The Fundamental Nature of Time by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi dear Eugene!

It's Nice to meet you again and to hearing you.

You are one honest critic of physical science and same time one pen master (as much I can judge with my poor English!) Any science quickly will fall into different kind of speculations without of objective criticism. Meantime it already has happen with our main science and ours criticism hardly can change here anything. Why and who does it resolutely, - we can only made different suppositions, that will stay for us only, as the global apathy to natural science in the public now dominate in generally.

Your work is very attractive by style and narration and it deserves on high score without discussion!

And, you have concretely asking my opinion on your interpretation of SR. So, what can I say on this matter, or suggest you something useful than I believe it is right? (Even if you will see it will useless for you!)

So, in my opinion, on this question no need to refer to any serious mathematics, to be prove something, as per as here we have deal first of all with the cognitive misunderstandings.

If we will clearly understanding what goes on from the causal aspects, then we can use only some elementary algebra only. Maybe you can find something useful with this plan (after finish of this battle of course!)

from here

Good wishes!

Hi Edwin

You find agreements with me ? that makes two of us then. I've read your essay twice and I believe I well comprehend many of your intended points. And I might even be able to infer from it, opinions you only hint towards. Like a variant C, a consequence of photons being carried along with, trained by gravitational bodies in relative motion C+V, which serves as the photons preferred frame. I have developed a view that translates yours very well. But that's not to say I couldn't benefit from a third or even forth read. Deep subject, lots of meanings, some of which are only subtly inferred.

I expect you will appreciate this

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and now one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces. GR might be surmised, a study of time.

Clocks can be thought of as possessing a split personality. They possess a back end mechanical spring, the study of which might be termed QM force. They possess front end hands considered a measure of GR effects time dilation. These split personalities however are connected via a shaft, which makes their respective studies of force and time an equivalent. Which makes perfect sense in terms of the spring drives the clocks function. My earlier message coined the term "force dilation" which represents this property of the spring, which stands equivalent to the term "time dilation".

Force dilation a quantity which is entirely equivalent to effect of time dilation? Which term is more fundamental, or carries more useful meanings? Force dilation is a property of the spring which drives the clock, so that places it at the heart by virtue of being attached to cause. It causes the clocks function, the clock hands but follow. The front end of the clock is superfluous in terms of cause, like a puppet dictated to by a puppeteer. Time, a puppeteers puppet? Not flattering I know, but it makes my intended meanings clear.

Substitute the term of time dilation for the equivalent term of force dilation, then General Relativities effect is translatable as Quantum Mechanical effect. Theory can then be summarized in terms of, Clocks are QM devices (made of QM) which measure variable QM behaviour (force dilation) in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. One fundamental theory of the world, one fundamental theory that describes all behaviours exhibited by clocks.

QM is a study of forces, and relativity is redressed as a QM study of forces of bodies in relative motions and relative gravitational environments.

Relativity boils down to being merely the study of the modulation of QM forces.

Steve

Steve,

by the same reasoning, two identical parent radio-isotopes are created in the furnace of an exploding old star billions of years ago. One is captured by the gravitational proximity of a nearby star and its "spring" remains tense to act as a brake on its decay half-life. The other is ejected on a diverging trajectory from gravitational proximity into interplanetary, or even intergalactic space, and its spring relaxes releasing the brake and the rate of half-life decay rapidly increases. So how did the current census of radio-isotopes on earth survive to become part of the accretion disc of this generation solar system, in the first place?

The Pu238 RTGs that power the Voyager twins, have exceeded their design working life as engineered in the earth's gravitational domain, by nearly a factor of 3. If it were simply gravitational effect of rate of response, not a change in the speed of time by proximity, Voyager 2 would have gone black long before it crossed out of the solar system. Instead it continued operational power level production for much longer duration of signal reception in the proximal speed of earth time. GPS arguments can be ambiguous on the matter, but not deep space radiological decay rates which do not calculate as suffering any measurable change. That argues strongly that time is local to particulate matter, and globally is a compendium of a multitude of quantum-times, like a vast Fourier Transform. jrc

Hi Jrc

Thank you for the message

There are differences in our terminology, and I wonder how different our perspectives might be. I'll have to read your essay, and see if I can tune into your method of thought. You have posed me a question I am not aware of specific parameters, like the half life of radio-isotope and in relevance to solar-system formation. Your radio-isotopes likened to windup clocks with variable expiry dates, dependent on relative gravitational environments and velocities.

