The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos

Agreed, an excellent and awesome video.
Time and the nature of time is certainly a subject that creates much debate.
And it has been and is currently being studied and will be continually studied and thought about by reputable people such as Sagan, Thorne, Carroll, Smolin, De-Grasse Tyson and Brian Greene.
These awesome people have and are working and gathering data as we speak and expertly creating theoretical aspects on the nature of time. They have their noses to the grindstone, and in most cases are too busy [as are most active scientists] to participate in forums like this.
On the other hand we have many run-of-the-mill "self appraised experts" that like to try and sound scientific, some with no more qualifications than being a sparky, others that may have qualifications, along with over inflated egos, that see it as smart to deride and refute the real experts with fabricated nonsense such as its only "pop science" or its mainstream nonsense unable to think for themselves.
Some may even get papers published, which inevitably lay dormant gathering dust, all the while fooling themselves that they have invalidated GR or that their paper is more accurate than the accepted models....Still they languish though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Still these same would be's if they could be's, languish on forums such as this, trying in vain to gain some semblance of credibility and respectability by dragging down those experts at the coal face.
Although, we can be thankful that in most cases their nonsense, weird interpretations and distortion of facts go totally unnoticed in the real scientific world and the accepted mainstream approach via the scientific method and peer review.
Science continues on without them, and in spite of them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A graduate physics teaching assistant who much later in life was well published in physics told our class that energy (unbound energy) was 'timelike', and that matter (bound energy) was 'spacelike'. Additionally, unbound energy is "straight line like", and matter or bound energy is more "rotation like". The natural state for unbound energy is traveling at c. The natural state for matter is at rest or a bulk relative motion less than c in all inertial reference frames.

He also taught us that any measure of space, length, or distance was dimensionally equivalent to invariant light travel time, independent of energy.

When you put these two ideas together, mass is simply a different aspect of energy. That an electron remains an electron almost indefinitely means that internally, time does not pass for the bound energy that comprises it. The "spatial" dimensions of an electron are likewise determined by means of light travel time. Only rotation needs to be added to the propagation of energy along whatever direction it may propagate in order to generate 3D space from time and energy alone. I think it is a mistake to expect space to have a geometrical equivalent of an origin, but with time it is a much different situation. Invariant light speed actually depends on being able to set a stopwatch and a flashlight at the same instant of "NOW", no matter what reference frame you do it in. At least, that much works.

For most applications of the idea of spatial relationships, we try and make such measurements on things that are at rest relative to us. Unfortunately, the uncertainty principle disallows a direct application of this measurement technique as it applies to quantum domains. Be that as it may, electrons recently were found to be uncharacteristically round by quantum standards. None of the other particles of atomic structure are so crisply spherical. There must be a good reason for that.

None of this will provide a complete understanding of time, which is evidently much deeper than just the bulk transport of matter or energy. It is also deeper than anyone's formulation of relativity to date, including my comparatively feeble attempts to improve on it.

At least, I finally saw a thread on the topic of time that did not seem to get derailed. That's progress of a sort. Sorry, paddo; I still don't like Greene's video. Great job, all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't be sorry for me......He, [Greene] just joins your long list of experts you don't like....Kaku, Thorne, De-Grasse-Tyson...any I have missed out on?

I see time in a far more simpler light [no pun intended] That which simply stops everything from happening together and which separates you and I by 13.83 billion years from the BB.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The null result of the Michaelson-Moreley experiment meant that it is impossible to determine relative velocity with respect to space by any test or experiment. The Lorentz transformations of space and time PRECEEDED the formulation of relativity, and Lorentz himself could offer no explanation of the transformations of time and space which he derived until it was finally explained by Einstein's interpretation of Special Relativity.

I've seen at least half a dozen "derivations" of the Lorentz transformations, and none of them satisfied the question of exactly how someone was supposed to make a determination of their relative positions other than by means of ODOMETRY. Obviously, this technique would work badly if at all to make a determination that was in any way a practical means of establishing a coordinate system, and once you did that, you'd have several rounds of adjustment (length, time, length, time) making incremental corrections to the Lorentz formulas before a value for time dilation could be determined. This is what I mean when I say: "spatial coordinate systems don't really work, other than for geometric solids, because there is a real problem with nailing down an origin for a coordinate system that doesn't move.

Doppler shifts would work much better than odometry, and for obvious reasons, but these are different transformations entirely, and they depend mainly on TIME, not "space."

 

I actually do like ALL of this list of experts, paddo.

 

What is possible and what is impossible is secondary. First, one should clarify what would be an ideal clock. It would be a clock which allows to solve the pragmatic problem of organizing a meeting. This would be reached by clocks which remain synchronized forever after an initial synchronization.

To measure the biological age is a completely different problem. To use the same name "time" for these different problems only causes confusion.

No necessity, and this is not the point, but an illustration that what I propose for an evaluation of time measurements follows the same general principles as those used for an evaluation of accuracy of measurement devices in general.

If we are at the same place at the same time, we meet each other. This is the meaning of "at the same time". This is different from "if we are at the same place, with our clocks showing the same number, we meet each other", which is obviously false.

It is the established term. If this choice is appropriate is another question. Established terms in physics are often only denotations. The color of quarks has nothing to do with the colors we see, it is simply an established name, an arbitrary convention. Similarly, "time dilation" is also a naming convention for an effect which describes distortions of clock showings. The difference is that the color of quarks is not misleading, because nobody thinks that quarks are colored in the usual meaning of "color". But there are many who believe that "time dilation" has really something to do with time, and not only with clock showings. Behind this is the philosophical (metaphysical) theory that "time is what clocks show".

I see no reason to address speculations of string theorists. They are too far away from real physics (as described by GR equations and the SM) to care about them.

Nonsense. I do not ignore relativity at all. Relativity leads to the effect that we have no ideal clocks, with the consequence that we cannot measure time.

Again you confuse the existence with our ability to measure. Time after big bang defines a reasonable and natural candidate for absolute time. The question if and how accurate we can measure it is completely irrelevant.

The theory of 1905 is false, it predicts that light follows straight lines, but a better theory from 1915 as well as observation have shown that light is curved. Unfortunately, this theory of 1915 (more accurate, its mainstream interpretation) is incompatible with quantum theory.

 

And that necessary information is the direction.

But you are aggreeing to that by giving that example of twins time dilation of a day. The popular perception of the time travel is stated in my post #148(b) & (c), that is if somehow someone can manage to go to 2014, then it is Time Travel to past and if one can manage to move in 2016 then it is time travel to future.(leaving everyone else at the usual flow of time as it progresses). Many a times popular perception may be entirely different from the Scientific point of view, but it appears that in this case due to consideration of grandfather paradox by scientific community, this is not so. As I said earlier time dilation necessarily requires to frames, but time travel must be in self frame only.

 

You (and also brucep) showed me the baryonic acoustic oscillations Guth used to explain Tyson's fixed energy levels, which is great stuff, and brought me up to date with mainstream inflation theory. I had also not heard about Thorne's prediction of exotic matter coming to a fruition of sorts in 2014.

But Greene's bicycle riding alien is a direct descendent of a anti-twin paradox crank "John Doan", who has persisted in his anti-relativity internet crankery for over 30 years. Doppler shifts cannot be used to resolve the twin paradox, period. What color is the alien approaching the Milky Way?

The problem with using Doppler shifts is that it is anyone's guess as to where they actually derive, because there is more than one factor which can cause them. Are we moving, or is it the source? Are they falling into a black hole, or are we? The only Doppler shift that bears any certainty is no Doppler shift, which means that the source and the observer are momentarily at rest with respect to each other. Even then, the source and observer could both be falling into BHs and see no relative Doppler shift, as long as they were both falling into it from the same direction.

When I worked with Team ENSCO for the Darpa Grand Challenge 2005, we purchased a shiny new Doppler radar, figuring that it might help us either with odometry, or with avoiding other moving vehicles (contestants and Darpa challenge monitor vehicles) in the race. What we quickly discovered was that the instant our vehicle stopped moving (with nothing else around that was moving), there was no signal at all from the Doppler radar. As such, it had no utility at all for keeping us from colliding with large obstacles at lower speeds (or even at nearly the same speed), nor would it give any indication of how large or small those obstacles might be.

The alien riding the bicycle in Greene's video shows a symmetry that isn't there. No matter which direction the alien rides the bicycle, time will dilate. But no matter how much it dilates, the alien, and the galaxy toward which he is riding will continue to progress in an orderly manner from present to future, but at different respective rates. This is something else that a Doppler shift cannot inform you about. For all you know or care, it may be normal for alien metabolisms to be higher or lower, for their lifespans to be shorter or longer. How would you really know if it was due to a relativistic effect, or the twin paradox? As I said, it was a very bad example, on many levels.

