Love it. Been arguing the same. Time and Space are not cojoined and not a dimension. As you said, Time is independent and is in fact a human invention. The speed of light is also incorrect which negates a lot of what we are told is an 'age' of something. Space is not curved, JWT etc reveal that our universe is prob a flat disc or at best slighly curved.
Yes, though one dislikes ad hominem criticisms, it seems he was a part of the problem. If one engages in petitio principii or begs the question repeatedly, is one even on the level?
Interesting, in confusing the metric (measurements of time) for the actual thing (Time itself) and then eschewing "absolute time" (and space) to make his stuff work, Einstein silently obscured "time as a reality" ... and made things impossible for physics for 100 years.
Still, a genius level mistake, but the road to physical theory hell is paved with good intentions...
True, but it's also paved with the pursuit of fame and fortune, and an intention to separate science from what was considered metaphysics. In early 20th-century philosophy of science, metaphysics was seen as incompatible with empirical science (even though Einstein's special relativity was hardly empirical!). The question of how to define time became a battle over who could most authoritatively answer metaphysical questions… physicists (like Einstein) or philosophers (like Henri Bergson)? Yet, in unshackling science from its metaphysical foundations, we've ironically replaced empirical rigour with mathematical constructs, and undoubtedly led physics down the road to 'physical theory hell.'
Yes, that's the reification fallacy and relativity is so full of it that all one needs to do to refute it is to point that out. Curved space, time dilation and length contraction are all examples of reification fallacy.
Great to see this coming through in random threads online. The next step will be to realise that Eastern metaphysics already had these definitions in spades, named as gods because they were irrefutable laws of the universe. Another name for time for example, is Shiva or even Kali, or one of the many definitions of it. This also helps the Electric Universe model gain relevance.
I also plan to post a summary of the Electric Universe theory in coming months. It goes a long way towards providing a more plausible explanation of gravity, redshift, stars and black holes.
Very good perspective. Is scalar energy faster than the speed of light? Do elements have the ability of transmutation? Are Maxwell equations complete and correct? Is a proton a proton or is it a black hole? I feel science stopped and was settled in the 1920's.
The thoughts of both Human and Angelic minds exceed the speed of light. The vast majority of the universe is dark to empirical quantification or measurement. MAN looks at the outward appearance, the LORD looks at the heart...
Isn't it interesting that people adhering to a certain theory or position in physics today attempt to reinterpret Einstein's work so as to add weight to that theory/position? Block Universe theory, for example. It's like "if we can show Einstein believed the same, we'll get it across the finish line of acceptance."
But Newton in his water bucket experiment....and Galileo said....you know Kant thought...yeah, well what if they are all wrong or were biased and were torturiing their data (or worse).
Right on the mark. I distinguish between citing a big name to assess his/her position or work as against citing someone as appeal to his/her authority. The former is healthy and the latter corrupt.
Interesting that today you need a phd to put on a tie, but all the greats were without domain, pretty happy dude degrees. I do not recall Edison or real inventors being worried about tensor calculus nonsense. A farmer had more relevant wisdom than a grad spouting Kantian or Einsteinian cant. Einstein in the 1920s, started the slur that those who disagreed with him were racist :)
So true and actually sad that science - like the rest of knowledge - has been hijacked and held hostage by these self-interested groups. As a book reviewer I've come across some real gems that never made news but also seen some lower quality stuff that actually won or were nominated for the Nobel Prize (politically correct) and are known worldwide as modern-day classics.
Time is an abstraction. What we observe is change. Time is the measured rate of change, and we call that “time”. If there was a universal and constant rate of change in something then that could be called time in observations, but because the rate of change is different in different things even that would be pretty abstract.
It’s an interesting argument. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how would you respond to the observations that suggest time is a real physical dimension that governs change, rather than merely an abstraction we conceive of because we see things changing?
For example, the second law of thermodynamics suggests time has a direction: systems tend to change from states of lower entropy (order) to higher entropy (disorder).
