The ‘wider’ universe can only be infinite.

Here’s a simple reason why.

In broad terms: There is an elementary particle, somewhere in the universe. This particle has an associated wave function, Ψ. The probability that this particle exists somewhere in the universe at any time is equal to 1 ( = 100%, since it exists), and this probability is expressed mathematically by the formula ʃʃʃΨΨ*dxdydz, therefore ʃʃʃΨ*dxdydz=1, where Ψ is that particle’s associated wave function (the reason for this 'Born rule' is another story. The asterisk next to the second Ψ means the 'conjugate complex of Ψ', but never mind.)

Now add a second particle to form a new system made up of two particles: The system of these two particles has a new wave function, which we will call ƺ , and since this system exists, ʃʃʃƺƺ*dxdydz=1.

Now keep adding particles (or in other words, keep entangling particles in) until you have the entire universe minus one particle in your system. The probability that the entire universe minus one particle, which is a separate "system" or sub-system inside the entire still-wider universe is still 100%, i.e. 1. But now add in the very last particle of the universe: The mathematical relationship of Born rule with the new "wave function of the universe" (let's call it Ʊ ) still holds, but suddenly it seems to lose its physical meaning: the probability that the universe exists where? If this universe is all there is, the physical meaning of the born rule has suddenly evaporated the instant you added in the last particle of the universe.

Yet there is no physical or mathematical mechanism whereby the mere addition of one (final) particle would cause the wave function to suddenly cease to hold or to even exist, and yet the probability of the entire universe being present within a certain region or a certain system then seems to suddenly become meaningless. The problem is so big that many resort to stating that "there is no wave function of the universe" without any evidence or good reason to support this. The only mathematically acceptable solution is that the entire universe is actually a constituent part of something else, and then the equation ʃʃʃƱƱ*dxdydz = 1 means something anew (which it had never stopped doing until the addition of the last particle): namely, the definitive presence of the universe within something else : to wit, a larger universe! Now if you do the same iteration with this second universe, you will end up with the same problem and need a third universe, then a fourth, etc. and this need for never-ending recurrence leads you to the mathematical and physical need for an infinite universe - infinite, beyond our own.

There is a very, very weak possible objection, which is that Born's rule is not mathematically provable in a certain, narrowly specific interpretation of quantum mechanics (namely the 'Bohmian collapse'), but it is still allowed even in this interpretation and has never been falsified, but in this specific interpretation there is no indisputable mathematical proof for the Born rule, which states that the probability of something being in a certain patch of space is calculated by ʃʃʃΨ*dxdydz (the dimensions of the patch of space under consideration are the integration boundaries at x, y, and z , in other words the size of the universe when you include the entire universe in the calculation, which is the case here.) In all other interpretations of QM, the Born rule is mathematically demonstrated.

Incidentally, decoherence is never total, hence one could legitimately argue that the whole universe was loosely entangled from the word go, since everything in it arose from a tight Big Bang singularity event. This would neatly fit with the many theories under which the universe arose from a preexisting matrix universe.

Thank you for your insightful response. If this is considered a simple reason that grounds the infinity of the universe, I can imagine how complex cosmological causes might look. The concept of wave functions in terms of an infinite universe is truly an intriguing cosmological issue, addressing the structure and bounds of the universe. The idea of a "meta-universe" as a higher-order reality illuminates the uncertainties of logic.

Stephen Hawking reflected on the infinity of the universe by stating, "If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be." This highlights the boundless and timeless nature of the cosmos. The infinity of the universe brings more complex questions not only in spatial terms but also in temporal ones.

The Universe is not infinite. There is at least one more. Which is our anti-matter (anti-charge) Universe. There could be an infinity of such twin Universes, with in the infinite space surrounding our universe.

JES

Thank you for your response. Your perspective on the finiteness of the universe is interesting. Could you please share the basis for this claim? I'd like to understand the reasoning behind it.

Well, that would be rather lengthy. If you really want to know, you'll have to read the Daon theory, in my profile. Starting from the introduction, you should follow the roman numbers.

JES

Sorry,

I see that you are not a physicist. So, I'll give you a short explanation:

The Universe is made up by only one type of object (the Daon). The Universe is an enormous sphere, where daons are the basic building blocks for everything. The Universe is surrounded by an infinite space. The Universe has a radial oscillation. We are at the moment in the phase of expansion. This expansion will stop, followed by a compression et c.

If you interchange the sign of the charges, you'll obtain anti-matter. The nature loves symmetry, so such an anti-universe is very likely existing.

The Universe isn't infinite because it's necessary that it has a border, to get an explanation for the force of expansion, in its oscillation.

yours sincerely

J.E.S.

Thank you for your explanation. I believe the universe is a partially decoded mystery.

@ Amalya Sukiayan

The universe is not infinite because infinite universe per se means there is no Creator of the universe and look at the planet earth if you think under any theory of existence of universe anybody could explain the existence of earth then he is living in fools paradise. There is an open challenge to the very concept of emergent space since 2012 and standing till today. Let it be known that there is formal scientific theory of creation of universe published in peer-reviewed journal. Read my publications which are available on ResearchGate.

I hereby reiterate that I am confident of defending the open challenge come what may.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan, thank you for your response. The finiteness of the universe is truly a thought-provoking cosmological issue. Since the universe hasn't been fully explored yet, definite solutions to such problems remain uncertain. However, various theories approach the issue from different angles, making the mystery of the universe a bit more comprehensible.

The universe cannot be infinite because it is filled with an energy density which compensates for the negative energy density of gravitational fields.

This energy density is proportional to the cosmic constant in Einstein's field equation. In turn this constant is proportional to the Ricci curvature 1/R² of the universe. It is a mathematical fact, proven in differential geometry that this Ricci curvature leads to the finite volume V=2π²R³.

Differential geometry has given the name S³ to this structure with a constant Ricci curvature. This structure does not have a surface. Every point in the finite volume is the centre of gravity of the whole volume.

Thank you for your response. The finiteness of the universe is an intriguing issue. Even if the universe is considered finite, it is not definitive what exists beyond its edge. This idea introduces new uncertainties, strengthening the possibility of a cosmic infinity.

Amalya Sukiasyan "Even if the universe is considered finite, it is not definitive what exists beyond its edge."

An S³ structure does not have an edge.

Wolfgang Konle, the concept of the universe's edge and its connection to the S³ structure presents opportunities for nuanced space exploration.

Dear Amalya

It is better to look at such questions in the cold light of logic rather than mathematical physics.

The trouble is mathematics produced from human sapience allows some highly misleading ideas when applied to the physics of natural events. As seen through the development of human ideas, such as electromagnetism, schemes are introduced and then revised many times as more experiments are carried out.

Mathematical systems are based on the definitions of numbers, e.g. 1; 1,1; 1,1,1; and so on being defined as 1, 2, 3, …. without any thought given to an end in the system. Further more, such numbers can be divided into parts, again without any thought given to a lowest part. Hence the concept of infinities, infinitesimals and singularities – the latter being an idea to explain the existence of a sudden creation.

To answer your question.

The Universe appears to be expanding and thus by inference to have expanded from a single point (the so-called big bang). Using this assumption there is then a definite intial creation. Then an initial single point must dictate the condition(s) under which our universe was created. It does not seem sensible to consider a starting point before a starting point! (Quantum mechanics with Heisenberg’s uncertainty might not fit this assumption but that is another matter I am excluding – I just mention it in case somebody else tries to use it as a justicfication for infinities)

Therefore any measurement at the time of the universe’s inception must be specific. It is not reasonable to suggest that, for example, there could be a larger value to any measurement than the original, nor equally, any value less than the original. So any such measurement must be an exact value. An infinity implies that for whatever value initially existed there can always be a larger value. This is obviously impossible under an intial point of creation!

Furthermore, if infinities did exist there could be no law of anything, in particular a law of conservation of energy because, assuming the existence of quantum wave packets, the expansion of the universe would require an ever increasing amount of energy to maintain each and every one. This would be the case even with the idea of dark energy to cover the obvious difficulties.

Similarly for infinitesimals. For example, if w is a starting value of some sort for the universe, it could be divided by w to give w/w =1 but not by (w+1) because w is the largest number so w+1 cannot exist. Therefore Neil Turok may very well be correct that the universe alternates between contraction and expansion phases.

If you like such questions why not try the following? If you want to create a universe into what do you put it? (A space before a space exists)? You can get the answer from my thesis “Why has physics failed to completely explain the universe: a philosophical approach to a final theory” which also enlarges upon the above thoughts.

Best wishes John Thompson

Amalya Sukiasyan "the concept of the universe's edge and its connection to the S³ structure presents opportunities for nuanced space exploration".

We could say: "The concept of the universe beeing edgeless and finite leads us to a S³ structure."

Dear John, thank you for sharing your insights. The problem of cosmic infinity can be explored through logic, metalogic, geometrical principles, mathematical harmonies, etc. With its intriguing secrets and giant uncertainties, the universe continues to be a relatively less explored area, containing weighty enigmas. The contraction and expansion of the universe is thought-provoking, broadening one's scientific imagination and fostering unconventional thinking. The concept of cosmic infinity can be analyzed in different ways. According to Hermetic philosophy, humans are considered a micro-universe. It helps to view human finiteness in the context of universal infinity and see universal infinity within human finiteness. I will read your thesis to continue exploring this topic.

@Amalya Sukiasyan

Let us suppose a long road with starting point A and the ending point B . At point A ,we feel that the road has infinite distance as we can't see another end of the road but it doesn't mean that length of the road is infinite . If we keep going ,we will be getting closer to point B and eventually reach at B .Similarly ,I think we are somewhere in the beginning of exploring universe, we don't even know 1% about the universe . Just because at beginning it feels like universe is infinite ,doesn't mean that universe is infinte . Maybe universe is finite ,maybe we are not advanced enough to voyage the whole universe . I believe with time and advancement of science and technology , maybe one day humans will be able to say that universe is finite and find the ending point of universe .

It is “infinite” since is not humanly graspsble!

Om Narayan Jha, thank you for your response. Yes, the universe is really less explored. Its uncertainties make the universe an enigmatic book, which contains unread pages. Finite or infinite, the cosmic world belongs to the realm of boundless imagination, unique scientific discoveries, and thought-provoking explorations.

Understanding the Infinite does not come with everyday thought of good-old common sense of causality, nor with the crass determinism, symmetry and consistency of mathematical thought – the pabulum of causality-based mathematician/’scientists” of modern times. Georg Cantor drove himself to insanity trying to know the Infinite through mathematics. The MIT Professor Max Tegmark wants to “retire” the word “Infinite” from scientific vocabulary; just because he is incapable of dealing with it; so was the case with Albert Einstein! It can only come through with profound intuition and far-reaching, deep and “thinking thought” of philosophy; like that of the Persian poet and scholar Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī (1207 – 1273); who said, ““You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop.”

Only dialectical thought can have a grip on the concept of the Infinite. The recognition of the interplay of chance and necessity and the uncertainty of the quantum microcosm, now allows for a rational and scientific understanding of the Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing universe. The notion that the universe is Infinite was proposed by the dialectical materialist Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.). G.W.F Hegel (1770 – 1831 A.D.) aided by Epicurus and Spinoza’s (1632 – 1677 A.D.) idea of “Limit”, in a general outline gave the modern view of the dialectical Infinite to be now substantiated by quantum electrodynamics.

The Infinite: http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

“Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

The universe does not have an edge. But this does not mean that it has an infinite volume.

It is hard to grasp that, because only with complex math we can prove that this possibility exists.

But we can depict this possibility in a comprehensible way. If we continuously move along exactly the same direction in the universe we finally get to our starting location. This happens in all possible directions.

The straight path we are following is a geodesic path. The spatial structure of the universe is such that geodesics are curved and closed.

Thank you for sharing your insights and these valuable papers. I've learned interesting and intellectually challenging concepts from reading them. The limits of mathematics, as computational barriers to understanding, foster creativity and unconventional approaches to unsolved astrophysical issues. The category of the infinite takes a different form depending on the scope of mathematics, philosophy, or other sciences. Its never-ending horizons are hard to perceive, although they exist regardless of human consciousness.

The infinity of the universe is truly a riveting concept. Even human imagination, which seems to have no rivals in perceiving the invisible, struggles to find the edge of the universe. This expresses the profound words of Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī, who metaphorically highlighted the oceanic infinity and placed it within the human entity.

Building on this poetic view, Victor Ambartsumian's scientific discoveries have made significant contributions to the development of astrophysics, bringing the novelty of unexplored areas and challenging conventional cosmic thinking. Furthermore, the law of chance and necessity is truly interesting, expressing the mathematical, anti-chaotic harmony of the universe.

Any cosmology (modern or ancient) is bound to be mere myths without understanding the essence of the Infinite. All ruling classes of the past history, including the present monopoly capitalist one; concocted myths of Gods, Deities and so on ruling the world and also the earth, presenting themselves (Kings, Queens, Heroes) as representatives; to pacify and conform the ruled humanity. The present cosmology, paraded by the “scientists” are no different. Please see: “Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology”! https://www.peertechzpublications.us/amp/article/view/AMP-6-181/pdf

The following brilliant and immortal words of Heraclitus had opened the way for positive knowledge (not myths) of the universe, “Everything changes due to inner conflict (contradictions)” - Everything comes into being and passes out of existence; mediated by dialectical chance and necessity! But so far the dialectics of Heraclitus have remained (forcefully) subdued; even after the Copernican revolution made a breach in the iron wall of ruling myths; temporarily, liberating the enormous creative potential of humanity. But since Isaac Newton, the capitalist ruling class have cunningly manipulated the post-Copernican developments to progressively negate the Copernican revolution and now in its decadent and moribund fascist form is reinstating medieval theology and cosmology, with the help of mathematical idealism of Albert Einstein.

