Alternative Models of Reality

"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.

Ah, James. If you do not accept experimental results of gravitational lensing, relative clock time or LIGO, I have nothing to offer you except that you are missing some of the most important empirical results in physics.

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

They are. Unless you have a different idea of what "defined" means.

Tom,

You put forward evidence for effects observed to occur on objects and object activities and try to sell it as support for theoretical conjecture that space and time are involved. There is no empirical evidence that either space or time suffer effects or cause effects. All physics empirical evidence consists of observing patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Never has there been an observation of experimentation on space or time. You can keep your ah's for a time when you have something concrete to offer regarding effects upon space and time. You want to instruct me about the nature of a universe for which you don't even know what temperature is. Tell me, what physical event did Clausius discover when he developed his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? Show that you can give direct physics answers to direct physics questions.

It appears that relativists cannot imagine that their their strange world might be mythical. The success of predictions is attractive. However, the equations of physics are written to model patterns in changes of velocities with respect to time (Actually the property of time has never been represented in physics equations. More about this in another message.). It is the patterns that very often successfully extrapolate predictions that the patterns will continue. The equations don't contain properties directly. All properties are represented only by their units of measurement. The units, when properly defined consist always and only of combinations of meters and seconds. This is, of 聽course, not the case currently. Some units have never been defined such as kilograms and degrees Kelvin. Also, there is electric charge which is circularly defined. Being circularly defined means actually being not defined.

The equations of physics can tolerate these deficiencies most of the time. They can tolerate substitute properties and added-on properties. These types of properties are not real. They are invented by theorists, carefully designed to fill in blanks without harming the patterns that empirical evidence tells us must be maintained. So successful predictions can, when over relied upon let theorists go astray and lose their way when attempting to explain the nature of the universe.

Everything we need to know and can know is communicated to us by empirical evidence. Our lead in learning should be directly gained from empirical evidence. Yet I find many theorists, while highly skilled at mathematical modeling, are not trained to fully analyze empirical evidence for the answers they are seeking. 聽If seems that some believe that the function of empirical evidence is to confirm successful predictions. Successful predictions are not good guardians against faulty interpretations of the nature of the universe. The guardian most needed is to rely upon empirical evidence to learn what it is revealing to us about the nature of the universe.

This is why all properties used in physics equations must be defined in the same terms as physics empirical evidence is expressed. All units that represent properties in physics equations must be defined in terms of combinations of meters and seconds. The empirical evidence guides us in how to do this if we are looking for it. I look for it. Blanks are filled in and substitutes are removed. Theory is discarded in favor of returning the equations of physics to their empirical forms. Fundamental unity is always present. A lot of problems are solved when the presence of fundamental unity ties everything together. 聽聽

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real/1 [accessed Aug 15, 2016].

Time and space are properties of the universe. We cannot take hold of them or change them. But, we observe that time passes and that space gives us room to move around in. The properties of physics empirical evidence are length and duration. These are necessary substitutes to serve in place of the missing measures of space and time. We measure object length but cannot measure space. The unit of object length is the meter. The meter is not a piece of space. I used the word duration in place of time in order to make clear that time as a fundamental property of the universe is not represented in physics equations. Rather there is necessarily a substitute for the non-measurable property of time. That substitute is object cyclic activity. A number of cycles is chosen as its unit of measurement. 聽

We count cycles as a workable substitute for time. However, it is workable only because we choose to count object cycles that are nearly the same. But they are not the same and are instead the least inaccurate substitute for counting the passage of time. With regard to the empirical evidence put forward as confirming the reality of time dilation. All of that evidence has to do with observing variations in object activity. There is no evidence where time was observed to be caused to become inconsistent. No one has ever experimented with time. There is no specimen of time in any laboratory. The idea that variations in object activity tell us about effects upon time is theoretical conjecture. 聽

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real/1 [accessed Aug 15, 2016].

The unit of second is not a unit of time. All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. The unit of second is a unit of an object's cyclic activity. The property represented by the unit of second is the property of an object's cyclic activity. Any effect upon that cyclic activity is evidence that there is an effect upon the cause of that activity. If the cause is electromagnetic, then the effect that becomes the cause of the change in the object's cyclic activity is an effect upon electromagnetism.

