Post is pinned.

Time is really an artefact of human memory. Time doesn’t exist in the physical world. Its a metaphysical or philosophical concept. Time was first invented by primitive man to understand movement - fundamentally, the regular (apparent) movement of sun and moon around the earth, seasons, tides, and human ageing. Modern Physics inherited this understanding without ever questioning it.

This is a collection about rethinking the Physics of Time.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment


Just what you always wanted...but were afraid to ask for...

... and how to use it...
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

In this first class presentation from Quantum Gravity Research published earlier this year in May 2018, you'll end up as convinced as I am that these guys make REALLY COOL MOVIES.

Oh yeah, and that E8 stuff, yeah,.... that's interesting....
Find more E8 videos at
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

This is a very entertaining video for public consumption presenting Emergence Theory without the hard sell.

I've no reason to suspect ET will 'diverge' into a religious cult, but then again.... ?

Anyhow, I dont think Scientology is in any danger from this group of PhD's.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Here's the core of the 8 spatial dimension "Emergence" Theory of Everything (claimed to be based on CERN findings) that is gaining popularity over string theory as the theory most likely to answer the ultimate question of the universe, and that does not equal 42. ;-)

The premise of Emergence rests on a discovery that a simple 3D structure - the tetrahedron (or 3 equilateral triangles joined together making 4 faces in familiar 3 space) - can be derived from a projection of an 8 dimensional crystal lattice polytope (or 8-polytope) onto a 4-surface (4-dimensional quasi-crystal) that can be further reduced to the 3-sphere tetrahedron quasi-crystal.

The 8D crystal lattice is used to model a pixelated (ie quantum) structure of space at the Planck length such that higher material dimensions are possible even if they are materially inaccessible due to the rigid regularity of the crystal spatial scaffold.

This theory is a much better approach than string theory because its starts from a sound mathematical foundation. My lingering concern however is that nature is not pixelated at the marco level, and that the foundation of a ToE cannot therefore be pixelated or quantum. It must be continuous. All known physical pixelated representations are an abstraction of an underlying analog continuity, and you need look no further than the fingers on your hand, or the way digital computers work.

Another interesting aspect of Emergence Theory is the irreversability of Time (with which I very much concur) yet with the ability to demonstrate how causality loops can emerge within that constraint.

I also like the discussions surrounding entropy, which is a definition that could really use a renovation. Emergence Theory at least recognises time as a dynamic dependency of entropy, and this welcome progress from the immutable Newtonian time inherited in the SLoT by the words "over time".

Watch this space -->

Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Some time ago, over a spare weekend, I had a look a Fermat's Last Theorem. It made me appreciate the work of Andrew Wiles (et al) if nothing else, however it occurred to me that there actually was a simple algebraic solution.

Last weekend I revisited FLT and I think I have the proof that Fermat had in mind.

Strangely (or perhaps not) its incredibly obvious.


Here's a link to the PDF
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

The statement "time is a vector property of mass..." is, by implication, a serious slap in the face of Minkowski space-time.

And rightly so.

While Einstein got away with convincing the world that General Relativity (GR) was an improvement over Newtonian gravity, it has at least two fatal problems, each of which are enough in their own right to warrant consigning Minkowski space-time into a high temperature incinerator of cosmic crack-pottery.

Einstein's own words denying these fatal flaws articulate them perfectly:
1. "spooky action at a distance", and
2. the "specious now",
neither of which Einstein accepted and both of which are among the most confirmed results in quantum mechanical experimental history.

The attached article from 2009 heralded Hoava gravity as a potential solution to failure of GR in quantum mechanics, however a couple of problems (pun) quickly emerged. In spite of this, Hoava gravity persists as a "toy model" that is apparently an improvement on classical space-time in GR.

Hmmm.... where have I heard that before ?

Alternatives to space-time have been around since 1965 when DeWitt quantified it into a Many-Worlds model. He deserves a Nobel prize for simply ignoring the illogical to go where no rational person would ever dare to go. But in all fairness, Schrodinger's cat has a lot to answer for as an enabler of this sort of rubbish.

