It has been said that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth spins. This is equivalent to the notion that the next atomic clock pulse becomes the last atomic clock pulse because of the decay of phase. In other words, it is a statement of the reversibility of quantum time.

While quantum time is reversible, gravity time's direction is set by the determinate paths of particles and so gravity time is not reversible. Gravity time is then completely predictable and determinate while the reversibility of quantum time means that quantum time is not determinate.

The way to explain time is with the parents and progeny of a causal set. Parents have children and from the family history of a causal set emerges what we call time. It takes more time for some progeny to emerge and that extra time is what we call distance in space. Quantum phase decay is then what sets time's arrow, both for quantum charge and quantum gravity and so entropy and temperature seem to have lost their way...

The notions of time and space are extremely useful for predictions of most action, but some predictions of action need the more fundamental notions of a causal set. A causal set orders actions by parentage and progeny and seems to be a more fundamental description of the universe.

However, quantum amplitude and phase superposition seem be an acausal superset whose norm becomes the causal set that we call reality. So it is wrong to say that the universe decays in time. Instead, the progeny of the universe result in fewer not more matter, but with greater force. From that family history emerges time and space...

John,

The rate of time slows down as we move toward the ground. This means longer seconds. In order for c (m/s) to remain constant, longer seconds means longer meters. In other words, an object is falling into larger space.

So, space is not contracting in a gravitational field; it is in fact

expanding. The apparent contraction is an illusion. Falling into larger space is dispersion, the hallmark of thermodynamics....

Marcel,

    Dear Eckard Blumschein and Steve Agnew,

    Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any atomic clocks were ever situated on the earth's surface.

    It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

    The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

    INFINITE SINGULARITY AM INDIVISABLE AND CANNOT CONTAIN ANY FINITE ELEMENTS OF CAPACITY OR DURATION.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

    Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel and John Brodix Merryman,

    Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any atomic clocks were ever situated on the earth's surface.

    It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

    The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

    INFINITE SINGULARITY AM INDIVISABLE AND CANNOT CONTAIN ANY FINITE ELEMENTS OF CAPACITY OR DURATION.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

    • [deleted]

    • Post #58

    Dear John Brodix Merryman,

    It am physically impossible for any invisible gravitational force to contract. While it might seem that the surface of a visible railroad track might seem to expand and contract due to heating by sunlight, a real observer using their real eyes would only ever see a plethora of a small part of the track seamlessly enmeshed in the surface of a part of the railbed and the embankment and a portion of the sky and so on. This would be true if the real observer used a real camera to photograph the railroad track.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

    It am physically impossible for invisible time to do anything. Although a real observer using their real eyes may look at the visible surface of a timepiece, the real observer will also see a seamlessly enmeshed flat varied hued surface of a wrist the timepiece is attached to, or the base and grounds the sundial is on, or the structure of the furniture and walls of the room where the grandfather clock am ticking away.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Marcel,

    Isn't it that as "time"/speed of light slows, distance contracts, so that the speed of light remains Constant?

    The basic premise is that in the vacuum, the speed of light is the Constant, nothing can go faster. So that in a moving frame, quantum activity has to slow, so the internal activity and external motion don't exceed C. Consequently distance, as measured by physical objects, shrinks, because they shrink. So while the speed of light is constant to that vacuum of space, if you are moving with it, it would still be measured at C, because your sense of space is contracted, relative to how fast your frame is moving. If your frame reaches the speed of light, there is no action possible in that frame, so "time" has stopped. Of course, everything has been converted to light as well.

    Now since gravity is equivalent to acceleration, light is slowed by it, but distance is compressed as well. Basically the premise is measurement is foundational and when we measure, we have to measure something, either mass or light, so gravity does compress mass. That's why water pressure is so much higher, the deeper it is. More atoms pushed into smaller spaces. Space contracts.

    I think the focus on the measurement ignores what is being measured and the whole process is all backwards, but it is a bit like epicycles. The math worked and was excellent, but the underlaying physics was all messed up, because the earth was only the center of our point of view, not the more universal situation.

    I see the vacuum/space as fundamental, as I argued in my contest entry, as well as the relationship f light to it, but time is simply a measure of activity, just like temperature.

    So it is asymmetric because action is inertial. Movement is movement. Time is a measure of the change caused by that movement. Future becomes past. Potential, to actual, to residual. Duration is the present, as events come and go.

    We have it backward because our point of view is of the sequence of our perceptions drawn from it, so it seems the present is "flowing" past to future, just like it seems the sun and stars rise in the east and set in the west, when it is the earth turing west to east, just as it is future becoming past.

    Dear John Brodix Merryman,

    Real VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension am always illuminated by real finite non-surface light. Only abstract finite "objects" can be supposed to be in finite motion or at finite rest. Only imaginary abstract light can be supposed to have a finite constant speed.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    John,

    I was kind of hoping you would try to talk me out of this one. Not sure you succeeded.

    Although interesting, your reply did not address the ratio of longer meters to longer seconds for c to remain constant... Could you give it a try??

    Thanks,

    Marcel,

      Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

      The essay postulates that any human concept of there ever being any finite measure of time could be an illusion. The first sentence in the review reads: "Einstein's (finite) relativity pushes physicists towards a (finite) picture of the (finite) universe as a (finite) block, in which the (finite) past, present, and future all exist on the same (finite) footing; but maybe that shift in (finite) thinking has gone too far

      Natural reality am not thoughtful. Whatever you and John may think about anything has NOTHING to do with any reasonable understanding of the real VISIBLE Universe.

      Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Einstein's unrealistic (finite) Theory of (finite) Relativity: General and Special was ever published.

      It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

      The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      Marcel,

      I see meters as a measure of distance, which is a quantity of space. I see seconds as a measure of action, which is motion in space. Meters grow longer when they are composed of matter that expands. Like water does when it's heated. Seconds are longer if the action being measured slows.

      If you heat something up, it expands, but the action speeds up, as well, so longer distance+faster action=C.

      Now if you put this matter under enormous pressure, like way down in the planet, it will get hot, but it isn't expanding, because the pressure is putting the same amount of matter and thus energy, in a smaller space, so temperature goes up. Aka ideal gas laws. Basically volume and temperature are correlated. Squeeze the volume and pressure pushes up the temperature. Just like acceleration correlates measures of distance and duration, aka spacetime(actually only one dimension of space), as velocity compresses mass and slows light/action. So the time/duration the light takes to travel the distance is Constant.

      Gravity is presumed to be Equivalent to acceleration, thus velocity, aka the Equivalency principle. So its called spacetime, but it is the relationship of action to space. There is no time dimension, like there is a s[ace dimension, as the energy manifesting the action is only present, aka conserved. As in always and only present. Duration is the present, as events coalesce and dissolve, go future to past.

      Not sure if this is any more convincing. It's late and my brain is barely turning over.

      Dear John Brodix Merryman,

      The essay postulates that any HUMAN CONCEPT of there ever being any FINITE measure of time could be an ILLUSION. The first sentence in the review reads: "Einstein's (FINITE) relativity pushes physicists towards a (FINITE) picture of the (FINITE) universe as a (FINITE) block, in which the (FINITE) past, present, and future all exist on the same (FINITE) footing; but maybe that shift in (FINITE) thinking has GONE TOO FAR.

      Your "seeing (FINITE) meters as a (FINITE) measure of (FINITE) distance, which is a (FINITE) quantity of (FINITE) space" am clear evidence of you not being quite capable of understanding reality. Please stop mindlessly parroting supposedly FINITE misinformation.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Joe,

      To define is to limit and to limit is to define. Unfortunately the function of knowledge is definition and thus limitation.

      Which is to say I don't deny the infinite, in fact espouse it, but our ability to communicate is a function of constructing definitions, which are, by definition, finite.

      You really should take a chill pill. You are going to bust some important blood vessels, from your apparent rage at not being accorded the respect you think you deserve. It's not going to happen. You want a bigger soap box, you have to kiss the right holes, maybe they'll put you on tv.

