Since time is a gravity wave and space is infinite space is the fourth dimension NOT time. 

@ Andrew: Of course, you are quite right in saying that two events which are timelike separated can only occur in one temporal sequence, and cannot be observed under any circumstances to occur in the opposite sequence.

The fact that Einstein once made an unclear statement, as the one you quote would indicate, does not mean that this is what relativity is about. The issue that the sequence in which two events occur may be undefined *always* concerns spacelike separated events. Since, for such events, no observer can ever be there to witness both, their sequence cannot be witnessed by any single observer, and it is therefore not necessarily absurd to say that it can change according to the reference frame.

Christian, Francois,

Thank you for your feedback,

I have reflected about my question and tend to agree with you.

I understand that anyone including Einstein can make unfortunate statement. I do it quite often :).

I frequently hear unqualified statements about relativity of  the order of events so reading Einstein's unqualified statement forced me to pose this question. I have searched through a few relativity handbooks today and quite frequently it is said there that causal order of events is preserved. So this is not a dogma as I thought but indeed casual unqualified statements you find from time to time in discussions on the internet which is not something existing in the mainstream science.

My apology for taking your time

Dear Thierry,

"that there is no absolute relation in time between two events" is arguable.

This statement is not only arguable but plain wrong. To prove it wrong is enough to show just one example when it is false. Once a direction of motion of an object is assumed/detected o be from A to B, neither Galilean not Lorentz transformation to any imaginable inertial system can turn this to be from B to A.

You do not need a complex theories to point on some causal relations. An object at rest in A pushed to fly to B is a causal chain of changing positions. Causal is a common term arising from observation of reality and theory violating observed causality is always in trouble.

In the first approximation,in the STR, any motion slower or equal to light and  is a causal chain. The grey area above the speed of light exists, but this is a separate concern.

The velocity is a concept involving two things: changing position and elapsing time.

It is easy to say v=dx/dt but any practical approximate measurement must include at least two time stamps related to two different locations. Your velocity measure depends on how you determine what time is in two locations. It would be easy to have an instantaneous signal but this is not readily available. Einstein prescribed a synchronisation method for clocks in the STR model which leads to Lorentz transformation. STR velocities are different than one defined having an absolute rest in mind because clocksare independently syhchronised in inertial systems irrespective of othersystems, But two systems can also synchronise respective clocks setting 0 on the proximity of two systems clock and offset the rest of them by respective indicatins of each system clock when they met.

In conclusion, the velocity in STR is very well defined by convention of clock synchronisation.

The problems we have with the STR is not its internal inconsistency but interpretation of what time and simultaneity is.

Dear Thierry 

There is no need at all to explain the twin paradox using effects related to acceleration.

Instant reversal of velocity instead can be modeled without any violation of STR

@Andrew Wutke

Why don't you read what's written?

"There is no absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space, and no absolute relation in time between two events, but there is an absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space and time,..."

What Einstein said is that space and time are connected. He didn't refer to a particular type of events, as you do, but to the general case: the distance between two points differs from the point of view of different frames; two events which are NOT causally connected may appear in different time-order in different frames. But the RELATIVISTIC INTERVAL (the relation in "space AND time") is absolute.

I think the key to this is understanding the partitioning of spacetime using the light cone. Events on or within the future or past light cones of any event have a fixed causal relationship with the event, either able to be influenced by, or to influence, the event in question. Events outside the light cones can neither be influenced by nor influence the event and whether they happen before or after the reference event is dependent on your choice of coordinates, and of no consequence either way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Just for being rigorous,

George is right, though, as long as we don't speak of the behavior of entangled quantum objects. Between such objects exist quantum correlations. Measurements of two such entangled objects are usually NOT causally connected, i.e. the measurement-event of one of the objects is OUTSIDE the light-cone of the event of measurement of the other object. Though there is mutual influence between the results produced by the two events.

Sofia is right of course but although there is correlation between the measurements, that does not imply influence.

Also since the correlation can only be noted after the fact (i.e. at an event which includes both measurements in its past light cone) and quantum parameters have no value between measurements, it makes no sense to try to assign an epoch to the particle's measured variable "aquiring" its final value. That means it isn't possible to derive a "preferred frame" from entanglement or to use it to make a "one-way" measurement of the speed of light. Sadly, both of these are commonly seen crackpot ideas.

Dear Sofia,

I did read what I wrote but I am not impressed with Einstein's statement who has abandoned his own definition of time chosen for practical use, turning it into mysterious fourth dimension that exists only in equations, on paper, and in imagination.

Time as a dimension has as much sense as in the classical physics, velocity being a tangent of an angle which tangent line to t,x curve forms with t axis .

Where do you see in nature a (t,x) curve or god forbid a tangent line to it other than on a page in a physics book? Pure imagination by analogy to geometry.

Let me be clear I am not attacking special relativity. I am convinced in its consistency, but I am questioning certain perceptions derived from it. 

===============================================================

Coming to Einstein's statement

Absolute = independent of choice of coordinate system

Relations in space e:g :

Intersection of Lines planes etc

Paralleleism of lines

Containment of objects

Distance

other.....

Time = variable t in any stationary or moving system

Assuming conditions consistent with special relativity assumption, Einstein statement  means the following:

There is no coordinate system  independent relations in the space (no time t included) :

But :

Intersection of any lines and objects is an absolute spatial relation in stationary space and  for all static moving coordinate systems

Parallelelism of straight lines in relative rest is an absolute relation between the lines and  for all static or moving coordinate systems

Containment that is relation of enclosing one shape by another is an absolute relation for all static or moving coordinate systems

Two isometric objects in relative rest remain isometric

etc...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No absolute relation in time of two events means:

Any two events can be simultaneous, event A earlier than B or B earlier than A depending on coordinate system choice, BUT:

Temporal order in time (no space) of two events in the same location is an absolute relation between the events independent on coordinate system moving or not moving.

Any two events where A is the starting point of a motion and B an endpoint of the motion, have an absolute temporal order. The closer to B the later the event is

For any line segment passing a point Leading edge event occurs before trailing edge event  independent on coordinate system moving or not moving

This all comes from classic understanding of motion and space separate to time

BUT

all these relations are invariant after arbitrary Lorentz Transformation

so in a sense "there is an absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space and time" 

Everything happens in space and time but the marriage of the two is on paper so the couple happily lives separate lives bumping into each other every now and then.

So it was indeed an unclear statement as pointed out by F. Leyvraz. I understand people not always make perfect statement but I do not support defending them at all cost. ·

Dear Thierry

Sarcasm noted, But I can quite plainly explain the Tween Paradox with every detail exposed: why round trip travel must end with less elapsed time on the twin that has moved irrespective of velocities it travels, and consistent from the point of view of any coordinate system not only just the two.

I can understand people may not believe STR describes reality, but as a mathematical model it is only a linear algebra exercise, yes messy every now and then but manageable.

I am in progress of writing a paper to describe full twin paradox entirely in STR with no magic of induced gravity field and accelerations obfuscaring the problem, but it may take weeks before it is ready to read as I have some higher priority work ongoing.

AW: Parallelism of straight lines in relative rest is an absolute relation 

Only in SR, not in GR where gravity produces curvature. Other than that, your summary looks fine with just an additional qualifier:

AW: Any two events can be simultaneous, event A earlier than B or B earlier than A depending on coordinate system choice, BUT:

AW: Temporal order in time (no space) of two events in the same location is an absolute relation between the events independent on coordinate system moving or not moving.

"in the same location" is a coordinate-dependent statement so cannot be the basis for an absolute relationship. Modifying "same location" to "within the light cone" solves that.

Dear George,

You are probably right but I only discuss special relativity.

I see no need to go that far until my mind is clear about the first relativity theory that let a lot of loose ends in the interpretation of time.

AW: You are probably right but I only discuss special relativity.

Andrew, I don't really understand your comment, what I said is the fundamental to special relativity. By "the first relativity theory", are you referring to Galileo's version?

No, George,

There is an influence. But, I am affraid that you are not enough involved with such things for me to explain the influence. It's an influence that skips the space-distance between the entangled quantum objects. The NON-quantum world has NO such effects.

The effect is due to the constructive or distructive superposition of amplitudes of MULTI-PARTICLE waves. If you look at the wave-function of, say, two entangled particles, you see that it contains products of states of the two particles, e.g.  eiθ|a>1|b>2 + eiφ|c>1|d>2 +  . . .   . As you see, each such product is preceeded by a complex amplitude. The sum of two such joint amplitudes may be distructive, and therefore supress a joint resut for the spacely-separated particles, or may be constructive, and therefore enhance the probabiity of a joint result. So, these two-particle amplitudes do management of the particles, skipping distance.

Multi-particle amplitudes are physical phenomena.

Best regards!

Andrew,

I understand what you say. But one should see what Einstein meant to say, the general idea. You can't separate between different parts of his text, you should take the logical block as a whole. He wanted to convey the idea that the classical mechanics with an absolute space (i.e. time independent), and absolute time (space-independent), isn't valid anymore, but there exists a space-time in which space and time transform into one another, (as governed by the invariance of the relativistic interval).

In an equation, e.g.   a - b = 0,   you cannot take a = 0, or b = 0, you should take the equation in entirety.

Best regards! 

@ Andrew: I believe the statements made by George are both clear and correct: two events, one of which is in the future light cone of  the other can be joined by a subluminal observer, who then observes both to be at the same location, but at different times. For these, temporal sequence is well-defined.

On the other hand, spacelike separated events can never be joined by a subluminal observer, on the other hand, there always exists an observer, with respect to whom these two events are simultaneous. This relation should thus be viewed as a substitute for classical simultaneity.

The big difference between this new notion and classical simultaneity is that the latter is an equivalence relation, but the former is not (it is not transitive: A can be spatially separated from B and B from C, yet C be in the past (or future) light cone of A). But should this be a basic problem? I do not think so.

Finally, your objections to four-dimensional formalism and the ``geometrisation'' of physics. It may be worthwhile to point out that Newton geometrised the earlier qualiative notions, and that now we accept the (ordinary) velocity as being tangent to the spatial trajectory, without batting an eyelid.

Yet we most definitely do not ``see'' such velocities in the real world either: it is all theory, and all these concepts arise in physics books, just as the four-dimensional geometry is given in relativity books. The purpose of the formalism is to make it easier to compute the results, not to give deeper insight into the nature of the world.

Summarising, I do not think there is anything in the SRT formalism which is in ``contradiction'' with experiment: formalism, whether Newtonian or covariant, simply lies on another plane than experiment. On the other hand, once suitably interpreted, the results predicted by the formalism are indeed borne out by experiment.

SDW: No, George, There is an influence. But, I am afraid that you are not enough involved with such things for me to explain the influence. It's an influence that skips the space-distance between the entangled quantum objects.

This is perhaps a subtle point, I doubt we are too far apart. If I say "A influences B", that gives the impression of a direction to a causal link, from A to B, but if I say "B influences A" the direction of the causal influence is reversed. The problem in entanglement is that the measurements can be space-like separated hence when the two measurements are made, which one is "first" is frame-dependent. If I say the results are correlated, that removes the concept of directionality from the process which I think is valid, one cannot say that either one result "causes" the other, we can only say they are connected.

Do you see the point I was trying to make? You know far more about QM than I, its over 40 years since I did any of it, so is what I am saying valid?

Oh, George,

You touched the most painful problem in QM.

The entanglements work as I explained in my previous post. But this explanation is good up to a point: when we have to do with moving frames. There, appears naturally the question which one of the two measurement was FIRST.

This question is very meaningful. If the measurement of the particle A was done first, while the measurement of particle B didn't even begin, A should have produced a result INDEPENDENT of what will happen with B.

However, according to a frame by which the order of the measurements is reversed, the result produced by B should be INDEPENDENT of what is going to be done to A.

Bottom line, how the two results can be at all correlated? Is there interdependence between present and future?

In physics, many theories that seemed to us incredible, turned out to be correct. But I feel myself unable to believe that present and future can be interdependent. And the fact that the measurement of A and the measurement of B are spacely-separated, doesn't help.

if time is less than Planck-time (10**-43s) the well known rules change. especially continuity

The attached paper describes an experiment which measures the earth's velocity with respect to the aether.  It is difficult in that it's fourth order in v/c. Not surprisingly,the attached paper has been rejected by PhysRevD.  Criticism, pro & con will be appreciated.

Best to all,       Jack

I should have pointed out the obvious fact that in an aether frame of reference simultaneity is well defined and the order of events in time is unambiguous.

Jack

If the attached paper described an experiment that had been actually performed, and that had shown a non-zero effect depending on the Earth's velocity with respect to the ether, it would obviously be of considerable interest.

Such is not the case: you merely present a theoretical calculation of an effect that, according to you, should depend on the Earth's speed with respect to the Ether, which you identify with the CBR. Your computations appear to be performed with Maxwell's equations as they are commonly understood.

Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to look further into the details of the computations, since the Lorentz invariance (or rather covariance) of Maxwell's equations allow to state that such an effect is impossible, unless you really take into account the physical effects of the CBR as such, which you do not seem to do.

I would therefore side with the naysayers.

nowadays aether has an other name: dark energy vs.  black matter

I am saying that there is an experiment that will detect the motion of the earth with respect to the luminiferous aether.  The derivation is fully relativistc. It is questionable as to whether an interferometer can be sensitive to path differences that are fourth order in v/c.  Please read the paper.

Best,    Jack  

If any calculation is fully relativistic, it must be invariant under Lorentz transformations, and hence cannot detect absolute motion with respect to the CBR, unless it measures a physical interaction with the CBR. There is no need to read the paper.

 Derivations do not undergo transformations. Please read the paper. 

François,

Please be more attentive. The Lorentz transformations are for inertial systems. The movement of the Earth is rotational.

Now, the cosmic radiation is not isotropic? 

Sofia> the cosmic radiation is not isotropic? 

The cosmic radiation is isotropic to very good observed accuracy, with respect to a cosmic rest frame. But it is not isotropic with respect to the approximate rest frame of the sun (or the earth). This, to cite Wikipedia, is due to "the peculiar velocity of the Earth relative to the comoving cosmic rest frame as the planet moves at some 371 km/s towards the constellation Leo".

dear Thierry, I know You`re right; I just wanted to point that: when something is not known, scientists do introduce things like: aether, dark energy, black holes, a.s.o... remember phlogiston theory??

scientists do introduce things like: transformer, radio, television, transistor, laser, fiber optics, microprocessor, laptop, mobile phone, gps, a.s.o...

All based on their silly misunderstandings and misconceptions of nature. What incredible luck!!  Remember what your theories have contributed to?

dear Kare, you mean: thechnicians. I spoke about theories (universe, cosmology, RT, Quantum). why we are where we are. indeed: where are we? and do You remember: hiroshima, fukushima, nagasaki, tshernobyl?

dear Kare, my theory will be recognized after a few years (maybe 300 years?). right now I`m working at the theorem of trivialisation of theorems. still don`t know where, and why we are/exist. all te best, Paul

“Why it is accepted that there is no absolute relation in time between two events? ”

-  to answer on this question is necessary before to define/ to understand at least – what is “time” and what is “absolute relation in time”. Just because of either Poincare, or Minkowski, or Einstein [who “used” corresponding ideas of Poincare, and Minkowski] didn’t understand what are these notions/phenomena they could not answer on these questions; what, further resulted in appearance in the SR-1905  firstly the [Poincare’s] postulate that there is no absolute spacetime and all inertial reference frames are totally equivalent, then – appearance in [in fact contemporary version of the SR] in Minkowski theory, who presented it in 1908, of the postulate that there is no absolute relations  between events in Matter’s spacetime.

From the postulates above directly and practically at once after 1905 followed that the presented theory is self-inconsistent, since from the theory follow absurd – or “paradoxical” consequences, in 1905 that was the “twin paradox”, later it became be clear that this paradox is nothing more then a complicated version of more evident absurd – the well known “Dingle problem in the SR”.

As well as without the definitions above any discussion, including given one, will be nothing more then a scholastic exercises – as a huge number of analogues along more then 100 years the SR/GR existence.

As well seems as quite evident that all “paradoxes” in the SR become be solved only if the postulate about the total frames’ equivalence is wrong and in the reality Matter’s spacetime is absolute, i.e. in this spacetime both components, i.e. the 3D space and 1D time are independent on each other and on any observer and observer’s reference frame.

 And this inference follows  directly also from proper [in the “The Information as Absolute” conception] definitions of “Time”, “Space”, and “Spacetime” – in this case that is only 4D empty container and the emptiness by any means cannot be impacted by the content of this container.

But the picture is a little more complex – in the reality Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian empty container/spacetime,  Matter is an informational system that is organized/govern by a rather limited number of [logical] rules/ “Nature laws” and  on the fundamental level every material object can change only using four main independent concrete degrees of freedom + absolutely universal degree of freedom that acts in every, including non-material, changing object.

