Eckard,

Does common sense fit well to my idea of ""past" time displayed as the inverse of future time"? Good question and thank you for asking. My short answer of course is yes, (if by "common sense" you mean "good sense" and not "common opinion") for the purpose of the STM (space-time-motion) model.

What does not make good sense is the idea of negative time. From reading your essay, you seem to know a lot more than me about the history of math, but as I see it, the use of numbers to represent time is the same as the use of numbers to represent objects. Objects are numbered for the purpose of counting them. The number we assign does not represent the object. It actually represents a quantity. Negative numbers don't even represent a quantity. They represent a deficit or removal. In fact, there is no such thing as a negative number because negative is not part of the number, it is a mathematical operation.

Time is not an object and it is not something that passes. It is the scale invented to compare one motion to another standard motion (a clock). So it makes sense to quantify time. But how can you have a deficit of time? You could say that one motion takes less time than another, but that does not mean "past" time. As you said in your essay, "Elapsed time is always positive". The concept of "the past" identifies the elapsed time after which an event happens. That is POSITIVE time following the event reference point. So for general discussion, there is nothing wrong with considering the past to be a quantity of positive time as compared to that event. But the negative operator doesn't apply. I think that your discussion about the problem with mirror symmetries is a good one. A mirror image looks like it has depth, just like the space it reflects, but building a model based on that would be a fundamental mistake.

The inverse is also an operation and I think it is more appropriate for the STM model for the following reasons. Imagine a pulse of light from a star traveling directly toward a quantum particle. Let's say it is 1 light-year away. Using our standard clock we say it will take 1 year to reach a point at which we stop the clock to define the interaction (event reference) with the particle. It makes perfect sense to use positive time and say that it is going to take 1 year (future tense) to travel the distance, but once it did, we now say that it travelled 1 light-year within that year. "Within that year" means per year and "per year" means inverse year, so it makes perfect sense to use the inverse when referring to the past. You might argue that this also applies when speaking of the future, by saying the next pulse is going to travel 1 light-year per year, but now you are referring to velocity - something that can happen in the future. Once it has happened, there in no more velocity, no more change as such. Now there is energy that can be quantified by frequency. As you said, "only the past is absolutely closed in the sense it cannot be changed".

Remember, the purpose of the STM model is to relate the quantum model with the relativistic model. They are just two models that use the same variables but they differ in that one uses motion through space (requiring time as a variable for velocity = dx/dt) and the other does not (it requires frequency for energy = hf). Superimposing the two coordinate systems just allowed me to show how the equations (kinetic energy and a particle's internal energy) from the two models are related.

In terms of consciousness, interaction means that one bit of information has been transferred from outside to inside of the particle. This is just another model. It considers physical matter to be a holographic pattern that takes on physical form by interacting with its surroundings. Since I want to use the same variables, time (T) and frequency (1/T), to describe the transfer of information to a particle then 1 unitless bit of information can be written as the product T x (1/T). I'm still working on that.

I like the ideas you brought out in your essay regarding cosine transformations used in audio technology. I am more familiar with Fourier transforms (which seems appropriate since my axis uses both time domain and frequency domain) and LaPlace transforms (which are used for image sharpening in medical imaging).

I have started considering how the STM may be a convolution of the two coordinate systems but I'm not sure where that will take me. One of my goals is to see if the information can be de-convolved and back-projected in order to determine if information is actually recorded and retrievable.

Ted

Dear Ted:

Thanks for your time and thoughtful comments on my paper.

I read your paper and it appears that your ideas are similar but mathematics is different and needs further development to a detailed cosmological model that could then be compared against actual empirical data of the universe observations. Such data validation is necessary to determine its accuracy and consistency.

On a quick note, S=Ct and not S=C*C*t as his will distort all measured data.

The link to my book "Hidden Factor" is as follows:

/140339363X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517847455&sr=8-2&keyword

s=hidden+factor+singh">The Hidden Factor](https://https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Factor-Avtar-Singh/dp

/140339363X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517847455&sr=8-2&keyword

s=hidden+factor+singh)

https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Factor-Avtar-Singh/dp

/140339363X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517847455&sr=8-2&keyword

s=hidden+factor+singh

Best Regards

Avtar

    Avtar,

    Thank you for your reply and comments. But I think you missed an important point in my essay. You said: "S=Ct and not S=C*C*t as his will distort all measured data." But as I tried to explain, upper case S is what I used to represent spherical 3-D space so

    [math]S = s^2 = x^2 y^2 z^2[/math].

    And upper case T represents time, which is simply a scale of motion, so it must be treated the same as space, i.e. with a component corresponding to motion in each spatial dimension. So

    [math]T = t^2 = (tx)^2 (ty)^2 (tz)^2[/math]

    where tx means time as measured in the x direction, etc. Thus

    [math]s = c*t => s^2 = c^2* t^2[/math]

    => [math]S=Tc^2[/math]

    The important point is that In this form, the equation [math]S=Tc^2[/math] means that space and time are equivalent, in exactly the same way that [math]E = mc^2[/math] means that mass and energy are equivalent. They are equivalent because they are two different ways of representing the same phenomenon. They are simply different scales for the same process. My equation suggests that time T, is transformed into units of space (actual physical quantities) just as mass is converted into energy. The term [math]c^2[/math] is simply the factor that relates the units of measurement.

    About your book, I had already found it on amazon and read what the front matter and part of first chapter. I just wanted to ask about how I could get a signed copy from you.

    Thanks,

    Ted

    10 days later

    Hello Mr St John,

    I liked it, it is logic I work about my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm 3D sphères Inside the universal sphere.Well generalised all this , congratulations, they turn so they are :)

    best regards from belgium

      You are welcome, yes I have given a good rating :) best regards

      Dear Theodore

      If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

      A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

      Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

      My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

      Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

      For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

      My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

      By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

      To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

      Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

      Kind regards

      Steven Andresen

      Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

      a month later

      Ted,

      Admittedly, my understanding of the cochlear amplifier is not based on my own experiments. I merely tried to collect and combine arguments by numerous experts of physiology and related disciplines including Pujol in France, Martin Braun in Sweden, Andrew Bell in Australia, Steven Greenberg in USA, Geoffrey Manley in Germany, Sohmer in Israel, Azzi in Italy, Patterson in th UK, ...

      I also dealt with the main proponents of v. Békésy's Nobel prize winning model, including Lighthill, Lesnevich, Szekely, and Jont Allen. When I met Jont at NATO advanced study institute in Il Ciocco, he admitted that no model fits all data, and he was shocked that foveas are a problem for the TW model.

      In all, I am pretty sure that the TW model in untenable.

      Must I always trust in the correctness of decisions of the Nobel prize committee? I don't exclude the possibility that they were correct when they didn't trust in Einstein's relativity.

      Eckard

      Ted,

      My "in" should of course read "is".

      Sadly I guess, you didn't get my key message: While pointlike events can be ordered on a line according to the principle that earlier ones precede later ones, I am claiming that only past pointlike events are quasi written for good while future ones are more of less uncertain.

      In other words, in reality, the future has a quality that is quite different from the past.

      As did Einstein and Minkowski, you are treating both domains as if future events did belong to a closed model were they could already be completely prepared.

      Eckard

      Write a Reply...