Or cause and effect: Events unfold in a temporal sequence, and the cause always precedes its effect. That does not seem to be just a mental construct.
Or Quantum mechanics. The Schrödinger equation incorporates time as a real parameter that governs changes in the state of a system.
Finally, if time is an abstraction, did the universe have a beginning? If it did, how do you explain the idea that something happens at a specific point in a temporal sequence? In other words, how do you distinguish between ‘before’ and ‘after’ the starting point of the universe?
I don’t feel qualified to comment on thermodynamics or quantum physics, but I can probably say something.
Time is a very useful abstraction that we create/have quite unconsciously. Playing tennis we don’t need any concept of time to know that we need to try to hit the ball with the racket at exactly the right moment. We don’t see time, but only the approaching ball, that is change, and we are aware of the rate of change and we adjust accordingly.
I hazard to offer that the directionality of change is our attribution also, because in our minds we know that a broken vase doesn’t become unbroken by itself so there seems to be a direction. But the vase doesn’t move in any direction so it is again an abstraction. It is still a useful abstraction but in my opinion should not be treated as objectively existing.
Again rate of change is something that can be calculated because it can be measured but the directionality is not something you can put a number to (unless I’m missing something).
Cause and effect is definitely not a mental construct. But: events unfold in a sequence. The word temporal is superfluous. The abstraction of time is our mind’s way to make sense of what happens in the world.
I do think that the physicists talking about the arrow of time are leading us into a blind alley and they need to clarify their thinking and perception.
How did the universe begin? A good question. One thing is certain, we were not there to observe it. A better question might be - where was our mind before we were born?
Time is not a cause of change. It is the relationship between rates of change and is not a mental construct—for example, the commensuration periods of astronomical phenomena. We perceive this by comparing rates of change. Entropy only applies to closed systems. That is why they want to pretend the universe is finite when there is no evidence of this. Entropy does not apply to open systems like the universe.
Yes, time is a comparison of rates of change. Nothing can cause all rates of change to vary in unison because there are different causes for each rate.
So, pendulum clocks move slower in lower gravity while atomic clocks move faster.
What did Einstein mean by "the Lorentz transformations as they are termed – are unequivocally established by these definitions and the hypotheses concealed in the assumption that they are free from contradiction?"
The comparison between a pendulum and an atomic clock in low gravity nicely highlights the challenges we face when trying to measure time precisely. One second is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a caesium atom. However, using this definition, we would be unable to detect if atoms were oscillating more slowly—such as in the case of decreasing light speed—because the standard duration of one second would also change. For example, consider an atomic clock made up of atoms that have a specific frequency of oscillation. When the clock moves into a stronger gravitational field, the atoms decrease their frequency of oscillation. This means that the number of oscillations required to complete one second takes a little longer. If you define ‘time’ as that which is displayed on the clock, it will give the appearance that time itself has slowed down (compared to a region of weaker gravitational field) rather than a purely mechanistic effect.
In answer to your question, the Lorentz equations are simply mathematical tools, derived from Pythagorean trigonometry, designed to transform measurements of space and time from one inertial frame to another. While we have to agree with Einstein that these equations in themselves don't lead to any contradictions, I question whether the results they produce—time dilation and length contraction—can be interpreted as 'relativistic' changes in the way Einstein proposed. As Dialect has effectively shown, we can easily derive the Lorentz equations from sound waves (where "c" represents the speed of sound rather than the speed of light). This demonstrates that the same equations can be applied to any wave travelling through any medium, proving that Einstein's so-called 'time dilation' can be considered a purely mechanistic effect (as with the atomic clock example above), having nothing to do with time itself slowing down.
The Lorentz transformation is only the difference in arrival times of the two beams in the MMX. This difference would have been found in the fringe shift if there was an ether wind. There was no difference. The LT is a claim that some effect exactly counteracted the ether wind hiding or negating it. That would be quite a coincidence.
When it was discovered that the Earth wasn't moving through an ether, the possible explanations were: (1) there is no ether, (2) the ether moves with the Earth (ether-drag hypothesis), or (3) the Earth itself isn't moving.
Which option do you prefer? Or are saying: (4) the LT is wrong?
The LT is originally merely the arrival time difference between the two beams. Then it came to refer to an ad hoc fiction that miraculously negated the wind. That is illogical nonsense. Aetherists now believe the LT accounts for the null result in a vacuum interferometer. That is very poor logic. The LT is nonsense. It was recognized as purely ad hoc early on and on that basis length contraction was already discarded in the 1890's. It was Einstein who ran with it. There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction. They involve reification fallacy, are ad hoc fictions and beg the question of what could cause them. Relative motion and absolute motion cannot cause them.
... as it is with time ... Einstein wasn't wrong ... he just wasn't as far along ... as all we know ... measuring time via projections and never directly [because that's impossible by just moving in space] ... not to consider synchronicity as a state resonance field ... mixing quantity dimension with quality spheres ... holy cow ... it's still always now ... and reality is made of differences ...
Science is hard enough without cranks deliberately mucking up the works.
This article shows you don't understand the basics of the photoelectric effect, so why should anyone believe your thoughts on a more complicated subject?
You are correct in saying the map is not the territory. However, to go on from there to say the territory does not exist is nonsense.
Relativity is sufficiently true as to have passed every test of its predictions within our own solar system. The GPS system relies on relativity to function. Synchronized atomic clocks lose sync when one is a meter above the other.
My explanation of the photoelectric effect was not intended to be comprehensive. It only served to highlight the remarkable irony that in 1905 Einstein had made a significant contribution to quantum mechanics, a field that today (thanks to time being quantised as well as light) completely contradicts the principles of Einstein's relativity at a fundamental level, whether you agree that quantum mechanics is the best description of reality or not. But what is your understanding of the photoelectric effect?
Where did I say the 'territory' (time itself?) 'does not exist'? Strawman argument.
I'm glad you brought up the tests of relativity within our solar system. I'm currently writing a four-part series on that topic that I'll post over the next few months. Please stay tuned, I welcome your feedback.
You might also be interested in the previous post 'The Truth about GPS'.
Ah yes. I didn't use the word 'intensity', but I can see that using the phrase 'amount of light' (as in the amount of light energy carried by the photons) is a bit ambiguous. Thank you for pointing that out. Electrons are only ejected if the frequency of the light is above a certain threshold. Below this frequency, no electrons are emitted, regardless of the light's intensity.
That's an interesting perspective. However if you define time as the total amount of electromagnetic field passing through a given area, and this process exhibits measurable rates of change, does that imply time itself speeds up or slows down in accordance with the rate of flux?
The problem here is that this sensible measure of time becomes time itself.
If I understand correctly, and anyone chime in if I'm off base, I was refering to the creation or collapse of an energised formation of an electromagnetic field in any conductor.
As far as I understand, the area is not relative to the speed the formation of a stable field.
This would be the smallest definable quant of time.
So at a cellular, protonic, photonic, electric or magnetic level, from non- existant to existant in the neutrino or aetheral medium.
Time would be the energetic induction of existence.
T = E(LC)M(R)
elementary dear Watson 😂
Aether would be the medium of all matter and energy percieved.
Energy disruption through induction creating a (percievable state) -Mass (wether the brain, potential, radiational or kenetic flux change) through the medium of space.(aether).
Mass would be materialistic in the physical realm.
eg, If the aspect of everything remained constant (no change) then time would cease to exist.
Feel free to eleborate and modify these thoughts. 👍
Great question, great post.
cheers
Michael.
P.S.
So Time is the opposite of no change at a vibrational level.
This is probably why the quantum realm operates close to 0°K where no vibrational state of matter can exist, thus infinite simutaneous eventualities can be calculated.
The only mechanism left in this enviroment is flux capacity.....
Hence the flux capacitor making time alteration possible 😂😂😂😂.
A while back i explored the discrepencies of duration between flux stable formation and collaspe.
Einstein denied the existence of the energy field, hence dooming the world into using Petrochemicals for energy. Always look for the money as it refers to why Oligarchs are forcing everyone into Einstein’s insanity. They control everything from Education, Health, Energy Control, Media - It’s mass Brainwashing -
The LT is originally merely the arrival time difference between the two beams. Then it came to refer to an ad hoc fiction that miraculously negated the wind. That is illogical nonsense. Aetherists now believe the LT accounts for the null result in a vacuum interferometer. That is very poor logic. The LT is nonsense. It was recognized as purely ad hoc early on and on that basis length contraction was already discarded in the 1890's. It was Einstein who ran with it. The LT is merely a math calculation that does not explain the cause or how that cause could just happen to exactly equal the ether wind. It's just funny business.
Love it. Been arguing the same. Time and Space are not cojoined and not a dimension. As you said, Time is independent and is in fact a human invention. The speed of light is also incorrect which negates a lot of what we are told is an 'age' of something. Space is not curved, JWT etc reveal that our universe is prob a flat disc or at best slighly curved.
Yes, time is not a spatial, but a metaphorical, dimension.
Einstein was part of the problem
Yes, though one dislikes ad hominem criticisms, it seems he was a part of the problem. If one engages in petitio principii or begs the question repeatedly, is one even on the level?
One only has to fire up Sid Meier's Civilization to prove that Einstein's definition of time was wrong.
Yes! I remember playing that in the ‘90s. Centuries of progress can be achieved in the space of an hour!
Interesting, in confusing the metric (measurements of time) for the actual thing (Time itself) and then eschewing "absolute time" (and space) to make his stuff work, Einstein silently obscured "time as a reality" ... and made things impossible for physics for 100 years.
Still, a genius level mistake, but the road to physical theory hell is paved with good intentions...
True, but it's also paved with the pursuit of fame and fortune, and an intention to separate science from what was considered metaphysics. In early 20th-century philosophy of science, metaphysics was seen as incompatible with empirical science (even though Einstein's special relativity was hardly empirical!). The question of how to define time became a battle over who could most authoritatively answer metaphysical questions… physicists (like Einstein) or philosophers (like Henri Bergson)? Yet, in unshackling science from its metaphysical foundations, we've ironically replaced empirical rigour with mathematical constructs, and undoubtedly led physics down the road to 'physical theory hell.'
Fairly impossible to agree with you more.
Yes, that's the reification fallacy and relativity is so full of it that all one needs to do to refute it is to point that out. Curved space, time dilation and length contraction are all examples of reification fallacy.
Great to see this coming through in random threads online. The next step will be to realise that Eastern metaphysics already had these definitions in spades, named as gods because they were irrefutable laws of the universe. Another name for time for example, is Shiva or even Kali, or one of the many definitions of it. This also helps the Electric Universe model gain relevance.
Thanks Aria.
You may be interested to read this post that talks about Shiva in relation to particle physics:
https://open.substack.com/pub/brentshadbolt/p/what-is-real?r=wp0ny&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I also plan to post a summary of the Electric Universe theory in coming months. It goes a long way towards providing a more plausible explanation of gravity, redshift, stars and black holes.
Very good perspective. Is scalar energy faster than the speed of light? Do elements have the ability of transmutation? Are Maxwell equations complete and correct? Is a proton a proton or is it a black hole? I feel science stopped and was settled in the 1920's.
The thoughts of both Human and Angelic minds exceed the speed of light. The vast majority of the universe is dark to empirical quantification or measurement. MAN looks at the outward appearance, the LORD looks at the heart...
....the Kingdom is Vast, space / time is small.
Isn't it interesting that people adhering to a certain theory or position in physics today attempt to reinterpret Einstein's work so as to add weight to that theory/position? Block Universe theory, for example. It's like "if we can show Einstein believed the same, we'll get it across the finish line of acceptance."
Appeal to authority.
But Newton in his water bucket experiment....and Galileo said....you know Kant thought...yeah, well what if they are all wrong or were biased and were torturiing their data (or worse).
Right on the mark. I distinguish between citing a big name to assess his/her position or work as against citing someone as appeal to his/her authority. The former is healthy and the latter corrupt.
Interesting that today you need a phd to put on a tie, but all the greats were without domain, pretty happy dude degrees. I do not recall Edison or real inventors being worried about tensor calculus nonsense. A farmer had more relevant wisdom than a grad spouting Kantian or Einsteinian cant. Einstein in the 1920s, started the slur that those who disagreed with him were racist :)
So true and actually sad that science - like the rest of knowledge - has been hijacked and held hostage by these self-interested groups. As a book reviewer I've come across some real gems that never made news but also seen some lower quality stuff that actually won or were nominated for the Nobel Prize (politically correct) and are known worldwide as modern-day classics.
Time is an abstraction. What we observe is change. Time is the measured rate of change, and we call that “time”. If there was a universal and constant rate of change in something then that could be called time in observations, but because the rate of change is different in different things even that would be pretty abstract.
It’s an interesting argument. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how would you respond to the observations that suggest time is a real physical dimension that governs change, rather than merely an abstraction we conceive of because we see things changing?
For example, the second law of thermodynamics suggests time has a direction: systems tend to change from states of lower entropy (order) to higher entropy (disorder).
Or cause and effect: Events unfold in a temporal sequence, and the cause always precedes its effect. That does not seem to be just a mental construct.
Or Quantum mechanics. The Schrödinger equation incorporates time as a real parameter that governs changes in the state of a system.
Finally, if time is an abstraction, did the universe have a beginning? If it did, how do you explain the idea that something happens at a specific point in a temporal sequence? In other words, how do you distinguish between ‘before’ and ‘after’ the starting point of the universe?
I don’t feel qualified to comment on thermodynamics or quantum physics, but I can probably say something.
Time is a very useful abstraction that we create/have quite unconsciously. Playing tennis we don’t need any concept of time to know that we need to try to hit the ball with the racket at exactly the right moment. We don’t see time, but only the approaching ball, that is change, and we are aware of the rate of change and we adjust accordingly.
I hazard to offer that the directionality of change is our attribution also, because in our minds we know that a broken vase doesn’t become unbroken by itself so there seems to be a direction. But the vase doesn’t move in any direction so it is again an abstraction. It is still a useful abstraction but in my opinion should not be treated as objectively existing.
Again rate of change is something that can be calculated because it can be measured but the directionality is not something you can put a number to (unless I’m missing something).
Cause and effect is definitely not a mental construct. But: events unfold in a sequence. The word temporal is superfluous. The abstraction of time is our mind’s way to make sense of what happens in the world.
I do think that the physicists talking about the arrow of time are leading us into a blind alley and they need to clarify their thinking and perception.
How did the universe begin? A good question. One thing is certain, we were not there to observe it. A better question might be - where was our mind before we were born?
Time is not a cause of change. It is the relationship between rates of change and is not a mental construct—for example, the commensuration periods of astronomical phenomena. We perceive this by comparing rates of change. Entropy only applies to closed systems. That is why they want to pretend the universe is finite when there is no evidence of this. Entropy does not apply to open systems like the universe.
Yes, time is a comparison of rates of change. Nothing can cause all rates of change to vary in unison because there are different causes for each rate.
Well said. You demonstrate clear thinking (rather than deep, but unclear thinking)
There's nothing deep about relativity.
Different clocks respond to different gravitational potentials in opposite ways.
"Gravity Dependency: A larger gravitational force results in a shorter period. This principle implies that a pendulum would swing faster on planets with higher gravity compared to Earth." - https://realitypathing.com/the-role-of-gravity-in-pendulum-mechanics-explained/
So, pendulum clocks move slower in lower gravity while atomic clocks move faster.
What did Einstein mean by "the Lorentz transformations as they are termed – are unequivocally established by these definitions and the hypotheses concealed in the assumption that they are free from contradiction?"