      John,

      Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before you appeared on that surface and condescended to reluctantly admit to "espouse infinity."

      It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

      The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

      Will my irrefutable contention ever be generally accepted by the scientific community? Probably not. They only believe as you do that incomprehensible finite mathematical misinformation am profitably of use to science.

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      John,

      You and I differ in the following way. You, stick to physics. In this you still say that "space" is out there and you are content with this. I say "space" does not exist. "Space" is about knowing or conceiving a group of point as being at the same moment. No two points are at the same moment. The concept of "spacetime" is a bridge we built between the real universe and our reality in order to keep doing physics. The universe does not have this requirement.

      The gravitational attraction between two celestial bodies is not direct or instantaneous. Each body affects its surrounding, and this effect is communicated from close to close around it, into the distance until touching the other body. At no moment is one body directly affecting the other.

      We may understand better what the universe is and how it works if, for a moment, we step outside of physics. If we consider what IS instead of what APPEARS to be.

      Also; -- "There are three main sources of heat in the deep earth: (1) heat from when the planet formed and accreted, which has not yet been lost; (2) frictional heating, caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet; and (3) heat from the decay of radioactive elements.

      (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-earths-core-so/

      (PV = NrT is not part of it)

      Thanks,

      Marcel,

        Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

        You are quite correct in your assertion that no amount of invisible space could have ever existed. You are completely wrong in asserting that (finite abstract) "We may (finitely) understand better what the (finite abstract invisible) universe is and how it (finitely) works if, for a (finite) moment, (finite abstract) we (take a finite abstract) step outside of (finite) physics. If (finite abstract) we consider what IS (finite) instead of what APPEARS to be. (finite).

        Nature presents us with the only reality obtainable.The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

        Any ant, antelope, aardvark, or aborigine can deal with reality for each and every creature has a complete surface that only has to physically deal with one real visible unified infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light..

        Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

        Time can be at the secret scope like energy. None of us who are used to the physical approach can really understand them yet. However, It becomes cristal clear that there are two domains of the scope: physical and virtual states or worlds. In our physical view, it lies at the heart of multi-states within one universe: a duality of virtual and physical reality. The issue at our current theory is that the multi-worlds under one universal topology are collapsed into an observable state, which results in our morden thoery is also collapsed into the physical existence only.

        Therefore, the multi-worlds within an oneness universe should be the critical thinking point. For example, spacetime manifold has been moldeled purely in physical framework only, which is clearly diluted the virtual independence as well as reciprocity. In this physical model, we can only have a part of the behaviors, for example the virtual dimension: ct. What does ct mean??? Following this approach, scientists have beem researching for more than a century on unified field theory or theory of everything. So does the arguments for the time and energy. The point is we can't understand how the virtuality works, or even worse that most of us doesn't even realize there is a virtual word nor a duality of virtual and physical entanglement.

        It means, in reality, the virtual property of time appears in our physical word is a pair of virtual images: [math]{\bf r}\pm ict[/math] In our nature, we have a reciprocal par of the complex manifold before it is collapsed the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum space, or Minkowski space: [math]{\bf r}-ct[/math]

        With this simple concept, the natural duality appears recently the groundbreaking in unified field theory... (BTW: if interested, I can provide the links to a set of the papers for the groundbreaking's)

          within one universe: there is a duality of virtual and physical reality such as Wave or Particle duality. The issue at our current theory is that the multi-worlds/states under one universal topology are collapsed into an observable state, which results in our morden thoery is also collapsed into the physical existence only.

          Lorraine, if you haven't read it, I recommend Number and Time by Marie-Louise von Franz. Very Jungian. If you have read it, I would like to discuss, since I find myself going back to pages I have marked..

          Dear Wei Xu,

          Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before you chose to write: "It becomes cristal (sic) clear that there are two (finite abstract invisible) domains of the (finite abstract invisible) scope: (finite abstract) physical and (abstract invisible) virtual states or (finite abstract invisible) worlds."

          It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

          The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

          Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated