An Accidental Universe

There is a fine experimental line between physics and philosophy. You are on either one side or the other but never both. When was the last prediction a physicist made and was confirmed? Everybody has a theory of an after the fact observation.

CIG Theory is experimentally verifiable, mostly through analysis of Red Shift data and observations. Its predictions should also move forward into realms not yet assessed by the author.

The faster the particle, the smaller it should be. This is a prediction of CIG.

Within the Standard Model there are now many many particles. Do we know their speeds? And sizes? If we know one we should know the other (use CIG & math).

CIG offers that size (as mass) goes down as rates (%"c") go up.

As stated before, the mass on the downside converts to new volumes of Space on the upside. But, the size of the mass particle (what's left) goes down.

Can someone let me know if the correlation of particle sizes and their rates of travel is consistent with CIG prediction? And find a formula that correlates the two (size & rate).

Somewhere I posted why big things are slow and small things are small. This post goes alone with it.

Someone??

THX

doug

Douglas you wrote

"r2 F = G m1 m2

r2 F / m1 m2 = G

At "c" mass disappears and becomes its spatial equivalent.

Nearing "c", m1 m2 get smaller and smaller.

This appears to make G very big.

Where, "c" varies, m varies as well. This affects G (I don't know to much about G)"

c=1/G then Planck unit M of mass sqrt(hc/G) become sqrt(hc^2)=cxsqrt(h) not common with mass dimension.

Jim:

I suspected that, I wrought about commonly and generally known things of general relativity and another things of physics, because I give them as known, in any case I thought

If he doesn't, he will question me.

Well in this case not knowing physics it's not a problem but an advantage, physicists seriously think the subject belong to physics, they are wrong, since I knew that the so called "time" is "movement" (I was 27) I realize that this does not belong to any specific discipline, no physics, no philosophy and less mathematics, but if I have to choose one discipline I would choose anthropology, psychology and a little bit of psychiatry.

This days physicists, especially theoretical physicists are great mathematicians that never require the help of common physicists, that they needed badly, instead Einstein was a great physicist that always required the help of mathematicians. Physicists now are self-sufficient, wrong, when you don't know something ask about it .Most theoretical phyhsicists, after general relativity they start looking for "the theory of everything" for that they needed to know "the nature of time" Maldacena were looking for it many years, failed, then as great mathematician he is he joint and help to advance "the string theory" to reach his goal, Smolin, Rovelli, they look for "the time nature" failed then they made "the loop quantum theory" a quantum gravity theory, also hoping to reach their goal. Even Christopher Isham that insisted that to reach "the theory of everything" he said "we have to know "the time nature" it looks that finally got tired and is looking now for the "topos theory". And many more. All this show how important is to know "the time nature", not knowing this have a really bad consequence for the discipline. They are becoming lost. (just see google).

Jim don't be afraid to know. During 18 years I read physics not because I really like it but because after I knew that the so called "time" was "movement" and because of being out of the discipline I decided to write a book "TIEMPO" and this, was to give them what they needed, "the nature of time" and because I did not know for what physicists needed it, for what or were they needed it and also to communicate with them, I have to read physics. You Jim were searching for "the nature of time" and had not the same motivation I had.

To find "the nature of time" I did not relay either on physics and mathematics, I just knew, what people said, that Einstein was a genius, in those years I just was thinking of, how it was possible that speed can slow time? , just the opposite of you, many years after I find out that the so called "time" was "movement" I start reading physics.

I don't know nothing of physics, even if you did not know the little I know of it.To know "the nature of time" You would see, you only need elementary school mathematics and high school physics an this is more than enough.

The problem is really another, first read again what Einstein said: " "Ideas and Opinions" Einstein, pg.283 y 284, ISBN Nº 440-04150-150.

"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.

Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection. But even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions"

Please Jim read this with full attention , specially the following three lines:

" the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking".

"physics treats directly only of sense experiences"

"everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions"

Our brains without our senses are nothing.

