Constructing Time from an Axiom

[NotEinstein]

So I need more axioms. It will be rewritten.

Glad you've now also come to that realization.

Where should I specify them?

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

I use terminology further on in the derivation.

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

I did pick "Sub-frequency".

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

Replace "Dynamic" with "Non-static".

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

You omitted a devide by sign.

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

After the following item they are equivalent:

1.1...…...Label S by indices of axises S_1,2,3,4 in order: Re, Im, Re, Im…………………………………………………………………..1

So, another revision.

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

Replace with:

13...…..Delta t advances like a clock and is consistent with Special Relativity...…………………………………………………….12

And yet another revision!

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

In my next reply.

(OK)

That is circular.

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

I don't have evidence it is just speculation.

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

Can you prove that?

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

What do you mean by "inherent"?

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

It is not circular but for a given system you cannot prove which clock gives the correct time without my derivation.

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

 

[NotEinstein]

I have given up reading this thread as my 3 neuron brain cannot stand the G forces coming from my impression of the head spinning in The Exorcist

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

 

[Michael 345]

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

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

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

 

[NotEinstein]

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

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

I stand corrected.

 

[Willem]

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

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

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

See the new derivation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you have a model with 2 Re dimensions and 2 Im dimensions, yet reality has 3 spatial dimension and 1 time dimension.

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

If you define something as "consistent with Special Relativity",

I changed it.

 

[Willem]

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

The last two items should be replaced by:

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

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

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

 

[Willem]

NotEinstein: you missed the "devide by" sign in reply #51.

 

[NotEinstein]

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

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

See the new derivation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I changed it.

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

 

[NotEinstein]

NotEinstein: you missed the "devide by" sign in reply #51.

Please stop lying: it's right there:

Where did the "/Im C" go?

 

[Willem]

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

I don't know what you mean.

In the mean time, please prove that what you have derived here is actually the thing that we identify as "time", and not something else

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

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

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

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

 

[Willem]

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

I made a mistake in my equations.

 

[Willem]

t advances like a clock, and it depends on the worldline, hence on the motion of the clock. Reason 5.

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

 

[Willem]

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

 

[NotEinstein]

I don't know what you mean.

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

t advances like a clock,

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

and it depends on the worldline,

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

hence on the motion of the clock.

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

Reason 5.

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

What more do you want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made a mistake in my equations.

At least you are consistent.

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

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

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

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

 

[origin]

In order to prove quantitively that the proto-particles forces the same seconds as the standard clock we would need to know how fast the Earth is moving

Compared to what?

with expanding space figured in.

You mean the Hubble constant? How would you 'figure in' an expansion with a velocity?

 

[Willem]

Compared to what?

You mean the Hubble constant? How would you 'figure in' an expansion with a velocity?

That reply isn't necessary.

Here is the newest derivation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Willem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[river]

Materialism has been disproved.

How so ?

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

Further

Life could not exist without material .

 

[Willem]

How so ?

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

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

 

[Willem]

Line 7 must read:

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

Line 15 must start:

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

The following lines are in error:

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

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

They should read:

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

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

Line 23 must read:

23......."Tim1" = Time........................................................................................................A2, 22

Note that the other definition in terms of "what a clock measures" must specify all the parts of the clock, how it fits together and the functioning of all the parts - much more than 4 axioms.