The article analyzes the errors created by the idealization of mathematics and the inertia of classical physics. The reasons for the emergence of an erroneous opinion are considered. It is shown that the destruction, in order to obtain an "initial" particle, has a limitation. A mathematical study of the processes that create the stability of the existence of particles of matter has been carried out. The result of the union is shown, based on positive and negative feedback. An example of science ignoring reality is the analysis of the movement of time. On the basis of the absence of dimension, when the time moves, explanations of the properties of time are given. A conclusion was obtained about the movement of time, as a change in the rate of time, over the period of the duration of the event. A verification method is proposed.
How could science be better?
I think that you had missed a third possibilty of duality in mathematics as:
Const1/x=Contant2/y and x & y are dual.
The interaction between x & y will be so great where y is so near x in value.
In physics I think the most important interaction is described here in the website of the article of AntPony as the interaction between two identities of a corpuscle: an identity in time and an identity in space. When dealing with tinny particles the inetraction between the two identities is so strong.
Mathematically, the idea is interesting. I don't see the actual implementation.
I highly appreciated this work. I have traveled the same path in my time, facing the same questions. I offer you my conclusion.
Time doesn't really exist. That is, time is a characteristic invented by us for convenience, linking two real variables: matter and its velocity. It is pointless to talk about the properties of time (except when it comes to financing 
).
"Time doesn't really exist. That is, time is a characteristic invented by us for convenience, linking two real variables: matter and its velocity. It is pointless to talk about the properties of time (except when it comes to financing "
Eugene, similar example.
"Since time is not a physical unit, the "the acceleration of the rate of time" makes no sense."
Movement is m/sec, i.e. space/time. How to measure speed by dividing by zero? We have a paradox. There is time, there is no time. The paradox is resolved by separation. Time, like the present, is. Time, as the duration of an event, is an abstraction. The present is a period of transformation of the future into the past. Being in the present, we can only measure the rate of time of other objects.
P.S. To improve science, essays are encouraged to check. not deny. A verification method has been proposed.
A causal relationship cannot arise at zero. I agree with you that the concept of time was created for convenience. People did not know that time is stopped in a photon, i.e. there is "Stopped time" and moving time.
Please explain what ontological (generating) structure underlies your new scientific picture of the world?
Have you ever dealt with the problem "with a hundred-year-old beard" - ontological basification (justification) of mathematics, and hence knowledge in general?
"Please explain what ontological (generating) structure underlies your new scientific picture of the world?"
Dichotomy of emptiness:
zero, because emptiness.
infinity, because no limits
"Have you ever dealt with the problem "with a hundred-year-old beard" - ontological basification (justification) of mathematics, and hence knowledge in general?"
No!
"For matter, the
resulting speed of movement in space and the speed of movement in time is constant (Lorentz
invariance). When the movement of time is stopped, the maximum speed of movement in
space is constant and one (zero one)"
Of course the case of mouvement in space for matter is constant than its mouvement in time is constant. In fact the mouvement of matter in time is always constant and equal to c the speed of light. But when the mouvement of time is stopped (i.e. matter becomes pure time) the maximum speed of mouvement in space is constant and equal to c (not zero).
To resolve this ambiguity if we accept that matter can be in rest in space than it also can be in rest in time. For example imagine two photons having different frequencies and are in rest in time than they should have different coordinates in time according to their energies. The ratio between the energy of a photon and its coordinate in time is an universal constant. This universal can be used as a tool to associate for any massive corpuscle a coordinate in time whe it is in rest or it is in motion in space: the ratio between the times are the same ratio between its energy in rest and its energy in motion.
In anotherway I can give the following resume: every corpuscle have two identies: an idnetity in time and an identity in space. We can associate every corpuscle a quadrivecteur identity length and so there is always a ratio between its quadrivector energy-momentum and the quadrivecteur identity lenght, also another ratio between its quadrivector frequency-wavevector and the quadrivector identity lenght--> duality wave-corpuscle. In other terms there is a unique Natural sytem of unities to measure everything (Not Planck system).
There is no ambiguity.
Types of time:
- Present (the plane in which we are sitting). With respect to the present, we determine the past, the future and the "arrow" of the flight. While in the present, matter moves at the speed of light.
- Stopped time - the future and the past. The future and the past are analogues of the essence that created the origin of the Universe.
((According to you: " We can associate every corpuscle a quadrivecteur identity length and so there is always a ratio between its quadrivector energy-momentum and the quadrivecteur identity lenght, also another ratio between its quadrivector frequency-wavevector and the quadrivector identity lenght-- > duality wave-corpuscle.In other terms there is a unique Natural sytem of unities to measure everything (Not Planck system)".))
In one philosophical article, this conclusion is made. If, after July 11, there is a desire to read, I will make a link.
- Stopped time - the future and the past. The future and the past are analogues of the essence that created the origin of the Universe.
You wrote: "In the “chicken-egg” circle, the cause-and-effect relationship is broken." Well, in reality there is no such circle but undeniable causality. No chicken stems from its own egg.
I agree with Ritz rather than with Einstein's denial of the absolute real border between past and future. I will give a better reference to Ritz than I gave in a hurry in my essay "No standstill ... ".
You wrote: "In the "chicken-egg" circle, the causal relationship is broken." Well, in fact, there is no such circle, but there is an undeniable causality. A chicken does not grow from its own egg.
Not from my own egg. Only from chicken - mothers. The chicken-egg relationship creates a chain. The question "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" allows you to accept any element of the chain as the beginning. The sequence of transformations closes the chain into a circle, eliminating the spiral of evolution. "And the ring has no beginning and no end."
I am a chemical engineer and the words of the poet are clear to me: "There is only a moment, between the past and the future, it is he who is called life" My hobby is the study of the pace of time. Not time, but the speed of time. My conclusions: the movement of time is a process that makes it possible for secondary processes (including life) to exist. Between the past and the future lies the present. The present has its duration - the period of transformation of the future into the past. I'm waiting for a link to Ritz.
As a chemical engineer, you will perhaps not doubt that causality has a direction from earlier to later. Process literally means this peculiarity. I do not say Einstein was a moron when he listed past and future with present time in between. Everybody is clever using fuzzy expressions like today, presently, ect. when it does not matter or it is even impossible to pinpoint something with respect to what our clocks in principle read. Nonetheless, from a logical perspective, I don't see presentism justified. Past and future are quite differen abstract categories. Do not confuse poetry, subjective perception, Einstein's religious belief etc. with the only reasonable measure of steadily growing or shrinking, respectively, temporal distance between two (idealized) points of time, an earlier one to a later one or vice versa. Time does not have a speed. It is rather used to measure speed.
Eckard Blumschein
"Time does not have a speed. It is rather used to measure speed". The essay analyzes the change in the pace of time. We need a check, then a conclusion.
"Past and future are quite different abstract categories". Like the duration of an event, past and future are abstract. As a physical phenomenon, past and future are different types of energy.
I will accept your denial if you explain the differences of one molecule in solid, liquid and gas.
Past and future are not merely distinct from each other. They do also belong to a conceptional category that is quite different from an extended present "moment now" alias event of unspecified duration between the far past and far future.
Unfortunately, you did not refer to any published work. You merely mentioned Kozyrev. I wonder if he could explain your idea and how to avoid errors as to make science better.
Dear Khaki Heron,
just followed the discussion here and saw your post about "resting in time". Now I wonder, do your statements also keep their validity in general relativity (GR)? Spacetime is a unit there and the metric splitting between space and time already requires space-time to obey certain symmetries. But assuming these are fulfiled. Then, resting in time, in my opinion, would still require a reference point more than just the time coordinate (as GR does not care about coordinates). we would rather have to specify with respect to which (other) reference frame the entity we are considering is resting in time. Would you agree? (I am also thinking about this in the context of Roger Penrose's idea, actually going back to Einstein's vision of GR that the spacetime metric has to be generated by all masses within our region of interest and that we can only make sense out of locations on this metric in the sense of relative relationships between different masses and test masses.
Best wishes,
Beige Bandicoot.
Jenny Wagner
My statements are of course in Restreint Relativity and not in GR . The 4-vector identity which I introduce in the first time in Minkowski space-time is as follows:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector identity
4-vector identity=(speed of light times inertial time of the corpuscle, speed of the corpuscle times inertial time of the copuscle)
Inertial time of the corpuscle =universal constant times the energy of the corpuscle
It is evident now that:
4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity
The inertial time is like a five dimension of space. The ordinary time is only change. Inertial time does'nt change if the energy of the corpuscle is constant.
