I suspect that time is more exotic than we realize. Both space and time in space-time are variable. The emphasize in our real world is that we have travel through space with time as a marker similar to your vector theory. In the quantum world, we have travel through time with space as a marker. In the dark matter / dark energy world we have time as a coagulated time particle ( dark matter ), and time as dark energy. I know it sounds crazy but so did Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Time is the only thing that is everywhere in our universe. Einstein's space-time appears to be everywhere in our real world and the quantum world which leads me to believe that the constituents of space - time ( space and time ) are inherently more complicated than we realize. 

Vectors do not occur in nature. We construct them from abstract math to represent a class of physical quantities. The same quantities can be represented by other ways.

Imaginary time is used in creating a 4th dimension which allows special relativity to emerge as a consequence of the coordinates. With imaginary things there is no limit to categories. There are limits to physical things that can be attached to categories.

You can construct as many vectors as you like and call them anything you want to, but to establish a connection to physical quantities, the limit of n in your question is 3. I have shown in a different thread that 3 coordinates of time can be constructed in a reference system that is constructed from velocity vectors.

Other writers have a history describing time like coordinates near light speed where there are said to be 3 coordinates of time.

As long as time is considered to be curved there is mathematical license to add additional dimensions. Researchers have tried this with theoretical successes, but practical limitations on how to construct and measure such coordinates, or even describe what they represent. In the other thread I have shown what the other dimensions might be, also how to construct them and make measurements.

Dear Amrit,

I appreciate your paper. Mainly because I agree with you: Time is simply an ordering of physical changes. No changes, no time. In other words. Time is an attribute, is not a substance in the sense of Aristotle. This is why I understand that your claim is semantic, rather than essential. It depends on the meaning we assign to the terms "existence" and "physical".

I interpret that when you state that time does not exist, you mean that time is not a substance, but an attribute, a property of some substance. In your paper, you claim that time is an ordering, hence this ordering exists as a property of physical phenomena.

In science, we identify objects by their properties. Perhaps what exists is information that we attribute to some source. Is our mind who create the information source, but only information can be perceived by us.

Sumarizing. I understand that when you say "time does not exist", you mean "time is not a substance, but an attribute". No problem. Ordering need not be linear. In categorical algebra, relations of order admit Cartesian products, therefore can be multidimensional.

Dear Jerry,

You claim that vectors do not exist. This is also a semantic question related with the meaning you assign to the term "exists." Vector spaces satisfy some algebraic and topological properties. If we can describe universe by vectors is because there are an isomorphisms between some objects of Universe and a certain topological vector space. Isomorphisms preserve structures. There is an essential difference between a word and a vector. When we denote a fruit by the word apple, the relation between the word and the fruit is conventional, and there is no involved isomorpohism. By contrast, when we denote four objects by the symbol 4, this representation preserves some properties. For instance we can know that fruits can be distributed into two equal groups each of which of 2 fruits. In otherwords, when we denote the fruit collection by the number 4, we state an isomorphism between the the structured set of integers and fruit sets. By contrast, the object names are conventional. There is no underlying isomorphism between the representation system and the represented objects.

Sumarizing: If we represent physical quatities by other way, those properties that are common to vectors and what they represent do not vanish.

With mathematical physics analysis equations, time a tensor? quantum relativity question pops through. Grand unifying theory may require to consider more about whether quantum time actually makes physical time to be n-dimensional vector, especially if one can prove whether space actually evolving out of manifestations of time imaginary -> real.

The different values of time in special relativity are a manifestation of looking at the same physical entity in different ways, that is from differently moving inertial frames.  Analogously, when we look at a physical object at various orientations, we do not consider that a different physical entity is under consideration for each distinct viewpoint:  its the same entity, but it, or we, are reoriented.

By the way, I recall seeing a remark in a 50th anniversary (1955) festschrift of special relativity that a theory of waves in a space-time with multiple time and multiple space dimensions was mathematically "teratologique".  I don't recall an exact reference, but its author may have been A. Lichenerowicz.

Time as a property has never been included in physics equations. The 't' in physics equations is a measure of object activity as is made clear by its units of seconds. All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. The units of seconds is a count of cyclic object activity. There are two properties that can never be directly represented in physics equations. They are space and time. All empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It has never been shown that time or space have velocities or changes of velocities. There are no specimens of either space or time in laboratories anywhere available to be tested upon. All predictions pertain to properties represented in physics equations. They are about potential object activities. We know what many objects have done. We have no evidence for what space or time do except to say that time passes and space gives us room to move around in. Space and time are inaccessible properties. They have no units. 

Dear Juan

I think time is more complicated than the ticking of clocks specially if it relates between different particles like quantum and classical objects. Time is related to the dynamics and expansion of the universe. We can not go back in time because the expansion is at one direction radially outward. This means time in this frame is a physical quantity and not just a simple measurement of clocks ticking. It can be formulated in terms of vectors or complex numbers, please see the below link for more details

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259996539_Solving_the_instantaneous_response_paradox_of_entangled_particles_using_the_time_of_events_theory

Best regards

Article Solving the instantaneous response paradox of entangled part...

There is the article in which time is a vector:

Chappell:

An explanation for galaxy rotation curves using a Clifford multivector spacetime framework

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3507

in conformal SO(4,2) space-time it would be "natural" to consider this as a projectiv P(3)+P(1) space. Here time would come as a homogeneous 2-tuple.

   Without time, the concept of energy would be absent because its conservation is assuming translations symmetry of it. The light would not exist because the electromagnetic waves needs it....etc.  

   It is well known the arrow of time (no time vector), which tell us that it has one direction and this is the source of the life, the expansion of the Universe or only having a causal wave travelling. In fact, the creation of one photon needs to have a retarded time with respect to our present.

   There are many things which tell us that time is complex physical magnitude so real as the space can be.

This message is put forward in support of my message a few steps above. Quoting from that message: "Time as a property has never been included in physics equations. The 't' in physics equations is a measure of object activity as is made clear by its units of seconds. All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. The units of seconds is a count of cyclic object activity. There are two properties that can never be directly represented in physics equations. They are space and time. All empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It has never been shown that time or space have velocities or changes of velocities."

Obtained from: Is it possible to know whether physical time is an n-dimensional vector? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_know_whether_physical_time_is_an_n-dimensional_vector/1 [accessed Jul 30, 2016].

This new message is a compilation of my messages, with some editing, in regard to the question: "What is temperature?" posed by myself at Reasearchgate; Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_temperature [accessed Jul 30, 2016].

The uninformative words 'primary' and 'secondary' have, in modern texts, replaced the informative words 'indefinable' and 'definable'. ...I quote from:   

College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.  Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the  definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be  expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics. 

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...

Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ...

What is temperature? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_temperature [accessed Jul 30, 2016].

The quote from Sears and Zemansky clarifies what a physics definition is. For example, in f=ma force is defined in terms of the product of mass and acceleration. In other words, force is defined in terms of the three fundamental indefinable properties of mechanics. This equation cannot be solved for mass or length or time for the purpose of defining mass or length or time. Theoretical  physics adopted mass, length and time as being indefinable properties. Nothing can undo their indefinable status except to define them in terms of their pre-existing properties. Length and time have no pre-existing properties. They are permanently indefinable. In the case of mass, length and time are its pre-existing properties. A definition of mass can consist only of some combination of length and time. This circumstance clarifies what is the physics meaning of the word "defined."

This physics meaning of the word "defined" is the meaning used in my statement that all properties, with the exceptions of length and time, should be and could be defined in the same terms as their empirical evidence is expressed. All empirical evidence for all properties, other than length and time, consists only of combinations of measures of length and time. Velocity and change of velocity of objects are the two empirical combinations of measures of length and time. 

...Both mass and temperature should have been and could have been and can be made defined properties. This accomplishment would reform theoretical physics so that it takes its lead always from empirical evidence, and, no longer introduces unexplained, artificially indefinable properties into physics equations.

The most beneficial change that will occur is that fundamental unity will be returned to the equations of physics right from the beginning of the reformed theoretical physics. That fundamental unity was first lost when it was decided that mass, or it could have been force, needed to be accepted as a fundamentally indefinable property. The decision to accept temperature as the fourth fundamental indefinable property ensured that "fixing" mass alone could not  restore theoretical physics' lost fundamental unity. 

What is temperature? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_temperature [accessed Jul 30, 2016].

This is the present situation: Physicists have made errors at the fundamental level. The first error was when mass was made a fundamental indefinable property. The mistake would be just as serious if force had been made a fundamental indefinable property. The second error was when temperature was made a fundamental indefinable property. The third error was the formulation of a circular definition of electric charge. Its circular 'definition' is, of course, not a definition. It has served to misdirect attention away from recognizing that electric charge lacks a definition. The evidence that electric charge is actually a fifth fundamental indefinable property is that its units of coulomb's is not defined.  Since the units, meters and seconds, of empirical evidence are naturally and permanently fundamental indefinables, electric charge is a third artificial fundamental indefinable.  

The problem with accepting artificial indefinables into physics equations is that while the effect upon understanding the nature of the universe is negative and greatly so, their presence will not prevent the equations from making good predictions. The theorists put their imaginations to work arriving at substitute properties and substitute explanations for those substitute properties. The meaning  of this previous sentence is that the three artificial indefinable properties are not yet accurately explained by physicists. This circumstance does not have to persist. All three are introduced to us by empirical  evidence. It is the empirical evidence that can, if recognized, inform us as to what each of these properties are. This information has not been learned. Instead we have the blanks filled by theorists' imaginations.

Theorists have been free to imagine workable substitutes. The equations accept substitutes. The evidence that this is the current situation is that the units of all three artificial indefinable properties were introduced as and remain as indefinable units. Those units cannot be defined until we recognize the information provided by empirical evidence that indicates to us how to define them. All three units, when defined, will be defined in terms of the units of empirical evidence only. This condition is what is required to meet the standard of a physics definition. 

...Unity appears constantly present in the reformed physics equations. This presence of fundamental unity does not leave room for theorists' imagined properties to be imposed into physics equations.  Instead, all reformed properties, which excludes the two properties of empirical evidence, are defined properties in the strict sense that is meant by physics definitions, as was explained by that Sears, Zemansky quote. There is no other proper way for properties, actually their units, to be introduced into physics equations. Any other attempt loses fundamental unity.

The benefit of fundamental unity is that there is a natural absence of multiple causes. While empirical evidence cannot, because it consists of effects only, tell us what cause is, it can tell us that fundamental unity, having always been evidenced to exist by the orderliness of the universe, sources all effects to attributes of a single cause. When the equations of physics are returned to their natural, empirically defined forms, the plural is removed from 'fundamental force'. 

What is temperature? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_temperature [accessed Jul 30, 2016].

Returning to the context of this new message: There has never been any information learned from the manipulation of physics equations that informs us that time is a pliable physical property. What we have learned from the manipulation of physics equations is that the substitute for time, mechanical clocks,  which are inconsistent, mechanically useful substitutes, do not keep time, but, rather, inform us about how clocks, which are objects, undergo physical effects that change their rates of cyclic activity. Those changes result from variations of cause. We do not know what cause is, and, there is no empirical evidence that it is time or space. 

James A. Putnam

  Let me just to remember that the second (s) is not defined with watches but with natural (and physical) phenomena:

  The second is the Standard International ( SI ) unit of time. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

      "Since nature is a principle of motion and change, and since our inquiry is

about nature, we must not overlook the question of what motion is. For without understanding motion, we could not understand nature."

                                                                                               −Aristotle  

Hi Daniel Baldomir,

"The second is the Standard International ( SI ) unit of time. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom."

Yes. My point is that this describes a clock. And, this clock involves object activity. The description is of a count of an object's cyclic activity. 

"For without understanding motion, we could not understand nature." 

And, I think this is in keeping with the fact that all physics empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Motion occurs during the passage of time, but, the 't' in physics equations is a count of object cyclic activity. The 't' will reflect the effects that the environment has on object activity. There is no empirical evidence for motion effects experienced by time. 

Is it possible to know whether physical time is an n-dimensional vector? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_know_whether_physical_time_is_an_n-dimensional_vector?tpr_view=gkhXcFKYmadBCMSVxv0mYCTMbJigII1uRAwK_1#579955a85b49525200170eb1 [accessed Jul 31, 2016].

   Dear James,

   Your sentence:

   "There is no empirical evidence for motion effects experienced by time".

   is wrong.

  No, the passage of time in a system depends of the state of motion of the observer, as the Lorentz transformations says and everyday is measured,for instance, in the nuclear reactors. 

Dear Daniel,

 My sentence:  "There is no empirical evidence for motion effects experienced by time." is correct. No one has ever had specimens of either time or space available to be tested upon. There are no measurements of either time or space. There are only specimens of objects, and, there are only measurements of objects and their activities. 

Quoting you: "No, the passage of time in a system depends of the state of motion of the observer, as the Lorentz transformations says and everyday is measured,for instance, in the nuclear reactors."

That sentence does not tell us that "...time depends on the state of motion of the observer, ..." Physicists do say that the Lorentz Transforms tell us that 't' depends on the state of motion of the observer. Physicists do say that 't' is the symbol for time, but when they say this, they are claiming knowledge that they do not have. That 't' has always been the number of clock units-of-measurement that have been counted, which is 'The count of object cyclic activity.' Furthermore, the usefulness of the Lorentz Transforms is not dependent upon the acceptance of Relativity's interpretation of them. I see their meaning being somewhat different and find their usefulness can be increased.   

The proof value of that sentence is the part that tells us that the equation E=MC^2 makes successful predictions about 'object activities' including the products  of nuclear reactions. Since the equation E=MC^2 is derived using a combination of 'time-dilation' and 'length-contraction', the successful predictions of E=MC^2 necessitate acknowledging and addressing the important roles played by the effects called 'time-dilation' and 'length-contraction'. Addressing 'time-dilation' must begin by including the acknowledgement that it contains a misuse of the word 'time', because, physicists tell us that it represents the property of time. What it represents is the 't' of physics equations, and, that 't' represents the counting of object cyclic activity. Then the recognized importance of correctly understanding the effect we call 'time-dilation' can proceed forward by understanding its empirical support. That support consists of observing objects' activities.  

The success of E=MC^2 indicates that the variations of objects' activities and the variations of objects' lengths, which are both learned about through patterns of changes of velocities of objects, are useful information. What is left unsaid is that mass is a fundamental indefinable property with the indefinable units of kilograms. In other words, what remains unsaid is that the crucial property of mass remains unexplained! And, every physics equation that includes mass is vulnerable to possible revision of both meaning and form when it is learned what is mass.

When we learn what mass is the equation f=ma will contain new fundamentally important information. I expect that that valid information about the nature of the universe will necessitate important changes for physics.  Theory will have to make way for empirical understanding.   

    Dear James,

   Perhaps I don't understand you properly, but it is very clear that time is so measurable as the space and also that it depends of the relative motion of the system. Let me to answer you step by step.

   1..            ẟt’ =γ(ẟt-v ẟx/c2)

being γ=(1-v2/c2)-1, v= relative velocity, ẟt’ increment of time in the system S’ with respect to the increment ẟt in S, c=velocity of light and ẟx increment of the space in the system S.

   2.One example of how is measured this time is when in an accelerator of particles you observe how the lifetime of a neutron (around 15 minutes) is enlarged when its relative velocity is increased. There are much more charged fundamental particles which are seen in events for employing this formula.

   3. The formula E=mc2  is only true in a rest system and therefore it is not related with the variation of time that we are discussing and less the mass..

Dear Daniel,

What you are measuring is object activity and its variations. It is true that time is passing while you are making your measurements, but, you are not experimenting on time. The results of the experiment cannot be shown to apply to the fundamental  property of time. The extended lifetime of particles is not evidence for the expansion of time. The Lorentz Transforms contain measures of seconds and meters. Seconds are not units of time, they are units of object cyclic activity. Time is passing while a second occurs, but, that second is not measuring time. A unit of time, if one existed, would be a universal constant. 

All physics empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. We learn only about what objects do. My reference to E=MC*2 where the M does not have the subscript 0 was meant to represent the total energy. Apparently I use a different convention. The mass varies. The total energy is relativity's expression for kinetic energy plus rest energy. Sorry about that confusion. In any case, I was thinking about the use of time dilation and length contraction in the derivation of relativity's expression for kinetic energy. One cannot  deny the existence of either time dilation or length contraction without showing another way of deriving relativity's kinetic energy expression or its possible replacement.

I am not denying the existence of the physical effect that is called time-dilation, rather, I am arguing that there is no empirical evidence that relativity's time-dilation is an effect experienced by the fundamental property of time. The empirical evidence supports conclusions that apply only to objects. The idea that what we observe happening to objects tells us about what is happening to time is theoretical speculation.  There have never been experiments performed upon either time or space. 

    Dear James,

    Is the electric charge one object? Is the energy an object? Is the linear momentum an object?....What is an object in everyday experiments of Physics? Please do you think that the time needed to be one object for being real?

Dear Daniel,

I should have defined my meaning for objects. Objects are those things that can be caused to change their velocities. Electric charge is not an object. Energy is not an object. Momentum is not an object. Photons are objects. Particles of matter are objects. Space is not an object.Time is not an object. Objects can be pointed at.  

If we talk about time we should bear in mind time of something, as time autonomously does not occur. More on time e.g. in my article http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0323

Hi Andrzej,

Daniel's messages have been greatly appreciated and I welcome your input. 

"If we talk about time we should bear in mind time of something ..."

Presumably the "... time of something ..." is the time it takes for the universe to develop. If you mean the "... time of something ..." refers to and is determined by a particular activity that takes place within the universe, what is it? I have not followed your link. I would appreciate you sharing your opinion again here if possible. I am someone who regularly must explain my ideas because they are not consistent with official teachings. 

Hi James,

It seems I wasn't specific enough. Well, notion of "time" doesn't mean anything, likewise its synonyms, e.g. "change" or "motion". Could we say that change or motion exists? Does it make any sense? They are not objects by any means. Only objects (physical entities) can exist. If we would like to talk about existence of time, motion or change - it's possible - then we have to indicate an object pertaing to its time/motion/change. Summing up, we can talk about time of matter (which came into being some 14 billion years ago), but definitely not about time of orgin of the universe, because it doesn't have time point of its birth. Time exist along with matter only, because any form of matter is in continuous motion.

Dear Andrzej,

We have looked at the same universe and came to opposing positions. It seems too ambitious for me to try to explain why in a single message. I can explain, but decided to post some of my conclusions first. To begin with, I will set space aside as playing a role no larger than to give us room to move around in. Length is not measured by a unit of space, but, rather is dependent upon the speed of light always measuring locally as the constant C. The speed of light is a local constant and governs over length such that length  is also a local constant. However,  both the speed of light and length at any location that is viewed from a remote perspective having different environmental conditions and no relative velocity between them.

The property of time is fully engaged in the operation of the universe.  It precedes all else. Matter follows time's existence. It is only through the reception of information about time and length that we become conscious of the existence of matter. If the universe consisted only of information about measures of length per universal unit of time, we would not see it any differently. Everything we think we know, think we  observe, and think we experience consists of conclusions about the meaning of patterns of changes of velocities that are communicated to us by information of measures of length per universal unit of time. 

With regard  to the significance of time as a fundamental property of the universe, it is the anchor property around which the universe is formed. It does not vary in the sense claimed by relativists with regard to the effect called time-dilation. Time does not dilate. Time is the most constant presence in the universe. Just as the differential equation for velocity contains a measure of length per unit of time. The universe, by means of the activity of light,  causes objects to change their velocities, thereby filling the universe with the motion of objects.

Yet, with all of that motion and with no universal measure of space to serve in the place of the variable length, time ticks away as the clock of the universe. Time is perfectly kept as evidenced by the existence of a universally constant unit of time. The changes of velocities of objects are kept orderly because the denominator of the universe's differential for velocity with respect to time consists of the square of the universe's constant unit of time. I work with equations that have been returned to their empirical forms. This is accomplished by first eliminating all artificial indefinable properties.

Two of them are known to be presently in existence. A third is disguised by a circular definition, but, since that is no definition, there is then a third artificial indefinable property. These three properties are defined in the equations I use. Their definitions are formed fully from pre-existing properties. That is the criteria that must be followed for physics properties to be defined so that they may be used properly in physics equations.

There are just two, presently known, naturally indefinable properties. They are the properties of empirical evidence. The two properties of empirical evidence are time and length. There are no properties existing before them by which they may be defined. Yet the universe, through empirical evidence, informs us that they do have natural units. Time's unit is a universal constant whose magnitude is known. Length has a local unit established for it by the the speed of light being a local constant. 

I share all this with full understanding I have not provided, in this message, support for it. The question posed here establishes the limits of discussion. It is probably best to provide my support for my conclusions in a separate discussion. In any case, the supporting work already exists and has existed freely available for years on the internet.  

There is one point that I should clarify. I have, in previous messages, argued that empirical evidence consists of measures of length and duration. I referred to duration because time as a fundamental property of the universe has never before been represented as itself in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by duration. I mean duration in the sense of what clocks measure. Clock's measure cyclic activities of objects. Now,though, my equations, which have been returned to their empirical forms stripped of theoretical inventions and substitutes, use the universally constant unit of the fundamental property of time. The universes'  fundamental property of time is represented in my equations.  

    Dear James,

    There are many difficulties (now solved) with your argumentation. Let me to put you one very simple and well known. Let us have to observers moving at relative velocity v very high (close to c) and with try to measure the velocity of the light c emitted by one of them. Can measure the same time both observers? What is the time that each other is measuring?

Dear Daniel,

First let me offer a result for clocks in a similar problem where the two observers are moving close to the Earth on the same line parallel to the surface of the Earth. The relative velocities for each of them with respect to the surface of the Earth are equal but opposite. Their relative velocity with respect to one another is twice their Earth velocities. There is a third observer stationary on the surface of the Earth with their own clock. Each moving observer will see the other's clock moving slowly compared to the clock of the stationary observer. When they look at their own clocks they will find that their clocks agree with each other. They both run equally slowly compared to the clock of the stationary observer. The reason for posing this example problem and offering my solution is to highlight that I read those transform equations and understand their meanings differently from relativists. The very same equations derived according to special relativity theory and with no changes look to me to be improperly applied by relativists. Putting that aside for now without arguing in defense of my viewpoint, the purpose for making this difference known is that I will answer your question with the means that I would employ and the solutions that I would arrive at. 

I would not rely upon clocks to measure time for me. Clocks do not measure time. Clocks can  be caused to vary widely in their readings. However, I can't measure time directly. I have to measure it by means of object activity. That is the only means available to me. This is how I would use object activity to measure the passing of time. In the problem that you posed one of the observers sends out light "...Let us have two observers moving at relative velocity v very high (close to c) and with try to measure the velocity of the light c emitted by one of them." Here is the object activity that I would employ. I would use a  hydrogen atom. The light released would be a photon traveling between the nucleus proton and the orbiting electron. I am viewing this condition in the simplified manner of a Bohr atom. The atom is stationary with respect to the observer. The radius of the atom is assumed to be what the Bohr atom predicts. I don't measure the speed of the photon. I believe, because of empirical evidence, it to always measure locally as the constant C. Time is passing while the photon moves between the particles. That measure of time for the photon to complete its travel, is always the same value from anyone's viewpoint local or remote, stationary or moving. I would use that measure of time as my unit for measuring the passage of time. That unit of time is the same for both observers. If they both employ it, they will both measure the passage of time as being equal. There is more that needs saying, but, I will end this message at this point.  

   Dear James,

   You are right with respect to your example on the Earth. The motion is so slow that you can use Galileo's transformations where time is absolute and independent of the motion, but in my example that is not possible because light is seen at the same velocity for both observers and that is only achieved if you use Lorentz transformations where time depends of space and the relative velocity of systems.

   I didn't understood your discussion of the photon in the Bohr's atom and, in my humble opinion, that is out of the discussion of time because that is not a relativistic model but a quantum model. The absortion of a photon only depends of the frequency and the state of the electrons, no of the velocity, which is obviously always the same.

Hi James,

"Length is not measured by a unit of space, but, rather is dependent upon the speed of light always measuring locally as the constant C. The speed of light is a local constant and governs over length such that length is also a local constant. However, both the speed of light and length at any location that is viewed from a remote perspective having different environmental conditions and no relative velocity between them."

Length can be expressed: s = t * v . Do you agree? Speed of light and reference frame has nothing to do with the truth of the formula, because time of sth and speed of sth is always real.

"The property of time is fully engaged in the operation of the universe."

No. It's vice versa. It's property of the universe that speed of light is such that recorded.

"It precedes all else. Matter follows time's existence."

I don't agree. Time (obviously of sth) is always resultant. It means that you can choose speed and distance to beat. Time (of sth) is beyond anyone's controll. To make myself clear, you cannot do anything with 2 hours, 5 seconds or 365 days. Matter (as being in continuous motion) has its speed. Time of any object depends then on its speed.

"It is only through the reception of information about time and length that we become conscious of the existence of matter."

Our consciousness has no impact on so-called laws of nature.

"If the universe consisted only of information about measures of length per universal unit of time, we would not see it any differently. Everything we think we know, think we observe, and think we experience consists of conclusions about the meaning of patterns of changes of velocities that are communicated to us by information of measures of length per universal unit of time."

Scientist explain or try to explain all phenomena that occur in nature. By measurements we only describe them. Explanation =/= Description

"With regard to the significance of time as a fundamental property of the universe, it is the anchor property around which the universe is formed."

Time (of anything) - as I said earlier - is resultant. We can say that time of matter amounts to around 14 billion years. But any universal object has its own time/motion that results from their velocities e.g. rotation of Earth around its axis (24 hours) or around the Sun (365 days). Something that can be expressed by mathematical formula does not physically exist.

"Time is the most constant presence in the universe."

Time of what? Various objects have different times. Depending on object (accelerating or slowing down) they can differ.

"Just as the differential equation for velocity contains a measure of length per unit of time. The universe, by means of the activity of light, causes objects to change their velocities, thereby filling the universe with the motion of objects."

I don't understand it. v = s / t. Adopted measure of length could be kilometre and adopted unit of time second. It doesn't mean anything. I can't comprehend the merit of light in changing velocities of objects.

"Yet, with all of that motion and with no universal measure of space to serve in the place of the variable length, time ticks away as the clock of the universe."

Nature doesn't need neither clocks nor measures. Their are humans inventions.

...

Summing up, I maintain everything I wrote on time.

Dear Daniel,

I intended that the  speeds of the two observers would be comparable to what you asked for in your example. The speed of both observers with respect to the Earth is very  close to C. With respect to the photon example, all relativistic effects take place including length-contraction and time-dilation upon the hydrogen atom. The difference between our understandings, I believe, is that I dismiss the effect called time-dilation as having nothing to do with effects upon time. It has to do with maintaining the local speed of light as C while length contraction occurs. I probably need to repeat that length-contraction has nothing to tell us about effects upon space. There is no empirical evidence for effects either upon space and time or for effects caused by either space or time. 

dear Andre,

I also stand  by everything I wrote. We receive information via photons. They each tell  us that something changed its velocity with respect to time. The information is all we receive and it consists only of measures of length and time. Our minds draw a picture for us. That picture is sometimes accurate and sometimes inaccurate.  The universe could consist of only information and we could not tell the difference between that and the universe that we think we experience materially. I allow for the universe to be materially real, but, I recognize that we learn everything about it from empirical evidence that consist only of measures of length and time. Everything we observe and everything we learn follows from information that consists only of measures of length and time. I will qualify these remarks by making clear that I am addressing the question of time as a physics problem. Physiics has adopted a mechanical interpretation of the universe. 

Dear Dr. Putnam, of course, you will never change anything you ever wrote or thought, by the w,y a remarkable silly statement.

I personally recognize much more than "lenghts and time", for instance gravity,  just by writing this!

Regards, and forever yours

Dr. Schober

,

Dear Anton Schober,

You learn about gravity from empirical evidence that consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. Thank you for your message. It would be helpful should you respond if you will quote from previous messages. Other readers need to know whether or not what you call silly is silly? They are invited to say so. What do you think about my response in the first sentence of this message. What do you think I mean by that sentence? You said "I personally recognize much more than "lenghts and time", for instance gravity, just by writing this!" How did you learn about gravity just by writing your response? This is not meant disrespectfully. My intention is to show that you learned about it from information that consisted of measurements of length and time only. 

James Putnam

Dear Anton Schober,

Thank you for responding. 

Whether it is sensed or seen, it is communicated by photons. The sensing or the seeing is a mental construct formed as a conclusion after intelligently evaluating patterns in changes of velocities of particles of matter. The changes of velocities of particles of matter are communicated to us via photons. Photons deliver information about changes in velocities. They tell  us about the accelerations of particles of matter. The acceleration  of particles of matter are communicated as measures of lengths with respect to a measure of time and again with respect to a measure of time. If that information alone existed, we would reach the same conclusion.  We would feel the pressure of sitting on the Earth. We would see objects fall over a distance while time passes.

i did speak about speeds in Euclidean space because I was speaking about an event for which there is empirical evidence to support it. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of Minkowski space. That evidence would have to consist of the observation of space experiencing length contraction and of time experiencing time dilation. There has never been any experiments conducted on either time or space. There is no empirical evidence showing time or space experiencing effects or causing effects. Physics empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Time is not an object nor is space an object. My meaning of the word object is: Something that can be caused to change its velocity. Neither time nor space have been observed to have velocity and to change it.  