About what I did say that being a physicist, or if we did study physics was more than an advantage an inconvenient, Einstein suggested the same. You know that Faraday knew as much mathematics as you and me, and he did not study physics in any physic school, he tried to prove his discovery , with iron filling, and rubber bands. Einstein said : " It is fascinating to muse: would Faraday have discovered the law of electromagnetic induction if he had received a regular college education?. Unencumbered by the traditional way of thinking......".(page 335). But Faraday was lucky and was find by an intelligent physicist and mathematician, Maxwell that put mathematics to Faraday written laws.

You know, that when I was young I explain to a friend of main, that was shoes repairman, who among physicians, engineers, lawyers, physicists that I knew, he was the most intelligent, he did not want to be anything else, I thought him the basic necessary things and after I explained him a really complex metabolic process, He understood perfectly he explaining back to me. On a fishing trip I did the same to a fifty or so year's old man without a finished elementary school. You know culture and intelligence are related but are not the same.

People attribute to Schrödinger a 19 century Austrian physicist this: "If we explain to an intelligent 14 year old boy our idea and he does not understand it, it's a fraud". If we really know something we should be able to explain to any normal human being. But all this implied personal and not written explanation, this I find out it's more difficult.

Einstein himself explain what he did with general relativity , with words (no mathematics needed) in "Ideas and Opìnions". Since Newton "space" and "time" were considered as absolute, this means as an scenery " where , "when" and "where" events happen, with relativity "space" and "time" became relatives, these are no more fundamentals in some way these loose importance, this means these are not any more independents, at contrary these depend, i.e. of inertia and gravity "forces". When he said "velocity" and "gravity" of a body slow "time" for the body, every physicist knows that and also know how to calculate the slowing, having the data of the speed (respect to a coordinate system) of the body and the speed of light and can proved that mathematically (you don't need that). They can do that, but they don't know how speed and gravity slow the so called "time", they don't understand that, just because they don't know what the so called "time" is, to know how the slowing happen you have to know the experimental meaning of "time" , they are looking for it and they called it "the nature of time", concretely, what they measure with clocks, and what they are measuring is "movement" (they are not conscious of it) as a consequence the so called "the nature of time" is "movement" the Fqxi contest to which you present your article, could be answered with just one word "movement", to help them you can explain why.

This is the theoretical explanation, but later they proved this experimentally with the Hafele-Keating experiment (atomic clocks in an airplain) and the GPS (global positioning system) where especial and general relativity, the first slow the satellite clock (inertia) and the second accelerate the clock functioning because is to far from earth (gravity) you can look for them in google.

Just read with attention, you need no mathematics, Imagine an a especial air plain with an analogical clock inside, flying not to high , the air plain speed would increase the plain and the clock mass, this means inertia would increase if we refer to the so called "time", speed will slow the so called "time", nobody know how and why, but if you know that the so called "time" is "movement" you can understand that the inertia will slow clock moving parts in that way slowing clock functioning, respect a similar clock in land. What slows is the clock functioning not the inexistent so called "time"

i.e. Imagine you are in a power full car, steep on the accelerator your body would sink on the back seat, What else? It would become hard for you to move forward, upward, and to both sides, why? because inertia would make difficult every movement of you, will slow your movements, like the clock moving parts. So speed will slow "time"?. No, will slow clock functioning, will slow "movement" not the so called "time" because does not exist.

Please read again this: "We believe that, when we are looking at a clock, we are measuring "time", wrong we are measuring "movement". With the "constant" "uniform" or "regular" hour hand "movement" on the clock dial, we are measuring the

earth constant rotational "movement" fraction,

represented by the numbers on it, we just has measured "movement" with "movement" (and no "time" with "movement") We are not conscious that we are doing this, but as you see, can be physically proved. Two millenniums ago or more that we think we are measuring "time", it is hard to let this word "time" aside".

In short with the clock "constant" "movement"

we are measuring the earth "constant" rotational "movement" fraction,

represented by the dial numbers

We are measuring that and no the so called "time".

Clocks become practical copies of earth "constant" rotational "movement"

For all this you need no mathematics and almost no physics.

Einstein with mathematics "predicted" that speed would slow time, but if he did not born and there is no especial and general relativity. If you have the necessary means you would be able to prove this anyway (inertia and gravity slows "movement")

There are more things, but this is already to long. I hope you understand that they want to know what they are measuring with the clocks. I hope you understand they are measuring "movement." Mathematically everybody or most of them agree in what "space-time" is but there is not agreement on the real meaning of it, no physicist or most, don't know that Einstein made a verbal description of "space-time", and knowing that the so called "time" is "movement" you can see it's meaning much more clearly, and also you can explain why "space-time" can't be separated in "space" and "time" this physicists can't explained . There are many other things about the so called "time" but first you should know this. If you don't know something ask me pointedly. If you wanted to know the so called "the nature of time" since decades and you understood this post, read again all the other posts I wrote, will help.

Héctor

Hello Yuri,

RE: c=1/G then Planck unit M of mass sqrt(hc/G) become sqrt(hc^2)=cxsqrt(h) not common with mass dimension.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Can you explain what is happening here in words?

Mass dimensions must vary as new Space unfolds ( unfolding of extra dimensions) ? Maybe ... for the expanding Universe.??

[ ] Yes [ ] No

h = Planck constant = rate of spatial expansion ?? E=hf

Please elaborate on your post.

Have you read CIG ?

THX

doug

Dear Georgina:

I just overview the 2 articles you recommend , and as you say they are very interesting, first because he is not satisfied for what he calls the operational definition, second because he propose people to look for a real definition of the so called "time", third because he believes the real definition is possible to be achieved.

During the last 18 years I read innumerable articles about the so called "time" most of them with the head in the clouds and the feet's in the air. This two articles has not the head in the clouds, but has the feet's on the floor and this is much to say.

I did started for the end, first I find out the so called "the nature of time" and decades after when I found that the knowledge was needed, I start reading physics to connect to and be able to give to physicists the knowledge they so badly needed. I wrote a book "TIEMPO" that nobody read it, I tried to reach physicists really interested on the so called "time" by electronic mail, I fail, by air mail correspondence, fail (I understand why they don't read anything, probably I would do the same" Any way after classic physics, especial and general relativity, after quantum mechanics, were created developed and physicists work every day with them without any need of the so called "the nature of time", what for they needed it. After relativity theoretical physics start searching for a "theory of everything", most of them realized that for doing that they need to know the real definition and the empiric meaning of the so called "time" Maldacena look for it many years,fail, so join "the string theory" as a great mathematician he was able to unite many branches of the theory. Smolin Rovelly look for it many years, fail, they make the loop quantum theory a quantum greavity theory, there are others, even Chris Isham that always insisted, that first they needed to know "the nature of time" now is trying "the topos theory" to reach a "theory for everything"

So Science have a big problem when thousands of theoretical physicists needs to know that the so called "time" is "movement", somebody like me knows it and have no way to give them the knowledge, especially being a physician and a psychiatrist, they are convinced the this subject belongs to their discipline of course they are completely wrong, they have the inconvenient of being physicist to understand it. Everything start before presocratic Heraclito, a century after by Plato, and Aristotle, they were measuring "time" and they did not know it's meaning, so logically like in now days, they ask themselves What is time? instead asking, What we are measuring? if they did the last, they would find out that we did measure "movement", we measure "movement", and we would continue to measure "movement• (see the posts I send to Jim, specially the last one).

How come the so called "time" became "movement". I can't make it shorter.

Chapter one: this is not proved at all, but it is probable and would help a lot to understand how the so called "time" came by the hand of men to satisfied his needs, and this would clarified the way to also understand, how "time" just became a "remnant word" clearing the way to see in fact we are measuring "movement". Einstein said that looking into the origin of prescientific concepts as "time" and "space" we are as in an anthropologist search.

Certainly the first thing that call the attention of every living creature on the planet surface was the sun. For men since the very beginning that he could be considered men, light and obscurity were observed by them, and the conclusion that sun give them light and warm during day, and its lack darkness and cold during night, and the fact that this could be expected repeatedly by men animals and plants it became certain.

Men realized that sunrise repetition limited periods of about the same length that he called "day" I am convinced he already new how to count, and already on that epoch, before any civilization came about, he start comparing the length of their trips with "sun movement", when it went hiding and came back making a day. I think this was the first comparative measuring of the "movement" the sun made with the "movement" he made during his trip on land. It was the first measuring of "movement" with "movement", a one or two suns trip, or one or two days trip, probably it was the process of measuring, that were called "counting time", now days we probably called "counting sunrises" or counting days but the word "time" remained, comparing between of what he thought were sun "movement" with his "movement" during his trip did not reach our days and where forgotten. People keep saying we count "time". After this step they start dividing "sun passages" ,"movement", in several parts to measure with more precision , probably millenniums later Egyptians were able to divide the day in 24 equal parts which were called hours and later Sumerians divided the hour in 60 minutes and the minute in 60 seconds, and now days in millions parts with the atomic clock maximizing precision . Heraclito, hundred years later Plato, and Aristotle thought that the word "time", already imposed, meant, a manifestation of "movement" ,celestial body movement" and Aristotle firmly said "time" must be "movement" but a few lines later he retracted (continues )

"Movement" have a known definition, an empiric meaning, is a quality or property of every physical existing thing, so is everywhere , like the so called "time" they say there is

Héctor

I disagree because c=1/G not clever idea.

for me h = Planck constant is real fundamental constant

I read CIG

Have you read http://vixra.org/author/yuri_danoyan ?

Yuri,

YES: I am reading : http://vixra.org/author/yuri_danoyan

what is Mpl ?

Thank you for reading CIG Theory

How do you feel Space is created? And at what expense so that Conservation of Energy is maintained?

doug

Mpl=10^-5g is constant when c and G vary synchronously....

Mpl is not mass of real concrete particle.

Mpl is the mean "bridge" between mass of stars and mass of proton.

I am advocate of cyclic universe theories.

How fundamental are the laws of physics anyway? Andreas Albrecht's question is best answered by saying "The Three-Body Question" has been answered on Math Overflow and Math Stack Exchange.

Jim and Georgina:

The last part of my last post I sed you both, was not understandable I think I corrected well and in this post I send you back

How come the so called "time" became "movement". I can't make it shorter..

Chapter one: this is not proved at all, but it is probable and would help a lot to understand how the so called "time" came by the hand of men to satisfied his needs, and this would clarified the way to also understand, how "time" just became a "remnant word" without any meaning, clearing the way to let as see that in fact we are measuring "movement". Einstein said that looking into the origin of prescientific concepts as "time" and "space" we are as in an anthropologist search.

Certainly the first thing that call the attention of every living creature on the planet surface was the sun. For men since the very beginning that he could be considered men, light and obscurity were observed by them, and the conclusion that sun give them light and warm during day, and its lack darkness and cold during night, and after the fact that this could be expected repeatedly by men animals and plants became certain.

Men realized that sunrise repetition limited periods of about the same length that he called "day" I am convinced he already new how to count, and already on that epoch, before any civilization came about, he start comparing the length of their trips with "sun movement", when it went hiding and came back making a day. I think this was the first comparative measuring of the "movement" the sun made with his "movement" made during his trip on land. It was the first measuring of "movement" with "movement", naming trips, a one or two suns trip, or one or two days trip, probably it was the process of measuring, that were called "counting time", now days we probably called them "counting sunrises" or counting days but the word "time" remained, describing a comparative measuring between, what he thought were sun "movement" with his "movement" during his trip, such description of comparative "movement" did not reach our days and where forgotten. People keep saying we count "time". After this step they start dividing "sun passages movement", in several parts to measure with more precision , probably millenniums later Egyptians were able to divide the day in 24 equal parts which were called hours and later Sumerians divided the hour in 60 minutes and the minute in 60 seconds, and now days, in millions parts with the atomic clock maximizing precision . Heraclito, hundred years later Plato, and Aristotle thought about what the word "time", already imposed, meant, the first one thought was a manifestation of "movement", Plato a celestial body movement" and Aristotle firmly said "time" must be "movement" but a few lines later he retracted (continues )

Héctor

Hector,

thank you for sharing your thoughts on time. I agree in that (a type of) movement is necessary for passage of time. The best candidate, in my mind, seems to be the minimization of potential energy, as even a body that appears to be stationary will be undergoing that kind of motion. For example a stationary car is still be moving with the motion of the Earth as it continually minimizes its potential energy . That's a little different from measurement of time which requires only any regular change.

I too have given time a lot of thought over many years. I spent some time classifying the different types and more recently have developed an explanatory framework which has -passage of time- as something physically distinct from -time within observed space-time-.Both kinds are important in physics and in my opinion and should not be muddled. It is not easily explained in a few lines though.In my 2011 essay I discuss the work of Mc Taggart on time. There is a high resolution explanatory framework diagram in the discussion thread of my 2012 essay, if you are interested.

Georgina:

Iam just read your post. We don't understand each other at all. You just can't use a word that you don't know its definition or empiric meaning, that none of your senses sense, during the last century a psudoscience were created arond the so called " time" with his own words.Please read my last post after I corrected, and this one, pleaseeeeeeeee, forget about time.

Chapter 2. Later came the copies of "sun passages movements" which science already knew that that were not "sun passages movements" that make "days", but an "earth constant rotational movement". These more practical copies than the "sun clock" were of different design, but all of them have a "common and indispensable property" to be considered a clock, all of them allow us and make us able to count the passage of a "constant", "uniform", "regular" "movement" (with always the same speed).

This "constant movement" is the only "variable" that could be considered a clock. Because those "constant movements" are the ones that would make us able to measure all the other movements that are not "constant". "The fractions of earth constant rotational movements" that would be represented on them, generally by numbers, as hours, minutes and seconds... that should be called "movement units" and no "time units".

There are plenty of variables, but can't be considered clocks because these are not "constant movements".

Clocks were created to measure all the "movements" that are not "constant" that allow changes and transformations of all kind that men are interested on.

"Movement": everything with physical existence "moves", so "movement" is everywhere , galaxies, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles moves.

"Movements" make possible every change or transformation, for us the more important transformation ¡ life!.

Men measure everything distance, weight, sound, How they are not going to measure "movement". They were measuring "movement" before any civilization came about, unconsciously , because they thought they were measuring the so called "time".

"Movement" has not claim existence on its own, but only as a quality or property of physical existing things.

"movement measurement" were covered, by a word older than all civilizations ,the so called "time". It became hide from mankind sight before written history began.

So mankind remained measuring a thing, which nobody knew from where came from, they called "time" and nobody knew or know what it is, but it 's measure was and is so use full, that became indispensable for men, especially for science. please read what I call Chapter one and Chapter 2

Hector

Hi Hector,

I have read your posts. I understand that you want to replace the word "time" with movement or movement measurement. Thank you for further clarification of your idea.

There are lots of different kinds of time. Subjective time that is experienced, clock time, time co-existing in the mathematical fabric of space-time, universal change giving passage of time, imagined or recollected historical time. They are not all the same although they all go by the same word "time". That's what I meant by differentiation into different kinds.You are talking specifically of the passage of time. I just said what physical process I thought might most likely be driving that universal movement.

Hector

It is not just movement, ie alteration in relative spatial position, it is any form of alteration. Physical existence is altering, from one existent state to the next. And apart from what, why, how, alteration occurs at a rate. This is what timing is calibrating, the rate of alteration, irrespective of what is altering. That is why time/timing is expressed in terms of earth movement, because that was the first timing device. But these devices just 'tell' the time, and for the system to be operational, they have to be synchronised, ie the reference for timing is a conceptual constant rate of change.

