Time and Energy

Response to an email from the author of a theory concerning “time flow,” in which time supposedly corresponds to the unit energy or work in the formula: Time Flow = Time/Energy. The author seeks this modification as a way to enhance Special and General Relativity:

Thanks for your email concerning the E=mc2 equation. Unfortunately, I consider time to be the motion of matter, so I am not a fair judge of your work. I assume that time does not “exist,” it occurs. Time does not “flow” independent of matter. It is not part of the universe, it is what the various parts do. We measure time by measuring the motion of one thing with respect to another. In this view, “Absolute” or “universal” time is the motion of all things with respect to all other things in the infinite universe.

Thus, I assume that matter does not turn into pure energy (conceived as matterless motion), as is conventionally thought. Instead, through material interactions, matter in motion of one kind simply is transferred into matter in motion of another kind according to the First Law of Thermodynamics and the rules of classical mechanics as modified in neomechanics (see “The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein”. This is why the ether is necessary—it contains the particles that carry the motion formerly thought to be lost as “pure energy.” A hint of this view can be seen in my recent paper, “Resolution of the SLT-Order Paradox” available for free download at: (http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/SLTOrder.pdf). I am planning to write a paper entitled “The Physical Meaning of E=mc2,” which will give the details.


rickdoogie said...

"The Physical Meaning of E=mc2"

I can't wait to read your paper.
I'm no scientist, I'm just an avid reader. I have always loved articles on particle physics, astronomy, and cosmology. I've always assumed (and have been troubled) that the theories about "black holes" and the "big bang" were based on flawed premises and idealistic mathematics. After reading "10 Assumptions" and "Scientific Worldview", I've been wondering what you have to say about some of the basics of physics. E=mc2 is of course one of those basics that deserve some scrutiny and illumination.
Thanks for your work.

Glenn Borchardt said...


Thanks for your interest in my work. It will be awhile before I can get to the E=mc2 paper. I will mention its availability on this blog and on the website.