But dialectical thought was never extinguished. It continues to develop through twists and turn (like all historical developments), famously through Epicurus, Lucretius, Spinoza, culminating in Hegel; who gave dialectics its most potent modern form. Hegel’s dialectics (removed of its idealist veneer) provided the insight for the scientific (positive knowledge) understanding of 1) human history, society and thought, as elaborated by Marx and Engels; 2) the biological evolution of the species by Darwin; 3) the chemical evolution of life by Oparin; 4) the evolution of the cosmic bodies by Ambartsumian and Arp.

The recognition of the quantum phenomena at the turn of the 20th century as one of the most revolutionary aspect of objective reality has now opened the scope of materialist dialectics to understand the evolution of matter and motion at its most fundamental quantum level, connecting and enhancing the positive knowledge of the categories 1 – 4. The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh “Matter” and “Motion”: https://www.semanticscholar.org/reader/d68642c79d9f1a05a48630470cd63b60bbdf9d76

What is Light, Really? A Quantum Dialectical View. Ann Math Phys. 2024;7(3):292-299. https://www.mathematicsgroup.us/articles/AMP-7-235.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385343389_What_is_Light_Really_A_Quantum_Dialectical_View

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

Please Note: Some of the links provided above may have been deleted, blocked and/or infected with malware for cyber attack on computers seeking such publications. This are hostile acts by powerful agents of monopoly capitalism to censor, suppress and otherwise repress the dissemination of free thought of the heretics of official cosmology.

ResearchGate (RG) is the only online venue that allows the full freedom of expression of scientific views. These publications can be safely viewed through my RG profile.

Thank you for sharing these valuable papers. As an exact science, physics incorporates various disciplines, such as mathematics, philosophy, epistemology, and other fields, enriching its astrocognitive spheres and broadening the observatory scope of different domains. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was a groundbreaking step in decoding the secrets of the universe, measuring the duration of time, and exploring the essence of infinity. The four-dimensional model of the universe provides clarity, although a great deal of cosmic characteristics might remain unexplored. Since the edge of the universe has just been imagined but not obviously found, a question arises: What if the universe has more than four main dimensions?

According to some theories, there are also extra dimensions that are not observable but play a complementary role within these features. Besides these essential elements, matter represents another key aspect of the universe. Matter is considered one of the crucial characteristics of the cosmological structure. However, the world of concepts and ideas, the sphere of conceptual knowledge, doesn't represent material in its physical sense. Yet, not being material, concepts and ideas are still matter—not tangible or objective, but ideological matter. While being an infinite giant, surrounded by planets and galaxies, the universe is interrelated with humans. Reflecting on the connection between humanity and the cosmos, Ralph Waldo Emerson said: "The universe is the externalization of the soul."

Amalya Sukiasyan : Thanks for your kind words on my works. This kind of sensitive and sensible and profound intellectually erudite evaluation of my work is a rare fortune for me. In the world of modern “science”; it is the exact opposite for me – from denial, demonization, abuse; censorship, suppression, exclusion and so on. As a heretic of Einsteinian theoretical physics and cosmology and following the point of departure of my mentors (particularly Hegel, Engels, Arp and Ambartsumian) in the realm of astrophysics and cosmology; I face the wrath of the established order, in all kinds of ways; specially exclusion and denial, the way Arp and Ambartsumian faced.

In modern astrophysics and astronomy literature, you will find no reference of Arp and Ambartsumian, as if they never existed! There are about 350 galaxies known as ‘Arp Galaxies’, but Arp’s name is being progressively eliminated by renaming these with new NGC number! The ruling classes of the past history treated their heretics brutally by putting them under the Guillotine or Burning Stake; but in the process made them immortal in history. The heretics like Arp and Ambartsumian are treated very “humanely”, but are not as fortunate as their past colleagues in terms of historical recognition; their name is simply obliterated from history – the most effective way to deal with heretics!

I had the good fortune to know Chip Arp, personally, specially, when he was in forced exile from Palomar and found some refuge in Max-Planck Institute at Garching, near Munich. I am trying to keep his memory and revolutionary contributions alive through my works; in spite of all kinds of obstacles I face. I learnt a lot about astrophysics and the status of modern science in general from his mouth and his writings and try to extend and elaborate with my dialectical world view. Even in the Max-Planck Institute, Chip told me, he was treated as a pariah; and met other scientists only while playing Tennis! Chip gave Viktor Ambartsumian top grade for his works and said he visited Viktor’s Observatory in Byurakan.

But for some comfort for myself, I do get some favourable and kind recognition like you; from few others also. Although any favourable reviews or comments about my works, posted online are quickly removed, deleted and/or infected with malware; I had time to copy the attached (WORD) file of some Jerry Muszik (unknown to me), who made a collage of my comments in an RG forum, initiated by me, but which was closed down by an extraordinary ruling by RG, because it became so abusive to me! There is another review of my works by a group in America, which is still surviving in the Google list: http://maydaybookstore.blogspot.com/2017/12/thephilosophy-of-space-time-whence-come.html

Dear Abdul Malek, thank you for your kind words. I've learned many interesting ideas, concepts, and theories by reading your papers. Although I am not a physicist, I found them highly complex and intellectually challenging, yet written in a way that made the content accessible to the public.

Victor Ambartsumian is a national pride for Armenians, and as an Armenian myself, I take immense pride in his revolutionary contributions to astrophysics. His work profoundly shaped our understanding of the universe. He also founded the Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory in 1946, which became a hub for groundbreaking research. One of its most notable achievements was the discovery of about 1,500 Markarian galaxies—galaxies with ultraviolet excess that play a crucial role in understanding star formation, galactic activity, and the evolution of galaxies in the universe.

The idea that "change is an absolute attribute of the universe" highlights its dynamic and constantly evolving nature. As Heraclitus said, "You cannot step into the same river twice."

The cosmos metaphorically represents countless combinations of rivers: rivers of galaxies, planets, satellites, and more. The never-ending contradictions of cosmic realities symbolize both its chaotic essence and its metaphysical capacity to find harmony within chaos.

Amalya Sukiasyan : At the risk of turning this public forum into a dialogue between the two of us; I can say that you (as an Armenian) indeed deserve to be proud of Ambartsumian. In my opinion, V. Ambartsumian in astrophysics and A.I. Oparin in Origin of Life; are the proud products of the profound Bolshevik revolution; brought on under the leadership of great V.I. Lenin. Both Ambartsumian and Oparin, consciously or unconsciously were influenced by the writings of Frederick Engels (as was Lenin, consciously); on dialectical evolution in Nature and Life, extending the restricted view of Darwin’s theory of evolution. I am not sure about Ambartsumian, but Oparin definitely along with the British biologists J.B.S Haldane and J.D. Bernal borrowed much of their insight from Engels.

Even though the once-mighty spirit of the Bolshevik revolution is now largely extinguished not only in former USSR and East Europe, but anywhere in the present world; the contributions of Ambartsumian (also Arp) in astrophysics and of Oparin in biology will live on for ever!

All of modern official science, from theoretical physics to cosmology (as the ruling idea); and, geology, climatology, biology, life sciences etc.; in other words, epistemology in general; has been infected (corrupted) with Kantian subjective idealism; specially since Albert Einstein - the notion that objective reality (noumena i.e., ontology) is an “unknowable thing-in-itself”. The only thing men can do is to collect some (apparent) facts they can perceive through the senses from the phenomenology of the world and then impose some brain-cooked rational/logical categories on those perceived facts to form theories, philosophies etc.; et voîla, you have profound knowledge of the world. Every Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary can now form their own logical/mathematical categories and give "original" theories about anything in the universe! But even then according to Kant, you have to “deny some of this knowledge to make room for faith!”.

But “thought” (even in most structured mathematical form), by itself can never give positive knowledge (as opposed to myths, fantasy etc.). Partial positive knowledge about the outside world can only be gained through social/historical practice, technology etc.; i.e., through direct physical/material intercourse with objective Nature! For Karl Marx, “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. “Theses on Feuerbach”.

All these “complex systems”, including life, which you are dealing with in modern scientific discourse, is nothing but Kantian subjective idealism and causality based. Such an epistemology behind all these scholastic theories and writings can lead to only to more and more mysteries, confusion, fantasies and endless debates; as we see in all the theoretical sciences. Only a conscious dialectical (quantum dialectical to be precise) approach to both epistemology and ontology can lead to positive knowledge of the world. Life, like any other things and processes in this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe is a dialectical contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” and resolves this contradiction endlessly through chance and an iron necessity, inherent in chance itself.

Life is an intrinsic property of matter in eternal motion and the thinking brain is its highest developed form. Like any other properties of matter, life and consciousness manifest themselves under specific and suitable circumstances, mediated by chance and necessity and the physico-chemical forces. There are lots of nonsense about the origin of life paraded by so-called “Astrobiology”, “panspermia,”, vital force, intelligent design etc. But for dialectics, there is no mystery in the evolution of life. There is now enough evidence that life developed on earth about 3 billion or so, years ago; near the undersea hydrothermal vents and would appear any time and anywhere in the universe under similar favourable circumstances. Article Origin of Prebiotic Organics and Oxygen on Earth. A case for...

“… however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.” F. Engels, “Dialectics of Nature”.

@ Abdul Malek "All of modern official science, from theoretical physics to cosmology (as the ruling idea); and, geology, climatology, biology, life sciences etc.; in other words, epistemology in general; has been infected (corrupted) with Kantian subjective idealism; specially since Albert Einstein"

Without this "infected" modern official science all our technical achievements would not have been possible.

Being based on causality, mathematical logic, and pragmatism in your eyes is a deleterious infection. But only these exact properties of scientific research allow proceeding goal-oriented and avoiding divagations.

The dialectic method cannot support an engineer developing a useful device, because it does not provide quantitative and resilient instructions.

@ Wolfgang Konle: If you would like to know from a much wider perspective: The most fundamental essence of humanity is to strive towards "the freedom of the will", based on real (positive) knowledge (not myths, fantasies etc.) of the world mediated through conscious or unconscious dialectical evolution. Humanity, of itself – a subjectivity is the dialectical unity of the opposites of the objectivity of blind Nature (and as a part of Nature itself); in this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe. This essence is an acquired ability that allows man to effectively change the conditions of his physical, mental and social existence based on the positive knowledge of the world and of himself (as a social being); in such a way as to progressively reduce the contradiction between subjective man and objective Nature, between humanity and the world, but never completely eliminating it.

This necessarily is a complex of historical processes of “being” and “knowing”; mediated by dialectical chance and necessity and taking place in a temporarily life-harbouring celestial body where the subjectivity of life can evolve through discrete evolutionary leaps from blind non-living matter to the highest developed product of matter, namely the thinking brain of man.

The most decisive factor in the evolution of this subjective “being” came with the bipedal (erect) stature in man, which made his hands free (a giant leap towards freedom) for further subjective acts and developments; that enhanced both his “being” and his “knowing”. The final act through which man forever separated himself from the animal kingdom and towards more freedom; was the mastery over one of the forces of Nature, namely heat (fire). The development of the dexterity and the manipulating skills of the hand necessitated the revolutionary development of the brain and with-it speech. The developed brain gave man enhanced ability for abstraction, reflection, introspection and communication etc. that in a reciprocal way led to the further development of the brain and also gave the hand “the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini”*.

But this journey towards freedom so far was not a smooth one-way process only, without any loss! On the contrary there were dialectical and historical twists and turns, ups and downs and the loss of many important specific traits (that are necessary for sustaining lower life forms); on the way to the evolution of man. Moreover, new and evolving constrains on knowledge and developments imposed both by Nature and by man himself stood in his way towards freedom. The more damaging was the self-made constrains known as the alienations. The alienations are creations of man for his own need of the time, but those creations at a certain stage of their development goes out of his control as if an entity coming from outside; and like a Frankenstein Monster sets itself to control its creator. Historically; Myths, Idealized Mathematics, Religion, Class Division, Capital, State etc., were the most potent alienations that impeded the progress towards knowledge and freedom. In modern times the most dominant alienation is Capital, in its most regressive and moribund monopoly-finance form.

By the turn of the 20th century with the recognition of the revolutionary quantum nature of the microcosm, the social and scientific development of humanity and the accumulation of positive knowledge, created the sufficient stage from where man for the first time in history can envision the tangible contour and the clear path forward towards a mighty leap to freedom. But the vestiges of the old alienations, particularly decadent monopoly finance capitalism newly reinforced by the myths of obscurantist mathematical idealism led by Albert Einstein; stand in his way.

The accumulated knowledge, specially of the last few thousand years has given man the potential to vastly change the conditions of his existence by changing himself and Nature; thereby diminishing the contradiction between Nature and man; but at the same time also has equally given him enough potential to destroy himself and all other life forms on this planet!

* “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”; F. Engels, 1876

@ Abdul Malek

Yes, humanity is more than technics, there is no doubt. But the humans have selected the technological way ahead and not the sprititual one.

Therefor there is no choice. The selected path must be followed with all consequences.

Therefor we must support technology, because this is the only power which leads to progress. What you are doing is the opposite. You demonize technology and science. But this is deleterious for us all.

@ WK> "You demonize technology and science."

Forget about philosophy ("spiritual one"!), Sir; you have no understanding of "technology and science"! Is Einstein's theories of relativity that you worship, "science" or theology! What technologies you got from this "science"? Einstein and most other official "physicists" (aka priests) till now do not accept the "Evil Quanta" - the most revolutionary aspect of the microcosmic objective reality - a discovery that lead to unprecedented development of technology; since the turn of 20th century! Einstein led physics to preach theology, deny and to fight against the "Evil Quanta"!!

