Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

Georgina,

There am only VISIBLE surface. Although English fluent humans have given names to supposedly finite measured objects such as say an internal combustion engine, all parts of every combustion engine that has ever been built has a VISIBLE surface, whether it am installed or not. All humans always have a VISIBLE surface. All teachers of human anatomy always have a VISIBLE surface at the time they are teaching a course in human anatomy which they retain later that night when they retire to go to bed.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe, an engine inside an opaque car is neither visible nor surface. Cars would not function without their unseen interior workings. That they do work is evidence you are wrong. If you are now claiming 'surface' applies to both exterior and interior, it has lost it's meaning which differentiates those conditions, I have explained why only the surface of opaque materials is seen. What is perceived is an observation product, not the independently existing material reality, which is more than just surface appearance.

Dear Georgina,

Am it possible for any human to see one unified VISIBLE infinite surface? Of course not. Every human has a finite sized pair of eyes.

Joe Fisher, Observant Realist.

Joe, you have not relied to my arguments.

Georgina,

I have relied on NATURE. The only irrefutable fact the white male physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE any white male physicist ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about how the VISIBLE universe slowly emerged from out of an empty void 13.75 billion light years ago due to an invisible explosion, and it is still expanding faster than the speed of light. Could you please answer this question? Supposedly, the greatest white male thinkers of all time have gained that reputation for daring to ask where the real Universe came from. Why has no woman of any color ever asked where the real VISIBLE Universe came from? Could it be that every woman of any color am sensible enough to intuitively know that the real VISIBLE Universe could not possibly have came from anywhere else? Why do all women of any color know that the real VISIBLE Universe must have been in the same place FOREVER, OTHERWISE IT WOULD NOT BE WHERE IT WAS, WOULD IT?

Joe Fisher, White Male Realist

Joe, you have just ignored my arguments.There seems to be a problem with the claim that only surface exists, and yet the unseen internal structures of machines sand organisms are required for their function. There is also a problem with using 'surface" for both internal and external. Are you unable to explain yourself?

time has only the math existence, time as the 4th dimension of space is Einstein's mathematical Trick.

While Craig Callender in his video spoke in a murky manner that was difficult to completely understand for me, I am nonetheless sure, his focus on psychological time cannot hide that the so called physical time does definitely not provide a complete picture of reality. When Einstein denied the now, he referred just to models that are thought as complete, i.e. equations considering merely a finite amount of influences and implying a predetermined future.

Common sense is more prudent. I guess, the here and the now are essentially the only two genuine singularities of reality, the only two natural (in the sense of non-arbitrarily chosen) points of reference. In reality, there is no negative already elapsed time as there is also no negative distance.

Using the symbol box is clever - when operating with models. Cf. also my cusanus.docx and cusanus vs SR.docx.

The confrontation between different viewpoints is always an interesting procedure to approach a better understanding of our reality. The article and the conference which has been organized about the thematic "time" is an effort going into that direction.

Now, since our life is irremediably going from one unavoidable event (the birth) to another one (the death), two fix points in any human trajectory, it is difficult to not see a link between the concept of time and the one of thermodynamic state (the comparison is not new). In my mind, this does not mean that the time does not exist; on the contrary, I would say it is the proof of the existence of time in an obvious three-dimensional space.

What is the nature of time? This is the real question. I belong to the group of persons believing that the time can be described by an arrow, a vector; at least in each small enough volume. I have developed a theory with this idea, pushing the calculations of the variations of the basis vectors until the second order and trying to build an extension of Einstein's general theory of relativity... (the literature around that theory is on a temporary website: cosmicstrings.de). Provided, I did not make too much mistakes, the results are surprising.

I am only an amateur (no professional) but, I like all these discussions around the foundations of our knowledge.

Time has only the math existence and Higgs mechanism is pure failure

Reality = rв‚Ђ and reality observed = r

- (r / rв‚Ђ) = eВ± i П‰ t = cosine П‰ t В± i sine П‰ t and a Fourier transform or a mapping into real rime observation of reality exposes that 410 years of physics are visual effects of physics lab physical motion or Earth's motion and it say Earth is moving in 27.321 days and the Sun in moving in 365.256 dats and the distance equivalence of (27.321 days, 365.256 days) = (r , c) r = Earth's theoretical radius and c = 299792458 meters hypothesized by Ole Roemer as light constant speed

(1/T) ∫_o^Tв-'гЂ-(r/(rв‚Ђ))dt гЂ-- = (1/T)∫_0^Tв-'(cosine П‰t+ i sine П‰ t)dt

Observed along the line of sight = (1/T) ∫_0^Tв-'(cosine П‰t)dt

= Sine П‰ T/ П‰ T = Spin speed/ Visual orbital speed

The angle П‰ T = (C/R)

= 2 О©; О© = ecliptic plane angle

R = Earth's radius = 6371000 meters

C = 299792458 meters

II - (ОёК№ / ОёК№в‚Ђ) = eВ± 2 i П‰ t = cosine 2П‰ t В± i sine 2П‰ t

(1/T) ∫_o^Tв-'гЂ-(ОёК№ / ОёК№в‚Ђ)dt гЂ--

= (1/T)∫_0^Tв-'(cosine 2П‰ t В± i sine 2П‰ t)dt

Observed along the line of sight:

= (1/T) ∫_0^Tв-'(cosine 2П‰t)dt

= Sine 2П‰ T/ 2П‰ T

I - (r / rв‚Ђ) = eВ± i П‰ t = cosine П‰ t В± i sine П‰ t

(1/T) ∫_o^Tв-'гЂ-(r/(rв‚Ђ))dt гЂ-- = (1/T)∫_0^Tв-'(cosine П‰t+ i sine П‰ t)dt

Observed along the line of sight = (1/T) ∫_0^Tв-'(cosine П‰t)dt

= Sine П‰ T/ П‰ T = Spin speed/ Visual orbital speed

The angle П‰ T = (C/R)

= 2 О©; О© = ecliptic plane angle

R = Earth's radius = 6371000 meters

C = 299792458 meters

II - (ОёК№ / ОёК№в‚Ђ) = eВ± 2 i П‰ t = cosine 2П‰ t В± i sine 2П‰ t

(1/T) ∫_o^Tв-'гЂ-(ОёК№ / ОёК№в‚Ђ)dt гЂ--

= (1/T)∫_0^Tв-'(cosine 2П‰ t В± i sine 2П‰ t)dt

Observed along the line of sight:

= (1/T) ∫_0^Tв-'(cosine 2П‰t)dt

= Sine 2П‰ T/ 2П‰ T

The above is a Fourier transform or a map or an integration into real time gives sine w t / w t = spin speed/orbit speed an w t = C/R C = 299792458 meters claimed by Ole Roemer as light speed and r = Earth's theoretical radius.

Hacking Physical Reality

Real Time Physics

With Applications: The Sun's motion in 365.256 days cycle wrongly assigned to Earth and Earth's 27.321 days cycle wrongly assigned to the not moving and Sun's light reflecting Moon Burning 500 Years of Classical Physics & 120 Years of Nobel Quantum Illusions Relativistic Delusions modern physics not as a has been a physics but as a never was any physics

By first and only Physicist Joe Nahhas

We have only 2 times in the universe:

- psychological time that has its origin in the neuronal activity of the brain

- duration that is the results of the observer measurement

all the rest

- coordinate time, proper time, cosmological time, thermodynamic time.....is pure imagination

https://bistra.si/images/2021/Time_as_the_Result_of_Measurement.pdf

The phrase above "...argued that time does not exist at all" shows how constrained we are by space and matter. Of course time doesn't 'exist'; it occurs. We think that 'things' [matter] can exist in a dimension. We never grant that (kinetic) energy might occur on its own in a dimension (time).

Our human sense of a flow of time only suggests that there are some physical conditions from which that sense emerges. Yet our senses also tend to lead us to discount Time in any real way. The problem still remains that for there to be measurement of observation there must be something in between any two detectable objects we observe. If there is neither Time or Space in a physical reality then our measurements are predicated on a comparison of prior observations in which we arbitrarily assign a span of duration and a span of distance with the assumption that the scale of each is the same as the other. But there exists no observable to base that assumption on, only that everything isn't in the same place all at once.

All measurement therefore depends on some other measure evolved from Earth based common notions of size and motion intuitively conceived in antiquity. Eventually, that ad hoc methodology did arrive at some irrefutable if inconvenient conclusions, perhaps the most notable being the calculable constancy of light velocity by Maxwell. Not for all the commonly cited rationale however valid, but for the often ignored simple condition of the light velocity proportionality between the intensity of the electric field and the magnetic field in a point charge; because for any chemical reaction to take place in one locality, that same proportionality would have to be the same for any chemical reactions to be predictable in any other localities. The postulates of Special Relativity are a consequence of that inconvenient truth.

So we do have at least one universal bounded interval from which to protract scales of measure in reality. And that argues well for a multidimensionality of physically real Spacetime. Let the games begin!