In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 11 Apr 2020 10:59:14 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Your logic is one way correct. > >If you take the path length L given by c covered by one second, then >this is just one out of infinite many possible gauges. >A frequency is just the breakdown of L in units of wavelength. This is >also what today is used to define time!!
No, it's what is used to define the unit of time measurement, not time itself. >- just the other way round as >you know the frequency e.g. of Rubidium and simple count a number of n >waves. But you are free to choose a different n' that leads to a >different timescale! > >Light speed is also based on the definition of 1 meter !! Thus we should >not mix up the general notion of time as a progress in the event chain >with simply counting regular events (wave maxima) that define a common >accepted length. IOW we should not mix up the existence of time as dimension, with its measurement. > >Now its easy to understand that time is a virtual concept based on >simple counting regular events. The words "regular" and "events" already imply the existence of a time dimension, and a passage through that dimension. Even the concept of counting (as opposed to the concept of number), implies the existence of time, since the act of counting separates the things being counted along the time dimension. (Things are "counted" one after the other. "After" is temporal.) Without time, one would just have to "know" how many objects there were, without counting them. >Here you also see where the digital >nature of real physics starts as waves are nowhere (just in average) a >continuum contrary to the mathematical use of time. Mathematics doesn't define existence. It just describes it in terms of measurement. > >If you have a more deep understanding of physics especially if you >understand what already R.Mills did find almost 30 years ago then you >know that there is no global time as time changes due to a change in >(total bound mass)/(total photon mass)= space-time expands or said in >SO(4) physics terms. Time depends on the relation of 2 rotation mass to >the mass that does more than 2 rotations = the change of average density >of space. I think you need to distinguish between the rate of passage through time, and the concept of time itself as a dimension. Even the former may not change. It's possible, and common, for the speed of processes to change, without the passage of time changing. Processes can run faster or slower depending on the forces acting, and the energy available locally. > >Thus all energy mass equations (& relations) in SO(4) physics are based >on the path length given by c/s and are finally independent of time. What is "s" in c/s? If s=second, then how is this independent of time, and furthermore, wouldn't a path length be given by c*s? There is no "physics" that can do away with time. It's a fundamental part of existence, so what are you really trying to achieve? Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of it is based on processes which may vary in speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational field, then the processes upon which our clocks are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply that time itself is flowing faster or slower. It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our temporal "yardstick" may change in length in some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage of time changing. If our perceptions also run fast or slow along with the clock, then we have no way of knowing that it's running fast or slow. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