Paul

Georgina:

I talk about what I call "the so called time" just because is the word that everybody through history used referring to measuring "movements", with a "constant movement" measuring no "constant movements" on the epoch that the word "time" were crafted science didn't exist, I say "word" just because it is not a true concept neither, to be one I suppose it should be able to be described and recognized. With "movement" I am able to understand and explain why inertia and gravity slow it, with "movement" I am able to craft the only workable definition of Duration: As the period of change or transformation allowed for movement and limited by men. Dictionary description of duration is made with the word "time" and description of the word "time" is made with the word duration. It is useful anyway

Just because when we measure "movement" we are not conscious of it, we think we are measuring "time", that's why the dictionary description of duration become useful. "Space -time" knowing that the so called "time" is "movement we can defined with the following words: "space-movement" does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field representing reality, as I suppose Einstein would descrived. There are many derivatives of the word "time" to really understand them, we should know that "the flux of time" is just "movement" and finally we should be conscious that "time" is nothing. Of course if one day people accept "time" as " movement" the remnant word "time" would be hear at least for a couple of centuries more. Is, just the change of position respect the rest of things. I am not competing Georgina I just tried to leave this here before I leave. Thank you for your posts.

Best whishes

Hector

Paul:

You said: "It is not just movement, ie alteration in relative spatial position, it is any form of alteration. Physical existence is altering, from one existent state to the next".

You can't move without altering thing, you can't alter anything without movement. When I say that every physically existence thing moves, I say is altering. There can't be movement without alteration, change or transformation, we can't have change without alteration, transformation or movement. etc. any of them can happen without the others happening. The problem that all the derivatives of the word "time" depend on the knowledge we have of this word. The word has no definition , no empiric meaning, can't be sensed by any of our senses, any men designed devise can tell nothing about it, even I think it is not a "concept" because to be a real concept you should be able to described it and recognized it. Without "movement" there is not any possibility of "rate" existence. Paul. Thank for your answer.

Best whishes

Hector

Hector,

There is a small group of people who post comments on FQXi blogs from time to time who seem to have overlap in their opinion of what passage of time must be.That's nice because we reinforce each others confidence in the approach. There have been numerous, sometimes lengthy, conversations on the subject here.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on time too. It is nice to be able to read what other people think and time is a very important subject IMHO. As you will have seen there was an FQXi essay competition dedicated to the subject, (which was held before I found this site.) Best wishes to you also.Georgina.

Hector

Indeed. I suspect movement is involved in every form of alteration. But, only in a few is it the actual cause as well. That is, it is a manifestation, or consequence, of something else. In most cases, the alteration in relative spatial position results from whatever is the driver of change.

"The problem that all the derivatives of the word "time" depend on the knowledge we have of this word. The word has no definition , no empiric meaning, can't be sensed by any of our senses,"

That is not a problem. Everything depends on knowledge (ie properly verified information as at that time). Neither is the issue about the label (ie word) chosen, the concern is what physical phenomenon does this relate to. And the answer is the 'turnover' rate (the rate at which alteration occurs) in physical reality, or conceptualised aspects thereof. You sense a tree altering colour, bird flying, the White House continuing to exist, don't you? There are two interrelated ontologically incorrect underlying concepts in the way we view our existence, for understandable reasons:

1 We do not realise that it must occur in a sequence, one physically existent state at a time. This is because of the sheer speed of the alteration. Which leads to all sorts of misconceptions, such as what constitutes distance, but more obviously, that there is duration within any given physically existent state, which there is not. Duration is an aspect of the difference between physically existent states.

2 We tend to attribute what we see as 'things' with a level of permanence they do not have. This is a consequence of not realising our physical existence is sequence. We designate 'things' on the basis of superficial physical characteristics. And so long as they continue to manifest themselves, indeed, even if they change somewhat, the 'thing' is deemed to have persisted in existence. But this is not what is happening in physical reality. At the level of conceptualisation we operate at, the White House continues to exist, but it is actually not the same configuration of whatever constitutes it from one point in time to the next.

Paul