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.

Hello James,

I hear some reasonable noises here. It would be good if you can stretch the meaning or application of some of your definitions to accommodate more possibilities. I agree that only length and time appear to be fundamental and mass appears to be a derived property. By fundamental I mean not definable by means of some other property. All are however not conserved ultimately and can be lost.

I will be more coherent later but consider that:

- Mass cannot exist independent of space (length), but length can exist and be measured independent of mass. Nothing can have mass without occupying some space. Mass can also be considered as being merely a region of space that is observed to obey Newton's laws of motion and gravity.

- On your statement, "Time and space are properties of the universe. We cannot take hold of them or change them.", you are in confrontation here with BOTH Newton and Einstein. In some sense, they BOTH disagree with you. I can give quotes from both that substantiate this later, if you want. But when in your room,say 10 metres wide, you move from one wall to another, the length of the room between you and the opposing wall has CHANGED from say 10m to zero, and the length between you and the wall away from which you move has changed from near zero to 10m. Take note that Mother Nature does not have to follow your interpretation or meaning of the word, "change", so far fundamentally Mother Nature's interpretation falls within what the word, "change" can mean physically or philosophically.

I discuss these matters more in my book, 'Hypotheses Fingo', excerpts from which I shall be posting on the forum soon.

Regards,

Akinbo

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.

"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.

Akinbo Ojo,

You claim: "- Mass cannot exist independent of space (length), but length can exist and be measured independent of mass. Nothing can have mass without occupying some space. Mass can also be considered as being merely a region of space that is observed to obey Newton's laws of motion and gravity."

I have to repeat that mass is an indefinable property. Neither Newton nor Einstein nor anyone else has defined mass. If you are thinking of mass in a particular manner that fits with someone's theory or your own conclusions about it, I need to suggest that you have to also define kilograms in the strict physics sense that I have provided here. That is how you can show that you have defined mass and, thereby, can describe for the first time in the history of physics what mass is and its relationship to other properties. My answers back to you based upon my own work where all properties are properly defined except for the two properties of empirical evidence, length and time as measured by clocks. Mass is not independent of space and space is not independent of mass. No one has empirical evidence to present from experimentation on space. What I say about space is that it provides room for us to move around in. If I said more about it that would be theoretical speculation. When I say that space is not independent of mass, I mean that there is no such thing as space without mass in it. I know of no empirical evidence for interactions between the two. They co-exist in a condition where mass is a variable accessible to us to manipulate. The same cannot be said for space.

Quoting you: "- On your statement, "Time and space are properties of the universe. We cannot take hold of them or change them.", you are in confrontation here with BOTH Newton and Einstein. In some sense, they BOTH disagree with you. I can give quotes from both that substantiate this later, if you want."

Please do provide any useful quotes. Also please provide empirical evidence to support them. I have provided the work necessary to support what I say here at FQXi.org and many other Internet outlets including my own website. I can tell you that the first necessary step to freeing oneself from speculative theory is to define mass. Something even more important comes afterwards.

James

Steve Dufourny,

Hi Steve, I think that you rely heavily on theoretical physics. As for your spheres, I am not clear what that is about. My impression is that they serve to represent classes of causes. I recognize that you are a serious thinker. It has been my impression that our views are very different. Also, I describe the properties of physics differently from what you appear to have accepted. I think that you think that mass and temperature are defined and explained,and, you use them as established known properties. If so then we will continue to say different things. I apologize for taking so long to respond to your first message. Thank you for your greeting. You are a kind person.

James

I like your reply James and will reply you soon in detail. I have a little difficulty doing so at the moment. Also I don't want to distract from your interesting discussion with Tom (a Tom and Jerry discussion :). Agree with you Tom's brilliance but he is not flexible to alternative points of view, kind of dogmatic. But the frustration in convincing him can be interesting in a kind of way.

Hello All,

Thank you dear James,You are kind also.It is important to be kind.About your interestings reasonings.I have a different point of vue indeed.I beleive that mass and temperature are correlated with our standard model.There are results of causes and properties.PV=nRT is always important like the second law of thermo.The proportions are essential like in the book of Zemanski about heat and thermo(I have it)mass and temperature are defined when we consider our relativity and this stabdard model.Now of course when we extrapolate with gravitation it is an other story.I beleive that the quantum of gravitational energy is ttaly different than a quantum of thermodynamical E like a photon.The evolution of encodings since this hypothetical Big Bang gives us a complexification of mass.The main codes seem gravitational and not photonic.The heat and therrmo I agree are not the last limits.This gravity encircles this standard model in giving it even the main codes of evolution.This zero absolute seems really relevant.The concept of heat and thermo is not complete I agree but our mesures at thismoment are correct.That is why this aether is gravitational and not luminiferous.Mass and temperature are resulst of cinetic mechanics implying properties.In my model, the sphères and their properties, volumes, velocities of rotations spinal and orbital more the linear velocity become relevant(ps a sphere for me is a star,a planet, A BH,a particle,eyes,waves,....the universe also,this form is universal and is the perfect equilibrium between forces)If this temperature and mass are not complete,perhaps that you are right when we consider this dark matter (I named them the spherons produced by BH in logic)How can we consider this mass and temperature indeed when we see my equation if it is correct E=mc²+ml² we have indeed a new road.But not with our standard model and its relativity and thermo.It is paraddoxal in fact James,it is like a superimposing like this gravitation encircling the standard model(and at the two scales,quant and cosm).This gravitation must be inserted,we see a serie of quantum BH more far than nuclear forces with gluons and we have spherons encoded in logic weaker than our lectromagnetism with photons.See that mass and temperature are encircled by this gravitation.How can we check this force paradoxal so strong and so weak.The force towards the central BH, the biggest sphere is so important considering this entropy.Photons and standard model need to be completed.But frankly I don't know how we can find a road tocheck these particles above our standard model.If somebody has ideas, they are welcome.It seems really a different reasoning when we consider this gravitation.It is nor baryonic nor photonic nor thermodynamical.What a big puzzle.Best Regards

It is nice James to say that I am a serious thinker.I am 41 years old I have searched a lot you know answers about why, how,...I have begun perhapsat the age of 18 in reading a lot ,the philosophies, the bibbles andothers sacred books.I was in secondary.After I have classed a lot in sciences.I must admit that the best way to encircle the message of God if I can say is by sciences and more specialy physics.I have always searched to encircle this universe and its evolution, why ,and how.How the codes of evolution are created, how this and why that....This infinite entropy above our physicality has created a physicality in evolution with specific gravitational codes Inside a closed evolutive system.mc² in a simplistic vue tells us that mass encodes the light.But about this gravitation there is a problem.If God,this infinity(probably sending the main gravitational informations from the central cosmological BH of the universal sphere)creates a sphere in imrpovement of materand energy?I am doubting that this infinite entropy has created a prison due to our relativity and standard model.It is just that we are Young still at this universal scale.The informations of evolution are more complex than our simple actual analyses.Mass and temperature are effects and can be causes also.But if we insert ml² it becomes surprising.I have even thought that photons were encircled also by this gravitation.We cannot change the main central code that said.I wish you allthe bests in your works and researchs.And I like read the debates between you and Tom.We search the équations of God after all.....Best Regards