[Submitted by Daniel Baldomir,

"The second is the Standard International ( SI ) unit of time. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom."]

Yes. My point is that this describes a clock. And, this clock involves object activity. The description is of a count of an object's cyclic activity.聽

"For without understanding motion, we could not understand nature."聽

And, this is in keeping with the fact that all physics empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Motion occurs during the passage of time, but, the 't' in physics equations is a count of object cyclic activity. The 't' will reflect the effects that the environment has on object activity. There is no empirical evidence for motion effects experienced by time.聽

Is it possible to know whether physical time is an n-dimensional vector? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_know_whether_physical_time_is_an_n-dimensional_vector/2 [accessed Aug 15, 2016].

I think that theorists look for new layers to add on with far more interest than they do for corrections. ironically, the corrections remove layers. Every correct answer added to physics knowledge replaces multiple substitute answers.

The unit of second, by its own 'definition', is a unit of object activity and not a unit of the property of time. There is, however, a natural unit of the real property of time. At the least, it is a unit that brings us closest to accurately representing time in physics equations. I hedge only because I can't measure time to verify this natural unit. I refer to it as natural because it is a universal constant. It is a well recognized known universal constant. However, theorists have guessed that it is a constant of something else. So, physics equations are stuck with this misrepresentation.

I have presented this natural unit of time here at FQXi.org. It has languished here for years. The purpose of mentioning it now is that I expect that trained professionals might understand that if there does exist a natural unit of the real property of time, that it will appear as a universal constant. The accurate measurement of time by the universe for the purpose of accurately evolving, can accept only a unit of time that is a universal constant in its magnitude. This is a case of theory having to remove its detrimental effect of miss-identifying the property that this universal constant magnitude represents.

Fixing mass and temperature would be huge, but, acknowledging that there is a natural unit of the property of time is anathema to the continued domination of theory in physics instruction. There is so much empirical knowledge that would be gained that physics could no longer fail to recognize it.

"You put forward evidence for effects observed to occur on objects and object activities and try to sell it as support for theoretical conjecture that space and time are involved"

Okay. Explain those effects without spacetime.

"Tell me, what physical event did Clausius discover when he developed his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy?"

Cyclic state change.

this debate is very interesting.After all the work or the cinetic energy dances around the disorders, the entropy and information are all proportional always with the transitions due to external causes implying these proportional effects.See I=S0-S1 and S1=S0-I Apply to ideal gas and the number of molécules.Inset the volumes now and take this equation I=NklnV0/V1.See now the maxwell demon about entropy and information.The second law of thermo James is respected...............We cannot violate it ....mass and temperature are correlated with this reasoning like an effect due to a cause....see now the motions of sphères and their volumes.We can extrapolate with gravitatiol informations and the 3 motions of sphères more the volumes and the mass.Dark matter also must be inserted .If my équations intuitives are correct of course,we can insert the dark matter and this gravitation in the standard model in the same way that with our entropical irreversible Arrow of time.E=mc²+ml²and mlosV=constant.Now of course if gravitation is nor baryonic, nor relativistic, nor thermodynamical but that the entropy principle is always correct.That becomes intriguing when we class the informtions, photonic or gravitational correlted with this dark matter.There is a bridge with this zero absolute it seems to me like it exist two bridges for pour stadard model, one more far than nuclear forces with gluons and one weaker than our electromagnetismwith photons, we see easily tht this standard model is encircled by this gravitation.Now thermo is Inside ,perhaps simply that we must analyse deeper this zero absolute.Even a photon seems encircled by main gravitational codes.What a big puzzle when we improve this standard model with this gravitation, the number increases in one sense, and decreases in the other like our cosmological serie.The aether is really gravitational it seems to me.These informations from the main central cosm sphere BH imply that space does not exist and that entropy gravitationally also increases on an irreversible Arrow of time considering the stable encodings.It is fascinating.Best Regards

(from your link) "Is it possible to know whether physical time is an n-dimensional vector?"

Yes. In a topological framework of spacetime, satisfying properties for time -- of reversibility, continuity and locality. This brings along the assumption of n-dimension self-similarity, without boundary.

In plain language--no boundary between quantum and classical events.

