Dear: Salvish Goomanee¨:
I read your essay which open new questions which sometimes are more important than solutions. I must say that we almost have nothing in common, you are a young physics student and I am an old physician that when were young accidentally found something mainly useful for theoretical physics, but I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. In common: You refer to a paper, which describes microtubules and tubulines in the process of transmitting the nerve impulse, referring to what theoretically from the view point of physics happen. More than 30 years ago I did research with the transmission of the nerve impulse, more than three years, and I find out that chemical transmissors did not transmit the impulse if these aren't combine with proteins first, I did not write any paper, supposedly my professor Dr. Lanary did it , at the time I didn't care.( I felt an assassin, because the dogs).Another thing in common. When you comment the paper you refer to "lead to the separation of the space-time geometries" in my essay "The deep nature of reality" I do refer to an Einstein brief verbal description of "space-time" as you must know while there is consensus on the mathematical significance of space-time in theoretical physics, for a hundred years there has been no consensus on the nature "of space-time itself". And in almost every physic theory have their own "spacetime" description, this "Einstein description seems that wasn't read by physicists, by the way most people have problems to explain why it can't be separated, I facilitate that describing it as one thing.
I will give you a summary of my essay because I am convince you would understand it an as a consequence you would be interested in reading it. "Hawking A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slow clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.
I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates a and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.
With my best whishes
Héctor