Elvis Sibilia's Philochrony theory of everything

Testable predictions in Philochrony

These are testable predictions that support Philochrony as a science.

1- A person who is 70 years old or older will come to his or her end (death) first than a person who is 20 years old. This prediction is falsifiable if the 20-year-old dies first.

2- Periodic becoming provides us with the units of measurement of time. The rotation of the Earth gives us the duration of the day and the rotation of the Earth gives us the duration of the year.

3- Time is magnitive.
When a person dies, time follows their objective, subperceptible and measurable existence.

4- Duration is the continuous succession of irreversible changes that go from the past to the future through the present. During the day they always happen in the same order: dawn, morning, afternoon and night.

5- Time is made up of the becoming-duration duality. The movement of the clock hands is becoming and the graduated dial is the duration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem here, is that this is the expected result with or without Philochrony. Which means we don't need the conjecture to explain this observation.

Again, this is the expected observation anyway, whether or not Philochrony exists as a conjecture. So, so far, we don't need the conjecture.

What does this even mean? You need to use words that already have meaning to those with whom your are trying to communicate.

How do we know this? There are plenty of changes that are reversible. For example, I can disassemble my coffee-maker and reassemble it.

No. Where I live, morning comes first, then afternoon, then night, followed by dawn.

This is not a prediction.

...

So: when we say it needs it make a testable prediction, what we mean is, it must make a prediction that is unique to this conjecture. If it smply predicts the things we expect anyway, (such as a man growing older and dying) then the conjectureserves no purpose.

This follows the principle of Occam's Razor, which essentialy means there is no need to invent anything more than is necessary to explain what we observe.


Can your conjecture make any predictions that are not already predicted by our current understanding of physics without Philochrony?

...

Finally, I am using conjecture instead of theory or even hypothesis for good reason. So far, Philochrony is not a theory or even a hypothesis.
A hypothesis makes predictions for which some evidence could be observed.
A theory makes testable predictions for which some evidence has been found.

So far, Philochrony neither makes testable predictions that could be observed, nor is there evidence in existence that supports it (as opposed to supporting our current understanding). Until there is evidence that a prediction has been observed, Philochrony remains merely a conjecture.


As an example: the very popular "string theory" makes a lot of predictions, but none of those predictions can, as yet, be observed because we don't have the technology to do the tests (yet). Because of this, there is currently no way to falsify (or confirm) any of those predictions. Thus, "string theory" - though it is a very active area of research - is not technically considered a theory. It is a hypothesis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If spacetime is a fluid then the laws of flow should apply, no?
Reynolds number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

I agree in general.

But can you do it in reverse order and arrive at your original coordinates back in time? Else the chronology continues forward in time, no?
I believe it is described in context of "flow" (fluids), as in Laminar and Turbulent Flow

But note that even if the original conditions are restored it would require just as much additional time as it took the original disassembly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's a word salad.
For example:
1) Where I live the day starts at 12:00 AM The new year is celebrated at 12:00 AM.
You say that the day begins in the morning which is false.
2) I have already explained the concept of magnitive on several occasions.
3) The coffee maker does not reassemble itself. This would be reversible
Philochrony is the science that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. It's predictions have to refer to changes, duration and time. It cannot refer to other areas of reality.

 

I know several people who have died before 20, yet my momma is still going at 92.
I guess that falsifies Philochrony?

I'm afraid I do.

That is a convention. It was invented by humans, and only in last few millennia. Does your Philochrony only apply to modern, Western, human civilization time spans? Philochrony does not apply to, say, prehistory? Or anywhere humans didn't invent clocks? Or in cultures where they use a different calendar, and the New Year starts on a completely different day of the year?

That too is a convention. Lots of people consider the day starting when they wake up.
Note that there is an unlimited number of places on the Earth where - when it is 12AM for you - it is not 12AM for 8 billion other people.

The rotation of the Earth (a day) is a continuous, cyclic event, and can be considered to start at any time that is useful to our purposes. in fact, it is different for two people separated by mere miles, if they are in different time zones.

I sure hope your Philochrony is based on principles more substantive than fickle, geographically localized, human conventions.

Explaining your own terms using your own other terms is useless. The way you use words like 'becoming' is scientifically ambiguous. What you are building it called a tautology, and its not valid science the way you are trying to express it.

Then you need to expand your claim about what processes you consider irreversible.

So you keep claiming. But it has not born out that way so far.

How does it demontrate its existence in a way that is more concrete than merely your claims and use of words? Again, what actual predictions does it make about the real world, that, say, one of us could test (and is not already attributable it to our current, known physics)?

It's not a science if it makes no testable predictions and contains no math, experiments or observations to support it.

So far, it makes no predictions that are not already made by our current understanding of physics and time. The question still remains: what use is it, if we don't need it to explain everything we see?

 

A Solomonic decision

I bring up this topic to end the confrontation between Philochrony and radical Positivism. This is the Solomonic decision: Philochrony is a branch of Philosophy that studies the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Philochrony was considered a science by its author. Natural sciences, such as Physics, have not been able to decipher the nature of time. Physicists themselves have not agreed on what time is and its nature.
Philosophy is the set of knowledge that seeks to establish, in a rational manner, the most general principles that organize and guide the knowledge of reality, as well as the meaning of human action.
Philochrony as a philosophical discipline uses the rational deductive method and intuition.
I would like someone to give me a definition of time and give me an explanation of the nature or essence of time.
The Theory of Relativity is the theoretical basis of Science Fiction and fictional time travel

 

What?
Are you saying you believe special relativity and general relativity are science fiction?

 

No, I believe that only general relativity is Science Fiction.

 

The scientific community disagree with you.

 

Do you have a smart phone with GPS? If so, you use GR in your daily life. There are somewhere shy of 7 billion smartphones operating in the world today.

The technology that your phone uses to know your location is calibrated to compensate for the effects of general relativity. If GR were not a real phenomenon, your cellphone would not be able to tell your location. In other words, the phenomenon is irrefutably real, proven in 7 billion experiments worldwide.




If that's not enugh, here's a guy who performed an experiment where he directly detected and measured the phenomenon from the back of his van on a camping trip with his family.
http://leapsecond.com/great2005/

He took a theory - a theory that makes a prediction (a falsifiable prediction) about the passage of time at differing altitudes. He did the test - in the back of his van - and plotted his results, which support the theory:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"According to Einstein, fast-moving clocks run slow (special relativity), and high-elevation clocks run fast (general relativity). Clocks that run fast gain time, so given our high elevation and how long we stayed, the prediction was that these clocks would gain about 22 nanoseconds. This, not because the clocks were moving (they were in a parked minivan), but simply because the clocks experienced a lower gravitational field by being 5400 feet above sea level for two days.

Of course, the predicted effect is incredibly small, but with clocks accurate enough, elevations high enough, the stay long enough, and time interval counters precise enough, the effect becomes measurable. The goal of this fun experiment was to measure, or at least to demonstrate, relativistic time dilation using equipment I had at home.

The plot show the clocks aren't perfect (even these excellent atomic clocks vary randomly at the nanosecond level) but they each undergo positive time dilation and the average (black line) time jump in the three clocks while up on the mountain for two days is around 23 nanoseconds. Not bad for a first attempt."



I guess it's back to the drawing board for Philochrony...
Better yet, back to school. You've got a lot of learning to catch up on.

 

Philosophy and its branches

Philosophy is the form of social consciousness that pursues true knowledge through reflection and intuition. The methods of philosophy are reflection or self-knowledge and intuition.
Philosophy is the mother of all disciplines. Some disciplines have become independent and have become sciences. Psychology grew out of philosophy and became independent of philosophy in 1879 with Wilhelm Wundt's laboratory in Leizig, Germany.
The disciplines that have not yet departed from Philosophy are: Logic (the study of reasoning) and Gnoseology (Theory of knowledge). These two disciplines are from the realm of thought. Ethics (Morals) and Aesthetics (beauty) are in the realm of values. Ontology (the study of being) and Metaphysics (the study of what is) are in the realm of Being.
The most recent philosophical discipline is Philochrony, which deals with the study of the nature of time.
Even Isaac Newton's major work is called Natural Philosophy.

 

No.
Pretending like this is more than just an idea you've come up with is dishonest.

 

All you need to say that Philochrony is a Pseudophilosophy.

 

Three questions about time

1- What do clocks measure?

Clocks measure continuous intervals of equal duration, that is, time. When the clock synchronizes with the rotation of the Earth, it tells us the time of day. Time is the tool (periodic becoming) with which we measure the duration of things and determine when events occur. Time and the clock combine to give real existence to the former.

2- How does time work?

Time is the interval between two sequential moments, one of which is the beginning and the other the end. Time interacts internally with matter causing development, aging, material deterioration and the replacement of the old by the new. In the Theory of Relativity, high speed interacts with the matter of the moving body causing time dilation.
Stopwatches and timers also measure time.

3- Why time is magnitive?

Time cannot be seen, it cannot be felt, it cannot be touched, but it is measurable, for these reasons time is magnitive. That is why we conceive time as a physical measure or magnitude. Some authors believed that time was simply a measurement, including Aristotle. This great thinker believed that time exists because there is an observer who measures it. Magnitive time is objective, subperceptible and measurable.

 

I feel like there's nothing new coming out of this idea. It's simply a repeat of the same (ill-defined and unsupported) ideas, and has been for quite some time now. No math has ever been produced to support it, no experiments proposed to confirm or refute it. No hint as to how it might help us understand our universe any better. It is still as much vapourware as it has ever been.

At what point does an idea go stale, suggesting the author perhaps move onto a new idea? At what point does a perhaps once green pasture become so over-grazed that it no longer provides any nutrition?

 

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

 

OK, that kind of confirms my point.

You are not really bothering to communicate. This is, after all, a discussion forum, and all the discussion has come to a halt, thanks to no further developments since about the third post or so. And you're obviously not interested in feedback.

If you have nothing new to say about the topic, I guess you won't object to wrapping it up and the thread locked.