. "The circles represent a particular case of ellipse in which the two foci coincide". (Tipler, Paul Allan - Physics for scientists and engineers, Ed LTC, Rio de Janeiro, 2006, p.389). The problem with an elliptical orbit in which the foci coincided was that the velocity and acceleration of a planet would be constant in magnitude over time, and there would be no known movements of approach and distance from the Sun, that would always occupy the only focus of this ellipse. I am tempted to think that this would give the circle the condition of being the end result of a time-lagged interpretive process. This is an effect similar to that which would be caused by a stone being thrown on the surface of a lake of calm waters, for the waves would form concentric circles on its two-dimensional surface, all moving with the same speed. In the case of electromagnetic radiation, since there is no polarization
between the waves, its use to describe the movement of a distant source, as in the case of a star, would lose its meaning. The sun which, with properly protected eyes, we can see shining in the sky at any moment of the day, must be an image, although the truth remains there. The visible companion of the star is putting us in the past, at the level of the senses, through the radiation that would have been "emitted" by the true Sun and which, due to its limited speed, would have been retained for 8 minutes. However, within the cone of sunlight the time can not be measured directly. It is deduced, logically, that light would need these 8 minutes to travel the 150 million kilometers that separate us from our star, because light has a fixed and limited speed at 300,000 km / s. This assessment depends on the remote tracking of sunlight, or the attitude of following the light "after" it reaches us. Would the speed of light still be sustained without the existence of conscious life? Was this speed the result of a real package, which was being opened out of its own time? Usually we extrapolate these velocity values toward the future or into the cones of light of events, as if the future were an inverse image of our own past. The truth is that, to our point of view, light has always been at our disposal on Earth, which suggests that its velocity would be somehow involved with the actuation of our memory: for us there is only what can be remembered. Let's try to make this idea clearer.
Sunlight seems to "settle" within its cone of light of the future to a curvature of space that is not part of our physical reality, even if it results from our impotence to directly measure time, in that region of space at around the star. We might think that the two sides of the same coin, coined on the "inside" and "outside" of space-time, are symmetrical as are usually the images reflected in a mirror, but we will not be able to prove it in practice. In this way, we usually judge that the time that would have been retained within the cone of sunlight would correspond to the same 8 minutes, which we can measure after its light has reached our position. But there seems to be a fundamental difference in behavior between the real and the observed, since time has been added to the other two dimensions of space only after the inversion in the direction of its arrow. That is, after it would have come to point apparently to our own past. The light cone of the Sun's future would only gain depth if the waves overlapped "over time". As there can be no assurance that time exists in the future, one could not count on the existence of real motion for light in that sense of the arrow of time. As a consequence, there would be no waves within the cones of light of events, for they depend on motion. This is in line with Einstein's assertion that light, when traversing the vacuum, would use its corpuscular and not wave-like appearance. I am led to think that the third dimension of space is even time (on which the depth of the cone depends), for outside its direct register the movement virtually
disappears. The depth and all other dimensions that you can assign to space are secondary, and their existences are placed in dependence on the input of information, which is what allows us to define the continuous flow of time. Santa Maria, RS, Brazil, 02/22/2018.