Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Georgina Woodward: on 5/16/17 at 22:57pm UTC, wrote The temporal non-homogeneity of the content of the product of information...

Georgina Woodward: on 5/16/17 at 13:01pm UTC, wrote Hi MJGeddes, I think i may be thinking about this in a different way to...

Georgina Woodward: on 5/16/17 at 8:56am UTC, wrote Hi MJGeddes, by "physical" do you meant what exists materially or something...

mjgeddes: on 5/16/17 at 5:31am UTC, wrote I've had some big new insights about a possible way to intrepret a second...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/2/17 at 21:26pm UTC, wrote Alex Mayer wrote and lectured extensively on this topic.. He treats time...

Steve Agnew: on 4/2/17 at 15:55pm UTC, wrote Actually...there is a second time dimension that informs us how the...

David Kachel: on 4/1/17 at 17:24pm UTC, wrote For a hundred years we have accepted the fact that what we experience in...

Nathaniel Gibson: on 8/21/16 at 16:32pm UTC, wrote "With a whole extra dimension of time kicking around, there would seem, at...

June 24, 2017

ARTICLE: The Times They Are A-Changin' [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 03:31 GMT
I have looked at this paper, though not read in depth as yet. The two times idea means taking the two time directions the AdS is embedded in and extending physics into F-theory. One has to be careful though. For one can travel a continuous loop in the time "plane" or surface and arrive at a prior time in either of the time dimensions.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 12:05 GMT
I'd like to see a rule enacted which states that people who write articles about time must first define exactly what they mean when they use the word "time." Lack of specificity on this important fundamental point is a likely source of many of the woes of physics today.

We are left to assume that the authors probably are using the so-called "operational" definition of time; i.e., time is that which is measured by clocks. There is certainly nothing wrong with this definition, per se, so long as one then goes on to define what one means by a clock. These definitions of clocks (when such definitions are offered) typically go on about measuring regular repetitions of cyclical motions, but they typically fail to explain how one could determine whether a motion was "regular" or not without using a clock. Hmmm . . . .

This popular operational definition of time is not "wrong," but it is incomplete. It has allowed us to achieve many important advances in physics, but it has also lead us into some rather baffling puzzles. I believe that it would behoove us to look carefully for other ways of thinking about the nature of time, and I have proposed one such way in an essay which may be found here. Perhaps by somehow melding the operational definition of time with the sort of relational definition of time proposed in this essay we might be able achieve some worthwhile progress, but such a melding is a non-trivial task, and it has thus far remained beyond my ability to achieve. I'd like to think that it might succumb to the efforts of other, smarter people who would be willing to take up the challenge.

report post as inappropriate

JOE AVERAGE replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 06:55 GMT
The equation can't be reversed to convert an eliptical three dimensional space into a ten dimensional circular earth orbit of 360 days.

It can't be reversed because the definition of time AKA EInstein is wrong for it.

Time can't be defined as the warpage of space/time caused by an eliptical orbit of the earth.

If we do define time this way then the equation is reversible and Einsteins theory is consistant in ten dimensions.............

Though you would be interested in my definition of time.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 17:17 GMT
Time is non-dimensional.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Oct. 3, 2010 @ 05:16 GMT
We have duration and motion in our timeless universe.

Does duration elapsing, have a dimension?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 17:18 GMT
The notion of multiple time dimensions strikes me as superfluous. If by "dimension" one means metric space coordinates (Weinstein does not depart from this convention) the Hilbert space allows infinite vectors. If the constraint is t = 0, the Riemann sphere C* as a compactification of C with a simple pole at infinity already accommodates a 2-dimensional analysis of the time metric -- the real time result is 1-dimensional, while the spatialized part (imaginary time) has as many dimensions as we like.

The zero constraint at infinity is unique, and its importance is underscored in the geometric intepretation of complex analysis: the expansion of pointlike space over an n-dimension field.

In my opinion the fly in the ointment never has been the failure to recognize more than one time dimension, but the persistent belief that PDE models can order real time evolution. I think that time reversibility in classical physics rules out such models. I don't see how we get to the physical meaning of time until we eliminate the need for boundary conditions -- imaginary time does that.


report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 08:39 GMT
Tom what is "imaginary time", where is imaginary time", how imaginary time is related to the physical change ?

Could you answer my questions.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 18:10 GMT
Imaginary time is a way of looking at instantons or quantum tunnelling states. The Schrodinger equation for a particle moving in one dimension with some potential V is

iħ∂ψ/∂t = -(ħ^2/2m)∂^2ψ/∂x^2 – Vψ.

If we consider a stationary case with a phase ψ(x,t) = ψ(x)exp(-iEt/ħ) the left had term just becomes Eψ, where E is the energy of the particle. Now let us rearrange things so that

-(ħ^2/2m)∂^2ψ(x)/∂x^2 = (E – V)ψ(x).

For a particle moving in space we set ψ(x) ~ exp(ikx), do the two derivatives and cancel out the ψ(x).

k^2 = (2m/ħ^2)(E – V).

The funny thing is that for V > E we have an imaginary k. This means that the kinetic energy is in a funny sense negative, which is not something you expect in classical mechanics. For a system of this sort it is in a classically forbidden region, and in more general systems there may be some dispersion ω = ω(k) = vk + … , this leads to an imaginary frequency. The phase for the system is exp(iφ) = exp(iωt). The imaginary quantity associated with the angular frequency ω may be reassigned to the time t, that is a mathematical triviality. So in some of these problems it is useful to use this and work with imaginary time, or what is sometimes called Euclideanized time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 22:33 GMT
I don't think it will make a difference to you, Amrit, but let's pick up where Lawrence left off, at Euclideanized time.

You know that the flat Euclidean plane is two dimensional. When we do complex analysis, in two dimensions of the complex plane, points in the Euclidean plane become lines. The time metric is one dimensional, like a line. Real time is a one dimensional line in the real part of the complex plane. When we compactify the complex plane, C, with one point at infinity, we get C*, the complex sphere. Because the complex sphere has only this one simple pole at infinity, a metric beyond that point is entirely within the imaginary part of the complex plane; time is thus "spatialized." Hawking explains it as "north of the north pole." I.e., we know that one cannot, in ordinary space, go north of the north pole. In complex space, it is natural, and imaginary time is as natural as so called real time.


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 18:00 GMT
"understanding of what it means to be an observer ... I’m localized I can go here, or here, or here, and I can’t be in two places at the same time".

Well, usual physics ignores several aspects of reality as did and do religions.

I also appreciate restriction to reasonable positive probability.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 19:41 GMT
A 12 dimensional theory with two times has some possibilities, but there are a number of hurdles which must be overcome. To see some of this it is necessary to look at string theory as it stands. The relevant dimensions are 26, 16, 11, and 10. The ten dimensional supersymmetric theory is 10 dimensions, 9 space plus time, which defines the 10 dimensional Supersymmetric Yang Mills (SYM) theory. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 14:15 GMT
in SR 4-th coordinate in NOT time

X4 = ict where t is "thick" of slock


I'm deelpy imprest of how moch nonsense is dicussed in last few yers regarding time. The last one is that time is goes a bit on my nerves

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 14:18 GMT
tick.......(not thick)

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 14:31 GMT

1. there is no one experimental data in science time is dimension

2. with clocks we measure numerical order of material change i.e motion

3. X4 = ict where t is tick of clock

4. clock tick in space only, not in time

5. linear time “past-present-future” is not dimension in which we live, it is a mind model through which we experience life

6. space is timeless

7. in the universe past, present and future exist only as numerical order of change

8. universe does not run in time

9. time run in the universe as numerical order of change of the universe

10. if you do get 9 points than you know


Is there any hope someone will wake up in FQXI?

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 00:57 GMT
Spatial dimensions are static creations of our perception and basically describe the fact of the punctual observer. He stands at the center of a sphere of perception that simply and conveniently parts into x y z. But in this universe everything is dynamic and changing.

Time for example is dynamic. It has many dimensions but they are not static dimensions. They are dynamic dimensions. What the heck is that? Well, time passes at a certain rate and that is your baseline. That is the nature of time. And we know that this rate varies from place to place like in a gravitational field. This rate varies in the ball at the moment you accelerate it and throw it away. So the rate of time passing can have different values, change from one value to another etc. These are the actual dynamic variations of time. They are made of the various time variations (derivatives) of this rate, positive or negative.

Lets recap. Time is dynamic and therefore its dimensions are dynamic as well. You have the base rate with a variable value. You have its change of value, increasing or decreasing. Even increasing and decreasing will have different values of acceleration. And you finally have all the other time derivatives up to Nth …

Now, the time rate in one place cannot change forever. This is why increasing time is connected with its opposite conjugate that brings it down back. A lump of increasing time rate has to be connected to an equal and opposite lump of decreasing time. This simple situation can be created spontaneously into the “vacuum” as short lived directionless dip and dimples (above or below the local base rate). If you match the opposite dips and dimples then you get a wave with direction! This is because this conjugate of dip and dimples is “motion” for lack of a better word.

When one superimposes a model of time rate variation of the EM wave, as above, over the classical electro-magnetic model .. one gets an interesting rule of correspondence. The magnetic vector is the time rate in the process of changing. The electric field is where this change in the time rate changes direction; from increasing to decreasing or vice-versa. This is up to par with the known rules of induction.

The field from your bar magnet or the static electricity from your comb are just different dynamic dimensions of time…… This is no surprise if you understand that the whole universe, by reason of logic, must be made of only one thing of one nature. If this thing is dynamic then you have all its variations as bonus … which makes for a more interesting emerging universe.


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 12:20 GMT
Marcel you wrote: Time for example is dynamic. It has many dimensions but they are not static dimensions. They are dynamic dimensions. What the heck is that? Well, time passes at a certain rate and that is your baseline. That is the nature of time.

That is philosophy, no physics, no data foe what you say.

Wiht clocks we measure numerical order of change.....this is wahat time is.

Yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:04 GMT
Every point is the center of its own three dimensional coordinate system and every clock is its own dimension of time. Why? Because dimensions are a modeling tool, not the basis of reality.

Einstein said space is what we measure with a ruler and time is what we measure with a clock. Well, a ruler can only measure one dimension at a time, so it takes three rulers to measure three dimensions of space, but a clock has two components, hands and face. Relatively speaking, while the hands go past to future, against the face, the face goes future to past, against the hands. So that would make two balanced directions,,er,, dimensions of time.

So, do we travel the fourth dimension from the past into the future, or does the constant rearrangement of what is, turn the future into the past?

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 13:30 GMT
"So, do we travel the fourth dimension from the past into the future, or does the constant rearrangement of what is, turn the future into the past?"

The rearrangement of "what is" turns the present into a new and different present. The future does not exist, nor does the past. The past (i.e., a previously objectively real configuration of the universe) formerly existed but has evolved into the configuration which we currently perceive and which we call the present. We infer that the present configuration will evolve into new configurations which we think of as the future, but these hypothetical future configurations have never been objectively real.

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 13:53 GMT
Correction: when I wrote "The past (i.e., a previously objectively real configuration of the universe) formerly existed but has evolved into the configuration which we currently perceive and which we call the present."

I should have written, "The past (i.e., previously objectively real configurations of the universe) formerly existed but they have evolved into the configuration which we currently perceive and which we call the present."

The remainder stands as written. Apologies for any confusion.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 16:20 GMT

I basically agree with your position, but I'm thinking part of the problem with physics is we get a little too demanding of what's real and what's not. We agree past and future do not exist, but then we turn around and try to define the present and it becomes this dimensionless point between past and future, but that doesn't work because there would be no duration to affect the change that both creates and replaces the configuration. Then when we try to understand duration, we're back to past and future.

The problem is that time is an emergent effect that if we look too closely at, begins to fade, much as the effect of temperature begins to evaporate when we get to the level of individual activities.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 17:37 GMT
Past, Present, Future

There is no “overall present”. The present is the coincidence of multiple signals in one point called the observer. Look at the Moon and it is a second away in time. Look at the Sun (not directly!) and it is about 8 minutes away. Everywhere you look around you is the past. Because the speed limit of light is a limit also for everything … this distance in time is EFFECTIVE, OPERATIONAL and final. There is no NOW between you and the Moon or Jupiter or even your computer screen… It does not make sense to ask “what is the weather like now on Mars”. We may find out in minutes and hours the answer but, .. this is a trick of consciousness and memory and some language thrown in… The observer on Earth and Mars were never part of the same moment or “now”. Past and future are equally …. Block ideas … and time travel suggests moving between two of these blocks that do not exist …


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 18:05 GMT

I fully agree that the effect of time can be entirely explained in the context of motion and the projection of events as a dimension is only a narrative model and not physically real in any way, shape or form. Spacetime is a correlation of distance and duration using the speed of light as a conversion factor, rather than a fundamental structure of reality. The problem is this does create problems for current physics models and it's easier to reject it than consider the consequences.

As a friend once said, when I pointed out that time is actually the future becoming the past, rather than movement from the past into the future, "Stop it. You're hurting my head."

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 00:24 GMT
"The present is the coincidence of multiple signals in one point called the observer."

"Spacetime is a correlation of distance and duration using the speed of light as a conversion factor, rather than a fundamental structure of reality."

Bing, you guys have nailed it. I've tried to make these point on several threads, perhaps less eloquently, but it didn't fly with the few people on here who reject special relativity. It seems that some people just need to think of the universe as a giant shooting gallery of photons ontologically zooming from here to there for billions of "universe-years," like tiny wayward space travelers wondering where they will end up. Even most popular-science magazine articles depict the Cosmos this way. The sooner we realize that this is a false, anthropomorphic view of reality -- a human projection of the "true" universe onto a context that makes intuitive sense to us -- the sooner we'll have a realistic, workable definition of time and what it really means.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 03:08 GMT

The irony is that the linear narrative that is the dimension of time, is profoundly anthropomorphic.

Basically Einstein rejected Newton's "God's view" of an absolute flow of time for a subjective understanding, where the individual perspective determines what can be observed. What gets overlooked is that since there is no "God's view" in the first place, what was being rejected was an anthropomorphization of objective reality, rather than an actual attempt at objective reality. The presumed universal narrative was being rejected in favor of the individual narrative, without considering that the very quality of narration might not be fundamental. So that "universal flow" from past to future was replaced by a four dimensional spacetime geometry, in order to incorporate the fact that clocks are inherently subjective. The simple basic fact though, is that similar processes will evolve at different rates under different conditions, as opposed to there being some fundamental geometry of spacetime telling them how fast to evolve.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 17:17 GMT
Karl, John,

Let’s not forget the partition of the different truth systems. That I can see at the same time both the Sun and the Moon in the sky remains a truth for me, the observer and his truth system. What we talked about and agreed with above is another truth system that belongs to the ontology of the universe. What I am saying is that within a specific truth system the truths do not agree with other truth systems, this is normal and logical. No one is wrong if he specifies to which truth system the absence of choice a.k.a. facts a.k.a. truths it belong to. Many arguments and paradoxes are eliminated by recognizing this partition.


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 20:33 GMT

Innumerable truth systems are very necessary. Often opposing ones even support each other, like opposite sides of the same coin. What would conservatives and liberals be without the other? Reality is a function of distinction and often these distinctions become immensely complex, to where no one mind can encompass the multitude of perspectives without completely melting down. There is quite literally no God's eye perspective on the entire reality.

That said, often opposing perspectives do clash and one might well prevail over the other, because just as new views are born, old ones can die.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 19:35 GMT
flow of time is flow of numerical order of materal change running in a timeless space

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 17:29 GMT
Wow! John, Eckard, and Marcel in particular.