To any readers other than Tom,

Tome wrote: "(from your link) "Is it possible to know whether physical time is an n-dimensional vector?" "

Does it appear to you that Tom is answering a question that I posed at another site? Follow the link and find out that it was posed by someone else. The indformation that provided the link was itself provided by Reasearchgate. It wasn't my link and it wasn't my question. I have had no problem being fair with Tom. When I recognized his brilliance I acknowledge it here. However, I later came to find that his area of competence is narrow. He has not shown me a talent for contributing to discussions that do not rely on recognized theoretical arguments. In this case above he has offered an answered to someone else's question and let it appear that he was answering something that I am responsible for saying. He will scurry around verbally now, but, I will not be following his lead. He doesn't know what temperature is and will not acknowledge it. I am honestly letting readers know that many times here at FQXi.org, I paid homage to Tom's extra-ordinary skills at abstract mathematics. I don't have to agree with him to praise him. However, one of his best skills is being the artful dodger. His exercise of this skill begins and ends with his misleading response quoted above.

Just how is it misleading to attribute something "from your link" to a link originated by you? I'm gonna artfully dodge my way outta here.

"He doesn't know what temperature is and will not acknowledge it."

I think I ought to answer this challenge.

If there is no boundary between classical and quantum mechanics (as I aver) temperature *cannot* be other than the measure of average kinetic energy in a system of defined measure space. I honestly do not know what you're getting at.

So there.

Tom.

"If there is no boundary between classical and quantum mechanics (as I aver) temperature *cannot* be other than the measure of average kinetic energy in a system of defined measure space. I honestly do not know what you're getting at."

What Tom means to say is that temperature is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy. That is, of course, not explaining what temperature is. For sure, it is not a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. A measure of Energy is a measure of energy. The units of temperature are degrees Kelvin and not joules. Degrees kelvin cannot be equated to joules. What Tom is pretending to not know is that the point of my question was to show that theory pushes ahead leaving blanks behind. One of those blanks is temperature. The reason i refer to it as a blank is because it has never been explained by anyone including Tom. What theorists offer is indirect answers in a form that amounts to misdirection. It is a physics fact that temperature was accepted, right from the time it was introduced, as an indefinable property having indefinable units. Being indefinable means being inexplicable. Being indefinable means the we cannot learn what temperature is from any of the other pre-existing properties or their units. Tom's answer is obviously wrong. Temperature is a measure of temperature having units of degrees Kelvin. There are four properties that are either naturally indefinable such as the properties of empirical evidence which are length and time as measure by clocks. In addition to those two, physicists did not know how to define mass and temperature. For that reason they were accepted into physics equations as indefinable properties with indefinable units. All other properties were accepted into physics equations as defined properties. So, because Tom gave a commonly taught indirect answer that is worded poorly for the purpose of misleading students into believing that they are learning what temperature is. It will be known when temperature is finally defined because its units of degrees Kelvin will be replaced by defined units. It will be known when temperature is finally explained because it will become a defined property.

If Tom artfully dodges out of here as he says he will I thank him.

I asked: "Tell me, what physical event did Clausius discover when he developed his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy?"

Tom replied: "Cyclic state change".

In other words Tom doesn't know.

He doesn't know because he doesn't know what temperature is. If he knew what temperature was, then, he could usefully refer to S=Q/T and explain what physical event S represents. Or in the case of an irreversible process with heat loss to the heat sink he could refer to dS=dQ/T and explain what physical event dS represents for a Carnot engine. Apparently he responded only to the second case in an indirect manner and avoided a real explanation. He does not say what thermodynamic entropy is, he recognizes that it can change. For the interested reader, thermodynamic entropy as defined by Clausius is not cyclic. It exists for a one time occurrence of a Carnot engine accepting heat from a heat source. It continues to exist indefinitely for the gas in the Carnot engine even if nothing else occurs. In the case of dS, when it does not equal zero, it is recognized that there is a loss of unused molecular kinetic energy to a heat sink. That loss represents a change in thermodynamic entropy for the heat sink.

My question was: What physical event did Clausius discover when he developed his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? Tom responded without saying what it was. He merely acknowledge the common knowledge that whatever it was or is, it can change. That has been known since Clausius introduced it. It also can not change. That also has been known since Clausius introduced it. What was not known and remains unknown is what it was or is that Clausius discovered when he developed his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy.