Dear Steve,

Infinite reality has nothing to do with abstract finite spiritual speculation. You cannot fail to follow my reasoning for you are real and reality am. It has been a pleasure communicating with you and I wish you well. May we now go elsewhere and communicate with others?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Indeed ,that has no sense your words and reasonings. I loose my times with your am and infinite reality and this and that.

Frankly it is lost of times for you and me.

Cheers

10 days later
  • [deleted]

there is no quantum time and no relativistic time.

Time has only a math. existence.

What is "relative" is velocity of changes.

www.fopi.info

    Hello Amrit,

    ideed, it is just a duration.A lot of scientists does not really understand the spacetime evolution,the SR and the general relativity.They forget the essentials, the foundamentals.It is bizare in all case.They misinterpret the foundamental laws.

    The aether also must be rethought in a logic way,the gravitationalwaves answer simply.

    We are here discovering how the universe really works and first of all, that discovery must have some limited number of axioms. Axioms must be first of all be self evident and your black spheres are not self evident.

    Matter is self evident, time is self evident, and action is self evident. To everyone else on this planet except me, continuous space and motion are also self-evident notions. However, since continuous space and motion do not describe all objects in the universe, like black holes and dark matter, it is apparent that continuous space and motion are simply not universal notions and are rather limited.

    Once you have your primal beliefs as axioms, then you can have any number of math bases that allow you to predict the futures of objects, which is what discovery is all about. Science then measures those futures and compares to the predictions and if there is a good match, the theory is useful. Continuous space and motion are notions that are quite useful for nearly all of our local reality and space and motion only fail at very large and very small scales.

    A theory cannot be just about a hypothetical basis set of black spheres and there needs to be more meat on the bones.

    You are a comic , a vanitious and you lacks of generality.

    Now answer to my questions,

    Howdo you see a BH central to galaxies for example? a square ,or perhaps a wormholes or a KK theory giving the M THEORY,

    How do you see a particles? A triangle self evident perhaps

    How do you see our universe ? A spacetime with what Mr Agnew, a BB with what a whorholes also with decoherences and revesrsibility of times???

    How do you see our atoms Mr Agnew??? and its bosonic encodings and black sphères ????

    How do you see the planets and stars Mr Agnew ? Why we should have an other form for our BH ???

    See with your eyes(spherical) the generality of our universe Mr Agnew and perhaps you shall understand what is dark matter and dark energy produced by these black cosmological sphères above our lecromagnetism.

    What is the aether ? A electromagnetic wave perhaps??? Any sense , it ispurelly limited like reasoning, you forget the essentials, the foundamentals.And don't say methat the medium has answered to you ??

    How are the foundamentals Mr Agnew??? Pentagon? Oor perhaps that fruits, cells and virus and favorita sports of humans are also with squares?

    How do you see the evolution ?? A squarization in 10 dimensions where our foundamentals sooses their universal meanings?

    Is it a joke mr Agnew , you lack of generality and it is not with your vanity that you are goingtounderstand really what is the SR and thegeneral relativity.Even the timesyou do not understand it ?

    The universe is a sphere in spherisation , with a central sphere(BH SPHERE)

    Ourparticles also are sphères because they turn Mr Agnew.

    You do not understand the entropy and the encoding of informations.

    Black sphères particles are logic and rational in the encoding of evolution, like the bosons.

    It is sad Mr Agnew that you do not see the generality,so learn and stop your stupid ironical extrapolations.

    Self evident, yes of course and meI am the queen of england.

    And you insist furthermore with your" we are here to find howthe universe works"?

    Is it a joke Mr Agnew, your technical analyzes are pure irony.

    How could you explain a thing that you do not understand???

    What are your inventions Mr Agnew, your innovations???You repeat always the same things about a thing that you do not understand ?

    So where are we going , in a squarisation of your mind simply.

    We are here on a wonderful Platform , and my rule is to show what are the foundamentals!

    If people reads or learns, they must be well diriged.

    It is not a bad interpretation of the aether or the entropy or the encoding of informations that they are going to understand how this universal sphere works you know.

    Mr Corda is competent,Mr Ellis also, it is them who must speak , not you and your friends.

    Determinism and empirism must be there.And it is not you who shows the determnistic road you know.Let me laugh frankly.I have not finished , be sure.

    To you poor thinker.

    You do not understand, so don't teach,really, but learn?

    You know me I learn all days the good sciences when they are foundamental and accepted by the global sciences community.

    If I have made errors in my theory, I will improve it without vanity.It is not your case.What is your theory?

    I am persuaded that real generalists have seen my rational reasoning and it is withthem that I am going to improve my works, not with people who confounds all?

    It is logic in fact.

    Even maths you bad utilize them.

    Technical, yes of course and a time machine and also a warp drive perhaps????

    You are very close to the truth, but you took a right hand turn instead of a left hand turn...your paper states:

    "There is no experimental evidence that clocks measure time. It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds more adequately to the physical world and resolves Zeno problems of motion."

    But what clocks measure is what defines time. In fact, all objects in the universe are clocks since there is a fossil time record in how every object evolved. Clocks are simply objects that have a very regular action called a tick rate, but the earth is also a clock in the fossil layers of its geology. We can tell time with any object, but clocks are especially useful.

    You replace the word time with a words numerical order of material change, which sounds a little bit like replacing continuous time with the discrete time delays of matter change. In denying continuous time, you accept discrete time delays, but call it a "numerical order of material change."

    There are actually many different ways to describe how the universe really works but you really should not simply redefine time with new words for time. This can be really confusing since your main thesis is really about the vacuum energy of space, not time. Another paper states:

    "Starting from the above fundamental considerations, we have already proposed [7] a novel model of Quantum Vacuum consisting of a granular structure of the universal space, similar to that assumed, for example, in many version of loop quantum gravity, but conceptually very different and based on the conception of a physical 3D space composed by energetic packages having the size of Planck volume."

    So you redefine continuous space with a discrete granular structure that you call the quantum vacuum of universal space. You even have a particle for that quantum vacuum that defines all matter...go figure. However, nowhere do you use the term aether.

    In other words, you have an aether theory in every possible way except the word. These kind of euphemisms are used in most aether papers since there is a strong prejudice against the notion of an aether that fills space. Your quantum vacuum is a classic example of an aether that fills space.

    You have not yet gotten to the pressure-less dusts or quantum fluids of others, but I see the outline of those issues in some of your various papers. There are numerous pathologies that you need to address that you have not yet addressed. You work very hard explaining things that already have explanations, like gravity. You should focus more on explaining things that have no explanations, like black holes.

    Thus your approach is to fill space with aether called quantum vacuum and to replace time with sequences of discrete events. What happens at the event horizon of a black hole? What is the entropy of a black hole? Does your quantum vacuum explain why the CMB is so uniform? Are the speed of light, Planck's, and fine structure truly constant for all time?

    Predict something that we do not already know and then measure it and verify your prediction...

    And for your information, an axiom in maths must be well utilised. The black sphères are logic ,if an axiomatic formalismmust be made, I will do with rationalism and empirism in respect of the scholl of Copenaghen.

    At this moment I have not seen a good mathematician to help me on this Platform.

    I just see a kind of play of vanity without generality.

    It is not you you know who are going to helpme to formalize my works nor your friends.Mr hawking or Mr Corda, them are competent.So frankly let's be serious when we speak about how our universe works.

    Don't teach Mr Agnew, you don't understand the planck walls and the universal constants.

    How could you interpret the gravitational Aether ?with your electromagnetic aether perhaps ???? Let me laugh!

    and I am repeating, a BH is a sphere!If you don't see this evidence, so return at school of universal generalities.

    Even your critics are not relevant.Amrit understands the entropy and the encoding of informations,so don't insist.

    Gee, you do not need to get all upset. Your questions and statements do not seem very technical and so it is not clear whether you want more math or more examples or both.

    This forum is all about words and discourse with words. If you want to know about the technical side of aethertime, there are lots of detailed technical papers. But you do not seem to have a technical background and have a very intuitive approach instead.

    So there is a blog with a little more [link:mattertimemeaning.blogspot.com/]wordsy[/link] discourse, but somehow it does not seem like discourse is what you are after...

    Universal_Quantum_Action_in_the_Matter-Time_Universe

    BLACK_HOLES_AS_BOSON_STARS_BOUND_BY_AN_ETERNALLY_COLLAPSING_OBJECT_WITH_MATTER_TIME_METRIC

    Variation_of_the_Fine_Structure_Constant_over_Time_in_the_Matter_Time_Universe

    GALAXY_ROTATION_WITHOUT_DARK_MATTER_IN_THE_MATTER-TIME_UNIVERSE

    Correlation_of_Solar_Sunspot_Cycle_with_Nearby_Stars_Procyon_and_61-Cygni

    Decay_of_the_International_Prototype_Kilogram

    Well, discourse is the soul of of teaching, but it is nice to have some concrete examples. Actually, only non rotating black holes are spheres...as soon as a black hole rotates, it becomes oblate just like any spinning object.

    Entropy is a very important concept and once there is a technical description of a black hole, it will be possible to calculate its entropy. Just saying you understand black holes does not really help calculate the entropy of a black hole. If someone calculates the entropy of a black hole, that person can make some claim.

    In aethertime, gravity and charge are just scaled versions of each other, which seems really nice. This means that photon dipole exchange of charge scales to a photon pair quadrupole of gravity, scaled by the time size of the universe. That also seems nice and simple.

    Since the math all seems to work out fine, aethertime explains many heretofore unexplained observations. Oh, and it unifies charge and gravity, but do not expect any accolades or prizes...at least not at this time. It will take much more precise measurements of matter decay and of the early universe will either prove or disprove aethertime.

    Even though there are many measurements that show matter decay, the IPK, millisecond pulsar decay, earth spin decay, and so on, they are all called artifacts today and it will take more than one person on this planet to believe these artifacts actually represent the way the universe is...

    all is said Mr Agnew,and batman and superman exists of course.

    Return at school of determinism.

    All is said I have said

    your tezchnical analyses don't interest me, it is just Wind.

    You don't understand I am repeating the gravitational Aether, the entropy and the encoding of informations.

    So don"t insist ,it will be my last post perhaps with you.You are nor technical, nor general.

    ...so instead of being interested in learning and the discourse of new ideas, you close your mind and the resort to perjoratives...oh, how surprising is that?

    Yes I prefer ,I am cooking,I need to eat a little.

    Surprising is a weak word indeed .

    and you continue with your aether correlated with electromagnetism still and still on faster than light's thread.

    How are you going to understand that the aether is a spiritual road and linked with gravitationalwaves.

    It is very bizare your obstinacy in this road.

    Do you beleive in God Mr Agnew because me yes, and the secret of the aether , it is that, the faith.

    Einstein if he was there d forget the lumin.aether and d accept the gravitational aether.

    It is evident.