# Constructing Time from an Axiom

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 30, 2019.

1. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Glad you've now also come to that realization.

In science (and basically any field that deals with logic) it is customary to define/describe things before using them. So, any place before you use them would be fine.

In other words: "So they are irrelevant in that step. Why did you mention them then?"

And as I explained, that's a problematic term, due to the "frequency" part.

Non-static has the same circular problem as dynamic. Obviously. Because it's a synonym (in this context).

It's right there in the quote? Please point out exactly where I omitted it.

So, another revision.

Also, what you wrote down here strongly suggests you are not talking about reality: you have a model with 2 Re dimensions and 2 Im dimensions, yet reality has 3 spatial dimension and 1 time dimension. That doesn't seem to be compatible.

And yet another revision!

And once again, you've made your argument circular. If you define something as "consistent with Special Relativity", you are defining time, as that's part of SR.

(OK)

(I see you've already retracted that claim. You know, if you tried to explain why you thought it was circular, you wouldn't have made that mistake again.)

I figured, but that does mean you have misunderstood something fundamental, because you conclude it to be necessary anyway.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof. You claimed that particles having log books is required, and you've already admitted that was pure speculation. But let me sketch an outline of a proof anyway: take a closed system at two distinct times. Calculate the amount of information in the system, as modeled by the Standard Model of particle physics (note: this model contains no particle log books). If you do that, you'll notice that the amount of information remains constant. It does not decrease, as you claimed.

All your argument so far assumed time to exist, albeit you introduced in an indirect way, by using a time-dependent term. Every time you fail in this way, you are inadvertently building a stronger and stronger case that time is inherently (i.e. necessarily) a part of the physics models you are using.

Actually, that's perfectly possible. Look up what "proper time" means (in the context of SR). You can find it in any introductory SR textbook.

3. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Well, given the large amount of errors that are being made in this thread, I don't blame your neurons for giving up.

5. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,484
It's not that my 3 neurons gave up so much, frequently they would be rolling around my cranium and quoting the post in a imatation Russian accent

It was my head spinning and the resultant G forces which got to them

7. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
I stand corrected.

8. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246
They are not irrelevant: I use physical terminology below it.

See the new derivation:

A1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.
A2: x = x
A3: x + y = y + x

Index.....Statement...…………………………………………………………………………………….. Reason

1...…...….Construct S = C x C.......................................................................................A1, A2

1.1...…….S is 4 dimensional....................................................................................…...1

1.2.........Set the components of S = S_1,2,3,4 in the following order: Re, Im, Re, Im.....1

2......…...S can transform...……………………………………........................................……...A1, 1

3............Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS..............................…..A1, 1

4............Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_3, 4 and call it P_T.................................…A1, 3

4.1......…Import all physical terminology...............................................................…..Plato's Forms

4.2...…..Construct "physical space" = S_P = CxC/S_4.......................................…...…A1, A2

5......…..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S1,2,3) when encountering a space node of integer coordinates and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this
quantum moving picture "freq" = T_S........................................................................….............A1, 4, 4.2

7......…..Define "Change in freq" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....4

8...........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_3,4.................................................................1

11..........Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this "Changes in freqs.
..........................................................................................................................................5,7

12.........Define "time interval" = Delta t = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]
..........................................................................................................................................1-11

13.......Define "time" = t = (1/# T_S)*Delta t...........................................................................12, 5

14........t advances like a clock (to ever smaller numbers but it advances without stopping)
............................................................................................................................13, 5

Nobody noticed my mathematics wasn't right. (# = number of)

If you want real numbers just do the operation: Im (ix) = x.

I changed it.

Last edited: May 7, 2019
9. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246
The Wikipedia article on proper time does not give a method for determining the correct clock time.

The last two items should be replaced by:

13.......Construct nxT_S.......................................................................................................5

14.......Define "time" = t = (1/[1/m \sum \limits_{n=1}^M n# T_S)*Delta t............................12, 5

15........t advances like a clock (to ever smaller numbers but it advances without stopping)............................................................................................................................14, 5

Messages:
246

11. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Please read that sentence a third time, and pay close attention to the words "in that step".

I did notice your counting was off; do you mean that, or did you make a mistake in your equations?

So all this talk about needing complex numbers is just a red herring and was misleading? OK.

Good, perhaps you'll eventually end up with a valid derivation. In the mean time, please prove that what you have derived here is actually the thing that we identify as "time", and not something else. I've asked you this before, and as far as I can tell, you still haven't demonstrated this.

12. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Please stop lying: it's right there:

13. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246
I don't know what you mean.

t advances like a clock, and it depends on the worldline, hence on the motion of the clock. Reason 5. What more do you want?

There was an error in item 13 and 14. They must read:

13.......Construct MxT_S, M element of Natural Numbers subset of C..................................5

14.......Define "time" = t = {1/[1/M (\sum \limits_{n=1}^M n #T_S)]}*Delta t.......................12, 5

Last edited: May 8, 2019
14. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246
I made a mistake in my equations.

15. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246
Make that "hence on the nodes of space it encounters using the the proto-particles in the clock." Ignore the "it depends on the worldline"- bit

Last edited: May 8, 2019
16. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246
In order to prove quantitively that the proto-particles forces the same seconds as the standard clock we would need to know how fast the Earth is moving
with expanding space figured in.

17. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
It's very simple. In step 4.1 you "Import all physical terminology", with as stated reason "Plato's Forms". However, physical terminology has nothing to do with "Plato's Forms". So I asked you why you wrote "Plato's Forms" there. You say that you need it in a step further down. I asked why, if you need it only in a later step, you write it down at step 4.1.

Please provide evidence for this. Show that what your derivation describes matches what time is in reality, instead of merely having your hands about and claiming it is "like it".

(I see a correction in a following post, so I'll skip this.)

If your derivation has "motion" before reaching the conclusion, you already have sneaked in time, as motion cannot exist without time. Thus you have another circular argument.

See? You've sneaked in "time" in reason 5, long before your conclusion. Your argument is circular. And surprise, surprise, it's indeed around the step the time-dependent terms such as "dynamic"/"non-static" and "frequency" are used.

I want you to produce a derivation that:
1) is not circular;
2) demonstrably derives "time";
3) isn't full of errors you constantly have to correct;
4) lists all its axioms.

(And perhaps more, but this would be a good start.)

I think you've had more errors in your derivation than steps, at this point.

At least you are consistent.

This is gibberish: nowhere in your derivation have you defined "proto-particles".

Good luck with that. In the mean time, I'll stick with SR that doesn't need to introduce proto-particles, imaginary dimensions, transformations of space-time, "sub-frequencies", … Something something Occam's Razor.

18. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,812
Compared to what?
You mean the Hubble constant? How would you 'figure in' an expansion with a velocity?

19. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246

A1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.
A2: x = x
A3: x + y = y + x
A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = the empty set.

Index..Statement....................................................................................................................................Reason

1...…...….Construct S = C x C.......................................................................................A1, A2

1.1...…….S is 4 dimensional....................................................................................…...1

1.2.........Set the components of S = S_1,2,3,4 in the following order: Re, Im, Re, Im.....1, A2

2......…...S can transform into two Riemann Spheres......................................……...A1, 1

3............Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS..............................…..A1, 1

4............Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_3, 4 and call it P_T.................................…A1, 3

4.1......…I'm going to use physical terminology below........................................…..Decleration

4.2...…..Construct "physical space" = S_P = CxC/S_4.......................................…...…A1, A2

5......…..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S1,2,3) when encountering a space node and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this "freq" = T_S......................
….............A1, 4, 4.2, A2

7......…..Define "Change in freq" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....4

8...........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_3,4.................................................................1

11..........Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this "Changes in freqs.".........5,7

12.........Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]...........................................................................................................................1-11, A3, A2
13.......Construct MxT_S, M element of Natural Numbers subset of C..................................5, A4

14.......Define " Basic time" = t_B = {1/[(1/M) (\sum \limits_{n=1}^M n#T_S)]}*Delta t_B.......................12, 5,
A3

20. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246
15........Couple T_B to every node of S_P and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST...........4.2, A2, A2

15.1......Construct S_1 = CxC........................................................................................A1

16........Construct RSxRS in S_1, call it Pp..................................................................15.1, 2

17........Isolate the Riemann Circle in Pp and call it P_BT....................................................A1, 16

18........Let P_BT advance by one (rotate relative to S_1,2,3) when encountering A B_ST node and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this "freq2"= T_BST.................................17, A2

19........Construct KxT_BST, K element of Natural Numbers, subspace of C........................18, A4

20........Define "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BST)]..............................A3, A2, 18

21.......Pp is in every particle of the clock..........................................................................Requirement

22......."Tim1" advances like a clock, it depends on the Pp in the clock and on the route in B_ST.................................................................................................................................18, 21

23......."Tim1" = Time........................................................................................................A3, 22

For the Riemann Circle rotated through any finite amount, infinity is still at the north pole of the corresponding Riemann Sphere.

Last edited: May 10, 2019
21. ### river

Messages:
12,144
How so ?

Without the physical , no real , three dimensional form can exist . Materialism exists because energy and matter will always exist . Because the material is something , either way you put it , without the physical , there is nothing , which is impossible .

Further

Life could not exist without material .

Last edited: May 10, 2019
22. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246
They didn't prove that the material does not exist, just that it is really mental.

They set up an experiment and let it be observed over the internet and the results were better than chance.

23. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
246

7......…..Define "Change in freq" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....5

Line 15 must start:

15........Couple t_B ...

The following lines are in error:

15.1......Construct S_1 = CxC........................................................................................A1

16........Construct RSxRS in S_1, call it Pp..................................................................15.1, 2

15.1......Construct S_i = CxC........................................................................................A1

16........Construct RSxRS in S_i, call it Pp..................................................................15.1, 2