The Nature of Time

In fact in resume we can have our philosophy or others, but after all who are we to affirm assumptions ? we cannot do this, the same when we speak about the main essence of this universe, have we a kind of god of spinoza or are we from a mathematical accident or others? we don t know, that is why we cannot affirm and we can just discuss in respect about these things without concluding things that we cannot explain, the same for the waves or particles like main essence or others assumptions. I repeat but nobody knows this universal truth and a thinker affirming assumptions is simply a person too mucgh vanitious thinking he has understood the universal mechanics better than the others, Hawking considered no god, einstein considered a gdd like newton, Max Tegmark consider a mathematical universe, others have their own thoughts but nobody know the truth, I consider personally an infinite eternal consciousness, an energy that we cannot define creating this universe but I don t affirm even if I am persuaded in having generalised the sciences and my encoded informations, we are limited in knowledges and proofs simply and we must accept this with humility, never we can affirm things not proved, it is only simple than this

Steve,

I got your message. So, let`s add IMHO. Still, no particles. The quadrant diagram system shows perfect parity across h/2, structure and charge signs. This explains why quarks can't be isolated.. they are wave quadrants, not particles. It shows, it does not prove... But Quark masses do not add up to the mass of the nucleons..

It is like all the proof are there in the long troubles they have had with both quarks and the magnetic monopole.

Consider this; I posted at CERN Youtube and Perimeter Institute Youtube. There are others people posting all sorts of theories .. they are still there. My posts where removed or not published (moderated off). There could be lots of reasons for this, but then it begs the question. Why?

I got also your message, but you cannot affirm that the particlez are not real, you just consider that all is made of waves, and for me it is not true, we must accept that we don t know and that we cannot prove, you can tell all what you want it is a fact, the particles are a reality , that is why we have our standard model and their origin , if they are fields or particles is not proved, the diagrams don t change the things, it is just your interpretation with waves quadrants, you have not proved what you affirm in fact unfortunally. The waves and fields for me come from the particles because they are in motions and oscillations in a kind of superfluid aether made also of particles so we have contacts, it is only simple than this like when you put a stone in the water, we have an effect and so waves, we cannot have waves without particles, on the other side in a kind of system without motion we can have particles without waves, see well this important difference, the origin for me of this universe is made of particles creating waves and fields, not the opposite, but I cannot affirm, like you you cannot affirm, we have just models hypothetical. Your model is removed maybe simply because it lacks mathematical extrapolations and proofs , I don t know

...model removed... There are many Nobel prizes and billions spent on the Standard Model... It is not a model that will make people happy... given its ridiculous simplicity... Lets take it as a theory, an educated suggestion. There are many concepts all at once, given for this synthesis.

1- vacuum is Time

2- Planck is a maximum allowed amplitude of time rate variation

3- magnetic field is time rate variation

4- electric field is a line alonh which the time rate changes of direction.

5- particles are ring waves with specific coupling rules

6- energy on a dynamic time background is power

7- electron is the magnetic monopole

8- a unit electrical charge is 4 E lines

they are all integrated into one wave model.

The diagram system works well with pair annihilation/ pair creation/ neutron>proton anti eV / etc. The causality is in the structures > conservation laws.

Think about it for 2 seconds. The electron is not a little ball with an electric charge stuck to it.

It is the unit electrical lines charge connected to the structure that generates it by induction, the corresponding unit magnetic charge, the magnetic monopole. The electron is the smallest "particle" and it is just that, a single monopole. IMHO

I understand what you tell, but the nobel prizes or field medal or others are always given after a proved work mathematically or by experiments. Einstein has had his nobel for a work about the photoelectric effects and not for the GR and SR, the same for Wittem he has had the field medal for a works concrete in maths about the fields, but after the people confound their prizes witht heir models , that is why all are focused on this GR and photons only and the strings, but they are theories not proved , even if there are several relevances. A lot of money indeed is spent for these researchs because we try to find and explain our main unknowns and when they are found, it permits the investments in new technologies, it is the main aim of lobbies and investors in fact. I beleive that there are a lot of confusions at this moment inside the theoretical sciences community, we have an ocean of models and it is important also to tell that it is more difficult now to explain these deepe unknowns than 100 years ago when Borh, einstein, planck and the others were together searching to complete this standard model. Your ideas and model is very interesting and general , and like all you must prove whjat you tell. I see that you are general even if I see differently I respect your ideas, I beleive strongly that the particles like main origin is foundamental ,but it is an assumption also like yours.I see that you consider mainly this time like the main peice of puzzle, probably due to an interpretation of this spacetime luminiferous of Einsteain and its GR and SR , but like I said, I see this time correlated with the rotating 3D spehres and the velocities and irreversible also , we must differenciate at my opinion the observations relativistic with the real time in the pure mechanics. The time seems a parameter emergent due to these motions and objects , the quaternions can be interesting in considering a pure 3D and this time for the rotations , but it does not seem to be a real dimension, it is an emergent porperty of duration correlated probably with the evolution, because without time we have no evolution and no matters , so the motions become the key. Your coupling ring idea is interesting and could converge with the motions of these finite series of 3D spheres , even the exchanges can be inserted and the quasiparticles , imagine a hopf fibration on surfaces of these 3D spheres for the quasiparticles and the virtual particles....