Speaking of Schrodinger's cat, earlier in this series I lauded a lecture by Schrodinger's grandson, Terry Rudolph, calling for more crack-pot theories but with the rider that they needed to be simpler not more complex. In Hoava Gravity we have a yet another Ptolomaic theory of gravity and time, and for all its promise, we may as well just bow down and worship Einstein, as many do, for his insanely complex Field Equations (EFE's). One not so credible but popular YouTube critic of EFE's mentioned that they are aether theories hidden by complexity, and on this single point I tend to agree. Complexity is always a pretty good indicator that something is not quite right. Even Einstein regarded simplicity as the path to truth, but in EFE's the devil is definitely in the detail.

Put simply, in the words of Norman Vincent Peale, "You cant get a right result from an error", and I fully agree. Minskowsky space-time is such an error.

Its even more ironic that central to Special and General Relativity is the notion that any point can be regarded as the centre of the universe. Well if that is what is meant by time reversal then it takes the cake for turning back the clock all the way to the 1st century AD. Its a bit like saying that a boat at sea can regard itself as moving the currents it floats in. This is why relativity fails. Because EVERYTHING is relative to the observer in the metaphorical boat. But any sailor will tell you that you wont be sailing far with that attitude. "We got to 'ave dem dar landmarks wot to navigate wit, me hearty". And so it must be in space also. We need absolutes.

Thus a Copernicus model of gravity and time will be stupefyingly simple (relatively speaking), and make you ask yourself, "now why didn't I think of that"?

Mass-time is such a model.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Oreole1 I understand what you are trying to say albeit next to impossible to put into words because it appears as circular reasoning.

Time is relative and if it could reverse (it can't) then .... (insert your favourite science fiction here).

Truth is often hidden because it is outside the limits of human preception. Time is actually a very very simple concept, so simple in fact, that it can escape the intellect of those looking for something more complex. Its like not being able to see the curvature of the earth until you are 100km away from it. Time is like that.

Time does not reverse because it is relative to the observer. We (observers) are stuck in the same time frame of reference as everything we observe and can't possibly ever hope to see time as a reversable dimension. To observe time reversal implies observing something outside the observers cosmological time frame of reference. The math of the erroneous Minkowski space-time model might allow that but the physics doesn't because time is a dependent property of mass and energy, not a dimension of space. This was Einstein's biggest blunder, apart from beating his wife.

Poincare's "complex space-time" could only exist if space, energy and mass were also complex. But again you could never hope to see the reversal a time "dimension" predicts because time is not independent of mass and is relative to the observer who is likewise made of mass.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Near field (local earth-moon-sun system) gravitational waves (ie the same wave phenomena from far-field colliding binary star systems, not just the tidal variety) can be studied using low cost terrestrial based gravimeters. An example of this is Zumberger's earth-gravity meter apparatus in 1981/2, which like LIGO, coincidentally measured the earth-moon near-field gravitational wave over 3 days, before discarding the overtly obvious signal as noise.

The seemingly low 1-1Khz frequency and similarly low amplitude of distant colliding binary stars tends to conceal the fact that the frequency and amplitude of these far field signals are at the extreme high end of the scale compared to near field gravitational waves. Nevertheless near field gravitational waves from the local system are at last 3 orders of magnitude higher in amplitude than the far field ones and easily detectable. Observing the local system is analogous to standing so close to a billboard that you cant see the message for all the dots.

What the LIGO academics don't want the world to wake up to (and I've spoken to a couple of them here in Western Australia) is that the extremely low frequency of local solar system gravitational waves gives rise to wavelengths in the order of 1 light-day to 10 light-years. LIGO is not interested in these near field gravitational waves because anyone can measure them - without the $1Billion price tag. They know that. LIGO is nothing more or less than a pointless exercise in glorifying a side note calculation of Einstein's about the black holes he didn't even believe existed.

Advanced LIGO is the world's second most expensive scientific research project after the LHC. Its a plaything of mad scientists misdirecting the limited research dollar away from the serious problems confronting the world. The funds are procured by an army of researchers specialising in marketing fake-problems to politicians in order to get huge research grants for unmeritorious projects such as LIGO. The only outcome of LIGO has been to demonstrate something that is already known and in plain sight - gravitational waves.

LIGO is a hugely expensive gravimeter delivering a precision improvement of only 3 orders of magnitude. It is not going to lead to a "new field of science" as LIGO claims. What it will do, if not checked, is lead to a reckless waste of the limited research dollar.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded