Agreed...\'')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()">

Steve Agnew,

"...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay..."

This explanation is not empirically supported. It is an example of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of substituting imaginative guesses about what can be substituted in place of that which is unknown. There is no empirical evidence for time suffering delays....

view entire post

Steve Agnew,

"...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay..."

This explanation is not empirically supported. It is an example of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of substituting imaginative guesses about what can be substituted in place of that which is unknown. There is no empirical evidence for time suffering delays.

"... and decoherence rate that are the actual time-like properties that we do measure for each object."

There are no time-like properties. This is theoretical bait and switch. Only time is 'time-like'. All other properties are like themselves. Clocks are clock-like. Clock-like is not time-like. Perhaps when physicists recognize a universally constant increment of actual time, then clocks might be said to be 'time-like'. The practice in theoretical physics of giving indirect explanations while wording them to give the impression that they are actual explanations is not science-like. In order to make this point at a more common knowledge level, I point out that temperature is not a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. Temperature is a measure of temperature. The indirect substitute explanation is an attempt by theoretical physics to appear to be explaining something for which they lack an explanation. It is the case that physicists do not know what temperature is. For uncertain readers: Temperature is not fixed to average molecular kinetic energy and physicists know it. In general, average molecular kinetic energy can vary while temperature remains the same value. In limited cases, temperature is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy but in no case is temperature actually the same thing as is average molecular kinetic energy. It is an historical fact that temperature was entered into physics equations without its being explained. To this day, temperature remains a fundamental indefinable property.

Steve Agnew quoting me: "James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT as "With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity.""

I repeat this quote because the point made needs repeating.

Me quoting Steve Agnew: "I also agree that changes in all of matter, matter phase, time delay, and decoherence rate are what we interpret as time and space. Where we disagree is of course with the nature of space."

I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists does speculative imaginings become 'science-like'.

"Aethertime predicts all action with just matter, time, and phase and so space becomes just a convenient way to keep track of objects and their time delays and decoherence rates. That way the whole universe behaves in a nicely quantum manner and space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen."

I am not at this time addressing the properties attributed to the assumed substrate called matter. Empirical evidence cries out for those to receive some fixing. Nor am I now addressing empirical evidence and relativity theory. The context of this message concerns the practice of theoretical physics of making empirically unjustified claims about the nature of the universe. An example given here is "... space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen." There is no empirical evidence for changes to space or effects caused upon objects by space. Rather what is stated is an example of how theoretical physics has subsumed empirical scientific learning.

"General relativity then becomes simply the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the velocity of light is just a convenient representation of the rate of matter decoherence for the universe."

I refrain from venturing off into addressing relativity theory in this message. The point of this message is to address, at least in part, the lack of empirical support for much of theoretical physics. The usefulness of physics equations results from how accurately they mathematically model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that allow for successful extrapolations and interpolations very often yielding good predictions. The names and explanations of terms in physics equations do not have to be accurate to achieve accurate predictions.

All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. The units can themselves be arbitrary, meaning without empirical justification. Kilograms is one example. What is important is that the units are defined in terms of measurable properties. The two measurable properties are length and duration.

Steve, If you wish to not continue this exchange, I understand. No hard feelings. Other 'scientific' forums censor my messages or remove me from participating when I make these points. I will mention in closing that my recollection is that you once gave mention of having read some of my work with understanding, but not of course with agreement. I sought to test your understanding of my work by asking if you were familiar with my critique of mass? I believe you did not respond. I take this opportunity to make clear that my work begins by explaining that the decision to accept mass as a fundamental indefinable property was the first error of theoretical physics. (I am not suggesting that force should have instead been chosen to be a fundamental indefinable property. Both force and mass should have been and could have been defined properties. Empirical evidence gives us guidance on how this can be done.) The act of now defining mass has begun the process of returning physics equations back to their empirical forms. That is what I do. I remove the non-empirically based, speculative, imaginative intrusions into physics equations that have been made by theoretical physicists.

Regardless of my opinions being different, I thank you for sharing your knowledge and ideas here at FQXi.org. Your messages are always worth reading.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Steve Agnew,

"You mention objects and you mention activity and so you do seem to believe in objects and activity since you use those words. Since there is no meaning to the word activity without time, it is not clear to me why you keep repeating that there are no time-like measurements."

Physics empirical evidence consists of observing patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It...

view entire post

Steve Agnew,

"You mention objects and you mention activity and so you do seem to believe in objects and activity since you use those words. Since there is no meaning to the word activity without time, it is not clear to me why you keep repeating that there are no time-like measurements."

Physics empirical evidence consists of observing patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the case that time is passing during changes of velocities. It is also the case that space is traversed during changes of velocities. So, velocities change with respect to either time or space. However, neither time nor space are accessible to us so that we may make measurements upon them. They cannot serve as standards of measurement. So, we substitute measures of object activity in their places. That is our only choice because we only observe object activity. With regard to the property of time in particular, it is not what the 't' in physics equations represents. Nor do symbols for length or distance represent the property of space. The 't' represents cycles of a specific object activity. Clocks measure the number of those cycles, or cycles of their own, that have occurred during a measurement of object activity. Physicists choose to speak and write using the word 'time' for 't', and compound words that include 'time' such as space-time or time-like. Theoretical physics introduces substitutes (educated guesses) to fill in for that which is unknown. Even with these theoretical intrusions present, the equations remain useful because they are designed to accurately model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that usually provide useful extrapolations and interpolations. What the equations cannot do is fix the empirically unsound guesses that theorists have injected into physics equations. A major effect of such theoretical guessing is the introduction of fundamental disunity into physics equations. That problem began with the decision to make mass an indefinable property. Theoretical physics is stuck with disunity that cannot be undone by the introduction of additional invented, and empirically unverifiable, 'properties'.

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 14:03 GMT as "...I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists do speculative imaginings become 'science-like'..."

Time is an unexplained given; 'time' measurements and 'time' delays are misnomers for duration measurements and duration delays. Duration being counts of cyclic activity of objects that are not time. Time is not like objects and objects are not like time.

"I do actually agree that time is an axiom and so time is like activity which is like time, which is an identity. ..."

We do not know what time is like. We do know it is not like activity. Activity is objects changing their velocities. There is no empirical evidence for time having a velocity let alone a change of velocity. What is a physics fact is that time is a fundamental indefinable property.

"However, a second way to define a fundamental axiom is with the other two axioms of matter and action. Since action (or activity in your words) is the integral of matter in time, time is the differential of action with matter. This is the trimal nature of a closed universe."

Matter is an imagined mechanical substrate credited with being the source of observed properties. Those properties being defined by and represented by their units in physics equations. Matter has no units and is not represented in physics equations. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of matter. The choice of the idea of the existence of matter is a philosophical preference. Empirical evidence consists of effects. We do not know what cause is.

The mathematical term for 'action' does not include measured time. Time is not measurable. Measurements take time to occur but the unit of second is not a measurement of time. A measurement of time would involve the differences between two points of time. We have no way of accessing points of time. With regard to action being the product of either energy and 'time' or momentum and length: What is the physical meaning of 'action'? Its usefulness is not in question. Specifically: Why are its units Newtonsxmetersxseconds? Those units convey all of its meaning, and its purpose in physics equations.

"Color is a measurable property of an object. Color change is a measurable property of an object that is time like. Change is what happens to objects with different time delays. These are very common measurements of objects no matter what kind of stuff you use to make those objects."

It is not the measurements that are in question. The measurements give us the empirical information that we need in order to know what effects have occurred. It is the non-empirically supported practice of assigning, by means of employing inaccurate wording, additional effects that did not occur. For example, there is no evidence that time gets delayed. There is evidence that object activity gets delayed.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Hi Akinbo,

I've learned that strokes are funny things. While my verbal skills have declined (I stutter), my cognition and focus have benefitted. Maybe the speech impediment is a blessing -- it relieves me of the burden of having to engage in small talk. I am sad that the same level of health care is not available worldwide (or even in the U.S.) -- I strongly believe that free health...

view entire post

Hi Akinbo,

I've learned that strokes are funny things. While my verbal skills have declined (I stutter), my cognition and focus have benefitted. Maybe the speech impediment is a blessing -- it relieves me of the burden of having to engage in small talk. I am sad that the same level of health care is not available worldwide (or even in the U.S.) -- I strongly believe that free health care (and free lifelong education as well) are absolute entitlements.

Yeah, stubborn and incorrigible fit.

Anyway, I get access to Science articles through my AAAS membership. I don't know if you can access it; I would shoot you a copy if I could.

The crux of the experiment is the creation of an artificial superposition of states of time so that one state lags due to gravitational influence. The first two paragraphs of the (exceptionally well-written) article give the gist:

"Two-slit interferometry of quanta, such as photons and electrons, figured prominently in the Bohr-Einstein debates on the consistency of quantum theory (1, 2). A fundamental principle emerging from those debates—intimately related to the uncertainty principle—is that 'which path' information about the quanta passing through slits blocks their interference. At the climax of the debates, Einstein claimed that a clock, emitting a photon at a precise time while being weighed on a spring scale to measure the change in its mass-energy, could evade the uncertainty principle. Yet Bohr showed that the clock's gravitational redshift induces enough uncertainty in the emission time to satisfy the uncertainty principle. Inspired by the subtle role time may play, we have now sent a clock through a spatial interferometer. Our proof-of-principle experiment introduces clock interferometry as a new tool for studying the interplay of general relativity (3) and quantum mechanics (4).

"Time in standard quantum mechanics is a global parameter, which cannot differ between paths. Hence in standard interferometry [e.g., (5)], a difference in height between two paths merely affects their relative phase, shifting their interference pattern without degrading its visibility. General relativity, by contrast, predicts that a clock must 'tick' slower along the lower path; thus if the paths of a clock through an interferometer have different heights, a time differential between the paths will yield 'which path' information and degrade the visibility of the interference pattern (6). Consequently while standard interferometry may probe general relativity (7–9), clock interferometry probes the interplay of general relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, loss of visibility due to a proper time lag would be evidence that gravitational effects contribute to decoherence and the emergence of a classical world (10)."

view post as summary

Gary.