Like dirac said , we don t know what is really an electron, we cannot still affirm what they are and why they have their properties, Dirac and Feynman have worked about this, and even they have considered antiparticles differently, one consider a kind of negative energy , the other considered a backward time

for me it is a serie of 3D pshres having merged due to a serie for the space the main codes and two fuels, the cold DM andf the photons, that permits to create their properties because they become simply what they must become, they are not a single sphere but a serie, and their properties appear due to this fusion of 3 main series, I don t consider these fields and waves like primoridal origin, I consider the particles giving the properties, they distribute their fields and energies in function of their intrinsic codes simply in this space and due to these two fuels, these fuels permit to balance the cahrges but explain also the negentropy entropy, the +, the heat cold, the gravitation electeromagnetism, this and that, we need a balance at all scales .....

See that we need an universal balance, see now the relevance if the 3D spheres are a reality at all scales with the senses of rotations....

see also that these magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles and correlated with the superstrings still and the branes, for me even If I respect these theories, they are not foundamental and we have no extradimensions of 1D to 11D and no monopole, it comes from these 1D strings still and the photons like main essence and origin, you know , it seems odd to consider the waves, fields like main origin instead of particles coded, like I explained these strings have a big philosophical problems, we can make all the maths that we want that will not change that these strings, branes have many problems, maybe the thinkers must forget this prison of strings and GR and go deeper in considering particles coded simply

Hi John, all this is interesting, about the energy, all is there, how is transformed this E and what is the main source creating these topologies, geometries and properties, , the problem seems philosophical, if the thinkers think that we are inside an infinite energy of heat and that this thing so oscillate, so we understand its distributions, but this energy can be also inside particles and distributed .... all is there, how is the matter energy transformations and thr main codes , is it fields, waves or particles , is it an energy creating the matters of a matter liberating this energy, you can so understand why I consider a central cosmological sphere where this Eis coded and transformed in matter and after distributed but we cannot affirm like I said but all seem there between these two main primoridal origin. I am fascinated by these spheres indeed philosophically , I have found this theory in ranking a little bit of all, chmistry, biology, animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, physics and in a page of biology I have seen the evolution of brains since the lemurians and we see also a spherisation relative of these brains, I told me wowww the universe and particles also are spheres probably, why this chpoice, why this sphape, I don t know, maybe simply it is like that , they are the perfect equilibrium of forces, they permit the optimised motions, they have no angle and permit to create with deformations all geometries, this shapes seem the choice of this universe and even the gravitation is correlated, why our eyes, are spherical, why the planets, stars, moons, BHs, waves, a water drop, the glands, the virus, why the favorite sports of humans also, because it is like this simply , if the thinkers think in a god of Spinoza like Einstein, why this thing that we cannot define has created this shpae, maybe in concentrating during an eternity this energy in a sphere and after in creating this physicality simply, why ? I don t know, maybe it is like this, God was alone lol maybe and so we create a physicality , for me this central cosmological sphere is fascinating and is the begining of all and it is there that all informations and codes are sent and continue to send furthermore due to evolution, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere, why we evolve, because it is like this, it is a kind of project of optimisation probably. The universe is very simple generally. The Energy is distributed and coded in the matter for me and with codes , that implies a supermatter in this central cosmological sphere, this thing intrigues me in fact a lot.

Dear John, could tellme more about your general philosophy, and what do you consider like foundamental objects and why they are what they are, it seems essential to go deeper. Regards

Hello again, Steve,

Yes I can understand your fascination with a centralized cosmological sphere as the idealized paradigm model. My own image is that while that is consistent with the notion of there being a relative simultaneous moment at any given moment chosen by an observer, Neutral Centrality points to many observers choosing moments where the relative simultaneous moments of each do not necessarily agree with others across the board. So while we might imagine a cosmological sphere, it is only from our position of observation and, much like Sabine Hosenfelder's musings on 'discrete spacetime', is observable by us as an amalgam of a manifold of both virtual and metastable particles ejecting and absorbing energy quantities in linear projections of solitonic 'wavetrains', or partial exchanges of energy by those solitons 'grazing' the field volumes of discrete 'quantum gravitational' particles of spacetime energy.

An ideal spherical FRM is easy enough (as it turned out) and generating Specific Densities from a naive algebraic model of EMR was sufficient for the task. Then, ontologically it gets dicey. Electric charge can be heuristically qualified as simply the behavior of an energy density less than inelastic but greater than fluid. Then comes to tricky part; what and by how much, differentiates what we designate a 'positive' charge from a 'negative' charge. My image is one in which the the actual measurable quantity of energy displaying an outward acceleration tendency is equal to the corresponding quantity constituting increasing density displaying the inward deceleration tendency. This gives a rationale for the uni-polar charge of both the electron and proton as non-rotating masses with time going in all directions on the hypersphere of density distribution, and is but one of several determinants. Another is that, given the premise that energy would exist motionless at light velocity universally if there were enough space to allow, quantum gravitational concentration would require that higher density would timewise have to force out laterally to the direction of gravitational 'fall'. Perhaps like E8, a disc perpendicular to a single pole passing through its center, that wraps onto a sphere. This gives a rationale for the orthogonal relationship observed in electromagnetism. The third is physical rotation of a particle generating greater induction and differentiation of polarity.

I've been toying with the idea recently that it might be easier just to invent a new math, maybe like tensors of the fourth rank. By for now, I've been sinfully neglecting my garden once it got too hot for leaf lettuce, and I have to get my bumper back into alignment after getting rear ended at slow speed. Drat I wish I didn't have to crawl back under the ol' POS again. I'm 70 years Old! gimme the wrench Best jrc

Hi John, you know I beleive that the universe is simple generally, we see mainly spheres inside our universe and they are real, sabine is good but we are not obliged to agree with all her ideas fortunally, see well the nature, all seems to possess a center and the spheroids, ellipsoids, spheres seem foundamental, the observations are not the problem, the spheres cosmological are not an illusion but are reals, and we have big probabilities to have quantum 3D spheres , why ? I don t know, it is maybe simply like this, the quantum spheres give the general cosmological spheres, why ? because simply it is the choice of this universe this shape and they can create all shapes with the good mathematical tools, sometimes you know the simplicity is important in the generality. Why to search complex things for a real truth ? they are that said very complex in details thease 3D coded quantum spheres when we consioder a finite primoridal serie the same than our cosmological finite serie, there is something about this finite number and the morions rotations oscillations in a kind of aether, that is why I consider 3 main finite series, one space and two fuels, the photons and the cold dark matter, and when they merge they create our reality, the photonic space time is just a part of puzzle, we have other aethers to superimpose, the photons are just for me a fule permiotting this electromagntism and heat and the fact to observe but they are not the main primordial essence, so I don t consider these strings inside these photons to explain this physicality and its geometries, topologies, matters and fields, we have a deeper logic, but the thinkers have difficulties to think beyond the box now and consider deeper paramters superimposed. About this E8 I beleive it is a fashion also due to the geonetrical beauty of these geometrical alebras of this exceptional group, so they consider this geometry to fractalise the fields and explain our reality with fields but if the fields are not the primordial essence, so all is false like these strings, they are just an assumption- About the gardening I love , I produce many plants here with Ulla Mattfolk, we are going to open a nursery, it is my passion with the piano and guitar , and all is cultivated in an organic argilo humic complex with our own compost, I loke to multiplicate the plants, mainly the fuchsias , I like a lot this flower. Take care John, friendly

Hi Steve,

We are inclined to assume that time exists, as the result of being in the Earth`s rotational motion.

We would be inclined to assume that time did not exist, as some kind of force or thing, if the Earth did not have it`s rotational motion.

I posted on this topic, `The Nature of Time`, on February 15th, 2019. It`s the second entry at the top of this column.

Hi Mr Snowdon, I beleive indeed that there is a link with the rotations of these quantum and cosmological spheres, the motions rotations seem linked with this duration evolution abd time, the quaternions become relevant considering these rotations, the nature of this time is a big puzzle , thanks for sharing , we need to analyse this time in deeper analysis probably to better encircle it ,best regards

Hi Steve,

The Earth`s rotational motion is the physical mechanism that provides the basis of our time measurement system. Our time measurement system is based on the periods of durations of Earth`s rotations.

Our clocks do not actually measure the passing of some kind of real thing or force, our clocks simply measure periods of durations elapsing.

What we consciously experience is duration elapsing.

Our reality is to be travelling at a surface speed of 1,000 miles per hour at the equator.

As the Earth rotates we see the constant effects of the rotational motion in seamless concert with our clocks. This constant evidence of change validates our clocks and our sense of time passing.

As a result, we are in error, in assuming that time exists as some kind of force or thing. It is only motion that exists, not time.

Hello Mr Snowdon, I like these ideas , have you already thought about the velocities of rotations of volumes, spherical if the particles are 3D spheres and if we consider the universal sphere wich does not turn, so there is like a kind of link between the volumes, mass, densities,....and the rotations and the time, it is intriguing if the 3D spheres are foundamental and the rotations also at all scales ,

so the motions rotations create the time and it seems logic indeed