Thanks for the clarification! Well, I was pondering that the concept of time gets a very juicy matter when
i) adding the problem that we do not have a unique global reference frame like flat Minkowski spacetime to anchor everything or
ii) considering macroscopic, averaged quantities that break the symmetries of all our microscopic laws of physics that allow for time reversal.
but as it seems, it is even difficult to grasp the notion of time for a simpler system.
Bests!
Beige Bandicoot.
BeigeBandicoot, KhakiHeron.
To your discussion, my opinion about space (part of the article).
Can the real world be n-dimensional?
To increase the dimension, there must be a ruler of dimensions 1,2,3,4….n. Linearity implies a dual system (1 and 3 are dual to each other, with respect to 2). For the emergence of the 3D world, the next possibility is to combine the 2D and 4D worlds and separate them into dual components. Two 4-dimensional worlds create 3-dimensional and 5-dimensional. From two two-dimensional worlds, a 3-dimensional and one-dimensional one arises. A variant of the emergence of a one-dimensional "arrow of time" and a 3-dimensional Nature was realized.
Why are space, matter, energy, etc. 3-dimensional? The 5th dimension is more diverse and more complex. In existing conditions, the main property of Nature is the desire for stability. Stability is achieved in two ways: by maintaining the potential in dynamics (conservation laws) and by accepting a minimum potential. In the cases under consideration, the minimum for the decay into integers is two.
About the starting point.
Nature is dual (zero splits into dualities). Therefore, the starting point must be and not be. Taking as a reference point the Void (the basis for decay), we make an analogy with the Universe. In the Universe, the property of the Void is possessed by Space. The universe is huge and in fact there is a reference point and there is no point.
Example. Start on a spaceship, the observer sees the Earth is moving away with acceleration. The observer makes a fundamental discovery: "There is a "dark" energy that can accelerate the movement of the Earth.
If we take the resting Space as a starting point, then the Nobel Prize will be awarded to another researcher.
Causal relationship.
A cause-and-effect relationship is given by an analogue of thermodynamics - the movement goes from a large potential to a small one. This is how learning arose, that is, human behavior is subject to the same laws as physics. The great potential of the mind created the desire to know the unknown.
Question. How do you feel about horror in physics? (A lot of darkness, uncertainty, etc. terms, but fear / horror is not yet used).
Alaya Kouki BeigeBandicoot, KhakiHeron.
To your discussion, my opinion about space (part of the article).
Can the real world be n-dimensional?
To increase the dimension, there must be a ruler of dimensions 1,2,3,4….n. Linearity implies a dual system (1 and 3 are dual to each other, with respect to 2). For the emergence of the 3D world, the next possibility is to combine the 2D and 4D worlds and separate them into dual components. Two 4-dimensional worlds create 3-dimensional and 5-dimensional. From two two-dimensional worlds, a 3-dimensional and one-dimensional one arises. A variant of the emergence of a one-dimensional "arrow of time" and a 3-dimensional Nature was realized.
Why are space, matter, energy, etc. 3-dimensional? The 5th dimension is more diverse and more complex. In existing conditions, the main property of Nature is the desire for stability. Stability is achieved in two ways: by maintaining the potential in dynamics (conservation laws) and by accepting a minimum potential. In the cases under consideration, the minimum for the decay into integers is two.
About the starting point.
Nature is dual (zero splits into dualities). Therefore, the starting point must be and not be. Taking as a reference point the Void (the basis for decay), we make an analogy with the Universe. In the Universe, the property of the Void is possessed by Space. The universe is huge and in fact there is a reference point and there is no point.
Example. Start on a spaceship, the observer sees the Earth is moving away with acceleration. The observer makes a fundamental discovery: "There is a "dark" energy that can accelerate the movement of the Earth.
If we take the resting Space as a starting point, then the Nobel Prize will be awarded to another researcher.
Causal relationship.
A cause-and-effect relationship is given by an analogue of thermodynamics - the movement goes from a large potential to a small one. This is how learning arose, that is, human behavior is subject to the same laws as physics. The great potential of the mind created the desire to know the unknown.
Question. How do you feel about horror in physics? (A lot of darkness, uncertainty, etc. terms, but fear / horror is not yet used).