# Reference Frames according to Philochrony

Edited by Sibilia:

That's right, but I mean Ohm's law (I = V/R), for example, applies in electricity and not in the uniform linear motion (S = D/T). Although we can calculate the speed of the current with S = D/T, but not its magnitude. It's simple, but important.

Really? When you turn on a light, how long do you think it takes an electron to travel from the light switch to the light bulb?

Really? When you turn on a light, how long do you think it takes an electron to travel from the light switch to the light bulb?

The speed of electric current

Since nothing visibly moves when the charge-sea flows, we cannot measure the speed of its flow by eye. Instead we do it by making some assumptions and doing a calculation. Let's say we have an electric current in normal lamp cord connected to bright light bulb. The electric current works out to be a flow of approximately 3 inches per hour. Very slow!

Here's how I worked out that value. I know:

Value for electric current: I = 1 ampere
Wire diameter: D = 2/10 cm, radius R=.1cm
Mobile electrons per cc (for copper, if 1 per atom): Q = 8.5*10^+22
Charge per electron: e = 1.6*10^-19

The equation:

cm/sec = ________I_______ = .0023 cm/sec = 8.4 cm/hour
................... Q * e * R^2 * pi

This is for DC. Chris R. points out that for a particular value of frequency of AC, the "skin effect" can cause the flow of charges in the center of a wire to be reduced while the current on the surface becomes stronger. There are fewer charges flowing, and hence they must flow faster. ("Skin Effect" is stronger at high frequencies and with thick wires. The effect can USUALLY be ignored in thin wires at 60Hz power-line frequencies.)

From: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html

It's more complicated than I thought.

Last edited by a moderator:
It's more complicated than I thought.

Good for you for checking this out.

For AC there is essentially no net movement of the electrons. The equation of velocity = distance/time is of little use in this case!

You need to be open to new ideas. You have an idea about reference frames and you have recieved some information from me and other people pointing out where you seem to be mistaken - I recommend that you listen to the suggestions and research what has been said to see if you can learn more about the subject.

Good for you for checking this out.

For AC there is essentially no net movement of the electrons. The equation of velocity = distance/time is of little use in this case!

You need to be open to new ideas. You have an idea about reference frames and you have recieved some information from me and other people pointing out where you seem to be mistaken - I recommend that you listen to the suggestions and research what has been said to see if you can learn more about the subject.

Just curious origin, did you give any thought to the values of Ohm's law (V, I and R) being subject to time dilation and length contraction?

The speed of electric current

Since nothing visibly moves when the charge-sea flows, we cannot measure the speed of its flow by eye. Instead we do it by making some assumptions and doing a calculation. Let's say we have an electric current in normal lamp cord connected to bright light bulb. The electric current works out to be a flow of approximately 3 inches per hour. Very slow!

Here's how I worked out that value. I know:

Value for electric current: I = 1 ampere
Wire diameter: D = 2/10 cm, radius R=.1cm
Mobile electrons per cc (for copper, if 1 per atom): Q = 8.5*10^+22
Charge per electron: e = 1.6*10^-19

The equation:

cm/sec = ________I_______ = .0023 cm/sec = 8.4 cm/hour
................... Q * e * R^2 * pi

This is for DC. Chris R. points out that for a particular value of frequency of AC, the "skin effect" can cause the flow of charges in the center of a wire to be reduced while the current on the surface becomes stronger. There are fewer charges flowing, and hence they must flow faster. ("Skin Effect" is stronger at high frequencies and with thick wires. The effect can USUALLY be ignored in thin wires at 60Hz power-line frequencies.)

From: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html

It's more complicated than I thought.
8.4 cm/hour! 8.4 cm/hour? 8.4 cm/hour!?! Great Scott, am I really the only one that sees a problem with this? Does that mean I can pee on an electric fence and not get shocked? Has anyone ever tried it? How could any electrons possibly be transferred from the fence to your body if it only took one minute?

8.4 cm/hour! 8.4 cm/hour? 8.4 cm/hour!?! Great Scott, am I really the only one that sees a problem with this? Does that mean I can pee on an electric fence and not get shocked? Has anyone ever tried it? How could any electrons possibly be transferred from the fence to your body if it only took one minute?

If I understood your question, my answer is "Energy flows fast, yet an electric current is a very slow flow".

If I understood your question, my answer is "Energy flows fast, yet an electric current is a very slow flow".
Energy flows fast, huh. That is word salad. Electric current is not ran through wire by capacitors. The electrons run from power to ground. There is no light speed capacitive interaction that takes place. I took electron flow theory.

Some circuits run from ground to power, from a hot ground.

8.4 cm/hour! 8.4 cm/hour? 8.4 cm/hour!?! Great Scott, am I really the only one that sees a problem with this?

I guess, this seem about right for the speed of an electron through a wire.

Does that mean I can pee on an electric fence and not get shocked?

No, this means you do not understand current flow through a conductor.

You mistakenly think that electrons are like golf balls shooting through a pipe at near light speed - actually it is more like a pipe full of golf balls and when you push one ball into the pipe one falls out the other end of the pipe. The individual golf balls hardly move at all along the length of the pipe.

No, this means you do not understand current flow through a conductor.

You mistakenly think that electrons are like golf balls shooting through a pipe at near light speed - actually it is more like a pipe full of golf balls and when you push one ball into the pipe one falls out the other end of the pipe. The individual golf balls hardly move at all along the length of the pipe.
It means I don't agree with how current flow through a conductor is described. The last time I had this discussion they claimed that electronics can run quickly because the actual electrons are not traveling though the circuit at speeds close to the speed of light, but it is actually the electromagnetic field created that opperates at this speed. It turns out they knew nothing about electronics, so the discussion went no where. But, there is a problem with this explaination, the electromegnetic field as described would have to be created by a capacitor. The capacitors tied to ground in circuits do not serve this function. They simply pass AC to keep the line clean, they do not create an electromagnetic field with the power supply! In my school they called them uncle capacitors, this is because the uncle of the designer of the circuit sold capacitors, so then he could make a lot of money off of them if they had to tie one to every point that went to ground.

So then since electronics are not designed with this in mind, and there is no need for a capacitive setup in order to have a quick running circuit, then the theory behind this formulation has to be flawed! You could take all the capacitors off the ground and it will run just as quickly, you will just end up with a very bad looking signal!

Just curious origin, did you give any thought to the values of Ohm's law (V, I and R) being subject to time dilation and length contraction?

Well, I guess since origin and nobody else responds, I have no idea if this is correct. Hard to learn anything if nobody corrects or affirms my assumptions. Origins seems to be pretty well thought of here so I guess I am wrong. Back to the drawing board. Crap.

It means I don't agree with how current flow through a conductor is described.

Well then once again science has developed a theory through years and years of careful observations, measurements, experiementation and testing but you disagree because you just somehow 'know the truth'.

It must be awesome to feel like you are so superior. This is one of those relativity type things, I guess. In your reference frame you feel awesome - from our reference frame, not so much.

Well, I guess since origin and nobody else responds, I have no idea if this is correct. Hard to learn anything if nobody corrects or affirms my assumptions. Origins seems to be pretty well thought of here so I guess I am wrong. Back to the drawing board. Crap.

First of all, I am not in the same ballpark as many of these guys when it comes to physics. Frankly, I was hoping someone would answer your question besides me. Since no one has answered I will expound on what I said but I am going to have to think about it for a while - and I am suppose to be working now - so give me some time and I will answer to the best of my ability.

INERTIA LAW AND BECOMING

Inertia is the resistance of a body to change its state of rest or motion without the intervention of any force. But, to know whether a body is moving or is at rest we must use a reference frame.

Becoming is the property of matter and bodies to experience changes (1). Changes may be continuous, sporadic or periodic (2). To realize these changes we only need to look at the body at two different moments or for a specific interval. This interval is expressed by the reference values ​​(duration). To know how much has gone on an event we should use the reference values​​.

A body can be at rest or in motion depending on the reference frame we use. The motion is relative. Time always goes by from a beginning to an end in one sense, It's irreversible. The "standard" reference value we get it from a continuous and uniform becoming.

Reference frames are applied to the motion (inertia) and the reference values ​​are applied to becoming. Although the movement is part of becoming.

(1) Contrary to the becoming are ideas (concepts and mathematical entities), which are immutable. Ideas aren't held neither to space nor time.

(2) Earth movements are continuous changes, midnight and noon are periodic. An earthquake is sporadic.

(3) The Philochrony is the theoretical framework used to explain the nature of space and time.

Last edited by a moderator:
First of all, I am not in the same ballpark as many of these guys when it comes to physics. Frankly, I was hoping someone would answer your question besides me. Since no one has answered I will expound on what I said but I am going to have to think about it for a while - and I am suppose to be working now - so give me some time and I will answer to the best of my ability.

It's not something I choose to study but based on special relativity there should be some relativistic effects, delta length and delta time, due to relative motion. At non relativistic speeds the effect would be so small it wouldn't make any difference in any measurement between the Lab frame and Rocket frame.

FIVE QUESTIONS TO PHILOCHRONY

1- How do we know that things last?
Because some start, others remain and others disappear.

2- Why do things age or deteriorate?
Because of the continuous becoming.

3- How do we know that time is continuously increasing?
Because it is measured in terms of the amount of occurrence of a periodic event or the amount of a fraction occurrence of the same event.

4- Is time travel possible?
No, because the past was real but is no longer anymore, and as for the future, we must go through all the moments sequentially.

5- Is space curved?
No, space has no form, we just measure it in three dimensions. Relativity bases its conclusion using the behavior of light "in space."

Does space curve?

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties, we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view" -- Nikola Tesla.

From: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp

I just searched the quote to see if anyone else agreed with me.

Last edited by a moderator:
POTENCY AND ACT IN THE PHILOCHRONY

Aristotle's theory of potency and act

Aristotle resolved the problem of permanence and change by introducing the factors of potency and act, which appear as matter and form. Act means full and perfect existence, as if the most perfect action of a thing is just to be what it is. Potency means what a thing can be, but is not yet in actuality. The real things of nature are composed of these two factors. They are in act, because they really exist. But their existence is incomplete, because they are subject to change, and so they have a potency to certain kinds of changes. The Greek word for act is energeia, and the word for potency is dynamis.

From: http://www.hyoomik.com/phi205/arche.htm

Looking at the TV off in my bedroom I wondered every time why it was still there now, in the present?

For Philochrony potency is the becoming and the act are the objects, bodies and phenomena. Time is the permanence of an act in reality. Everything happens or becomes, nothing is left in the past and everything is moving forward.

Differences between Aristotles (A) and the Philochrony (P)

1 (A): Potency is the matter and the act is the form.
1 (P): Potency is the becoming and the act are objects and phenomena.

2 (A): Change is the transition from potency to act.
2 (P): Change is the variation or activity and has duration.

3 (P): Change is continuous.

The act is a particular manifestation of becoming (potency). The TV remains there because it is an act. Act means fact or action, although for Aristotle was the form.

Last edited by a moderator:
TO BE IN POTENCY AND TO BE IN ACT

According to Aristotle's theory of to be in potency and to be in act, a tree (act) is a chair in potency, a seed (act) is a plant in potency, a clothing (act) is a shirt in potency.

"In some way, therefore, the potency is some form of not to be: it is not an absolute not to be, but relative, but that is as real as any other consideration that we can do of the substance."
From a source in Spanish.

For Philochrony there is not to be in potency, only potency (becoming) and to be in act (objects and phenomena). The tree is what it is and the chair (wood) is what it is; they are two different acts, both are particular manifestations of becoming. For potency is meant then, like the inherent property of matter to experience changes "becoming" which it is checked in everything (object and phenomenon). To be in potency is a possibility, not a reality. It is like a person who is millionaire in potency when plays the lottery.

CONSCIOUSNESS OF TIME

Consciousness is the faculty for which we realize things clearly. Consciousness can be immediate if we use the senses and mediate if we use the intelligence and the intuition. Although time is a physical magnitude we have no specific sense to perceive it.

The consciousness of time we get it from the way we measure it. In measurement of length we use a parallelism between the instrument and the extention measured. In measurement of time we used an uniform linear evolutionism (ULE). In the consciousness of space it's just enough to take a look at our environment to appreciate the length. In the consciousness of time we do a prediction of when it will begin or end a certain interval. We know when it will end an hour or how long it will last and act accordingly. The consciousness of time is immediate, although we use our expectations.

Enchanted wave used for the Mayans
(The Mayans believed that time was circular)

Last edited by a moderator:
Enchanted wave used for the Mayans
(The Mayans believed that time was circular)

It's weird and funny, but I understand that diagram. They understood time.

It's weird and funny, but I understand that diagram. They understood time.

No it is just plain funny.