Did time come first or did matter come first?

PSI Blog 20210531 Did time come first or did matter come first?


Anon got this week's book prize for this question:


“Glenn, did you know that: "Time is different from space and space is about relationships vs. time being about disconnected moments…”?:




Just more serious theoretical gaseous crepitations than there should be.”


[GB: Thanks Anon for the video interview with Lee Smolin, who is famous for his book (Smolin, Lee, 2006, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next). One would think that skeptic Lee (the fellow with the full beard on the right) might come up with something sensible. But it ain’t here. Despite his doubts about regressive physics and cosmogony, he goes ahead and presents the tropes that define it.


For instance, read this from the abstract of the interview “Smolin discusses how developments in quantum mechanics have left physicists with questions that special relativity can’t seem to accommodate, and why the solution might be a conception of reality in which time is fundamental, and space emergent.” In other words, motion can occur without matter in violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). He does not know that time is the motion of matter and that space is matter, as implied by the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Help yourself to the gibberish that still is considered oh so “intellectual.”


Here is a bit I wrote in "Religious Roots of Relativity":


“Relativity-Quantum Mechanics Paradox


As mentioned, a paradox always has at least one incorrect assumption. In this case, it is the religious assumption of finity as alluded to above. As we will see, Einstein’s belief in perfectly empty space required his unconsciously assuming all Ten Assumptions of Religion. Without empty space, his Untired Light Theory, based on his eight ad hocs[1], never would have resulted in Special or General Relativity Theory. The quantum mechanists assumed finity as well, but they resolved their problem with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by inventing the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which treats probability as a singular cause. By lumping the infinity of causal factors not discovered in any experiment, regressives kept their belief in the religious assumption of finity intact. By doing so they had no conflict with Einstein’s empty space hypothesis. Without aether, however, any wave motion discovered had to be attributed to the objects themselves. That is how the “particles are made up of waves” trope got started.


The upshot is that in the battle between relativity and quantum mechanics, only quantum mechanics can survive. Aether denial and empty space is critical for relativity, but only an embarrassing nuisance for quantum mechanics. Both the Copenhagen Interpretation and wave-particle duality finally will be discarded when finity is replaced by infinity. Quantum mechanics would be greatly improved with the application of univironmental determinism. As with all microcosms, the study of the infinite matter in motion in the environment is just as important as the infinite matter in motion within. That is not possible for relativity, with its massless-perfectly empty particle existing within a massless-perfectly empty environment. Einstein’s attempt to turn wave motion into particle motion is revealed to be completely vacuous.”]


[1] Table 3. Einstein’s eight ad hocs. (From "Religious Roots of Relativity")

1 Unlike other particles, Einstein’s light particle always traveled at the same velocity—it never slowed down.

2 Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.

3 Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.

4 Unlike other particles, it was massless.

5 Unlike other particles, light particles did not lose motion when they collided with other light particles.

6 Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to “time dilation”—another especially egregious ad hoc.

7 Time had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.

8 The claim light speed was constant flew in the face of all other measurements showing there are no constants in nature because everything is always in motion. Because the universe is infinite, every measurement of every so-called “constant” always has a plus or minus. The velocities for wave motion in any medium are dependent on the properties of that medium, which vary from place to place.


1 comment:

Bligh said...

I am trying to get my book to the publishable stage. It explains the what I call the Fundamental Field. Of course it is infinite as is space and time.
I describe a theory of how it works that is consistent with all subsequent well accepted theories, but FR and GR are explained for what they really are in a later chapter.