Brilliant perception from the misty gloom! May I attempt a floodlight? but be careful as most are blinded; Some time ago I had a moment of inspiration which I'm fearful to share. But in truth I have no choice but to ask those with vision if they can see it.

Eckard, as usual, it's your Localised Observer, in each and every inertial frame, which as Weinstein said we haven't considered well enough. Now bring in Marcels's 'each EM field as just different dynamic dimensions of time.' and consider how each massive particle (or group) in motion has it's own EM field. With local limits. And every point, as John says, is the centre of it's own 3D co-ordinate system, each being one of the essential 'innumerable truth systems.' This is the same as the "infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion" which Einstein described, but never did quite find the link to his "all mass is spatially extended" .. but with limits, which brings us back to the EM and other fields around all mass, behaving differently with relative motion through it's 'next field up' background.

Marcel again; "Observers on Earth and Mars were never part of the same moment or 'now'. They are in real and physically different inertial fields and thus will have their own local time, as each of the infinitely many spaces in relative motion' does. And EM waves must change speed at each of these EM field limits to maintain 'c' locally as it moves into the next. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, including 'c'. And here is where we've been blinded.

Light changes speed moving from, say, water into a vacuum, or from air into ice. All we need to prove is that when we move that ice cube, relative to the air, the light within it passes through it at a constant speed wrt the ice cube, i.e. locally, no matter which vector we choose or which way the planet is moving. Then we have a whole new simple physics. Discrete fields in relative motion resolving anomalies. Acceleration changes frames, and conservation is served in balancing frequency with wavelength.

But wait, we have already proved this! We've just been blinded. We even have both quantum and classic processes for the speed change between inertial frames. Ah! But there is no Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction, and we'd be able to observe gas jets at 6c or more, and 'lensing' delays of years! (that's observing two 'times' at once!) so of course it can't possibly be correct. Are there any not blinded yet?

Very best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 16:59 GMT
Anon Peter Jackson,

I see growing consensus with John, J.C. and others: The future is uncertain but the past unchangeable, and this distinction belongs to a real observer. Religion as well as physics have unfortunately been emancipated from this realistic perspective. I doubt that the young Weinstein will have enough courage as to solve the case and separate physics from what is deeply rooted. I rather envision Van Flandern's fellows to succeed.

We all learned to either believe in SR or getting declared stupid. Meanwhile I feel free to rethink the arguments myself. Flandern coined the expression "time desynchronization" by SR. Einstein himself called relativity "seemingly" not agreeable with the constant velocity of light in vacuum. Was he right?

Let's assume four identical clocks, one on earth E, a second one just one second remote on the moon M and a third and fourth on identical shuttles moving towards E and M, respectively. Shouldn't it be reasonable for symmetry reasons that the shuttles can start and arrive simultaneously no matter how fast they move? Wouldn't a synchronization be simply possible in principle by correcting for the time of flight light propagates either from E to M or return? With this one-way method one could make sure that both shuttles will start simultaneously and for symmetry reasons also arrive at the same moment. What time spans the four clocks show is quite a different question. I cannot see any reason for ascribing different times to the same point in space just if there is something moving relative to something at a different point. Be honest, you all do understand it very well: Any light we perceive belongs to the past. It traveled at least one way.

Incidentally, I would like to add a caveat to the thesis that the laws of physics are valid in all coordinate systems: In reality we have to obey the restriction to only positive elapsed time. Negative elapsed time is as unreal as is negative distance.

Those who experienced a blast did first see it and heard it with some delay. Do not infer from this that it happened twice. While I may even respect the many impressive theories that are based on SR and Minkowski's metric, I suggest looking for simpler, honest, and more realistic results from Galilean mathematics and physics too.



report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 17:41 GMT

"Flandern coined the expression "time desynchronization" by SR. Einstein himself called relativity "seemingly" not agreeable with the constant velocity of light in vacuum. Was he right?"

I say yes, but only due to his need to describe the vacuum as nothing for the purposes of EM wave propagation, and that need can now be removed. 'Space withour aether is unthinkable'. (quote. AE 1921).

This says Van Flandern was absolutely spot on, but never quite worked out why. Time is 'desynchronised' at the boundary of every inertial frame, i.e. at the limits of every EM field around every bit of mass in relative motion. Light does 'c' through each local field. When it reaches an observer it changes to the 'c' of the observers field. (Doppler shifting). That is the true and embarrasing simplicity of why it is always observed at 'c'.

Let me test your Clocks E, M, S1 and S2 with the model. From the PoV of an observer at rest in the heliosphere (wrt the sun). Subject to how far each is away the shuttles can be seen to start similtaneously. But, even with the same d and v, being seen to arrive similtaneously from the same point is tricky due to the disparate motions of earth and moon! The observer could however move to a spot equidistant to E and M on S1 S2 arrival to achieve that.

If he (from there at that moment) observes each clock he'll find they all read the same. (apart possibly from some gravitational time dilation!).

It's as simple as jumping on a bus. Light jumping on the back of the moving bus (being converted to 'cn' at the glass) will get there before light that had to use the pavement.

If the 'bus' is going the wrong way (as light going through MACS J1149.5+2223) it may be delayed by a few nanosecs (or a few years! - as we find). Meaning perhaps the mass of the galaxy derived is not anomalous after all.

And yes; The laws of physics are the same in all buses and galaxies. But, as they all move wrt each other, you observe events occurring in different frames at different times from within each.

If you check you may find this matches (explains) all paradoxical observation. Huygens, E-O extinction merely explain the classic/quantum mechanism.

So. as I say. When we have an 'adjustment' to complete SR as a unified field theory with Locality/Reality and a quantum mechanism, we'll write it off as nonsense as we can't get our heads around it and it's not precisely what we think SR says.

Is it obvious I need help!?


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 18:50 GMT
Marcel again; "Observers on Earth and Mars were never part of the same moment or 'now'. They are in real and physically different inertial fields and thus will have their own local time, as each of the infinitely many spaces in relative motion' does. And EM waves must change speed at each of these EM field limits to maintain 'c' locally as it moves into the next. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, including 'c'. And here is where we've been blinded.


all observations are measured only in space and always in space, time is only numerical order of observation....clocks tick only in space and not in time

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Peter replied on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 16:37 GMT

I agree with Eckard, but that doesn't require time for anybody to be any more than now. The word time has many interpretations and I consider argument rather semantic.

The importance of its use as a reference for physics can be missed. Now is apparently different for every single observer when judged by events, not just due to different positions but due to different inertial frames.

We could co-ordinate 1,000 clocks at a point in space, and 1,000 people take tham on their travels. When they observe a cosmic event they record the time and return with evidence of their motion and position at that time. We find that each has recorded a different time.

That is what is meant by 'local' time. Events are communicated by light which takes different periods to reach different position. My concept of local time is valid, and important it's just not what you interpret that I mean by it.

The evidence brought back by the 1,000 people and their different recorded times of that event will tell us much about nature. If we use logic it will tell us more about inertial frames than we have understood so far.

Time, i.e. 'c' and the laws of physics, is the same within all inertial frames, but an inertial frame can be a region of space, not only mass in motion but both the mass and the fields around and attached to it.

Only with this model can we finally explain all observation, like how we can observe events years apart across space at the same moment in Einstein Lenses. Two different 'times' at one moment. Do you have an alternative explanation foior this?


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 11:54 GMT
Einstein expressed time is numerical order of physical phenomena in a famous sentence: “Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it”. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes: “Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence”.

Einstein did not interpreted time as a fourth dimension of space-time. This was and still is misinterpretation of the most physicists which do not distinguish between physical and psychological time. They “project” their inner psychological time into the physical reality although it is not there.

For Einstein there was no division between past, present and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

(out of my comming book)

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 21:19 GMT

Didn't E. here contradict to his own SR? Future events cannot be measured. Clocks do not show future time. Ergo future time does not exist in reality. This is the opposite of the allegedly only elusive distinction between past and future.

If E. distinguished between physical time and psychological time he perhaps attributed the physical one to the abstract notion but the psychological one to the elapsed time. Isn't this perverse?

Anyway, we should clarify whether or not it is justified to base the notion time on a direct measurement by means of a round trip of light. If I understood Van Flandern correctly, he argued that the multitude of local times is an artifact of SR. I share this view.


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 08:33 GMT

numerical order of events does not exist as a past and does not exist not as a future in a physical sense, it exist only inj mathematical sense.

That's why Einstien put i in X4=ict....imaginary coordinate of motion in a timeless space

The fact is that flow of change and flow of numerical order is running in a timeless space. Universe is NOW.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 13:58 GMT

I understand those like you who attribute existence just to the present as follows: Physical existence of something means it is tangible and it can be influenced. Tangible refers to perception, which strictly speaking belongs to the past. The possibility to influence something belongs to the future. The notion presence is an imprecise overlap of past and future which strictly speaking exclude each other. When we say 'now', 'today', or maybe 'in this century', we are usually doing this if the precise time does not matter much.

Every single idealized moment, in particular the very now, corresponds to one measure out of the continuum of uncountably much real numbers. I maintain even if mediocre physicists tend to deny that : Absolutely infinite accuracy is as fictitious as are the notions point, line, infinity, zero, etc.

The expression sign(x) equals to +1 for positive values of x and to -1 for negative ones. At least common sense and practical implication tell us: There is no approachable value 0 for x=0 in between. From this strictly scientific point of view, the notion present in the meaning of a timespan between past and future does not at all fit into physics. Past and future are sufficient.

We cannot expect sound foundations of physics to be based on Hilbert's denial of the arrow of causality. The late Einstein admitted that the now worried him seriously. While he might have felt that his SR is wrong, he hoped for an explanation outside science.

Incidentally, ict was introduced by Minkowski, not by Einstein, admittedly based on Einstein's - as has been shown by Van Flandern - illusory SR.

Eckard, not Eckart

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 21:48 GMT

Einstein has told: “"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." This proverb was guiding us searching into real nature of time: going deeply into the subject one can see that physical time as a numerical order of material change has exclusively “mathematical” nature. One could abandon time in physics definitely and propose only existence of mathematical time as a numerical order of change running in a timeless space. This view would in a perfect accordance with physical reality. Today into most physicists mind’s idea of time as a physical reality is still prevalent; because of that we consciously keep term “physical time” knowing real nature of physical time is only mathematical succession of material change running into timeless space. Once you understand change do not run in time, time is only a numerical order of change, you easily progress into comprehension that time as numerical order of change has exclusively mathematical character. Because of that fact Einstein has described fourth coordinate of space-time as imaginary coordinate X4 = ict where i is an imaginary number ( i on square is -1) that does not correspond any element or part of physical reality as for example number 1 corresponds one single thing. (one chair, one person). Imaginary coordinate X4 has exclusively mathematical nature and does not correspond to some real distance in the universe. X4 is a mathematical coordinate of description of photon motion into timeless cosmic space.

You take a stone and left it to fall towards the earth. Stone will fall through space in the present moment only, not in the past or in the future. Measurements of all experiments we carry out always only in the present moment. In physics “past” and “future” exist only in a mathematical sense as a numerical order of material changes which run in a timeless space. Eternity is contained in the present moment. This is the fundamental discovery of the third millennium science that will change human society to the very roots.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 10:36 GMT

I was teaching fundamentals of EE including complex calculus for forty years. So you might hopefully be ashamed for lecturing me: "i is an imaginary number ( i on square is -1)". Indeed, Minkowski's metric deserves a plausible explanation. Look at Vukelja as to see how Minkowski's spacetime corresponds to Lorentz transformation. Vukelja also shows that the "mathematical procedure by which Albert Einstein derived Lorentz transformation is incorrect". This is of course hard to swallow from the many physicists who are still idolizing Einstein. However, Petr Beckmann, Louis Essen, Tom Van Flandern, Cynthia Whitney, and many others were or are, respectively serious scientists with compelling arguments: Lorentz contraction is based on wrong reasoning.

The reason for me to also take issue was my suspicion that physicists at least since Heisenberg left the solid ground of using complex calculus just as a tool. This suspicion has been fully confirmed in all details so far.

I agree with you in that "change do not run in time". Nonetheless I consider elapsed time as a most foundational immediate measures while the usual notion of time is restricted to the level of abstraction. In this sense I am distinguishing between the unchangeable measure of all past and an abstracted measure that also includes all future.

Let me add to the question of the notion present that point-like events belong to abstract models. In practice, all events are processes of some duration. This does however not justify the use of the notion present in physics.


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS replied on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 09:53 GMT
My clock is absolute time because observers on mars and earth woul measure the same time.

If they both measured 1000 years on my clock.


Time is not relative.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 22:16 GMT
mathematical succession = mathemetical order

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 20:48 GMT
One Universe can only have one dimension. One Universe can only exist one time once. Hawking insists that the proof of the black hole Big Bang occuring 13.75 billion years ago rests entirely on the discovery of background radiation. Question: Does the phenomena in the background have a different commencement and duration than the phenomena in the foreground? Of course it cannot. As the foreground consists of the here and now of pragmatic human sensation, the background radiation can only belong to the here and now. One Universe exists in the one dimension of the here and now.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 21:31 GMT
Joe i give you 5

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 11:44 GMT

In physics time is considered to be part of the space and so a medium where material change runs. There is no experimental evidence for such a view. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change running in space. As we have shown in previous article published in Physics Essays (Amrit S. Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, Dusan Klinar, Time...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 01:31 GMT

"Eternity is contained in the present moment"

You would like the movie "Slaughterhouse Five" and the Tralfamadorians ...???

Maybe Billy pilgrim only traveled in his mind. In this sense, our lives do not shrink, they actually expands since we get more and more places to travel to.


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 15:25 GMT
Marcel you are not aware about your words.

yous amrit

attachments: Interrelatedness_of_Space_and_Time.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Amrit,

We do discuss this, you and I, on many thread and websites like FQXI and ISST.

You can never convince real physicists of what you say. Physicists work with the empirical approach and this mean by testing with experiments in our physical reality. In order to do experiments, they need to retain both space and time since the testing of these requires the dimensions of the reality we experience.

Physicists may discover things about the universe, but they always express them in terms of space and time or space-time for the purpose of testing or making their ideas testable. They don’t have a choice. So, to say that time does not exist is irrelevant to them. Space-time is a hybrid concept that reflects what they know about the universe but in terms of space and time so it remains testable in our reality.

If you want to tell someone that time does not exist, you have to declare your statement as metaphysical i.e. not of the domain of physics. My essay does that. It declares that physics is right but, under a metaphysical approach there is no time duration and no space. Then, because I declare my statement as belonging to a different system (metaphysical truth system) the testing has to be based on logic, not on some test bench in a lab.

Even at the speed of light, the photon in its travel to the moon is never at the same moment. To call the “distance” or “space” of this travel between Earth and moon is to sum up this journey that took a second as a single moment in time. Space is just our way to integrate or sum up this travel as if it were instantaneous! There is really no space! And there is no block time. The passage of time is universal but the value of its rate is a local property.

So, I would say that YOU are not aware of your words!

All the bests,


report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 20:28 GMT
"Journey that took a second" -- Photons do not embark on journeys that take time to complete. Photons do not experience proper time. For the photon itself, space traveled and time experienced contract to zero (offsetting each other) according to special relativity.

So, if the photon were the one doing the empirical bench testing, it would find no evidence of time or space. Both are experienced only by non-photon observers.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 22:46 GMT

That is true for photons. But for the rest of us sub-luminal entities, as matter, people, observers, the reality is different.

The photon travels at the speed of expansion of time itself and therefore does not experience time. For that very reason, every point along its wavelength is in fact at the same moment and constitutes the only dimension that corresponds to our notion of space; an aligned collection of points all at the same moment. Any other notion of space applied elsewhere is perceptual/conceptual.


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 19:59 GMT
Dear Marcel

In Physics Time t is exclusively a Mathematical Quantity

In a few years this will be "main stream physics" fact.

yours amrit

attachments: In_Physics_Time_t_is_exclusively_a_Mathematical_Quantity.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 6, 2010 @ 14:11 GMT
Hailton should be Hamilton

report post as inappropriate

Georg wrote on Oct. 8, 2010 @ 16:06 GMT
There is no time at all,

and it has two dimensions.

(at least)

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Georg,

I have been playing with F-theoretic models and agree that there are at least two dimensions ("real" and "imaginary") of time (possibly 4, but I don't understand "Quaternionic" time unless it is somehow related to Supersymmetry), but I don't understand how you can also say "There is no time at all". If time is one or more dimensions, then it does exist - it simply has a different sort of metric/ geometry/ Lie algebra from spatial dimensions that may depend on the famously-regular 8-D Gosset lattice or the 24-D Leech lattice, but it still needs to be accounted for. I think that every type of time corresponds to something similar to a photon or graviton, therefore something "real" (at least "real" in the sense of Second Quantization and Feynman diagrams) does arise from time's existence. Consider the fact that the speed-of-light would not be one of our limiting scales if "There is no time at all".

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 8, 2010 @ 17:51 GMT
It is a deep misunderstanding that time is part of the space.

Time we measure with clocks is only a numerical order of change.

Time we measure with clocks is exclusively a mathematical quantity.

Sincerely Yours Amrit Sorli

attachments: Time_measured_with_Clocks.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Georg wrote on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 09:00 GMT
but I don't understand how you can also say "There is no time at all".

Dear "Dr. Cosmic Ray",

You only have to read some popular physics papers like SCIAM

or some blogs. "Time is an Illusion" , "Time does not exist"

are some rather popular statements recently.

And if You read about Pauli and Dirac, You might find some

quip of Pauli on not existing god and who is his prophet.

Dr. Georg

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Dr. Georg,

Ouch! You hit close to home talking about Dirac. I attended Florida State University while he was a Prof Emeritus here, and I visit his family grave on occasion (because he is buried within 50 meters of my grandparents and 5 km of my home). In my current work, I am trying to keep Dirac's Large Number of ~10^40 relevant. I have great respect for Dirac's works, but Dirac is not my God.

I am well-aware of the popular philosophical concept that time does not exist. I have had many discussions with my FQXi friend, Steve Dufourny about reality *NOT* being strictly 3-D. I have seen Amrit's claims about "block time" and chose not to counter his claims, but I see significant "structure" that is related to, and may have arisen from, the properties of this "non-existant time" such as the speed of light, the photon, and entropic change.

Personally, I would define time differently from its current negative metric-squared signature. But even if you follow that restrictive definition, the 26-D metric implies 24 space-like (a Leech lattice?), one time-like (TL), and one light-like dimension (LL):

1^2 + 2^2 +3^2 + ... + 24^2 - 70^2 (TL) = 0^2 (LL)

Because the light-like metric is *EXACTLY* zero, the slightest purturbation of this metric could make this light-like dimension behave space-like *OR* time-like depending on the perturbed metric sign.

I am not claiming to be a prophet, but if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it *MIGHT* be a duck (regardless of popular literature and opinion - that just means that more people *MIGHT* be wrong).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2010 @ 11:59 GMT

very interesting all that.

The reality is in strictly in 3D a,d time is strictly also irreversible.

The time is not a dimension but a constant of duration for an evolutive dynamic.

It's totally different.

All these extrapolations,strings, Mtheory, Ex,extradimensions, reversibilities of time,Multiverses and MWI,even the Hawking radiations, all that is purelly hypothetical.

These extrapolations insert maths without any respect of our ultim referential.

The symmetries are bad extrapolated.The time is bad understood.The external cause of mass is not possible.

read the post of Eckard about the causality please Dr Cosmic Ray.We see any cause of these theories and thus any effect.

The dimensions aren't a pueril play of decoherences of our foundamentals.If it exists a 3D of our reality , it exists a cause of these laws.

And all laws are in a dance of harmonization of our constants.

All our experiments,datas, technologies respect this referential in 3D.If the duration of time is a constant,there is a reason !

Ray you know the best way to use maths is when they describe the reality around you ! If you insert the 0 the - and the infinity for your perception , never you shall understand the uniqueness and its pure number.



report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 26, 2010 @ 01:55 GMT

My diatribe of Sept 23 is wrong! Just explained it in another post.

The photon is a wave, single crest and through.(soliton) Its "length" can be seen as an alignment of adjacent points not at the same moment because it still takes time to go from one end to the other. (it helps to think of a 100km radio wave..) Not being at the same moment, this alignment of points cannot represent space which is the same collection of points pictured(mentally) as if being all at the same moment. But, such a collection of points not at the same moment IS pretty well a true duration of time; a sequence of different moments, here, a.k.a. the period T.


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Dec. 12, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
Einstenin's Timeless Universe book is awailable at:

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Dec. 18, 2010 @ 22:24 GMT
see also my home page

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Dec. 21, 2010 @ 05:12 GMT
Please please may it not be so! I am satisfied that time does not exist as a dimension. The idea of multiple time dimensions is an extravagant 'solution' to the problems of unification in physics.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 25, 2010 @ 08:26 GMT
There one dimension for every force and there are four forice for four dimeisons.

There are also four states for foru dimensions.

If we have a 360 day circular orbit in the 11 dimensions of M theory and convert it to an elitical orbt in three dimensions plus one of time.

Then we reverse the equation like Hakwing did with Penrose.

We can convert EInsteins SPACE/TIME into the SPACE/TIME of 11 dimensions.

And so find out if time has more than one dimension.

Maybe there are 11 forces if there is one force for every dimension.

Can we do this experts in math of Einstein say no because Einsteins 4 D space time cannot be expressed in 11 dimensions.

OK if not then maybe string theory is wrong because it cannnot be generated from GR.

But if we redifine time as an eliptical orbit like with Newtons laws rather than use Einsteins definition of time.

Maybe we can do it................

I would appreciate your collaboration on this as I cannot do the math.

I only did social math at school and have only just begun grade 12 math.


Get back to me

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 25, 2010 @ 11:55 GMT
Einstein did not define time as earths orbit around te sun thats why it is not simple to convert earths orbit in three dimensions with one of time to a circular earth orbit in M thoeries 11 dimesions.

You can write an equation to convert 365 days to 360 days.And an elipse to a circle in higher dimensions.

But the math is too hard..........

Can any of you mathematicans do the math.

I have a tutor Profesor Mikmik working on the problem and I will give you the results.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 27, 2010 @ 12:02 GMT
Everybody said time is not a dimenison but I agree with you time has multiple dimensions.

So we can convert a circular earth orbit of 360 days in 11 dimensions to an eliltical orbit eliples only have three dimensions plus one of time.

So you can reverse the equation for my clock to get 11 dimensions of space/time from Einsteins foru dimesions of space time.

Remember that for Einstein space/time are one thing

Give credit for this idea to DR (WHO)HARVEY BILLINGS JUNIOR BLOG.

ANd work on it until you have a new thoery of everything


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 27, 2010 @ 12:25 GMT
Still ignoring the best ideas for unificaton.

1/ Einsteins dice.....dice where the outcome is determined 1 ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD.

and 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN. They cna be made in a randomiser chip that outcomes can bge predicted in a virtual reality quatum theory.

2/rounding off Pi.

22/7*4/3.99999. To make meaningless infinties finite.

And 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1.

To make three infinite equations one in every way.

3/ Prior to the big bang four states of matter were one.

This meant a superforce as a result.

4/ The clock means you can reverse Einsteins equations for space time and get the 11 dimesions of string theory this is exciting but it has been ignored.

Actually I don't believe in unification no one or no computer program can know everything.

Just like my comuter program adding QM and GR 1+1=2 and 2+2=4.

Produces millions of equations for 10^300 possible universes of string theory.

So no one cuold ever know everything if it just kept priniting out equations.

But unification is just a cartoon not reality a characature of real physics which like Hiezenberg means we cannot know it all.

But the above is a start for anybody who wants to work on it.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 27, 2010 @ 12:35 GMT
# The Equation of Time is the difference between our standard clock time and the time that would be based on the exact position of the Sun in the sky, for example, that measured by a sundial.

# The two are different because of two specific reasons:

1. The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit causes us to speed up and slow down in different parts of our annual orbit.

2. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 27, 2010 @ 12:39 GMT

Rversing the itme equation to convert eliptical 4D space time (einsteins equatins) to string theory in a circlular orbit in higher dimensions.

You can use the formula to covnert any eliptical orbit into any circular orbit.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 27, 2010 @ 12:41 GMT
Equation of time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The equation of time — above the axis the dial will appear fast, and below the dial will appear slow.

The equation of time is the difference between apparent solar time and mean solar time, both taken at a given place (or at another place with the same geographical longitude) at the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 27, 2010 @ 12:47 GMT
There are two specific main reasons for the Equation of Time: 1. The eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit causes us to speed up and slow down in different parts of our annual orbit. 2. The Earth axis is tilted to our orbit, and so the Sun’s apparent motion along the (tilted) elliptic has a varying effect when viewed along the equatorial plane.

We will show the correct reasoning and then...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 27, 2010 @ 12:50 GMT

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 27, 2010 @ 13:30 GMT
The equation of time was used historically to set clocks. Between the invention of accurate clocks in 1656 and the advent of commercial time distribution services around 1900, one of two common land-based ways to set clocks was by observing the passage of the sun across the local meridian at noon. The moment the sun passed overhead, the clock was set to noon, offset by the number of minutes given by the equation of time for that date. (The second method did not use the equation of time; instead, it used stellar observations to give sidereal time, in combination with the relation between sidereal time and solar time.)[2] The equation of time values for each day of the year, compiled by astronomical observatories, were widely listed in almanacs and ephemerides.[3][4]

There are very slow changes in two of the quantities upon which the Equation of Time depends. Accurate clocks have been designed in C language [5] and Adobe Flash [6] which determine the difference between the modified clock formula based on the Equation of Time and the sidereal time over a number of years. This difference was calculated to be 6.09326166 minutes per year and was verified by the Cosmos Supercomputer [7] and Swinburne Supercomputer. The clock is accurate to around 0.01 second and can be simulated to the number of years input by the user (upto 10^300 years).

Naturally, other planets will have an equation of time too. On Mars the difference between sundial time and clock time can be as much as 50 minutes, due to the considerably greater eccentricity of its orbit.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 02:16 GMT
If there are 12 string theory dimensions 11 plus an extra one.

Then there are nine space dimesions with an extra one three times.

That is three extra time dimensions.

To see if this works convert a circular orbit of the earth of 360 days into an eliptical orbit of 365 days and 4 space/time dimensions.

You can start with Einsteins equations for the orbit of the earth and convert these into 12 space/time dimensions.

And see if it works.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 09:39 GMT
Any replies.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 04:42 GMT


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 2, 2011 @ 02:22 GMT
Before the big bang there were four dimensions of space and none of time.

But I believe that the big bang was a point in space and there were three dimensions of time and one of space.

The exact reverse of what exists now.

And you can make three dimensions of space and one of time contradictory math so that when you reverse them you get a non contradictory math for the big bang.............

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 05:18 GMT
Convert a circular earth orbit (360 days) in 12 dimenensions to A three dimensional plus one eliptical orbit.

And see if you get Einsteins equations.

There are 9 space dimensions and 3 of time.

That makes 12 dimensions...............

Can you come up with an extra dimension of time in string theory to make 12 out of 11 dimensions.

Jesus said the answer to time/space is 12.And 24 is the opposite to Douglas Adams answer of 42 to life the universe and everything.


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 07:01 GMT
Is anybody interested in the clock thoery of everything..................

With the clock.That is the most accurate clock in the world.

If not then there is just no scientific curiosity anymore.


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 03:54 GMT
It is elegant to convert a circular orbit in 12 dimensions to an eliptical orbit in three dimensions.

Because an eliptical orbit cannot be in more than three dimensions.

It is something that Newton would do.And it converts Einsteins 4D space time to 11 dimensions.

And think about 12 dimensions of space time to agree with the bible nine dimensions of space three dimensions of time.................

You can try any number of dimensions with a circular orbit to see if it fits with EInsteins theory.

And if Einsteins thoery is not right and does not agree with string theory then we don't know anything at all.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 09:22 GMT
You can use my EInsteins dice to create a virtual universe where the paths of particles are predictable and the weather is predictable and you can win at roulette.

This differs from the real universe where it is 53% predictable by the human brain with ESP.

We can make a computer with 53% predictablity..


email me to get a download of Einsteins dice

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 05:40 GMT
Peter walked on water liquid behaved as if it were a solid.

Maybe the early universe is made of a phase of matter that is liquid behaving as a solic two states in one rather than four states in one.


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 10:35 GMT
Jesus speaks about time................

JOHN 11:9.

Possibly Jesus meant that there were 12 dimensions of time/space.

Nine of space and three of time for everyt three dimesions of space there is also one of time.................

If Jesus didn't mean that he was just talking about time being divided into 2*6 rather than 2*6.............


That gives us a conversion from four dimensions of six to 12 dimensions..............

Interested in your thoughts.


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 05:50 GMT
We've refined the process so that time is no longer a variable.

Fredrick Mullers son.........

Convert 365 days of an eliplical orbit of space to 360 days to 360 days of a ten dimensionsional circular orbit. Taking time out of the equation.


report post as inappropriate replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 23:46 GMT

Eistein has committed a great mistake about "4D space-time" (a risible fake) and all physics about "spatial dimensions".

NO spatial dimensions exists at all. Such a thing refers to an invention intendes to better dominate the real world.

Pure human imaginary, nothing real.

If not, please, bring me a "spatial dimension"(sic) to be analyzed onto macro or microscope. :)

Let's forget that! (One of the most notable bullshit believed by (almost) the entire community.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 08:17 GMT
Experts say you can't convert EInsteins 4D space time to 10 dimensions.

he reason being EInsteins definition of time is different from an eliptical or circular orbit of the earth.

If we redefine time then we can convert Einsteins equations to string theory.

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 04:40 GMT
Convert 360 day circular earth year in 11 dimensions into a 365 days eliptical earth year.Reverse the equation to convert Einsteins 4D space/time to 11 dimensions.

There are 9 dimensions of space and two of time.........

Does this make sense anyone anyone.?



report post as inappropriate

EINSTEINS DICE wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 04:45 GMT
Here is a copy of EInsteins dice in HTML

attachments: 3_Einsteins_Loaded_Dice.htm, 1_Einsteins_Loaded_Dice.mht

report post as inappropriate

Peter David Mastro wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 18:05 GMT
It is wonderful to see that someone of a "scientific" vein is actually looking at multi-dimensional time. The problem with string theory, and all of science for that matter,is that they build definitions of everything based on time but have no model for what time is to begin with. I view the universe as a 12 dimensional time construct which includes the time vector of an observer. We,as observers, have freedom of movement in three dimensions of time and have a fourth dimension of time that we share with all we observe. There is no possibility that an observer or anything observed exists at any time other than the present moment. Space is how time is stored.

Sound interesting? It is the view of an artist but it does explain alot of things that seem to baffle scientists. Check out the essay on the Nature of Reality here


report post as inappropriate wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 01:38 GMT

First of all: No spatial dimension exists all all. Dimensions are just mental abstractions invented by man in order to better manipulate the world.

It has been disastrous to physics confounding the human imaginary with real stuff.

Let's all forget 'dimensions' because is just lead to wrong ways.

Time is just energy! To measure time means just to measure the energy pace, based onto any pattern (like Earth spin).

Are you in doubt? Freeze the earth right now. The day don't happens anymore. The year don't elapse ("exists") anymore too. Freeze all energy in a system and no time is elapsed anymore.

Why? Because no energy (kinetics) occurs anymore!


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 9, 2011 @ 10:25 GMT


Import physics equations QM and GR from 200 sites using maths Type 6.7.

Import them into a physics spreadsheet(excel) and randomise the cells.

Add the physics equations 1/3 QM+ 1/3 GR+ 1/3 GR= 1 QM/GR

Add apples to oranges to get fruit.

You will know them by their fruit 2+2=4 will produce bad fruit the trinity equation will produce good fruit.

Print thousands of combinations of equations using a dot matrix printer.

And anylyse the output of a year of the program being put into a loop.

Analyse reams of paper.

Look for 10^500 different universes each with different rules.

Post the results of the machine on the FQ(x) forum.

Is this a job for superman who is superman and who is up to the job.?

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 09:20 GMT


In the example you gave the left side makes some sense; you can talk about apples and oranges, and fractions of them. But on the right side you've got an "apple/orange", which isn't a real thing. The same sort of problem crops up when one starts talking about physics.

Every equation describes something. They're like very succinct sentences. Perhaps you could "add them in thirds", but what you get out is very unlikely to make any sense.

For example, here are three sentences I found by googling random words (specifically: wildebeest, summer camp, and water).

-"Gnus belong to the family Bovidea, which includes antelopes, cattle, goats, and other even-toed horned ungulates."

-"And for this round, we’ve shaken things up a bit, and opened up the promotion to a mix of bands on the 2011 Summer Camp Line Up."

-"We offer information on many aspects of water, along with pictures, data, maps, and an interactive center where you can give opinions and test your water knowledge."

Each says something, and each kinda needs to be used in the right context to make any sense. Combining in thirds you just scramble them even worse:

-"Gnus belong to the family Bovidea and for this round, we’ve shaken things up a we offer information on many aspects of water, along"

You could wander the world looking for a situation where this sentence makes sense, but there's no reason to expect you'd find it. Moreover, the new sentence itself doesn't makes sense. Despite the fact that all three of the original sentences were grammatically correct (except for starting with "and"), the new sentence has several errors.

The same is true of the equations of QM and GR. They're talking about wildly different stuff.

Let me know if that makes sense or clears anything up, and thanks for asking!


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 09:58 GMT

attachments: 1_clock.swf

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS CLOCK wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 09:58 GMT

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 09:59 GMT

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 10:02 GMT
The spirit behind time travel is "delusions".

And we ahev bound it that is put it in jail.

So peoples minds will clear.

And they will see clearly.............

here is my clock which will help people see clearly about time and bind the spirit of delusions.


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 10:04 GMT
I like the idea of nine dimensions of space and two of time.

Makes the 11 dimensions of M theory.


report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 10:14 GMT
James 5:16 that says, "The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

This is an interesting verse. I wonder, do we see such power in our prayer lives? Perhaps it's because we aren't fervent or earnest in our prayers. Let me illustrate.

True story. 4 guys went golfing. 3 of these guys could hit the ball 280-300 yards on their drives. The other player could only hit...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 09:31 GMT
M thoery is ten dimensions of space and one of time.

And extra dimension of time would give us 12 dimesnsions of time agreeing with what Jesus said about time in the bible.

report post as inappropriate

Ms. Max wrote on Jun. 23, 2011 @ 03:21 GMT
Steve, I believe I just saw you on the Science Channel's tv program Through the Wormhole wiht Morgan Freeman. If in fact this is you, I love the idea your idea of time having more than one dimension because that would go a far way to explaining why you can't provide a particles "address". You can either know it's location or its speed (?) but not both. But if time has more than one dimension it would be easy to understand why it is a fundamental rule in quantum physics and why you can't know both pieces of information about a particle. Just as in space you need 3 coordinates to pinpoint a particle, and likewise to pinpoint a particle you'd need to know more than one coordinate of time to isolate it. Am I understanding your theory with any of what I'm writing here? I'm no phycist, per se, just an amateur who loves thinking and giving credibility to any theory someone hasn't posited before.

report post as inappropriate

Gene T. Yerger wrote on Jul. 7, 2011 @ 17:49 GMT
In my theory - The Theory of Nothing - I propose the existence of multiple dimensions. In my theory there are ten temporal dimensions. There are six dimensions lying in the future and three dimensions lying in the past of these future dimensions. Separating these dimensions is what I refer to as the temporal event horizon. This is an imaginary boundary condition that represents the present moment. The interaction between the past and future of this now ten dimensional metric space produces the four dimensional spacetime of special and general relativity. In other words, the spacetime that we experience is not fundamental but rather is an emergent property of the universe. The primary difference between the theory of nothing and other theories that utilize higher- dimensional spaces in their formulation such as modern string theories is that in my theory six of the dimensions are large rather than small. The reason these extra dimensions can go undetected is not because they are exceedingly minute, but because they lie in the future.

According to the conventional wisdom, massless particles such as photons travel through space at c. There motion through time is zero. In the theory of nothing, the components of massive particles such as electrons and protons travel (at rest) through time at the speed of light. Particles have a single positive energy component (wave) that moves forward in time at c from the past in all directions of an x, y and z coordinate system (3 degrees of freedom). Those particles also have six (three pairs of) negative energy components (waves) that move backward in time from the future – one each from the –x, x,

-y, y and –z, z directions respectively (6 discrete degrees of freedom). Each pair is quantum mechanically entangled. The positive energy wave interacts sequentially – the particle’s internal clock - with each pair of negative energy waves and with each interaction one dimension of our three dimensional (space) reality is actualized. This sequential interaction sequence is repeated ad infinitum and our three dimensional (space) reality emerges as a consequence. The particle’s mass is that part of its total energy required to maintain its motion forward in time at c. In other words, the source of the particle’s inertia; i.e. its resistance to acceleration in space is its constant motion through time at c. This is the essence of the geometric and quantum structure underlying the theory.

Gene T Yerger

report post as inappropriate

Michael Clarage wrote on Jul. 16, 2011 @ 15:56 GMT
There are other ways to consider the higher dimensions of time. One of the easiest being to see a higher dimension as all possibilities. For example, our relation to the photon is that we see it living out all its possibilities. This has actually been known for almost 100 years, as in the double slit experiment, where the only way we can make sense out of the result is that the photon actually goes through both slits, and interferes with itself.

report post as inappropriate

Carey R. Carlson replied on Jul. 17, 2011 @ 18:30 GMT
Causal Set Theory is fully discrete and has only time-ordering relations in it-- no spatial relations. For a reconstruction of physics using time alone as the only parameter, see the following posting.

Causal Set Theory and the Origin of Mass-ratio

The theory arises from Russell and Whitehead, who understood that the limiting velocity means that spatial relations, which are instantaneous, have no role in physics. Causal sets are the formalization of Russell's "causal skeleton" and Whitehead's "temporal succession."

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 21:13 GMT
I agree and have experienced being in another 'space' not of this world. My soul left my body at 2 am in the morning one night, and I was conscious to the whole experience. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ and truly believe there are multiple dimensions of time. Christians are being formed into the image of Christ, learning how to obtain God's promises that were already completed in our lives, hence the problem in "trying to get" what Jesus already died to give us, keeping people stuck in bondage. I don't know what other Believers think, but our mind cannot grasp the totality of reality-- God's reality with His eyes and knowledge.

report post as inappropriate

Amira Rajput replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 21:15 GMT
I forgot to add my name ;-) March 19, 2013 post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2013 @ 18:43 GMT
Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

james Hilferty wrote on Nov. 10, 2013 @ 08:32 GMT
There are a lot of assumptions in there and good luck to you for I mean you nothing but good. My problem is "Why are Mathematicians so stupid? It appears that I am the Greatest Quantum Mathematician" in the world and yet I know that I am not really a mathematician. How could this be? The mathematicians failed to grasp the concept of Time. The greatest Mathematician in the Western World and did a "Derivation" of "The Black-Scholes Formula"; a rather complicated Financial sum (it has about five complicated concepts (assumptions to you) and he got every one wrong and I got them all correct and this baffled me until it dawned; they failed to understand time. In this sum time itself is harmless until you combine it with Exponential (e) and its still harmless but add an Interest rate and like Gunpowder it becomes explosive. Something similar to your theme? any thoughts

report post as inappropriate

james Hilferty wrote on Nov. 10, 2013 @ 09:02 GMT
The holy man says "Yesterday has gone; Tomorrow is not yet here; we have only Today in which to do good. Here is a very simple sum which no mathematician has done correctly in the last 44 years, so beware. Divide Yesterday; Today and Tomorrow into their 3 Time Zones using 4 Cartesian co-ordinates t(1); t(2);t(3) and t(zero). Put them in the correct order mindful of the fact that the Origininator of the B-S formula has given you t(0) which they imply is the final (t). I have put warning signs all over the place and I am sincerely hoping that you all do better than the meths Ph.D.s

report post as inappropriate

Shawn M. Howe wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 14:12 GMT
6 dimensions spatial plus time. Time being constant in and of itself, but is altered depending on factors such as which dimension or other factors such as speed of or even intense gravitational or magnetic effects. 3 dimensions might be less than sub atomic in which time may flow backwards or maybe not at all allowing quantum entanglement.

I'm not a smart man, just a man who thinks too much and felt like he wanted to say something.

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 18:15 GMT

this paper is a fresh wind in physics

attachments: SPACE-TIME_CURVATURE_of_GENERAL_RELATIVITY_and_Energy_Density_of_QV.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Eon wrote on Jul. 22, 2016 @ 05:04 GMT
"I’m localized I can go here, or here, or here, and I can’t be in two places at the same time and you take all that for granted. But how do you represent experience in multiple times?"

Maybe this is the answer to the observer requirement? The vector of the observer in multi time detrmines which outcome exists for him. All outcomes are possible dependant on time path taken?

report post as inappropriate

Nathaniel Gibson wrote on Aug. 21, 2016 @ 16:32 GMT
"With a whole extra dimension of time kicking around, there would seem, at least naively, to be far more freedom for particles to navigate their way sideways and then backwards in time. In his own formulation, time travel is restricted"

This makes me think of sound. Is multidimensional Time just like multidimensional sound? For instance, you can graph sound as 3 dimensional. 1. amplitude, 2. frequency, 3. time. But the thing here is that if you try to imagine it without the time dimension and you look at a graph of an "instance" of sound across a wide enough range, you will notice that it does not look like an "instance" of a video (an image)... instead, amplitude is free to move up or down along it's axis while frequency is a constant forward graph. So unlike an image which is what we consider to be 2D (conceptually 5D because of color), one "frame" of sound does not provide as rich data because amplitude can only be in once place at one frequency.

Perhaps this is the same type of restriction given to the second dimension of time? Maybe it's just a half-dimension?

report post as inappropriate

David Kachel wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 17:24 GMT
For a hundred years we have accepted the fact that what we experience in the physical world is constructed of things completely unlike that world; strange things, that follow different laws.

Yet, aside from the comparatively minor changes made to time by relativity, we blindly accept time as being only that which we experience of it in the physical world.

It is far more likely that time is multi-dimensional, also. As has always been the case in the past, look where all the experts are pointing, then turn around. THERE is the truth, right where none of them are looking!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 15:55 GMT
Actually...there is a second time dimension that informs us how the universe phase changes. That there is a phase decay dimension as well as an atomic time is well documented by pulsar spin downs, but science does not recognize phase decay time as distinct from atomic time.

Phase decay time provides an absolute time reference that anyone in the universe can measure and phase decay time does not change with velocity like atomic time changes. General relativity is built around atomic time and quantum phase decay time has no meaning. Quantum action is built around phase decay and provides the atomic time of GR, but there is no meaning for quantum phase decay in GR.

Quantum gravity gives meaning to the second time dimension and now there is a way to link GR and quantum...

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 21:26 GMT
Alex Mayer wrote and lectured extensively on this topic..

He treats time as multi-dimensional within a context where Minkowski got the notion of spacetime right and Einstein got it wrong. His book "On the Geometry of Time in Physics and Cosmology" should be published soon. The book's abstract reads:

Building on Hermann Minkowski’s mathematical insights (c. 1908), this book introduces the new notion of relativistic temporal geometry. A geometric model of time yields a simpler and more natural explanation of relativistic temporal effects than prevailing ideas and better explains astrophysical empirical observations...

I find him to be quite credible. I saw him lecture at CCC-2 and at FFP11. Paul Steinhardt was very incisive during the Q & A of his FFP11 talk, but was more thoughtful and helpful when they talked during the break. But Paul intimidated a number of people, including Ruth Durrer who was lecturing on Inflation, because Steinhardt put Inflation on trial in his lecture.

But I think Steven Weinstein is likely NOT the first serious researcher on this topic, and he likely will not be the last either. It's sad that someone like Mayer can go to the wall with an idea like this, working on his own, while someone else gets the funding to research it. Weinstein probably does not even know Mayer exists, or has solved some of the very problems he is tackling.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

mjgeddes wrote on May. 16, 2017 @ 05:31 GMT
I've had some big new insights about a possible way to intrepret a second time-dimesion. and the relationship between 2 time dimensions.

If one time dimension is *physical*, I think we should regard the second time dimension as *informational* (computational time, rather than ordinary physics time).

Now draw a plane representing physical time along the x-axis, informational time along the y-axis.

Consider the graph representing movement through 2-d time. The relationship *between* the 2 time-dimensions (ratio or slope of line) can be used to define a *time-flow*! With only one time dimension, the notion of a rate of time flow doesn't make sense, but with 2 time dimensions, it does!

Big conjecture: the rate of time flow is a new type of thermoodynamic property that defines subjective experience (consciousness)!

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2017 @ 08:56 GMT
Hi MJGeddes, by "physical" do you meant what exists materially or something else? By computational time do you mean what a person or device computes giving an experienced present or product, or do you mean something else?

You could define *time flow* as the slope of the line but is that name helpful? Is it really time flow. If you are talking about existence and product of information processing, the slope relates to information transfer time (varying with distance) and processing time. It probably deserves a name of its own but "time flow" seems too similar to passage of time (which is often described as a flow), and which I regard as the changing configuration of what exists (which would be going along your x axis.) And the experience of passage of time is moving up your y axis.

Most observations in every day life will be of objects of various distances from the observer which would give multiple slopes. The spread on the y axis showing the temporal spread within the product of the information processing. As I see it, spread on the x axis shows different times of information production. I think it would be good if each point on the x axis gave a different coloured slope so that the corresponding spread on the y axis could be easily matched with its origin. Its interesting that a single time of information origin can be spread out over the experience (along your y) as receipt time will depend on distance traveled. I think you are right to differentiate the kinds of time but your "time flow" isn't thermodynamic.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2017 @ 13:01 GMT
Hi MJGeddes, I think i may be thinking about this in a different way to what you are imagining. What do you mean by movement through 2 dimensions of time? I'm not sure how you are drawing the slope. If I have it related to distance and hence info transmission time it gets less steep because of the way the values are set along the x.

What if the y was replicated so there is a new one for each x value, corresponding roughly to the time it takes to updating the info. processing product, y still marked in information product temporal units. I'd still like to have different colours for each origin of the information. Then it starts to look like one of those multi-coloured string pictures. Which shows the relation of the product to the origin and that the product is not temporally homogeneous.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2017 @ 22:57 GMT
The temporal non-homogeneity of the content of the product of information processing would only be obvious if there are very large distances such as astronomical distances included in the observation, if the information is EM frequency and intensity; Due to the very high speed of light. It would be shown more clearly for "Earth-bound" distances if the information was frequency and intensity carried by sound waves or olfactory information carried on air currents.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.