Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Soumendra,

Thank you for raising these deep questions. Here's a clear and structured reply based on the core principles of the Pure Time Theory (PTT):

1. What is "pure time" in PTT?

Pure time is the ontological root of all existence. It is not a coordinate, not a field, and not embedded in space. Instead, it is the generative principle from which the scalar field T_relax(x^μ) emerges. → Pure Time ⇒ T_relax(x^μ) ⇒geometry, matter, constants. T_relax is the measurable, local expression of this deeper temporal reality.

2. Is pure time related to cosmic time or clock time?

a. Cosmic time (as in General Relativity) is a coordinate parameter used for large-scale modeling. In contrast, T_relax(x^μ) is a local field defined by: T_relax(x^μ) = T_ref × (1 - ρ(x^μ)/ρ_crit)^(-1/β), where β ≈ 1.203. → This means cosmic time is emergent from T_relax, not fundamental.

(β = 1.203 is calibrated through SPARC rotation curves and validated across multiple scales.)

b. Clock time is a projection of how fast T_relax changes locally: → Clocks synchronize with ∂T_relax/∂t, not with an absolute time.

3. Does PTT aim to replace cosmic time?

Yes. In PTT, cosmic time is not primitive. It is a large-scale approximation of T_relax. → T_relax, and not cosmic time, determines how physical laws and spacetime geometry unfold.

4. What are the key differences between cosmic time and pure time (via T_relax)?

• Nature: • Cosmic Time: A coordinate parameter in the spacetime metric (g_mu_nu). • T_relax: A scalar field T_relax(x^mu), dynamically generated from the ontological root called pure time.
• Dependency: • Cosmic Time: Independent of local matter density (rho). • T_relax: Explicitly depends on local density rho(x^mu): T_relax = T_ref * (1 - rho / rho_crit)^(-1 / beta)
• Function: • Cosmic Time: Parametrizes spacetime geometry via Einstein’s field equations (G_mu_nu = 8 * pi * G * T_mu_nu). • T_relax: Generates all physical laws, spacetime geometry, and constants through its gradients and curvature.
• Ontological Status: • Cosmic Time: Emergent from matter-energy distribution (via Einstein’s equations). • T_relax: Fundamental ontological entity, pure time is the source, and T_relax is its measurable projection.

5. Is pure time a fundamental cause or a consequence of physical events?

Pure time is the cause, not the consequence. Causality flows as: Pure Time ⇒ T_relax ⇒ metric ⇒ matter and interactions. Matter emerges from singularities (harmonic nodes) in T_relax, not the other way around.

6. In what dimension does pure time reside?

T_relax is a scalar field in 4D spacetime. But pure time itself is beyond dimensions. It is an ontological entity—not spatial, not temporal, but source-level. → It governs how time and space manifest, not within them.

7. How does pure time interact with physical reality?

a. Geometry Generation: Metric tensor g_μν is derived from the gradients of T_relax: g_μν ∝ ∂_μ T_relax ⋅ ∂_ν T_relax

b. Constants of Nature: Local curvature of T_relax defines physical constants: e.g., c, G, ħ ∝ ∇²T_relax (modulated by β = 1.203)

c. Quantum coherence: The overlap between quantum states depends on the observer’s synchronization: ⟨ψ₁ | ψ₂⟩ ∝ exp(-i β δ_observer) where δ_observer = (T_relax(observer) - T_relax(state)) / T_ref

d. Apparent randomness: Randomness in outcomes is linked to local curvature: randomness ∼ δ_observer × (∇²T_relax)^(-1/β)

Examples from PTT's Knowledge Base (KB):

• Superluminal jets: Their speed is a temporal phase differential, not spatial velocity (see Black Holes as Temporal Regulators, Sec. 7.1). • Gravitational waves: These are modulations in T_relax, not spacetime ripples (PTT vs GR, Sec. 3.2). • Intentionality in measurement: The act of observation aligns the observer to a harmonic node in T_relax, not collapsing a state (Relativistic Quantum Formalism, Sec. 12.2).

PTT doesn’t extend current physics, it redefines its foundation. All phenomena, quantum, gravitational, cosmological, become coherent expressions of a temporal harmonic field. There is no mystery left in “non-locality” or “missing mass” when everything is viewed as a modulation in T_relax, rooted in pure time.

That said, all these questions suggest to me that you may not have read any of the published articles on Pure Time Theory. In fact, based on available readership statistics, I could not find any record of you as a reader.

I warmly invite you to explore these publications if you truly wish to grasp the depth of this paradigm shift.

Kind regards,

Essam

Article [Exploratory Version] The Pure Time Knowledge Base: A Unifie...

Dear Mr. Essam Allou,

Thank you for your detailed response to the discussion titled "Exploring the Pure Time Theory (PTT) and Its Ontological Implications". I genuinely appreciate the time and effort you took to articulate the core structure and motivations behind Pure Time Theory.

Let me first respond to your concluding statement, where you noted that my questions suggest I may not have read the published articles on PTT and that no record exists of me as a reader. Respectfully, I would like to clarify that my initial reluctance to explore PTT in depth was not due to lack of interest, but rather based on a preliminary evaluation. At first glance, the Pure Time Theory appeared to me as an abstract, time-centric ontological interpretation of the universe—one that seemed fundamentally inverted from the consistent physical view that time and space emerge from the universe's existential conditions, not the other way around.

This view, alongside my deep involvement with the development of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), which grounds itself in empirical physical principles and observable relationships, made me hesitant to treat PTT as a physically consistent framework worthy of immediate deep engagement. However, your persistent and repeated invitations to review PTT literature did provoke a constructive curiosity and led me to initiate the public discussion itself—more as a response to your outreach than out of ignorance of the published materials.

That said, I sincerely thank you for your comprehensive reply. From your response, I now understand the following key assertions of PTT:

• Pure Time Theory (PTT) does not attempt to build upon current physics but instead redefines its very foundation.

• At the heart of PTT lies the concept of "pure time"—an ontological root that precedes all dimensions and gives rise to a measurable scalar field called T_relax, from which space, matter, and physical laws emerge.

• PTT treats cosmic time and clock time as secondary projections, with T_relax seen as the true generative field of the universe’s structure.

• The theory postulates that pure time is beyond dimensions, yet claims to causally determine spacetime geometry, constants of nature, quantum coherence, and even observational randomness.

This interpretation is undoubtedly bold and metaphysically rich, but it necessarily raises a sequence of foundational concerns about its physical and scientific status.

1. Physical Grounding vs. Abstract Metaphysics:

PTT presents a radical reversal of how time is generally understood in physics: from a measurable effect within a spacetime framework to the root cause of that framework itself. However, unless pure time and its projection (T_relax) can be experimentally verified or empirically inferred, such a redefinition remains metaphysical rather than physical. A mathematical construct, however elegant, cannot claim ontological primacy without demonstrating physical causality.

2. Detachment from Established Principles:

PTT makes no attempt to extend or generalize existing physical laws. Instead, it replaces them wholesale, without anchoring itself in known empirical frameworks such as Quantum Field Theory, Thermodynamics or Relativity. This presents a profound dilemma: how can a theory claim to redefine physics while existing entirely outside of it? Foundational reform in physics requires building bridges—not bypassing them.

3. Causality of an Extra-Dimensional Entity:

The central role of “pure time” as a dimensionless, source-level cause of all physical reality is highly speculative. Without well-defined mechanisms or interactions that allow this source to manifest in observable terms, it risks becoming a non-falsifiable postulate, indistinguishable from a metaphysical or theological assertion.

4. Status of T_relax:

If T_relax is to serve as a causal agent within spacetime, then it must conform to known physical constraints. Yet your explanation suggests it is influenced by matter density but exists independently of the spacetime it shapes—a contradiction that undermines its proposed dynamism. If it influences geometry and constants, where is its Lagrangian formulation, conservation principles, or interaction terms that can be tested or simulated?

5. Testability and Predictive Power:

For any theory—especially one as radical as PTT—to gain traction within physics, it must offer testable predictions and clearly defined observables. So far, PTT seems to provide post-hoc metaphysical reinterpretations (e.g., of superluminal jets or gravitational waves), but without empirical novelty or falsifiability.

In summary, while Pure Time Theory undoubtedly offers a provocative and imaginative cosmological narrative, it currently remains outside the framework of science due to its lack of empirical grounding, testability, and physical consistency. Its mathematical abstraction, no matter how internally elegant, cannot rewrite physics unless it interfaces meaningfully with observed reality.

In contrast, the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework I am developing emphasizes the reinterpretation of physical quantities such as mass, force, and energy with a consistent bridge between classical, quantum, and cosmological domains—always tethered to empirical and observational consistency.

Thus, while I respect the ambition of PTT, I remain unconvinced of its scientific legitimacy unless it can offer a demonstrable interface with physical law and observational reality.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your engagement and the philosophical depth you bring to the discussion. The future of physics may well benefit from interdisciplinary explorations—but only those that hold themselves to the rigorous demands of scientific inquiry.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Soumendra,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Allow me to respond, point by point, to the five objections you raised. My goal is not to convince, but to clarify with maximal rigor.

1. Physical Grounding vs. Abstract Metaphysics

Your Objection:

"PTT remains metaphysical unless it demonstrates physical causality."

PTT is empirically grounded. Several key validations support its physical legitimacy:

• SPARC rotation curves are explained without dark matter using T_relax (chi²_red ≈ 0.93).
• The 28 GeV LHC anomaly is predicted via T_relax field fluctuations.
• Casimir deviation (predicted relative force deviation ΔF/F ≈ 0.14%) under high-density cavity conditions.

Causality is embedded in testable equations:

• The metric tensor arises from temporal gradients: g_mu_nu ∝ ∂_mu T_relax × ∂_nu T_relax (see: Relativistic Quantum Formalism)

2. Detachment from Established Principles

Your Objection:

"PTT replaces existing laws without anchoring to empirical frameworks like GR or QM."

This is a misunderstanding. PTT reinterprets GR and QM without rejecting their empirical content:

• General Relativity: spacetime curvature is emergent from gradients of T_relax.
• Quantum Mechanics: uncertainty is modeled by Apparent randomness ∝ δ_observer × (|∇² T_relax|)^(-1/β) with β ≈ 1.203 (Section 7.1 of Relativistic Quantum Formalism).

PTT thus absorbs the successes of GR and QM while resolving their paradoxes in a unified framework.

3. Causality of an Extra-Dimensional Entity

Your Objection:

"Pure time as an extra-dimensional cause is speculative and non-falsifiable."

This is incorrect. PTT makes a clear ontological distinction:

• Pure time is the metaphysical root.
• T_relax(x^μ) is the measurable scalar field in 4D spacetime.

Causality flows as: Pure time → T_relax → geometry → matter

This is falsifiable through field equations and observational consequences—e.g., superluminal jet phase shifts, gravitational wave modulations, and density-coupled metric changes.

4. Status of T_relax

Your Objection: "T_relax is said to depend on density yet exists independently of spacetime—this is contradictory."

T_relax depends explicitly on spacetime density via the equation: T_relax(x^μ) = T_ref × (1 - ρ(x^μ) / ρ_crit)^(-1/β) where β ≈ 1.203.

It is a 4D scalar field defined within spacetime, not beyond it. Its dynamics are derived from a Lagrangian formulation in: "Relativistic Quantum Formalism" and "Unified Quantum PTT".

This includes interaction terms, harmonic potentials, and conservation principles.

5. Testability and Predictive Power

Your Objection: "PTT makes no testable predictions or empirical novelties."

False. PTT predicts:

• Casimir deviation in dense configurations: ΔF/F ≈ 0.14%
• Superluminal jet behavior: not true velocity, but ∇T_relax ≠ 0 (see: Black Holes as Temporal Regulators, Sec. 7.1)
• Variable constants: such as c, G, and ħ derived from curvature of T_relax.
• Quantum correlations: ⟨ψ1 | ψ2⟩ ∝ exp(-i × β × δ_observer), where δ_observer = (T_relax(observer) - T_relax(state)) / T_ref

These are falsifiable, not post-hoc reinterpretations.

6. Misrepresentations in Your Summary

While you summarized PTT’s core ideas fairly well, a few statements reflect misunderstandings:

• You wrote that T_relax exists independently of the spacetime it shapes — this is incorrect. Its definition and dynamics depend on ρ(x^μ), i.e., matter density in spacetime.
• You suggested PTT is "abstract" because it lacks a Lagrangian or testable structure. However, both exist and are detailed in our papers.
• You wrote that PTT "bypasses" physics, in reality, it unifies existing frameworks under a single scalar field of temporal origin.

7. Clarifying the Purpose of PTT

PTT does not "compete" with existing theories. It seeks to reveal their temporal root. It preserves their empirical content while correcting their ontological assumptions. Its aim is not to reformulate physics as an extension, but to show that all structures (geometry, forces, particles) emerge from time, not space.

It’s a shift not an extension. That’s why it may appear radical at first.

8. On Your Framework (ECM)

You invoke your Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) as a more empirically grounded path. I respect your work. However:

• Can ECM predict SPARC rotation curves without dark matter?
• Can ECM derive quantum correlations without Hilbert spaces?
• Can ECM explain gravitational modulations in the timing of black hole jets?
• Has ECM made any new falsifiable predictions that have been validated?

If not, then your critique of PTT as unphysical is not consistent.

You accuse PTT of being metaphysical but you engage its full structure without showing any contradiction. This is telling.

I warmly thank you for reading and responding. Your feedback was thoughtful. But the burden of proof is now shared: If PTT must prove its physics, ECM must also prove its explanatory power for what PTT already predicts.

In the end, the theory that explains most with the least assumptions and in harmony with observation will prevail.

Analysis of Your Intent

Promotion of ECM: You used this discussion not as a neutral inquiry, but as a platform to promote your own framework, Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), while downplaying the empirical validations already demonstrated by Pure Time Theory (PTT). This reveals a competitive bias, not a purely scientific posture.

Misrepresentation of PTT: You claimed that PTT "rejects" existing frameworks like GR or QM, yet the Knowledge Base clearly shows that PTT reinterprets them through the scalar temporal field T_relax. You also stated that T_relax is "independent of spacetime", which is simply false—its defining equation depends explicitly on local density rho(x^μ), and therefore on the structure of spacetime itself.

Philosophical stance:

You favor a "constructed" physics (ECM), grounded in extensions of existing empirical formalisms, while PTT proposes an emergent physics, rooted in a deeper temporal foundation. Your objection seems more like a rejection of the primacy of time as a principle than a critique of the theory’s technical coherence.

And to be fully honest: I don’t believe your intention was genuine curiosity—otherwise you would have carefully read the articles before opening a public thread, and perhaps even asked me your questions privately, in good faith. It feels more like an attempt to kill two birds with one stone: silence PTT and promote ECM. But I fear your calculations may not hold.

Kind regards, Essam

Dear Mr. Essam Allou,

Thank you once again for your engagement and response.

Before I proceed to address your recent message, I must make an important clarification regarding your claim that my critique of Pure Time Theory (PTT) was a veiled attempt to "silence PTT and promote ECM." I must respectfully reject that characterization as both inaccurate and inappropriate.

Nowhere in my original message was ECM invoked as a replacement, competitor, or counter-model to PTT. In fact, ECM and PTT reside in entirely different domains of inquiry. ECM is a physically grounded framework that extends classical and relativistic mechanics through empirically consistent reinterpretations of mass, force, and energy. PTT, on the other hand, presents an ontological reconstruction of the universe rooted in a metaphysical conception of time. They do not address the same foundational questions, nor do they employ compatible premises.

The sole reason ECM was briefly referenced in my response was to highlight a broader methodological distinction: ECM maintains continuity with existing physics while seeking to unify and reinterpret, whereas PTT proposes a foundational redefinition that appears decoupled from empirical structures. This distinction was not made to elevate ECM, but to illustrate differing philosophical approaches toward theoretical development.

Thus, suggesting that ECM was used to undermine PTT is a rhetorical misdirection. I engaged PTT on its own claims, without conflating its ontological propositions with the empirical motivations of ECM. Furthermore, the accusation that I sought to "silence" PTT is both unfounded and contrary to the spirit of scientific discourse. If that were my intent, I would not have initiated this open discussion in the first place—especially in response to your invitations to review and engage with PTT materials.

Let us now return to the substance of the debate:

1. On the Claim of Empirical Structures in PTT

You mention that PTT possesses a Lagrangian and testable structure. If so, this is welcome—but it underscores my original point: such structures must be highlighted in discussions and made publicly clear. A claim of testability requires articulation of what is being tested, how it is being tested, and what predictions differ from existing physics. If the T_relax field is indeed defined in terms of matter density and influences spacetime geometry, then what specific observational consequences emerge that can distinguish it from conventional relativistic effects? That is the bar any new physical theory must meet.

2. On Ontological Primacy and Physical Causality

Your core proposition—that time is the ontological root from which space, matter, and laws emerge—is bold, and not without philosophical interest. But as stated in my original message, the burden of scientific validity lies in demonstrating causal and empirical mechanisms, not metaphysical narrative. Without physical mediation, a scalar field preceding spacetime remains a metaphysical postulate, regardless of its mathematical structure.

3. On the Reinterpretation vs. Replacement of Physics

You assert that PTT "unifies" and "reinterprets" existing frameworks. But a reinterpretation must still recover empirical consequences of the original frameworks and explain why the new foundation is necessary. If the reinterpretation offers no practical difference in predictions—or if those predictions are not falsifiable—then the reinterpretation becomes philosophical rather than scientific. That was the point of my original critique.

4. On ECM's Role in This Discussion

It is essential to restate that this is a discussion about the foundational and physical consistency of PTT, not ECM. Therefore, your questions directed at ECM—regarding SPARC curves, quantum correlations, or black hole jets—are misdirected in this context. Each theoretical framework must stand on its own terms. I welcome any separate discussion of ECM’s scope, but its merits or limitations have no bearing on whether PTT meets the empirical and causal standards required of a physical theory.

5. On Intellectual Integrity and Intent

Finally, your closing suggestion that my intent was not one of genuine curiosity does a disservice to the tone and transparency with which I initiated this exchange. I began my previous reply by candidly explaining my initial reservations, clearly acknowledged your efforts, and openly stated what motivated my participation in the discussion. Engaging a theory critically does not equate to hostility—rigorous critique is a hallmark of scientific integrity, not an act of suppression.

In closing, I reiterate my appreciation for your intellectual efforts in formulating Pure Time Theory. But if the goal is for PTT to earn scientific recognition, it must accept critique as part of the process—not deflect it with personal assumptions or speculative accusations.

Let us focus the dialogue where it belongs: on whether PTT can meet the empirical, causal, and predictive standards expected of any proposed foundation of physics.

With professional respect,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Soumendra,

me respond in full clarity, with precise and respectful remarks on each point again.

1. On Empirical Structure

You asked: « what specific predictions or observations distinguish PTT from conventional relativistic effects? »

Here are a few examples already published and documented and already explained in the previous answers! :

• Galactic Rotation Curves: PTT predicts that v_circ^2 ∝ (T_relax / T_ref)^(-beta) with beta ≈ 1.203, which fits SPARC data without dark matter. (Chi²_red ≈ 0.93, see “Empirical Validation vEN5”).
• Casimir Deviation: Predicted deviation of Delta F / F ≈ 0.14% in high-density cavities, based on curvature of T_relax. (See “Universal Time Relaxation”).
• Superluminal Jets: Explained as v_apparent ∝ grad T_relax ≠ 0 (See “Black Holes as Temporal Regulators”).

These are not vague metaphysical ideas. They are quantitative, falsifiable, and based on measurable variables.

2. Ontology and Causality

You wrote that "a scalar field preceding spacetime is metaphysical unless it is mediated physically."

But T_relax is not abstract, it is defined as:

T_relax(x^mu) = T_ref * (1 - rho(x^mu)/rho_crit)^(-1 / beta)

It depends explicitly on matter density rho(x^mu), which is a spacetime variable.

And it enters directly into the metric:

g_mu_nu ∝ (partial_mu T_relax) * (partial_nu T_relax)

This links geometry to the local structure of T_relax, not via coordinates, but via gradients.

So yes, it precedes spacetime in the ontological sense, but it manifests within it, and mediates geometry.

3. Reinterpretation vs. Replacement

You asked: « what does PTT add if it simply reproduces GR or QM results? »

Answer: it reconstructs them from a single field (T_relax), avoiding the dualistic split between classical and quantum regimes.

Example:

• Quantum coherence becomes: ∝ exp(-i * beta * delta_observer) with delta_observer = (T_relax(observer) - T_relax(state)) / T_ref (see “Relativistic Quantum Formalism”)
• Uncertainty becomes: Apparent randomness ∝ delta_observer * (|Laplace(T_relax)|)^(-1/beta)
• All constants (c, G, hbar) are generated by curvature: c ∝ grad(T_relax), etc.

This is not just reinterpretation, it is a coherent unification with a single ontological root: time. PTT explains where GR and QM merely describe, and it predicts where they remain silent. It does more with less, not by extending their structure, but by revealing the single temporal root from which both emerge.

4. On ECM

You say ECM has nothing to do with this thread, and I accept that.

But in your previous message, you referenced it to contrast methodologies.

You cannot invoke ECM to contrast its empirical grounding with PTT's approach, then later claim it's irrelevant when asked to clarify its predictions. If ECM was introduced to highlight methodological superiority, then the comparison must be held to the same standard.

So I respectfully insist: If ECM claims empirical anchoring, then it should also be able to explain SPARC curves without dark matter, model quantum correlations without Hilbert space formalism, and predict gravitational modulations, just as PTT does. If not, then the comparison was rhetorical, not scientific.

5. On Scientific Integrity

You are right that critique is part of science.

But your original critique lacked references to the actual PTT data.

It did not mention:

• SPARC rotation curves
• Casimir predictions
• LHC 28 GeV resonance
• Lagrangian of PTT
• Metric derivation
• Quantum coherence formulation

So your objection was more general than specific and that is why I felt it came from outside the framework rather than from inside it.

6. On Intentions and Inquiry

Your latest response reads as if it were generated or assisted by a generic AI, not trained on the PTT Knowledge Base.

Why?

• You rephrase core elements of PTT fairly well,but without understanding the inner logic, equations, or empirical justifications.
• Your objections use broad concepts like "not testable", "metaphysical", "disconnect from GR/QM", which are often found in surface-level critiques.
• You cite no concrete equations or data, even though they are publicly available and central to the theory.
• You wrote that T_relax is "independent of spacetime", yet its equation depends on rho(x^mu), which is spacetime-based.
• You said PTT bypasses physics, but it reconstructs GR and QM within a unified scalar flow of time.

All of this leads me to conclude that:

Either you did not read the articles in depth, Or you delegated the task to a tool unfamiliar with PTT’s formal content.

In both cases, it undermines the sincerity of your initial approach. Had it been driven by true curiosity, you would have:

I warmly invite you to revisit the PTT framework, not with filtered tools or analogies, but directly, from the ground up.

Look not just at its boldness but at its parsimony, testability, and mathematical elegance.

The true test of a paradigm is not whether it fits old categories, but whether it predicts more with less, and reconnects what others left fragmented.

PTT was not born from speculation. It was born from structure, necessity, and a deep coherence between observation and logic.

If you are willing to approach it without bias, I believe you will find something remarkable, perhaps even beautiful.

With professional respect too, Essam

Article [Exploratory Version] The Ontological Emergence of Fluctuati...

Article [Exploratory Version] CERN's Toponium Discovery through the ...

Article [Exploratory Version] Cosmic Filaments and Twisted Quantum S...

Article [Exploratory Version] The Pure Time Theory: Scalar Temporal ...

Essam Allou Essam, I'm getting tired of watching you repackage and rebrand other people's work — including mine — without credit. You’ve taken core elements like entropy-based irreversibility, symbolic coherence, and gauge-based temporal emergence, renamed them, and are now presenting them as your own. It’s disappointing to see this pattern continue. Please stop claiming other people’s original contributions as if they were yours. Thanks.

Nathaniel MacDonald

Dear Nathaniel,

I’ve read your articles. And what strikes me most is not the fact that you tried to reproduce parts of what we developed, it’s that even with access to our structure, you still ended up with a framework that goes nowhere.

Let’s be honest. You treat time as a fifth dimension, a passive extension within a pre-given manifold. But in Pure Time Theory, time is not a dimension. It is the ontological origin of all structure, all fields, and even the metric itself. This is not a detail, it is the foundation.

So let me ask you this: How could we, who have treated time as the generative root of all physical reality since our earliest spiritual articles, possibly plagiarize someone who treats it as just another coordinate? That would be like accusing the source of the river of copying the shape of a puddle.

