Time is not a physical substance, but a property of consciousness, like color, sound, like the unreality of the imaginary world behind the looking glass.

Практически это рассуждения ни о чем.

Время не физическая субстанция, а свойство сознания, как цвет, звук, как нереальность воображаемого мира зазеркалья.

Yes—Containment Cosmology Theory (CCT) directly replaces the expansion paradigm.

CCT redefines time as a function of rotational memory and containment, not a linear, stretching dimension. What appears as “phase shift” or “redshift” in ECM and standard models is simply the memory behavior of saturated fields in a confined system.

CCT rejects the Big Bang, inflation, and entropy-based collapse, proposing instead a coherent, layered structure held by GERM—Gravity, Electromagnetism, Rotation, and Memory.

It offers a logical and testable framework that doesn’t rely on unseen entities.

Book Containment Cosmology Theory

Fariba Azad

A phase shift corresponds to a time delay that is inversely proportional to frequency:

Δt = x°/(360° × f)

where:

• x° : phase shift in degrees

• f: frequency of oscillation or wave

• Δt: time delay or distortion in the oscillator

In this relationship, either f or Δt may represent a physical quantity, while the other can be viewed as an abstract derivative of the phase displacement. However, within the ECM framework, frequency (f) holds greater ontological weight as a physical observable, whereas Δt emerges as a relational consequence of a phase shift in that frequency field.

This leads to the conclusion that, in ECM, time distortion Δt is best understood as a function of frequency f. This reflects the primacy of oscillatory frequency as the more fundamental entity, with time delay arising secondarily through phase relations.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Mr. Vladimir A. Lebedev,

Thank you for your response and the philosophical perspective you’ve shared — namely, that time is not a physical substance but rather a property of consciousness, akin to colour, sound, or the unreality of the imaginary world behind the mirror. I acknowledge and respect this metaphysical framing, which has deep philosophical lineage, and in several ways, it does not stand in contradiction to what Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) puts forward.

My discussion, as you may have noted, does not posit time as an independent physical entity. Rather, I argue that what is conventionally labelled as “time dilation” in relativistic frameworks can be more precisely interpreted — within physical terms — as time distortion resulting from external interference in oscillatory systems. In ECM, frequency (f) is treated as a primary physical observable, and any deviation in timing (Δt) emerges secondarily through phase displacement. This outlook implicitly aligns with your assertion: if time has no standalone physical substance, then deviations in "measured time" must originate from the material dynamics of oscillators, not from any elastic property of spacetime.

The structured ECM formulation:

Tdeg = x°/(360° f ) = ∆t

does not assume that "time" itself is altered as a substance. Rather, it expresses how time distortion Δt is derived from a phase shift (x°) at a given frequency (f). It quantifies the temporal consequence of a phase-disrupted frequency, reinforcing ECM’s principle that oscillation frequency holds ontological priority, while Δt arises as a relational abstraction — not a primary entity. This offers a mechanistic, frequency-cantered account of time distortion, in full agreement with the view that "time" is a conceptual layer imposed upon physical rhythms.

In this sense, your observation that “time is a property of consciousness” resonates with ECM’s position that temporal measurement is a cognitive abstraction derived from the physical sequencing of energetic processes, particularly oscillatory cycles. ECM thus maintains a physically grounded model while avoiding the reification of time as a substance.

With that said, I must express some mild perplexity, as your comment’s tone feels more dismissive than reflective of the philosophical consonance between our views. Nowhere in my discussion do I suggest that time is a material medium or contradict the idea that it may emerge from perceptual or cognitive frameworks. On the contrary, I aimed to clarify that the commonly misunderstood concept of "time dilation" is better explained through phase-frequency interactions — a physically observable phenomenon — rather than invoking metaphysical time scaling.

I appreciate your engagement, and I hope this reply helps affirm that, while our terminologies differ, there is substantial conceptual alignment in our respective frameworks.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The formula you've shared reflects the structure of time delay in frequency-based systems within the ECM framework. However, Containment Cosmology Theory (CCT) departs from this by reordering the ontology altogether.

In CCT:

Time, rotation, and memory are not separate entities. They are functionally equivalent:

T = R = M

Time is not a consequence of frequency; it is the record of containment-based rotation. What ECM treats as phase delay (Δt) is, in CCT, a memory release event within a saturated containment system. That’s why redshift and delay are not due to velocity or stretching but rather:

z ∝ ΔM / C Where ΔM is discharged memory and C is containment capacity.

Frequency (f) in CCT is emergent—not fundamental. It expresses how often memory recycles through a rotational system, but it is always secondary to the structure holding it.

CCT replaces the spacetime/frequency dichotomy with an architecture grounded in Gravity, Electromagnetism, Rotation, and Memory (GERM). These aren’t just forces—they are system behaviors embedded in containment itself.

