Steve Agnew,
"...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay..."
This explanation is not empirically supported. It is an example of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of substituting imaginative guesses about what can be substituted in place of that which is unknown. There is no empirical evidence for time suffering delays.
"... and decoherence rate that are the actual time-like properties that we do measure for each object."
There are no time-like properties. This is theoretical bait and switch. Only time is 'time-like'. All other properties are like themselves. Clocks are clock-like. Clock-like is not time-like. Perhaps when physicists recognize a universally constant increment of actual time, then clocks might be said to be 'time-like'. The practice in theoretical physics of giving indirect explanations while wording them to give the impression that they are actual explanations is not science-like. In order to make this point at a more common knowledge level, I point out that temperature is not a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. Temperature is a measure of temperature. The indirect substitute explanation is an attempt by theoretical physics to appear to be explaining something for which they lack an explanation. It is the case that physicists do not know what temperature is. For uncertain readers: Temperature is not fixed to average molecular kinetic energy and physicists know it. In general, average molecular kinetic energy can vary while temperature remains the same value. In limited cases, temperature is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy but in no case is temperature actually the same thing as is average molecular kinetic energy. It is an historical fact that temperature was entered into physics equations without its being explained. To this day, temperature remains a fundamental indefinable property.
Steve Agnew quoting me: "James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT as "With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity.""
I repeat this quote because the point made needs repeating.
Me quoting Steve Agnew: "I also agree that changes in all of matter, matter phase, time delay, and decoherence rate are what we interpret as time and space. Where we disagree is of course with the nature of space."
I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists does speculative imaginings become 'science-like'.
"Aethertime predicts all action with just matter, time, and phase and so space becomes just a convenient way to keep track of objects and their time delays and decoherence rates. That way the whole universe behaves in a nicely quantum manner and space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen."
I am not at this time addressing the properties attributed to the assumed substrate called matter. Empirical evidence cries out for those to receive some fixing. Nor am I now addressing empirical evidence and relativity theory. The context of this message concerns the practice of theoretical physics of making empirically unjustified claims about the nature of the universe. An example given here is "... space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen." There is no empirical evidence for changes to space or effects caused upon objects by space. Rather what is stated is an example of how theoretical physics has subsumed empirical scientific learning.
"General relativity then becomes simply the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the velocity of light is just a convenient representation of the rate of matter decoherence for the universe."
I refrain from venturing off into addressing relativity theory in this message. The point of this message is to address, at least in part, the lack of empirical support for much of theoretical physics. The usefulness of physics equations results from how accurately they mathematically model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that allow for successful extrapolations and interpolations very often yielding good predictions. The names and explanations of terms in physics equations do not have to be accurate to achieve accurate predictions.
All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. The units can themselves be arbitrary, meaning without empirical justification. Kilograms is one example. What is important is that the units are defined in terms of measurable properties. The two measurable properties are length and duration.
Steve, If you wish to not continue this exchange, I understand. No hard feelings. Other 'scientific' forums censor my messages or remove me from participating when I make these points. I will mention in closing that my recollection is that you once gave mention of having read some of my work with understanding, but not of course with agreement. I sought to test your understanding of my work by asking if you were familiar with my critique of mass? I believe you did not respond. I take this opportunity to make clear that my work begins by explaining that the decision to accept mass as a fundamental indefinable property was the first error of theoretical physics. (I am not suggesting that force should have instead been chosen to be a fundamental indefinable property. Both force and mass should have been and could have been defined properties. Empirical evidence gives us guidance on how this can be done.) The act of now defining mass has begun the process of returning physics equations back to their empirical forms. That is what I do. I remove the non-empirically based, speculative, imaginative intrusions into physics equations that have been made by theoretical physicists.
Regardless of my opinions being different, I thank you for sharing your knowledge and ideas here at FQXi.org. Your messages are always worth reading.
James Putnam