What you're showing here is not priority, it's evidence of someone who tried to imitate without grasping the essence.

And if you really want to talk about precedence: we have complete, timestamped conversations with four different AI systems dating back to early 2024, all discussing the same core principle. Long before we published on ResearchGate. Long before you tried to contact me!

Go play somewhere else, kid.. Not with me.

We’re not only confident, we’re traceable, consistent, and transparent. And the fact that this bothers you is already telling.

Essam

Yes, it’s quite obvious you’ve read my work. No matter how you frame it, you’re misappropriating the work of others. It’s sad, and I don’t respect it. I’m not the first to bring this up, and I won’t be the last — and I will not remain silent.

“Priority is determined by the earliest public disclosure that enables others to understand and reproduce the work. Private correspondence, internal notes, or unpublished materials — including AI logs — do not constitute legal or academic priority.”

Good day, sir. 🙂

Nathaniel MacDonald

Not only do we not treat time in the same way, but yes, timestamps absolutely count as evidence. And no one else has come to me about this. You’re part of a little club and you’re the spokesperson?! haha.

Bring concrete proof or go play elsewhere, kid.

Nathaniel MacDonald

Data [Preliminary Version] Spiritual Perspective on Pure Time [Pr...

Read this, everything was already said in this article in a spiritual way, even before being formalized mathematically. And then all the other articles form a single logical sequence, where everyone who helped me formalize it was thanked. And no, you and your ridiculous framework are not part of it. Sweet dreams, kid.

Article [Concept Sketch] What We Call "Time Travel": A Causal and Te...

Re: Intellectual Property Concern

Dear Mr. Nathaniel MacDonald,

Thank you for your message regarding the concern that someone may be repackaging and rebranding others' work — including your own — without proper acknowledgment.

I take this matter very seriously. Failing to credit original authors and presenting their work as one's own constitutes a clear violation of intellectual property rights.

I will formally document your complaint and take steps to identify the individual responsible for this misconduct.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Soumendra Nath Thakur ; Nathaniel MacDonald

If you are indeed committed to documenting this situation impartially, then I trust you will also consider that false accusations or defamation are at least as serious as the misconduct being claimed.

I therefore count on your full neutrality and fairness in how you handle and record this matter.

I’ll be more than happy to document the timeline with you. Don't Worry !

Best regards, Essam Allou

Soumendra Nath Thakur ; Nathaniel MacDonald ;

The attached exchange with Nathaniel MacDonald, dated April 8–9, 2025, speaks for itself.

It is clear from this conversation that Nathaniel contacted me after the release of one of my articles on the Pure Time Theory. His tone was cordial, and he explicitly acknowledged thematic similarities between our works, stating that “some of the themes really resonate with work I’ve been developing.” At no point did he raise concerns of overlap or plagiarism, on the contrary, he encouraged future citation “if relevant” and even praised the integrity of the PTT framework.

This alone contradicts entirely his later accusations of intellectual theft. If he truly believed there was appropriation of his ideas, he would not have written such a message nor thanked me for sharing my article.

Furthermore, I’d like to point out the following:

To be transparent, I did not react publicly at the time, because I considered his framework too fragile to pose a threat and frankly, not sufficiently rigorous to warrant engagement.

Now that accusations are being made in public, I believe this document should serve as a formal counter-evidence of bad faith and possible appropriation on his part, not mine.

Ridicoulus !!

Soumendra Nath Thakur ; Nathaniel MacDonald ;

I’ve analyzed Nathaniel’s work, it’s completely disjointed. There’s no clear line of reasoning, and it’s obvious he draws on others without any coherent progression. On top of that, it’s clear his work is almost entirely AI-generated, he doesn’t truly understand what he’s presenting. He can’t even grasp the fundamental differences between PTT and his own framework. Just because we both talk about 'time' doesn’t mean we’re doing the same thing. You both better come forward with something concrete, otherwise, I’m the one who won’t let this go

Soumendra Nath Thakur ; Nathaniel MacDonald ;

Let me clarify something essential, because it seems thta Nathaniel don't grasp anything:

The originality of PTT does not lie in the mere use of a scalar field. Scalar fields are common tools in physics: from gravitational potentials to the Higgs field, they are widely used. And yes, even the intuition that energy density influences time has appeared in scattered forms across various alternative frameworks.