When any change of every material object is observed as a motion in the spacetime – as motion in 3D space of objects as a whole and motion in time at changing of objects’ internal states, thus Matter’s spacetime has two temporal coordinates – the fourth “coordinate time” coordinate, where objects move only at changes of their internal states, and fifth, universal “true time” coordinate, where objects move at any/every change – at a change of internal state and at change of 3D spatial position.

Since because of the energy conservation law every material object changes uninterruptedly its internal state [i.e. usually moves in the coordinate time, though “restmassless” particles move in the 3D space only] and [practically always] its 3D position, all/every object move  in 4D sub-spacetime with 4D speeds having identical absolute values that are equal to the speed of light; thus – they simultaneously all move along the true time axis with identical [the speed of light] speed also.

From the above follows, including, that (i) – all objects in Matter are always simultaneously in one true time moment and there is corresponding absolute [true] time sequence between any events in Matter; (ii) because of the constancy of absolute values objects’ 4D speeds, the objects  that move with different 3D spatial speeds always have different rates of changing their internal states and so always are in different “coordinate time” points; thus, since the coordinate time relates to the changing of objects’ internal states it is just “the time is what clocks show”. Correspondingly if relatively moving observers measure temporal intervals between the same  events, they quite naturally obtain different results.

But it is possible to measure the absolute 3D spatial speed of some clocks and further to re-calibrate them so, that they will show just “absolute” true time intervals – see  [including the definitions of the notions/phenomena above] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

It isn’t impossible that the absolute speed will be near the observed speed in CMB and the frame linked to CMB is the absolute frame – but that till now is only some suggestion, which hasn’t any  rational  physical base and experimental confirmation.

Cheers

Article Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

``Kåre, none of the inventions you cite have anything to do with SRT, GRT, or even with much QM predictions.''

The transformer has to do with EM, the GPS requires for its operation both special and general relativity, the cell phone, in its use of solid-state devices, requires an immense amount of quantum mechanics, the laser is a remarkable, purely quantum mechanical, device, which has made possible such precises tests of SRT (modern Michelson-Morley) that relativity opponents have seen themselves in the painful necessity of ignoring them and concentrating on Michelson's original 100 year-old results instead.

If what you say is merely ignorance, it might be of advantage to inform yourself. Such a kind interpretation of your statements, however, I believe to be unjustified.

``Atomic clocks are delayed by the E-M induction with speed. ''

That actually is not incorrect. But to the extent that all clocks are slowed down by the same factor, and since I know of no other way to measure time than via clocks, we may as well argue that time itself is what slows down.

As to Jefimenko's claims that some clocks do not slow down in the same way, they are incorrect because they usually assume an object, the material of which is not subject to Lorentz contraction. The inexistence of such materials, however, is experimentally well documented, precisely by MM type experiments, which prove that the electromagnetic contraction also applies to the material substrate of the experiment (MM marble slab, etc...)

``do You remember: hiroshima, fukushima, nagasaki, tshernobyl?''

Indeed I do: and none of these was an instance of science being incorrect. Rather, they were instances in which people acted unwisely, or in an inhuman manner. But the science was altogether correct, and indeed, in cases like Tschernobyl and Fukushima, knowing the science did allow to understand and mitigate the consequences.

So do try to aim at the correct culprit: in this case Mankind, and not science.

"accepted that there is no absolute relation in time between two Events" ?

The fact that you present a proposition that refers two events does actually establish a relation between them.  

If someone states that

there is only one chance to escape from contradiction: Claim that You don't know the true time of the events. If You assume that there are events with true time values at each but quite unknown time scales (references or time zones) this would be synonymous.

• => Therefore, to state that you have two truly unrelated points in time is equivalent to claim that there exist two different and necessarily distinct spheres of time.
• ==> Everybody who is claiming the existence  of something (e.g. aether or unicorns) is obliged to prove its existence.

(As Thomas v. Aquin had to and did fail to prove the existence of god anybody intending to give scientific statements should have learned his lession).

So far, the lack of clarity is all this kind of science is made of.

@F.Leyvraz     "...we may as well argue that time itself is what slows down.”

I believe that it is generally a mistake to imagine that the flow of time slows.  An argument supporting this conclusion in a particular instance is given in the attached paper;

Best regards     Jack Heighway

“…since I know of no other way to measure time than via clocks, we may as well argue that time itself is what slows down….”

before to claim that, evidently it is necessary to understand – “what is “time”” , "what are clocks", and why “we measure time via clocks”. Without adequate to the reality understanding these points this claim is evidently senseless

 – at that, of course, remains be evidently senseless after the understanding also. 

This claim appeared in the SR/GR just because of either Minkowski or Einstein didn’t understand the points above, correspondingly in the relativity theories there are no – evidently obligatory in this case [as in any other theory is necessary to define at least basic notions] definitions of the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”;

 nonetheless non-grounded SR/GR postulates that time, space and spacetime are really transformed because of some observer

[moreover – even a particle, e.g. famous muons in Earth’s atmosphere that contract the atmosphere, observers and poor Universe as a whole "confirming the SR"]

in some reference frame moves somewhere and by some mystic way “dilates” the time, “contracts” the space, etc…

More – see SS post on 5-th  page and the link in the post.

Cheers

Tireless anonymous members of the disciplined community continue upvote  each other, though their posts are [relating to the SR/GR – practically all posts] evidently senseless, and downvote quite  reasonable posts of strangers, hoping that some accident readers will believe that first posts contain a high quality truth , when strangers’ ones are erroneous…

Dear Andrew,

You know me from some other conversations on ResearchGate. I can answer your question in details.  

Why it is accepted that there is no absolute relation in time between two events?

That happens because all measurements use Signal-Based Synchronization of duration measurement devices (or so-called clocks). However, there is Aurora Effect that prevents such synchronization at the physical level without any reference to Relativity.

Would you like to know more?

You can read my article ‘Physics and Philosophy of Wave Reference Frames in a Retrospective of 20-th Century Findings and Illusions’ published recently (especially section ten that explains De Witte Findings and Aurora Effect).  

The article is accessible at the following path.

 https://globaljournals.org

Recently Published Journals

GJCFR-A Volume 16 Issue 6

(Pages 89-112)

We can discuss your questions or comments about that article if you have any of them.  

https://globaljournals.org

@ Dear Andrew,

The dogma "that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity" is a consequence of other dogma "the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference". It is shown very clearly in the "Analysis of the article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (see https://physics.bg/physics-problems/special-theory-of-relativity-blunder/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies-analysis/ ). The evidence about the dogma that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference is shown in https://physics.bg/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/ .

Actually, in the site https://physics.bg/ you can see about the fundamental tests of the special theory of relativity; about “What is truth and proof in science?”; and about the SILENCE of the “internationally recognized physics journals”...

Best regards

Hello Andrew,

There are two papers at OSF Preprints that report the discovery of the intrinsic nature of time. One paper is mostly about the discovery itself, and the other paper is a description of time with comments about the role of time in the universe.

Vesterby, Vincent. 2019. “The Identification of the Intrinsic Nature of Time.” OSF Preprints. July 26. osf.io/gqxjy.

https://osf.io/gqxjy

Vesterby, Vincent. 2019. “The Basis of Time in the Universe.” OSF Preprints. July 24. osf.io/q4ntk.

https://osf.io/q4ntk

People have been wondering about the nature of time for thousands of years. There have always been the questions:

What is time?

Why does time occur?

Why does time have the specific qualities that it has?

No one has ever been able to provide realistic answers to these questions. Because no one knew what time was, all the proposed answers were speculative, just guesses.

These two papers are not speculative. Nor do they provide a definition of time. They are descriptions of the nature of time and its role in the universe, and thus provide the answers to the three questions.

Our universe is non-local. That means that everything influences everything at exactly the same moment. That’s an absolute relation (actually, it is the synchronization of all the quanta transfer in the universe).

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear all,

I just published a paper regarding an alternative definition of velocity. Instead of defining velocity as the rate of change of position, I defined it as the probability to travel with light speed. This new definition obviously incorporates an upper speed limit.

With this new velocity definition I am able to construct an absolute an irreversible time. I can also show that Einstein's clock time is in no contradiction with this absolute time. To make this thinking falsifiable, I can predict under which condition the measurement of absoltue motion is possible.

I remain in the hope that these thoughts are of interest to you.