Okay, I'll try to answer: "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.

What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"

QM is not a 4 dimension model.

Let's look at in the context of Bell's theorem. Even though the theorem claims to test local realism, the choice...

view entire post

Gary.

Okay, I'll try to answer: "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.

What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"

QM is not a 4 dimension model.

Let's look at in the context of Bell's theorem. Even though the theorem claims to test local realism, the choice function is invested in detector settings, an unrealistic proposal. After repeating random choices a statistically significant number of times, we count the number of times the choices correlate and normalize the results. Richard Gill says, "The physicist's correlation is just the probability of equal outcomes minus the probability of different outcomes."

Quantum theory confuses physics with physicist. Random choices yield random results. And the time parameter is non-existent. In other words, the theorem proves just what the theorem assumes (See Karl Hess, Einstein was Right! ).

In an objective spacetime, simple connectedness is a theorem by existence -- the added degree of freedom that the time parameter provides assures objective outcomes without pinning an observation to a particular observer. It fulfills Einstein's requirement to complete an observation without disturbing the system. In other words, quantum mechanics can be derived from continuous spacetime in an objective manner, though the converse is not true. Quantum theorists make all kinds of ad hoc assumptions -- Quantum Bayesian is the worst of them, as it imposes a measure of personal belief.

The time coordinate has a negative value in Minkowski spacetime. Time reversibility is an absolute requirement of general relativity -- it provides symmetry -- while special relativity, straight line motion, is asymmetric with regard to time. This is how quantum mechanics can claim compatibility with special relativity, and why QM and general relativity cannot both be foundational.

Special relativity requires time dilation, something QM ignores. Or rather, normalizes, and then is able to ignore. Since time is length 1 in one direction, it has to be length 1 in all directions. Fine. In what measure space? Quantum theorists are in a potential trap of logical contradiction: if the measure space is n-dimension Hilbert space, it has to be rigged for 3 dimensions, R^3. So it limits itself to a 3 coordinate system, xyz, though we know that a complete accounting for position requires a 4 coordinate system, xyzt. Because normalized time zeros out of an algebraic equation, continuity can never be built into a quantum theory; i.e., T = 0 in a linear equation.

view post as summary

Steve,

No one that I know of argues that mass as a unit of measure is a universal absolute. The Equivalence Principle derived from SR established what had only been accepted as an assumed operational equality between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And by necessity of measurement through motion, extends to time and space. Hence spacetime is a logical consequence of the Equivalence...

view entire post

Steve,

No one that I know of argues that mass as a unit of measure is a universal absolute. The Equivalence Principle derived from SR established what had only been accepted as an assumed operational equality between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And by necessity of measurement through motion, extends to time and space. Hence spacetime is a logical consequence of the Equivalence Principle.

The one thing that can be derived from our system of arbitrary value units of physical quantities as an absolute value, is light velocity. Yet as you write it: "m|" would utilize the vertical bar to denote "m" as an absolute value. While I recognize and agree that our definition of inertia is only operational (a mass in motion stays in motion : a mass at rest stays at rest), and would theoretically benefit from development of a general definition which would predictably identify what it is about inertia that is the same for any mass regardless of state of motion; it would be illogical to assume that could be had by assuming an absolute value for mass. Rather, a general definition of inertia would have to be a universal proportionality of light velocity in relation to any given mass value.

Secondly, there are as many arguments against the Big Bang as there are for it. Foremost in opposition is that GR is not a complete theory! Doesn't claim to be! Einstein wasn't playing God and the Big Bang wasn't his damned idea! And your central universal sphere is the second argument in opposition, which exposes the contradiction of spatial neutral centrality in Relativity with a reversibility timeline of the observed expansion of the universe. GR is not a complete theory, the BB might as well be a Bed and Breakfast for all I care. Sorry. I wish we could communicate better (no need to get paranoid about it) but what little I think I understand of what you are saying, I would disagree with as stated above. Best wishes, anyway. Hell, this is just something to do til they close the lid on me. I think its ridiculous they way some people are so certain of being right in any walk of life that they think its okay to trip up others. I can sympathize with parental loss and financial difficulty, take it a bit easier on yourself. :-) jrc

view post as summary

Hello ,

Dear Ms Ford,

It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the notoriety...

view entire post

Hello ,

Dear Ms Ford,

It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the notoriety also.Sciences are there to imrpove and to harmonise,we are catalysers of our environments.But apparently several prefer the false detials just to satisfy their own vanity.That has not meaning and sense.If this planet is in this state, it is just due to these parameters.Sciences are there to help the globality, not to ponder bizare things.A real scientis, universal and sterministic is general and global and must act for this planet with adapted solutions;I am suggesting that instead to focus on stupidities for this notoriety, they focus on sglobal solutions, if they are real scientists, passionated so they know maths, physics, chemistry,biology......The others aren't really globalist scientis, universal understanding entropy.It is rare to have these parameters;I am asking me how many persons understand really this relativity.It is ironical and the word is weak.You know Ms Ford, the world changes and the net is revolutionary.This planet will change with or without our approvements.You know sometimes I read the maths of some pappers and I say me, oh my god how is it possible that physicists can say these stupidities.Maths are a Tools permitting to physics to be explained.I class maths also and I am laughing because it is my passion also the maths.Like if they are going to give a course ,no but frankly??? I am waiting the essays, and this year the maths shall be anaysed in détails :) I have my books near me and my crazzy brain.I beleive simply that vanity is the problam and the fat to not critic the worksof friends with determinism.I have seen people agreeing even if they know that it is false??? The problem is very serious there.This planet is finished in these conditions.If now monney are given in the bad hands utilising this monney tool without globalisation, it is sad and serious.This pale blue dot cries and the sufferings is arrived at its paroxism.It is not acceptable.The responsabilities of entreprenors and scientists are so important at this moment.Altruism, universalism,humanism are essential and is the realmeaning of a scientist,a searcher,a thinker.This planet dies Ms Ford and money is bad utilised.Good or bad governances.Vanity or humility in front of this immensity.To be or not to be, that is the question! I prefer the calm and serenity of vegetals ...:)ps several can lie to a majority with maths, not to all! A minority sees the generality,the majority does not understand physics and maths.But it is the life.Sad in all case.But we evolve also Ms Ford :)

view post as summary

Tom,

Okay, I'll puzzle over that some. It's all beyond my depth but I don't have a problem with a defective universe. Continuous spacetime isn't as much of a head warp for me as is discrete spacetime, what's that? How would spacetime be infinitely multi-connected? For me, energy and spacetime are inseperable and density is a function of velocity. Yet symmetrically, light velocity is an...

view entire post

Tom,

Okay, I'll puzzle over that some. It's all beyond my depth but I don't have a problem with a defective universe. Continuous spacetime isn't as much of a head warp for me as is discrete spacetime, what's that? How would spacetime be infinitely multi-connected? For me, energy and spacetime are inseperable and density is a function of velocity. Yet symmetrically, light velocity is an absolute limit because that is the natural limit of action in a time parameter. A zero boundary condition could exist as a minimum energy density where time exists at c and no spatial motion were therefore possible. So while connectivity of spacetime would still exist beyond that zero boundary, the inertial connectivity of the energy condensate would be dependent on a maximum density proportionate to the total energy content within the zero boundary. And that inertial connectivity is what we call gravity. Rather than being the weakest force, gravity is the manifestation of all the energy content inertially connected in that boundary and is exponentially greater by virtue of density at smaller scales. The strong nuclear force might be just that, gravity.

I'll stop blithering, I don't often try to express these notions though they work okay in some simple math, but I know its rather conjectural and conventionally heretical. Have you had a look at Gary Simpson's 'Quaternion Dynamics' paper? goto viXra.org; click: all submissions; then tab authors + go and a google search list appears with the title line. click that and then scroll down to the 'referrences' and click the viXra link and it should give you the html. Might have to hunt around a bit. It's over my level and presented mostly in matrix signage but you would follow it, and it is a precursor to a 5D rationale he is preparing. That I find intriguing, and while he sees it as failing by dependence on a fixed background, the fifth D could be fixed not to a background co-ordinate but to the notion of symmetry of c being the absolute time limit of my blither above. He's more on your level than I and you might enjoy some dialogue instead of diatribe for a change. :-) jr

view post as summary

Steve,

Believe it or not, I'm trying to steer towards the topic of 'Wrinkles in Spacetime' and what a 'defect' therein might be. So while I can recognize you have been wrestling with the topological paradigm in an effort to package the observable universe, and the simply connected 3sphere provides an expandable wrapper, I do have trouble understanding what you are trying to say. You have...

view entire post

Steve,

Believe it or not, I'm trying to steer towards the topic of 'Wrinkles in Spacetime' and what a 'defect' therein might be. So while I can recognize you have been wrestling with the topological paradigm in an effort to package the observable universe, and the simply connected 3sphere provides an expandable wrapper, I do have trouble understanding what you are trying to say. You have been able to overcome some of the language barrier to the rather sloppy English common these days and I am as guilty as anybody in being lazily monolingual.

But if I'm getting this correctly, you seem to subscribe to the idea that gravitation is a different kind of energy than electrostatic and magnetostatic fields, and hold with the idea that a gravitational field can extend to infinity without explaining how that could be possible without the finite quantity of energy in that field becoming so spread out as to become infinitesimally weak everywhere in that infinite volume of space.

What I've tried to say, is that just as time and space are intrinsically bound and indistinguishable at the foundational level, so is energy intrinsically bound up with spacetime. And that it is only due to the aggregate of vast numbers of self-gravitational material particles of energy condensed into matter that results in the apparent weakness of the gravitational field. Gravitation must be treated as a function of the time parameter, and where time is compressed into smaller volumes it operates more slowly. An object would have to traverse the same amount of time in a region of high energy density in a tiny volume, as that same object would traverse in a region of low energy density in a much larger volume. This does not mean there cannot be an empirically determined minimum density necessary to maintain connectivity of the physical energy. If we accept Mach's Principle in general without being too purist, the behavior of energy can range from inelastic to aetherial as a coefficient function of velocity determining density. And a greater energy density will exhibit and translate the characterists of a lower density but not vice versa. Gravity is observable in the magnetic behavior, the electrical behavior and the kinetic behavior of matter, but those characteristics are not observable at distances where the energy density only translates gravitational characteristics. And the lower the density of energy the more it melds one inertial domain with others expanding into the observed macroscopic domains.