Full details are available here: https://zenodo.org/records/15637980

Best regards, Fariba Azad

Fariba Azad

Critique of Emergent Frequency in CCT and the Relativistic Treatment of Time: A Reaffirmation of Frequency as Foundational in ECM.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Critique_of_Emergent_Frequency_in_CCT_and_the_Relativistic_Treatment_of_Time_A_Reaffirmation_of_Frequency_as_Foundational_in_ECM

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Thank you for taking the time to formulate a formal critique.

It’s important to clarify that Containment Cosmology Theory (CCT) does not treat frequency as "emergent" within the same semantic or mathematical field as ECM. Rather, it places Memory—a functional, rotational, and saturable property of containment systems—at the foundation of observable behavior. Frequency is not denied; it is contextualized as a derivative outcome, not a universal driver.

To restate:

· In CCT, Time is not an axis or coordinate, nor a distortion of spacetime. It is the recorded residue of rotational containment.

T = R = M

· Frequency appears only when containment reaches a dynamic equilibrium—it is a measure of how often memory cycles, not a force of causation.

· This is not a rejection of waveform mathematics, but a reordering of what the wave is doing: It is not moving through space but cycling within a memory-retaining boundary.

The relativistic view frames time as stretchable and space as flexible, but offers no mechanism for coherence beyond inertia. In CCT, coherence is enforced by field containment, and what you call "time dilation" is simply a change in rotational memory behavior due to external saturation pressure.

So while ECM rightly holds frequency as ontologically strong within its own framework, CCT does not operate within that same container. It proposes a different system architecture—one where:

· Redshift is not recession but memory discharge

· Gravity is not pull but hold, and pressure if needed

· Time is not distorted—it is written

For those interested in understanding the model on its own terms, I invite further engagement: https://zenodo.org/records/15637980

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Thank you for your detailed answer and please forgive me for the words that seemed dismissive to you. I did not mean that at all. I regret it. I do not find it interesting to continue the discussion on this topic.

All the best,

I wish you satisfaction from your discussions about time.

Fundamental Role of Frequency in Physical Description: A Dimensional and Conceptual Justification

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Fundamental_Role_of_Frequency_in_Physical_Description_A_Dimensional_and_Conceptual_Justification

New discussion

• Started 55 seconds ago

Author: Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803

Date: July 20, 2025

Scientific Statement:

In Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), frequency is posited as the most fundamental descriptor of physical state, more primary than both energy (E) and time (Δt), based on its direct association with intrinsic dynamical evolution, independence from external reference systems, and dimensional precedence in the construction of observable quantities.

Description:

In the classical Planck relation E = hf, energy appears as the product of a constant h and frequency f, suggesting an equivalence. However, ECM reinterprets this relation: energy is not a primary physical quantity, but rather an emergent one - a secondary representation of the system's intrinsic frequency of phase transition or oscillation, scaled by a conversion constant (e.g., ECMs k = 5.558 x 10⁻34 Js).

Unlike energy, which depends on system configuration (mass, motion, potential), and time Δt, which is relational and observer-dependent, frequency is inherent to the systems dynamical state. Whether referring to the oscillation of a field, the cycling of a phase, or the emission profile of a particle, frequency directly characterizes the ongoing evolution of the system without requiring an external timekeeper.

This primacy is reinforced by the role of frequency in ECM cosmology, where redshift and energetic shifts are framed in terms of Δf rather than time-based expansion. The apparent energetic imbalance ΔE or mass variation ΔM over a duration Δt is governed by the fundamental phase-frequency evolution, not by the passage of time itself.

Dimensional Analysis:

Quantity | Symbol | Dimensional Form

Frequency f [T⁻1]

Time Δt [T]

Energy E [ML2T⁻2]

Planck constant or ECM constant h or k [ML 2 T⁻1]

From the relation E = hf ⇒ [E] = [h][f] Substituting dimensions: [ML2T⁻2] = [ML2T⁻1] x [T⁻1]

This confirms frequency is the more elementary term: both energy and Planck's constant depend dimensionally on it. Furthermore, frequency derives solely from inverse time, while energy couples mass, length, and squared inverse time.

Importantly, frequency does not depend on energy, but energy cannot be defined without frequency, if one accepts E = hf as fundamental. Similarly, Δt is just the inverse of frequency, and thus frequency subsumes the role of time as well:

f = 1 / Δt      ⇒      Δt = 1 / f

Therefore, both E and Δt are derived quantities, contingent upon f.

External Validation of Frequency s Primacy in Physical Definition

The ECM position-that frequency is more fundamental than both energy and time-finds clear support in both experimental standards and foundational quantum theory.

The ECM position-that frequency is more fundamental than both energy and time-finds clear support in both experimental standards and foundational quantum theory.

Conclusion: These empirical and theoretical pillars collectively reinforce the ECM stance:

Frequency is not merely a useful parameter but the ontological basis of time, energy, and mass relations.