The universe exists only NOW. So, ``time'' is merely an axis on a graph. Note the observation of the ``arrow of time'' and of entropy derive from the sais postulate.

Article Causality, time, and force

Dear Richard, your topic mentions, Light, Time, Space, and in your description brought up Earth's time'

1) Speed of light in vacuum is 300k k/s but not speed of sunlight that has massive different speeds.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

2) Time is a universal that we don't know anything about it, and it does not have any relation with earth function. The earth or our solar system is fraction of fraction of our universe. The universal time is relative.

https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative

3) Space of the universe is never empty and it has characters.

https://www.academia.edu/39293599/Quantum_Intelligent_Space

Unfortunately our mind has been locked in last century ideology of earth Time, light, and space that Mr. Einstein explaining, while all the evidence is from our eye.

regards

Time is a concept and autonomously does not exist. Nobody can define time because its impossible to avoid its synonyms (eg movement, change) to do it. Time can be described by means of its synonyms only, which I did among others on: https://justpaste.it/why-time-cannot-dilate

--

Those who admit to understanding relativity, automatically acknowledge understanding of nonsense

Richard Lewis I'm afraid light is not a wave for scientists have obtained its holographic image Article Hologram of a Single Photon

Time in Special relativity is not a philosophical ,ontological problem. It is an engineering problem. In book "The meaning of relativity" Einstein defines what time is:

Strictly speaking, it would be more correct to define simultaneity first,

somewhat as follows: two events taking place at the points A and B of

the system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when

observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. Time is then

defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously.

It is important to define the starting assumptions and we would like these to be at a minimum.

We start with the assumption of the existence of space as a medium for wave propagation. We assume the existence of space and the existence of light.

From the concept of a wave we get frequency which defines time and from the wavelength we get a definition of distance. From the propagation of the wave we get speed.

From the starting assumptions of the medium space and light as a wave in that medium we can build the whole of physical reality using logical deduction following an approach using classical (not quantum) ideas.

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

This answers the challenge set by philosophers to define time and physical reality in terms of a minimum set of initial assumptions.

Richard

John Hodge John, you couldn’t be more wrong - time is the most important physical ingredient in all of physics - that is hence directly affecting both QM and Relativity due to its inner structure being integer *discrete* (!) in steps of 1/6961 iSpaceSecond (in iSpace-IQ unit system):

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

iSpace theory is able to derive the exact values and inner dependencies of 50+ constants of nature as presented on my RG home. It shows by integer geometric reasoning from first principles why everything - including time - is nececesserily discretized by Pi, GoldenRatio and a very small prime number like 1/6961 in the case of time:

Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...

Like with the advent of Maxwells energy quantum hypothesis on blackbody radiation, this *changes just everything* (like no more „ultraviolet catastrophe„ as assumed with favored alternative continuum assuming theories of that time).

@ Andrew Wutke

Relativistic theories are irrational.

The discussion is physics and what you are talking about is technology.

In science (physics) we do not conduct observations, we rationally explain physical phenomena and interactions between physical objects.

Simultaneity cannot be defined without avoiding the synonyms of time, because it is a phenomenon related to time, and as I mentioned earlier, it cannot be done for the same reason.

Einstein's "Definition" also includes synonyms for time.

@ Richard Lewis

In my opion space does not exist. Nonetheless, the term "space" is a convenient term in cosmology and astronomy. How to understand space I write among others at https://justpaste.it/how-to-comprehend-space

A wave is a disturbance of a physical medium by a physical object.

In the primordial universe, the lights were turned off :)

Physics is one. The problem is that, in addition to the rational, there is also the irrational (I call it mainsewage) science.

As I said, there is no possibility to define time without its synonyms.

Andrzej Lechowski Thank you for your post. I am interested that you say space does not exist and yet in the linked article you give a long list of its properties.

One of the properties that you list is to suggest that space does not expand. For me this is one of its most important properties. It is the expansion of space which is the reason why galaxies move apart with the recession velocity approximately proportional to distance. (Hubble).

Why do you think space is not expanding?

Richard

@ Javad Fardaei

Yes, in physics there are lots of wrong explanations and understatements on electromagnetism. Maybe you will be interested that one of my friends (Bogdan Szenkaryk AKA Pinopa) on his website http://pinopa.narod.ru/Polska.html is trying to repair physics. You can find there also articles on electromagnetism. Below his latest article http://pinopa.narod.ru/Ignorance_in_physics.pdf

@ Richard Lewis

You're very welcome.

Yes, I do because for one physical object space could be even lead and for another (let it be a man) his room. It's a relative thing. Nonetheless, we have to find a name for physical reality that starts beyond Earths atmosphere. In fact, so-called space constitutes one organism with all physical objects called the universe. Some galaxies are moving apart but some of them are coming closer.

According to messier.seds.org/more/virgo_gal.html, radial velocities of galaxies in Virgo Cluster with respect to Galactic Centre of Milky Way are as quoted below:

“1. Toward us:

IC 3258 -517 km/s

M86 (NGC 4406) -419

M90 (NGC 4569) -383

NGC 4419 -342

NGC 4318 -300

M98 (NGC 4192) -220

2. Away from us:

NGC 4388 +2535 km/s

IC 3453 +2489

NGC 4607 +2367

NGC 4168 +2342

M99 (NGC 4254) +2324

NGC 4354 +2305

In the centre is M87.

+ 1300 km/s is calculated to M87. If we assume that M87 stands still, the 1300 km makes alleged expansion of space but it obviously cannot expand.

If it could it meant there was some pressure in the universal space with a tendency to decrease, which is obviously irrational.

Inference: the universe does not expand.

By the way, our bubble we can examine may not exclusively be one. The universe is one but there could be plenty of structures similar to our one.

Moreover, space does not expand because it not getting thinner.

To put this quest in a philosophical context: Thales is considered to be the first philosopher. Thales was looking for the fundamental principle of the universe. To find “that of which all existing things are composed and that from which they originally come to be …”

Thales proposed it to be water through carefully considered and reasoned scientific arguments. The Spacetime Wave Theory identifies this “arche” as the medium of space. Starting from the medium of space we identify light as a wave disturbance of the medium travelling at speed c and electrons, neutrons and protons as looped waves in Spacetime travelling at speed c in the loop.

This is the motivation for defining time in terms of this fundamental principle of the medium of space.

Richard

Time is a human construct, in our "necessity" to impose measurement upon the universe at all scales.

Richard Lewis, I agree with the last sentence in your post although I think that the light wave is very complex with a confined, complex core (photon) that generates a broader wave (field). I have some experiments posted on this site, "Polarity and Photon Interference", "Experimental Determination of Photon Interference Point", "Anomalous Photon Interference", and others, which seem to demonstrate this. Now for my own heretical view that all phenomena, including time, are derived the form the same universal elements of what we classify as existence and that relative change in the relationship of these elements creates what we could classify as a local time vector for each element. The composite time vector for the cosmos is null but within the timeless cosmos a local expanding wave of elements with common vectors would provide a common time vector for a local universe. Across that wave and within it there could be repetitive configurations of element vectors (the spectrum of observable phenomena) moving within it and creating smaller local time vectors. The vector of time is the same as all others. For a more detailed explanation of this you could view my preprint on this site, " Astrophysical Speculations [Up-Dated] (An Essay on Phenomena's Common Basis)".

Thankyou Andrzej Lechowski

. I checked the site,

Time is invented by man, why did man invent it? To measure the speed of an object. Time is a ruler. If time itself changes, how does time measure the speed of an object? Time constant is the meaning that time is invented. If time can change, then time has no meaning. The mistake made by relativity is to change the definition of time. Human invention of time is the use of its invariance. As a result, relativity thinks that it can be changed. Is time still useful? Time and space are the foundation of physics, and they are very important concepts, and we must study their essence, and their essence is very simple, they are rulers. The ruler itself can not be stretched and shortened at will, otherwise the ruler is not allowed.

Time is a very old concept, human beings created it, but because the time is too long, human beings forget that it is created by themselves, thinking that there is time in the world, in fact, there is no time in the universe this thing, it is invented by human beings.

Time does not exist, it has no physical entity, and so gravity cannot act on it.

Andrzej Lechowski

I agree with you that space doesn't exist.

There are two kinds of space-time commonly used by human beings: chord (tonal) space-time and non-chord (atonal) space-time; The form of the former is: chord (quantum spectrum *), chord space (open, closed, membrane string), often used in music, painting, etc.; The latter masks chords (tonality) and is often used in classical physics, where space-time is a tonal - atonal two-layer existence.

Chord (tonal) space-time is expressed by chord (H^n*f), which is physical reality; Non-chord (atonal) spacetime comes from atonal spacetime experience, such as: space states and changes, etc., from the common external reference frame (clock, ruler, etc.) to obtain values, is a relative concept based on the reference frame.

Chord time and chord space are mirror images of each other, which is manifested as space-time duality (wave-particle duality).

Preprint Chord(Quantum)Spacetime

Preprint Chord Language

Everyone should read this...

https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative

Time is life.

The definition of second, minutes...days, and years is understood among of us. there is no need of explanation, but the meaning of Time or universal Time that it is working for entire of the universe is questionable.

The only similarity between universal-time and earth's time is the same spelling ( TIME).

The universal-time is unknown, yet understandable that located in center of three dimension of the Space, NOT as Einstein stated in fourth axes. Thus Time is relative

https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative

Richard Lewis : " We can show that the arrow of time must be in the forward direction by considering light. The speed of light is always positive and distance is always positive so the direction of time must always be positive. "

Hi Richard!

I'm afraid that your reasoning seems to be a little circular.

Take a hypothetical entity that experiences time oppositely to us. To them, the same lightsignals are travelling in the opposite directions. They can argue (like you), that "the arrow of time must be in the forward direction ... The speed of light is always positive and distance is always positive so the direction of time must always be positive"

... and agree with you that the arrow of time only points one way ... but the direction that they would define as being "forward time" would be in the opposite direction to yours.

The failure in the logic is the statement that the speed of light is always positive, as this introduces the implicit assumption that all entities can agree on the correct direction to label as positive. In effect, this involves us commandeering the time axis and asymmetrically labelling it up to correspond to our own sense of time.

You are not "showing" that there is a preferred direction for time, you are assuming it, and then using that assumed preferred direction to label the time axis, and insisting that everyone else must agree with the labelling.

Hi Eric. Your hypothetical entity who experiences time moving in the negative direction would have a problem. He would know that speed is distance divided by time. He would know that his time is moving in the negative direction. He would then have to work out whether his distance measurement is negative or his speed measurement is negative.

Either way we have departed far from reality. I think my proof of the forward arrow of time still stands.

Richard

"Time" put us here; and you want to define it! Read my mind.

Lou

“…Finding a definition for time has challenged thinkers and philosophers….”

- yeah, that is so, there exist innumerous publications with “definitions of time”, and practically innumerous corresponding “definitions”; which are mostly different, what looks for any normal human rather strange – it is evident that there can exist only one really scientific definition of anything, including of “time”.

That happens in mainstream philosophy and sciences because of that in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., including “light”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational and so in every case, when some mainstream authors address to some of the phenomena above, the result completely inevitably logically obligatorily is nothing else than some transcendent fantastic mental constructions,

- what all mainstream “definitions” really are.

The fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and are, really rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, see at least first dozen of pages in recent version of the basic paper in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and, at that, the definitions are possible only if these phenomena/notions are defined together; say, even to define the notion “definition” it is necessary before to define what is “Consciousness”, so further what is “mind”, etc.

So, say, that

“…"Time" put us here; and you want to define it! Read my mind.….”

- really is a strange claim [though that is a version of I. Kant definition] since the author doesn’t understand what are “time” and “mind”.

Including that

“… The direction of the arrow of time is questioned because many physical laws seem to be symmetrical in the forward and backward direction of time. We can show that the arrow of time must be in the forward direction …..”

- relates to a popular in mainstream physics “arrow of time”, where this strange “arrow” is mostly determined by entropy increasing, etc.

Really the arrow of time was introduced in physics by Newton as that

“…Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external…”,

- i.e. time flows in one direction to somewhere; when in this case Newton simply formalized the everyday practice fundamentally illusory definition of time, when, say, a passed was S is S=Vt, where V is some speed, and t is the flowing equably independently on anything external “time”.

This definition exists in the mainstream physics till now with “relativistic” correction that this time flow can be “dilated”, what is also a fundamental illusion, in this case of authors of the SR/GR; and in mainstream physics, where SR/GR are standard theories;

- though for this arrow there is no any necessity in some quite strange additional “arrows” as the “entropy arrow” above, entropy indeed increases in time, however that has no any other relation to time. Everything happens/proceeds in time, and in that entropy by no means differs from anything else.

Really time is the ct-dimension in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); and time fundamentally doesn’t flow to anywhere, say, as that any space dimension fundamentally doesn’t flow as well,

- as well as it has “arrow” – that is positive direction in the dimension, as that also all other dimensions have.

However time dimension fundamentally differs from space dimensions in that while everything can move in ± space directions, but in the time dimension everything that changes moves fundamentally only in positive direction, “travels back I n time” are fundamentally impossible.

More see the link above.

Cheers

This is not my subject at all, but I have been looking at the responses. I don't think anyone has written 'time is manmade' but this was my first thought when I saw the question earlier.

I then looked my premise up and saw this link:

https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

Mary C R Wilson Hi Mary. Thank you for the link. They talk about the block universe as if all of Spacetime exists past present and future.

The alternative view is that all of space exists and due to the presence of matter and radiation in the universe there is an evolution of events in space which we refer to as time.

This fits well with the space rest frame paper mentioned earlier and also with the description of the evolution of the universe presented here:

https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc

On the question of the perception of time, that is a completely different question and depends on an understanding of how the brain works.

Preprint The Conscious Brain

Richard

Richard Lewis ,

I don't know the answer to what time is. I don't think the question can be answered. All we know is how to measure it. And for human purposes, one year passes when the Earth completes an orbit of the Sun relative to the background stars.

This should not be confused with the fact that when atomic clocks move through the luminiferous medium, the physical shear interaction alters their frequency.

Article The Lorentz Aether Theory

Frederick David Tombe Hi Frederick. Yes I think we agree on time dilation. As I said in my paper on the space rest frame the hypothesis is that length contraction and time dilation depend on the velocity v relative to the space rest frame. This frame of reference is the frame of the medium of space in which light actually travels.

It does raise the intriguing question of whether we should conclude that time slows down in a frame moving with velocity v relative to K0 (space rest frame) or whether we should state that the fundamental rate of passage of time is unaffected but all physical measurements will report time dilation in a moving frame of reference because of the effect of the velocity v on the matter objects performing the measurement.

I think I prefer the latter description but it seems useful when doing the maths to record the time dilation in a moving frame as a change associated with that frame affecting the whole time dimension.

Anyway, I would tend to think of universal time as being measured at any point in space by a time measurement system at rest in the space rest frame.

We can go back to thinking of time just as the observed result that light takes about one second to travel around 300,000 km. We can also say that time existed even before matter and radiation provided a means of measuring time. This must be the case because the expansion of the medium of space even before the formation of matter was a physical phenomenon with a time component. Space was expanding at a rate of around 1 part in 14 billion light years per year per light year as it does today.

The context for this is the evolution of the universe described here:

https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc

and the nature of matter described here:

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

Richard

Richard Lewis

You think of "time" is too complicated. Time is an abstract concept of human fiction. There is no "time" in the universe. It is a "ruler" invented by human beings, used to measure the speed of object movement or change, it is the product of human invention.

Richard Lewis , I don't think that frames of reference in motion relative to other frames of reference, have any physical effect on anything. The only significant factor when it comes to a Lorentz transformation is the physical effect on the atoms and molecules that are in motion relative to the luminiferous medium.

Frederick David Tombe Yes. I think we agree on that. The physical effect on atoms and molecules in motion relative to the luminiferous medium is such as to cause length contraction and time dilation.

The magnitude of the length contraction and time dilation depends on the velocity v relative to the medium and is given by the factor sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Agreed?

Richard

Duan Xian Xiang I agree with you that time is a ruler invented by human beings used to measure the speed of object movement or change. You could also say that space is a ruler invented by human beings used to measure the separation between objects.

However, it is helpful to assume that they both exist in order to construct mathematical models to describe the physical world.

Scientists will mostly accept the existence of space and time. Philosophers will have their doubts.

Richard

Richard Lewis , Except, that what you refer to as time dilation is more accurately a frequency dilation relating to the angular frequency within the molecules that are in motion. Also, the speed, c, in the gamma factor might have to be reduced when we are dealing with matter in motion. It can only be exactly the speed of light when we are dealing with magnetic fields in motion, since their structure is directly related to the speed of light.

Frederick David Tombe I agree that there will be a frequency change in the positive direction. The mass/energy of the particle e.g. proton increases by the factor and E=hf so the frequency must change accordingly. The is the cause that will lead to time measurement recording a lower value than would be found in the space rest frame.

Richard

Sergey Shevchenko Hi Sergey. I have been thinking about your “Information is absolute “ concept. Of course everything has associated measurements or data, but is it the fundamental thing?

As an example, I thought about applying your concept to weather forecasting. In the process data is collected about temperature and pressure and wind speed etc. Then this data is fed into models to make the predictions.

The data in this case is not the cause of the weather. It is the variation in the temperature and pressure which is the cause of the weather.

I know some people who have claimed that the mathematical models of physics are absolute. I take the view that it is the medium of space that is the absolute fundamental thing from which all of physics is derived.

I suppose it is just that we have a different basic world view.

Best wishes

Richard

“...This is not my subject at all, but I have been looking at the responses. I don't think anyone has written 'time is manmade' but this was my first thought when I saw the question earlier.….”

- that really isn’t correct - because of in mainstream philosophy and sciences all fundamental phenomena/notion , including “Space”, “Time” and “Consciousness” are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational [more see the SS post January 19], including so, the mainstream scientists really don’t know why and how they observe something and why and how they think, doing all that completely instinctively – quite equally as that, say, animals do,

- including inventing some claims as 'time is manmade', which, despite that is fundamentally wrong, is rather popular in mainstream philosophy, again – see the SS post – utmost known earlier case is that I. Kant claimed that.

Correspondingly in

“… I then looked my premise up and saw this link: https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html ….”

- the quoted link is a quite typical mainstream philosophical article, where a number of existent in the mainstream utmost popular “explanation of what is time” are considered, which are evidently different,

- however, since because of the transcendence above any “explanation” cannot have principally, and so hasn’t any rational scientific grounds, all these different mental constructions of a number of philosophical “Great Thinkers” are completely equally “true” in the mainstream;

- while all the approaches that are pointed in the link really are only some transcendent senseless claims, where the authors don’t understand, what the words that they write really mean. Or, more correctly, they only instinctively understand the meanings, and this knowledge is adequate to the reality in a primitive everyday practice, however is completely useless and mostly wrong at considering something above this practice.

Really, again, practically all really fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and are, really scientifically defined only in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” conception, the link to corresponding paper, in this case it is enough to read first dozen of pages, see in the SS post January 19. The conception isn’t trivial, and to understand it is necessary to be able to think well logically, objectively – i.e. paying no attention to own instincts - and non-standardly, however to read and to attempt to understand what is written is much more useful than wasting time on reading really mostly senseless numerous mainstream publications.

More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.

Cheers

Richard Lewis , I should add, that if a human being were to be caused to spend a lengthy period on the Moon, where the gravitational field strength is less than that on Earth, then this should surely have a physical effect on his body. But it would have no effect whatsoever on astronomical time. On return to Earth, he would have observed all the same events that had passed since he left, as though he had remained on Earth.

What is not clear however, is whether the weaker gravitational field on the Moon caused his body clock rate to alter in line with the GTR formula. But even if it did, would it actually do so in a way that changes the rate of physical ageing? We don't know the answer to this.

Illusion

https://youtu.be/jsUFpz1iU9Q

Hi Richard. From this

“…I have been thinking about your “Information is absolute “ concept. Of course everything has associated measurements or data, but is it the fundamental thing?

As an example, I thought about applying your concept to weather forecasting. In the process data is collected about temperature and pressure and wind speed etc. Then this data is fed into models to make the predictions.….”, etc.,

- it looks that you didn’t read the SS posts and the papers, where the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “Information is Absolute “ concept, at least first dozen of pages in recent version of the basic paper in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

Which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists eternally, having no Beginning and no End.

Including in the conception the utmost fundamental now in mainstream philosophy and science phenomena/notions “Matter” and "Consciousness” become be scientifically defined – they both are nothing else than some informational systems; and, besides, most of other fundamental, and so “just philosophical” – but, after the concept was formulated, now Meta-scientific – phenomena/notions are correctly defined also, including the “absolutely fundamental” phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, and “Energy”.

At that the utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information” is:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”,

- while “Space”, “Time”, and “Energy” are the “Logos” set elements. Correspondingly everything, including Earth atmosphere, is/are some informational patterns/systems, where, say, the informational patterns “atoms of gases” compose the informational system “atmosphere”, and interact by exchanging by some “messages”,

- while just because of that humans’ consciousnesses are also made from the same stuff “Information” humans are able at observing what happens in atmosphere to understand adequately to the reality some of the messages; if reveal at that some logical links in the messages to develop some models and to make the predictions; etc.

Etc., the consciousnesses are so able to reveal some links not only in atmosphere, and so now there are numerous models of many other things that exist and happen in humans and humans’ environment.

That is another thing, that in the mainstream philosophy and sciences – and, of course in everyday “ordinary” humans practice, the people fundamentally don’t know why that is so, and make that purely instinctively – as that, including, every living being makes, since fundamentally obligatorily has some version of the “consciousness on Earth” version – as some version of which humans have; and in that people outside the “Information is absolute “ concept really don’t differ from, say, even a bacterium.

So more see the link above; and other SS posts and links in the posts, though.

Cheers

I have just been to see the excellent stage production of the Time Machine at the theatre Royal Bath. It is a comedy based on the book by HG Wells.

It got me thinking about time travel and the idea of time as a fourth dimension. Maybe we should not think of time as a fourth dimension but as a property of objects in space.

If you follow the idea of space as a medium for wave propagation, it follows that there must be a space rest frame and the postulates of Special Relativity have to be discarded:

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

Then it becomes clear that you could in theory set up standard clocks at rest in the space rest frame and these could all be synchronised to define the standard time at any point in the universe.

Any clock moving with velocity v would be able to be compared with the standard clock in passing and the moving clock would show a slower rate of passage of time.

Time travel in the forward or backward direction is impossible and the only possibility is a slower rate of passage of time due to the velocity v of an object relative to the space rest frame.

This suggests that we should think of time as a property of objects in space. We no longer need the idea of Spacetime for Special Relativity but what about General Relativity?

We know that space can be curved and space curvature affects the rate of passage of time. The nature of this interaction between the curvature of space and the rate of passage of time can be calculated from the Einstein equations of General Relativity which uses 4x4 dimension tensors.

So do we still need to think of time as a dimension for the benefit of GR? I think not. I think we can still think of time as a property of objects in space while using the Einstein equations of GR to determine the effect of the curvature of space on this property.

Richard

Sergey Shevchenko Dear Sergey. I have read the opening paragraphs of your paper linked in your previous post. I can see the basis of your ideas which are coherent and well explained.

Let me first test whether I have understood correctly. I see from the opening paragraphs that it is a work of philosophy. I see that you have introduced a new possibility alongside materialism and idealism. May I call it informationalism to differentiate it from information itself?

I would say that informationalism is superior and more rational than idealism.

However, I think philosophy has had an unfortunate history ever since Descartes defined the mind / body problem. When Descartes said “I think therefore I am” he gave priority to mind as evidence of the certainty that he existed.

Then down the ages we have had to deal with concepts such as mind, soul, consciousness, ego, reason, platonic forms, truth which have been argued back and forth by philosophers.

Your world view is informationalism. My world view is materialism.

If philosophers would allow me one initial assumption it would be the existence of space as a medium for wave propagation. I know philosophers love to doubt everything but grant me this one wish.

From this medium we get the propagation of light as a wave. Matter is then explained as comprised of neutrons, protons and electrons which are themselves looped waves in the medium of space.

Now we have understood matter, we can study the brain and realise that it is comprised of matter and it requires a particular understanding of biology, chemistry and physics to understand how the brain works.

Consciousness is then the subjective experience that we have of the operation of our brain. So from a brain science point of view we should delete the words “mind” “soul” “ego” “subconscious” from our vocabulary and just talk about the brain and its activity.

This is how I would build up a comprehensive world view.

The problem that I have with “informationalism” as with “idealism” as with “string theory” is that it seems to me to be intangible and unverifiable.

I think you are going to reply that materialism is unverifiable too and you are probably right.

I suppose it depends on your starting assumptions.

I hope this explains how we differ in our world view.

With sincere best wishes

Richard

"Your world view is informationalism. My world view is materialism."