Through my comments in RG and published works I am trying to TEACH you "scientists"-lot; REAL science that came down from Heraclitus, Epicurus, Kepler, Leibniz, Hegel, Marx and Engels. As I said above, subjectivity and labour (through the Free Hand) helped man to CHANGE both objective Nature and himself as a continuing dialectical process on Mother Earth! As historical experience and practice shows, you get knowledge of something through its change or subjectively changing it!

@ Abdul Malek "Through my comments in RG and published works I am trying to TEACH you "scientists"-lot"

Sorry, but I am quite sure that no single scientist on the world had ordered some teaching lessons from you.

During my career as a scientist I neither had time, nor any interest to get teaching lessons with the content you are here describing.

Just now I do not have the faintest idea how those lessons could be helpful for scientists or engineers in their daily work.

@ Wolfgang Konle: For those who do not know about my contribution to science and also for those who try to discredit my works, I have a statement ready and post it when needed. The following is for you, Sir!

[This dialectical materialist with his “Quantum Dialectical Physics” (QDP) for the first-time over a century; has demolished (in principle), not only the “Castle in the Air” of Albert Einstein; but also, its few hundred year’s old foundation; i.e.; the metaphysics of Isaac Newton!

The following bold claim is ready to be presented to any gadfly in RG who still dare to torment: A - N – D finally (if still needed): Malek is already adorned with his ‘Bijay Mukut’ (Victory Crown) after silencing his powerful tormentors (only few gadflies or Don Quixote (s) remain) and after the “shut-up” of a number of RG forums, where he participated. He achieved the Herculean task of the cleaning the Augean Stable of theoretical physics and cosmology of Official Science from Isaac Newton to Albert Einstein; with the help of his Quantum Dialectical Physics; as the powerful Mountain Brook. His incredible hard work, dedication and fight against impossible odds made this victory possible.

Momentum – the Archilles’ Heel of Causality-based Physics: The Root of Its Miseries - from the Quantum to the Cosmic : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9682

What is Light, Really? A Quantum Dialectical View. Semantic scholar: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/What-is-Light%2C-Really-A-Quantum-Dialectical-View-Abdul/9652dee62901f5ab9289cb4498f10fd01869181b

New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2 : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas: https://www.rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106

But he was not alone! Along with his (now Late) friend Chip Arp, Malek was always directly inspired by the glorious tradition of one of the greatest theoretical physicists Satyendra Nath Bose, one of the greatest astrophysicists Meghnad Saha, of modern times and most of all helped by the sharpest weapons and gems of the greatest dialectical thinkers from Heraclitus/Epicurus to Leibniz/Hegel to Marx/Engels. And last but not the least by the following few decades old Bengali movie song probably as a prelude to the present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Yt3t5CnDbzw]

@ Abdul Malek "also for those who try to discredit my works"

With my remark that probably no scientist had ordered some teaching lessons from you, I am not at all discrediting your work.

I am convinced that your work is important and valuable for everybody with a dialectic orientation and with a similar background to your background.

My only problem with your statements is that they contain an aggressivity against scientists.

This aggressivity is useless and contra-productive in any discussion.

@ Wolfgang Konle: I am trying to teach science; what I learnt from the people I mentioned in my comment above. Before I stop responding to any further comment from you directed to me; I hope you would learn some science from the following comment of Frederick Engels:

“It is however precisely the polar antagonisms (either Yes or No, positive or negative, Good or-Bad, Cause or Effect etc., A.M.) put forward as irreconcilable and insoluble, the forcibly fixed lines of demarcation and class distinctions, which have given modern theoretical natural science its restricted, metaphysical character. The recognition that these antagonisms and distinctions, are in fact to be found in nature, but only with relative validity, and that on the other hand their imagined rigidity and absolute validity have been introduced into nature only by our reflective minds — this recognition is the kernel of the dialectical conception of nature. It is possible to reach this standpoint because the accumulating facts of natural science compel us to do so; but we reach it more easily if we approach the dialectical character of these facts equipped with the consciousness of the laws of dialectical thought. In any case natural science has now advanced so far that it can no longer escape dialectical synthesis. But it will make this process easier for itself if it does not lose sight of the fact that the results in which its experiences are summarized are concepts, but that the art of working with concepts is not inborn and also is not given with ordinary everyday consciousness, but requires real thought, and that this thought similarly has a long empirical history, not more and not less than empirical natural science.

Only by learning to assimilate the results of the development of philosophy during the past two and a half thousand years will it rid itself on the one hand of any natural philosophy standing apart from it, outside it and above it, and on the other hand also of its own limited method of thought, which is its inheritance from English empiricism.” F. Engels, Preface to “Anti-Dühring”; London, September 23, 1885.

@ Wolfgang Konle> "My only problem with your statements is that they contain an aggressivity against scientists."

Sorry, I posted my comment above, before seeing your last comment. WHO shows "aggressivity against" WHOM? Did you read what I said to Amalya in a comment above: "This kind of sensitive and sensible and profound intellectually erudite evaluation of my work is a rare fortune for me. In the world of modern “science”; it is the exact opposite for me – from denial, demonization, abuse; censorship, suppression, exclusion and so on".

@ Abdul Malek "WHO shows "aggressivity against" WHOM?"

This question is kind of sanctimonious. I did not claim that all your statements are aggressive. But as an example concerning Albert Einstein, you are always using defamatory statements. This expresses an aggressivity which should be avoided.

@ Wolfgang Konle> "But as an example concerning Albert Einstein, you are always using defamatory statements".

I accept Einstein’s theory and the formulation of the photo-electric effect. This is his greatest theory for which he received the Nobel Award. My quantum dialectical physics is based on this great theory of Einstein and on the notion that photons are particles with discrete and finite (even if infinitesimal) mass. On the other hand, I totally reject and denounce his theories of relativity, these are not scientific theories but theology inspired. Monopoly capitalism and official science, opportunistically promoted Einstein to his fame overnight from obscurity to use his esoteric theories to reinforce theology and their class-rule and also in their fight against the “Evil Quanta”. It is unfortunate that Einstein compromised his scientific integrity to undermine science; and let himself to be used as an ideological tool to fight the "evil quanta” and healthy scientific development. Einstein apparently enjoyed all the glory, fame and attention bestowed to him for decade; even though this caused the greatest harm to physics for over a century and still counting!

What his critics including myself are saying; Einstein admitted his folly himself but only at the very end of his life in; a letter (1954) to his life-long friend Michelle Besso, “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken... I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics”: Albert Einstein, quoted by A Pais, Subtle is the Lord …”The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467

@ Abdul Malek "What his critics including myself are saying; Einstein admitted his folly himself but only at the very end of his life in; a letter (1954) to his life-long friend Michelle Besso"

Enstein never admitted that his work might have been a folly. He only admitted that his doubts concerning quantum mechanics might have been a folly. But against his apprehension, quantum mechanics is not in contradiction to relativity theory.

Everything not humanly grabable, is infinite! Furhtermore in the Poincare non-Euclidean geometry, the radius, can be seen either externally as a “finite" segment or internally as “infinite” one!

Thus “finite” vs. “infinite” constitute a dialectic pair!

Thank you for your response. The concept of infinite has been a cosmological, mathematical, philosophical, and theological challenge for centuries. It's a never-ending uncertainty, which creates opportunities to explore the universe in new ways, trying to find the key to definite truth.

Dear colleagues,

The question of whether the universe is finite or infinite has been central to cosmology for centuries. Many assume the universe is infinite because we observe no clear boundary and because of theoretical interpretations based on General Relativity. However, Pure Time Theory (PTT) offers a different perspective—one that suggests the universe is inherently finite because it is structured within time itself.

1. The Universe Began with Time

Unlike models that assume the universe could be spatially infinite, PTT states that time itself is a fundamental structure that emerged and governs the universe's evolution.

If time had a beginning, the universe cannot be infinite.

The existence of an infinite spatial structure would require an infinite timeline before it, which contradicts the nature of time in PTT.

No physical process can exist independently of time, meaning that a truly infinite universe would require an impossible “timeless infinity.”

2. Space Is Not a Standalone Entity

Standard models often treat space as an entity that can extend independently of time. However, in PTT:

Space and time are fundamentally linked—you cannot have infinite space without infinite time.

Since time had a starting point, space is necessarily finite in extent.

The perception of an infinite universe is an illusion caused by the way time structures our observation of space.

3. The Misinterpretation of “Infinity” in Cosmology

Many assume the universe must be infinite because:

The observable universe has no clear boundary.

General Relativity does not impose a limit on spatial extent.

However, these assumptions fail to account for the constraints of time:

The universe is not a pre-existing infinite container—it is the structure that emerged with time.

Expansion does not imply infinity—just because space is expanding does not mean it extends forever.

Apparent spatial infinity can be explained by the way time governs cosmic scale.

4. A Testable Prediction from PTT

If the universe were truly infinite:

There should be no global reference point for expansion—everything would have expanded infinitely already.

There should be infinite energy, infinite mass, and an infinitely old past, which contradicts both observations and entropy laws.

In PTT, the universe is finite in space because it is finite in time.

Thus, we expect a measurable cutoff at extreme distances, where the structure of time itself prevents an actual infinity from forming.

Conclusion: The Universe Is Finite in Space and Time

🔹 The universe is not infinite because time had a beginning.

🔹 Space cannot be independent of time, meaning its extent is finite.

🔹 Perceptions of infinity are observational artifacts, not physical truths.

I invite further discussion on how time’s structure dictates the universe’s boundaries and how PTT provides a testable framework for this conclusion. Looking forward to your insights!

Best regards,

Essam Allou

Essam Allou "Conclusion: The Universe Is Finite in Space and Time"

We could conclude that the universe has the spatial configuration of a 3-sphere but is infinite in time.

A recycling mechanism for star fuel exists, which affects black holes. This allows the existence of an eternal finite universe which never stops supporting the existence of life.

Dear Wolfgang Konle,

Thank you for your response. While a 3-sphere spatial configuration is an interesting possibility, PTT fundamentally links time and space as interdependent structures. If time had a beginning, the universe cannot be eternally cycling, as that would imply a pre-existing infinite timeline.

Regarding star fuel recycling, PTT does not deny long-term cosmic cycles, but rather states that time itself imposes limits—preventing an actual infinite past or future. The existence of life is sustained within these temporal constraints, but not through an eternal, unbounded cycle.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Best regards,

Essam Allou

Essam Allou "If time had a beginning, the universe cannot be eternally cycling, as that would imply a pre-existing infinite timeline."

Why do you think that the concept of time is linked to our universe? Time is something general which defitively is linked to eternity.

Time by definition has no beginning and no end. The "set of time" is like the set of numbers. If you consider any number, you always know that also the two numbers before and after this number exist as well.

Wolfgang Konle

I appreciate your perspective. However, Pure Time Theory (PTT) defines time as a structured entity, not an abstract mathematical continuum like the number set. In physics, time is not just a neutral backdrop—it is linked to the evolution of the universe itself.

• Numbers exist outside physical reality; time does not.
• If time were infinite, the universe would have already "run out of time"—entropy would reach maximum disorder.
• PTT proposes that time emerged with the universe, meaning it has a structured beginning, preventing an infinite past.

Eternity is a concept, but physics demands causality. The existence of a structured universe implies time has direction, constraints, and a defined origin.

Looking forward to your insights!

Best regards, Essam Allou

Essam Allou

You raised some remarkable points. I try to find plausible comments to that points.

(1) "Pure Time Theory (PTT) defines time as a structured entity, not an abstract mathematical continuum"

What structural elements are you proposing?

(2) "If time were infinite, the universe would have already "run out of time"—"

If time is infinite, nothing can run out of time

(3) "entropy would reach maximum disorder."

Entropy is linked to the granulatity of matter. If in the phase transition from neutron star matter to black hole matter, matter gets converted into a continuous state, its entropy gets deleted. The reversal of that phase transition then re-initiates the entropy. Consequently the overall entropy never reaches maximum disorder.

(4) "Eternity is a concept, but physics demands causality."

Eternity and causality are disjoint aspects which cannot be in conflict.

(5) "The existence of a structured universe implies time has direction"

Yes, the direction of time is linked to causality.

(6) "The existence of a structured universe implies time has constraints"

What constraints do you see?

(7) "The existence of a structured universe implies time has a defined origin"

No, time could exist independently from our universe. Also if our universe is existing since ever and for ever, time has no begin/origin and no end.

Wolfgang Konle

Dear Wolfgang,

I appreciate your engagement, but at this stage, we need to clarify fundamental divergences. Pure Time Theory (PTT) is not a speculative model—it is built on falsifiable empirical observations and a structured redefinition of time. Let’s address your points one by one:

(1) "What structural elements are you proposing?"

PTT defines time as having quantifiable relaxation dynamics, governed by:

T_relax,obs = T_relax,ref × (1 - ρ_obs / ρ_crit)^(1/β) This equation demonstrates that time is a structured variable, evolving in response to local energy densities. It is not an abstract continuum—it has constraints and measurable effects on cosmic expansion and galactic rotation.

(2) "If time is infinite, nothing can run out of time."

This is a misunderstanding of causal sequences. If time were truly infinite in both directions, then all possible states of the universe would have already been realized, meaning:

(3) "Entropy is linked to the granularity of matter..."

Entropy is not erased by phase transitions—it always increases or redistributes.

• If black holes truly acted as entropy resetters, we would observe thermodynamic violations in their surroundings.
• The idea that "neutron star matter to black hole matter" is a closed entropy cycle contradicts known thermodynamics.
• If your claim were true, black holes would emit no Hawking radiation, which is observed.

(4) "Eternity and causality are disjoint aspects."

False. Causality is meaningless in an eternal framework. If time were truly infinite:

• No first cause could exist (leading to logical paradoxes).
• The sequence of cause-and-effect relationships that define physics would collapse into a meaningless infinite regression. Thus, eternity cannot coexist with structured causality.

(5) "The direction of time is linked to causality."

Yes. And PTT demonstrates why time has a direction:

• T_relax governs time’s flow and evolves with local density variations.
• Time is not symmetric—it expands from structured states, as shown in cosmic observations.
• This is why we observe a universe with a defined past and not a chaotic equilibrium.

(6) "What constraints do you see?"

Time is constrained by:

(7) "Time could exist independently from our universe."

• Where is the evidence?
• If time were independent, then what governs its properties?
• You assume a metaphysical definition of time—PTT provides a physical one, with measurable consequences on expansion, redshift, and rotation curves.

Conclusion

Your model relies on undefined assumptions that contradict both thermodynamics and observed cosmology. PTT, on the other hand, provides:

• A structured, falsifiable definition of time.
• Empirical validations through galactic rotation and redshift measurements.
• A direct explanation for the illusion of accelerated expansion.

This is my final response on this topic. If you wish to engage further, I invite you to falsify PTT through observational data rather than speculative reasoning.

Best regards, Essam Allou

Essam Allou "Pure Time Theory (PTT) is not a speculative model—it is built on falsifiable empirical observations and a structured redefinition of time."

On what empirical observations is PTT built?

That astronomical processes need time is fact, but not appropriate to build a theory about the structure of time.

Wolfgang Konle

If you are truly interested and sincere in your search for truth, I invite you to read my articles where all these points are addressed in detail, with empirical observations and testable predictions.

The structure of time is not an abstract speculation in PTT—it is derived from falsifiable dynamics that directly explain observed astrophysical phenomena, including the illusion of cosmic acceleration and galactic rotation curves without dark matter.

Everything is documented. You just have to take the time to read it.

Best regards, Essam Allou"

Essam Allou "The structure of time is derived from falsifiable dynamics ..."

Upon scanning your article some questions remain:

(1) Why are theoretical astrophysical phenomena like "cosmic acceleration" and "galactic rotation curves without dark matter" relevant for the structure of time? We cannot even observe these theoretical astrophysical phenomena.

(2) Why are dynamic processes generally relevant for the structure of time? It seems that with this assumption you revert causality. Causality determines just the opposite that the lapse of time is relevant for the structure of dynamic processes.

(3) Why do you know that just the dynamic processes you are observing are relevant for the structure of time? Or is this just an assumption?

(4) What are the selection criteria to find just those astrophysical dynamic processes relevant for the structure of time? The universe offers a huge variety of dynamic processes. Taking into account all of them is not possible.

Unfortunately your article does not even rudimentarily answer one of these four questions.

Wolfgang Konle

I appreciate your engagement, but I must clarify a fundamental point: PTT does not “select” astrophysical phenomena to justify itself—these phenomena naturally emerge as consequences of a structured time framework.

Let’s address your questions systematically:

(1) Why are cosmic acceleration and galactic rotation curves relevant for the structure of time? Because these phenomena directly contradict Newtonian and relativistic expectations unless one introduces speculative entities like dark matter and dark energy. If standard models fail, we must reconsider our assumptions—including the assumption that time is merely a background parameter. PTT shows that these anomalies are not exceptions but expected behaviors when time is treated as a structured entity rather than a passive dimension.

(2) Does this assumption reverse causality? No. Causality remains intact, but our interpretation of what drives dynamics changes. Instead of assuming that objects move “through” an empty temporal background, PTT proposes that the rate of time relaxation actively determines motion and structure formation. The classical view treats time as a passive stage; PTT demonstrates it as an active participant in cosmic evolution.

(3) Why focus on these specific astrophysical processes? Because they provide empirical, falsifiable tests of time’s structure. If Trelax variations correctly predict galactic rotation and cosmic redshift without invoking missing mass or exotic repulsive forces, then PTT is a better explanatory framework than existing theories. This is not an arbitrary assumption—it is a testable proposition.

(4) Why not consider all dynamic processes? Astrophysical scales provide the clearest test cases because they involve large-scale integrative effects, reducing the noise from local perturbations. This is standard methodology in physics—one does not begin by modeling the entire universe but by identifying where theoretical inconsistencies arise.

Your skepticism is noted, but the challenge is clear: if PTT is incorrect, its predictions should fail observationally. So far, it has succeeded where classical models have required ever-increasing adjustments.

Instead of dismissing it outright, I invite you to propose a concrete falsification test—one that could prove PTT wrong. That is how science progresses.

Best regards, Essam Allou

The answer to “ Why is the Universe Infinite?” , if in this case the phenomenon / [informational system] “Universe” means concrete informational system “Matter”, is as – practically for sure this system, which is an element of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set,

- was created by spending of an unbeliavebly huge for humans , but fundamentally finite, portion of energy, and so is finite;

- though it is placed in the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, spacetime that has metrics (at least) [4+4+1]4D (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where all 8 space dimensions are infinite by definition– and so, say, in this space can infinite number of other Matters can be placed on infinite distances,

- while the time ct-dimension is unique universal dimension for all of absolutely infinite “number” of the Set’s elements, and is absolutely infinite, i.e. for sure logically cannot have some, even “simply infinite” Beginning and End.

More about what is Matter see section “Cosmology” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

- though in the paper many other really fundamental points are really scientifically clarified.

Cheers

Thank you for your response. The problem of cosmic infinity has always been a concept of scientific exploration, which challenged the human mind, sometimes illuminating consciousness, at other times, bringing ontological uncertainties. Although various theories have investigated this thought-provoking enigma, the question of cosmic infinity remains unclear and not final.

Dear Amalya Sukiasyan Let us take up your remark about the edges of the universe:

"Even human imagination, which seems to have no rivals in perceiving the invisible, struggles to find the edge of the universe."

Einstein's field equations with a positive cosmological constant lambda and a zero energy momentum tensor have a static cosmological solution.

This solution is a spacetime with a positive constant spatial Ricci curvature 1/R² and a flat time dimension.

The static solution has several remarkable physical properties, which qualifies it for actually representing the structure of the universe:

(1) The volume V is V=2π²R³.

(2) Every(!) location in this volume is the centre of gravity of the whole volume.

(3) Far reaching gravitational forces exerted by a statistically even distributed mass density cancel out at any location. Therefore this structure is immune to a gravitational collapse.

(4) The structure also is immune against being driven to an explosion by internal pressure forces because pressure forces also cancel each other out at any location.

(5) Geodesics have a constant curvature 1/R. They are nearly closed circles but not restricted to a single plane.

(6) No path exists, which would allow to leave this structure.

(7) A divergence free flow pattern exists for a cosmic medium which causes the space curvature. The flow pattern determines the orientation of the curvature of local geodesics.

(8) Each pair of points (except antipodes) is connected by a single unique shortest geodesic. The flow pattern resolves the ambiguity of the curvature orientation of the geodesic connection of the two points.

(9) The curved geodesics lead to a red shift of photons, which follow a geodesic. The reason for this redshift is the continuous extension of the path along the curved geodesic, compared with a straight path.

The points (1)..(9) are the physical properties of the spatial structure. The mathematical properties are described in various textbooks about differential geometry.

The pure existence of this structure explains how the universe can be finite without having edges or an outer rim.

Essam Allou "PTT does not “select” astrophysical phenomena to justify itself—these phenomena naturally emerge as consequences of a structured time framework."

Astrophysical phenomena in their large variety are just as they are. They are not naturally emerging as consequences of any human framework. This is a claim that emerges from an unlimited and unjustified self confidence.

With challenging the absolutely rigid and flat time structure, you are challenging the fundaments of physics.

The basic logic point is that you cannot challenge physics with somthing which even challenges the basics of physics. Using physical arguments against physics is an intrinsic contradiction.

Sorry, but your whole PTT building generated by advanced artifical intelligence has a severe construction issue. The AI used to construct PTT obviously either has not been trained in basic logics or cannot recognize that challenging the time concept challenges physics in its basics.

Wolfgang Konle

I will respond precisely to each of your points, as your critique touches on several important aspects.

1. “Astrophysical phenomena [...] are not naturally emerging as consequences of any human framework.”

You are conflating two distinct things:

• the existence of astrophysical phenomena (which is indeed independent of human frameworks),
• and the interpretative structure through which we explain their internal coherence.

When I state that these phenomena "emerge naturally from a structured time framework", I do not claim that the framework creates them, but rather that it reveals a hidden order in their apparent diversity. This is exactly what any physical theory aims to do, uncover coherence through structure.

2. “Challenging the rigid and flat time structure is challenging the fundaments of physics.”

Yes and that is exactly the point. Every major theoretical advance in physics has challenged the previous “fundaments”. Newton challenged Aristotle. Einstein challenged Newton. If your reasoning is that “we cannot touch the foundations”, then no paradigm shift would ever be allowed. That would be the end of physics as a critical science.

We do not challenge fundamentals arbitrarily. We do so with mathematical structure, internal coherence, and falsifiable predictions, which the Pure Time Theory provides.

3. “Using physical arguments against physics is an intrinsic contradiction.”

Not at all. This is a misunderstanding of scientific methodology.

Einstein used physical arguments (like the constancy of light speed) against the Newtonian model of physics. He did not merely reinterpret within the system. he exposed internal contradictions by using physical reasoning.

A theory must be allowed to critique another on physical grounds, provided it is internally consistent. This is precisely how science progresses.

4. “Your whole PTT building generated by AI has a severe construction issue.”

With respect, this is a vague assertion without any substantiating argument. You are attacking the origin (AI-assisted reasoning) instead of addressing the content. If a theory produces testable predictions and solves existing anomalie as PTT does. Then the proper response is to analyze the formal reasoning, not to dismiss it based on its source.

Also, to claim that the AI “has not been trained in logic” is rather curious, given that the logical derivations are fully documented and open for formal review.

Your phis posture is closer to metaphysics than to science. No scientific principle is sacred. All are subject to challenge, as long as the challenge is rigorous, coherent, and predictive. That is precisely what we have done.

your reply does not address the equations, the derivations, or the predictions of the theory. It simply reasserts current beliefs as untouchable, which is an anti-scientific stance.

I welcome honest critique especially when it is focused on the technical content. But broad declarations without engaging the actual derivations do not move the discussion forward.

Essam Allou "A theory must be allowed to critique another on physical grounds, provided it is internally consistent. This is precisely how science progresses."

Challenging the rigid flat time structure gives the problem that without this flat time structure, all physical laws related to time, beginning with Noether's theorem, become invalid. All physical laws are directly or indirectly related to time.

But if all physical laws are invalid, you cannot use one of them to justify your theory. Consequently you have no possibility to justify your theory.

It is just this retroactive property, which invalidates your approach to replace the flat time approach by something else.

Your approach simply violates the general principle that definitions are untouchable. In science only theorems can be challenged.

The only thing which you could do, is to leave the time definition as flat as it is and add a new definition of something which has not been considered yet. But this requires to reformulate a lot in your PTT building.

Wolfgang Konle

your latest reply reveals several deep misunderstandings, both conceptual and logical. regarding the role of definitions, physical laws, and scientific change. Let me respond precisely to each of your assertions.

1. “Without a flat time structure, all physical laws become invalid, starting with Noether’s theorem.”

This is demonstrably incorrect.

Noether’s theorem does not require a flat time structure. It requires:

• a differentiable manifold,
• a Lagrangian formulation of dynamics,
• and the presence of continuous symmetries.

General Relativity, for example, allows for dynamical and curved spacetime, and yet Noether’s theorem still applies. Conservation of energy-momentum in curved space is well-defined via generalized symmetry principles (e.g., diffeomorphism invariance). Your argument would imply that GR itself is invalid, which is clearly not the case.

PTT simply replaces an a priori flat time with a dynamical scalar field Trelax​. This does not eliminate the possibility of deriving laws, it restructures their origin.

2. “If all physical laws become invalid, you cannot use one of them to justify your theory.”

This is a mischaracterization of what PTT does.

I do not claim that all known laws are invalid. Instead, I show that many of them:

• emerge as approximations when TrelaxT_{\text{relax}}Trelax​ is locally uniform,
• and are modified when its gradient structure varies.

This is similar to how Newtonian laws are recovered from General Relativity in the weak-field limit. You don’t abandon everything, you recontextualize it from a deeper level. That’s how scientific revolutions work.

Moreover and this is crucial the Pure Time Theory does not deny the experience of flat time. It explains it.

In regions where ∇Trelax≈0, the local perception of time is flat and this matches both everyday human experience and the success of Newtonian mechanics in low-energy systems. So the theory preserves all existing physics as limiting behavior, while providing a deeper reason for why time appears flat locally.

What changes is not the local validity of laws, it is our understanding of why they work the way they do.

3. “Your approach violates the principle that definitions are untouchable. Only theorems can be challenged.”

This statement is historically and logically false.

In science:

• Definitions are human constructs. They serve the purpose of framing models that match reality. If a new framework yields better coherence or explanatory power, definitions can and must evolve.
• For instance, Einstein redefined simultaneity. Quantum theory redefined "particle". Thermodynamics redefined "heat" and "entropy".

Saying that “definitions are untouchable” is anti-scientific. In fact, paradigm shifts often start by redefining foundational concepts — space, time, mass, etc.

4. “You should keep flat time and define something else.”

Ironically, that’s exactly what the Pure Time Theory does but at a deeper level.

We don’t just add another variable to a flat backdrop. We show that what we perceive as flat time is an emergent approximation of a non-flat, dynamical scalar field Trelax​. This leads to:

• a new formulation of dynamics,
• a new reading of cosmological data,
• and predictions about phenomena like time desynchronization and modal memory.

This is not an arbitrary addition, it is a complete restructuring of the temporal foundation, derived coherently and step-by-step.

You are defending the current paradigm by declaring its axioms untouchable. That is a philosophical stance not a scientific one.

PTT provides:

• a logically consistent foundation (no contradiction in the equations),
• falsifiable predictions (cosmic acceleration, galaxy rotation, casimir,...),
• and a derivation of the known laws as local limits.

You’re welcome to critique the math, the predictions, or the internal coherence. But declaring that time must remain flat or that definitions cannot evolve is not a scientific argument, it’s a declaration of dogma.

Let us not confuse respect for history with fear of progress.

Wolfgang Konle

To you who speak of logic, let us speak pure logic for a second, setting aside psychological and historical biases.

Which of the two is more logically implausible?

Or:

Be honest. From a purely logical standpoint, which of these is the exceptional claim?

Everything in the universe, energy, matter, space, life, thought, displays dynamism and structure. Why would time alone be the exception? This is not rational. It is a historical assumption inherited from Newton, patched by Einstein, and then frozen by habit.

What PTT does is restore the logical continuity between time and the rest of physics. It does not arbitrarily “replace” laws, it shows how these laws emerge from a scalar temporal field Trelax whose local uniformity explains why time feels flat. And where this field varies, new phenomena arise, including the illusion of cosmic acceleration or galactic anomalies without invoking exotic unknowns.

So if you truly care about logic, then let’s agree on one thing:

A “flat, lifeless time” is not the logical default, it’s the logical outlier.

And the burden of justification lies not on those who challenge it, but on those who continue to assume it as absolute, despite all evidence that the universe is built from gradients, fluctuations, and emergence.

Essam Allou "Which of the two is more logically implausible?

1. That time alone, out of all the elements in the universe, is flat, static, passive, and inert, while everything else is dynamic, interactive, and evolving?

Or:

2. That time, like everything else from quantum fields to galaxies, from life to consciousness, is also living, active, and structured, and that its apparent flatness is just a local illusion arising from stability in a deeper field?

This is the wrong question. Time is defined as being flat, static, passive, and inert. If you want to describe something "time like", which is living, active, and structured, you still need the original time definition to describe the differences.

You cannot replace the original time definition.

Wolfgang Konle

I asked you a logical question, and you replied with a dogmatic assertion.

Let’s compare our approaches:

• Me: “Why should time be the only exception in a dynamic universe?” → A logical question
• You: “Time is defined as static.” → A tautology

You are confusing definition with reality.

But scientific definitions can be, and historically have been wrong. Newton “defined” space as absolute. Einstein proved that this definition was inadequate and replaced it with a deeper, more coherent structure.

So if you truly care about logic, answer this simple question:

Why would time, alone among all entities in the universe, not be dynamic?

Your answer : “because we defined it that way”, is not logic. It is circular reasoning. It is dogma, not science.

I invite you sincerely to compare your last three replies with mine. You may find, if you look closely, that one of us is questioning, building, and inviting dialogue, while the other is asserting, closing, and resisting.

A bit of self-criticism would do wonders for your logic.

Wolfgang Konle

Let me try once more to explain this to you because you're contradicting yourself without realizing what you're actually saying.

You insist:

“Time is defined as being flat, static, passive, and inert. You cannot replace the original time definition.”

But that statement already conflicts with modern physics.

If time is truly flat and static by definition, then General Relativity must be invalid because relativity has already broken the universality of that flat time definition. In GR, time:

• flows differently depending on the gravitational potential,
• is not globally synchronized,
• and has no absolute flat structure across the manifold.

So, respectfully: if you accept relativity, you already reject the idea of a globally flat time.

You're clinging to a definition that physics has already outgrown.

Now here’s what you're missing about PTT:

PTT does not replace the definition of flat time. It retrieves it, as a special case of a deeper structure.

The field Trelax​, a scalar temporal potential, recovers the standard flat time in regions where ∇Trelax≈0. That is, when the field is stable and uniform, time appears flat, just like what we experience in most low-energy systems near Earth.

But when Trelax​ varies across space or energy density, new effects appear, such as:

• the illusion of cosmic acceleration,
• deviations in galactic rotation curves,
• desynchronization of temporal flows.
• ...

This is not replacing physics, it’s deepening it, and showing that all temporal regimes (flat, relativistic, and others) can be understood as emergent from a single foundational field.

So your statement “you cannot replace the original time definition” misrepresents what PTT does.

Just like Einstein didn’t "replace" Newton,he explained him as a local approximation, PTT doesn’t discard your definition of flat time. It explains why it appears that way in some regions, and why it fails in others.

You're defending a local illusion as if it were a universal truth, and rejecting the deeper theory that recovers your local case as a consequence.

That’s not science. That’s fear of losing a familiar framework.

Wolfgang Konle

I took five minutes to step back and think logically about what you assert, and about the model you seem to defend.

Here is the first logical question that emerges and I hope you will take it seriously:

You claim that time is flat, static, passive, and inert by definition. And at the same time, you seem to defend a model of the universe that is infinite, both in space and in past time.

Now think carefully:

How does a flat and homogeneous temporal structure account for an already actualized infinite past? How did we ever reach now, if an infinite amount of time had to be crossed before this moment?

A truly flat time by its own definition has no internal structure, no preferred direction, no “beginning”, no rhythm, no dynamical gradient.

So:

• Why would anything emerge at all?
• Why would anything happen now rather than at any other point in that supposed infinite timeline?
• And why would complexity appear here, or at this scale, in a structure that has no internal cause, no evolution, and no bias?

The problem is simple:

You cannot traverse an actual infinity. And you cannot explain structured emergence inside a medium that is entirely structureless.

If time is really flat and infinite, then there is no logical reason for the universe to be in any specific state now.

Yet, here we are. That’s not just a mystery. That’s a logical contradiction at the very foundation of the model you’re defending.

Essam Allou "If time is truly flat and static by definition, then General Relativity must be invalid because relativity has already broken the universality of that flat time definition. In GR, time:

• flows differently depending on the gravitational potential,
• is not globally synchronized,
• and has no absolute flat structure across the manifold.

You forget that relativity describes time dilation without questioning the time definition at all.

Wolfgang Konle

Your latest reply confirms that you are defending an outdated intuition rather than a scientific position.

You said:

“Relativity describes time dilation without questioning the time definition at all.”

That is historically and conceptually false.

Einstein’s theory of relativity did not merely describe time dilation. It redefined the very notion of time:

• Simultaneity became observer-dependent.
• Duration became a function of velocity and gravitational potential.
• And the idea of a global, universal, flat time was explicitly abandoned.

In Special Relativity, time is not the same for different inertial observers. In General Relativity, time is a local coordinate, distorted by the curvature of spacetime and energy distribution. There is no single “flat” time valid everywhere.

If time flows differently depending on location, mass, and motion, then its definition as “flat, static, passive, and inert” has already been shattered, not by me, but by Einstein over a century ago.

You are clinging to a Newtonian relic and trying to uphold it in a post-relativistic world.

That’s not logic. That’s nostalgia.

And let’s be honest:

The fact that this shallow and evasive line is the only response you've given, after several structured, logical, and carefully developed replies from my side, reveals what this really is: a retreat, not an argument.

Your are right to leave the discussion you started. But if you do, at least don’t leave with nonsense.

Wolfgang Konle

And you know what ? Even if Einstein had not redefined time, so what?

Scientific definitions are not sacred. They are meant to evolve when better, deeper, more coherent frameworks emerge.

If we start treating definitions as untouchable, then science is no longer a search for truth, it becomes a museum of fixed ideas.

The strength of science lies precisely in its ability to redefine the fundamental when logic and evidence demand it.

Essam Allou "Einstein’s theory of relativity did not merely describe time dilation. It redefined the very notion of time:"

Einstein’s theory of relativity just describes t'=γt. γ depends on relative conditions, which can be a gravitational potential difference or a relative velocity. The original time definition, the very notion of time remains without any modification.

It even is a key statement of general and special relativity theory that in every reference system the very notion of local time is exactly the same as it ever has been and as it ever will be. Absolutely nothing can modify the lapse of the local time. This is just the opposite of what you are claiming here.

Wolfgang Konle

You are misunderstanding the very core of what Einstein’s theory actually changed.

Yes, t′=γt but that is not a superficial adjustment.

It means that the duration between two events depends on the observer’s frame. That is not “the same time notion”. That is the end of absolute time.

Saying “each frame has its own local time” does not preserve the classical concept of time, it destroys its universality.

That’s the whole point of Special and General Relativity: time is not global and its flow is not invariant.

You also say:

“Absolutely nothing can modify the lapse of local time.”

But relativity shows precisely that the lapse of proper time is altered by motion and gravity. Two identical clocks in different frames do not measure the same duration. That’s not an opinion, it’s a physical fact, verified by GPS satellites, particle decay experiments, and gravitational redshift measurements.

So let’s be clear:

You are defending a definition of time that modern physics has already abandoned.

And beyond this, you still haven’t responded to any of the core logical arguments we’ve raised:

• You haven’t answered why time should be the only non-dynamic entity in a dynamic universe.
• You haven’t addressed the logical contradiction in combining a flat, structureless time with an already-actualized infinite past.
• You haven’t responded to the critique of your own assumptions, you’ve only repeated assertions.

This pattern of avoidance suggests not a scientific defense, but a philosophical retreat.

Wolfgang Konle

At this point, I have to be honest with you.

You seem to lack either the background or the openness required to engage in discussions about foundational physics. That’s not an insult, it’s a diagnostic based on your repeated refusal to address logical arguments, your confusion between definitions and physical reality, and your reliance on outdated formulations.

Perhaps engineering where definitions are fixed and parameters are controlled, is more aligned with your current mindset.

But if you wish to remain in theoretical physics discussions, I kindly urge you:

Open your mind. Let go of inherited assumptions. And at least engage with the actual content of what is being proposed.

Because repeating “time is defined this way” is not science, it’s intellectual stagnation

Essam Allou "You are defending a definition of time that modern physics has already abandoned."

No modern physics is built upon the original time definition.

There is no need to defend a definition. All what can be challenged and defended are theorems. But this is not intellectual stagnation. It is basic logics.

If you want to use a modified time definition, then you cannot use any other physical entity, because the definition of this entity may be compromised.

Select an arbitrary entity. You cannot exclude that this entity directly or indirectly depends on the modified time definition and therefore is now invalid.

Modifying the basic time definition requires a redefinition of all physical entities from scratch. This is by far too much effort.

Wolfgang Konle

Your response reveals exactly why physics needs new foundations.

You claim that redefining time invalidates all other physical entities, as if the history of physics wasn’t already full of paradigm shifts where previous definitions were entirely restructured. That’s not a flaw. That’s progress.

Einstein didn’t preserve Newton’s concept of simultaneity. Planck didn’t preserve the classical continuum.

Your logic is circular: you claim new time definitions are invalid because they don’t preserve old definitions, which is the point of changing them. And worse, your final argument, “it’s too much effort”, is not scientific. It’s intellectual stagnation masked as rigor.

Where is your logic ?! True logic doesn’t fear rebuilding from scratch when the foundations are flawed. And if you think PTT is wrong, then engage with its formulas, not with excuses.

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

Wolfgang Konle

Are you honestly satisfied with your own answers compared to the logical points I’ve raised? Because I can guarantee almost 100% of readers are not.

You keep throwing around the word “logic,” yet every response you’ve posted completely ignores the core reasoning I presented. Instead, you offer vague, evasive statements with no real structure and call that “basic logic”?

None of your replies address the arguments that are still waiting for an actual answer.

Do you really not see how weak and inconsistent your answers sound?

You’re not defending a position, you’re dodging the entire conversation.

Wolfgang Konle

I’ve already shown that you don’t even grasp the basics of Special or General Relativity and yet you still have the audacity to throw around empty claims while repeating the word “logic”?

Do you want me to educate you on logic too?

Because right now, your responses are the opposite of it, vague, circular, and completely disconnected from the core arguments you refuse to engage with

All I see is ego, completely detached from any real logic

Essam Allou "Do you want me to educate you on logic too?"

Your arguments now contain only personal insults because I have not answered your suggestive questions.

However, you directly denied my statement that the theory of relativity has managed to describe time dilation without questioning the concept of time in any way. Instead, you simply brazenly claimed that relativity redefined time.

You now even claim that I did not understand the theory of relativity correctly. In doing so, you, or your artificial intelligence, have not understood how deeply the concept of time is anchored in physics.

Let's consider an absolutely empty universe without content. In such a universe, time has no meaning, because nothing can happen at all. This shows that time itself is not absolutely definable. It's the same in physics. Time is only defined indirectly on the basis of interactions that take time. All physics is interspersed with such basic descriptions that indirectly define time. All these descriptions assume an absolutely undisturbed linear course of time.

Your claim that time has been redefined by the theory of relativity is absolutely ridiculous, since the concept of time is far too deeply anchored in all physics, and cannot be shaken by a single theory.

Since the theory of relativity does not even begin to try to shake the concept of time, the PTT theory will not succeed either.

But what I am constantly trying to make you understand is that it is absolutely pointless to try to shake up the concept of time in physics. This has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of relativity, since your main argument that the theory of relativity has already done it misses the point of reality anyway.

Wolfgang Konle

Your latest message is astonishing, because it represents exactly what you claim to criticize.

You accuse me of offering “suggestive questions”, while your entire response is a sequence of evasive assertions, vague generalities, and emotionally defensive remarks.

You still haven’t responded to a single one of the core logical challenges I raised.

Let me remind you:

• I asked you why time should be the only static entity in a universe where everything else is dynamic and evolving.
• I asked you how a flat, structureless time can coexist with an already actualized infinite past, without falling into contradiction.
• I challenged your claim that definitions in physics are “untouchable”, when history shows they are redefined precisely when deeper structures emerge.

To all of this, you replied with general philosophy about time being “anchored” in physics, as if anchored ideas are beyond examination.

You claim that relativity didn’t change the concept of time. But that’s a demonstrably false statement. Relativity:

• Destroyed the notion of global simultaneity,
• Made proper time observer-dependent,
• Linked the passage of time to motion and gravity,
• And unified time with space into a curved manifold shaped by energy.

That is not a minor adjustment. That is a redefinition.

Worse yet, you contradict yourself: You say time is only defined through interactions and in the same breath, you say it has an undisturbed linear structure. These two claims cannot coexist. Either time is emergent and interaction-based, or it is flat and absolute. You can’t have both.

You’re accusing me of being suggestive but I’ve asked clear, direct, and logical questions. You, on the other hand, keep asserting, evading, and repeating inherited dogmas.

You said:

“But what I am constantly trying to make you understand is that it is absolutely pointless to try to shake up the concept of time in physics.”

But in truth, it is exactly the opposite:

I am trying to make you understand by logic. And you are trying to convince both of us by avoidance.

And yes, I lacked a bit of patience in the face of what I interpreted as bad faith, and my tone was indeed firmer but I did not insult you. I simply presented the facts, coldly and directly.

And now, of course, you’re trying to use this as an exit strategy. I admit I handed you that foolish little excuse but anyone with a minimum of critical thinking can see right through it.

Essam Allou Your latest message is astonishing, because it represents exactly what you claim to criticize.

Yes, it is according to my intention to focus on a central issue in my critics of time redefinition in your PTT theory. Because this issue is fundamental in physics, I continue this discussion in detail.

“You accuse me of offering “suggestive questions”, while your entire response is a sequence of evasive assertions, vague generalities, and emotionally defensive remarks.

You still haven’t responded to a single one of the core logical challenges I raised.

Let me remind you:

• I asked you why time should be the only static entity in a universe where everything else is dynamic and evolving.
• I asked you how a flat, structureless time can coexist with an already actualized infinite past, without falling into contradiction.
• I challenged your claim that definitions in physics are “untouchable”, when history shows they are redefined precisely when deeper structures emerge.”

Yes, these are not real questions, they are only suggestive claims. The suggestive parts of your claims are:

• everything else is dynamic and evolving. Suggests to follow your everything argument.
• …without falling into contradiction. Suggests to admit that there is a contradiction
• …history shows… Suggests to admit what history allegedly seems to show.

To all of this, you replied with general philosophy about time being “anchored” in physics, as if anchored ideas are beyond examination.

I did not respond with general philosophy. I explained the concept of time in physics. I also explained why an examination of this time concept is pointless.

You claim that relativity didn’t change the concept of time. But that’s a demonstrably false statement. Relativity:

• Destroyed the notion of global simultaneity,
• Made proper time observer-dependent,
• Linked the passage of time to motion and gravity,
• And unified time with space into a curved manifold shaped by energy.

That is not a minor adjustment. That is a redefinition.

You again only demonstrate that you are misunderstanding the concept of relativity.

• There never was a general notion of global simultaneity of spatially separated events. General relativity did not destroy it.
• The only relevant time is local time. Relevant means, relevant for interactions. This time is observer-independent.
• The concept of a curved spacetime manifold does not challenge the original time definition. Instead it defines the manifold based upon the original definition.

Just the difference between the flat time and the time in the curved manifold demonstrates the structural properties of the defined manifold.

You see that there is absolutely no redefinition of the time concept in physics.

Worse yet, you contradict yourself: You say time is only defined through interactions and in the same breath, you say it has an undisturbed linear structure.

No I say that in all those definitions it is assumed that time has an undisturbed linear structure.

“These two claims cannot coexist. Either time is emergent and interaction-based, or it is flat and absolute. You can’t have both.”

Your idea to consider time as being something emergent seems to be the root of your problem to understand the role of time in physics. Physics does not consider time as something emergent. Time is only considered as a common rule which conducts all kinds of interactions. The focus is on “common” and “all”. Your idea tries to understand time as something having the character of a substance. But this is not how the concept of time is understood in physics. Time only is a common rule which controls all interactions. The fact that it is a common rule and controlling all interactions just allows to define the term of simultaneity.

You’re accusing me of being suggestive but I’ve asked clear, direct, and logical questions.

No, all of your alleged “questions” contained your personal claims.

You, on the other hand, keep asserting, evading, and repeating inherited dogmas. You said:

“But what I am constantly trying to make you understand is that it is absolutely pointless to try to shake up the concept of time in physics.”

But in truth, it is exactly the opposite:

I am trying to make you understand by logic. And you are trying to convince both of us by avoidance.

Sorry, but your alleged “logic” is built on the false assumptions that “time” in physics is being considered as “emergent” and that it already had been compromised by relativity.

And yes, I lacked a bit of patience in the face of what I interpreted as bad faith, and my tone was indeed firmer but I did not insult you. I simply presented the facts, coldly and directly.

Yes, now you are getting a bit impatient because our standpoints are quite different and because you still cannot see a movement into your direction.

And now, of course, you’re trying to use this as an exit strategy. I admit I handed you that foolish little excuse but anyone with a minimum of critical thinking can see right through it.

No, I don’t think at all about an exit strategy. This is only wishful thinking from your side. With your idea of an “emergent time” in physics and of a time concept already compromised by relativity, you are on an absolute false track.

Wolfgang Konle

Your message shows a consistent pattern of misinterpretation and avoidance that needs to be addressed directly.

you're systematically avoiding the core issues while creating semantic diversions.

On "Suggestive Questions"

You claim my questions are "suggestive" rather than "real questions." This is intellectually dishonest. Let me restate them in the most neutral form possible:

These are direct, logical questions. Calling them "suggestive" is simply a way to avoid answering them.

On Your Misunderstanding of Relativity

Your statement that "there never was a general notion of global simultaneity" is factually wrong. Newton's absolute time explicitly assumed universal simultaneity - that events could be ordered as "simultaneous" across all space. Einstein's relativity destroyed this assumption by showing simultaneity is relative to reference frames.

Your claim that "the only relevant time is local time" and that it's "observer-independent" contradicts basic relativity. Proper time is precisely observer-dependent. Two observers in relative motion measure different elapsed times between the same events. This isn't philosophy - it's measurable physics, confirmed by GPS satellites, particle accelerators, and atomic clocks.

When you say "curved spacetime manifold does not challenge the original time definition," you're missing the point entirely. The fact that time becomes geometrized, dynamical, and inseparable from space represents a fundamental reconceptualization, not a minor technical adjustment.

On Time as "Emergent" vs. "Fundamental"

You claim I misunderstand time as "emergent" when physics treats it as a "common rule." But this reveals your own confusion. If time is defined "only indirectly on the basis of interactions" (your words), then it is emergent from those interactions. You can't simultaneously claim time is defined through interactions and deny it's emergent. That's a direct logical contradiction.

Moreover, your "empty universe" thought experiment actually supports my position. If time has no meaning without content, then time is indeed emergent from physical processes, not a pre-existing absolute framework.

On Definitional Dogmatism

Your assertion that time definitions can't be questioned because they're "anchored" in physics is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Every major advance in physics has required questioning supposedly "anchored" concepts:

• Newton questioned Aristotelian physics
• Einstein questioned Newtonian absolutes
• Quantum mechanics questioned classical determinism
• Modern cosmology questions static universe models

Your argument amounts to: "We can't question X because X is assumed everywhere." This is circular reasoning, not scientific rigor.

The Core Issue You Keep Avoiding

You keep deflecting to general statements about physics without addressing the specific logical problems I've raised. Let me be crystal clear:

If you believe PTT is wrong, engage with its mathematical formalism. Point out specific errors in the equations. Show where the logic breaks down. That's how science works.

If you believe time redefinition is impossible, explain why. Don't just assert it's "too much effort" or "too anchored." Give logical reasons why the current framework is necessarily correct and alternative approaches are necessarily wrong.

If you believe my questions are invalid, answer them anyway. Show why they lead to contradictions or false conclusions.

Wolfgang, you've spent multiple responses avoiding direct engagement with the substance of this discussion. You've offered semantic quibbles, definitional appeals, and circular reasoning, but no substantive logical analysis.

Science advances through rigorous challenge and response, not through appeals to tradition or claims of definitional immunity.

Either engage with the actual logical and mathematical content, or acknowledge that you're defending a position you cannot justify beyond "that's how we've always done it."

The choice is yours, but the evasions need to stop.

Scientific progress is not served by walking in circles around fixed definitions, but by daring to ask whether the circle itself can be squared

Essam Allou Your message shows a consistent pattern of misinterpretation and avoidance that needs to be addressed directly.

you're systematically avoiding the core issues while creating semantic diversions.

On "Suggestive Questions"

You claim my questions are "suggestive" rather than "real questions." This is intellectually dishonest. Let me restate them in the most neutral form possible:

These are direct, logical questions. Calling them "suggestive" is simply a way to avoid answering them.

You are still repackaging hidden claims into your questions, which makes them suggestive. But nevertheless I will answer them.

1. Time is different from all physical entities because it is not an entity but a common concept that conducts all interactions.

2. There is no logical tension between considering the “entity” time as being flat and structureless compared with the volatile past of an universe originated for a big bang because time is not a physical entity. Instead time is a physical concept, a rule.

3. Foundational paradigm changes in physics never modified definitions. Only theorems have been challenged and accordingly corrected or discarded.

Your statement that "there never was a general notion of global simultaneity" is factually wrong. Newton's absolute time explicitly assumed universal simultaneity - that events could be ordered as "simultaneous" across all space. Einstein's relativity destroyed this assumption by showing simultaneity is relative to reference frames.

No, universal simultaneity always has been related to the observation of events. An absolute explicitly assumed universal simultaneity without including observation never had theoretical relevance in physics.

“Your claim that "the only relevant time is local time" and that it's "observer-independent" contradicts basic relativity. Proper time is precisely observer-dependent. Two observers in relative motion measure different elapsed times between the same events. “

No, two observers residing in the same reference system measure the same duration of the same processes. The effective duration of a process only is relevant if measured in the same reference system where the process happens. Measurements exerted from an external reference system get invalidated by Doppler effects or gravitational red-/blue-shift.

This isn't philosophy - it's measurable physics, confirmed by GPS satellites, particle accelerators, and atomic clocks.

The dependency of measurement results on reference systems indeed is a fact, proven by relativity.

When you say "curved spacetime manifold does not challenge the original time definition," you're missing the point entirely. The fact that time becomes geometrized, dynamical, and inseparable from space represents a fundamental reconceptualization, not a minor technical adjustment.

You entirely miss the point that the time in all mathematical formulae which describe curved spacetime just is the original time.

On Time as "Emergent" vs. "Fundamental"

You claim I misunderstand time as "emergent" when physics treats it as a "common rule." But this reveals your own confusion. If time is defined "only indirectly on the basis of interactions" (your words), then it is emergent from those interactions. You can't simultaneously claim time is defined through interactions and deny it's emergent. That's a direct logical contradiction.

No, the use of a common rule does not give rise to a medium which then substantiates the rule. Rules are not tangible like media. They do not generate an individual entity simply by the fact that they are commonly used. Your idea that something could metamorphically emerge from a rule is absurd. What emerges from the priority rule in traffic?

Moreover, your “empty universe” thought experiment actually supports my position. If time has no meaning without content, then time is indeed emergent from physical processes, not a pre-existing absolute framework.

No, rules fundamentally do not give rise to any emergence. They are just rules because if a specific rule would give rise to a specific emergence, then all rules would do so.

On Definitional Dogmatism

Your assertion that time definitions can't be questioned because they're "anchored" in physics is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Every major advance in physics has required questioning supposedly "anchored" concepts:

• Newton questioned Aristotelian physics
• Einstein questioned Newtonian absolutes
• Quantum mechanics questioned classical determinism
• Modern cosmology questions static universe models

Your key problem is here that you do not differentiate between definitions and theorems. What’s questioned have been theorems.

Your argument amounts to: “We can’t question X because X is assumed everywhere.” This is circular reasoning, not scientific rigor.

No, the argument is that questioning definitions invalidates everything which directly or indirectly depends on the definition. Definitions can be used in any context, while theorems always have a dedicated context.

The Core Issue You Keep Avoiding

You keep deflecting to general statements about physics without addressing the specific logical problems I've raised. Let me be crystal clear:

If you believe PTT is wrong, engage with its mathematical formalism. Point out specific errors in the equations. Show where the logic breaks down. That's how science works.

The PTT logic breaks down at its very beginning by trying to redefine the concept of time in physics from a common general rule to a variable entity with properties like properties of a really existing substance.

If you believe time redefinition is impossible, explain why. Don't just assert it's "too much effort" or "too anchored." Give logical reasons why the current framework is necessarily correct and alternative approaches are necessarily wrong.

Time is defined and used as a common rule, which guides all processes (physical, chemical, and biological processes). Redefining time as a variable entity is not only in conflict with physics, it is in conflict with all descriptions of processes in all natural sciences.

If you believe my questions are invalid, answer them anyway. Show why they lead to contradictions or false conclusions.

I don’t believe your questions are invalid. Instead I think your questions are highly relevant because they embody a totally different understanding of basic terms in natural sciences. But I think I have now clearly explained why a redefinition of time from a rule to an entity is absurd.

Wolfgang, you've spent multiple responses avoiding direct engagement with the substance of this discussion. You've offered semantic quibbles, definitional appeals, and circular reasoning, but no substantive logical analysis.

Science advances through rigorous challenge and response, not through appeals to tradition or claims of definitional immunity.

Essam, you really should avoid discrediting statements. I am discussing purely factual entirely without assessing your capabilies, or your intentions.

“Either engage with the actual logical and mathematical content, or acknowledge that you're defending a position you cannot justify beyond "that's how we've always done it."

The choice is yours, but the evasions need to stop.

Scientific progress is not served by walking in circles around fixed definitions, but by daring to ask whether the circle itself can be squared”

This is a general final statement to which I can agree, of course in just the opposite direction.

My final remark simply is that it is absurd to redefine time from a common and general rule in all natural sciences which determines the lapse of processes, to a variable entity which even has properties like a substance.

Wolfgang Konle

I see that you had the intelligence this time to try to "respond" to all points to avoid completely discrediting yourself! That's good, but your responses reveal exactly why this discussion has become futile: you're offering sophisticated-sounding diversions that collapse under basic scrutiny.

Your "Rule vs Entity" Distinction is Physically Meaningless

You claim time is just a "common rule" that "conducts interactions" but isn't a physical entity. This is demonstrably false and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of modern physics.

If time were just an abstract rule:

• How does this "rule" physically dilate under motion and gravity?
• How does this "rule" curve in the presence of mass-energy?
• How do gravitational waves propagate through this "rule"?
• Why did Einstein unify space and time into spacetime if time were just a measurement convention?

Your traffic rule analogy is particularly telling. Traffic rules don't physically interact with cars - they're human conventions. But spacetime physically interacts with matter and energy. It curves, it waves, it dilates. That's not the behavior of an abstract rule - that's the behavior of a physical medium.

The fact that you can't distinguish between human conventions and physical reality shows how far removed your understanding is from modern physics.

Your "Definitions vs Theorems" is Sophisticated Nonsense

You claim that paradigm shifts only changed "theorems" not "definitions." This is historically and logically false.

Name one "theorem about time" that we're supposedly mishandling here. You can't, because there aren't any. What we have are physical discoveries that forced us to reconceptualize fundamental concepts:

• Quantum mechanics didn't just modify theorems - it redefined energy, position, momentum as operators rather than classical variables
• Relativity didn't just adjust calculations - it redefined space and time as unified, curved, and dynamic
• Thermodynamics didn't just update formulas - it redefined heat from a substance (caloric) to molecular motion

Your distinction is meaningless because definitions in physics emerge from empirical discoveries, not abstract logic.

Your Relativity Claims are Still Wrong

"Universal simultaneity always has been related to observation" - This is factually incorrect. Newton explicitly postulated absolute time that was independent of observation or reference frame.

"Two observers in the same reference system measure the same duration" - You're evading the real issue. Two observers in relative motion measure different durations for the same events. That's not about "Doppler effects" - it's about the fundamental nature of time itself.

"The time in mathematical formulas is the original time" - Absolutely false. In General Relativity, time is a coordinate in a curved manifold, not Newtonian absolute time. The metric tensor defines how time intervals are measured, and this varies with gravitational field strength.

Your "Infinite Past" Response is Incoherent

When I asked how you resolve the tension between "flat, structureless time" and an "infinite actualized past," you responded that there's no tension because time is "not a physical entity" but a "concept, a rule."

This response is completely incoherent for several reasons:

Your response shows you don't even understand the logical problem being posed, let alone solve it.

Your "Emergence" Argument Reveals Deep Confusion

You ask "What emerges from traffic rules?" This shows you don't understand the difference between human conventions and physical processes.

Traffic rules are arbitrary human constructs. But if time emerges from physical interactions (as you yourself admitted when you said it's "defined through interactions"), then it's not arbitrary - it's a physical consequence of deeper processes.

You can't simultaneously claim:

That's a direct logical contradiction, and no amount of semantic maneuvering can resolve it.

The Real Issue You Still Won't Address

Wolfgang, after all these exchanges, you still haven't engaged with the core scientific question:

If PTT's mathematical formalism is wrong, show us where the equations break down.

Instead, you keep retreating to definitional arguments that ignore physical reality. You claim "PTT logic breaks down at its beginning by redefining time" - but that's not a mathematical critique, it's a philosophical prejudice.

Science doesn't advance by declaring certain concepts off-limits to investigation. It advances by testing new mathematical frameworks against empirical evidence.

Your fundamental problem, Wolfgang, is that you're defending 19th-century concepts with 21st-century sophistication. You dress up outdated ideas in complex language, but the underlying physics remains wrong.

Modern physics has moved beyond the classical view of time as an absolute backdrop. Spacetime is dynamic, curved, and physically real. Denying this doesn't make you a defender of rigorous definitions - it makes you a defender of superseded concepts.

Either engage with the mathematical content of PTT and show specific errors, or acknowledge that you're simply uncomfortable with conceptual innovation.

The sophisticated evasions have run their course. It's time for actual physics.

All of this clearly shows once again that you belong more in the world of engineering than in theoretical physics.

Essam Allou "If time were just an abstract rule:

• How does this "rule" physically dilate under motion and gravity?
• How does this "rule" curve in the presence of mass-energy?
• How do gravitational waves propagate through this "rule"?
• Why did Einstein unify space and time into spacetime if time were just a measurement convention?"
• The rule which conducts processes is the local time which does not depend on anything.
• What really curves is gravitational impact. But again it never is the lapse of the local time which is independent from gravitational influence or from a relative speed.
• Einstein introduced spacetime becaus space and time dilation depend on each other in a way which preserves the speed of light.

Your whole argumentation just revolves around the local time which in relativity theory remains absolutely static. Just this fact that the local time does not depend on anything, seems to block your PTT theory.

You can't simultaneously claim:

What do you mean with "emerges from physical interactions"? Something like Phoenix emerges from the ashes?

If PTT's mathematical formalism is wrong, show us where the equations break down.

I don't claim that PTT's mathematical formalism is wrong. I only say that it is not relevant for physics because time in physics is not what you are describing in your PTT theory. To be clear, it can all be intrinsically consistent, but it is a world of its own and has nothing to do with physics.

Your fundamental problem, Wolfgang, is that you're defending 19th-century concepts with 21st-century sophistication.

I don't have a problem at all. The problem is entirely your imagination of an emergent time with strange properties which are in contradiction to the concept of time in all natural sciences. The concept of time did not change at all since the 19th century and presence.

Either engage with the mathematical content of PTT and show specific errors, or acknowledge that you're simply uncomfortable with conceptual innovation.

I already explained why the mathematical content of PTT is not relevant for physics.

All of this clearly shows once again that you belong more in the world of engineering than in theoretical physics.

All of this clearly shows that you are locked in your private internal world and that you are going to swallow the only existing key to the outer world.

@wolfgang let lagh with your response. For now i m sleeping i will respond to you tomorrow morning to all your nosense claims again. You are rellay ridiculous you should stop physics

Wolfgang Konle

At this point, your responses have become a series of evasions, falsehoods, and contradictions, and they begin to clearly reveal your psychological mechanism, which I will attempt to explain after addressing all your points from a strictly content-based perspective.

“Local time does not depend on anything”, demonstrably false.

Proper time in General Relativity absolutely depends on gravitational potential and velocity. This is not up for debate,  it’s been experimentally confirmed:

• by altitude-based clock discrepancies (GR time dilation),
• by GPS satellite synchronization corrections,
• by particle lifetimes at high velocities,
• by Hafele–Keating and Pound–Rebka experiments.

If local time were invariant, none of these effects would exist, yet they are foundational to modern physics. Your statement contradicts both theory and experiment.

“What really curves is gravitational impact”,  this is meaningless.

In GR, what curves is the spacetime metric, and this curvature determines how distances and time intervals are measured. Saying that “gravitational impact curves” without defining what that means shows a lack of understanding of GR’s geometric formulation.

You’ve replaced precise concepts (like metric tensor, geodesics, Ricci curvature) with vague language that has no place in serious theoretical discussion.

“Local time in relativity remains absolutely static”,  completely false.

If that were true, there would be no relativistic time dilation.

Local proper time is affected by:

• motion (Special Relativity),
• gravity (General Relativity),
• and the path taken through curved spacetime.

In GR, even identical clocks placed at different gravitational potentials tick at different rates. That’s precisely why GR is needed to model reality. What you’re calling “static” is not static, it is locally measured, path-dependent time.

“PTT is internally consistent but irrelevant to physics”, scientific abdication.

You’ve admitted you can’t point to any mathematical error in the theory, yet you declare it “irrelevant” simply because it doesn’t align with your philosophical assumptions about time.

That’s not science — that’s ideology.

In physics, a theory’s relevance is judged by its coherence, its predictive power, and its ability to explain phenomena, not by whether it fits comfortably within legacy definitions.

You’ve just said: “it can all be consistent, but it has nothing to do with physics”. That’s a textbook case of dogmatic rejection.

“The concept of time hasn’t changed since the 19th century” , historically absurd.

• Modern physics has radically redefined time:
• Einstein unified space and time into a 4D curved manifold.
• Minkowski formalized the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime.
• Quantum field theory treats time as a parameter in non-commutative operator dynamics.
• In loop quantum gravity and thermodynamic models, time may not be fundamental at all.

To say that “the concept of time hasn’t changed” is to erase Einstein, Wheeler, Penrose, Rovelli, and an entire century of scientific progress.

Your final remark about my "internal world" is personal and off-topic.

That statement reveals the shift from scientific discussion to personal insinuation. You accuse me of being trapped in a private vision, but in reality, it is you who is refusing to consider any conceptual innovation, even when it is mathematically rigorous and logically sound.

You’re clinging to a version of time that modern physics has already surpassed, dressing it in complex wording to mask the fact that it’s no longer tenable.

Wolfgang, this discussion has made one thing crystal clear:

You are not defending physics, you are defending an outdated framework that you refuse to question.

And why is that? Just look honestly at your own theory about the origin and nature of the universe:

A static and infinite universe, an S³ bubble frozen forever in time, without origin or dynamism.

This view has been completely refuted by modern physics, not out of ideological preference, but because empirical data leaves no other option.

You’re entitled to your metaphysical beliefs. What you’re not entitled to is presenting those beliefs as science. Especially when they lack internal consistency, predictive power, and logical coherence.

And even less so are you entitled to impose them on others while misleading the intellectually unarmed into thinking your ideology is “physics.”

Let me repeat to you the quote I previously shared from Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and this time I will explain it myself, because I believe you completely overlooked its depth, most likely due to cognitive bias:

"Truth does not fear truth. It fears only the stagnation of thought."

What this means is:

If what you believe is true, you should not fear challenging it with new elements, on the contrary, it will be strengthened by them.

A true theoretician is one whose thoughts are never stagnant. They evolve. That is the natural filter of truth, or refinement of truth.

And truth, once articulated, always ends up finding its place, even if it takes generations to do so.

Wolfgang, you embody precisely what Ibn Rushd warns against and the tragedy is that you don't even see it. Worse, you actively reject it.

You are the kind of gatekeeper Max Planck referred to when he said that new paradigms in science only take hold as older generations, entrenched in institutional, personal, or career biases,  gradually fade away.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is nothing more to discuss with you.

You are operating outside the scope of modern physics, off-topic in your reasoning, and even illogical in the defense of your own model.

This is not theoretical physics.

You are not a physicist. You are an engineer defending a dogma.

The physics has moved on. You haven’t.

Essam Allou "Local time in relativity remains absolutely static”,  completely false."

Your false assumption about local time seems to be the key point in your consideration. But it is the fundamental finding of relativity that local time progresses with just the same pace within every gravitational potential.

You see this because atomic clocks exactly measure that locally.

We also see that the biochemical processes in our metabolism work independently with the same pace in all altitudes. Otherwise changing altitude would be lethal. This also shows that only local time is what matters.

If we remotely determine the pace of time at different altitudes, we find a difference, but this is irrelevant for processes.

You still did not explain what you mean with "time emerges from the definition by the rules".

Wolfgang Konle

Is that seriously all you found to reply to?

You cling to the one fragment where you believe you can say something and conveniently ignore every logical contradiction and every fatal point I raised. And I'm still supposed to waste my time debating with someone who thinks this is how science works?

Fine. I'll answer this last evasive claim and after that, you can go play theoretical physicist somewhere else.

“Local time progresses with just the same pace within every gravitational potential.”

This statement is objectively and empirically false, and I’ll explain why yet again.

You’re confusing subjective experience of time (which, by definition, is always "normal" from the perspective of the local observer) with proper time variation across gravitational potentials, which is the very foundation of General Relativity:

• In GR, the rate of proper time varies with both gravitational potential and velocity.
• That’s why identical atomic clocks placed at different altitudes, in the same gravitational field, accumulate time at different rates.
• This has been confirmed beyond doubt in:
  • the GPS satellite system (which corrects for both GR and SR effects),
  • the Pound–Rebka experiment,
  • Hafele–Keating’s atomic clock flights,
  • particle decay in accelerators,
  • and even current metrology standards.

So no, local time is not invariant across gravitational potentials. What’s invariant is the subjective pacing within a frame, but that doesn’t mean it’s “the same” in absolute terms. because relativity rejects that very notion of “same” across frames.

If what you were saying were true, GPS wouldn’t need relativistic corrections. Yet it does, to within nanoseconds and fails catastrophically without them.

Your “biological” argument is pseudoscientific.

You write:

“Otherwise changing altitude would be lethal.”

That’s just absurd.

All biological and physical processes slow down (or speed up) together in a lower (or higher) gravitational potential. That’s the very nature of gravitational time dilation and it's why people on plane, mountains, or even the ISS don’t suddenly die from "time mismatch". Everything in their local frame slows down equally. That doesn't mean the proper time hasn't changed relative to another frame. It has.

Your point confuses local coherence with global invariance, a mistake no serious physicist would make.

You admit the effect, then say it’s “irrelevant”,  pure contradiction.

You write:

“If we remotely determine the pace of time at different altitudes, we find a difference, but this is irrelevant for processes.”

So now you accept that time doesn’t tick the same everywhere, but then immediately declare it irrelevant because “local processes don’t care”.

This is called a category error.

• Time dilation is not about how an observer experiences time locally,  that’s always consistent by construction.
• It’s about how different observers in different potentials accumulate time differently.

And in GR, these differences do affect real, measurable processes, including GPS accuracy, decay rates, and redshift.

Calling that “irrelevant” is anti-scientific. It's like saying "gravity is irrelevant because I feel weightless in free fall."

Once again: you never responded to the core points.

You never answered:

• Why you assert time is “structureless” while also accepting an infinite actualized past, a logical contradiction.
• Why you ignore all empirical data showing time is not invariant locally.
• Why you think your static, infinite S³ bubble (your own model!) can still be called physics while rejecting falsifiability, origin, and evolution.

You also never explained why you believe it’s “pointless” to question the concept of time,  when in fact, physics has always progressed by redefining its most fundamental notions.

You failed to respond to every key scientific and logical objection I raised.

Your psychological mechanism is now clearly exposed.

It’ was never adebate, it’s a defense reflex :

• You disqualify what you don’t understand.
• You deny experimental facts that threaten your dogma.
• You downplay every contradiction in your own words.
• And when cornered, you dismiss the whole conversation as "suggestive" or "pointless".

Please go play the pseudo-theoretical physicist somewhere else. I have absolutely nothing to gain from this , I’m not afraid to challenge my own views to make them evolve. That alone speaks volumes about your contribution to science : nothing but your rigid S³ dogma. And you, by the very way you think, have nothing to gain either.

I don’t even know why you approached me in the first place. My guess is that PTT is giving you quite a bit of intellectual trouble, but in the good sense of the word. Otherwise, you would have simply ignored it, the same way I ignore your S³ framework

So good luck on your road, Wolfgang.

Essam Allou The key point is and remains the following contradiction:

“Local time progresses with just the same pace within every gravitational potential.”

This statement is objectively and empirically false, and I’ll explain why yet again.

You think because atomic clocks accumulate time at different rates in different altitudes this would support your standpoint.

But fact is that it proves exactly the opposite, it supports my standpoint.

If we observe the emission of frequency normals from locations at different altitudes we find a frequency shift due to the potential difference.

But if we recalculate the original emission frequency from the gravitational frequency shift, we find that the original emission frequency is all the same at all altitudes. This simply proves that the local time pace is all the same at all altitudes.

Do you think that this exact match between the observed frequency shift and the theoretical gravitational frequency shift is accidental?

No, this exact match shows that the pace of local time is not disturbed by gravity.

The relativistic Doppler effect shows exactly the same. The Doppler shift formula of special relativity allows to determine the original emission frequency emitted by a moving source. This frequency measurement also shows that the pace of local time in a moving reference system is exactly the same as in a system at rest.

In your statements you always refer to "proper" time and you avoid the term "local time". But this term "proper" time only declares the pace of time in a specific reference system as the generally valid time. Indeed there is a difference between the "proper" time, which is the local time in just one reference system, and all "local" time definitions in other reference systems.

Relativity theory defines this term "local" time in each reference system. The undeniable fact, according to this definition, is that the pace of this local time is exactly the same in all reference systems.

And only this local time is relevant for all physical, chemical, and biological interactions, because any interaction occurs in its local reference system.

But you cannot seriously insist on ignoring the term "local" time. Also denying that only the local time is relevant for interactions, does not make sense.

You are still avoiding to explain what you mean by "time is emerging from the rules". Instead you always try to redirect the discussion to details in your PTT theory. But discussing details inside a theory only makes sense if the theory has been proven to be relevant in principle.

Wolfgang Konle

Point-by-point rebuttal of your last message

1. “If we recalculate the original emission frequency from the gravitational frequency shift, we find that the original emission frequency is all the same at all altitudes.”

This is true within each local frame, yes. But that’s not the point. Your mistake is interpreting this as evidence that time flows identically across gravitational potentials.

It’s the difference in perceived frequencies, the gravitational redshift,  that proves local time does not flow equally across altitudes. If it did, we wouldn’t need relativistic time correction in GPS, nor would Hafele–Keating have observed clock discrepancies.

So your conclusion is simply the opposite of what the data show.

2. “This proves that the pace of local time is not disturbed by gravity.”

No, it proves that an atom’s internal rhythm is consistent in its own frame. But two such frames do not accumulate proper time at the same rate. That’s exactly what General Relativity predicts and what we observe.

So again, your conclusion is demonstrably false.

3. “The relativistic Doppler effect shows the same: local time is identical in all frames.”

Absolutely wrong. The relativistic Doppler effect shows that observed frequency depends on relative motion. Yes, we can compute the rest frame frequency using the formula, but the point is that observers in different frames measure different times unless adjusted.

You keep confusing restoration of consistency through transformation with equality of temporal flow. The existence of a relativistic Doppler shift is proof that time rates differ between frames.

4. “Proper time is just local time in one frame.”

False again. Proper time is the time experienced along a worldline, it’s not arbitrary. It’s the only frame-invariant scalar time in relativity. Different observers measure different coordinate time, yes. But proper time is not simply “local time in one frame.” It’s defined geometrically, via the metric:

dτ = sqrt( -g_μν · dx^μ · dx^ν )

And by this very definition, two observers at different gravitational potentials accumulate different proper times even if they are locally stationary. This is not optional. This is core GR.

5. “All local times in all reference systems evolve identically.”

If that were true, gravitational time dilation would not exist. Yet it does. It’s measured daily. Your statement contradicts the core predictions and experimental confirmations of GR.

Again: you are confusing each frame’s internal consistency with cross-frame equality. The entire point of relativity is that there’s no universal time.

6. “You still didn’t explain ‘time is emerging from the rules’.”

That line , “time emerges from the rules”, was a reframing of your own vague formulation about time needing to be “defined by rules.” We simply mirrored it back to show how absurd it sounds when taken literally, because you were the one introducing that phrase without ever defining it rigorously.

In contrast, we have provided a coherent and formal structure : time emerges in our framework from the scalar field Trelax​, which naturally generates geometry, causality, and observed phenomena. We’ve explained this repeatedly and in depth, including the physical meaning, the tensor derivation, and the falsifiable implications.

You’re simply pretending none of that was said because it would force you to actually engage with the content.

And let’s be honest: if you're not even reading attentively, this is not just a situation where I have nothing to gain, it's one where I’m clearly wasting my time.

The only possible benefit at this point is pedagogical maybe for a few careful readers who can see the gap in rigor between our arguments and yours. But I say “a few” deliberately, because the average level of engagement here is unfortunately not very high.

I have always argued that “time emerges from physical interactions”, and that’s exactly what Trelax​ reveals, in a way that goes deeper and more structurally than General Relativity.

But you don’t dare read it sincerely, because if you did, your little S³ bubble would pop.

Wolfgang, this isn’t about logic or physics anymore. It’s about what you want to be true.

You wrote:

“Local time progresses with just the same pace within every gravitational potential.”

This is not the view of General Relativity.

Here are standard textbooks that explain why:

• Misner, Thorne, Wheeler – Gravitation → See Chapters 6 and 25 on proper time and gravitational redshift.
• Carroll – Spacetime and Geometry → See Section 1.5 on proper time and coordinate differences in gravity.
• Hartle – Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein’s General Relativity → See Chapter 6 on time dilation and gravitational redshift.
• Schutz – A First Course in General Relativity → See Chapter 11 on gravitational time differences.
• Wald – General Relativity → See early sections on the nature of time in curved spacetime.

Now your turn: Name a single GR textbook that states that “local time evolves identically at all altitudes and is unaffected by gravitational potential.” Just one. If this were standard GR, you should have no trouble.

I have a full-time job,  I'm not retired like you, and I don't have the time to educate an engineering PhD on the basics of theoretical physics. Go play amateur physicist somewhere else.

I won’t be replying again unless you come back with constructive critiques of PTT’s actual content, not just more desperate attempts to defend your absurd vision of the universe and modern physics at all costs

Last post that really scientifically clarifies the thread question is the SS post, page 6, 5 days ago now. All what appeared in the thread 2 days ago now and later really is nothing else than a strange exchange by some really by no means scientifically grounded, posts of the couple of posters,

- who have only some transcendent illusory imaginations about what is “Time” - and all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Energy”, “Information”, which really all can be scientifically defined only together, [and which are now fundamentally completely transcendent/illusory/uncertain/irrational not only for the posters, but in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics],

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

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

, compact, however essentially informative,. introduction in the conception see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception;

- and more concretely at application to Matter - in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, which is based on the conception, two main papers are https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391209088_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics, [ in the paper secton 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” can be passed since this is more comprehensively given in section 6.“Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” in other paper below] , and the paper that is linked in the pointed above SS page 6 post.

Where, again, it is rigorously proven that both actualizations of the phenomena “Space” and “Time” in an informational system “Matter” as the Matter’s spacetime, all its [at least known now 8] space dimensions, and absolutely fundamental, universal for everything, including outside Matter, unique time ct- dimension, are fundamentally absolute, “fixed”, i.e. fundamentally don’t flow to anywhere, fundamentally by no means can be impacted by anything, i.e. be “contracted” , “dilated” , “curved” . “warped” , etc., - all these effects that are completely ad hoc postulated in mainstream physics are nothing else than transcendent illusions of the authors, the fundamental phenomena/notions above were transcendent, etc., for which.

However so intensive exchange, when the posters really even have no time to think enough to make something really at least rational, and so write something else- making trash is quite easy process, looks strange even in this discussion.

Or isn’t strange, though; more see recent SS post , page 331, in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics/331

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Thank you for your “attempt to participate”, or perhaps, sorry for your “frustration”, but I’ll leave your Absolute Information Cosmology to its proper place: a speculative system that currently shows neither predictive value, nor empirical grounding, nor any concrete link to the actual structure of spacetime or time perception.

And if it did, you certainly failed to let any of it transpire in your marketing-like response.

Your claim that “time cannot be dilated or curved” has already been falsified experimentally, just like your assumptions about space and causality. If you truly had something to offer, you wouldn’t need to hijack unrelated threads with self-promotional manifestos.

If the quality of your theoretical work reflects the level of intellectual rigor and respect you’ve shown with this intervention, then it’s probably as hollow as your tone is arrogant. I have no interest in wasting my time on content that hides behind self-promotion and denies empirically verified physics.

I won’t respond again to someone like you, once was enough, but never twice

As the person who started this discussion months ago, I would like to thank everyone for sharing their insights on cosmic infinity, the essence of time, and related themes.

Since I am not a physicist, I won't engage in the scientific aspects of the debate.

However, in epistemological and existential contexts, physics becomes more accessible to me.

I'm glad that this discussion has fostered academic debate and intellectual dialogues, shaped by critical reasoning and diverse perspectives.

Amalya Sukiasyan

Thank you, Amalya, not only for opening this thread, but also for remaining intellectually honest throughout the discussion.

It is rare and refreshing to see someone who initiates a debate resist the temptation to act as a "moderator" or judge, especially when not being a specialist in the field. Too often on these platforms, we witness original posters endorsing certain views by default, not because of their scientific merit, but to maintain the illusion of control or balance.

Your decision to simply listen and allow the debate to unfold speaks volumes about your respect for genuine inquiry. That integrity is appreciated.

With respect,

Essam Allou

Essam Allou,

Thank you for your kind words and reflections on the nature of the discussion. It was truly interesting for me to follow this insightful and thought-provoking debate.

With respect,

Amalya Sukiasyan

Essam Allou "Your mistake is interpreting this as evidence that time flows identically across gravitational potentials."

No, I never claimed that. I always stated that time flows identical within each reference system.

Xiaoaoqi Shen

Yes, Einstein's field equations with a positive value of the cosmological constant have a global solution which represents a finite universe.

The global solution is the solution without contributions from the energy momentum tensor. This solution is static and leads to a constant positive space curvature 1/R². The volume of the resulting space is given by V=2π²R³.

The thread questions is rigorously scientifically clarified in SS posts in the thread already, the last one is on page 9, June 6.

So for readers who really want to know why the Universe [more correctly “Matter”] isn’t infinite, and where it really is placed – Matter is only an element of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, which contains absolutely infinite “number” of elements, which are placed in the Set’s space that has at least “simply infinite number” of dimensions; at that all/everything in the Set absolutely obligatorily

changes in the unique universal time dimension, moving in this dimension at aevry change in only positive direction,

- see the SS posts and links in the posts.

Besides series of 6 reDzennn comments, June 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,27; 5 ,4 , 4, 1, 5, 3 passages ; in/to

“New theory proposes time has three dimensions, with space as a secondary effect”

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-theory-dimensions-space-secondary-effect.html

Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences (2025)

- really is relevant to this thread question.

The comments thread is heavily flooded, [and reDzennn comments are heavily “minused”] for the reason see in the comments; and, say, last passages in SS post, April 21, in https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now/1848;

- but Ctrl+F, “reDzennn ” , “Enter”, rather effectively solves the access problem.

Cheers