time is what we measure with clocks

[amrit]

Time Is Motion (TIM Theory) - Summary
(published mainly in Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics: www.ejtp.com)


In the universe we observe time as a motion, there is no other evidence of time. With clocks we measure duration of motion. On the base we measure it time can be defined as time = motion. The process of experiencing of motion (physical time) is following:

motion......perception(eyes)......elaboration(mind-time frame)......experience(observer)

We experience motion (physical time) into "mind-time frame" that is psychological time. We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion (physical time)
B- mind-time frame (psychological time)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion into space)


Physical time (motion) is a physical quantity measured by clocks. With clocks we measure duration of the movement of body or particle regarding another body or particle. There is no still observer which can observe all the movements from a still stand point. All the movements are relative. This is the main insight of the SR.
According to the Mach Planck definition in a Planck time a photon pass Planck distance. Time is a movement of a photon into Planck distance. The movement of photon into Planck distance is a "smallest" movement possible in the universe. Planck time t is a number that indicates the duration of the photon travelling in a Planck distance.
All in the universe is energy: cosmic space is energy, matter is energy, light is energy......
Time is a movement of energy, time can not run by itself into space. If it would be so, time would be an energy, but there is no formula in physics where time is energy.

1. In The Theory of Relativity time can be understood as a part of space only in sense that all movement exists in space. Motion and space can not be separated. Bodies and particles do not move in a space-time, all movement exists in space only. Space-time exist only as a math model, it does not exist in the universe itself.

The idea that time run by itself into cosmic space is from the times of Newton. At his time physics was a part of metaphysics. The idea is from metaphysics, it is not from physics. By Einstein the Newton idea that time runs independently into space and that movement of material bodies runs into time is half abandoned. In the Theory of Relativity duration of the movement (time) is described with t that is only a component of fourth dimension of space X4.

X4 = i x c x t

where

i (i square is -1) is an imaginary number
c is speed of light
t is a duration of light moving through the cosmic space from the object A to the object B

With clocks we measure duration of the movement of the light (duration of time). All four dimensions of cosmic space are spatial, cosmic space is not 3D + 1T, cosmic space is 4D.

Matter is three-dimensional, cosmic space is four-dimensional. When material object is moving in space, space is always also inside of it. Space does not finishes on the surface of material object, it extends also inside of it. One can imagine that as a two-dimensional object moving in a three-dimensional space. Two-dimensional object exists in three-dimensional space, but three-dimensional space exists also in the two-dimensional object.

The speed of the motion (time) depends on a density D of space. Density D in centre of planet or star is:
D = m x G, (formula 1)

where m is a mass and G is gravitational constant. Density D is diminishing with the distance r on square from the centre of the star. Speed of time is increasing with the diminishing of density D. Clocks run faster on the top of the high mountain and slower at the sea side under the mountain. Density of space is higher at sea side and lover on the top of the mountain.

Density of space is increasing by going towards the sun. Time (speed of bodies and particles) is becoming slower by going towards the sun. That's the cause of "Mercury perihelion dilate".

2. Quanta of space which compose cosmic space have the following features: they change their electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time (5.39x10^-44s), vibrate at the “basic frequency” 0.19x10^44s-1 , have a “basic energy” given by the relation Eqs = h*0.19x10^44s-1 where h is Planck’s constant (6.626069x10^34Js ), and thus Eqs = 1.26x10^10J .
QS of cosmic space can not be created and can not be destroyed, they have no entropy.

Gravitational force acts between that build quanta of space that QS build up cosmic space. The "radius of action "of gravitational force is of a Planck size. Every QS attract the QS around it. Between QS near by the moon and QS near by the earth gravitation acts on the distance and instantly via QS that are between them.

Gravitational force is carried directly by the density of QS that build up cosmic space. The gravitational force Fg between two material objects is given by the following relation:

Fg = (D1 x D2) / (r on square x G)

where r is the distance between the centers of the two material objects.

Gravitational force Fg on material body or on a particle that has a mass m depends on the density G of space.

Fg = (m x D) / ( r x r )

where m is a mass of a body or particle, D is the density if space in a centre of planet or star, r is the distance from the centre of the planet or star; r can be shorter or longer as t the radius of the planet or star.

Gravitational acceleration g in a given distance r from the centre of the planet or star is:

g = (m x G) / (r x r)

m is a mass of planet or star,
G is gravitational constant
r is a distance from a centre


According to the formula 1: D = m x G

g = D ( r x r )

where D is the density of space in the centre of planet or star and r is a distance from the centre


3. Relation between mass m of particle and density of space D into it is:

D = m x G

G is gravitational constant
m is a mass of particle

The density of space inside of the same atom is higher on the earth than on the moon, because on the earth the density of space is higher than on the moon. The same atom will have a bigger weight on the earth than on the moon. But its density D that defines its mass will remain the same. So by moving through the space the weight of particles changes, but its mass remains the same. Photon is an exception here. Around the photon there is no additional density D of cosmic space, so photon has no weight and no mass.

Energy of matter and energy of space inside of a material object or mass particle are in equilibrium, equal: Espace ( Es ) = Ematter ( Em )

Es = Em = m x cc, ( D = m x G)

where m is a mass of the object, c is speed of light, D is density of space around the object and G is gravitational constant.

Es = Em = (D x cc) / G

Energy of space Es inside of particle or material object depends on the density of space D.

First experiments that proves mass increasing of particles that moves fast were done about 100 years ago. The faster the elementary particle, the bigger will be its mass. We call that “The Relativistic Mass Increase”.

The formula E = 0.5m x vv shows the relationship between the increase in mass of the relativistic particle and its increase in kinetic energy.

In this formula we can change m with D/G and we will get the formula:

E = (0.5D x vv) / G

which shows clearly that the kinetic energy of particle depends on the density D of space into it and on the speed v

The mass of accelerated particle is increasing because the with the speed increasing the density around the particle is increasing.

Density of space is increasing also inside of the inertial system that moves with the higher speed regarding the inertial system that moves with the lower speed. This higher density of space causes the speed of clocks is slower into the faster inertial system.

Higher density of cosmic space inside of an fast inertial system is the bridge SR and GR. In SR the speed of inertial system causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space, in GR the mass causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space. “Inertial mass” and “gravitational mass” of a material object or particle are equal because the density of cosmic space in inertial mass and gravitational mass is equal.

Let’s say we are in a fast space ship that travels far away from the stars and planets in cosmic space with low density. With increasing of the speed of the space ship the density of cosmic space into it will increase. By attaining a certain speed the density of the space in the space ship will be equal to the density on the surface of the earth. Space ship travel than with this constant speed. We have two material bodies that are identical. Both of bodies will behave in exact the same way in the space ship and on the surface of the earth. The density D of space in both bodies is equal. This means the equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

4. Cosmic space is composed by quanta of space (QS) having the size of Planck length. Light is a physical event in which photons are "jumping" from one quantum of space to another in a Planck time. Cosmic space is a medium of light, inertial systems move through the cosmic space. That's why the speed of light is “maximum speed” in the universe and it is same in all inertial systems.

Light has a double particle-wave nature simultaneously. A single photon jumping from one quantum of space to another in its trajectory is the central part - particle. The “chain jumping” of the photon changes the frequency of the QS on its trajectory from its basic frequency to the frequency of the photon. The central part of the photon also changes the vibration of QS around its trajectory that is its circumference part - wave.

