In the current mess that today's physics has entangled itself one should be careful in using clichГ©s and words that either have no meaning or are internally contradictory or inconsistent.

For instance, what is a light clock?

According to Special relativity, time does not flow for a light particle. The equation that governs this is t'= t в€љ1 - v2/c2

where t is time for a clock at rest, t' is the time for a moving clock and v is the velocity at which it is moving. If a clock moves at light speed c, time passage is zero. Can something for which time does not flow be used as a clock?

We know that light has frequency, defined as cycles per second. Yet Special relativitists (not Einstein) want us to accept the non-passage of time.

When you say: "... I'm just saying it takes time for light to travel a distance. (...) If the distance is smaller then it wouldn't take as long, in foundational reality"

In which other type of reality does light travel a much smaller distance in a longer time? Or a much longer distance in a shorter time? Is there any?

Take note that the use of the word constancy refers not to the actual velocity but the relative/ resultant velocity. Speed of sound is also constant in air of given temperature. But when B moves toward an incoming wave using your A-B source and receptor for analogy, the arrival time is different than if B were to remain stationary. For sound this is accepted. For light, it is not and this is what the "constant"refers to and it arose from the Michelson-Morley experiment where movement of B had no effect on light.

Akinbo

Hi Akinbo, there is a section called examining the light clock, where I talk about the thought experiment Einstein used re. moving a light clock consisting of a beam reflected between two mirrors. I go on to consider the planes problem in which there seems to be confirmation of the slowing of a material, moving clock. However that doesn't fit with the mathematical fact that periodic motion is unaltered by translation. (Applying under ideal conditions to the real world). So even though there can differences in perceived time due to differences of information transfer for different reference frames the time measured on the material clocks should remain unaltered. I have set out some possibilities for the experimental findings that I thought were plausible.Take a look at the category error argument to glean some insight into what I am talking about in regard to realities.

this is my theory - for years I have talked about it - gravity gets more strong as it travels - there is not any dark matter - all forces get more strong as they travel - shape of time and space around mass creates a force away from mass - it helps to create inertia - if fights against gravity Kurt Stocklmeir

    Hi Kurt,

    How does that 'getting stronger' fit with the inverse square law of gravity? Inverse square law You also talk about "shape of time and space", do you mean space-time, agreeing with Einstein, or are you considering time and space as separate? If separate how do you imagine the shape of time to be formed? Your ending puzzles me as you say "it helps create inertia but also if fights against gravity" (think you meant to write'it'; that seems a contradiction, can you explain how that works please?

    Theorists rule!!??

    FQXi Physics tweeted: RT @Jacob_Biamonte: Nice and easy read on "The origins of space and time"

    "Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from."

    There is no empirical evidence for behaviors of either space or time. None! All empirical evidence consists of observing changes of velocities. Material objects experience changes of velocities. Neither space nor time have been shown to have velocities and to change them. Empirically unsupported theoretical speculation rules physics' teachings. Yet, physicists can show no empirical evidence for space and time suffering effects or causing effects. None!!

      Hi All, I have put a thoroughly revised version on viXra. It includes Allan's invitations analogy and a revised look at the photon percentages / polarization angles problem discussed by Tim Maudlin in the video 'What Bell did'. I'd love it if some of you have a read and leave comments here or on viXra or in both places. The more review the better. An Examination of Measurement Relevant to Entanglement and Ontology: Answers to Some Long Standing Questions.Great that my other recent paper on viXra has been downloaded 15 times. Keep up the good work Guys and Girls : )

      Hello James, happy to see you again.Hope you are well,Regards from Belgium

      Thanks for the link. I have read it and its previous versions now several times. I have liked your uni-temporal time as a second time dimension that is absolute and part of object reality, but it has gone away. Too bad.

      What is not really clear is what problem are you solving? You might consider a clear problem statement and then the measurement or method that you propose to solve that problem.

      You say,

      ..."Measurements of seen images are muddled with measurements of material objects. The 'information' derived universe is taken to be THE reality..."

      So you suppose there are two kinds of measurements: seen images and material objects. But seen images are one of many kinds of measurements of material objects, so really there are just measurements of material objects.

      You propose an object reality that represents things in and of themselves. This implies that there is also a subjective reality of things as how they appear, but you do not use that word. Instead you say "seen images". Why not just use the standard word subjective?

      You further propose that there is a hidden variable that you call provocation and if science simply measured provocation (your lion box metaphor), the measurement would no longer show the quantum properties of superposition and entanglement.

      Bohmian mechanics and pilot wave theory and superdeterminism are all the same kinds of approaches that suppose hidden variables for quantum phase. Many people believe devoutly in superdeterminism but none of these approaches have ever been useful for addressing quantum problems. So good luck...

      I like it that you have a nice methodological approach and you should consider a few graphics to illustrate your points. Also, science papers usually follow an outline of abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion and you might consider a similar approach.

      In other words, you need to describe your methodology and results first and then discuss how your methods and approach compare with others. The way that you have it structured mixes your methods up with those of several others. You seem to agree with Maudlin and so does that mean that you use his methods?

      Steve, thank you so much for reading the measurement, entanglement ontology paper. I think I'll work back through your comments. First, no I am not agreeing with Tim Maudlin's conclusion. My conclusion is based on my earlier arguments supported by the analogies I provide. Tim Maudlin is clearly setting out what Bell did, in his talk and paper, and that is really useful starting point for refutation of it. The important point about 'Provocation' is that it isn't a measurement in the normal sense of measuring a property but causes the response that is then measured. It comes into being upon interaction. The problem the analogies solve is explaining how the results of the quantum measurements can have the statistical patterns they have, without having to suppose superposition, or suppose spooky action at a distance. (More later, I must go now : ))

      Whether it is the beginning of theory or its present state, accuracy and completeness fail to measure up to imagination. The beginning of theoretical physics was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. Since that beginning act, mass has been considered to not need to be explained. I mean this in the strict physics sense of being properly defined. There are offerings of explanations, but, the best are theoretical speculation. It will be known when mass has been explained in the true physics sense, because, its units of kilograms will become defined units in the strict physics sense. The strict physics sense is not met by solving f=ma for m=f/a.

      Physicists failed to take their lead for understanding mass from empirical evidence. The vacuum in scientific learning created by this act has been filled in by theorists' invented substitutes for filling in missing knowledge. Mass is the first created target for theoretical speculation. The second created target was temperature. Both of these properties have not been defined in the correct physics sense, nor have their units been defined in the correct physics sense. All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. Units that have not been defined are gaping holes of lack of knowledge in physics equations.

      These first gaping holes in scientific learning are responsible for creating the opportunity for theorists to guess, to speculate, about the nature of physics' unknowns and to fill in 'unknown' blanks in physics equations with empirically unsupported guesses about possible substitutes. Predictions about the behaviors of material objects is believed to be evidence for support of theoretical speculations about the natures of properties for which there is no direct empirical evidence.

      The equations are modeled to represent patterns in empirical evidence. It is the patterns that, if not corrupted by theoretical intrusions into physics equations, make successful predictions possible due to extrapolation and interpolation. The patterns are doing the predictions. The patterns are patterns in changes of velocities of objects. The objects are the subject of observation, and, the patterns are described using the units of the properties of empirical evidence. The units of empirical evidence are indefinable units because there is no possible means to define them. The two units are meters and seconds.

      Meters are an arbitrary standard of measuring length by means of object activity. There is no unit of measurement for space. There is no specimen of space available to be experimented with in any laboratory. Seconds are an arbitrary measurement of the count of cycles of an object's repetitive activity. There is no unit of measurement for time. There is no specimen of time available to be experimented with in any laboratory. The units of meters and seconds are naturally indefinable. Kilograms and degrees Kelvin are made artificial indefinable units. Both could have been, should have been, and, in my work are made properly defined physics units.

      The benefits gained are that fundamental unity is restored to fundamental physics. The theoretical need for substituting imagined, empirically unsupported, properties into physics equations, is gone. Empirical evidence is restored to its leadership role. The equations of physics, cleaned of substitutes, are restored to their empirical forms.

      What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? The question has never been answered. It and other crucial knowledge is missing from fundamental physics. The root cause is due to this indispensable physics lesson being no longer taught , I quote from: 聽聽

      College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

      "1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

      A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. 聽Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the 聽definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be 聽expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics.聽

      In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...

      Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

      To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ..."

      What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_physical_event_did_Clausius_discover_when_he_wrote_his_mathematical_expression_for_thermodynamic_entropy [accessed Aug 14, 2016].

      Steve, Pt 2. In this paper I'm really dealing with the problem of the kinds of outcomes obtained by for example electron spin measurement that seem strange if they are assumed to be of predetermined properties. I am not dealing with the RICP explanatory framework in any detail- that is in the other paper. Even though this paper concludes that the explanatory framework can provide the necessary ontic background.

      The Image reality is not just seen images it is output from received and processed information. An example could be an astronomic image. The information received can be agreed by all and the image produced from it can be agreed by all (viewing it independently). So it is an objective image not subjective, as the term is used.That is not saying that it is not relative.