 

No, as I said, to state a scenario which engages special relativity, you must state (1) the preferred reference frame, for which proper time is clocked, and (2) the relative velocity of the moving frame with respect to (1). Since velocity is a vector, the direction information is contained in (2). Further, in calculating the Lorentz factor, which describes the relationship between the amount of time dilation (and space contraction) with regard to (2), relative to (1), since it only requires the scalar speed, and further, since that scalar quantity is squared, any negative sign you are concerned about disappears. Further, the angles of the velocity vector (as in spherical coordinates) are factored into the Lorentz transformation to begin with.

Then I suggest we go back to what Brian Greene actually presented and decide whether he was right or wrong. I had no such obstacles to overcome when I saw the video (back when it came out). My own reaction was that it was a great way to present ideas to the general public which are exceedingly difficult to comprehend, even for those of us who understand the math (or enough of the math).

 

As I said, that issue is moot. The reason time does not agree for the twins is because the traveling twin "traveled backwards in time" relative to the stationary twin.

If you wish to discuss instrumentation then maybe you would like to open a separate thread on that topic. It's a good subject for people who engage the conversation here, who have not had the opportunity to do lab work (which is part of the curriculum that supports the analytical subject matter).

I am not aware of anyone being confused about that. Time is relative, and what that actually means, and the paradoxes it presents, are probably the main sources of confusion here. Modern physics is sometimes counterintuitive. Again, you have to return to the Fitzeau "water experiment" and track his discussion through the development of Maxwell's equations, the Michelson-Moreley disappointment (yes, Johnny, there really is no aether), through the reconciliation of these and related reports by Poincare and Lorentz, finally converging in Einstein's down-to-earth explanation, seen through the eyes of a kid who was fascinated by his father's use of telegraph equipment to synchronize clocks at train stations. Lacking the more comprehensive view (as I would call this) you are relegated to take this in through brief explanations presented in textbooks, and then to apply the information gleaned to solving actual problems at the end of chapters, on exams, in the lab, and in research papers. At that point you are deemed "qualified" to take on practical work in the field, applying the stuff learned to solving mundane problems, as a matter of putting bread on the table.

Subject matter for the suggested thread on instrumentation.

What is obviously false. Look, no need to hash this out. How about citing Brian Greene (or just give me a time stamp on the video) and let's see what your argument is.

Or if you wish, step back and address classical (modern) physics:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

No, I doubt anyone would ever think "color" or a quark is literal. Nor do we need to worry about confusion over time dilation, not if we understand "projection of a rotation".A starting point for discussion of is Eratosthenes, in concluding that the Earth is a sphere (the radius of which he estimated).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Time dilation is a projection, onto the observer's plane, of the time measured in the remote (moving) frame. Until we resolve to this crucial point, we are bogged down in side issues.

Your opinions of string theory, or any of physics, are hamstrung by your reticence to delve into Linear Algebra (at least qualitatively, as in the morsels I am offering concerning projection of a rotation). Other than that, to dismiss this prolific mind on account of some sociological trigger, is to deny academia and scholarship in general. If he had never said a word about string theory, would you have still summarily dismissed this video? Let's get back to what he said here, and we can defer string theory to the threads that discuss it.

If you do not discuss Fitzeau through Einstein (1905), if you do not discuss the Lorentz rotation, then you are certainly ignoring the basis for the theory.

That statement is false. Relativity leads to the effect of time dilation and space contraction between reference frames. You may have misunderstood the much more mundane problem of Einstein's father, synchronizing clocks at train stations. This is not the basis of relativity. It was the basis of Einstein's early life interest in electromagnetics, and an important reason that he took notice of Maxwell's equations, and the controversy brewing over the meaning of "invariance of the speed of light in all reference frames".

Consider using the term "proper time", as in

The person on the spaceship, however, measures a much shorter time for the trip. In fact, the time they measure is known as the proper time.
http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Relativity.html​

I should never have mentioned it. This leads to a red herring. How about restating your objections to the video.

Cite?

You mean space time is curved. Hence the projection of a rotation.

http://kids.britannica.com/comptons...-relativity-explains-gravity-as-the-curvature

Before you can walk, you have to crawl. Let's get back to the fundamentals, and try to at least agree on what Einstein said in 1905, and what issues were then pending in science, which he resolved. Further, let's revisit the evidence that the theory of special relativity is correct.

 

Repeating your metaphysical belief does not make it true, and is not even an argument that it is true.

You seem not to recognize that linear algebra is trivial for me, I have publications in scientific journals about quantum theory as well as theory of gravity. It is you who has to learn some elementary facts, namely that the Lorentz ether has absolute time and an ether, but is nonetheless equivalent, in almost all of its physical predictions, to standard SR. Here we have simply two different interpretations of the same mathematical formulas, and the same empirical predictions.

So, even if you don't know it, the Michelson-Moreley experiment does not disprove the ether in general. It falsifies only some ether theories, but not all. The Lorentz ether predicts the same result as Special Relativity for this experiment.

As a scientist, I don't work with videos.

The formulas given there are unproblematic. For the very simple reason that the formulas for SR and the Lorentz ether are the same. The difference is the interpretation. What is named "time dilation" is interpreted in the Minkowski interpretation as something fundamental about time, but in the Lorentz interpretation it is only about results of measurements with clocks, nothing fundamental.

There is no need to discuss the elementary mathematics of SR, as well as there is no need to discuss if 1+1=2, because I do not disagree with these formulas.

I know what is named "proper time". It is simply the result of a clock measurement. It is a laden term, prejudiced in favour of the Minkowski interpretation. From point of view of the Lorentz interpretation, a term like "clock time" would be more appropriate. But such unfortunate, misleading choices of denotations are not really a problem in science, physicists know they are only names. What is physically important, they also know - namely that "proper time" is what clocks measure.

No, I don't mean spacetime is curved. This is a statement of the spacetime interpretation, and I do not favour this interpretation, and not obliged to do it. I mean that light does not follow straight lines but curved paths, which are influenced by the gravitational field.

Ok, if you have to learn to crawl, I will help you. If you can start to walk, you can try to consider http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7812 and to find out why the deflection of light is not correctly described by SR, which is falsified by this observation. And if you can really walk, you can discuss my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 to see that the ether concept is not only not falsified by MMX, which is compatible even with the Lorentz ether, but even compatible with modern observations.

 

at first, i thought you were azo, but i think i'm wrong about that.
i'm also starting to like you.

 

I haven' yet made any claims (have I? what claims?) and all I have posted so far are facts of science, available from any university (and often high school) web site.

Does that mean you agree or disagree with me? And if you disagree, please state where my linear algebra is incorrect (or my reference to it).

What journals? And a second question (since you bashed Brian Greene on account of his contributions to string theory): how would you compare your academic / professional credentials to his - less than, equal to, or greater than his?

Well no I might goof up from time to time, but elementary math and science is one of my stronger areas of academic and professional training, so feel free to dump all the linear algebra on me you want, in fact I would enjoy immensely seeing some ideas posted mathematically since prose just won't cut it. Full disclosure: I am WAY LESS educated and intelligent than Brian Greene, and regardless of my own opinions, I defer to his expertise by default, before delving deeper to see what (if any) controversy invalidates anything he published.

Uh... I think you need to clarify what you are driving at here. My statement (amended with new information you posted) is as follows: before publishing on the topics you listed above, do you happen to read the relevant papers (I mentioned Fitzeau, Maxwell, Michelson-Moreley, Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein) through 1905 (to name the ones that stand out, there are others they cite as well).

And what do you mean by "standard SR"?

Perhaps you can direct me to any reference(s) you may have used in your own publications (or others you recommend) which support what you are wish to say to me. Also, where have I goofed here in my explanations related to elementary math & science?

What two? What formulas are you referring to?

What do mean by "empirical predictions" and where are there two different interpretations?

They disproved the prevailing unsupported speculation that there was an ether wind. What are you objecting to concerning their work? And did you or did you not understand why it was on Einstein's mind (and just about all of his contemporaries) in the way he prepared his 1905 paper on electrodynamics?

I wasn't even talking about ether per se. I was only referring to the kinds of findings that motivated Einstein to resolve the question of the day. The absence of an ether wind had implications in the way it corroborated Fitzeau's water experiment, other than that, I am not arguing anything about ether. It became moot. And why was that? What conclusion was Einstein left with, to elaborate on, as a means of tying all of the empirical data together, which was collected over approx 40 yrs prior to his 1905 paper? That's the key point here.

What ether theories ca. 1880 did not suppose that they would find an ether wind? What ether "theory" (a misnomer) survived 1905?

More specifically, where did Einstein get his "rotation of the remote frame, projected onto the observation plane"? What does this have to do with ether?

The opening post concerns the content of Brian Greene's video Fabric of the Cosmos. You have summarily dismissed a distinguished scientist, who propounds his ideas in this video. All I suggested was that we should get back to what he actually said in the video. Otherwise, we are off in the weeds.

Good, so far, inasmuch as you seem to agree with me.

 

When the people I mentioned thus far jointly discovered something else (the laws of electromagnetics, plus special relativity) ether became moot. That makes this statement sound rather absurd. Please clarify if I misunderstood you.

That too sounds absurd, so please clarify, since I may be missing your point. Cites would be helpful. None of what you are saying reminds me of anything in the academic curricula.

I only asked you to correct any goofs I made here by stating the correct science, preferably using math, since, as I mentioned several times, it is not clear to me what you are driving at. The mathematics of SR is not entirely elementary, but the relevant part (projection of a rotation) is undergrad material for math & science majors.

You need to correct that statement. First of all, proper time does not require any clock. Turn the clock on and off, and time lapses at the same rate. Secondly, you have said nothing about reference frames which makes this come across as absurd. Clarify this if you don;t mind, since I am not sure how to parse your speech.

What does that mean? You are using a proprietary language, so you will have to try to convert it to conventional speech, preferably with links to any cites, since you seem to be arguing some issue which has not yet been propounded here.

You are introducing "interpretations" without any preface, so I have no idea how to interpret your statement. What do "interpretations" have to do with the present topic? What specifically are you referring to as far as these interpretations go?

I have never heard any scientist cast this idea as you cast it. Again, cites would be helpful so I could try to glean your meaning.

What do you mean by spacetime interpretation? What specifically do you not favor. Midway above you said you subscribe to the "elementary math of SR". Please post the math you do not subscribe to. I am just getting more confused about what you are arguing.

Now I am going to have to take exception to this statement. In the first place, space is relative, so "curved paths" are only measurable in the observation frame. Within the well (at zero gradient) light is observed to travel in a straight line. Second, the phenomena of SR are independent of what is happening with respect to climbing or descending any well (once we deFor example, tell me how much error Fitzeau made in stating his results without knowing there was such a thing as a gravity well. And Michelson-Moreley? Poincare and Lorentz? Einstein (1905)?

You linked to an abstract that says nothing about what you just said.

This appears to be the link you meant to give us:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...sessionid=576D3B40AAEBFFC3E04F52B6A3634813.c1

Please give a full cite so I can find the part of the text you are referring to. This is a history of many things. I have no idea where you intended to direct me.

No, I will not spend $40 to read your paper. The abstract is absurd, so I doubt I would read it if you were free. You are beginning to smell like a scammer.

Immaterial/disingenuous. The existence of an aether wind was falsified. Now you are sounding like bona fide crank.

Sorry, not buying it. (Figuratively and literally.)

Suggestion : never post on this site a link to a another site in which you are advertising your own stuff for sale. Panhandling prohibited.

Also: please only post meaningful content with cites to actual authorities, not your own junk papers.

 

You have made the claim I quoted, and this claim is metaphysical in character. Of course, university pages also contain metaphysical statements. Simply because there is no simple way to subdivide. Popper's criterion works for theories as a whole, not for particular statements.

I agree with the formulas, but disagree with the interpretation. Of course, there would be no problem if you prefer one interpretation and I prefer another one. The point is that you make claims about the impossibility of other interpretations which exist and are well-known to exist.

I have a lot of papers in Found. Phys., but also a few others, one in the Annalen der Physik. Of course, Greene has much more papers, and high academic and professional credentials in the string theory community.

But who cares about his credentials in string theory? It will be forgotten, and remain as a strange part of history of physics, similar to phlogiston theory. And I can tell you: If some ghost would make me an offer to obtain his credentials and papers and all that in exchange what I have reached I would reject this proposal without even thinking about this.

The point I have made is not that much about math, but about interpretation. That there are two interpretations of SR: the spacetime interpretation (Minkowski) which is what you use, and the Lorentz interpretation, where we have one inertial frame as the preferred one, so that we have absolute space and absolute time. But moving clocks are going slower, and moving rulers contract. This makes it impossible to identify absolute time and absolute distances with clocks and rulers. This is the original interpretation of the Lorentz-Einstein theory.

This is not the way modern science works. Students learn physics using modern textbooks. Then they start to read actual articles, and write own articles. Reading the old historical papers is something seldom done. It would be, of course, useful, because it teaches a lot about the approaches and the way of thinking of these leading scientists, but it is not required.
I have read some historical papers, but not that much.

The mainstream spacetime interpretation, which goes back to Minkowski. The older Lorentz interpretation, also known as the Lorentz ether, is today widely ignored, to revive it is anathema.

I have no objections to their work. I have objections to those who claim that this would disprove all ether theories, given the fact that the Lorentz ether is an ether theory, but makes the same predictions as SR and is, therefore, not falsified by this experiment.

I have no problem at all with Einstein's 1905 paper, nor with his later papers. Einstein is certainly one of the greatest scientists of that time.

1.) none, 2.) The Lorentz ether, which is an interpretation of SR.

 

Nice work Aid.....He has been infesting us with nonsense for a few months now.It certainly did not take you long to pick that up.
His politics is even worse/bizarre then his science.

 

I see no reason to reject the ether as moot. The laws of electrodynamics have been discovered by an ether theoretician, and special relativity in itself gives nothing (EM theory was already Lorentz invariant).

It is not part of academic curricula. People who are interested in such questions know it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory is a good intro.

If two clocks follow different paths, they show different times if they are compared later. But they were initially synchronized (at the same initial time \(t_0\)) and when they are compared at the end, this also happens at the same moment of time \(t_1\). But they show different numbers, numbers which depend on their trajectory, and computed by the formula \(\tau = \int_{t_0}^{t_1} \sqrt{1-v(t)^2/c^2} dt\). So clocks do not measure time, which would be \(t_1-t_0\), but something different. Something which is, for small velocities, quite close to \(t_1-t_0\), so that clocks can be used in everyday applications as if they would measure time, but they do not measure time.

The math I do not subscribe is GR math. The math which is required for topologically nontrivial solutions. In my preferred GR interpretation, there exists a preferred system of coordinates - harmonic coordinates.

The experiment shows in a quite obvious way that light rays are influenced by gravity. That they don't follow straight lines is a quite trivial consequence.

SR remains a nice no-gravity approximation. My point is not that the error is big or small, but that the error exists, is well-known and accepted by the mainstream, so that SR is false. Many false theories work nicely as approximations in situations where the error is small enough to be irrelevant.

I linked to arxiv.org, and on arxiv.org you can always download the full texts without any paywalls.

The download is free on arxiv.org, that's why I give links to arxiv.org. The abstract is not absurd, the paper is published in a mainstream journal. The theory is, of course, not mainstream.

As if I would care. You can download it for free, and you can ignore it.

Ah, your are some paddoboy2, also submissive to authority? Ok, good buy, have a nice day.

 

Not nice work, but stupidity. He does not even know that downloading on arxiv.org is always free.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't fret Schmelzer, I would not really expect you to disagree with your own paper.

 

What does "bound energy" mean to you, and why do you insist on using this term? Where in the literature can I find it?

Matter is matter-like and energy is energy-like, space is space-like and time is time-like. How do you justify any other equivalence? In the nonrelativistic mass-energy equivalence, E = mc2, energy (Joules) is equivalent to kg-m2/s2. This means energy is like "mass x area per unit time per unit time". How does that have anything to do with what you are saying? Add the relativistic term and it looks even more alien to your "equivalencing".

Define "unbound energy" and explain that by analysis of units as above.

Write the equations which show this.

Ah. So unbound energy means "radiation"?

The natural state for all matter is - whatever state it is in. Conventionally the term applies to its phase: solid, liquid, gas or plasma. There are all other kinds of states once we introduce particle physics. It's not at all clear what you mean.

This is a crock, as I have just shown above. Who cares what a teaching assistant taught? What text were you using and what did this have to do with the subject matter?

You seem to be converging back to mass-energy equivalence, which is OK, but the way you got there makes no sense at all.

Cite?

Cite?

Please write the equation that states this.

Please write the equation that states this.

What does big bang theory say about the origins of space and time?

What does any of that have to do with speed? And what instruments are typically used to measure light speed?

Most applications I can think of a measuring length, area an volume. That would typically be easier to do for objects that are at rest with respect to our ruler (or other device). But what does this have to do with the topic here?

What measurement? Typically the wavelength of a scattered ray may be used, I guess. Not sure what you are even referring to,

Not sure what this has to do with anything being posted here.

So why even bring it up? What is your point? And why resort to language like "complete understanding"?

This is incomprehensibly vague.

Let's start with ANY formulation. Please write one, and let's test it for accuracy.

I would just say "unclear". If you want to be understood, you have to strive to be clear.

It would be more helpful toward intelligent discussion to say what Greene said that yuou like or don't like.