In a “double slit experiment” we can settle instruments and observe photon's particle-part or we can settle instruments differently and observe the wave's part of the photon.
When we settle instruments to observe a particle, we will observe (detect) the particle part of the photon, when we settle instruments to observe a wave, we will observe (detect) the wave part of the photon. Scientist (Observer) should not play any role in this experiment.

5. When a star has a mass of 3,2 masses of sun in its centre the density of cosmic space is so strong that gravitation overpowers all other forces. Matter transforms back into quanta of space (QS) that build up cosmic space.

Beyond Schwarzschild Radius gravity is so strong that prevails above all other forces. All elementary particles transform back into the energy of cosmic space. Matter and space are made out of the same “stuff”. Black holes are the “fabric” where matter transforms back into space. In big explosions of AGN space transforms back into matter.
Universe is composed by one energy. The basic packets of this one energy are QS. Energy is circulating continuously “space-matter-space-matter-…”. Universe is a self-renewing system. There was no beginning and there will be no end.

Schwarzschild Radius Rs is:

Rs = (2G x m) / (c x c)

G is gravitational constant
m is mass of the stellar object

According to the formula (1) D = G x m
D is the density of cosmic space in the centre of the black hole

Rs = 2D / (c x c)

Inside Rs gravitation has no direction, density of space does not increases towards the centre of the black hole. The area inside of Rs is a fabric where matter transforms back into the QS of cosmic space.


A mass has a weight when it is in a space where density changes, it has a direction. At the “weightless” Lagrange point between earth and sun happens that density D of space is stable, there is no change of density, no direction. So gravity is there because gravity is carried by the quanta of space QS, and QS build up cosmic space also at the “weightless point”. If it would be no gravitation at the “weightless point” earth would fly away long time ago.
A body at Lagrange point will not move, but this does not mean that gravitational force is not there.

Diminishing of the speed of binary pulsar is caused by the transformation of matter back into the energy of cosmic space in the centre of one star of the binary pulsar. With transformation of matter into space the mass one stars is diminishing, and so also the speed of the binary pulsar is diminishing. There is no gravitational radiation, gravitational waves do not exist.

Time decrease of the orbital period of the binary pulsar PRS1913+16 is the result of matter transforming back into space in the centre of one star. This diminishes the mass of the star, diminishing of the mass causes diminishing of the speed of rotation, and so time decrease of the orbital period.

[Epsilon=One]

In the universe we observe time as a motion, there is no other evidence of time. With clocks we measure duration of motion. On the base we measure it time can be defined as time = motion. Not quite correct. Motion alone cannot create time. There are other requirements. Time requires a “unit.” That is: “motion” must be interrupted to create “time”; and, thus, this motion is accelerating motion; and, accelerating motion requires an energy source.

We experience motion (physical time) into "mind-time frame" that is psychological time. We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion (physical time)
B- mind-time frame (psychological time)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion into space)Nuts! Time exists regardless of anything that we experience. Time is NOT “psychological.”

Physical time (motion) is a physical quantity measured by clocks.Clocks measure “units” that are not specifically “motion.” What kind of motion are you referring to? Clocks can only measure accelerating motion.

With clocks we measure duration of the movement of body or particle regarding another body or particle.No. This is not correct for fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT), which is not concerned with a “body or particle.”

There is no still observer which can observe all the movements from a still stand point. All the movements are relative. This is the main insight of the SR.FIT is NOT relative. It is based upon the Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322) which is a constant. The only constant.

According to the Mach Planck definition in a Planck time a photon pass Planck distance. Time is a movement of a photon into Planck distance. The movement of photon into Planck distance is a "smallest" movement possible in the universe. Planck time t is a number that indicates the duration of the photon travelling in a Planck distance.This is gobbledygook. Photons are ill-defined and Planck constants are contrived.

All in the universe is energy: cosmic space is energy, matter is energy, light is energy......I agree.

Time is a movement of energy, time can not run by itself into space. If it would be so, time would be an energy, but there is no formula in physics where time is energy.The creation of a quantum of space, is what is created by the “escapement” of FIT’s clock. The unit of space and FIT’s clock are closely related. Time is much more than just the “movement of energy.”

1. In The Theory of Relativity time can be understood as a part of space only in sense that all movement exists in space. Motion and space can not be separated.What is space? What kind of motion are you discussing?

Bodies and particles do not move in a space-time, all movement exists in space only. Space-time exist only as a math model, it does not exist in the universe itself.Agreed. Do you understand what “space” is and how space and light are related such that light moves at a constant speed regardless of the speed of its source?

The idea that time run by itself into cosmic space is from the times of Newton. At his time physics was a part of metaphysics. The idea is from metaphysics, it is not from physics.Regarding metaphysics, I can think of nothing that has changed to date.

All four dimensions of cosmic space are spatial, cosmic space is not 3D + 1T, cosmic space is 4D.How does “cosmic space” differ from other space? Do you have any idea what “space” is ? The clock which makes possible fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) also creates the orthogonal dimensions (and the Inverse Square Law) which some confuse as “space.”

Matter is three-dimensional, cosmic space is four-dimension.”Space” does not add any extra dimensions. Dimensions are merely a manner to describe the location of a point within the Universe. A point has as many dimensions as the number of systems that it is within.

l. When material object is moving in space, space is always also inside of it. Space does not finishes on the surface of material object, it extends also inside of it. One can imagine that as a two-dimensional object moving in a three-dimensional space. Two-dimensional object exists in three-dimensional space, but three-dimensional space exists also in the two-dimensional object.”Space” is quanticized (a Pulsoid); all manifestations are entirely comprised of Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98).

The speed of the motion (time) depends on a density D of space.No. This is gibberish.

2. Quanta of space which compose cosmic space have the following features: they change their electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time (5.39x10^-44s), vibrate at the “basic frequency” 0.19x10^44s-1 , have a “basic energy” given by the relation Eqs = h*0.19x10^44s-1 where h is Planck’s constant (6.626069x10^34Js ), and thus Eqs = 1.26x10^10J .
QS of cosmic space can not be created and can not be destroyed, they have no entropy.Until the last sentence, the concept is somewhat correct, despite the Planck contrivances. The quanta (Pulsoids) have great swings in entropy as they unendingly coalesce, propagate, compress, and dissipate.

Gravitational force acts between that build quanta of space that QS build up cosmic space. The "radius of action "of gravitational force is of a Planck size. Every QS attract the QS around it. Between QS near by the moon and QS near by the earth gravitation acts on the distance and instantly via QS that are between them.Exactly how does this “attraction” come about? Is it metaphysical, voodoo action-at-a-distance? I would think attraction would be several forces; such as: reach, grasp, and pull.

Gravitational force is carried directly by the density of QS that build up cosmic space.I prefer to think of it as Relative, Hierarchic, Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124). Otherwise, how do you explain accelerating, galactic recession?

4. Cosmic space is composed by quanta of space (QS) having the size of Planck length. Light is a physical event in which photons are "jumping" from one quantum of space to another in a Planck time. Cosmic space is a medium of light, inertial systems move through the cosmic space. That's why the speed of light is “maximum speed” in the universe and it is same in all inertial systems.You have much here that is intuitively correct. However, your reasoning seems incomplete and many definitions must be assumed.

Light has a double particle-wave nature simultaneously. A single photon jumping from one quantum of space to another in its trajectory is the central part - particle. The “chain jumping” of the photon changes the frequency of the QS on its trajectory from its basic frequency to the frequency of the photon. The central part of the photon also changes the vibration of QS around its trajectory that is its circumference part - wave.

In a “double slit experiment” we can settle instruments and observe photon's particle-part or we can settle instruments differently and observe the wave's part of the photon.
When we settle instruments to observe a particle, we will observe (detect) the particle part of the photon, when we settle instruments to observe a wave, we will observe (detect) the wave part of the photon. Scientist (Observer) should not play any role in this experiment.You are on the right track.

5. When a star has a mass of 3,2 masses of sun in its centre the density of cosmic space is so strong that gravitation overpowers all other forces. Matter transforms back into quanta of space (QS) that build up cosmic space.To make these assumptions you must define the geometry, etiology, and dynamics of the “quanta of space.”

Beyond Schwarzschild Radius gravity is so strong that prevails above all other forces. All elementary particles transform back into the energy of cosmic space. Matter and space are made out of the same “stuff”. Black holes are the “fabric” where matter transforms back into space. In big explosions of AGN space transforms back into matter.
Universe is composed by one energy. The basic packets of this one energy are QS. Energy is circulating continuously “space-matter-space-matter-…”. Universe is a self-renewing system. There was no beginning and there will be no end.You have a “feel” for what is happening. You should be able to refine your thoughts by carefully studying Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63) that has evolved since in 1955.

[amrit]

Epsilon=One Not quite correct. Motion alone cannot create time. There are other requirements. Time requires a “unit.” That is: “motion” must be interrupted to create “time”; and, thus, this motion is accelerating motion; and, accelerating motion requires an energy source.

Amrit: I'm not discussing about creation of time. According to my understanding motion itself is physical time, two words for one physical phenomena.
Motion (physical time) does not requires the unit to exist. Motion (physical time) itself has no duration. We give it the sense of duration by measuring it; comparing it with the duration of motion of clocks. Clocks run into space only and not into time. We experience motion (physical time) into mind-time frame that is a psychological time.
The speed of clocks (motion-physical time) depends on the density of space. More space dense, less speed of motion.

[Epsilon=One]

I'm not discussing about creation of time. According to my understanding motion itself is physical time, two words for one physical phenomena.The confusion is a common one among many physicists.

When discussing time, the time that is being discussed must be defined by the “clock” that measures it.

I am primarily interested with the concept of fundamental intrinsic time (FIT) that is the source of that which makes possible the different forms of time. Possibly, FIT is what you are referring to as the “creation of time.”

I am not certain what you mean by “physical time.” If your “two words for one physical phenomena” (sic.) are the words “motion” and “time,” then, these words do not describe a single phenomenon. There are wide varieties of “motion” with many connotations; as there are many forms of “time” with entirely different connotations. Obvious differences include concepts such as: acceleration, sundials, orbits of Cosmic bodies, et cetera.

Motion (physical time) does not requires the unit to exist. Motion (physical time) itself has no duration. We give it the sense of duration by measuring it;…I don’t understand??? I agree that non-accelerating motion does not require a “unit.” However, what is something that “exists” without acceleration? I assume that “time” exists; therefore, generic “time” must involve accelerating motion, which requires some type of “unit.” Again, the only solution to the conundrum of time’s definition is to describe the “clock” that measures it.

Clocks run into space only and not into time. We experience motion (physical time) into mind-time frame that is a psychological time.This sentence is gibberish. What is “space”? You have defined your undefined concepts of motion and time with “space,” “mind-time,” and psychological. Are you saying that there is no concept of time without the “mind”?

The speed of clocks (motion-physical time) depends on the density of space. More space dense, less speed of motion.Nuts! The speed of clocks depends upon their escapement. Are you saying something like: there are varying degrees of density for a pure vacuum?

[amrit]

My definition of physical time is based on elementary perception: physical time is what we see with the eyes, what we measure with clocks: physical time is motion. The smallest motion that can happen in the universe is photon passing Planck distance. This motion we call "Planck Time".

Physical time we experience into "mind-time frame". We see motion by eyes, than mind elaborate it and at the end experience occurs. Elaboration happens into the "mind-time frame" that is a basic structure of the mind into which we experience the universe.
Every existing scientific theory is build up into the mind-time frame. We experience all that exist into mind-time frame: universe, our body, our mind, consciousness itself. We project our “mind-time frame” into the universe and we think that time exists as a physical quantity in which motion happens. But this is a great misunderstanding of today science.

Consciousness is subjective and can not be studied as an object. Scientific mind is not able to “catch” consciousness because its imagine of consciousness is into “mind-time frame” and consciousness is far beyond.

The only method to discover consciousness is “observing the mind” (watching the mind, witnessing it). Watching the mind is function of consciousness itself. By witnessing the mind we discover that there is a difference between physical time (motion) and “mind-time frame”.

Physical time (motion) has no duration by itself, we give it duration when we experience it into the mind-time frame. Physical time does not run into the universe as we experience. By watching the mind one becomes aware that arrow of time exists only in the “mind-time frame” and not in the universe itself. In the universe motion itself has no direction. When we observe motion (physical time) into the “mind-time frame” we experience it into the “past-present-future”. We have an impression that motion (physical time) moves from the past into present and into the future. But this is only our way to experience motion and has nothing to do with the motion itself.

motion-----perception (eyes)-----elaboration (mind-time frame)------experience (observer)

The structure of mind-time frame is:

past------present---------future where “arrow of time” is pointed into the future

Fundamental Intrinsic Time FIT is a pure speculation, no evidence about it.

The idea that space could have a granular structure has about 15 years. Space should be build up out of quanta of space (QS) of the size of Planck. When I came across this idea, it came to my mind that granular structure of space is deeply related with its geometry, lets say with the curvedness of space. More space is curved, more space is dense. Round distribution of QS around the mass is making space round. I was thinking for a long time how to put this idea in math form and one beautiful day it came into my mind: density of space D is in relation with mass m according to the formula:

D = m x G

D is density of the object its centre
M is a mass of the object
G here is gravitational constant.

In every formula of physics m can be changed with D/G.

Formula for gravitational force Fg between two objects, r is the distance between the centre of the objects
Fg = (D1 x D2) (r square x G)

Formula for gravitational acceleration g, where r is the radius of the planet (star)

g = D/ r on square

……all other formula can be develop in this way

They show clearly that Fg, a, time dilatation, kinetic energy, light bending ……..depends on the density of space D

Yes pure vacuum of build up out of QS and has different density that depends on the amount of mass into it. Gravitational force is acting between QS of vacuum that i call "space". Gravitation does not propagate into space, gravitational force is the force that builds up the space.
In a similar way as the wall is made out of bricks. The cement between bricks is keeping together the wall, the gravitational force between QS is keeping together the space.
No gravitational wave or particle travels into space to keep together earth and sun.

More mass more space is dense. The speed of physical time (motion) depends on the density of space.

QS are the basic quanta of energy. As energy can not be created and destroyed QS can not be created and not destroyed. Energy is eternal, QS are eternal, circulation of the energy in the universe is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, so universe itself is eternal.
The idea of the beginning, of the creation of the universe is “borrowed” from religion, it is against the first law of thermodynamics.
Might be that big bang is the beginning of the universe we live into, but if so, definitely big bangs are cyclic. The idea that universe has stated with a big bang and will expand for ever has no 1 gram of logic into it.
It requires existence of the creator, of god, but god has no place in science.

[Epsilon=One]

My definition of physical time is based on elementary perception: physical time is what we see with the eyes, what we measure with clocks:The eyes have nothing to do with time. Time existed before there were eyes.

We do agree that time is “what we measure with clocks.” I have no idea what you mean by “physical time.” From the way that you seem to use the term “physical,” I understand it as something that exists Certainly, all forms of time do exist. You must define the the “clock” that defines the time that you are discussing.

physical time is motion. The smallest motion that can happen in the universe is photon passing Planck distance. This motion we call "Planck Time".Motion does not have “size.”; measuring devices determine size from multiples of some established unit.

What is a “photon” as you use the term? “Planck” constants are contrivances from the mind’s of physicists. They are as metaphysical as the “weak” force, gravitational “attraction-at-a-distance,” et cetera. Terms that support theory must be defined such as they can be logically and elegantly rationalized with fundamentals of mathematics: numbers, arithmetical manipulations, and geometry.

Physical time we experience into "mind-time frame". We see motion by eyes, than mind elaborate it and at the end experience occurs. Elaboration happens into the "mind-time frame" that is a basic structure of the mind into which we experience the universe.the Universe, and particularly time, are not dependent upon any anthropoidal qualities.

Every existing scientific theory is build up into the mind-time frame. We experience all that exist into mind-time frame: universe, our body, our mind, consciousness itself. We project our “mind-time frame” into the universe and we think that time exists as a physical quantity in which motion happens. But this is a great misunderstanding of today science.You are correct in that (theoretical) science “is a great misunderstanding.” Believing that “our body, our mind, consciousness itself” has anything to do with the existence of Reality certainly doesn’t help attenuate science’s “great misunderstanding.”

Consciousness is subjective and can not be studied as an object.Consciousness for each individual is certainly subjective; however, consciousness is certainly something that exists and can be studied as can anything else that exists.

Scientific mind is not able to “catch” consciousness because its imagine of consciousness is into “mind-time frame” and consciousness is far beyond.You seem to be referring to “consciousness” as some abstract metaphysical concept. I do not in any way subscribe to such a definition. Nothing that exists is metaphysical; somethings that exist may be misunderstood; but, certainly, they are not metaphysical.

The only method to discover consciousness is “observing the mind” (watching the mind, witnessing it). Watching the mind is function of consciousness itself. By witnessing the mind we discover that there is a difference between physical time (motion) and “mind-time frame”.This all may be so, depending upon definitions, though, it has no bearing on the definition of fundamental intrinsic time (FIT).

Physical time (motion) has no duration by itself…Yes, motion has no duration.

…we give it duration when we experience it into the mind-time frame.No, seminal motion is given duration when it is interrupted. This interruption is, heuristically, a function of the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107).

Physical time does not run into the universe as we experience. By watching the mind one becomes aware that arrow of time exists only in the “mind-time frame” and not in the universe itself.The “arrow of time” has nothing to do with anthropoidal perceptions. The fundamental “arrow of time” is a precession, or multiple, of units as are numbers . . . both fundamentally derive from the same Natural phenomenon.

In the universe motion itself has no direction.You are correct. The concept of motion, itself, is quaquaversal. However, fundamental (seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179)) is Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101). It is this triquametric phenomenon which creates the “clock” of FIT.

When we observe motion (physical time) into the “mind-time frame” we experience it into the “past-present-future”.The past and the future exist. The present does not . . . as it is infinitesimal, Infinity. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109)

We have an impression that motion (physical time) moves from the past into present and into the future. But this is only our way to experience motion and has nothing to do with the motion itself.You are confusing the terms motion and time. Neither of which, if you mean seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179), require any reference frame other than there own “system.”

motion-----perception (eyes)-----elaboration (mind-time frame)------experience (observer)

The structure of mind-time frame is:

past------present---------future where “arrow of time” is pointed into the futureTo quote Pauli, “This is not even wrong.”

Fundamental Intrinsic Time FIT is a pure speculation, no evidence about it. I would be hard pressed to think of something that had any more evidence than FIT.

The evidence is everywhere. There is nothing that exists that is not dependent upon synchronization. The “clockwork” of the Cosmos and subatomic manifestations would be impossible without the resonances that require a precise “clock.” Everything that exists is dependent upon elegant relationships that must be synchronized by the “clock” of FIT.

The idea that space could have a granular structure has about 15 years.”Space” (the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151)) is certainly quanticized. How else could the speed of light appear nearly constant despite the velocity of its source? To characterize the quantum of space as granular which connotes a particle is ludicrous.

Space should be build up out of quanta of space (QS) of the size of Planck.Planck constants are contrived. You are correct about the “space” being non-continuous; however, you must differentiate between “dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) and “dark” energy (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=154).

When I came across this idea, it came to my mind that granular structure of space is deeply related with its geometry…Yes.

…lets say with the curvedness of space. More space is curved, more space is dense.You are confusing “space,” the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151), with “dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155), Ultrons (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140).

Round distribution of QS around the mass is making space round. I was thinking for a long time how to put this idea in math form and one beautiful day it came into my mind: density of space D is in relation with mass m according to the formula:

D = m x G

D is density of the object its centre
M is a mass of the object
G here is gravitational constant.

In every formula of physics m can be changed with D/G.

Formula for gravitational force Fg between two objects, r is the distance between the centre of the objects
Fg = (D1 x D2) (r square x G)

Formula for gravitational acceleration g, where r is the radius of the planet (star)

g = D/ r on square

……all other formula can be develop in this way

They show clearly that Fg, a, time dilatation, kinetic energy, light bending ……..depends on the density of space DYou have not defined terms that are critical; thus, all formulas are meaningless. i.e. density, mass, gravitational constant, gravitational force, gravitational acceleration, time dilation, energy, and light. Many of these terms are little more than metaphysical concepts.

Yes pure vacuum of build up out of QS and has different density that depends on the amount of mass into it. Gravitational force is acting between QS of vacuum that i call "space". Gravitation does not propagate into space, gravitational force is the force that builds up the space.
In a similar way as the wall is made out of bricks. The cement between bricks is keeping together the wall, the gravitational force between QS is keeping together the space.
No gravitational wave or particle travels into space to keep together earth and sun. You have some correct insight; but, little understanding of the “Why?” of what occurs with the duality of the illusional gravitation effect. How do you account for observed accelerating, galactic recession?

More mass more space is dense. The speed of physical time (motion) depends on the density of space. Gobbledegook.

QS are the basic quanta of energy.Yes.

As energy can not be created and destroyed QS can not be created and not destroyed.No.

Energy is eternal…Yes.

QS are eternal…No.

circulation of the energy in the universe is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, so universe itself is eternal.Yes. I like to think of Reality as infinite and the Universe as finite.

The idea of the beginning, of the creation of the universe is “borrowed” from religion, it is against the first law of thermodynamics.[/Yes.] See the Equilibrium Theory of Reality. (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=131)

[QUOTE=amrit]Might be that big bang is the beginning of the universe we live into, but if so, definitely big bangs are cyclic. The idea that universe has stated with a big bang and will expand for ever has no 1 gram of logic into it.The Big Bang is ludicrous. No standard model was ever accepted with less support. The Big Bang has been one of the largest blunders of theoretical physics for well over 40 years. The Hubble Space Telescope has rendered the concept useless to knowing persons; however, they say nothing because there is no acceptable, alternative force to counter gravity.

It requires existence of the creator, of god, but god has no place in science.Your statement depends upon the definition of god. You are correct if god has anthropoidal qualities; however, if god is the creator of all; science must define god. And, thus, unify Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

To summarize:

Time is units of motion that are measured by a “clock.” The units are linear and cyclical. To define time the “clock” that measures it must be defined.

Space (the Dyosphere) is units of motion that are also determined by a “clock.” However, unlike time, the units are orthogonal. A unit of “space” is defined by the same “clock” that determines fundamental intrinsic time (FIT), which probably accounts for much of the confusion as to why two different concepts are described as a single concept: “spacetime.”

Heuristically, the mathematics of Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98), Resoloids, and the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) elegantly describe the principles of FIT.

(Note: I have read your published papers. There is much that is intuitively correct. However, much is based on pomo theoretical physics’ standard models, and formulas so derived, that are useless in arriving at your intuitive conclusions regarding quaniticized space, et cetera. Before, any acceptance of your intuitions, you must explain and unify mathematics, the duality of gravity, and the dual nature of light with simple geometry. An explanation of how light (radiant energy) morphs to mass would be useful . . . and, also, how the mass recycles.)

[amrit]

Epsilon
We do agree that time is “what we measure with clocks.” I have no idea what you mean by “physical time.” From the way that you seem to use the term “physical,” I understand it as something that exists Certainly, all forms of time do exist. You must define the the “clock” that defines the time that you are discussing.

Amrit
Physical time is motion of elementary particles and material bodies into physical space (into space into which particles and bodies moves. Definition: Physical time is motion. The duration of motion we measure with clocks

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
physical time is motion. The smallest motion that can happen in the universe is photon passing Planck distance. This motion we call "Planck Time".

Epsilon: Motion does not have “size.”; measuring devices determine size from multiples of some established unit.

Amrit: we measure the duration of motion with clocks. The shortest duration of motion is photon passing Planck distance.

Epsilon: What is a “photon” as you use the term? “Planck” constants are contrivances from the mind’s of physicists. They are as metaphysical as the “weak” force, gravitational “attraction-at-a-distance,” et cetera. Terms that support theory must be defined such as they can be logically and elegantly rationalized with fundamentals of mathematics: numbers, arithmetical manipulations, and geometry.

Amrit: Wes Planck time and Planck distance are two constants that corresponds perfectly the physical world. Physical space id build up from quanta of space QS that have a size of Planck.
Gravitational force exists as a cement between bricks of the wall we call physical space. Photons are packets of the energy that are jumping from one QS to another. One jump is a motion we call Planck time. Duration of this motion we express with the number 5.39x10^-44s
Motion itself has no duration, we give it duration by measuring it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Physical time we experience into "mind-time frame". We see motion by eyes, than mind elaborate it and at the end experience occurs. Elaboration happens into the "mind-time frame" that is a basic structure of the mind into which we experience the universe.

the Universe, and particularly time, are not dependent upon any anthropoidal qualities.

Amrit: Yes, physical time (motion) runs independently of the human mind.
But we do not experience physical time the way we perceive it. Between perception of motion and its experience there is a mind elaboration. The basic structure into which mind elaborate motion is "mind-time frame" (the linear concept of time that is a part of the mind: past-present-future).

perception------elaboration-------experience

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Every existing scientific theory is build up into the mind-time frame. We experience all that exist into mind-time frame: universe, our body, our mind, consciousness itself. We project our “mind-time frame” into the universe and we think that time exists as a physical quantity in which motion happens. But this is a great misunderstanding of today science.

You are correct in that (theoretical) science “is a great misunderstanding.” Believing that “our body, our mind, consciousness itself” has anything to do with the existence of Reality certainly doesn’t help attenuate science’s “great misunderstanding.”

Amrit: I do not say that theoretical science is a misunderstanding. I say only that our experience of physical time is determinate by the “mind-time frame”.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Consciousness is subjective and can not be studied as an object.

Consciousness for each individual is certainly subjective; however, consciousness is certainly something that exists and can be studied as can anything else that exists.

Amrit: no, consciousness can not be approached as an object, because it is not an object.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Scientific mind is not able to “catch” consciousness because its imagine of consciousness is into “mind-time frame” and consciousness is far beyond.

You seem to be referring to “consciousness” as some abstract metaphysical concept. I do not in any way subscribe to such a definition. Nothing that exists is metaphysical; somethings that exist may be misunderstood; but, certainly, they are not metaphysical.

Amrit: not al all, consciousness is watching the mind

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
The only method to discover consciousness is “observing the mind” (watching the mind, witnessing it). Watching the mind is function of consciousness itself. By witnessing the mind we discover that there is a difference between physical time (motion) and “mind-time frame”.

This all may be so, depending upon definitions, though, it has no bearing on the definition of fundamental intrinsic time (FIT).

Amrit: consciousness is beyond physical time, mind-time frame, math time. About FIT I think it is only a speculation, no evidence on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Physical time (motion) has no duration by itself…

Yes, motion has no duration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
…we give it duration when we experience it into the mind-time frame.

No, seminal motion is given duration when it is interrupted. This interruption is, heuristically, a function of the Elliptical Constant.

Amrit: Fine for me. It is interrupted when we measure it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Physical time does not run into the universe as we experience. By watching the mind one becomes aware that arrow of time exists only in the “mind-time frame” and not in the universe itself.

The “arrow of time” has nothing to do with anthropoidal perceptions. The fundamental “arrow of time” is a precession, or multiple, of units as are numbers . . . both fundamentally derive from the same Natural phenomenon.

Amrit: What you say above is a speculation with no evidence, it is an interpretation of motion.
In the universe exist motion long before man appeared. We are here and now we say that motion has direction. It is our way of experience motion into “mind-time frame” that “arrow of time” is part of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
In the universe motion itself has no direction.

You are correct. The concept of motion, itself, is quaquaversal. However, fundamental (seminal motion) is Triquametric motion. It is this triquametric phenomenon which creates the “clock” of FIT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
When we observe motion (physical time) into the “mind-time frame” we experience it into the “past-present-future”.

The past and the future exist. The present does not . . . as it is infinitesimal, Infinity.

Amrit: the only universe that exist it the one we can perceive and experience. Physical time is irreversible, change X transforms into X1, X1 transforms into X2 ........X2 into X3. when X2 is in existence X1 is not any more into existence. Past is gone for ever, future did not come yet. Past exist only as a memory into the mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
We have an impression that motion (physical time) moves from the past into present and into the future. But this is only our way to experience motion and has nothing to do with the motion itself.

You are confusing the terms motion and time. Neither of which, if you mean seminal motion, require any reference frame other than there own “system.”

Amrit: Motion and time are two terms that describe the same identical physical phenomena. Motion is more adequate, because we can perceive motion by eyes.
Time can not be observed by eyes, time is a preposition, time is a physical reality into which motion runs, time is exactly the motion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
motion-----perception (eyes)-----elaboration (mind-time frame)------experience (observer)

The structure of mind-time frame is:

past------present---------future where “arrow of time” is pointed into the future

To quote Pauli, “This is not even wrong.”


Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Fundamental Intrinsic Time FIT is a pure speculation, no evidence about it.

I would be hard pressed to think of something that had any more evidence than FIT.

The evidence is everywhere. There is nothing that exists that is not dependent upon synchronization. The “clockwork” of the Cosmos and subatomic manifestations would be impossible without the resonances that require a precise “clock.” Everything that exists is dependent upon elegant relationships that must be synchronized by the “clock” of FIT.

Amrit: Could you tell me one experiment where you observe FIT.
I could agree on FIT = MOTION.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
The idea that space could have a granular structure has about 15 years.

”Space” (the Dyosphere) is certainly quanticized. How else could the speed of light appear nearly constant despite the velocity of its source? To characterize the quantum of space as granular which connotes a particle is ludicrous.

Amrit: yes, space is made out of quanta. But time can not be out of quanta, time is not an energy. The fourth coordinate of space in SR is
X4 = i x c x t,
where t indicates duration of light motion into space. Space is not 3D + 1T
space is 4D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Space should be build up out of quanta of space (QS) of the size of Planck.

Planck constants are contrived. You are correct about the “space” being non-continuous; however, you must differentiate between “dark” matter and “dark” energy.

Amrit: I would make a difference between physical space (cosmic space in which objects exist) and dark matter - energy.
Physical space is a matter of fact, dark matter no.
If dark matter exists it is not space itself, it exist into space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
When I came across this idea, it came to my mind that granular structure of space is deeply related with its geometry…

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
…lets say with the curvedness of space. More space is curved, more space is dense.

You are confusing “space,” the Dyosphere, with “dark” matter, Ultrons.

Amrit: no I'm not confusing space and dark matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Round distribution of QS around the mass is making space round. I was thinking for a long time how to put this idea in math form and one beautiful day it came into my mind: density of space D is in relation with mass m according to the formula:

D = m x G

D is density of the object its centre
M is a mass of the object
G here is gravitational constant.

In every formula of physics m can be changed with D/G.

Formula for gravitational force Fg between two objects, r is the distance between the centre of the objects
Fg = (D1 x D2) (r square x G)

Formula for gravitational acceleration g, where r is the radius of the planet (star)

g = D/ r on square

……all other formula can be develop in this way

They show clearly that Fg, a, time dilatation, kinetic energy, light bending ……..depends on the density of space D

You have not defined terms that are critical; thus, all formulas are meaningless. i.e. density, mass, gravitational constant, gravitational force, gravitational acceleration, time dilation, energy, and light. Many of these terms are little more than metaphysical concepts.

Amrit: No, density D is well defined, see article on file attached. On the surface of the earth density D is 9,78 m3s-2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Yes pure vacuum of build up out of QS and has different density that depends on the amount of mass into it. Gravitational force is acting between QS of vacuum that i call "space". Gravitation does not propagate into space, gravitational force is the force that builds up the space.
In a similar way as the wall is made out of bricks. The cement between bricks is keeping together the wall, the gravitational force between QS is keeping together the space.
No gravitational wave or particle travels into space to keep together earth and sun.

You have some correct insight; but, little understanding of the “Why?” of what occurs with the duality of the illusional gravitation effect. How do you account for observed accelerating, galactic recession?

Amrit: Why? gravitation is as it is because this is the most easy way for the universe to function. Universe functions under the most refine principles that can be described with a clear math equations.
Universe itself is intelligent and conscious much more as we are.
Formula D = m x G chows relation between mass and density of space. And Fg is directly related to the density D

Fg = (m x D x K) r on the square

m is the mass of the object
D is density of space where the object is situated
K is constant for the unit of mks system (K = m2)
G is gravitational constant
r is the distance form the centre of star (planet) to the object

I do not understand why such a big NO for density D

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
More mass more space is dense. The speed of physical time (motion) depends on the density of space.

Gobbledegook.

Amrit: Curvedness of space is the result of its density. Round distribution of QS is giving the space curve shape. And speed of motion (time) depends on the density.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
QS are the basic quanta of energy.

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
As energy can not be created and destroyed QS can not be created and not destroyed.

No.

Amrit: Why NO

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
Energy is eternal…

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
QS are eternal…

No.

Amrit: Why NO, this is out of the first law

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
circulation of the energy in the universe is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, so universe itself is eternal.

Yes. I like to think of Reality as infinite and the Universe as finite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
The idea of the beginning, of the creation of the universe is “borrowed” from religion, it is against the first law of thermodynamics.[/Yes.] See the Equilibrium Theory of Reality.

[QUOTE=amrit]Might be that big bang is the beginning of the universe we live into, but if so, definitely big bangs are cyclic. The idea that universe has stated with a big bang and will expand for ever has no 1 gram of logic into it.

The Big Bang is ludicrous. No standard model was ever accepted with less support. The Big Bang has been one of the largest blunders of theoretical physics for well over 40 years. The Hubble Space Telescope has rendered the concept useless to knowing persons; however, they say nothing because there is no acceptable, alternative force to counter gravity.

Amrit: Yes, when my son was 5 and I told him about big bang he was laughing. And 80 % of scientist still believe this story. Why?
A real creativity in science is awareness of the way your mind creates a scientific theory. With other words: you are not only aware that you think but you are also aware the way you think.

Consciousness as a research tool makes you aware the way your mind elaboration of information that you perceive with senses influences you experience of the universe.
Mind is like an optical prism through which we experience the universe. In the centre of this prism is "mind-time frame".


What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
(Werner Heisenberg)

I'm giving courses on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
It requires existence of the creator, of god, but god has no place in science.

Your statement depends upon the definition of god. You are correct if god has anthropoidal qualities; however, if god is the creator of all; science must define god. And, thus, unify Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

Amrit: God is an invention of the man to explain universe. Once you use consciousness as a research tool you go beyond "mind-time frame", you discover eternal nature of the universe.

To summarize:

Time is units of motion that are measured by a “clock.” The units are linear and cyclical. To define time the “clock” that measures it must be defined.

Space (the Dyosphere) is units of motion that are also determined by a “clock.” However, unlike time, the units are orthogonal. A unit of “space” is defined by the same “clock” that determines fundamental intrinsic time (FIT), which probably accounts for much of the confusion as to why two different concepts are described as a single concept: “spacetime.”

Heuristically, the mathematics of Pulsoids, Resoloids, and the Elliptical Constant elegantly describe the principles of FIT.


Amrit: Space-time is a math model only, it does not exist into the universe. Energy in the universe is ONE. It has two basic forms: space and matter.
Time is motion of matter (energy) into space.
The arena (stage) of the universe is "space-matter" where time exist as a motion. With clocks we measure duration of motion. The speed of motion depends on the density of space D.



(Note: I have read your published papers. There is much that is intuitively correct. However, much is based on pomo theoretical physics’ standard models, and formulas so derived, that are useless in arriving at your intuitive conclusions regarding quaniticized space, et cetera. Before, any acceptance of your intuitions, you must explain and unify mathematics, the duality of gravity, and the dual nature of light with simple geometry. An explanation of how light (radiant energy) morphs to mass would be useful . . . and, also, how the mass recycles.)

Amrit: Thank you to take your time reading my post.

[Epsilon=One]

Physical time is motion of elementary particles and material bodies into physical space (into space into which particles and bodies moves.This is fine for your definition of “physical time,” whatever, that may mean. However, it has nothing to do with the fundamental concept of time itself.

You must describe what kind of motion you are discussing, what the mathematics are for the “unit” that you are measuring your “physical time” with; and, finally, how that “unit” is created.

Otherwise, at best, your definition of “physical time” is circular; and, at worst, meaningless.

Definition: Physical time is motion.No. Motion is motion; time is time. Everything that exists consists of motion.

The concept of time is much more complex than motion. In fact, the concept of time can be said to be more closely related to mathematics than physics; because, “time” requires a “unit”; just as any numbering system requires a definition of one or a “Proof of One.” (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=165)

The duration of motion we measure with clocksI can agree with this if your definition of “time” is “duration of motion.” However, I don’t like the definition because, to me, it appears circular as the definition of “duration” would seem to require a definition of time. And, of course you have not described the “motion” or its source.

The smallest motion that can happen in the universe is photon passing Planck distance. This motion we call "Planck Time".Unfortunately, because Planck, or his apologists, say so, does not make it so. Planck, and the theoretical physicists that have followed have been unable to understand fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT). There is no explanation possible without an understanding of the Elliptical Constant. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107)

What, precisely is a “photon”? What is the internal geometry of a “photon”? Why? What is the “motion” you refer to? Is it linear? Continuous? Constant? Why can’t the “size” of motion approach the infinitesimal; that is: why is Planck “distance” a limit?

we measure the duration of motion with clocks.No. Time is measured with clocks.

Wes Planck time and Planck distance are two constants that corresponds perfectly the physical world. Physical space id build up from quanta of space QS that have a size of Planck.No; saying so, does not make it so. The correspondence is empirical; and is as metaphysical as the empirical illusion of gravity’s attraction-at-a-distance. Planck constants are contrivances; they are not elegant results of Natural geometry.

What comprises a “quanta of space QS”? What is its Natural etiology?

Gravitational force exists as a cement between bricks of the wall we call physical space.This is nonsense. Such a “cement” can not begin to explain the action of gravity as described by general relativity and as observed by accelerating, galactic recession.

Photons are packets of the energy that are jumping from one QS to another.Where does this energy come from? Why is it “jumping”? What’s the mathematics . . . the geometry? Has anyone defined what a “photon” is? How does it behave as a wave? Why does light reflect in every direction (as per Feynman diagrams) without seeming to lose any speed or energy?

One jump is a motion we call Planck time. Duration of this motion we express with the number 5.39x10^-44sWhat is the meaning of this irrational number? What is its etiology?

Motion itself has no duration, we give it duration by measuring itHow is it measured? Do we measure an orthogonal quality with a linear measurement?

Physical time we experience into "mind-time frame". We see motion by eyes, than mind elaborate it and at the end experience occurs. Elaboration happens into the "mind-time frame" that is a basic structure of the mind into which we experience the universe.Time and the Universe does not require a “mind.” The Universe would exist if the “mind” never evolved.

Yes, physical time (motion) runs independently of the human mind.
But we do not experience physical time the way we perceive it. Between perception of motion and its experience there is a mind elaboration. The basic structure into which mind elaborate motion is "mind-time frame" (the linear concept of time that is a part of the mind: past-present-future).Again, this mumbo-jumbo has nothing to do with fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT), which synchronizes all that exists.

no, consciousness can not be approached as an object, because it is not an object.Consciousness is an “object.” As you use the word “object,” I assume you mean something that exists. Consciousness exists; otherwise, it would be no more than a metaphysical superstition that has no meaning.

Scientific mind is not able to “catch” consciousness because its imagine of consciousness is into “mind-time frame” and consciousness is far beyond.This sounds like “consciousness” is metaphysical nonsense.

not al all, consciousness is watching the mindIn a sense, you are correct. And, therefore, consciousness exists and would seem to qualify as an “object.”

The only method to discover consciousness is “observing the mind” (watching the mind, witnessing it). Watching the mind is function of consciousness itself. By witnessing the mind we discover that there is a difference between physical time (motion) and “mind-time frame”.No. Consciousness is not a requirement for differences in either fundamental “motion” or fundamental “time.”

consciousness is beyond physical time, mind-time frame, math time.No; if you are saying that consciousness is beyond the study of science.

About FIT I think it is only a speculation, no evidence on it.Certainly, you are not saying that time is speculation. FIT is merely that time which is most fundamental. Just exactly how would you “time” the resonances found at the subatomic level without some sort of FIT. What could there possibly be that is more empirically observed than the evidence of FIT. Do you really believe that the concept of time is illusional?

Fine for me. It is interrupted when we measure it.Good we agree on this point. Then, if motion is interrupted, its speed must be variable. Therefore, fundamental motion must have the property of acceleration.

Now, to define the interruption we must explain what causes the interruption, are the interruptions equal, and what is the “unit” that is interrupted. The answer to these questions describes a “clock”; thus, to define time we must define its “clock.” Therefore, time is defined as: that which is measured by a “clock.”

Epsilon=One comment: The “arrow of time” has nothing to do with anthropoidal perceptions. The fundamental “arrow of time” is a precession, or multiple, of units as are numbers . . . both fundamentally derive from the same Natural phenomenon.

What you say above is a speculation with no evidence, it is an interpretation of motion.That time and numbers, both counted units are not precessions; but, are speculation, is nonsense.

In the universe exist motion long before man appeared. We are here and now we say that motion has direction. It is our way of experience motion into “mind-time frame” that “arrow of time” is part of it.If this is really so, then, “man” is wrong. Not such a startling observation when one considers the theoretical physicist’s circular definitions of the dimensions.

When we observe motion (physical time) into the “mind-time frame” we experience it into the “past-present-future”. Possibly, this is so. If so, the experience is delusional.

the only universe that exist it the one we can perceive and experience. Physical time is irreversible, change X transforms into X1, X1 transforms into X2 ........X2 into X3. when X2 is in existence X1 is not any more into existence. Past is gone for ever, future did not come yet. Past exist only as a memory into the mind.No. You make a common mistake. A study of astronomy might help you understand. The past and future are relative. The present is infinitesimal; and, as such cannot exist.

Motion and time are two terms that describe the same identical physical phenomena. Motion is more adequate, because we can perceive motion by eyes.
Time can not be observed by eyes, time is a preposition, time is a physical reality into which motion runs, time is exactly the motion.These statements are nonsense. Motion and time are quite different concepts; each with its own parameters and units.

There are many forms of time. The only way to separate them is to define the “clock” that measures each. If fundamental time were as simple as “motion” it would not have remained an enigma to academia up to this day.

Could you tell me one experiment where you observe FIT.Yes. They are endless. One is the interference patterns of radiant energy.

I could agree on FIT = MOTION.How is motion “counted”? What is motion’s unit? Does different motion give different time?

yes, space is made out of quanta. But time can not be out of quanta, time is not an energy.Whether or not time is an energy has nothing to do with time being “out of quanta.” If time is measured in some way, that measurement must be multiples of “something.” I would think that that “something” would qualify as a quantum.

I would make a difference between physical space (cosmic space in which objects exist) and dark matter - energy.
Physical space is a matter of fact, dark matter no.No. It is exactly opposite.

If dark matter exists it is not space itself, it exist into space.”Dark” matter exists. Empty space does not!

No, density D is well defined, see article on file attached. On the surface of the earth density D is 9,78 m3s-2.I have not been able to understand what you have defined “density” as. Is it compression of energy? Is it compression of mass? Is it compression of a vacuum??? Is it even compression?

Why? gravitation is as it is because this is the most easy way for the universe to function.This sounds more metaphysical than scientific.

Universe functions under the most refine principles that can be described with a clear math equations.I agree. Where is your elegant math and geometry for the “clock” that synchronizes the “functions” of the Universe?

Universe itself is intelligent and conscious much more as we are.No. The Universe is not “intelligent” design. Intelligence and consciousness are qualities of life that are advanced evolutionary phenomena.

Curvedness of space is the result of its density. Round distribution of QS is giving the space curve shape. And speed of motion (time) depends on the density.No. The “Curvedness” is a mathematical result of existence not being an absolute . . . a singularity.

As energy can not be created and destroyed QS can not be created and not destroyed.No. QS is not continuous. It pulses. Therefore, it is continually “created” and “destroyed.”

Why NOBecause it pulses.

Yes, when my son was 5 and I told him about big bang he was laughing. And 80 % of scientist still believe this story. Why?Your son is wise. Theoretical physicists will not abandon the Big Bang until they can propose an alternative force that is opposite to the observed Cosmic effects of gravity.

A real creativity in science is awareness of the way your mind creates a scientific theory. With other words: you are not only aware that you think but you are also aware the way you think.I agree. I think of this process as a form of complex, analog, sellf-adjustment (CASA) (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=149).

Consciousness as a research tool makes you aware the way your mind elaboration of information that you perceive with senses influences you experience of the universe.
Mind is like an optical prism through which we experience the universe. In the centre of this prism is "mind-time frame".We must be aware that the universe is not the objects that we perceive; but, actually an organized tangle of wave functions [analogous to a foam created by pulsing ellipsoids that are created from oscillating (slide, swing, and vibrating) strings of energy.]

What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
(Werner Heisenberg)And, we are that Nature which we examine.

God is an invention of the man to explain universe. Once you use consciousness as a research tool you go beyond "mind-time frame", you discover eternal nature of the universe.I agree with the first sentence. If you are saying that logic can unlock the secrets of Nature, I agree with the second sentence.

Space-time is a math model only, it does not exist into the universe.Mathematics IS the Universe. The Universe defines mathematics; not the other way around.

Energy in the universe is ONE. It has two basic forms: space and matter.Not quite. All is energy. “Space” is an illusion of energy.

Time is motion of matter (energy) into space.
The arena (stage) of the universe is "space-matter" where time exist as a motion. With clocks we measure duration of motion. The speed of motion depends on the density of space D.This is a hodgepodge of nonsense.

Thank you to take your time reading my post.Your welcome. I regret that so few think about the environment as deeply as you do. There is no way to solve society’s pressing problems within the foreseeable future without a dialogue outside of the vested academic interests.

Select one or two concise points on which we disagree rather than an entire overview.
The growth of knowledge
depends entirely
on disagreement.
...-Karl R. Popper (http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm)

Maybe, the etiology of “space” quanta; or, other fundamental units. Or, what can replace the Big Bang. Or, what is the internal geometry of radiant energy? Or, what is the “clock” for FIT, et cetera.

[amrit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
No, density D is well defined, see article on file attached. On the surface of the earth density D is 9,78 m3s-2.

I have not been able to understand what you have defined “density” as. Is it compression of energy? Is it compression of mass? Is it compression of a vacuum??? Is it even compression?

Amrit: Density D is the density of QS. QS are elastic. The number of QS that build up "EMPTY SPACE" in a volume of space depends on the amount of matter.
More mass, more density, higher gravitational force.

EMPTY Space is energy, it is a medium into which mass exists.
EMPRT Space is CONCRETE, empty space is REAL in
GR space is quite abstract, with granular structure of space, our image of space is becoming more correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
I would make a difference between physical space (cosmic space in which objects exist) and dark matter - energy.
Physical space is a matter of fact, dark matter no.

Epsilon: No. It is exactly opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit
If dark matter exists it is not space itself, it exist into space.

Epsilon: ”Dark” matter exists. Empty space does not!


Amrit:
Time is a physical quantity that we measure with clocks. And witch clocks we measure duration of motion.
Math time is description of motion.
All other is speculation, you like or not, it is so. No evidence of time is 100 %. No one ever see time on this planet.
And everybody see motion.
You have to prove existence of time
and I do not need to prove existence of motion.

Time is a mental construct build up on the observation of motion.

About what you say regarding space and dark matters shows you do not have much sense for the REAL. You are born into space, you live into, and you will die into space, but for you space does not exists. And dark energy for you exists. Strange, for me that's strange way of thinking.

yours, amrit

[Epsilon=One]

Density D is the density of QS. QS are elastic. The number of QS that build up "EMPTY SPACE" in a volume of space depends on the amount of matter.Not exactly. You seem to be confusing several concepts. The amount of radiant energy (determined by its speed of oscillation) is entirely different from the number of particles in a particular orthogonal area.

I would not define a quantum of space as elastic. A quantum of space (a Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98)) does vary (pulse) inversely in accordance with the Inverse Square Law (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=120) and the speed of its oscillations; however, the term “elastic” does not begin to connote the complexity of Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101).

More mass, more density, higher gravitational force.This would not explain the “negative” gravitational force that is observed with accelerating, galactic recession.

EMPTY Space is energy, it is a medium into which mass exists.I prefer the word Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) for what you term “EMPTY Space.” Empty connotes “nothing” the opposite of “something” or that which exists. You are correct that “Space is energy.” There is nowhere that Light (radiant energy) does not exist. And, all mass is such energy; thus, Reality is everywhere forms of the same radiant energy; therefore, differentiating with the word “EMPTY” is wrong, or at least misleading.

EMPRT Space is CONCRETE, empty space is REAL in
GR space is quite abstract, with granular structure of space, our image of space is becoming more correct.Terms for “space” such as: “CONCRETE,” “empty,” and “REAL” are inappropriate and misleading. Please consider something like Pulsoid, Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101), or Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151).

If dark matter exists it is not space itself, it exist into space.”Dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) is a form of energy that I refer to as an Ultron (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140), which is a form of matter that can neither absorb nor emit Light. Its compression is responsible for enigmatic gravitational effects such as the Pioneer Anomaly (http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~foot/pioneer.html), the retention of stars within galactic structures, etc.

Time is a physical quantity that we measure with clocks.No. Time is a concept analogous to “numbers.” It is the “clock” that is “physical.” Glad to note that you are defining time as that which is measured by a “clock.”

And witch clocks we measure duration of motion.Exactly what do you mean by “duration”? Is it physical? Is it orthogonal? Is it cyclical? Et cetera.

Math time is description of motion.Whatever Math time may be, I know not; except that “description of motion” is highly ambiguous.

All other is speculation, you like or not, it is so.You are correct if you are referring to fundamental, intrinsic “time” (FIT) as it is understood by theoretical physicists.

However, my definition is not speculation. What some might consider as speculation would be my description of the “clock” that measures FIT. Regardless, of acceptance of the “clock,” or not, the geometry of the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) that determines the Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322) is not speculation. It is solid, irrefutable mathematics and geometry.

No evidence of time is 100 %.Evidence of FIT’s “clock” is as obvious as any evidence can possible be.

No one ever see time on this planet.Quite true. Concepts are rationalized, not seen.

And everybody see motion.Quite true. But, motion is not ipso facto “time.”

You have to prove existence of time
and I do not need to prove existence of motion.I stated that “time” (FIT) is a concept; it is it’s “clock” that exists, which is heuristically established by the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322), which is irrefutably provable.

The existence of motion is not in dispute that I know of.

Time is a mental construct build up on the observation of motion. The truth of mental constructs are, often, highly suspect.

About what you say regarding space and dark matters shows you do not have much sense for the REAL. You are born into space, you live into, and you will die into space, but for you space does not exists. And dark energy for you exists. Strange, for me that's strange way of thinking.I differentiate between the concepts of “empty space” and radiant energy.

If you define “strange” as “different” and “different” as unlike conventional superstition and logic; then, I am flattered. Thank you for your perception.