      You will see that I don't agree that there are just measurements. The first paper talks about the category error of confusing different kinds of measurement in much greater detail. The second deals with other kinds of 'measurement' in particular provocation but along similar lines Selection pressure. The wrong assumption being that the measured exists prior to measurement in the case of Provocation rather than there being no measurement (in space-time) and no preference before hand ; and that different outcomes of different challenges are the same thing and can be added and subtracted in the case of Selection pressure.

      Steve, pt 3, I'm sorry it isn't clear what problem I am addressing. Does the abstract help? It is a bit quirky because its based around the analogies and the videos by Allan Adams and Tim Maudlin. I was a bit concerned about whether it was OK just to refer to them rather than spell out in detail the background physics that the two gentlemen are presenting. I kind of hoped anyone interested, or unfamiliar, might take a peak at the videos themselves. I don't know whether you are just pointing out its unconventionality or stating that it is a problem with the paper that needs addressing. I think if it is a serious barrier to comprehension I might attempt another more formal and conventional version, rather than change what I have. Though I did have a last minute proof reading panic and forgot what I was doing with the fruit and changed Brown raisins for Green grapes. Doh! I'll get it changed back. Really appreciate your comments Steve.

      I take back that last comment. Checked my fruit and it seems I had already changed it back before posting to viXra. I've just created a version where all the apostrophes and speech marks match, as some slipped through when I changed font and the punctuation didn't automatically change too! Maybe I'll wait a while, to see if anyone points out other errors before posting it.

      By the way I read the abstract and it does make clear what the paper is about. Maybe if the lack of intro is a problem, I could repeat the abstract or part of it at the beginning of the paper itself. I think its nice sometimes, when reading a book, to be thrown into the action. I'm trying to do that by getting to the point, the problem with measurement, at the outset. I love that lecture- watch it if you haven't. Great teacher.

      The lesson of the previous message, if learned, leads to correction of itself. The decision to 聽make mass an indefinable property was the first error of and first intrusion of theoretical physics into physics equations. Force should not have been chosen to be indefinable either. Both force and mass could have been defined properties. The second error was the decision to make temperature an indefinable property. Looking back to the lesson taught in the preceding message, the lesson teaches that physics defined properties are defined in terms of pre-existing properties.

      When the lesson is fully learned it is realized that only the properties of empirical evidence can rightfully be fundamental indefinable properties. All other properties must be defined in some combination of the same terms as is the empirical evidence. The units of empirical evidence are the only pre-existing units from which all other units can be defined. If this is not done, then fundamental unity is lost right from the start. This occurs because the addition of artificial indefinable properties interrupts the dependence of physics on learning that which empirical evidence is revealing to us. We lose important indispensable parts of empirically revealed learning. That is what has occurred in physics. That lack of indispensable empirical learning has left the knowledge vacuum that theorists rush to fill with invented properties that have no direct empirical evidence.

      Those missing parts are open doors for theorists to invent workable but unnatural substitutes to serve in place of the missing empirically revealed knowledge. Theoretical physics rushes forward into empirically unsupported territory while ignoring the physics fact that physicists do not know what either mass or temperature are. This physics fact explains why we are given indirect explanations and circular definitions. The physics fact that physicists have not yet explained what is temperature, is the reason that physicists cannot explain what it was that Clausius discovered when he wrote his mathematical expressions for thermodynamic entropy.聽

      James,

      I could as easily ask, what definition do you apply to 'definition'?

      Take some time to understand why theory is always prior to measurement.

      "Neither space nor time have been shown to have velocities and to change them."

      Right. Because time does not exist independent of space. Spacetime is absolute.

      Follow these physical facts:

      Energy does not exist independent of time. Time does not exist independent of space. Temperature does not exist independent of energy.

      It's a beautiful world. Theorists neither created not destroyed it.

      The words that matter most are well chosen by someone who understands physics. There is no weakness in their presentation. Your own take on this in the past was that you could define mass by solving f=ma for mass. If you still believe that to be true it shows you have no understanding of what the author is teaching. Take some time to understand why everything we will learn about the mechanical operation of the universe will be learned from empirical evidence in the form of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. That learning process is hindered by the interference into physics equations of theorists' guesses.

      Me "Neither space nor time have been shown to have velocities and to change them."

      Tom "Right. Because time does not exist independent of space. Spacetime is absolute."

      This reply is a theorists guess. There is no empirical evidence to support your adopted conclusion.

      Tom "Follow these physical facts:

      "Energy does not exist independent of time. Time does not exist independent of space. Temperature does not exist independent of energy."

      What is temperature?

      Tom "It's a beautiful world. Theorists neither created not destroyed it."

      You do not know this world. If theorists knew this world, mass and temperature would be defined.