# John T. Nordberg's theory...

Proportional relativistic change self-referential, yes.
I don't understand how Time can be self-referential. What is the duration of time?

IMO, time is the result of duration of change, but time itself has no duration and I don't see how time can refer to itself as a measurement of duration.

I do agree that time is subject to relativistic durations of change, but IMO, Time itself has no measurable properties. How then can it be self-referential? What am I missing?

Last edited:
Please do not post nonsense or pseudoscience to the Science subforums.
I don't understand how Time can be self-referential.

IMO, time is the result of duration of change, but time itself has no duration and I don't see how time can refer to itself as a measurement of duration.

I do agree that time is subject to relativistic durations of change, but IMO, Time itself has no measurable properties. How then can it be self-referential? What am I missing?

All measurements of velocities slower than c are referred to the speed of light. That's how time is self-referential. Any measurement of time is a dimensionless ratio of proportional dimensionless relative velocities. There really is nothing that is a second. Time in all cases has the dimensions of meters of travel/meters of light travel, which is, as I have just pointed out, dimensionless. Your proportional math will not avail you at all if you fundamentally don't understand what it is you are talking about. Time dilation is different everywhere, and is strongly dependent on local energy density as well as relative velocities of bound forms of energy. You cannot understand the first thing about the nature of time without understanding the scope of its relativistic dependence.

Now assume there is some form of energy transfer which occurs with v>c and apply the equations of relativity to try and describe differences in time dilation effects between clocks that run at sublight speeds and a hypothetical entanglement clock that can instantaneously flip states between any practical physical dimension from the size of atoms to billions of light years. This is why EVERY physical dimension (all three of them) is the dimension of time, but the speed of light is hardly a maximal speed (basis of all temporal proportion), other than for the bulk linear propagation of energy.

Last edited:
I finally read and watched the Norbert clip and using the constant of *c* as a baseline for measurement of time seems a reasonable proposition for scientific theoretical purposes.
But note that he qualified his proposition with the statement that if we were to find that there are things which happen a SLS, we would have to adjust the concept of time to that speed.

Questions: are tachyons (if they exist) exempt from time?

But, as with Newton's law v GR, our arbitrary selection of the regularity of the earth's rotation in orbit around the sun, our maths seem to work with sufficient precision for practical application, whereas we would have to invent an entirely new mathematical language if we were to use Norbert's standard for "local" time calculations.. .

In any case, I still maintain that Time has no independent existence, but is always a result of *duration* of an action or a geometric measurement.
What increments of time you want to use is just a matter of convenience.

This brings to mind the standard names and use of specific lengths and measurements. One could just as easily propose that we should use quantum distance between contiguous spacetime coordinates as the fundamental standard of measuring distance.

Question: does quantum act at the speed of *c*?

Last edited:
In any case, I still maintain that Time has no independent existence, but is always a result of *duration* of an action or a geometric measurement.
What increments of time you want to use is just a matter of convenience.
That duration between energy transfer events varies from place to place, or inertial reference frame to inertial reference frame. Even differences in altitudes of 1 meter apart register as different time dilations on atomic clocks. Also, don't confuse or equivocate a duration (delta t) with an instant of time. These are very different. One (delta t) has an arrow that is the same arrow as the propagation of energy in a single direction. The other (an instant of time) does not have nor does it require an arrow. In an instant of time, no energy propagates, although it may persist if it is bound as it is in matter. In the latter case, time dilation for stable particles is for all intents and purposes, infinite, yet their geometric centers may also undergo time dilations depending on relative motion and / or proximity to gravitating bodies.

But, as with Newton's law v GR, our arbitrary selection of the regularity of the earth's rotation in orbit around the sun, our maths seem to work with sufficient precision for practical application, whereas we would have to invent an entirely new mathematical language if we were to use Norbert's standard for "local" time calculations.. .
Indeed it appears precise enough, yet it leaves something to be desired. How does something in free fall near a gravitating body know which way it is to the center of something without instruments or a degree in math? Newton's / Einstein's "divine hand", no doubt. In both theories, that direction is just based on an assumption of a center, not something actually calculated from first principles. Not actually knowing what causes a force in a particular direction isn't "science", even though it may be perfectly complete from a mathematical standpoint. The apple that hit Newton's head could have flown from the tree in any direction. His math simply assumes a center, no thought given at all as to why that unique direction is preferred, or how the apple knows of its existence.

Last edited:

That duration between energy transfer events varies from place to place, or inertial reference frame to inertial reference frame. Even differences in altitudes of 1 meter apart register as different time dilations on atomic clocks. Also, don't confuse or equivocate a duration (delta t) with an instant of time. These are very different. One (delta t) has an arrow that is the same arrow as the propagation of energy in a single direction. The other (an instant of time) does not have nor does it require an arrow. In an instant of time, no energy propagates, although it may persist if it is bound as it is in matter. In the latter case, time dilation for stable particles is for all intents and purposes, infinite, yet their geometric centers may also undergo time dilations depending on relative motion and / or proximity to gravitating bodies.
I am not arguing time dilation, contraction, directions or any of the variables introduced by locality. I already gave my support to the concept for theoretical science purposes.

I am trying to look at this from a different aspect.

I am arguing that time, of any duration, is a result of dynamical action or geometric measurement. Time is a just another universal mathematical aspect created by the duration of existence and is a purely human invention. Time (duration) is a by-product (a result) of the chronology of events, but is not in itself causal to any universal mathematical function. The Universe does not care what time it is or how much time something will need, humans do. Time is completely observer dependent.
Time can be given any value at the local level. At the universal level there is only a timeless permittive condition which allows for mathematical quantum functions.
Indeed it appears precise enough, yet it leaves something to be desired. How does something in free fall near a gravitating body know which way it is to the center of something without instruments or a degree in math? Newton's / Einstein's "divine hand", no doubt. In both theories, that direction is just based on an assumption of a center, not something actually calculated from first principles. Not actually knowing what causes a force in a particular direction isn't "science", even though it may be perfectly complete from a mathematical standpoint. The apple that hit Newton's head could have flown from the tree in any direction.
No, I won't let you get away with that. You are ignoring the mathematical aspects completely.
His math simply assumes a center, no thought given at all as to why that unique direction is preferred, or how the apple knows of its existence.
Or a gust of wind.
Oh I disagree, the logic is not so hard to follow. One can begin by asking why all apples always fall DOWN.

Have you ever wondered about certain patterns?
Why does sound change when a motorcycle passes you? Why do flowers grow toward the sun? Why does water freeze or turns to steam when heated. Why does a three minute boiled egg at sea-level take four minutes to boil high up in the mountains?
Most people ask the question at one time or another, but only Newtons and Einsteins actually try to find the answers. That's what makes them scientists. I am sure Norbert belongs in this group if he is trying to tackle Time itself.

Last edited:
Things like entangled paired electrons flipping quantum spin can occur in zero temporal duration and thus are not based on relative proportional velocities or bulk transport of energy. Nor does separation in space of an Angstom or a parsec make any difference to the duration of the process.

This is why not only does the concept of time need a major overhaul. You can't do it without an overhaul of our concept of space as well.

The Lorentz transformations are of no help either. The two inertial reference frames on which they are based may also be in aggregate relative motion with respect to each other. Hence, a geometric idea of a fixed point in space at a fixed instant of time has no more or less meaning than the centers of large gravitating masses, irrespective of the magnitude. No transformation of any kind based on current math can explain it. That's because the proportional relationships relating to time are in error from first principles. Time and energy is all there is in a universe of energy transfer events. If your math fails to deal with just those two elements at its most fundamental level, it is not a complete description that can be relied upon to be a complete or consistent reflection of reality.

My advice is to stop dealing in mathematical fantasies and pretending they provide deeper meaning when they fail the most basic test of consistency.

Last edited:
John T. Nordberg's "ball of light" theory chiefly needs the ideas I mentioned in the previous paragraphs. His stated proportional relationships still rely heavily on the use of ratios of v/c AS IF this was the same thing as time. It isn't. This treatment will not be effective in modeling either quantum entanglement or whatever it is that will eventually replace similar expressions. It is a continuation of 19th century ideas about absolute time which were supposed to have died about 1905. Nordberg seems still mired in an outmoded mode of this 19th century reasoning.

Gee Euclid, we were all very impressed with plane geometry and triangles anchored in space as though it were a geometric solid. This idea needs to die, already.

All measurements of velocities slower than c are referred to the speed of light. That's how time is self-referential. Any measurement of time is a dimensionless ratio of proportional dimensionless relative velocities. There really is nothing that is a second. Time in all cases has the dimensions of meters of travel/meters of light travel, which is, as I have just pointed out, dimensionless. Your proportional math will not avail you at all if you fundamentally don't understand what it is you are talking about. Time dilation is different everywhere, and is strongly dependent on local energy density as well as relative velocities of bound forms of energy. You cannot understand the first thing about the nature of time without understanding the scope of its relativistic dependence.

Now assume there is some form of energy transfer which occurs with v>c and apply the equations of relativity to try and describe differences in time dilation effects between clocks that run at sublight speeds and a hypothetical entanglement clock that can instantaneously flip states between any practical physical dimension from the size of atoms to billions of light years. This is why EVERY physical dimension (all three of them) is the dimension of time, but the speed of light is hardly a maximal speed (basis of all temporal proportion), other than for the bulk linear propagation of energy.
This post (along with your other posts) is pseudoscience ramblings and as such was reported.

This is REAL knowledge based on the recursive extension and application of the principles of Special Relativity. If others find difficulty applying and extending the math in a manner that is consistent with what turned out to be the supreme achievement of 20th century science and math, well, that's just a damn shame. It isn't as if Einstein didn't attempt to point us in a direction that will unify it all. By all means, just ignore it and move on to colonize Mars or something. You don't really need any math more exotic than perturbations of Newton's theory of gravity to do that.

And that is not a crank, although many will choose to regard it as such. Go sharpen your pencils. That's one good thing even a crank can easily do for you.

Last edited:
This post (along with your other posts) is pseudoscience ramblings and as such was reported.
Nordberg's theory is also pseudoscience because it does not bear extension, Origin. I am as qualified to comment on this as you are, or Nordberg or the OP is.

arfa brane said exactly the same thing about Nordberg's extension in an earlier post, and he is right. And you did't "report" him for it. Guess who taught him that?

Four vectors are 100% temporal, or at least, three of them are, and if there happens to be a fourth one, it is a composite involving propagation of bound energy with a peculiar non-Euclidean geometry all its own. There is nothing spatial or geometrical about space, other than in a Euclidean geometer's imagination. That's where the inconsistency is. No absolute space. No absolute time. Tell us again how that isn't good science, since 1905.

Last edited:
I am arguing that time, of any duration, is a result of dynamical action or geometric measurement. Time is a just another universal mathematical aspect created by the duration of existence and is a purely human invention. Time (duration) is a by-product (a result) of the chronology of events, but is not in itself causal to any universal mathematical function. The Universe does not care what time it is or how much time something will need, humans do. Time is completely observer dependent.
Time can be given any value at the local level. At the universal level there is only a timeless permittive condition which allows for mathematical quantum functions.

Purely human fertilizer. Do you do drugs to prompt these spewings, or are you just fucking insane? I'm betting on the latter, because you posted this in Physics & Math.

But it was honest, Dr_Toad. It's a genuine attempt to come to grips with Nordberg's "Ball of Light" theory, contradictions and all. Also, it is well written and expressed.

In 1905, Einstein was pretty much a nobody. Even great ideas have to come from somewhere, and all Lorentz had was a good riddle. It wasn't much, but he made the most of it. Michelson never came to grips with Einstein's interpretation of his experimental null result, and wasted the rest of his life trying to find another answer which never came.

The geometry of bound energy must be pretty bizarre, and anything but Euclidean until or unless it becomes part of an actual solid. Even then, the whole thing moves because there is nothing to nail it to empty space "time" except inertia.

Because of time dilation, equirotational surfaces in a given radial direction from particle "ball of light" centers are spirals, not circular like a ball. The composite spherical particle shapes are simply a consequence of inertial / directional energy isotropy, the origin of inertia for particles. This is much more than is described by Nordberg's simplistic ideas.

Purely human fertilizer. Do you do drugs to prompt these spewings, or are you just fucking insane? I'm betting on the latter, because you posted this in Physics & Math.
And your rant belongs in Physics and Math?

If you have something to say about Norbert's Theory, say it. I am eager to learn more. Don't demean yourself with ad hominem.
That does not belong anywhere on this Forum, under any circumstance. ..

Watch John T. Nordberg's YouTube presentation about his theory of time. I did, and the Earh- and pot-cracking revelation is when he says that time IS the speed of light.

The crackpot index generated list provides "time is the speed of light" as number three on their list of recurring crackpot physics theories.

As such, this thread rates no further discussion. Thanks to James R.

No matter that Herman Minkowski expressed the same idea mathematically a very, very long time ago. Because he used complex numbers to do so, that, evidently, is okay.

Last edited:
Watch John T. Nordberg's YouTube presentation about his theory of time. I did, and the Earh- and pot-cracking revelation is when he says that time IS the speed of light.

The crackpot index generated list provides "time is the speed of light" as number three on their list of recurring crackpot physics theories.

As such, this thread rates no further discussion. Thanks to James R.

No matter that Herman Minkowski expressed the same idea mathematically a very, very long time ago. Because he used complex numbers to do so, that, evidently, is okay.
Yes, there seems to be an impasse.
But I am still hoping someone can enlighten me at the rate speed in quantum, which seems to be absolutely fundamental speed against which all duration of change are compared.
If light is a continuous (chronological) stream of quantum events, then Norbert might have something.
However, showing that excitations must have a consistent maximum speed is a groundbreaking result. As with relativity, this speed limit creates a type of “light cone” that separates regions where interactions can occur and where they are forbidden. This has profound implications for the study of quantum entanglement, and thus most forms of quantum computing.
https://www.wired.com/2012/01/quantum-information-speed/

Yes, there seems to be an impasse.
But I am still hoping someone can enlighten me at the rate speed in quantum, which seems to be absolutely fundamental speed against which all duration of change are compared.
If light is a continuous (chronological) stream of quantum events, then Norbert might have something.
https://www.wired.com/2012/01/quantum-information-speed/
It is difficult to find peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject of the speed of entanglement outside of China, but a Dutch team of scientists:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...oky-quantum-entanglement-phenomenon-real.html

and a handful of others seem to have confirmed it to be >= 10k x c.

True, entanglement in the strictest sense is not a "velocity", and therefore, the proportional math used to compare other velocities slower than light to entanglement may prove tricky, but not tricky enough that we don't already know there is something "spooky" about it in terms of action at a distance which seems to require no intermediate contiguous changes in local E or B fields the way a photon of light is predicted to propagate according to Maxwell's equations.

Nordberg never mentions or even alludes to this idea in his theory. You risk being called a crackpot and /or having your theory called pseudoscience each and every time anyone makes a statement like "Einstein was wrong". Einstein wasn't wrong. His theory wasn't crafted to explain anything happening faster than the speed of light, that's all. Nordberg, on the other hand... That's all I have to say on the subject.

Thanks for the link to the Wired article.

danshawen,
Yes, I have pretty well exhausted my POV on the properties of time and am not *learned* enough to provide more subtle arguments on the subject. Thanks for the exchange, it was a productive IMO......

I enjoyed revisiting the idea as well. I took a few deserved hits from James R as moderator in order to do this, but it was thoroughly worth it.

I once tried to put him on "ignore" along with paddoboy, but I see now that would have been a big mistake, even if you were allowed to ignore a moderator. Thanks, James.