Richard / Sergey sorry for interrupting your discussion

Richard interesting and unbelievable clear writing and making your point.

I think nature is made of two sides of one coin.

non energy based (not possible to measure in Joule)

- information as idea (natures laws)

energy based (possible to measure in Joule)

material information stored in a structure

- matter (electron mass structure for instance must exist and no point)

- light (has no mass-structure)

Manfred

consciousness ?

I "think", minimum, is made from both. Here math is not necessary but may be useful to speak clearer.

Dear Richard,

“…Dear Sergey. I have read the opening paragraphs of your paper linked in your previous post. I can see the basis of your ideas which are coherent and well explained.,,”

- that’s well; however from what you write in the post further it looks that you have read only a too few opening paragraphs of the paper, and if you would read more, then the post would contain only the quote above, since the rest your points are clearly answered in the paper. So more see the paper, here only one comment to:

“….Let me first test whether I have understood correctly. I see from the opening paragraphs that it is a work of philosophy. I see that you have introduced a new possibility alongside materialism and idealism. May I call it informationalism to differentiate it from information itself?….”

- firstly yeah, the “Information as Absolute” concept is first of all the really philosophical concept/doctrine, which differs from the main two mainstream doctrines “Materialism” and “Idealism” ,

- which have the defined by yet Antic fathers of philosophy utmost fundamental subjects for study - the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter” and [really] “Consciousness”, and

- corresponding problems – what are Ontologies of “Matter” and [really] “Consciousness”?, and why and how something that is called “a human” studies these phenomena? [Epistemology].

Really in the existed/existent mainstream philosophy both, “Matter” and “Consciousness” [really Consciousness in Idealism has a few of names, say, “Idea”, “Spirit”, which really are “conscious”] both phenomena are completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so both mainstream doctrines are really nothing else than some secular religions, where

- adepts of Materialism truly believe that for some purely transcendent reason and by some completely transcendent way there exist only some transcendent Matter, which for/by transcendent reasons and ways exists fundamentally eternally, for/by transcendent reasons and ways always changes, and, at that, again for/by transcendent reasons and ways, these changes are evidently in accordance with some logical links/laws;

- while all that above in Materialisms is completely the same when relates to adepts of Idealism, with an essential difference – Idealism “solves” the problem why and how logical links/laws exist in Matter – that is establishes because of Matter is some “emanation”/ action of some conscious/intelligent – and extremely mighty – again transcendent Idea, Spirit, etc.

That is solved completely analogously in religions, so really there exist only a couple of main differences between mainstream philosophy and religions - the Ideas and Spirits in Idealism, and “Higher level of again mystic development of Matter” in Materialism, are called in religions as “God(s)”; and

- while religions quite frankly claim that all in what they believe is transcendent, the mainstream philosophers claim that they solve the philosophical problems completely rationally scientifically, despite that really hasn’t any rational imagination about what they study and why they are able to study at all. The last is nothing else than the transcendent mainstream belief that is additional to common with religions' beliefs above.

The “Information as Absolute” concept is fundamentally non-transcendent doctrine, where the fundamental phenomena/notions are completely rigorously scientifically defined, and so all philosophical problems above, i.e. ontology of “Matter” and “Consciousness” and Epistemology problems are really solved first of all it is rigorously proven that everything is nothing else than some informational patterns/systems, while the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information” becomes to be also non-transcendent and rationally cognizable,

- and now Matter and Consciousness aren’t philosophical subjects for study, but have became Meta-scientific subjects for study of other sciences, which study the phenomena concretely using theoretical and experimental instruments which philosophy hasn’t – and, it, again, should not have, the scientific researches aren’t philosophical researches.

Correspondingly the “Information as Absolute” concept by no means is some mainstream “ism”, including “informationalism”; it, again, transforms philosophy into real science, where are no different innumerous now in mainstream “isms”; and. at that the concept formulates next really fundamental, and so which are beyond other sciences, problems, etc., more see the paper, first of all [but after obligatory sections 1-7] section “Conclusion”.

More see the SS posts above in the thread and links in the posts.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Hello Sergey. I had to look up the definition of transcendent and found this:

Transcendent:

1. Beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience."the search for a transcendent level of knowledge"

2.(in scholastic philosophy) higher than or not included in any of Aristotle's ten categories.

I think you are referring to 1. above?

Your concept of “Information is Absolute“ is stated as non-transcendent which I would take to mean “within the range of normal or physical human experience “.

This description is open to interpretation. When we compare Idealism, Informationalism and Matterialism we are asking the questions:

Are ideas within the range of normal or physical human experience?

Is information within the range of normal or physical human experience?

Is matter within the range of normal or physical human experience?

The answers are all debatable, but have I got the definitions and questions right?

Richard

Hello Richard.

From your last post it looks that you start to read the SS&VT the “Information as Absolute” concept paper much more attentively, and so now you have well rational question to the concept; while if in somebody who want to understand what is something some rational questions appear that is quite true sign that he starts to understand something in this something. So to:

“…I had to look up the definition of transcendent and found this: Transcendent:

1. Beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience." the search for a transcendent level of knowledge"2.(in scholastic philosophy) higher than or not included in any of Aristotle's ten categories. I think you are referring to 1. above?...”

- yeah, of course 1.; though, of course “."the search for a transcendent level of knowledge"” is evident absurdity, which, though is quite legitimate in the mainstream philosophy, and so you found that. In the paper the notion “Transcendent” means “fundamentally beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience”, synonymous are “mystic”, “mysterious”, “fundamentally uncertain”, “irrational”, etc.,

- while so the notions “knowledge” and “transcendent” are by their really rigorous definitions incompatible. “2.” is a typical mainstream senseless “definition” the authors of which had/have no any rational imaginations about what they themselves are, and so what Aristotle's ten categories are.

Really Aristotle indeed was seems the first, who intuitively quite correctly assumed that information is based on a set of some ultimately universal notions - what is the base of the SS&VT concept above, and most of categories are really “Logos” set elements; and if he also could scientifically defined the phenomenon/notion “Information”, the concept would be formulated well more 2000 years ago. But he used information only purely instinctively, as that the recent mainstream and practically all humans do; and the concept appeared only in 2007.

“….Your concept of “Information is Absolute“ is stated as non-transcendent which I would take to mean “within the range of normal or physical human experience “…”

- yeah, of course, the authors of the concept are quite ordinary humans, and the concept is completely within the range of normal or physical human experience. That is another thing that in the authors, in contrast to other humans, appeared the question – what is “information”, they instinctively use of which? – and answering to this question resulted in the concept.

“….This description is open to interpretation. When we compare Idealism, Informationalism and Matterialism we are asking the questions: Are ideas within the range of normal or physical human experience? Is information within the range of normal or physical human experience?

Is matter within the range of normal or physical human experience? The answers are all debatable, but have I got the definitions and questions right? …..”

- that is a set of rather questionable questions, since that was answered in the SS posts above already. Again, there is no some philosophical doctrine “Informationalism”, there exist the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “Information is Absolute “ concept, where it is rigorously proven that everything is absolutely for sure nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

At that, again, the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information ” after the scientific definition in the concept becomes to be completely non-transcendent, and is quite rationally scientifically cognizable

– and so the “simply” fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness”, which were/are completely transcendent in the mainstream philosophy, just so in the mainstream two principally different, but fundamentally rationally non-grounded, i.e. completely transcendent, doctrines “Materialism” and “Idealism” existed always, and in the mainstream exist till now.

Again – in the really philosophical concept fundamentally there are no really philosophical “Materialism” and “Idealism”, since the ontologies of these phenomena in the concept are quite clear, and so now both, “Matter” and “Consciousness” can be without any principal problems studied in any real sciences on any level of fundamentality.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko I am still struggling to understand the definition of information in the context of “information is absolute”. I have read the paper with some difficulties.

I can see that every physical process must have a mathematical description which involves the data associated with the process. So we have a mathematical model and the data associated with a particular instance of the process.

Are you saying that the data is in a sense more fundamental than the reality of the physical objects involved in the process?

This seems to be an idea similar to the idea of platonic forms where there is a kind of template for all objects. The Information is Absolute concept seems to imply an underlying layer of reality in which exists information which guides the evolution of processes. Am I starting to understand the concept?

What I am coming to is a search for an understanding of how this will help make sense of the natural world?

Richard

Richard Lewis

- from what you wrote in the last post it looks that despite you read the paper you till now have only the common for all living beings instinctive understanding of what is “Information”: that “Information is a data ”. What correspondingly is a tautology, though the last isn’t too essential in this case, much more is in that you don’t understand that the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information”, including her utmost evident and fundamental property “is a data”, always, if is concretely actualized when some concrete informational patterns/systems [further “P/S”] are formed, that happens absolutely obligatorily at action of all her [absolutely fundamental] “Logos” set’s elements.

Concerning your last post that are first of all the “Logos” elements “Logics/Logical Rules”, “Time” [and “Space”, of course, though] “Change”, and “Energy/Momentum”.

The phenomenon “Change” is evident “Logos” element – it is applied to any/every changes of any/every informational P/S completely independently on – what and how changes, including at changes of a pattern “there is no some pattern/system” into “there exist this pattern/system”, i.e. at creation of any concrete P/S.

Any P/S is, of course, some “data”, however that becomes to be some data only if there exist, [even if “really is non-existent”, Information is very paradoxical phenomenon] some other P/S to which the data can be send and which could understand the message, composing so some system of P/S, the message so is based on Logical Rules; and it changes the P/S-receiver,

- by a couple of ways – “simply an additional pattern”, and when the data in the message tell to receiver that it should do something, while “do something” isn’t a “data”, that is an “action”, and really only at the actions some concrete patterns compose some “systems”.

At that the “data” in P/S evidently change, while the “Logos” element/action “Change” so is logically self-inconsistent if a change is “instant” – since in this case recent changing pattern’s data is simultaneously the changed data, what is logical absurdity. So every change fundamentally cannot be continuous, it can be only discrete, where the discreteness is in something that is also the same for any/every P/S changes, and are actualized as some, fundamentally non-zero, intervals of this something.

At that – as that is quite evidently experimentally observable by humans, different changes can happen in the same something’s interval, happen in one of this something point, but happen in lesser/larger intervals, etc., so this something is evidently some unique absolutely universal for all changes dimension.

Really this something has some instinctive humans’ title “time” and “time dimension” , while really that is actualization of, so the Logos element, “Time” [the above is the answer to the thread question].

However to make an action it is necessary to spend some portion of– and, again, having no relation to “data” other something, what humans call “Energy”, which remains, just because of hasn’t, including in existent the “Information as Absolute” concept version, some rational relation to all the rest in “Logos” set, be really ultimately mysterious phenomenon/notion.

Besides in any system the messages, including “recommendations” have different levels of “convincinglity”, and as a rule in all “Information” Set, and in most cases in the informational system Matter the level of “convincinglity” is determined by the quantity of energy that a message contain.

An example: when an informational system “a moving billiard ball” knocks informational system “other ball” at rest on the table, it stops, while the other ball moves, really first ball says to the other ball “move in this direction”, and the other ball well understood the message – and if an informational system “a human’s consciousness” sees that, this system quite correctly understand the message,

- however if a human will say to a ball to move, nothing happens, since this human’s message contains much lesser portion of energy than the first ball had.

Though that in Matter happens not always; say, when informational system “Earth” send to the informational system “apple” the real message “come to me” – which the informational system “a human’s consciousness” understands quite correctly , the apple falls, but even some informational system “Newton consciousness” saw also haw the falling happens, if Newton would say some apple to fall on Earth again nothing would happen,

- despite that in this case the Earth message doesn’t contain energy, however in this case much more convincing laws in Matter act, so to fall the apple spends own energy; more see Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

However, again – see the main paper, “Energy” practically for sure is a “Logos” set element, which is lesser “mighty” then “Information, at least “as a data” and the element “Logics” – if would be a case, when would be nothing, including “no Energy”, there would be fundamentally obligatorily the quite real cyclic data “there is nothing, besides the data that there is nothing….”.

- So finally: the problem – so what is the Logos element “Energy”? - is practically for sure the “utmost ultimately” fundamental - and actual, though, scientific problem.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko I think I am beginning to understand. You are saying that underneath it all is a kind of data network communicating information which tells objects how to move?

Do you see this underlying pattern/system as a framework of physical laws or as an active information processor?

It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Richard

“…I think I am beginning to understand. You are saying that underneath it all is a kind of data network communicating information which tells objects how to move?

Do you see this underlying pattern/system as a framework of physical laws or as an active information processor? It is a difficult concept to grasp…”

- well, it looks as you are beginning to understand, but till now formulate [including for yourself] what you understand too vaguely till now.

Again – see the SS posts and the “Information as Absolute” paper – every concrete [absolutely for sure informational] system of [absolutely for sure informational] elements can be, and so is, created as some like a computer or, say, quite equally like a steam locomotive, or, say, quite equally a country – the system is always constituted by a “hardware”, i.e. its elements, and “software” – the established set of universal laws/links/constants, which govern the elements,

- which in the system mutually interact exchanging by messages that are written on the concrete language that is understandable by the elements at the system’s evolution/development,

- and the “convincinglity” of the messages is provided by sufficient portions of energy that the messages contain, while the utmost convincing are the laws/links/constants that control/govern the elements.

In computer the set of the laws/links/constants and language is written in the hardware design/construction, and so the written set has utmost “convincinglity” , the energy that makes the set’s action and “convincinglity” of messages between, say, chips, is provided by the power supply; the same is in a steam locomotive, where the laws/links/constants are written in the locomotive’s details design/construction, though in this case the set’s “convincinglity” is provided by that the details are hard enough; in a country that are a state’s codes of laws, that govern/control the countries/ societies, the energy is provided by police, special services, army, etc.

The same happens in Matter: the ultimate Matter’s “hardware” are primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- where – in fundamental contrast to countries, where some people mostly don’t know all laws and/or don’t understand what the laws mean, every FLE knows all Matter’s laws/links/constants completely correctly.

Correspondingly everything in Matter, first of all particles, which are specific close-loop and cyclic, algorithms that constantly and always run using FLE hardware, and the fundamental Nature forces mediators [and so everything in Matter since is composed by particles and the mediators], is/are some disturbances in the lattice.

Besides Matter is so huge system, while mediators that are messages between material objects propagate in the space with the speed that is determined by the utmost universal properties of FLE – its “size” in 3D space and FLE state change - “FLE binary flip” time - interval, which practically for sure are Planck length and Planck time, and so the speed is limited being equal to the speed of light,

- so unlike computers , steam locomotives, and countries, and not only, of course, Matter’s distant objects are essentially independent on each other.

Though, again, since everything in Matter knows completely the set of the laws/links constants, really Matter isn’t a “completely computer” , mostly that is a huge set of innumerous automata, again – particles, bodies, etc.; while Matter constantly and always evolves re-distributing the unbelievable portion of energy that was spend/pumped in at its creation.

So in this case really only one problem remains – for what reason and how such huge element appeared in the “Information” Set?

- in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, [see initial cosmological model in section “Cosmology” in the philosophical the “Information as Absolute” concept paper or in physical paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics] it is conjectured that Matter was designed and made by an informational system “Consciousness” in the “Information ” Set, which seems knew what is a “Logos” set element “Energy”, and not only, so could design so simple – and, at that, so nice and smart, logical construction “Matter” in the Set.

Cheers

Reflections on the nature of time in Relativity Theory will be hinted in reference to the new bridges recently proposed by Connes and by Rovelli’s ‘perspectival’ approach, two major steps towards a unification of quantum, thermodynamical and relativistic times. The so called “time of philosophers”, a time of the cognizing ego, from Saint Augustin to Husserl and Bergson, is based on a different, but relevant perspective and it has been traditionally opposed to the ‘time of physicists’.

In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of events that occur in succession, from the past through the present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure, or compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and even, sequence events.

AND as for 4th Dimension as Temporality :

There’s a lot of things we can do with these 3D and 2D cartesian planes, , ,, , , For example, we could represent the position of something as an Ordered Pair (x, y) or Ordered Triple (x, y, z). Imagining an arbitrary point in the cartesian space it’s rather easy to realize that it can move in all directions, up, down, sideways, diagonals and so on. But the thing is… What happens if we add a fourth axis? A 4D Cartesian Plane? You see, this is where things start to get whacky. Primarily because there’s no way to visualize a 4D cartesian space on human apprehension in all science . Also, I don’t want to show you an image to represent a 4D space or objects because it’s a mandatory exercise ONLY to imagine TIME .So the whole Relativity's "time" is "Imaginaire' . At least, Jean-Baptiste le Rond d’Alembert had also "imagined" similar things , again as spooky .

Time must be located on intersection of three dimension of space axes.

https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative

Space-time consists of two layers: chord (tonality) space-time and non-chord (atonality) space-time; The former is expressed by chords (quantum spectrum, strings) and is often used in music, painting, etc. The latter masks the chord, is expressed by an external reference frame (clock, ruler, etc.), and is often used in classical physics, etc. Both layers involve the figure-ground and motion categories.

The mathematical expression of chord time and chord space mirror each other (H^n*f,H^-n*f,H=1.059463), the two are inverse chords (antimatter), time is antispace, space is antitime, can be converted to each other.

Classical space-time (atonal space-time) shields the chord and space-time mirror, and can only recognize space-time through motion, length, such as: clock (v=s/t), ruler (s), etc. (See: 10, atonal system)

Chord spacetime includes spatial definition (locality: figure-ground, facet, etc.) and time definition (non-locality: time period, rhythm, etc.), and the locality of space and the non-locality of time are manifested as space-time duality (wave-particle duality).

Preprint Chord(Quantum)Spacetime

Javad Fardaei I agree with many of the points in your paper linked above. I think that the Big Bang theory has to be discarded. I think that it is unhelpful to think of time as a fourth dimension but rather as a property of space and of objects in the medium of space.

If we go way back to the time before matter formed, there was no matter or radiation. However the medium of space occupied a spherical region which was expanding. The rate of expansion of 1 part in 14 billion per year (as it is today) implies the existence of both time and space but time is a property of expanding space.

Then when the first galaxy formed we have matter and radiation. Light travels at around 300,009 km/s as a wave in the medium of space and so any time derived from the speed of light is a properly of the medium of space.

The formation of matter then allows the construction of clocks. These clocks are affected by their velocity v relative to the space rest frame. The rate of passage of time is ultimately a property of space and is affected by the velocity v relative to the medium.

So I agree with you. Let’s not talk about time as a fourth dimension. Instead we should think of it as a property. We can still use the GR equations to describe the effect of space curvature on the rate of passage of time.

Richard

The scientific answer to the thread question “What is time” is given, with corresponding useful comments in the SS posts in pages 4-6, above in the thread:

(i) - the phenomenon/notion “Time” is [absolutely] fundamental, and so is - as all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Energy”, “Information”, fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences.

