we are all free John, I just give an other road and food for thoughts and new ideas but the sciences community is very vanitious and I am a problem , they cannot think differently now and beyond the box, I could be true John, and I d like that the persons focus also on these spheres and the maths and these 3 ethers, but the problem is that I irritate with this innob“vate general idea and an opposite philosophy . It is sad because in focusing on these 3D spheres and in thinking beyond this GR and photons and strings, we d reach these deppe unknowns. But it is the life, I relativate lol , take care , be the force with you jedi of the sphere.

Ps the maths are a tool , the physics are the main essence and the philosophy is important, in turning inside a prison, we don t find nothing of new , and that implkies an ocean of confusions even, but it is the life, we are free indeed, vival el freedom so and the humility, unconditional love, universalism , altruism and consciousness,

Hi John,

I've been a little ill and a little tired. Nothing serious. I use every bit of energy I can muster these days to improving my research.

So my friend, I apologize for that, but you are never far from my thoughts. Hope that you have been well and productive.

All best,

Tom

    Tom, be strong, I have problems of epilepsy and a heart failure 6 months ago and an operation in emergency, be strong , the life is not easy but it is like this. And be an humble jedi of the sphere in fighting the most important disease of this earth , the vanity. Open your mind to the truths of the universe, relativate the different philosophies and be humble I repeat, we must fight this vanity, it is a sickness and inside our community the most vanitious on earth, it is a problem. Rest, relativate, be universal, altruist, logic, rational determinsitic, continue to learn the rational works and be never persuaded about assumpotions and all will be ok, regards

    Tom,

    good to hear. I haven't been productive mathematically, I'm still dealing with the legalities imposed by a number of irresponsible characters that crashed my party. I

    do however enjoy learning more about what mathematics IS, and have some ideas I'd like to get back to once I have the gates closed. Free exchange of ideas is a good and wonderful thing, but as you well know, math is real product. :-) jrc

    Maths is a tool but the physics seem the chief orchestra. Of course the maths permit to prove but can imply confusions in the extrapolations sometimes also and mainly philosophically and abou some symmetries or others.I invite you John if you like the maths to buy the books of Bronstein and Semediaev for the maths, they are very well made for the generality of tools.The princeton companion to mathematics also is good.Regards

    ps to utilise the mathematical tools is essential but invent new tools also.

    4 days later

    Nonlinear time. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353495811_Dynamic_spacetime_imposes_matter-wave_continuity

      Hi Tom,

      I put the researchgate link on my favorites and can 'read file' of your paper. There is a lot wrapped up in it, and so it's something I'll have to chew on a byte at a time.

      The 1 dimensional soloton by necessity requires a mathematical analysis that is represented on a 2 dimensional plane and the 4 square conclusion is thus both appropriate and mathematically true. But what it represents is non-linearity protracted on a single pole, and your statement that two separable points are attracted towards a point of equilibrium and thus there will be three separable points is a very important distinction.

      Spacetime would dictate that within the bounded interval of light velocity, any and all possible velocities would be probable. So it naturally follows that each of any possible velocity must be "tried" and the mid-point of equilibrium from (S) would then be where the speed of the time index would be at maximum and motion null. Past and future entropy would be indistinguishable and the time index in decay goes to separability of the (S') from (s).

      I'll toot my own horn and note that at (s) the time index would be the root exponential mean of light velocity; [(c)^1/e (c)]. Time enough for light velocity to hunt what speed its going in the normal span of one light second. And a conjectural boundary condition at the core of condensed matter.

      Best as always jrc

      Tom,

      correction: light velocity itself would be the root exponential mean of the maximum time index. Its easy to mis-state that. jrc

      Spacetime is continuously connected, simply. In other words; don't overthink it, it is 'simply' connected. Separability then, is measurable and dependent on light velocity. Typically we don't really question what the speed of time might be, it is subsumed in the measurement space. It beggs the question however of what speed time operates across a separable distance, because it could be anywhere, somewhere between nil and light velocity. A correlation can be made between the continuous connectivity and the continuous exponential function; progressing from (S) towards (s) at an exponential rate from nil, up to an equivalence to light velocity would take more real time than that span could be crossed at spontaneous light velocity. And from (s) decaying to nil at (S') at the inverse rate of exponential growth in the first half of a 1 dimensional soloton, we compound the exponential function, This would require that connectivity is dependent of a bounded interval in the time parameter that physically exceeds light velocity and can be formulated as [(c)^1/e (c)] = 2.143^14 cm/sec where light velocity is taken as the value of 2.997925^10 cm/sec. The physically effective response time of light velocity by invariance measurement across any separable distance then would always empirically resolve as a universal constant in spacetime connectivity, but would be the efficacy of relation of a span of distance in space and a span of duration in time where the speed of passage of time would literally "hunt" for what speed time operates across that separation, and would be a universal constant by virtue of it being the root exponential mean of the limit of the time index [(c)^1/e (c)]. That's about as clear as I can express the idea.

      In context of dynamic spacetime imposing continuity of matter and waveform, if we model condensate matter as an exponential time dilation on a single pole, an empirically obtained minimum density of an energy field would exist at a zero boundary of a discretely gravitationally bound mass:energy quantity and the gravitational connectivity would transcend individual masses by virtue of the low density range not exhibiting magnetic, electric and non-elastic response, and could be expected to meld with agregate gravitational domains into a globalized domain. Gravitational compaction of the exponentiated time index to a radial length of equivalent light velocity would condense energy to a matter state at the core volume. It can immediately be seen that each of the primary characteristic density effects are manifestations of density and each density range would be across a light velocity proportion of density gradient, and each incrementalized in simple connectivity to a radial proportion of simply [(c)^1/e] and the radial compaction of the full field simply connected across a radial exponentiation to a (c) radial length from [(c)^1/e (c)]. It can be assumed that at some critical mass accumulation that a proportional density at core would exist at constant density which would be high enough gravitational effect that the rate of translation of light velocity would abruptly equal the maximum time index of 2.143^14 cm/sec in that core volume. Time and space are physically malleable, And where the operation of passage of time would effectively stop, consistent with GR dilation, would be at the horizon of that core, having dilated from equivalent light velocity at the gravitational boundary, there would exist a profound zero boundary condition at that horizon, giving rise to the dynamic generation of electric and magnetic fields. That's it in the proverbial nutshell, jrc

      Thank you, John.

      I'll mull over your light velocity equation when I have time.

      I use simply connected as opposed to multiply connected. A simply connected space is classically continuous. Multiple connectedness is dice-throwing. In my model every measurement function returns to the source. Think about how problematic is the one-way measurement of c. A mirror surface allows us a measure recursive to the source, and the one way speed is assumed half the reflected value.

      I hadn't considered the symbols in my dimension number proof could be used outside that context, but your explanation is interesting, though I struggle to understand it.

      Your last comments could be very relevant, though again I don't totally understand them. I think you're ahead of me--I'm going to have to think a little deeper.

      All best,

      Tom

      Tom,

      no sweat, one way measurement of c is as you say, problematic. And any method of recursive or reflected observation is invariably a function of Lorentz Invariance. I think the rationale of 1/2 quanta at equilibrium is valid, and has a rough fit with a partition of Planck's Constant in my early model making. We agree on multi connected measurement space, it comes apart but that's what many want. I call dibs for a title; On the Origin of Energy and the Speed of Time. :-) jrc

      John,

      A multiply connected space is not a measure space. That's the flaw in quantum theory. Adding real spacetime corrects the flaw, but renders the foundations of quantum mechanics -- particularly Bell's theorem -- invalid.

      Best,

      Tom

        Tom,

        That is a good distinction; multiply connected space would be more like infinite measurement spaceS. Convenient for counting beans but more contrived than conceptual. best jrc

        a month later

        Heraclitus: temporal becoming is real

        Parmenides: the universe is static: the past, present, and future are equally real

        I could see how Parmenides' time could be emergent (like space), but not Heraclitus' time.

        comments?

          Versuvius Now,

          I don't think past, present and future, if considering emergence from sensory stimuli , are equally.real'. They are fundamentally different. What we call the past, (former Presents), now exists only in records of various kinds, including memory, existing -Now. The present is being experienced via processing of sensory inputs. The pre-written future is not yet received potential sensory stimuli. With only the potential to be received and processed into part of an observer's Present observation product. In this way past, present, and pre-written future all reside within Unitemporal-Now.

          The temporal becoming of a river pertains to material existence not sensory perception. As the actualized river is materially real.

          12 days later

          For me and my relatives, contact with nature and what surrounds us is very important. We try to live in harmony, of course, as much as possible.

          ---------

          https://streamonline.pl/

          Yes, responding to both Woodward and Adams, it is interesting to point out that many 'public intellectuals' or maybe 'public physicists' are grappling with the issue of time these days. These physicists include Smolin (time is real--though it might be he's just talking about reviving Heraclitus' idea within the context of modern physics), Rovelli ('becoming' is real at the macro-level but not at the micro-level), and Greene (it's not understood yet). Carroll (the 'present' is not special) (However, he has shown that energy is not necessarily conserved at 'state-vector collapse' which implies, by Noether's theorem, that something odd is going on with time at collapse.) Hawking weighed in, ('time' started at the beginning of the universe), and there is that famous quote by Einstein (the present is an illusion, though it's not at all clear that that was his final word on the subject). Of course, philosophers have much more to say on the subject.

          I tend to agree with Woodward.

          I've got novel ideas on the subject. Publishing has been a HECK of a problem for me. I've currently got 3 different papers submitted to 3 different journals. Don't hold your breath.

            4 days later
            7 days later

            SPACE: the meter stick is the standard; different views...

            a) everyone sees the meter all at once.

            b) The universe requires time to communicate between the two ends of the meter;

            = no part of the meter are at the same moment;= the metaphysician's view.

            c) For practical reasons, physics combines a) and b)under the name spacetime.

            --------------------------------

            a) is our reality = no choice = a truth in the reality system

            b) is a fact = no choice = a truth in both science and metaphysics systems

            c) is = a practical choice = not a truth, rather a tool.

            Marcel, (take care everyone)