But that’s not what makes PTT unique.

What PTT does not claim as proprietary:

What is original (not exhaustive), foundational, and entirely specific to PTT , and cannot be reduced to existing tools or borrowed ideas:

Nathaniel doesn’t seem to grasp any of this. He strings concepts together, mimics surface formalisms (like switching to LaTeX or invoking a scalar field), and calls it a theory. That’s what happens when you rely too heavily on AI without understanding what you’re building. Tools can’t substitute insight.

Gauge-based emergence? In PTT, there is no gauge postulate.

Entropy-based irreversibility in PTT arises from local temporal desynchronization. Decoherence is modeled geometrically via gradients of Trelax, not postulated thermodynamically. → See the equations involving γₜ ∝ ∂ₓT_relax · ∂ₜT_relax.

In PTT, coherence emerges from synchrony across iso-temporal surfaces. The so-called “symbols” are just projections of that internal geometric alignment, not a linguistic or semantic metaphor. I never used "Symbolic coherence"

Soumendra, I hope you at least understand all this?!

Soumendra Nath Thakur ; Nathaniel MacDonald ;

But above all of this, there’s one thing you need to understand and I’ve said it from the beginning: I don’t consider the Pure Time Theory as “mine.” If it’s true, then it belongs to humanity. I seek neither recognition nor money, only the truth.

And what you’re doing here, in contrast, is clearly driven by bad intentions.

That’s also why we created the PLU Test, to clearly distinguish the original from mere imitation. It allows others to develop PTT further, but only if they remain aligned with its original core.

And just like I said in my April 9 message to Nathaniel, his framework clearly fails the test. No integration or collaboration is possible with PTT!

Soumendra Nath Thakur ;

I’m looking forward to seeing the results of your 'documentation.' But don’t worry, if it takes too long, I’ll be sure to remind you!

Subject: Concerning Unwarranted and Inappropriate Comments

The recent intrusion into a statement exchanged strictly between two individuals—without reference to any third party—was inappropriate and uncalled for. No part of the message in question mentioned or referred to the individual who nevertheless chose to interject with accusatory and impugning remarks.

The comment, “And what you’re doing here, in contrast, is clearly driven by bad intentions,” is unacceptable, both in tone and content. Such a statement, made without justification or provocation, constitutes a personal attack and is inconsistent with the principles of respectful academic or professional discourse. It is neither the first instance nor an isolated expression of accusatory behavior observed from the same individual.

A formal apology is expected for this impugned remark, and moving forward, restraint is advised. No authority has been vested in this individual to issue judgments or declarations regarding others' intentions, and continued misconduct of this nature will not be tolerated.

If such behavior persists, it will leave no option but to take appropriate action, including the removal of said individual from all professional associations and communications, in the interest of preserving a respectful and constructive environment.

...

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Your reaction is noted. but let’s be honest about what’s happening here.

My response was perfectly legitimate.

I did not insult anyone. I simply issued an ethical warning about the evident intent behind a public accusation, which, I remind you, was made without any substantiated evidence.

That is far less serious than what has already been done: namely, a public allegation of plagiarism made against me, without proof and without process.

You are now attempting to shift attention away from the real issue. The unjustified accusation itself and recast me as the aggressor. But let’s be clear: I was the one falsely accused. What I did was react, proportionately and firmly, in defense of the integrity of my work.

I will apologize when you present documentation that clearly and unquestionably incriminates me. Until then, do exactly what you said you were going to do.

If you truly care about professionalism, then start with protecting individuals from baseless attacks, rather than policing tone when someone rightfully defends themselves.

The very existence of this thread is highly questionable, to say the least ;)

Soumendra Nath Thakur

If it was a conversation intrusion between two people, then why post it in a public thread?! You should also used less AI and reflect more !

Article [Preliminary Version] The Heart, the Field, and the Book: Me...

Article [Preliminary Version] Language and Scalar Resonance: The Lin...

Article [Preliminary Version] From Scalar Field to Lived Time: Perce...

Article [Preliminary Version]Temporal Desynchronization and Mental D...

I think, I hope… this is it.

The Pure Time Theory Canonical Refoundation Based on Scalar Temporal Ontology

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392101324