All really fundamental phenomena/notions, including the above ones, can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

(ii) - According to the conception, where it is rigorously scientifically proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, while so the general scientific definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

- “Time”, and essentially similar absolutely fundamental/notion “Space”, are elements of “Logos” set, so absolutely fundamentally – and so absolutely objectively - are always actualized in/for every informational pattern/system, including the informational systems “Matter” and, say, “human’s consciousness”, as, first of all, the concrete patterns’/systems’ concrete spaces , which can have arbitrary numbers of “space dimensions”, and fundamentally unique for all the Set’s elements “time dimension”.

The space and time dimensions compose concrete spacetimesof concrete patterns/systems, where the patterns/systems exist and change. There exist absolutely fundamentally nothing that would be outside some spacetime.

More concretely about how “Space” and “Time” are actualized in/for the Set’s element “Matter” see the SS&VT informational physical model of Matter, at least first dozen of pages in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

The posts in the thread that appeared after last SS post in page 6 contain some strange “definitions” of “time”, most are too strange ones; so only comment to rather popular in the mainstream, despite that is really wrong, one

“…In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of events that occur in succession, from the past through the present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure, or compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and even, sequence events.….”

- in math a specific mathematical object “time” fundamentally doesn’t exist, in math everything in a concrete theory happens “instantly” immediately the theory axioms are formulated. So mathematics can be – and, of course is – used only at description of something that exists and happens outside math, including by introduction of the variable “time” in equations that describe changes of the something, including changing positions in space, in the time dimension.

More see the links above and useful SS comments on pages 4-6.

Cheers

Time as a fourth dimension is also against the manifoldic data flux where "Events" of many different types [ Macro , Meso , and Micro ] are taking place . Even though it was shown that singularities, if exist, could only be rare events, they may induce additional energy dissipation by inertial means. Time as a fourth dimension completely hinders the characterization of the topology of these events and cannot identify several main types. A complex temporal event is a composite event or also called situation which has been detected by identifying a data pattern based on the input stream values which may constitute either simple or other complex events. An event is characterized by a set of attributes and additionally contains one or more timestamps indicating the time the event has been produced without being relative to anything else . At present, there is a lack of rules and regulations or even algorithms that can analyse this process in a reliable way for different types of events in a 4D Einsteinian relativism .

Dear Richard Lewis , thank you for respond.

You said>>Light travels at around 300,009 km/s as a wave in the medium of space and so any time derived from the speed of light is a properly of the medium of space.

Still we do not know the universal time, how it is traveling and what character it has. .

BTW, speed of sunlight cannot be constant with 300k k/s. All the measurement in past used artificial light in vacuum (flashlight), not sunlight that has massive frequencies, wavelength, and visible/invisible character.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

Javad Fardaei To define a universal time we need to locate the space rest frame. A method for doing this is given at the end of this paper.

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

The space rest frame is the expanding frame of reference in which light actually travels since it corresponds to the medium of space itself.

Clocks at rest in the space rest frame can be synchronised and define universal time. Any clock moving with velocity v relative to the space rest frame will report a slower rate of passage of time by a factor of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

The speed of light is independent of frequency. Frequency times Wavelength = c for all frequencies.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis , if you ask me few years ago, i would say the same as you said it in above statement.

To my understanding our universe is intrinsic universe not mechanic, and space of universe is changing constantly through temperature, pressure and it does not have any frame as last century ideology thought.

In fact space is changing through wave & temperature. There is no space in our galaxy without wave& temperature. for same reason we get picture from billions of miles. New but fact, prove by science,.

In fact, traveling of sunlight is depended on its frequency, wavelength, and visibility and its invisibility as science proved it (x-ray's speed is much slower than Gama-ray) Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

I took a look at the Wikipedia entry for speed of light and it states clearly that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation travel at the same speed.

I took a look at the link that you provided but I couldn't find any reference to actual observations which contradicts this statement. Can you provide such observation reference?

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis , No I cannot give you any reference, because science is wrong with interoperation artificial light and natural sunlight. The electromagnetic that nature is making is different from laboratories.

I give you example. Sunlight has photon that each atom (us) is harvest to survive, but artificial does not provide photon for atom. in fact, artificial light made by atom that it is using photon to provide the light.

Wikipedia is been written by wrong scientific perception, because of standard modeling of atom which i am rejecting it.

Space-time consists of two layers: chord (tonality) space-time and non-chord (atonality) space-time; The former is expressed by chords (quantum spectrum, strings) and is often used in music, painting, etc. The latter masks the chord, is expressed by an external reference frame (clock, ruler, etc.), and is often used in classical physics, etc. Both layers involve the figure-ground and motion categories.

The mathematical expression of chord time and chord space mirror each other (H^n*f,H^-n*f,H=1.059463), the two are inverse chords (antimatter), time is antispace, space is antitime, can be converted to each other.

Classical space-time (atonal space-time) shields the chord and space-time mirror, and can only recognize space-time through motion, length, such as: clock (v=s/t), ruler (s), etc. (See: 10, atonal system)

Chord spacetime includes spatial definition (locality: graph-bottom, facet, etc.) and time definition (non-locality: time period, rhythm, etc.), and the locality of space and the non-locality of time are manifested as space-time duality (wave-particle duality).

Preprint Chord(Quantum)Spacetime

The rigorous scientific answer to the question “What is time?” is given in the SS post on page 7, more see the post and links in the post. The scientific answer to the question “What is space?” and why Matter’s concrete spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,g,w,e,s,ct), where “ct” is the unique completely universal for/in all dynamic informational systems in the “Information” Set, including Matter, time dimension;

- including why the space is composed by (4+4) dimensions, see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 Planck scale initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” or in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces;

- and the SS&VT 2023 Planck scale initial model of Nuclear Force in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

What is space-time?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_space-time2

Researchers around the world are working to redefine one of science’s, and the world’s, most fundamental standards: the second. Cesium fountain clocks, which measure oscillations of cesium atoms, have long been the keepers of the official second standard. Now, the race is on to determine which of a new generation of atomic clocks will define the new second, with 100 times better accuracy. “A clock accurate to a second over the age of the cosmos would allow tests of whether physical laws and constants have varied over the universe’s history,” says physicist Patrick Gill...

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/04/the-science-of-the-perfect-second/?src=longreads