The Nature of Time

Marcel,

I get what you are saying, and again the difficulty lies in the limitations on what we can make observable. Steve is also correct to a degree and his fascination with (idealized, original spatial configuration) spherical representation of reality is not inconsistent with your paradigm.

Where I think it can come together is where we imagine energy condensing to a matter state which exhibits physical properties such that the task is to reach consensus on definition of qualitative, ontological terms that might provide a quantitative model for "why" induction of the magnetic moment occurs. And thus arive at a general definition rather than an experimental definition of electric charge. What IS it? ... energy of course, and at greater density than the same continuously connected energy that exhibits the characteristics primarily of magnetism.

How might we imagine the behavior of energy gravitationally bound (hypothetical for sake of ideal modeling) in a self-limiting free rest mass? Given the paradigm of an isolate quantity forming a FRM condensate, let's propose that the primary force effects are manifest as the conjugates of the tendency of energy to decelerate inwardly to concentrate energy quantity and conserve space in an energy super-saturate universe --- and the tendency of energy to accelerate towards light velocity outwardly to fill space.

We now com to the expediency provisional by both SR and GR; that if energy accelerates outwardly to the relativistic limit, then it is the rate of time that is existant at light velocity and the simply connected energy across a range of density variation in the FRM need not, nor cannot, be in any state of motion itself at the gravitational limit boundary of some empirically derived universal minimum density.

So what's Time got to do with it at the other end of density variation in the condensate FRM? Would not the inverse be true? ... that the rate of time slows towards nil at some empirical upper density limit as energy "stacks up on itself" exponentially under the ontology of gravitational deceleration. (i.e.) Time doesn't 'stop' at light velocity, only the observation of it because light velocity is the limit to which time can go.

So at the electron's center there might be an inelastic density core outward of which is a lower density spherical measurement boundary we associate with electrical characteristics. BUT that doesn't mean that the condensate doesn't continue to use up a tiny bit of the total mass quantity of energy interior to the measurement boundary of inelastic density and the upper density limit might approach a density where Time physically stops. Hence: not even physical rotation (motion) is necessary for there be a difference in state of motion to produce induction!

Best Wishes, jrc

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

Hi Jason, there is a problem indeed , it is probably due to fact that we have more difficulties now to complete the discoveries, it is more difficult than 100 years ago , we are all persuaded also and our vanity does not arrange the problem, and more also bad habits like the strings even if I respect these works and find several mathematical relevances, maybe we must be simply less focus on our own works and work in team focus on the pure determinism and seraching concrete proofs, we need to know more and be humble also , we know also that the sciences community is divided about God, for me it is essential to consider a kind of god of spinoza, a kind of infinite eternal consciousness creating this physicality and its codes and informations. It seems foundamental to really encircle the global system.

Hi Steve,

If the Earth`s rotational period was one year rather than one day, the Sun`s position in the Earth`s sky would remain the same for any particular place on the sunny side of the Earth.

If you were on the permanently sunny side of the Earth, the Sun would gradually migrate up and down in the sky, as the Earth revolved around the Sun, as the result of the Earth`s tilted axis.

If you were on the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to remain in the same position in the sky, although they would gradually migrate across the sky as a result of the Earth revolving around the Sun.

If the sun was at the 2 pm. position in your garden Steve, it would always be at the 2 pm. position.

Under these conditions, we would be inclined to assume that time did not exist as some kind of force or thing.

It is our reality to be travelling at the surface speed of 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and to be seeing the all encompassing changes that the Earth`s rotational motion causes, repeating every 24 hours, perfectly matched to our clocks.

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, it is well said what you tell, I agree that this time is just emergent dur to motions in fact, without motions, rotations , we have no time considering this physicality, all is in motion after all in the quantum mechanics and for the universe, even the biology , this time seems a kind of different parameter than our dimensions after all, thanks for explaining ,

Please forgive my wavering faith in the physics community, but they have only succeeded in making everything complicated, without actually contributing anything new to technology, not since general relativity was created. I was outside tonight, camping, looking at the stars. The wind started to blow, and so I put out the camp fire and went inside the RV. It stirred my imagination and got me thinking about what it would be like if a UFO, alien spacecraft drifted overhead. If the outer hull was covered with LEDs, like a giant flat screen, such a saucer could almost pretend to be invisible in the night sky.

It got me thinking. What if I had a message from the ETs? Humans don't listen to me. I have great ideas that are directly applicable to gravity drive propulsion using entangled photons and centrifuges that can blueshift, redshirt entangled photons. The ideas on this forum don't lead anywhere. Mine do!

You should listen to me before the Aliens take me back for good.

Hi Jason, you could relativate a little bit maybe, the sciences community is complex and many try to find or explain our unknowns and they are not easy to explain actually. This Platform FQXi give us the chance to share our ideas and works and it is rare in a total transparence. The problem is mainly about the business around the discoveries, not really the scientists. I agree that said that the universe is simple generally but the details are complex. About God we must respect also how think the thinkers , like I told you , the sciences community is divided about god, we must recognise that nobody has the answer about this infinite potential. Nobody knows really what is this thing if it exists and how it transforms the Energy in matters and informations. We must respect the choices of persons at my humble opinion, I know that you are a catholic christian but you must also accept the ideas of others , we know that these religions can hjelp the people but can also imply problems, it is always a question of consciousness after all. About wht you told , I don t agree that only your ideas are relevant, they are assumptions and like all you must prove them to be credible. Your gravitational propulsion and gravitons must be proved and your propulsion must have a concrete design in engineering, you cannot tell that you have found if it is not proved, of course this quantum gravitation is a new step and I have my own ideas and I have reached it in thinking beyond the box, but like all I must publish to be accepted. It will be indeed revolutionary if we check this quantum gravitation but we are not there still. About the UFoS, I can understand that we have all a big imagination but there still we cannot affirm things not proved, we know that the universe is enromous and probably we are not alone but we must be rational, it is difficult to travel inside the universe due to many limitations in technology and others, if a civilisation travels and has visited us, they are probably very evolved and have just studied us a little bit in respecting the evolution natural of planets without interacting, so maybe we cannot see them even. I beleive that the humility is an important point for all humans, and also for the religious, you seem intelligent , all what I tell simply is that like all you can respect the ideas of others and you must prove like all your extrapolations. I like you but your last message shows a kind of small furstration and a kind of vanity , it is not you I beleive, you are better than this.Take care dear friend,

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your thoughts. Thank you for at least paying attention and offering proper criticism. I agree with what you have said, all of it. It is a terrible feeling to be ignored. The whole reason I went down this road, this line of thinking, was to prove that the speed of light is not a limitation for travel, because I could tell you what spacetime itself is made of. I wanted there to be hope that we are at least not alone in this universe, and that we have been visited (or could be visited).

Anyway, best wishes friend. :)

Dufourny et al., this is kind of a classic argument, but I am going to ask it of one of these outspoken physicists next time I meet one. We have the Schrodinger equation, General relativity, and so forth, and--on a first take--we evolve the equations through time. But what *sustains* the universe?? You could say: the universe doesn't need anything to sustain it. But that is just an opinion.

That's all I wanted to say. But Wolfe et al., why don't you put your ideas in a form that the relevant people could easily see they are right (or wrong)?

Well Vesuvius Now, first of all, we are on a transparent platform so put your real name, and secondly develop ideas about the time if it is possible, show us what are you thought about this parameter simple to encircle, it is a simple duration due to motions , and for me we cannot check this time in travelling in time, but if you have a solution, give us your relevant maths innovative and we shall travel in time like in back to the future. Tell us also more about your philosophy about this universe, first of all what are for you the origin of this physicality and why, and what are the foundamental objects and why, after maybe we could go deeper, there it is not sufficient :) the schrodinger equation is simple to encircle like the general relativity , the big question is , must we consider that we have only photons like primoridal essence, and if yes or no, why , to you dear theinker, impress me lol