Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Vibrator !]

Making no assumptions as to the existence or nature of time and space, we
can reduce their defining properties to more fundamental propositions:

 • there are information processors (us)

 • thus there is, implicitly, 'information', the actual substance and
format of which is determined by our form of processing

For example 1 and 0 are the 'stuff' of information relative to a digital
IC, and the dimensions of their potential relations are also 'binary', in
that that they're sequential, and / or parallel.

So for instance, going a little deeper into that analogy, the basic
building blocks of digital processing - logic gates, and their associated
truth tables - are mapped to the finite (and thus, again, 'implicit') range
of first-order permutations of basic spatiotemporal relations; ie. "if A=1
when B=1 then C=1" gives us an 'And' logical operation..

..Likewise, if one's on when the other's off, we get 'Or' or perhaps 'Nor',
and so on and so forth.

You get the point; The spatiotemporal dichotomy is inherent to the nature
of 'information' itself.  An inevitable prerequisite for 'processing'.

Whether we consider serial or 'parallel' processing.

Yet it is not 'time and space' that are intrinsically invoked here, but
something even more fundamental:  simultaneity and sequentiality.  A logic
gate's truth table refers to an instant of time - it's essentially timeless
- describing conditions between coextant states, such that, say, C=1 only
when A=1 within a threshold period determined by an onboard clock.

Similarly, processing information necessitates some form of basic 'memory'
in which values can be stored, retrieved and incremented.

IOW, processing depends upon two informational dimensions - one field in
which all the information is coextant, and another in which it is not.

That is to say, processing - and information itself - is intrinsically
serial and parallel.  Written or spoken, a given word is the same
information with different spatiotemporal distributions, but each has a
foot in both domains.

So a spatiotemporal dichotomy is inherent, and built into the nature and
very existence of both 'information', and 'processors' (with no particular
regard to the animate).

Yet we also know from relativity that there's actually no such thing as
true 'simultaneity' - rather, what we may reduce to 'temporal integration
windows' (TIW's) are improvised or coalesced on the fly; in the case of a
typical IC, by a quartz timing crystal, but likewise in our own physiology,
TIW's are built into every level of processing, from primary receptors all
the way up to cortex; every 'now' composed of a myriad flux of smaller
'nows' with progressively shorter TIW's.

'Attention span' is the executive-level TIW, and at the base levels are,
for instance, the shortest intervals we can detect between stimuli - such
as the threshold between a click-train and a 'buzzing sound', or visual
flicker detection;  where a series of distinct events merge into one
continuous event.

Our own data-timing clocks use relative, rather than constant time.

The key timing relation that binds all the information we process together
is factor-of-two symmetry, in both time and space.

This is why we experience 'octave equivalence' between frequencies in that
particular relationship in the spatial domain, and likewise, 'rhythm
entrainment' in the temporal domain.

By definition, 'C2' and 'C4', say, are not 'the same note', they're not
'double or half' one another's frequency, and their ineffably-paradoxical
sensation of equivalence actually pertains to the bandwidth of their
frequency interval being the simplest-possible relationship, resolving to
the shortest-possible (ie. most energy efficient) TIW, resolving every
cycle of the fundamental (the lower freq).

Whereas, the next most consonant interval, the 'fifth' resolves every other
cycle (a factor of three relationship), thus a slightly larger TIW and
slightly more work.  The harmonic series follows the integer number line of
relative factors of a given fundamental.  Thus what we regard as 'harmonic
consonance' is actually just this same weird 'equivalence' we perceive in
octaves; there's only degrees of 'inequivalence' / difference, where
progressively longer frequency resolutions requires longer TIW's and more
energy, sounding more and more 'dissonant' (but really, just 'less
equivalent').

You see that this anomalous perceptual parity forms a kind of 'zero' for
whatever form of processing we're using for metadata - that is, equivalence
/ difference is a kind of analogue 'bit', in that it can have a zero or
variable value, such that we regard C1 and C4 as somehow 'the same' note;
 but where 'pitch class' is a higher-order manifestation of this phenomenon
(and likewise rhythm entrainment in the temporal domain), these
information-binding principles are more fundamental that the modality of
audition itself, since it is non-auditory, abstract information that we, as
processors, ascribe to the 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:12:28 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Our live is covered/maintained by faint fluctuations on top of highly 
>stable matter that does not feel time at all.