I have long subscribed to a school of thought in Condensed Matter Physics that anything we might call particulate matter is A Wrinkle In Spacetime that curls up on itself. I like to quip it as Big Rock Candy Mountain. There is simply too much energy created by the stress of spacetime than there is room enough in the universe for it to exist at any given time at a density it seeks at light velocity. We live in a quantum universe because foundationally it is in an energy supersaturate state, and the 2.76 Kelvin CMB is the ambient level of compression which requires matter to condense from energy to conserve space.

That being said; a *defect* whether causally or probabilistically would be when something that could, should or would happen, simply doesn't. Or pops up when there's no reason against all probability. C'est la vie. jrc

view post as summary

Hi John,

I will improve my English,I speak it like in french in fact , my grammar must be improved.I will do it in buying a book when I will have the loan soon due to debts of death of my mother.It is not a priority for me.I am a little sad that you have not understood my équations.I am going to make simple.Like said Einstein ,if you are not able to explain it simply to your...

view entire post

Hi John,

I will improve my English,I speak it like in french in fact , my grammar must be improved.I will do it in buying a book when I will have the loan soon due to debts of death of my mother.It is not a priority for me.I am a little sad that you have not understood my équations.I am going to make simple.Like said Einstein ,if you are not able to explain it simply to your grandmother,you don'tunderstand it really.The dark matter exists and is not baryonic.If this matter exists John,so there is a cause.They must be produced by something.Not the stars.BH are a reality and exist.We see that our standard model has a wall at this horizon between the two different model(Standard and gravitational.The supermassive BH are sphères, it islogic.If they are there, there are reasons.I say that these BH are also present at quantum scale.Protons are the secret but the standard model is not sufficient.See my équation E=mc²+ml² ,have youseen the relevance with l linear velocity of these particles coming from the main cenral cosmological BH, the biggest spherical volume after the universal sphere.See that we can superimpose the sphères !!!The quantum serie and its finite number(primes p adics numbers are relevant)is the same than the cosmological serie inlogic.The quantum stable serie is a relative photo ofour universalsphere.I hope than you see my theory ofspherisation now :) see that it explains gravitation and the link with infinite entropy at this central sphere.God is not far of us with this weakest force John.Imagine the number 1 for this singularity......BH in our universal sphere are less numerous than stars but the particles produced ? The standard model is encircled by BH and Dark matter.The gravitation is implied by this central cosmological sphere and its weak rotation and codes.It is simple when we see the generality of this universe.God does not play at dice and the sphere is the perfect equilibrium of sphere.The gravitation needs BH and dark matter and Inside the heat and thermo and electromagnetic forces are a kind of E.

view post as summary

Hi Jedis,

John,it seems that the primes and the numbers are proportional with the spherical volumes.More the increasing mass on the entropical Arrow of time,the number increases towards bosons and spherons produced but decrzases towards the singularities.It is fascinating because gravitation is infinite at this cosmological singularity,the central biggest BH of the universe.I see that Tom...

view entire post

Hi Jedis,

John,it seems that the primes and the numbers are proportional with the spherical volumes.More the increasing mass on the entropical Arrow of time,the number increases towards bosons and spherons produced but decrzases towards the singularities.It is fascinating because gravitation is infinite at this cosmological singularity,the central biggest BH of the universe.I see that Tom had discussed about time.How can we analysr this time with the two systems, the photonic model and the spheronic model? If spherons breaks the special relativity because they aren't bosons?how can be consider this irreversible time with gravitation?It seems to me that the rotation spinal of the central BH implies the universal clock of evolution.How can we superimpose the two aethers,the two sphères with their aethertimes.The spherical volumes and the numbers are relevant.Tom If you superimpose the lunminerous aether with the gravitational aethers proportional with their BH and their spherical volumes.You could perhaps find the volume of the central BH in seeing the serie evolutive of spherical volumes.In logic more we go towards the central sphere, more the volumes increases.The correlated spherical gravitational aethers also increase proportionaly.You can make it Tom :) ps Big Bang is not really logic, the expansion is gravitational and spherical from thie singularity.Where is this centralsphere?at how many miles?What is its volume,what are the speed of spherons produced by this singularity?Infinite at this wall? what is the volume of the gravitational aether from this center? Is it in increasing ?The puzzle is complex but the generality is simple dear Jedis Mr Agnew, James, Lorraine, Gary ,John,Tom....Have you ideas for the serie of BH towards the center ?The quantum serie,primordial,is a relative foto of our universe but with scales and motions and volumes different simply it seems to me humbly.The geometrical methods and algebrical can be relevant if the numbers and volumes are found with the good récurrences.You can make it dear thinkers of the SPHERE.Be the force with you.:)

view post as summary

There is all kinds of evidence for the finite nature of a moment of time and a finite moment of time necessarily entangles some amount of what we call the future. In other words, what happens in the future does affect the present for some short coherence time.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 21:47 GMT as "Is there any evidence that anything has its material being...

view entire post

There is all kinds of evidence for the finite nature of a moment of time and a finite moment of time necessarily entangles some amount of what we call the future. In other words, what happens in the future does affect the present for some short coherence time.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 21:47 GMT as "Is there any evidence that anything has its material being co-existent across time? I think not."

