Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion

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)

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

Dear Joe Fisher

It is critical to define Visible. Normally, as a human we have limitation to sense the existence even not by any tools we created. For example, the dark energy that holds up our earth is not visible as we have recently acknowledged the Gravity has far less forces to hold on our solar system or milkway. Before the energy forms up the mass, it is not visible. Human intrinsic emotions are not visible directly. Moreover, energy carries messages similar to DNA Code is not visible. It is only that a duality of the physical and virtual has the visible property such as the physical motions are visible.

In a similar fashion, it might be an important concept to apply to the study of time. In our current knowledge, we as human can't visit the true intrincis but only limited to its outcome property. This is the truth for anything in the virtual world. As a summary, our oneness world is constituted by a duality of virtual and physical existence. Most of the existence is beyond our visibility since only less than 5% is shown up as the odinally matter.

Dear Wei Xu,

You wrote: "It is critical to define Visible. Normally, as a human we have limitation to sense the existence even not by any tools we created." That am finite misinformation. There am no need to define Visible. If "normally" humans had any finite limitation of their sense of existence, it would logically follow that "abnormally" humans would have no limitation of their sense of existence. Visible reality am not sensible.

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

Dear Joe, Marcel, Wei Xu, and others,

I know there are lots of self-published articles claiming to solve physics' problem with time and nonlocality. Here's another. However, I don't know of any other that questions the foundational assumptions of physics and then starts from clearly-stated postulates.

H.R.

Good paper, downloaded for study.

My claim was ....

"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.... "

- Do you consider gravitational fall as a dispersive event (as above)? i.e thermodynamically spontaneously driven?

Marcel,

A free fall (no friction) is not a dispersive or dissipative event and there is no entropy production. Potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. Only at impact or with air resistance is there dissipation. With no entropy production, the event takes place within a single instant of irreversible time, within an interval of reversible time symmetry. I don't think scales are relevant in this case. This response will make sense after digesting the article.

H Marcel,

I went to your first post in this thread. What article were you referring to? I did not see an entry from you in the recent contest. (I only discovered it 2 days after it closed.)

Harrison

My updated article is here