Time, Space, and Matter: The Real Basis of Physics

By Craig M. Seavey

(C) Copyright 2002 Craig M. Seavey - All Rights Reserved

E-Mail: <ccv@newearthinvest.com>

 

Part I - Introduction:

The 20th century was a time of explosive scientific advancement. There were many advances in the quality of scientific observations. An improved understanding was required of the mechanics behind those observations. Analysis of the observations demonstrated that Classical Mechanics was not complete. Two notable means exist to reconcile the differences between prediction and observation.

Among the notable advances was the discovery of special and general relativity, as described in the book by Albert Einstein:

Relativity: The Special and the General Theory.

Einstein described and developed a new way to perceive existence, which involved abstract mathematics to produce predictions that appeared to match the new observations. Many classical notions were abandoned, replaced with new - abstract - understandings, including a new abstraction, described by Einstein as: space-time. Einstein presumes the constancy of the speed of light to all observers, and that time is actually a 4^th dimension of reality.

In comparison, another notable advance, supported by this author, is the work of physicist Paul Marmet, who chose to correct Classical Mechanics, thereby maintaining the classical perspective of realism as presented by Euclid, Galileo, and Newton. The corrections, supporting experiments, and examples are presented in the book:

Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics.

Marmet takes the more conservative approach than Einstein, retaining the classical view of space and time, while acknowledging the limitations of Newton's derivations. Marmet proceeds to rebuild Classical Mechanics, using Quantum Mechanics to justify the enhancements. He thereby explains the same phenomena, and produces similar results, as Einstein explains and produces with relativity, without the need for any new hypothesis or assumptions.

This paper employs Objectivist Epistemology to examine the objective nature of space, time, and matter in physics. The analysis compares the steps taken, and conclusions made by Einstein and Marmet, thereby illuminating the conflicting premises behind the two opposing stances as to the nature of time, space, and matter, and the nature of the role of physics in describing reality. This leads to a clearer understanding of the nature and workings of our universe, which is the proper role of science, to provide as clear and accurate an understanding of reality, as is humanly possible.

Since the dawn of human history Man has wondered about time, and about space. Indeed, Man must comprehend reality as a means to survival itself. It has often been said,  “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” Many men have contributed to our current understanding, drawn from works as early as the ancient Greeks, and as recent as the improved Classical Mechanics of Paul Marmet. And so it is the nature of science that we grow and improve our understandings, as it is true often enough, that with each new insight we make, it is that we stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before.

Space, time, and matter are simple abstractions. Space is space. Time is time. Matter is matter. A is A. Space-time must conform to the simple abstractions upon which it is based: the nature of space and the nature of time. Time is not space. Space is not time. Mathematically, one can produce an equation which states: space = time, or time = space. However, mathematics is the manipulation of numbers such that the mathematics can be -internally consistent-, yet in reality maintain contradictions. The computations might produce predictions that match observations in a numeric sense, yet, that do not imply a description of physical reality, coherent, or otherwise.

Quoting Rand: “Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But explicit propositions as such are not primaries: they are made of concepts. The base of man’s knowledge – of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought – consists of axiomatic concepts.

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e. reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of existence), and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are – irreducible – primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)” End Quote (Rand).

 

(Reference: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Chapter 6)

 

Several axiomatic concepts are involved in this analysis. Space, time, and matter, in this context, are all axiomatic. We need not describe time, nor space, nor matter, in terms of something else. For instance, neither time, nor space requires light.

 

Quoting Rand: “Axiom -An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.”  End Quote (Rand).

 

(Reference: The Ayn Rand Lexicon)

 

Space-time is a compound abstraction. Any valid compound abstraction refers back to (relates to) the simple concepts that are its reference to reality, as its function is to form a more complete description of a complex but real relationship. Compound abstractions inherit the attributes and aspects of the simpler concepts from which they derive. Space-time is not an exception. Both time and space exist as simple abstractions: referring directly to physical reality. These simple concepts are derived directly from both experience and direct observations.  In fact, time and space are axiomatic concepts. Therefore, space and time place constraints on the meaning and scope of space-time that are inescapable, in spite of coherent mathematics. 

 

The following axioms and principles are proposed and defended:

 

 

Quoting Rand: “[The] underscoring of primary facts is one of the crucial epistemological functions of axiomatic concepts.

…

Epistemologically, the formation of axiomatic concepts is an act of abstraction, a selective focusing on and mental isolation of metaphysical fundamentals; but, metaphysically, it is an act of integration – the widest integration possible to man: it unites and embraces the total of his experience.

…

Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of “faith” or of man’s arbitrary choice, there is a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic, or not: one ascertains it by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all knowledge, that it has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.

…

It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.” End Quote (Rand).

 

 

 

<Top>

Part II - Space: Space is anywhere and everywhere.

The Cosmological Principle (a k a The Primacy of Existence):

 

(Spatial) The Universe, as observed from any place, in every direction looks and behaves roughly the same.

(Temporal) The Universe is observed today roughly as it always has been and roughly as it always will be.

 

 

Anywhere                                = a place from which one measures distance and direction.

Everywhere                             = all distances and directions from anywhere.

Cosmological Horizon            = the distance beyond which observations cannot reach.

 

Space is everywhere. This simple statement of direct observation and experience is irrefutable. Space is – everywhere. It defines everywhere in the Universe with no points excluded.

 

In this context, the Universe is a group abstraction, grouping all the matter in the Universe, for our own convenience and efficiency. This grouping is justified via the axiom of matter. (Matter matters).  This does NOT suggest the Universe is a “rigid body” with its own “center of gravity.” 

 

If there exists a center of gravity (to the Universe itself), then there exists an actual center (to the Universe itself), and at some distance from that actual center, IN ALL DIRECTIONS, there exists a real and actual boundary, and a point where the Universe ceases to exist.

 

 

The boundary that actually exists with empirical support (Rudnicki, Arp et al.), the cosmological horizon, is two-fold in nature.  First there are limits to human tools of observation.  There exists distances beyond which no telescope, or other instrument can reach.  Improvements in technology continue to occur. Therefore the limits of our observational capability continue to expand, yet, there will always exist that boundary that is the limits of observations.  Second, there exists a distance beyond which the sources have not and cannot reach us. These boundaries, taken together, form the contemporary concept of the cosmological horizon.

 

The cosmological horizon divides the Universe, for each and every observer, into two parts: a portion that is accessible to observation, and a portion that is not accessible to observation.

 

Photo courtesy NASA and the ACS science team

 

This NASA illustration – compares the camera quality and resolution of Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera (WFPC) vs. The Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS).  The ACS covers twice the area, has twice the sharpness, and is up to five times more sensitive to light than its earlier counterpart, the WFPC. 

 

Existence of Dimension:

 

Space defines and describes a potential – everywhere -.

 

Space consists of three dimensions: length, width, and height. Space is located through a process of abstraction in which we relate the objects in space to each other, in space. Objects occupy space, taking up length, width, and height, and objects relate to each other, and to space, according to the relationships of – distance – and – direction -. Geometry is the study of shape, involving these special – spatial – relationships.

 

How do we know there are only three dimensions, and not 4, 10, 11, or even 26 dimensions? The answer is found in the direct observation of distances and directions. With three dimensions, we account for every distance and every direction. All of space is described. We can therefore locate – everywhere and anywhere – from - anywhere and everywhere -.  There is – nowhere – left to describe!

 

Existence of Centers:

 

Space defines and describes a particular anywhere within a potential everywhere.

 

The center of everywhere is anywhere.

 

 

Origin (Space Point (0,0,0))

 

Octant 1:         +x,       +y,       +z.                   Octant 5:         -x,        +y,       +z.

Octant 2:         +x,       +y,       -z.                    Octant 6:         -x,        +y,       -z.

Octant 3:         +x,       -y,        +z.                   Octant 7:         -x,        -y,        +z.

It can be shown that mathematics is rigorously and internally consistent. Such internal consistency, however, does not require any external validation. In fact, external validation of mathematics often admits absurdity in reality. Take, for example, imaginary numbers. There is no such number as the - square root of minus one -. These concepts are labeled - imaginary – precisely because they have no real existence. Nonetheless, they exist in the context of mathematical models, and serve a useful function toward making useful predictions about reality. Imaginary numbers are common in calculations involving electricity.

Additional - imaginary - dimensions are clearly mathematically feasible. There is no limit to the number of dimensions that one can define mathematically. Yet, there exists no physical reference to reality. Imaginary dimensions retain mathematical properties, just as imaginary numbers do, but refer to nothing real, in the physical sense.

Imaginary dimensions exist only in the context of mathematical processes.

For instance, Einstein refers to time – as a dimension -.  Space-time is a claimed aspect of a four-dimensional universe.  Einstein is treating spans of time as real and actual lengths existing in reality, just as there exist real and actual lengths corresponding to spatial shape, and spatial distance in the classic sense. 

 

The distinction is: Perceiving a Physical Reality vs. Perceiving an Abstract Reality. 

 

 

There is no physical length of time in reality. Only the present moment is real.

 

There is no length to the present moment and therefore, no way to navigate lengths of time. Instead, we consider histories, and predict futures, by means of abstract time spans. Actual, physical reality, according to direct experience and observation, limits time to only the present moment.  Only the present moment ever actually, physically exists.

 

Spatial dimensions refer to physical characteristics of matter:  length, width, height, distance, and direction.

Time refers indirectly to reality, manifested in measures derived from related facts of matter and existence.

All that exists exists independent of observation.

 

Combining these three facts one concludes:

 

The spatial relationships of matter exist as a function of time, all such relationships of matter, anywhere and everywhere in space there exists matter, where all matter is always in the present, anywhere (in space) time is measured.

 

<Top> <Space>

Part III - Matter: Matter matters.

Matter vs. Space: The Universe is a system of objects in spatial relations.

The Universe is comprised of all the systems of matter/energy that exist in reality. These exist without respect to any consciousness. They exist independent of observation. Objects interact with one another in many ways, including motions, collisions, merges, flows, disintegrations, and all other types of real actions which fall under the auspices of the science of physics.

 

In the real world, one locates and measures – rigid bodies -.  Measures of length, width, and height are physical properties of matter. This is what it means to have dimension. To describe physical objects, one measures actual distances and directions related as length, width, and height. These measurements are made based on the context of the object(s) measured. Space and matter have physically manifested distances and directions in reality.

 

Space applies to every possible physical location in the Universe. Matter applies to objects of finite length, width, and height, within the – potential infinity – of space. At any one place, at any one time, space is either empty, or occupied, but not both. Empty space is devoid of matter/energy, at that place, at that time. Occupied space contains matter/energy, at that place, at that time. The motions of matter/energy systems determine whether any particular place, at any particular time, will be empty, or occupied.

 

Matter has geometry. It takes up, or uses space. Matter might have much possible geometry, in each case in the context of the specific matter. Matter can be solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and energy, even a combination of these. In all cases there exists qualities to these objects we call geometry.

 

Geometries can be, and often are, quite complex. However, there are essentials to all geometries: size, shape, volume, limits, and boundaries. Essentials help identify the objects, allow for distinguishing objects one from another, allow for comparisons to, and contrasts of objects according to their characteristic identities.

The Principle(s) of Realism:

 

In relating – rigid bodies – one to another, even in the most complex discovery of those relationships, there remains always one and only one physical reality. That reality is the reality according to the principle of realism, the reality of the conservation of mass/energy, and the reality of causality via the principle of mechanics. This ensures confidence in our physical descriptions of natural occurrences. Common sense and logic are verified and fortified with respect to Nature.

 

Classical Mechanics provides a physical description of Nature at a macroscopic scale. Quantum Mechanics describes Nature on a microscopic scale. Both classical and quantum mechanics provide real interpretations of actual (experimentally verifiable) processes with respect to real matter/energy systems. For instance, it is known that – length contraction – naturally occurs in matter as a function of its gravity potential. There is a natural change of the Bohr radius of an electron. It is not necessary to use a hypothesis of the constancy of light. Instead, via the principle of mass/energy conservation, Quantum Mechanics verifies and validates the fact of length contraction as a naturally occurring reality of matter.

 

Quoting Marmet: “When we apply the principle of mass/energy conservation, the electron mass increases. Now when we apply quantum mechanics, and we calculate what happens when the electron of an atom, which increases its mass (due to kinetic energy), we find that the size of the Bohr radius increases. This is fairly simple to calculate without requiring any new theory, just classical physics. Using the same quantum mechanics and the same more massive electron, we also calculate that an atomic clock slows down. Therefore this provides the link between quantum mechanics and the phenomena previously attributed to relativity.

However, if we think about that calculation, we have seen that we have a change of length of matter, and a change of clock rate, which is explained by quantum mechanics, but this is no longer relativity. There is no space distortion. There is no time distortion. It is just simple, logical classical physics. Matter gets physically longer and clocks get slower because mass/energy is conserved. All this is done using classical physics. There is no need of relativity. Relativity is redundant. The phenomena that were previously interpreted using Einstein’s relativity are now the result of a simple calculation in classical physics and quantum mechanics.” – End Quote (Marmet).

 

(Reference: Marmet, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity vs. Classical Mechanics.)

 

The Principle of Relativity:

Existence exists, as observed.

In relating - rigid bodies - to one another using relativity alone, as Einstein did, implies a different reality for EACH and EVERY observer, at least as is with respect to EACH and EVERY frame of reference. Very early in Einstein's book (Chapter 3, Space and Time in Classical Mechanics) the demonstration of this change in context (from realism to relativity) becomes apparent:

Quoting Einstein: I stand at the window of a railway carriage, which is traveling uniformly, and I drop a stone on the embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I now ask: do the "positions" traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line or on a parabola? Moreover, what is meant here by "motion in space"? - ENDQUOTE (Albert Einstein)

Einstein proceeds to produce two separate realities, one for the passenger, and one for pedestrian. Einstein claims: BOTH realities are "equally true".

1. The passenger’s reality: The stone travels straight down.
2. The pedestrian’s reality: The stone traverses a parabolic curve.

Wait a minute!!!!! There's only one stone! 

Combining the Two Realities:

The fact is that Einstein has dropped the context of - frame within frame - motion. He implies the stone belongs to the moving frame, just as the stone belongs to the stationary frame. Via the Principle of Realism, the stone has - an existence independent of observation -. In Einstein's example, the stone transitions between the two frames of reference. Prior to its release, the stone is under the influence of the moving frame because the passenger in the moving railcar is carrying the stone. Upon release, the stone begins to lose the energy attributed to the motion of the car, even as it gains momentum from the gravity of Earth, - which has been pulling down on the stone, the railcar, and the moving observer throughout the exercise -. The ACTUAL stone, takes an ACTUAL curved path, due to both the lateral force of the railcar, and the downward force of gravity acting upon the stone, both at once. This is clearly - frame within frame - motion. In this example, the stationary frame contains the motions, and the stationary frame is the preferred frame in the classic sense. By properly considering each and every motion of each and every rigid body involved in the exercise, simple classical mechanics provides the real description and interpretation, of the motions of the objects involved.

The background of Euclidian space is not meant to be the end of it. It is the start of further refinements. Euclidian space is the infinite potential of distance and direction. Matter matters. Essential to relativity, is the idea of - rigid bodies - and - curved space -. Einstein presumes matter systems when placing origins. What this means is that relativity uses a non-Euclidian approach to configure the points in terms of curves instead of lines, - outward from respect to a SPECIFIC origin – which is the center of a matter system. In both perspectives, Euclidian or non-Euclidian, it is the same space that is being configured.

The common - relativistic - vernacular is: SPACE CURVES IN THE PRESENCE OF MATTER.
The implied corollary becomes: IN THE ABSENCE OF MATTER, SPACE IS EUCLIDIAN.

Matter matters: In the absence of matter, there simply isn’t anything to relate.

The Axiom of Matter: Matter matters.

 

The Cosmological Principle (a k a The Primacy of Existence):

 

(Spatial) The Universe, as observed from any place, in every direction looks and behaves roughly the same.

(Temporal) The Universe is observed today roughly as it always has been and roughly as it always will be.

 

Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation: (G is the Universal Gravitational Constant)     It is taught in the Standard Theory that gravity is the dominant force in the universe, i.e., that gravity affects all matter, and overwhelms all other forces, such that the universe has a “shape” which is: open, closed, or flat, and that the universe arose from a singularity, i.e., The Big Bang.   Objective analysis shows this is false, and that gravity reduces to effectively zero over large enough distances.  (The Inverse-Square Law)

Therefore, the universe, as a whole, obeys the perfect cosmological principle, rephrased here as:   1) The universe extends in all directions indefinitely; 2) The universe has an infinite age; 3) The universe is homogeneous on a large scale; 4) The density of matter/energy is finite and constant, except for local irregularities; 5) The universe is in a steady-state without expansion and without creation of matter; 6) The universe complies with the principle of mass/energy conservation.   (Reference: A.K.T. Assis, “A Steady State Cosmology,” paper reprinted and edited by Halton Arp, et. al.,   from the book Progress in New Cosmologies: Beyond the Big Bang.)

 

Quoting Einstein: “Every description of events in space involves the use of a rigid body to which such events have to be referred. The resulting relationship takes for granted that the laws of Euclidian geometry hold for distances, the distance being represented physically by two marks on a rigid body.

I wish to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independent of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not – in space – but these objects are – spatially extended -. In this way the concept – empty space – loses its meaning.” End Quote (Einstein).

Preferred Measures:

Matter has an existence independent of the observer. It is a fact that length contraction naturally occurs. This has real but natural effects upon our ability to measure. The – standard meter – has a different length in each different frame of reference. The – standard clock rate – varies in the same proportion due to the fact that the Bohr radius of an electron changes in those different reference frames. With respect to proper measure, one must adjust the measures so that the problem consists entirely of like units (proper units), a fact which is mathematically justified.

 

Due to its independent existence, there is a distinction that must be made between what a thing actually is, and what a thing is – observed – to be. There are distinctions between actual motions and measures, and observed motions and measures. To conform to realism, one must distinguish the characteristic measure(s) of a thing – as it actually is -, from what it is observed to be, which must, by definition, include relativistic distortions of measure.

 

To find the – preferred measure – is to find the measure of a thing with respect to – as the thing is at rest -.  Any measure taken of a thing from a frame different than its – rest frame – will produce a relativistic distortion of the measure(s) taken. The rest frame is that frame which provides a measure of a thing as if it is at rest. The rest frame is that frame in which the motions and measures can be  - classically described – independent of observation. In all frames of reference outside of that rest frame, a relativistic distortion is produced. For instance, in Einstein’s example of a passenger in a moving railcar, a pedestrian, and a stone, there is a system of motions and measures – with respect to each and every component.

 

1)       An origin with respect to the railcar.

2)       An origin with respect to the embankment.

3)       An origin with respect to the stone.

 

The experiment has three distinct stages or phases with respect to time:

 

1)       The time the stone spends in the railcar frame, held by the passenger.

2)       The moment the stone is released.

3)       The time the stone spends descending down to the embankment.

 

Now we can see that there are several perspectives, which might be maintained, of which three are pertinent to the discussion:

 

1)       A perspective from the railcar, entirely.

2)       A perspective from the embankment, entirely.

3)       A combined perspective: the independent perspective, with respect to the stone.

 

Perspectives one and two are relativistic. During phase 1, the stone distorts with respect to the pedestrian, but is observed at rest with respect to the passenger. Phase 2 is only a moment. The stone transitions from the moving to the stationary frame. During phase 3, with respect to the passenger, the stone begins to distort as the stone moves away from his rest frame. With respect to the pedestrian, the stone travels from a full distortion to the stone at rest. It is only through an independent perspective, that one can distinguish between relativistic distortion, and natural – classic – measure.

<Top> <Space> <Matter>

Part IV - Time:  Time is everywhere in the present, anywhere it is measured.

Clocks - measure - time. It is true that due to the fact of length contraction, there is a corresponding change to atomic resonance and frequencies with respect to gravitational potentials and accelerations. Atomic clocks run at different rates. Pendulums swing at different rates. Mechanical gears change their ratios.

Q: How does that slow or speed up time?
A: It doesn't affect time at all. It creates an error (distortion) of measure.

 

One way to distinguish axiomatic concepts is that the axiom is used even in the process of denying it. 

 

Examine the statement:  The Universe is 20 billion years old. 

Notice the implied axiom of time.  The Universe was born 20 billion years ago.  20 billion years accumulation of  - Earth Seconds – have passed, and the Universe is now in the present 20 billion years later.

 

The implication is:  Time is everywhere in the present, anywhere it is measured.

 

Figure – The Metaphysical Relationship of Space to Time

 

The Present: A single instance of moment, which exists only for a moment, as a moment. The present moment is the only real instance of time. The present moment is the now, expressed in all of space at once with no places excluded. Time is a continuum of present moments, one after another, smoothly flowing. There is no discreet moment of time, and no means of “escaping” the present moment.

 

The Past: The series of moments having passed that no longer exist. The present becomes the past, the series of moments we call history. The past exists only in human memory as abstraction. Events of the past occurred in the then present. Thereby present moments become part of history.

 

The Future: The series of moments, which has yet to occur. Like the past, the future does not exist except as abstraction: in this case, the anticipation of the continuation of present moments. Any real action that will occur will occur in the present, at the appropriate future time.

 

The axiom of time further expresses that time is not a real dimension, but instead, an abstract one.  One can’t – navigate – time. There is no such thing as time travel. There is no means, nor mechanism for such a thing, except as the fantasy of the human imagination. One can’t travel to the past to - experience the past - as one would experience the present. One must wait for the future to arrive by natural means.  There is no choice in the matter. The facts preclude such bizarre absurdities.

 

The Law of Synchronous Time:

 

Time flows everywhere as a – continuum – at a constant, invariant rate. Time is measured anywhere – in proper units – relative to the measurer, and to existing conditions in the physical environment, i.e., the measurer’s “rest” frame.

 

The Universe exists in the present. Each and every object in existence exists in the present. Real time is the same single moment, experienced as a single moment, in the same exact instant of time everywhere in the present, anywhere time is measured.

 

There is no size to a point.

There is no length to a moment.

 

Distances exist physically. Space is a physical continuum.

Time spans are abstract. Time is an abstract continuum.

 

The Measures of Time:

 

The measure of time is indeed relative. The rate that time flows is fixed. The choice of a – unit measure – is completely arbitrary: any unit measure will do. One may choose any physical mechanism such as the spin of the Earth, or a more sophisticated method, like the atomic vibration of a cesium atom. The measure of time has nothing – directly – to do with light. Indirectly, light has an inherent - speed of propagation – which can be used to measure distance.

 

Q: How is time relative?

A: It relates speed and distance.

 

The planet Earth traverses several distances over time. One such distance, - orbital distance -, is the distance Earth makes to complete one orbit around the Sun. Another such distance is the – rotational distance – which the Earth makes by spinning on its own axis. We call the time it takes to make that distance a day.

 

Using the rotational distance, the unit measure we call a second becomes:

 

1/60^th of 1/60^th of 1/24^th the time it takes planet Earth to spin once on its own axis.

 

Another way to manifest this relationship of speed and distance is the – atomic measure -. The cesium atom is commonly used in atomic clocks. Time is measured by accepting a standard unit measure, a specific accumulation of moments, which, in the case of atoms is a fixed number of periodic oscillations.

 

The unit measure of time must be a  - span of time - of fixed duration.

Real Time vs. Virtual Time:

The Principle of Realism: Existence exists, independent of observation.

 

The principle of realism states that time exists independent of the observer.  The axiom of time describes real time. Relativity, by contrast, describes virtual time. The reason for this is that time does not depend on light, but Einstein chose light, as his mechanism for measure. It’s true that physical lengths and clock rates vary with gravity potential and acceleration.

 

There exists a metaphysical dependency at the source of Einstein’s proposal:

 

Time does NOT require light.  Light propagates distance OVER time.

 

To illustrate this, consider a completely sealed room, sealed to light.  The room is twenty feet by twenty feet square. There is a single door to the room, a single light in the middle of the room, and a light switch on the far wall opposite the door. Strewn about the room are several pieces of furniture, a table, and some chairs. There is no light in the room. A person enters through the door, and the door is closed, trapping the person in the room with no light. The object of the experiment is for the person to find the light switch. The turning on of the light ends the experiment.

 

Q: What can be said about space?

A: Space contains the furniture, and the person, spatially related around the room.

 

Q: What can be said about time?

A: The person takes time to find the light switch and turn on the light.

 

Q: What can be said about light?

A: There isn’t any light.

 

Finally, when the person trips the light switch, the light begins propagating at the speed of light. It will take time for the light to propagate around the room.

Virtual Time: The Issue of Simultaneity

Einstein presumes the constancy of light, using it as a standard of measure.

Einstein brings up the issue of "simultaneity." He uses the example of two lightning strikes, observers at a train embankment, and observers on a train. Einstein has built a classic "straw man."

Lightning is a well-understood EVENT. When the lightning strike occurs in REAL TIME, several EFFECTS are created in the same instant.

1) A lightning flash occurs in the atmosphere.
2) A thunderous sound wave is created as the air is disturbed.

It is proper to conclude that the lightning flashes - and the accompanying thunder - are created together. These – events – are created simultaneously. Yet, it is also clear that one will observe the light long before one ever hears the thunder. The thunder is simply lagging behind the light. The lag increases over distance. This occurs simply because sound travels slower than light.

Einstein discovered that: motion skews observation.

Einstein did not consider: the distinction between the event itself, and the observations of it.

The taking of observance to be the event, and the use of light as a standard for determining time, creates the notion of Virtual Time, and Virtual Reality, where reality exists, by means of observation.

 

The Principle of Mechanics:  Real actions have real causes, and real effects.

 

It is REAL EVENTS that are simultaneous, not the observance of those events.

 

The Implications of Lagging Light:

 

Let’s examine a REAL event: The shining of the Moon, as seen from Earth.

 

It should be obvious that BOTH the Earth, and the Moon exist together, in the present.

 

FACT: Light from the Moon takes approximately 1.2 seconds to reach Earth.

FACT: As we exist in the present, we see the Moon as it was 1.2 seconds ago.

 

FACT: We’ve placed men on the Moon, confirming that it’s a real object, with an existence independent of observation.

 

CONCLUSION: The Moon and the Earth both exist in the present.

 

This phenomenon - of seeing objects in the past - does NOT indicate that time has a length. The object itself is NOT in the past!  Rather, we see a “virtual universe” where evidence of the past is to be found in the analysis of light from these sources.   The actual object which is being scrutinized has continued to evolve, but, we cannot detect (yet) the changes that have occurred to that object during the time it has taken the light to travel from there to here.   As is clear from the graphic on the left, this issue is only a matter of scale. For the Moon, the lag is 1.2 seconds, for the Sun, 8.5 minutes, and for the Alpha Centauri system (our nearest stellar neighbor) the lag is approximately 4.3 years.   Barring some catastrophic event that might occur during the lag, and assuming the object under scrutiny is still in existence, it is proper to conclude that the object has evolved that amount of time (the time of the lag) beyond what we see, and that the object exists at the present time.   At this very moment light from Alpha Centauri is leaving its source, and will arrive here on Earth approximately 4.3 years from now. Of course, the Alpha Centauri system will be 4.3 years older then, than it is now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across, a huge distance. Light from the farthest reaches of the Milky Way takes a very long time to reach Earth. Since we’re part of this galaxy, you may rest assured that the Milky Way presently exists.

<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time>

Part V - Summary:

The facts - that time, space and matter are axiomatic concepts - can be denied only by arguing the absurd. Facts are facts:  the axioms of time, space and matter are verified by experience, direct observation, and by reason, logic, and common sense.

 

Within proper context, the theories of special and general relativity are describing the physics of a virtual universe: the universe of observation. Scientific analysis shows that relativity is true within that context, when observation is the source of events, and light is the standard of measure.

 

The term space-time misrepresents Einstein’s discovery. Space-time is a perfectly valid Kantian concept:  Einstein is choosing to create reality by willing it so. Einstein is manifesting the principle of the primacy of consciousness over existence. Einstein’s “reality” is a virtual one. As an objective concept, space-time is gibberish: Einstein has created a floating abstraction.

 

Fact:                             Einstein gives the property of “length” to time.

Contradiction: Time has no length in reality. The notion is metaphysically absurd.

 

Quoting Rand: “The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth of his definitions.”

…

(The above applies only to valid concepts. There are such things as invalid concepts, i.e., words that represent attempts to integrate errors, contradictions, or false propositions, such as concepts originating in mysticism – or words without specific definitions, without referents, which can mean anything to anyone, such as modern “anti-concepts.” Invalid concepts appear occasionally in men’s languages, but are usually – though not necessarily – short-lived, since they lead to cognitive dead-ends. An invalid concept invalidates every proposition or process of thought in which it is used as a cognitive assertion.)” End Quote (Rand).

 

(Reference: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology)

 

Light-space: The achievement of Albert Einstein.

 

Einstein’s discovery is not the merging of time and space, but instead, it is the merging of light and space. It is more accurate to describe his new abstraction as: light-space. Einstein is describing space in terms of light, and light happens to propagate over time.

 

Take for example the change of reference for the unit measure of time. Real time is measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days and years. Virtual time is measured in light-seconds, light-minutes, light-hours, light-days, and light-years.  By Einstein’s own admissions, he confirms that he uses observations as if they are the means of timing and deciding real events.

 

Another example of this obfuscation and confusion is the modern notion of the light-cone. Light-cones are “cones of light” arising from events described as light flashes. The upper cone represents a causal-future. The lower cone represents a causal-past. The present – represented by a particular event – is a particular light flash.

 

Figure: The Typical Light-Cone ============================   Author’s note:   The light-cone depicts and represents an upper speed limit for all objects. Only “massless” particles, i.e., photons, can travel along the cone. Baryonic matter cannot reach the speed of light. Thus, our worldlines are confined to always fall within the interior of the cone.    In comparison, classical and quantum mechanics provides for the cosmic speed limit via the addition of mass/energy conservation, and tracking proper units, i.e., changes to lengths of matter and clock rates...   ============================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revived Realism: The achievement of Paul Marmet.

 

Marmet reintroduces realism by describing and relating the same new knowledge about the reality of length dilation and changing clock rates, as does Einstein.  Marmet makes the proper enhancements and additions to Classical Mechanics, while justifying his position on the basis of verified Quantum Mechanics and the principle of conservation of mass/energy, instead of the constancy of light. Marmet provides a rational, realistic description of physical reality, placing Classical Mechanics back on a correct track, such that prediction again matches observation. Within this context, relativity is a redundancy. Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics taken together incorporate and describe all physical realities previously attributed to relativity.

 

Marmet recognizes the difference between Newton’s equations, which are always perfectly valid in any and all related frames of reference, and Newton’s physics, which lacks coherency: there is no place for changes of mass, length, and clock rate. Newton was not aware of the effects on matter due to changes that occur as a result of different gravity potentials, and/or different accelerated states. Newton’s physics is NOT compatible with the principle of mass/energy conservation. Marmet adheres to mass/energy conservation and realism at all times by keeping careful track of proper units, and including those changes of mass, length, and clock rate as required, thereby restoring coherency to Newton’s Physics.

 

In Conclusion, physics is more than a virtual model of reality.  Science demands a physical description of Nature coincident with reality. The requirement of realism has profound implications for the application of physics to the real world, and the future growth and survival of Mankind. Euclidian space, thought to be a relic of the past, remains the all-encompassing, most accurate description of space.  Time, as constrained by physical reality, contradicts any suggestion, assertion, or conclusion that time can be navigated dimensionally, in any physical sense, whatsoever. Time travel remains the province of fantasy. A remains A, after all.

 

<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary>

Part VI - Some Simple Case Studies:

Deriving the Principles and Axioms:

 

In this study the structure and methods of Objectivism are accepted as our source discipline, and our means of knowledge.

 

First Axioms: Existence exists. I am aware that existence exists.

 

Quoting Rand: “For the purpose of this series, the validity of the senses must be taken for granted – and one must remember the axiom: Existence exists. (This, incidentally, is a way of translating into the form of a proposition, and thus into the form of an axiom, the primary fact which is existence.) Please bear in mind the full statement: “Existence exists – and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.” End Quote (Rand).

 

(Reference: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology)

 

First Corollary (a k a The Law of Identity): A is A.

 

Further Axiom: Matter matters.

 

Quoting Rand: “To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature, made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was – no matter what his errors – the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is identity; Consciousness is identification.” End Quote (Rand). (Ibid.)

 

Second Corollary (a k a The Law of Causality): A acts as A.

 

Quoting Rand: “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.” End Quote (Rand).

 

(Reference: For the New Intellectual)

 

Quoting Rand: “To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into, or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered form of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe – from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life – are caused and determined by the elements involved.” End Quote (Rand).

 

(Reference: Philosophy: Who Needs It?)

 

 

First concepts: Life; I; it.

 

Quoting Rand: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence – and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence.

…

An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel that it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly.

…

In a fundamental sense, stillness is the antithesis of life. Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action. The goal of that action, the ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism’s life.”

End Quote (Rand).

 

(Reference: The Virtue of Selfishness)

 

Note that the premises of realism derive from and manifest as principles in Objectivism:

 

The Principle of Realism:                                   Existence exists, independent of observations.

The Principle of Mechanics:                              Real actions have real causes, and real effects.

Mass/Energy Conservation:                               Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

 

Cosmological Principle:             (Spatial) The Universe, as observed from any place, in every direction looks and behaves roughly the same.

                                                (Temporal) The Universe is observed today roughly as it always has been and roughly as it always will be.

 

Note that the concept “life” includes a “time-span” via the absolute of life/death, and the fact of conditional existence.  The logic and reason behind your lifespan, is the same as that for any unit measure, excepting of course, that a “lifespan” is different for any person.  This reflects that the nature of time is the same, for any choice of measure, be it a dynamic unit-measure, like a life span, or a fixed and stable unit-measure, like a second.

 

 

The next thing to consider, are the concepts “I” and “it.” At this point, one invokes the Law of Identity to consider the particulars of existence.  One first learns that existence itself exists (the broadest abstraction possible), and then, one discovers that which exists in particular, identifying the things that exist.

 

There exist certain “key” concepts that are essential to epistemological understanding. These concepts of “relation” assist and enable “navigation” of the hierarchy of knowledge. This navigational/relational capability is essential to the retrieval and organization of all of human knowledge. One must relate the “I” to the “it.” One must relate the “its” to each other.

 

The relative concepts are: who; what; where; when; how; why; which; while.

 

1) Subjects/Observers:                                                   who.

2) Objects/Matter:                                                           what.

3) Space:                                                                         where .

4) Time:                                                                             when.

5) Process and Method:                                                 how.

6) Reason and Logic:                                                      why.

7) Selection:                                                                     which.

8) Selection over Time:                                                   while.

 

Of these concepts of relation, the concepts relevant to this discussion are:

 

1) Who - the measurer/observer; 2) What - matter; 3) Where - space; 4) When - time.

Expanding our derivation, we now relate the “I” (measurer/observer) to the “it.” (matter)

 

Let’s consider the concepts in relation:

 

The observer MUST BE somewhere.  (The observer exists in space.)

The observer CAN BE anywhere.  (The principle of center, origin of a spatial relation.)

 

FACT:

The Universe surrounds the observer, in all directions, to all distances.

(Space is axiomatic.)

 

The matter matters. The matter MUST BE somewhere. (It exists in space.)

The matter CAN BE anywhere.  (The principle of center, target of a spatial relation.)

 

FACT:                        There exists nowhere that is beyond everywhere.

CONCLUSION:               Space is anywhere, and everywhere.

 

If the Universe consisted of ONLY “I,” there would exist a limitless infinite void that is the Universe, with nothing to relate.  (There isn’t any matter, to matter.) There still exist distances and directions. In every direction there would exist a void, and at every distance there would exist a void.

 

Any actual limitation on space, i.e., finite distances from a “particular” center, derives from the axiom of matter, and NOT the axiom of space. Distance derives from the spatial relationships of matter. There exists NO CONSTRAINT on direction:  anywhere is a center.

 

At this point in the derivation, we have the axiom of space, and the axiom of matter.

 

The observer MUST BE some when. (The observer exists in time.)

The observer CAN ONLY BE in the present. (Time does not manifest lengths, in reality.)

The observer CAN BE any when, IF and ONLY IF, the observer is ALIVE then.

(Life forms have a finite, conditional existence.)

 

FACT: The observer has no choice but to be constrained by time. (Time is axiomatic.)

 

The matter MUST BE some when. (The matter exists in time.)

The matter CAN ONLY BE in the present. (Time does not manifest lengths, in reality.)

The matter CAN BE any when, IF and ONLY IF, the matter EXISTS then. (Matter exists in time.)

 

FACT: There exists no when but now, in reality.

FACT: Time has no length.

FACT: Any unit measure CAN BE chosen. (The measure is relative to the observer.)

FACT: No measure NEED BE chosen. (Time is experienced directly.)

FACT: Time APPLIES to matter, in space. (Matter matters.)

ACTION: Combine our knowledge of time, with our knowledge of space.

 

CONCLUSION: Time is everywhere in the present, anywhere it is measured.

 

QED.

Demonstrating the redundancy of relativity:

 

Both realism and relativity have a – common ground – that is, prediction of basic facts. Objectivity has the advantage of exposing – essential – facts, taken from particular contexts.  Examples of these particular contexts are the predictions about particular orbiting bodies, i.e., the orbits of particular planets, in orbit around particular stars.

 

One can agree that Newton’s equations predict the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, and that Einstein’s equations predict the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The common ground between the two approaches is: the actual facts surrounding the context of the orbit of the planet Earth around its parent star, the Sun. Both approaches predict where the planet is now, where it will be later, and where it has been before.

 

Both approaches respond to, and predict the SAME facts.

 

Fact:    The Earth orbits the Sun once every 365.25 days.

Fact:    The Earth exists independent of observation. The Earth orbits the Sun independent of observation.

Fact:    The Earth, at any one particular time, will be at one and only one particular place. 

 

 

At the present moment, the Earth is in orbit, around the Sun. The motions of the Earth occur in the present, and as time flows fixed and invariant, so too, the Earth moves in relation to the Sun, in a fixed and invariant manner, that is periodic. This particular context applies to EVERY planet AT ONCE. Mercury moves in the present along with the Earth. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, all of them move in the present along with the Earth. There are NO EXCEPTIONS, anywhere in the Universe. The particulars in each case are different, different velocities, different distances, different periods, yet, all the motions occur at once, in REAL time.

Classic Motions:

These ‘thought experiments’ eliminate the problem of observation.  The run along the course is TIMESTAMPED, triggered by the event of the vehicle passing through pre-arranged markers.  This shows that whatever the clocks say, whether too fast, too slow, or on time, the fact is that the real time expended is proper to classic motions, logic and common sense.

 

1)      There is a three-lane corridor, 60 miles long. Along the corridor there are 61 markers, one at the start of the course, and one at each mile marked along a distance of 60 miles. Three drivers traverse the course in appropriate vehicles, one driver per lane. Course times are logged and monitored, triggered when a vehicle reaches a marker. Everyone is observing and experiencing the same events.

 

All 3 drivers reach the starting marker at the same moment: 10.00.00 am.

 

 

2)       There is a three-lane corridor, 1 light-minute long. Along the corridor there are 61 markers, one at the start of the course, and one at each light-second marked along a distance of 1 light-minute. Three pilots traverse the course in appropriate vehicles, one pilot per lane. Course times are logged and monitored, triggered when a vehicle reaches a marker. Everyone is observing and experiencing the same events.

 

All 3 pilots reach the starting marker at the same moment: 10.00.00 am.

 

 Relative Unit Measure – Part One:

 

This case study is divided into two parts.  In the first part, we use a physical relationship between the observer/measurer, and the conditions of existence. The applicable condition in the first case is the spin of a planet revolving around a star.  This produces a periodic condition we call a “day.”  Of course there are cases where a day can be and is used as a unit measure. This is a large span of time, too large a span to be directly useful in many cases.  The day must then be further divided, to create the useful unit measure to which we are accustomed, the second.

 

Martian Time:

 

The rate of real time is fixed. The measure of time is relative. Both planet Earth and planet Mars experience the exact same rate of real time. However, the 2 planets have different diameters and different rates of spin. The length of the day differs because the time spent to complete one rotation involves different rates of spin, over a different distance. We need to relate this difference in our measure of time. Therefore, the unit measure appropriate to a 24-hour day differs on Earth and Mars. This difference is 37 Earth minutes. The Martian day is 37 Earth minutes longer than an Earth day.  We wish to calculate the appropriate unit measure to maintain a 24-hour day on both planets.

 

The standard Earth second is: 1/60^th of 1/60^th of 1/24^th the time it takes Earth to spin once.

 

We choose to maintain this ratio, and create a 24-hour day on Mars, with 60 minutes to an hour, and 60 seconds to a minute:

 

Step 1: express the ratio using the unit measure.  (Note the adherence to proper units.)

 

1 Earth day                                                       = 86,400 Earth seconds.

1 Martian day                                                   = 86,400 Mars seconds.

 

Step 2: identify the difference in relative time, expressed as the unit measure.

 

37 Earth minutes = 2,220 Earth seconds.

 

Step 3: carry forward the difference expressed in proper units.

 

1 Mars day = 1 Earth day + 2,220 Earth seconds = 88,620 Earth seconds.

 

86,400 Mars seconds = 88,620 Earth seconds.

 

Divide by 24 (hours)                                              è 1 Mars hour                                     = 3,692.500 Earth seconds

Divide by 60 (minutes)                                         è 1 Mars minute                                   =      61.540 Earth seconds

Divide by 60 (seconds)                                       è 1 Mars second                                  =        1.025 Earth seconds

 

The unit measure of time is relative. In order to maintain a 24-hour day the Martian second is longer than the Earth second. The flow of time, however, is exactly the same, since:

 

 Time is everywhere in the present, anywhere it is measured.

 

QED.

 Relative Unit Measure – Part Two:

 

There exist cases where time is self-referenced.  This is due to the FACT that time is experienced directly.  It does NOT have to be measured, to be experienced. In the second part of this exercise we will analyze one such self-referencing case: music.

 

Music contains time as an essential component.  Music contains the direct experience of time. Unlike the first part of this case study, where there exists a large time span (a day), and that span is sub-divided to create our unit-measure, music takes the opposite approach, creating a unit-measure directly. The unit-measure of music is called, a beat.

 

A musical “beat” is a self-referencing measure of time.

 

Musical beats are grouped into larger spans called, measures.  Any particular piece of music will contain enough measures, as is appropriate to the musical composition as a unit of time.  In this case, the length of a beat, and any number of measures relating those beats, produces a time span which is dynamic, according to the length of the musical score, as defined and decided by the music composer.

 

Let’s simplify: Here, we’re on planet Earth.  Whatever claims relativity might make about the nature of time, in this case, music is directly experienced, relative to the observer. No other frame but the observer’s frame is needed. We are inside such a frame, and time is fixed, and invariant.

 

When considering relative frames of motion, each frame, in and of itself, obeys the laws of classic physics. That is to say: the laws of physics appear the same in EVERY frame. Here, we are eliminating the confusion of multiple frames, with the realization that the frame we are describing could be at equilibrium at any speed from zero (completely stationary) to c (the speed of light). Inside a single frame, one cannot detect the speed of that frame. It is as if there is no motion at all.

 

Notice the wide-range of timings in music.  There is common time. Common time is four beats to a measure, conveyed as 4/4 time in musical notation. There is march time, which is conveyed as ¾. There are many such groupings, 6/8, 5/4, etc., each one based upon the musical unit measure we call a beat.

 

Note, too, that the beat itself can be any length whatsoever. The composer and/or the performer of a piece of music choose the length of a beat.  If the choice is 60 beats a minute, we have a one on one correspondence between the music, and the conventional second, as described in part one of this case study. At 120 beats a minute, each beat is ½ second.  The range of choice open to the composer is very large.

 

Note that real time is exactly the same for every piece of music.  One can “map the continuum” to create slow blues, at 60 beats per minute or less. Thrash metal music is at the other extreme, with beat rates often meeting or exceeding 200 beats per minute. Various types of music use different ranges of time, according to the expression and the “feeling” that the composer/performer intends.

 

Finally, let’s examine a tool to aid in timing music, the metronome. Our metronome is of the pendulum type:  There’s a wound spring attached to a rod, and there is a weight that we slide up and down on the rod to produce a particular timing. The location of the weight along the length of the rod determines the length of a beat. When set by the performer, the metronome produces patterns of ticks, which correspond to the beats in the musical piece.

 

Our metronome is built on planet Earth. Marks have been placed along the length of the rod indicating, “when the rod is at mark ‘120’ the timing is 120 beats per minute.” If we now take the metronome to a different gravity potential, or to a different accelerated state, the marks might no longer accurately reference time. The markings will be “skewed” to the degree that the metronome is affected by the new conditions of its environment. However, the weight can be slid along the rod, as a continuum. By adjusting the weight along the length of the rod, either raising the weight higher on the rod, or lowering the weight along the rod, depending on the new conditions, one corrects or restores the function of the metronome, to again produce the proper timing that is desired.

 

Keep in mind, the FULL RANGE of musical timings is available to the performer, and ANY PIECE of music could be performed, with all the timings intact. The performer could spend 5 minutes playing a slow blues song, followed by five minutes of the incredibly fast, Flight of the Bumblebee, by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.

 

FACT:                                    Time is an abstract continuum.

         Any unit-measure will map onto that continuum.

 

FACT:             However measured, the nature of time is that it is fixed and invariant, directly experienced, anywhere one might choose to measure it throughout the universe.

 

CONCLUSION:        the trick is to find the right unit-measure, appropriate to the conditions in which time is measured.

 

Time is everywhere in the present, anywhere it is measured.

 

QED

Extra Credit:

 

The Axiom of Time: Time is everywhere in the present, anywhere it is measured.

 

The flow of time is the same throughout the Universe. 

 

Q: How might we experience the proof?

A: Put yourself in the driver seat, in the ‘classic motions’ case study.

 

Imagine yourself in the first case, moving at a constant 30, 60, or 120 miles per hour. The trip takes 2 hours, 1 hour, and 1 half-hour, respectively.  You’re bored.  You decide to sing a song while you’re driving the course. How about we sing, America, the Beautiful?

 

America, the beautiful, for amber waves of grain…

For purple mountain majesties,

Above the fruited plain…

 

Q: Is there any difference at any speed?  Can you, at a constant speed of 30, 60, or 120 mph, sing the song, and keep the time?

 

A: Of course you can. It’s easy.

 

Now, imagine yourself on the light speed course, traveling at 1/8^th of c, 1/4^th of c, or ½ c.

You’re moving really, really fast, but, the speed is constant, and you feel no acceleration.

 

Life is wonderful you think… Does it make you sing?

 

America, the beautiful, for amber waves of grain…

For purple mountain majesties,

Above the fruited plain…

 

Q: Is there any difference at any speed?  Can you, at a constant speed of 1/8^th, 1/4^th, or ½ the speed of light, sing the song, and keep the time?

 

A: Of course you can. It’s easy.

 

Do you see?

 

Time is everywhere in the present, anywhere it is measured.

 

QED

Case Study: Matter and Electron Mass

Case Study: Light Deflection by Sun

Case Study: Perihelion of Mercury

Case Study: Contradicted Equivalence

Case Study: The Flat Universe

Case Study: The Sagnac Effect

Case Study: Invalidating Relativity

<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary> <Case Study>

Bibliography

1. Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology	Ayn Rand	Axioms/Epistemology
2. The Elements	Euclid	Geometry
3. The Works of Galileo Galilei	Galileo	Relativity/Universal Time
4. The Principia	Sir Isaac Newton	Motion/Gravity
5. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory	Albert Einstein	Relativity/Gravity/Relative Time
6. The Big Bang Never Happened	Eric J. Lerner	Plasma Cosmology
7. The Cult of the Big Bang: Was There a Bang?	William Mitchell	Refutation of Big Bang
8. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science	Halton Arp	Hubble Shift/Astronomy
9. Einstein's Theory of Relativity vs. Classical Mechanics	Paul Marmet	Defending the Classical Approach
10. A Brief History of Time	Stephen Hawking	The Mind Creating Reality
11. Beyond Einstein	Michio Kaku	More Mind Creates Reality

<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary> <Case Study> <Bibliography> <Other Links> <Testimonials>

Links to Other Sites:

1. Hannes Alfven	http://www-plasma.umd.edu/alfven.html
2. Halton Arp	http://www.haltonarp.com/ http://www.users/qwest.net/~dascott/amy.htm
3. Sir Fred Hoyle	http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html
4. Chandra Wickramasinghe	http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/chand1.html
5. Euclid	http://forum.swarthmore.edu/geometry/wwweuclid/bio.htm
6. Galileo Galilei	http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/b/egalilg.html
7. Sir Isaac Newton	http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~thhf/newton/
8. Albert Einstein	http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/index.html
9. Paul Marmet	http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/index.html http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html#Author http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/index.html http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/faq/faq.html
10. Big Bang Criticisms	http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp
11. Modern Relativity	http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/

<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary> <Case Study> <Bibliography> <Other Links> <Testimonials>

Testimonials and Comments:

From Galilean Electrodynamics -- 10 October 2000. <GE Homepage>

Dear Mr. Seavey,

Many thanks for your letter of 28 August with your subscription to GED and your manuscript "Time and Space."

I think the conclusion about "Lightspace" is exactly right. Einstein's theory describes the inferences an observer will make from radar data, given that radar propogation at speed c is assumed in processing the data.

I think, however, that the essay getting to 'Lightspace' is a bit long and pedantic. There are unnecessarily many numerical examples, and a lot of detail which may not be essential. People might not read through it all, and therefore might miss the conclusion.

Do you think you can make this essay more succint?

Sincerely,

Dr. Cynthia Kolb Whitney,
Editor, Galilean Electrodynamics
Visiting Industry Professor
Tufts University Electro-Optics Technology Center

From Dr. Paul Marmet -- 29 January 2001. <Dr. Marmet's Homepage>

Dear Craig M. Seavey,

Thank you for your email.

As you have seen, I am very uncomfortable with Relativity, Big Bang physics, and QM physics. I was also uncomfortable 40 years ago when I studied physics. I could not understand how so much nonsense could be written, repeated and accepted.

It was about 25 years ago, that I got two friends who were philosophers. We discussed the problem together during many hours. One of them was also a professor of philosophy at Laval University in Quebec City. He explained to me how he was disgusted, because he had to teach so much nonsense in modern philosophy. Later, he decided to take an early retirement because of that. Among many philosophers, he mentioned, Berkeley. I then realized that much of modern physics is also based on Berkeley's philosophy. What a nonsense! As you know, a large city and a large university in the USA is named Berkeley in honor of the philosopher, Berkeley.

When I was young, I thought that these primitive ideas were gone centuries ago! These absurd ideas are still popular among the scientists in the 20th century. Modern physics is not compatible with the existence of a reality independent of the observer! Only Newton Physics is. The consequence is that we are expelled (I have been expelled) from teaching in a university, because I disagree with the physics teaching, in which phenomena exist only in the observer's mind, and that there is no physical reality independent of the observer.

I am happy to read that we seem to share the same opinion. I read your paper, "Time and Space." You are certainly correct when you mention that there are only three dimensions. I was also happy to discover your reference to "The Principia." Congratulations for your web site.

Sincerely,

Paul Marmet,
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council of Canada, in Ottowa
Author, "Classical Mechanics Vs. Einstein's Relativity"

From Dr. Paul Marmet -- 28 July 2001. <Dr. Marmet's New Paper>

To Craig M. Seavey:

A new paper has just been completed which explains why and how the size of matter changes at relativistic velocities. We see how fundamental quantum mechanics solves the problem of relativity. The same explanation also shows how clocks run at a different rate when matter has absorbed kinetic energy.

When the electrons inside atoms increase their masses (due to kinetic energy) the size of the atom (Bohr radius) changes in such a way that the size of matter changes and atomic clocks (and all other clocks) run more slowly as predicted naturally using classical physics and quantum mechanics. This explanation does NOT require any new hypotheses and the results are logical and compatible with ALL experimental observations.

This paper is titled, "Length Contraction Mechanism Due to Kinetic Energy."
You may find it on the web at: (a href="http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/kinetic/length.html"> http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/kinetic/length.html.

You'll find it a fascinating read!

Regards,

Paul Marmet,
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council of Canada, in Ottowa
Author, "Classical Mechanics Vs. Einstein's Relativity"

<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary> <Case Study> <Bibliography> <Other Links> <Testimonials>