The past only exists in object fossil records, which are matter spectra and are objective properties that people can agree about. Science measures a great many different kinds of matter spectra specifically to quantify the nature of an object. For example, the color red is an objective matter spectrum. So objects exist as frozen fossil matter spectra that define how that object is put together.

However, objects also exist as pulses of matter in time and that is the crux of the uncertainty principle. An object as a pulse in time seems to have a knife edge existence of very high frequency oscillations of amplitude with well-defined phase. However, we can only measure the matter spectrum of an object as they evolve in time and from those finite and objective matter spectra, we can only subjectively deduce the instantaneous amplitude of an object pulse in time.

In order to make that deduction we need some kind of device that can process the matter spectra into a model of reality and make predictions based on that alogorithm. Typically we use a very handy neural algorithm called consciousness to make predictions, but each neural computer is slightly different and processes the matter spectra in slightly different ways. We call this our subjective reality since it depends on that nature of subjective qualia. For example, how we feel about a red object is subjective even though the matter spectrum of a red object is objective.

However, when we measure the next finite matter spectrum, we find that we can only predict the time evolution of the object time pulse within an uncertainty. Each matter spectrum takes a finite time to record and during that finite time, not only the object evolves, but the observer evolves as well. The spectrometer as observer is therefore part of the observation in an irreducible recursion.

Thus the spectrometer and object together define a finite moment of time and with our neural spectrometer that we call a mind, that moment of time is about a second. During a neural second, we choose a future based on how we feel and all of our possible futures recursively affect how we feel, which then affects which future we choose, and so on.

This uncertainty principle or recursion for neural matter has a correlation size that involves all of the sensient entanglements of our lifetime. We choose futures based not only on the matter spectra that we remember as our fossil past, but also based on all of the possible futures of all humanity and the planet and even of the universe. The uncertainty principle is not only a quantum rag doll, as has been so aptly put--the uncertainty principle entangles all of humanity and the planet and universe into choice as well.

This entanglement of the future and past along with uncertainty is what we call free will and this is what defines creativity as well. Creativity is a neural entanglement of many the possible futures of our own time pulse with the fossil matter spectra that define that our past as well as with the many possible futures of many other time pulses.

view post as summary

Both of us affirm about gravity but we cannot really affirmMr Agnew,we have just models.My theory of spherisation is in 3D and it is important.The quantumspheres are like incompressible gravitationalliquid.The quantum sphères are in 3D and the unievrsal sphere also like the cosmol sphères.The gravitational newtonian 3S mechanics is essentail.The metric of course is in 4D but it is a tool.We...

view entire post

Both of us affirm about gravity but we cannot really affirmMr Agnew,we have just models.My theory of spherisation is in 3D and it is important.The quantumspheres are like incompressible gravitationalliquid.The quantum sphères are in 3D and the unievrsal sphere also like the cosmol sphères.The gravitational newtonian 3S mechanics is essentail.The metric of course is in 4D but it is a tool.We cannot consider gravity with a 5D for example or others dimensions.All is in 3D for the respect of all proportions, newtonian.The aethers seem gravitational Mr Agnew.We search the truth after all,but we have just models.But frankly I am persuaded that it is necessary to anaylse the standard model differntly.Our special relativity and photons aren't the only one foundamebtal of our universe.Gravity is the real light and it exists several graviational aethers.It is always in 3D Mr agnew,we have just difficulties to analyse these particles at this moment speeder and smlaller than photons.BH and dark matter needs really to be inserted at the two scales.Gravitation appears in 3D with simply the rotations and properties of these sphères.See that the universal 3D sphere needs an universal central BH.The informations are from this BH and its is not photons which come from this singularity.The photons in fact are Inside in logic these spherons, encircled.The nuclei also and it encodes this gravitation.Photons and thermo are like a fuel permitting to see, to give heat and work and newtonian proportions.Gravitation has nothing to dowith thermo and standard model it seem to me always with humility and of course my model has hypothesis but in fact it seems logic.If BH exist, there are reasons like dark matter and if we have not still explained gravitation, there are reasons also.You make me crazy Mr Agnew :) but I learn also in the same time others models and ideas and extrapolations.But I don't understand why people rests in this relativity.It is time to go more far than our actual analyses.The 3D Universal sphere is in spherisation of matter energy and we must explain this dark matter and gravity.I beleive that I found but it must be tested by experiments.I am not an engineer ,so I don't see how we can make an experiment to see these spherons correlated with this dark matter not baryonic.It is far and they are black and so speed and so small these particles and furtheremore it exists many different due to correlated BH where they are produced.

view post as summary

The reason that you use spherons is because spheres have only one dimension that is important. Supposing that you need two more dimensions is simply a notion of spacetime and is not necessary for primitive action of aether matter.

Just matter and action are all that is necessary for time and space to emerge as long as there is a phase relationship between matter and action.

Thermo...

view entire post

The reason that you use spherons is because spheres have only one dimension that is important. Supposing that you need two more dimensions is simply a notion of spacetime and is not necessary for primitive action of aether matter.

Just matter and action are all that is necessary for time and space to emerge as long as there is a phase relationship between matter and action.

Thermo has to do with all of the forces of particles including gravity. Gravity compression, densification, and adiabatic heating of matter are the founding principles of the thermo of stars and planets.

I am sorry that I make you crazy, but black holes do exist...but are really more like boson stars. The quantum gravity of biphotons works just fine in the boson stars that mainstream science calls black holes. There is no information lost in the phase transition from fermion matter accretion to the action matter of a boson star.

Dark matter and dark energy for that matter are both simply manifestations of the exchange properties of quantum gravity. Quantum exchange at the microscopic scale is very well known but since until now, there has not been quantum exchange at the galaxy or larger scale.

Quantum gravity results in an exchange interaction among stars due to their mass loss rates. That exchange coupling between inner and outer galaxy stars is what keeps galaxies rotation constant, not dark matter. Angular momentum is simply exchanged from inner to outer star, inner stars then slow and outer stars speed up. There is no such thing as dark matter.

The same for dark energy. The universe seems to accelerate despite mass density decreasing by careful measurement of supernovas of distant galaxies. This is the argument for dark energy. But aethertime has a very different cosmology that fits the universe the way that it is without any new dimensions or constants. So, no dark energy either.

You presume a universal and central black hole and it is true that there is a universal and central surface; it is called the CMB. Everywhere in the universe the CMB provides a reference surface and for aethertime, the CMB persists for all time. There are no event horizons except that of the edge of the universe just beyond the CMB.

view post as summary

Hello Mr Agnew,

I learnt a little the Debroglie Bohm interpretation and the interpretation of Copenaghen.My humble model of spherisation is in the copenaghian ways.We search the determinism in fact for a correct quantizations of matter energy.The duality waves particles is of course a logic when we consider that the evolution , the gravitation encodes informations.The hidden variables are...

view entire post

Hello Mr Agnew,

I learnt a little the Debroglie Bohm interpretation and the interpretation of Copenaghen.My humble model of spherisation is in the copenaghian ways.We search the determinism in fact for a correct quantizations of matter energy.The duality waves particles is of course a logic when we consider that the evolution , the gravitation encodes informations.The hidden variables are rational.I beleive that I found where is the problem.It is the standard model and the special and general relativity considering the encodings of photons in nuclei.Heisenberg and Borh should agree :)If we rest in the standard model with hidden variables for gravitation , never we could have the good roads towards our singularities, the central main gravitational codes.The quantum scale has a kind of bridge between baryons and gravitation.The dark matter is very relavant when we consider that this matter not baryonic is produced by BH and is also encoded in nuclei but differently that our actula 3 main forces, strong, weak and electromagnetic.This weakest force does not really need of hidden variables Under c.The parameters towards these main central codes, gravitation for these singularities are newtonian and in 3D.The photons are checked by this gravity implied by BH and dark matter.If my équations are correct, it becomes newtonially and copenaghian speaking very relevant considering the matter energy evolution.We need to have proportions and pure quantum corrélations.It is not possible to rest in our actual standardmodel ,we must go more far and think differently in respecting the empirism of course.The 3D sphere and its quantum and cosmological 3D sphers have so many secrets still to show us.....But these paraeters are rational ,newtonian and dterministic.The mesures,our apparatus for these calculations must insert new paramters for a realunderstanding of steps of gravitational energy.The fields towards singularities tend to ifinity like the gravity.It is why the spherical volumes of BH Inside the universal sphere can be approached with the good récurrences and mathematical methods.Bohm has made an error about the wave function.It is not Under the special relativity and furthermore it exists a main wave pilot for the gravitation correlated with dark matter coming from the central BH.It tends to infinity paradoxally but it exists others waves pilot when we consider the different gravitationalaethers due to spherical vol of BH.So we have a superimposing of gravitational aethers nside the main and also the lminerous aether the smallest sphere,photonic.The interpretation of Copenaghen can permit to calculate the roads towards the singularities and can explain gravitation with intrinsic properties.The debroglie bohm interpretation rests in the relativity and search hidden variables which aren't Under c but are gravitational and deterministic furthermore.Best Regards

view post as summary

Georgi,

Start with Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchoff. The discovery of emission and absorption lines in spectral analysis. It is only the position of those lines in the otherwise continuous spectrum which shifts; ergo the red shift just makes shorter wavelengths arriving later, appear as longer wavelength color, and the extreme long end of the visible range disappear into the infrared. So...

view entire post

Georgi,

Start with Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchoff. The discovery of emission and absorption lines in spectral analysis. It is only the position of those lines in the otherwise continuous spectrum which shifts; ergo the red shift just makes shorter wavelengths arriving later, appear as longer wavelength color, and the extreme long end of the visible range disappear into the infrared. So the image reality of the visible spectrum doesn't change BUT the object reality of the emitted frequencies shift position from say, the prominent yellow band of sodium, of a stationary source, into the orangish range of the image from a source moving away from the spectrograph. Every elemental isotope has been long known to emit only specific narrow bands of near frequencies and there is a distinctive separation between those specific bands. It is foundational to the Quantum Jump of the QM Bohr atom model which interprets those band wavelengths as emissions from change of an electron to a different energy level. But it also one of the various independent experimental results from which it is deduced that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source.