The comparison between a pendulum and an atomic clock in low gravity nicely highlights the challenges we face when trying to measure time precisely. One second is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a caesium atom. However, using this definition, we would be unable to detect if atoms were oscillating more slowly—such as in the case of decreasing light speed—because the standard duration of one second would also change. For example, consider an atomic clock made up of atoms that have a specific frequency of oscillation. When the clock moves into a stronger gravitational field, the atoms decrease their frequency of oscillation. This means that the number of oscillations required to complete one second takes a little longer. If you define ‘time’ as that which is displayed on the clock, it will give the appearance that time itself has slowed down (compared to a region of weaker gravitational field) rather than a purely mechanistic effect.
In answer to your question, the Lorentz equations are simply mathematical tools, derived from Pythagorean trigonometry, designed to transform measurements of space and time from one inertial frame to another. While we have to agree with Einstein that these equations in themselves don't lead to any contradictions, I question whether the results they produce—time dilation and length contraction—can be interpreted as 'relativistic' changes in the way Einstein proposed. As Dialect has effectively shown, we can easily derive the Lorentz equations from sound waves (where "c" represents the speed of sound rather than the speed of light). This demonstrates that the same equations can be applied to any wave travelling through any medium, proving that Einstein's so-called 'time dilation' can be considered a purely mechanistic effect (as with the atomic clock example above), having nothing to do with time itself slowing down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKkH4IH-zmw&list=PLyQD_BIJ9H7YuPxxPiyucZxsT6simAL2d&index=56
The Lorentz transformation is only the difference in arrival times of the two beams in the MMX. This difference would have been found in the fringe shift if there was an ether wind. There was no difference. The LT is a claim that some effect exactly counteracted the ether wind hiding or negating it. That would be quite a coincidence.
When it was discovered that the Earth wasn't moving through an ether, the possible explanations were: (1) there is no ether, (2) the ether moves with the Earth (ether-drag hypothesis), or (3) the Earth itself isn't moving.
Which option do you prefer? Or are saying: (4) the LT is wrong?
The LT is originally merely the arrival time difference between the two beams. Then it came to refer to an ad hoc fiction that miraculously negated the wind. That is illogical nonsense. Aetherists now believe the LT accounts for the null result in a vacuum interferometer. That is very poor logic. The LT is nonsense. It was recognized as purely ad hoc early on and on that basis length contraction was already discarded in the 1890's. It was Einstein who ran with it. There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction. They involve reification fallacy, are ad hoc fictions and beg the question of what could cause them. Relative motion and absolute motion cannot cause them.
... as it is with time ... Einstein wasn't wrong ... he just wasn't as far along ... as all we know ... measuring time via projections and never directly [because that's impossible by just moving in space] ... not to consider synchronicity as a state resonance field ... mixing quantity dimension with quality spheres ... holy cow ... it's still always now ... and reality is made of differences ...
Science is hard enough without cranks deliberately mucking up the works.
This article shows you don't understand the basics of the photoelectric effect, so why should anyone believe your thoughts on a more complicated subject?
You are correct in saying the map is not the territory. However, to go on from there to say the territory does not exist is nonsense.
Relativity is sufficiently true as to have passed every test of its predictions within our own solar system. The GPS system relies on relativity to function. Synchronized atomic clocks lose sync when one is a meter above the other.
Thanks for commenting Charles.
My explanation of the photoelectric effect was not intended to be comprehensive. It only served to highlight the remarkable irony that in 1905 Einstein had made a significant contribution to quantum mechanics, a field that today (thanks to time being quantised as well as light) completely contradicts the principles of Einstein's relativity at a fundamental level, whether you agree that quantum mechanics is the best description of reality or not. But what is your understanding of the photoelectric effect?
Where did I say the 'territory' (time itself?) 'does not exist'? Strawman argument.
I'm glad you brought up the tests of relativity within our solar system. I'm currently writing a four-part series on that topic that I'll post over the next few months. Please stay tuned, I welcome your feedback.