Aha, what is sense s by having sex is communicated by photons? I did'nt know that. Next, Eucledian space and Minkowsky space are isomorphic as R(4).spaces. The metric makes the difference. Photons in Euclidean space wo und habe infinite speed. This is not the case.

Anton,

"Aha, what is sense s by having sex is communicated by photons? I did'nt know that."

Of course you knew it. I knew that. But, it needed to be said openly for some reason. 

"Next, Eucledian space and Minkowsky space are isomorphic as R(4).spaces. The metric makes the difference. Photons in Euclidean space wo und habe infinite speed. This is not the case."

No it is not the case, nor should it be. The universe would have ended when it started. The speed of photons in Euclidean space is what empirical evidence tells us it is. That evidence tells us that the speed of light is a local constant. It measures locally as the constant C. When measured remotely, it varies. Light accelerates. Empirical Euclidean space is not ruled by unempirical Minkowsky space. The nature of the universe is revealed by empirical evidence, and, not altered one bit by theorists' imaginations. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of Minkowsky space. There is no empirical evidence for results of experiments conducted on either space or time.  

Is it possible to know whether physical time is an n-dimensional vector? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_know_whether_physical_time_is_an_n-dimensional_vector [accessed Aug 21, 2016].

Next, dear James, we have the Maxwell equations and the the Hydrogen Problem via the Dirac equation. These fit your emperical values  (observables) perfectly. This is represented in mathematical equations. These equations are invariant against the Poincare transformations and all this is pure mathematics and you and nobody can do nothing against it. These equations and transformations happen necessarily in Minkowski space. 

What I wrote above is called "physics" and is common sense in the community of physicists. you and other may believe whatsoever, but this has nothing to do with physics. You have to describe your observations in mathematical terms! T

Dear Anton Schober,

AS: "we have the Maxwell equations and the the Hydrogen Problem via the Dirac equation. These fit your emperical values  (observables) perfectly. This is represented in mathematical equations. These equations are invariant against the Poincare transformations and all this is pure mathematics and you and nobody can do nothing against it. These equations and transformations happen necessarily in Minkowski space."

JP: No Minkowski space is necessary when omissions and errors of theory are corrected. 

AS: "What I wrote above is called "physics" and is common sense in the community of physicists."

JP: The defense of Relativity theory has for a long time now included claims being 'common sense'. Relativity theory contains strange theoretical properties that lack empirical support.   

Working Paper Replacements for Maxwell's Equations that result from Correc...

Dear JP, you know little. If you write down a wave equation this object is realized in Minkowski space. In math this is called "the domain of a function". Plane linear algebra.

Dear Anton Schober,

"Dear JP, you know little. If you write down a wave equation this object is realized in Minkowski space. In math this is called "the domain of a function". Plane linear algebra."

I know that Minkowski space is where theorists place their solutions, out of reach for verification, safe from criticism. I know that there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that time and space can either suffer effects or cause them. I know that the solutions to the answers you don't know exist here in the real world, the one we observer, the one where all empirical evidence exists. What you don't know does matter. A most important property in physics equations is mass. You don't know what mass is. You don't know what temperature is. I know these answers. I know what Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is. I know what the physical meaning of Boltzmann's constant is. I know what the physical meaning of the Universal Gas Constant is. I know other answers to questions left unanswered by theorists even as they substitute their guesses into equations and send those equations off into outer-dimensional-space. You use the wave equation, but you don't know what electric permittivity is or what magnetic permeability is. You need to unnormalize your units and return to the beginning and define your units. All properties are represented in physics equations by their units. Their units have to be defined and their definitions have to be learned directly from the empirical evidence from which the properties existences are inferred.      

Is it possible to know whether physical time is an n-dimensional vector? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_know_whether_physical_time_is_an_n-dimensional_vector#view=57dab95d3d7f4b4df20daa03 [accessed Sep 15, 2016].

Hi, JP, as a matter of fact, it is not your business to tell me what I know (=nothing) and that you are the master of everything."we" are humble physicists, members of the physics community. We understand those things like R=U/I and the electric equippent constructed from those equations works. we need no people telling us they have all wisdom (about mass) and we are idiots. First of all, you know no mathematics! Therefore the term "Minkowsky" is for your a mystery and you try to get rid of it. The delicate relations of mathematical physics and the observed quantities is beyond of your horizon. Have a nice day. A.S.