I think supernovas would imply otherwise. I think what you are trying to say is 
that nuclear matter is very stable in
time, but that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist, it just means that it's 
very stable and undergoes few changes.
Well most of it anyway. Radioisotopes are an exception.

>
>Of course these small fluctations are highly dependent on time but this 
>does not imply that time exist for the universe! It's just us that want 
>to believe that there is time for everything. Our live temperature range

BTW "time for everything" usually means "plenty of time in which to do 
everything", whereas I suspect you mean that we
think that everything experiences time, and you contend that nuclear matter 
does not.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that, and I think the Americium 
in the smoke detector on your ceiling does
too. ;)

>is given by about 0.14eV. This shows how important we are for the universe.

:)

>
>If you go to higher dimensions e.g. 8 then you can reintroduce a global 
>time and *global causality* but not for the small part of the world we 
>live in - the 0.14eV range that clearly shows stochastic behavior.

I think better wording might be "small part of the thermal spectrum"?

While I agree with you that is where most of the action is, I don't agree that 
action defines time.
Even if it did, time would still exist at all levels, since none are without 
action.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Our live is covered/maintained by faint fluctuations on top of highly 
stable matter that does not feel time at all.


Of course these small fluctations are highly dependent on time but this 
does not imply that time exist for the universe! It's just us that want 
to believe that there is time for everything. Our live temperature range 
is given by about 0.14eV. This shows how important we are for the universe.


If you go to higher dimensions e.g. 8 then you can reintroduce a global 
time and *global causality* but not for the small part of the world we 
live in - the 0.14eV range that clearly shows stochastic behavior.



J.W.


Am 14.04.20 um 04:53 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:18:59 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

Te best atomic clocks are sensitive to 10cm difference in altitude.

But there is one open point: Is only the Rb/Cs crystal oscillating a bit
slower/faster or is the electronics measuring slower/faster - or both?
This, may be, could be tested by changing the crystal only.

...or neither. Maybe Einstein is correct, and time actually flows at different 
speeds at different altitudes. ;)


Of course Leibniz is correct and interesting to see that he knew this a
long time before we could mathematically prove it.

The basic elements of nature are 99.% stable/static and only
small oscillations form our world. Only this tiny fraction believes that
there must be time because live is below 0.15eV compared to one proton
mass of 938MeV... The proton feels no time except you start to
accelerate it to very high speed ...

This is not clear. What do you mean by "Only this tiny fraction believes"? 
(Only sentient beings can believe, not eV's.)
BTW the limit can't be 0.15 eV, or chemical reactions that result in a change 
of multiple eV would also not be time
sensitive, whereas they clearly are. (Consider the application of chemical 
catalysts.)
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:18:59 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Te best atomic clocks are sensitive to 10cm difference in altitude.
>
>But there is one open point: Is only the Rb/Cs crystal oscillating a bit 
>slower/faster or is the electronics measuring slower/faster - or both? 
>This, may be, could be tested by changing the crystal only.

...or neither. Maybe Einstein is correct, and time actually flows at different 
speeds at different altitudes. ;)

>
>Of course Leibniz is correct and interesting to see that he knew this a 
>long time before we could mathematically prove it.
>
>The basic elements of nature are 99.% stable/static and only 
>small oscillations form our world. Only this tiny fraction believes that 
>there must be time because live is below 0.15eV compared to one proton 
>mass of 938MeV... The proton feels no time except you start to 
>accelerate it to very high speed ...

This is not clear. What do you mean by "Only this tiny fraction believes"? 
(Only sentient beings can believe, not eV's.)
BTW the limit can't be 0.15 eV, or chemical reactions that result in a change 
of multiple eV would also not be time
sensitive, whereas they clearly are. (Consider the application of chemical 
catalysts.)
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Te best atomic clocks are sensitive to 10cm difference in altitude.

But there is one open point: Is only the Rb/Cs crystal oscillating a bit 
slower/faster or is the electronics measuring slower/faster - or both? 
This, may be, could be tested by changing the crystal only.