You say

"spring" remains tense to act as a brake on its decay half-life."

and

"spring relaxes releasing the brake and the rate of half-life decay rapidly increases."

These expressions are quite different to mine "tense, relax, brake". The parameters I specify define force, to make comparative of two clock springs relative positions. Those parameters are force over distance equate newtons. I coin a term "force dilation" which is effectively expressed as newtons.

You present a real world example, voyager twins. I will have another read of this in the morning. See if I can relate

Steve

Steve,

I was actually presenting a rationale in the first paragraph that follows yours; ie, that gravitational fields effect response rates in a classic Newtonian time frame. And pose the question of survival of radioisotopes across the billions of years in extremely low gravitational environs.

The second paragraph briefly introduces the findings by NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains. (Keeping in mind that though much is known about radioactivity, there is still no hypothesis as to why some elements are radioactive.) And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR, otherwise the RTGs would suffer shorter working lives rather than the extended ones operationally, which was like a surprise bonus to mission engineers.

I do not want to detract from Ed's long efforts, and agree with much of his field theoretical thinking. But GR is not negated entirely by the arguments of gravitational field effect alone. jrc

Edwin,

Your essay format of a posthumous discussion between geniuses is delightful. I used such a format in describing time as a quintessential, existential precondition on page 5 of the Reference to my essay.

I question whether or not the theories propounded by the 'geniuses' are mind-dependent and, if so, cannot be verified objectively.

While I am not qualified to comment on the merits of your mathematics, your rationale is clear and persuasive. Technical expressions do tend to broaden the definition of the evaluation criterion that essays should be 'non-specialist', but I can live with that.

I have no difficulty in prefacing The Nature of Time with the term 'Fundamental', but this raises the question as to whether any fundamental concept necessarily stands in precedence to Time.

It is reasonable to assume that Time and Existence are coincidentally dependent insofar as neither can qualify as the single most fundamental component of reality without reliance upon the other. You have elected one and I the other.

Good luck. I shall look for your name amongst the high rankers.

Gary.

jrc

You have raised some questions and I don't object at all. However I will mention that you have changed the terms and selected different scenarios, rather than arguing within specific terms raised in the essay, or my comments about clock springs.

And I am having trouble understanding your comments and questions. I cant iron out what appear to be contredictions. The misunderstanding could be entirely my fault. The confusion could easily be mine. These conversations can be notoriously tricky, and it's so common to see people attempting to communicate these subjects (SR GR) while not even approaching a common understanding. That's why I keep my considerations and arguments within reach of an observation and measure. A clock spring communicates definable values of force, while the hands communicate measure of time. I can point to the shaft that connects the clock spring to the hands, and show that the proportional motion of one is proportional to the other. This ascribes an equivalence between expressions of force and measures of time, that's justified by observation and measure. Therefore it is not theoretical. And it is a much simpler system with less prospects for hidden variables than isotope radio active decays, which are little understood complex behaviours of complex systems.

I think a fair challenge to my rationale would be better directed towards that to which I refer. Conversation can benefit from being centred upon an observation, measure. Rather than extrapolated terms and scenarios. Will you join me in a discussion about clock springs? If you will then perhaps we should attend my thread, if and when my essay is live, or your essay thread. Rather than commandeering Edwin's.

Steve

Steve,

Clock springs I would treat as Edwin has, that they are a measure of energy of oscillations. And I had introduced radiological decay because Edwin's own comments contend that his model is compatible with GR, and much is. But the clock in GPS is the regular oscillation of Cesium atoms which increase to translate to 48,000 nanoseconds per day faster at orbital altitude then on Earth. So if gravtitational field effect allows that atomic frequency to increase, then it should also have the same predictable effect on the frequency of half-lives. So I think Edwin is on a right track and enjoyed his artistic license, but also agree with Philip Gibbs comments. Above all, that the good Dr. Klingman shows respect for the dignity of others and will always have mine. I've also done (what I felt was reasonably successful) modeling of this sort in a Cartesian measurement scheme, and find a lot of agreement with Ed's concept of real, physical field interaction, and the geodesics of GR being akin to worldlines of equilibrium if a field is reintroduced into the barebones, co-ordinate free geometrics.

I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc

Hi Edwin. The name 'river model' is rather fanciful. I also have great difficulty visualizing space moving into matter - it flows in but not out? A better explanation might be that it is some sort of wave motion that propagates through space. I am thinking of something like the moving pattern on a cuttlefish that sweeps over it in waves. The surface of the cuttlefish is not moving, but the pattern gives an illusion of motion. For waves of force, instead of lines of force, there would have to be some coupling between matter and waves, but also between waves to promote coherence.

My visualization of standing waves comes from experiencing them too close for comfort. I was fishing in a canoe with a friend at the northeast corner of the Lions Gate bridge in Vancouver. The tide was strong, a line got caught in the electric motor, and we were swept through rapids to the east side of the bridge. Having survived the rapids, we were being carried toward a field of standing waves being reflected off the shoreline looking like rows of jaws. I was surprised and terrified by the sight, and have wondered ever since whether the waves might act as trap. It is a long way to gravity from there, but the physical analogy of waves seems better than a river.

Thanks for pointing out your previous essay, and Cahill's work. Interesting how experiments (and theory) such as MM can benefit from reanalysis. Cheers, Colin

jrc

Hay good news. I read through your messages again and I understand your following points.

NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains.

"And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR, otherwise the RTGs would suffer shorter working lives rather than the extended ones operationally".

On first reading, these two statements sounded contradictory. But I understand how one leads to the other now. But I admitted it was probably my fault, so all good.

"real, physical field interaction"

Yes!

"I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc "

and yes again!!

I find it fascinating/riveting that you are playing with the term "deceleration of light". Deceleration and acceleration are equivalent terms. Both correspond to expression of energy/force. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this you suggest as the mechanism for mass?

In my essay which will hopefully be accepted, I refer to this association you mention. I refer to it in terms of being an association between photons and gluons, whereby their expressions of force are correlated via magnitude. Velocity of photon C, and gluon C2. Deceleration of photon C to derive value of mass C2, is a very appealing notion.

If deceleration of light is the mechanism that gives mass, then you will appreciate how a variant C would act to give variant mass. Mass would be proportional to change of velocity. Do you hold constant C as sacred? Are we speaking the same language?

I believe my term "force dilation" is the same concept to which Edwin refers, "energy of oscillations" but I define it as value of force.

Edwin recently quoted Richard Feynman as saying "when we observe an acceleration, we should look for a force".

A clocks increased oscillation in orbit constitutes an acceleration. Edwin has referred to it in terms of increased "energy", terms of energy are interchangeable with "force".

I believe the breakthrough occurs when atomic oscillations currently interpreted as "time dilation" are associated with variant atomic energy/force. Atomic energy/force extends to variant mass. It's usefulness applies to, Atomic energy/mass scales dependant on gravities square law proximity to matter. This consideration of variant mass extends to "proximity of stars to each other in galaxies". Average distance between stars in galaxies, increases by the square of distance from galaxy centre.

It will sound fanciful to most, but it should be considered a curiosity that, if a baryon is considered to increase its mass proportionate to distance from galaxy centre, "dependent upon dilated proximity of stars to each other", then it does place mass where it needs to be to predict anomalous galaxy rotation velocity. An ideal fit.

Steve

Hi Edwin, it seems that many beer-mats and napkins later they left without agreement but at least had not come to blows. I don't think Einstein would have enjoyed the meeting.

We are, it appears, in agreement about there being no empty space.

You include some history but I think the most important background, which you do not point out, was that this development of Special Relativity was happening at a time when co-ordination of clock time at different places was becoming necessary for the successful running of railway timetables. After early time signal sending by pneumatic tubes, electric signals were used. It is easy to understand that the time signal is something different from passage of time. Just as a time signal can be sent and received, a light signal can be transmitted and received. The time signal is processed into a clock time and the light signal can be processed into an image. When the signal is processed is when the image is seen, not when the event it pertains to happened.

You know from your own experience of thunder storms and Doppler effect of a moving siren, that the observer's relation to the sensory stimuli affects the experience. Two observers different distances for the storm experience the thunder and lightning differently, there isn't simultaneity of the events, for them. The different time lines pertain to the different experiences. The observers are experiencing the universe differently. Those experiences are different from what is actually happening in external reality simultaneously with the 'present' experience. It is important to separate what appears to be Now from uni-temporal Now. Due to the way in which the senses work there is a causal order: production of potential sensory information, transmission, receipt, processing, experience. Thus present and uni-temporal Now can not be the same.

I can tell a lot of thought and effort has gone in to crafting your essay. It is well written. No disrespect is intended. Georgina