You might also be interested in the previous post 'The Truth about GPS'.
https://open.substack.com/pub/brentshadbolt/p/the-truth-about-gps-relativity-not?r=wp0ny&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Saying that the intensity of light causes the photoelectric effect rather misses the entire point of it.
Ah yes. I didn't use the word 'intensity', but I can see that using the phrase 'amount of light' (as in the amount of light energy carried by the photons) is a bit ambiguous. Thank you for pointing that out. Electrons are only ejected if the frequency of the light is above a certain threshold. Below this frequency, no electrons are emitted, regardless of the light's intensity.
Then what is the point of it?
The "Definition" of time is dependent on what is defining time.
The human definition would be different than a machine.
A grandfather clock would define time as 1 second, if its lowest common resolution is 1 second.
A human would define time as the lowest common resolution of percieved and proceesed "moments" which would be in the THz range typically...
A computer would define time as percieved (input) and processed (output) or latency.
This would be due to the differential quantize rates (sample rates) of moments percieved and processed.
The only constant of time that remains in all three definitions is the
period of electromagnetic flux creation and collapse, which surprisingly have different measurable rates of change.
The answer is Time is electromagnetix flux differential.
Another mystery of the universe solved....😂😁.
This is applicable to micro and macro observations.
A flux density state of change cheers, 👍
Michael.
p.s. that was a tough one, now I have to go to work.
Cheers.
That's an interesting perspective. However if you define time as the total amount of electromagnetic field passing through a given area, and this process exhibits measurable rates of change, does that imply time itself speeds up or slows down in accordance with the rate of flux?
The problem here is that this sensible measure of time becomes time itself.
If I understand correctly, and anyone chime in if I'm off base, I was refering to the creation or collapse of an energised formation of an electromagnetic field in any conductor.
As far as I understand, the area is not relative to the speed the formation of a stable field.
This would be the smallest definable quant of time.
So at a cellular, protonic, photonic, electric or magnetic level, from non- existant to existant in the neutrino or aetheral medium.
Time would be the energetic induction of existence.
T = E(LC)M(R)
elementary dear Watson 😂
Aether would be the medium of all matter and energy percieved.
Energy disruption through induction creating a (percievable state) -Mass (wether the brain, potential, radiational or kenetic flux change) through the medium of space.(aether).
Mass would be materialistic in the physical realm.
eg, If the aspect of everything remained constant (no change) then time would cease to exist.
Feel free to eleborate and modify these thoughts. 👍
Great question, great post.
cheers
Michael.
P.S.
So Time is the opposite of no change at a vibrational level.
This is probably why the quantum realm operates close to 0°K where no vibrational state of matter can exist, thus infinite simutaneous eventualities can be calculated.
The only mechanism left in this enviroment is flux capacity.....
Hence the flux capacitor making time alteration possible 😂😂😂😂.
A while back i explored the discrepencies of duration between flux stable formation and collaspe.
they are different!!!!!!
hence the zero point energy possibilty......
back to the future, on one of my videos...
Einstein denied the existence of the energy field, hence dooming the world into using Petrochemicals for energy. Always look for the money as it refers to why Oligarchs are forcing everyone into Einstein’s insanity. They control everything from Education, Health, Energy Control, Media - It’s mass Brainwashing -
Universe is endless- We can’t ever see it all from Earth - Plus “Time is Motion Quantified “ Something I dreamed up.
The LT is originally merely the arrival time difference between the two beams. Then it came to refer to an ad hoc fiction that miraculously negated the wind. That is illogical nonsense. Aetherists now believe the LT accounts for the null result in a vacuum interferometer. That is very poor logic. The LT is nonsense. It was recognized as purely ad hoc early on and on that basis length contraction was already discarded in the 1890's. It was Einstein who ran with it. The LT is merely a math calculation that does not explain the cause or how that cause could just happen to exactly equal the ether wind. It's just funny business.
Confusing the measure with the thing is the reification fallacy.