Of course Leibniz is correct and interesting to see that he knew this a 
long time before we could mathematically prove it.


The basic elements of nature are 99.% stable/static and only 
small oscillations form our world. Only this tiny fraction believes that 
there must be time because live is below 0.15eV compared to one proton 
mass of 938MeV... The proton feels no time except you start to 
accelerate it to very high speed ...


Of course I do feel time too...

J.W.

Am 13.04.20 um 21:32 schrieb H LV:

Bob,

Time increments maybe arbitrary but I don't hold the belief that the 
passage of time is just an illusion between each increment or event. 
This is a perennial metaphysical question which I don't want to get 
into. For example Leibniz did not think time flowed.  He said time was 
an ordering of events. Newton thought differently.


What do you mean Cs resonant vibrations?
Cs atomic clocks are affected by gravity because their "tick" rate has 
been observed to be slower at sea level than at higher altitudes which 
is a prediction of GR.

Harry


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:27 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:


Harry—

If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between
the earth and the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields
 and result in a different illusion of the passage of time
relative to other measurements of arbitrary time increments—like
the rotation of the earth due to its angular momentum being pretty
constant or its orbit around the sun also being relatively constant.

This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the
SO(4) model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The
measurement of Cs atoms resonant vibrations should also change
relative to the pendulum resonance, since blocking the earth’s
magnetic field from the Cs would be avoided in the validation
test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms should be immune to
gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per current
 understanding of physics.)

If validity of SO(4) were _not_ established, it would  also be
 significant to understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.

Bob Cook



*From: *H LV <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
    *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote:



Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our
measurement of it is based on processes which may vary in
speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a
gravitational field, then the processes upon which our clocks
are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't
*necessarily* imply that time itself is flowing faster or slower.
It may be, but we have no object means of telling the
difference. IOW our temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the
actual passage of time changing.

I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can
change the period of pendulum clock by increasing the length the
swing arm. However, we don't say time slows down just because it
got warmer. In the 18th century pendulums were designed so as not
to be affected

by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on
a clock, we can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth
keeps the same time as a clock in deep space by systematically
adding time to the measured time on Earth.

Harry



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[H LV]

Bob,

Time increments maybe arbitrary but I don't hold the belief that the
passage of time is just an illusion between each increment or event. This
is a perennial metaphysical question which I don't want to get into. For
example Leibniz did not think time flowed.  He said time was an ordering of
events. Newton thought differently.

What do you mean Cs resonant vibrations?
Cs atomic clocks are affected by gravity because their "tick" rate has been
observed to be slower at sea level than at higher altitudes which is a
prediction of GR.
Harry


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:27 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:

> Harry—
>
>
>
> If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between the earth
> and the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields  and result in a
> different illusion of the passage of time relative to other measurements of
> arbitrary time increments—like the rotation of the earth due to its angular
> momentum being pretty constant or its orbit around the sun also being
> relatively constant.
>
>
>
> This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the SO(4)
> model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The measurement of
> Cs atoms resonant vibrations should also change relative to the pendulum
> resonance, since blocking the earth’s magnetic field from the Cs would be
> avoided in the validation test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms
> should be immune to gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per
> current  understanding of physics.)
>
>
>
> If validity of SO(4) were *not* established, it would  also be
>  significant to understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> --------
>
> *From: *H LV 
> *Sent: *Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM  wrote:
>
>
>
> Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of
> it is based on processes which may vary in
> speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational
> field, then the processes upon which our clocks
> are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply
> that time itself is flowing faster or slower.
> It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our
> temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
> some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage
> of time changing.
>
>
>
> I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can change the
> period of pendulum clock by increasing the length the swing arm. However,
> we don't say time slows down just because it got warmer. In the 18th
> century pendulums were designed so as not to be affected
>
> by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on a clock,
> we can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth keeps the same time as
> a clock in deep space by systematically adding time to the measured time on
> Earth.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Harry—

If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between the earth and 
the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields  and result in a different 
illusion of the passage of time relative to other measurements of arbitrary 
time increments—like the rotation of the earth due to its angular momentum 
being pretty constant or its orbit around the sun also being relatively 
constant.

This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the SO(4) 
model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The measurement of Cs 
atoms resonant vibrations should also change relative to the pendulum 
resonance, since blocking the earth’s magnetic field from the Cs would be 
avoided in the validation test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms should be 
immune to gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per current  
understanding of physics.)

If validity of SO(4) were not established, it would  also be  significant to 
understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.

Bob Cook


From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--



On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> 
wrote:


Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of it is 
based on processes which may vary in
speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational field, 
then the processes upon which our clocks
are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply that 
time itself is flowing faster or slower.
It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our 
temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage of 
time changing.

I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can change the period 
of pendulum clock by increasing the length the swing arm. However, we don't say 
time slows down just because it got warmer. In the 18th century pendulums were 
designed so as not to be affected
by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on a clock, we 
can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth keeps the same time as a 
clock in deep space by systematically adding time to the measured time on Earth.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[H LV]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM  wrote:

>
>
> Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of
> it is based on processes which may vary in
> speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational
> field, then the processes upon which our clocks
> are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply
> that time itself is flowing faster or slower.
> It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our
> temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
> some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage
> of time changing.
>
>
I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can change the
period of pendulum clock by increasing the length the swing arm. However,
we don't say time slows down just because it got warmer. In the 18th
century pendulums were designed so as not to be affected
by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on a clock,
we can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth keeps the same time as
a clock in deep space by systematically adding time to the measured time on
Earth.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 11 Apr 2020 10:59:14 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Your logic is one way correct.
>
>If you take the path length L given by c covered by one second, then 
>this is just one out of infinite many possible gauges.
>A frequency is just the breakdown of L in units of wavelength. This is 
>also what today is used to define time!! 

No, it's what is used to define the unit of time measurement, not time itself.

>- just the other way round as 
>you know the frequency e.g. of Rubidium and simple count a number of n 
>waves. But you are free to choose a different n' that leads to a 
>different timescale!
>
>Light speed is also based on the definition of 1 meter !! Thus we should 
>not mix up the general notion of time as a progress in the event chain 
>with simply counting regular events (wave maxima) that define a common 
>accepted length.

IOW we should not mix up the existence of time as dimension, with its 
measurement.

>
>Now its easy to understand that time is a virtual concept based on 
>simple counting regular events. 

The words "regular" and "events" already imply the existence of a time 
dimension, and a passage through that dimension.
Even the concept of counting (as opposed to the concept of number), implies the 
existence of time, since the act of
counting separates the things being counted along the time dimension.
(Things are "counted" one after the other. "After" is temporal.)
Without time, one would just have to "know" how many objects there were, 
without counting them.
 
>Here you also see where the digital 
>nature of real physics starts as waves are nowhere (just in average) a 
>continuum contrary to the mathematical use of time.

Mathematics doesn't define existence. It just describes it in terms of 
measurement.

>
>If you have a more deep understanding of physics especially if you 
>understand what already R.Mills did find almost 30 years ago then you 
>know that there is no global time as time changes due to a change in 
>(total bound mass)/(total photon mass)= space-time expands or said in 
>SO(4) physics terms. Time depends on the relation of 2 rotation mass to 
>the mass that does more than 2 rotations = the change of average density 
>of space.

I think you need to distinguish between the rate of passage through time, and 
the concept of time itself as a dimension.
Even the former may not change. It's possible, and common, for the speed of 
processes to change, without the passage of
time changing. Processes can run faster or slower depending on the forces 
acting, and the energy available locally.


>
>Thus all energy mass equations (& relations) in SO(4) physics are based 
>on the path length given by c/s and are finally independent of time.

What is "s" in c/s? If s=second, then how is this independent of time, and 
furthermore, wouldn't a path length be given
by c*s?

There is no "physics" that can do away with time. It's a fundamental part of 
existence, so what are you really trying to
achieve?
Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of it is 
based on processes which may vary in
speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational field, 
then the processes upon which our clocks
are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply that 
time itself is flowing faster or slower.
It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our 
temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage of 
time changing. If our perceptions also run
fast or slow along with the clock, then we have no way of knowing that it's 
running fast or slow.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[H LV]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> You verb it right "suggests" !!
>
> This kind of "communication" is outside the domain of standard
> communication theory
>
> Its also far outside GER with the real existing communication at >>c . (
> Measured here in Switzerland! long time ago..)
>
> But this communication does not affect an exchange of energy over
> distance. It's a change in symmetry that is allocated in the phase space
> that already classically allows a (phase-) speed >> c.
>
> The crucial question is why can we build a system that allows instant
> communication over quasi an infinite distance?
>
> The answer still is beyond any existing model.
>
> J.W.
>
>
As I see it non-locality is a manifestation of global time, so global time
makes it possible.
Of course 20th century relativity has taught us that global time is a
quaint and obsolete notion so the reintroduction of it must supposedly have
no merit.

Harry






> Am 11.04.20 um 15:08 schrieb H LV:
>
> Quantum non-locality (without faster than light messages) suggests a
> global time does exist. This kind of "communication" is outside the domain
> of standard communication theory.
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

You verb it right "suggests" !!

This kind of "communication" is outside the domain of standard 
communication theory


Its also far outside GER with the real existing communication at >>c . ( 
Measured here in Switzerland! long time ago..)


But this communication does not affect an exchange of energy over 
distance. It's a change in symmetry that is allocated in the phase space 
that already classically allows a (phase-) speed >> c.


The crucial question is why can we build a system that allows instant 
communication over quasi an infinite distance?


The answer still is beyond any existing model.

J.W.

Am 11.04.20 um 15:08 schrieb H LV:
Quantum non-locality (without faster than light messages) suggests a 
global time does exist. This kind of "communication" is outside the 
domain of standard communication theory.



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[H LV]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Good to know some more physicists start to think about time. One of them
> cited I did know personally.
>
> The real problem is the missing education in computation theory. I did
> spend 2 net years working on the theme, which the article tries to
> illuminate. I developed a new computer architecture that can deal with such
> problems and delivers fail safe proven results on wide area parallel
> machines.
>
> A wide area parallel machine is exactly what physics is about. Each
> particle is a "program" that communicates with an other programs over a
> given finite set of messages. Physics defines these messages as equations
> what defines a set of of possible tokens = interactions - nothing else.
>
> Now if you know the basic laws of communication theory then it is obvious
> = given that there is no global time. We only do have a partial order over
> communications. We can refine the order digit by digits until we meet the
> border-line of information stability in measurement.
>
>
Quantum non-locality (without faster than light messages) suggests a global
time does exist. This kind of "communication" is outside the domain of
standard communication theory.

Harry




> The article is full of nonsense and classical bullshit knowledge like two
> Uranium-239 are equal but one decays earlier. SM knows nothing about
> particle structure except some basic Lego like partitions. All unstable
> nuclei contain a time like structure with a slightly different excess
> energy. Further who tells these guys all these nuclei did start at the same
> timestamp?
>
> Also neither QM nor general relativity are fundamental models. This is a
> religious claim. QM just describes a small subset of the reality and
> general relativity fails for all *space filled with matter* as it cannot
> handle matter... As all other simplistic SM models GER just works for point
> masses in empty space. Any perturbation of "space-time" by mass producing
> an other space time cannot be handled without simplistic approximations.
>
> If a point source emits two photons at an angle of 180 degrees then any
> measurement will show that the gap between the two increases with 2*c the
> speed of light. Thus we can easily measure relative speed > c. If these two
> photons enter a spherical orbit then they will return to the place of
> origin. This is the situation in SO(4) in much smaller space dimensions.
> According GER the photons should never interact again. Thus this just shows
> that the notion of an universal time in curved space is mathematical
> nonsense. Time is just the measurement interval or the frequency what ever
> you like more.
>
> Most current physicists do have the wrong education to tackle the real
> basic problems of physics. Even worse theses physicists day for day repeat
> religious claims about models that luckily for us work well under some
> restricted conditions.
>
> Current physics especially nuclear & particle physics is still on day one
> in playground of Kindergarden. These folks soon will have their mental
> corona event, when the have to notice that the perturbation of a proton at
> 10 TeV (CERN) is absolutely irrelevant for understanding today's real
> problems like aneutronic fusion in Holmlids case or LENR as we measure it -
> just to name two big ones.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> Am 10.04.20 um 22:42 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
>
>
>
> The following link contains two or 3 differing concepts of time.
>
>
>
> *https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/
> *
>
>
>
> The SO(4) physics model of nucleons is a model including a temporal time
> scale associated with a magnetic rotating flux at a specific frequency.
> This “temporal time” reflects space parameters and the observed phenomena
> of  EM photon propagation in space controlled by those parameters ,
> magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.
>
>
>
> A good model for space and its “intrinsic” parameters is warranted IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Your logic is one way correct.

If you take the path length L given by c covered by one second, then 
this is just one out of infinite many possible gauges.
A frequency is just the breakdown of L in units of wavelength. This is 
also what today is used to define time!! - just the other way round as 
you know the frequency e.g. of Rubidium and simple count a number of n 
waves. But you are free to choose a different n' that leads to a 
different timescale!


Light speed is also based on the definition of 1 meter !! Thus we should 
not mix up the general notion of time as a progress in the event chain 
with simply counting regular events (wave maxima) that define a common 
accepted length.


Now its easy to understand that time is a virtual concept based on 
simple counting regular events. Here you also see where the digital 
nature of real physics starts as waves are nowhere (just in average) a 
continuum contrary to the mathematical use of time.


If you have a more deep understanding of physics especially if you 
understand what already R.Mills did find almost 30 years ago then you 
know that there is no global time as time changes due to a change in 
(total bound mass)/(total photon mass)= space-time expands or said in 
SO(4) physics terms. Time depends on the relation of 2 rotation mass to 
the mass that does more than 2 rotations = the change of average density 
of space.


Thus all energy mass equations (& relations) in SO(4) physics are based 
on the path length given by c/s and are finally independent of time.


J.W.






Am 11.04.20 um 09:21 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 11 Apr 2020 00:26:55 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
[snip]

Time is just the measurement interval or the
frequency what ever you like more.

How can you speak of interval or frequency without time? Once time itself 
exists, you can have an interval of time. You
are just talking about a clock. Clocks don't define the existence of time, they 
just measure it.
Just as a ruler measures distance. It doesn't create a spatial dimension.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Frank Grimer]

I like it. Makes sense to me. 

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 23:27, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Good to know some more physicists start to think about time. One of them
> cited I did know personally.
>
> The real problem is the missing education in computation theory. I did
> spend 2 net years working on the theme, which the article tries to
> illuminate. I developed a new computer architecture that can deal with such
> problems and delivers fail safe proven results on wide area parallel
> machines.
>
> A wide area parallel machine is exactly what physics is about. Each
> particle is a "program" that communicates with an other programs over a
> given finite set of messages. Physics defines these messages as equations
> what defines a set of of possible tokens = interactions - nothing else.
>
> Now if you know the basic laws of communication theory then it is obvious
> = given that there is no global time. We only do have a partial order over
> communications. We can refine the order digit by digits until we meet the
> border-line of information stability in measurement.
>
> The article is full of nonsense and classical bullshit knowledge like two
> Uranium-239 are equal but one decays earlier. SM knows nothing about
> particle structure except some basic Lego like partitions. All unstable
> nuclei contain a time like structure with a slightly different excess
> energy. Further who tells these guys all these nuclei did start at the same
> timestamp?
>
> Also neither QM nor general relativity are fundamental models. This is a
> religious claim. QM just describes a small subset of the reality and
> general relativity fails for all *space filled with matter* as it cannot
> handle matter... As all other simplistic SM models GER just works for point
> masses in empty space. Any perturbation of "space-time" by mass producing
> an other space time cannot be handled without simplistic approximations.
>
> If a point source emits two photons at an angle of 180 degrees then any
> measurement will show that the gap between the two increases with 2*c the
> speed of light. Thus we can easily measure relative speed > c. If these two
> photons enter a spherical orbit then they will return to the place of
> origin. This is the situation in SO(4) in much smaller space dimensions.
> According GER the photons should never interact again. Thus this just shows
> that the notion of an universal time in curved space is mathematical
> nonsense. Time is just the measurement interval or the frequency what ever
> you like more.
>
> Most current physicists do have the wrong education to tackle the real
> basic problems of physics. Even worse theses physicists day for day repeat
> religious claims about models that luckily for us work well under some
> restricted conditions.
>
> Current physics especially nuclear & particle physics is still on day one
> in playground of Kindergarden. These folks soon will have their mental
> corona event, when the have to notice that the perturbation of a proton at
> 10 TeV (CERN) is absolutely irrelevant for understanding today's real
> problems like aneutronic fusion in Holmlids case or LENR as we measure it -
> just to name two big ones.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> Am 10.04.20 um 22:42 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
>
>
>
> The following link contains two or 3 differing concepts of time.
>
>
>
> *https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/
> *
>
>
>
> The SO(4) physics model of nucleons is a model including a temporal time
> scale associated with a magnetic rotating flux at a specific frequency.
> This “temporal time” reflects space parameters and the observed phenomena
> of  EM photon propagation in space controlled by those parameters ,
> magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.
>
>
>
> A good model for space and its “intrinsic” parameters is warranted IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 11 Apr 2020 00:26:55 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
[snip]
>Time is just the measurement interval or the 
>frequency what ever you like more. 

How can you speak of interval or frequency without time? Once time itself 
exists, you can have an interval of time. You
are just talking about a clock. Clocks don't define the existence of time, they 
just measure it.
Just as a ruler measures distance. It doesn't create a spatial dimension.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Good to know some more physicists start to think about time. One of them 
cited I did know personally.


The real problem is the missing education in computation theory. I did 
spend 2 net years working on the theme, which the article tries to 
illuminate. I developed a new computer architecture that can deal with 
such problems and delivers fail safe proven results on wide area 
parallel machines.


A wide area parallel machine is exactly what physics is about. Each 
particle is a "program" that communicates with an other programs over a 
given finite set of messages. Physics defines these messages as 
equations what defines a set of of possible tokens = interactions - 
nothing else.


Now if you know the basic laws of communication theory then it is 
obvious = given that there is no global time. We only do have a partial 
order over communications. We can refine the order digit by digits until 
we meet the border-line of information stability in measurement.


The article is full of nonsense and classical bullshit knowledge like 
two Uranium-239 are equal but one decays earlier. SM knows nothing about 
particle structure except some basic Lego like partitions. All unstable 
nuclei contain a time like structure with a slightly different excess 
energy. Further who tells these guys all these nuclei did start at the 
same timestamp?


Also neither QM nor general relativity are fundamental models. This is a 
religious claim. QM just describes a small subset of the reality and 
general relativity fails for all *space filled with matter* as it cannot 
handle matter... As all other simplistic SM models GER just works for 
point masses in empty space. Any perturbation of "space-time" by mass 
producing an other space time cannot be handled without simplistic 
approximations.


If a point source emits two photons at an angle of 180 degrees then any 
measurement will show that the gap between the two increases with 2*c 
the speed of light. Thus we can easily measure relative speed > c. If 
these two photons enter a spherical orbit then they will return to the 
place of origin. This is the situation in SO(4) in much smaller space 
dimensions. According GER the photons should never interact again. Thus 
this just shows that the notion of an universal time in curved space is 
mathematical nonsense. Time is just the measurement interval or the 
frequency what ever you like more.


Most current physicists do have the wrong education to tackle the real 
basic problems of physics. Even worse theses physicists day for day 
repeat religious claims about models that luckily for us work well under 
some restricted conditions.


Current physics especially nuclear & particle physics is still on day 
one in playground of Kindergarden. These folks soon will have their 
mental corona event, when the have to notice that the perturbation of a 
proton at 10 TeV (CERN) is absolutely irrelevant for understanding 
today's real problems like aneutronic fusion in Holmlids case or LENR as 
we measure it - just to name two big ones.


J.W.


Am 10.04.20 um 22:42 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


The following link contains two or 3 differing concepts of time.

_https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/_

The SO(4) physics model of nucleons is a model including a temporal 
time scale associated with a magnetic rotating flux at a specific 
frequency.  This “temporal time” reflects space parameters and the 
observed phenomena of  EM photon propagation in space controlled by 
those parameters , magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.


A good model for space and its “intrinsic” parameters is warranted IMHO.

Bob Cook



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06