When Pentcho excerpts Sabine saying that 'popular explanations' of invariance of speed of light are on historical grounds rather than technical reasons, doesn't mean there aren't technical reasons for Einstein to wrap them all up in a postulate. She's simply pointing out that many people read popular science without studying the technical details, but formulating SR could call on them separately in argument. And personally I really enjoy those details because they all presage modern quantum and relativistic physics and being in the Classical norm, are much easier to comprehend and visualize.

I seldom read anything Pentcho posts because its like going to a Donald Trump rally. Simplistic baiting rhetoric. And it dissuades discussion on topics in which others do have some real acumen. Incidentally, your post on the 25th in the 'Microscope' blog shows a sophistication you were struggling for in earlier postings. Kudos, yes the category of a universal time scale is what in SR is relative simultaneity, and invariance is between two objects either one of which can be taken as 'stationary' but only relative to the other, not an external observer looking first to one then the other. Its mathematically complete but physically approximate in that there are unphysical properties that require a covariant rationale to resolve. Newtonian momentum computes as mv, which would mean at Cern light velocity could be achieved with a resultant energy equivalent of momentum of mc^3. But it's well known that energy input and resultant momentum at high energies follows the exponential non-linear function of Lorentz, not the linear Newtonian function. jrc

view post as summary

Hello Mr Ojo ,

John :),you are surprising.About the psychological disorder.I have a little problem.I see little fairies on little sphères in my small garden between my acer palmatums and fuchsias.And it is not all,I have seen also a little alien Jedi on a little spaceship near an abutilon and a passiflora caerulea.They said me that in fact there are not a conspiracy.But that this planet...

view entire post

Hello Mr Ojo ,

John :),you are surprising.About the psychological disorder.I have a little problem.I see little fairies on little sphères in my small garden between my acer palmatums and fuchsias.And it is not all,I have seen also a little alien Jedi on a little spaceship near an abutilon and a passiflora caerulea.They said me that in fact there are not a conspiracy.But that this planet cries and dies .....John,Eckard,Mr Ojo,Georgina,Mr Agnew,Tomand all fqxi friends,.... BE THE FORCE WITH YOU JEDIS OF THE SPHERE.....And don't forget that Feynman said "one day we shall see all the truth ......and that Einstein said God does not play at dices and that the pale blue dot like said Carl Sagan needs help there.What is the responsability of general thinkers at a moment so important where an ocean of chaotical exponentials are at our door? And if we found these global solutions here on FQXi.We could nourrish our planet with water drop during eternity considering this gravitationa correlated with the central BH and the gravitational primordial aether.So what is the problem in fact ?the human nature?the lack of altruism?the vanity and opulences more unconsciousness?What are the reasons having implied our global reality on this 3D sphere? I beleive strongly that we are arrived at a time where even our latin name homo sapiens sapiens is not sufficient.Let's add Homo sapien sapien universalensis.It is more logic.So let's adapt our altruist and universal comportments at this simple reality.Let's imrpove this earth in regrouping all the altruist and universalist ,scientists because we must change our globality now simply.We cannot accept this reality.We are dedicated to travelinside this universal sphere, first our solar system ,after the others solar systems of our galaxy the milky way and even between galaxies in a very long future.We are dedicated toharmonise planets and spaceships.We have not probelms about matter and energy.We have problems due to our human globality.We loose our ecosystems, we destoy the micro meso and macro fauna and flora.So many créations, humans and animals have so suffered on this planet in the past and now also,it is not acceptable for real universalists because the solutions exst.Why for example the big countries does not reasure the world ? Why china and Europa more USA and others does not take this responsability? Soon 10 billions, it is not possible with our actual parameters to arrive at points of equilibrium.Why a global earthian governments do not reasure all humans? Why these persons aren't centralised ? We are going all in a wall.It is now that we must change our planet,after it will be too late.Even in the future this planet will be perhaps not possible to live due to climate and others parametrs of our solar system.can we accept this ?Knowing that this future is not possible for all the future humans and anaimals and vegetals ? We are catalysers of our environments, we have the possiblilities to check matter and energy and between cosmological sphere like planets ,there are a lot of space so there are not problems in fact.We create our own prison dear jedis and it is time to reasure this planet because it is not acceptable simply.Scientists have a big responsability.The relativity is still more than you can imagine, we were, we are, we shall be dear homo sapiens sapiens universalensis :)take care dear all

view post as summary