My theory/abstract on space and time

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

If anyone knows publisher or writer or the right direction to point me in, thanks, here’s my theory/abstract.

  • Nathan

There is no such thing as time, what we mis-percieve as time is the pre determined, physical break down (or decay) of materials from the microcosmic and so on to the macrocosmic spectrum of the universe (an apple, to a planet, to a star etc. I say this so you better understand this on all physical levels in the universe from the smallest to the largest, cosmic large, such as a star, nebulas or galaxies), there is no external force like “time” saying “age”.

Your genetics are pre disposed to only allow you to live so long or rather " to only live to a certain age". This is based NOT on an external force like “time” saying “age”, but pre disposed to a physical/material break down of flesh/DNA/genetics, the coding of your genes saying “live this long”. This is the same for all other materials in the universe based on their physical make up.

Now you can see that the mistake is thinking that an outside force like “time” has caused you to age when it was really the pre disposition of your genes (for example), or the break down of the material (an apple, a rock, a planet, a star) an object is made from.

“Also effected by gravity and other envionmental conditions”, “general relativity”. Time (the aging of an object) is relative and inherently effected by large amounts of gravity, which slow or completely stop the the process ,“time”, for an object(s)/ or material.

Gravity being relativity, general relativity.

The control of aging via the effecting of the quantum, atomic and elemental processes/mechanisms, like slowed organic decay, “through the application of large gravitational forces”."

  • Nathan Perry
2

  1. Your thesis is impenetrable, l could not understand it

  2. I do feel your refutation of Time incorporates the flow of time as part of the explanation, which is a paradox, of Lawrence M. Krauss proportions (recall in his “A Universe From Nothing” he shows how the universe came from nothing, by explaining that it merely began with, erm, something).

You reference time a lot as your explanation, and physical factors you mention also have time in their equations, e.g. gravity.

  1. You could try publishing via arXiv but even there, they’d require a modicum of legibility. Try re-writing it from scratch.
3

moved

4

Gravity’s SI units incorporate time, it is the acceleration of an object across time, i.e. velocity per second, i.e. metres per second per second.

The breakdown of skin or stars occurs over time.

Sorry for being blunt my friend.

5

I like what you say here about DNA and how aging is encoded there. That seems correct. But for things that are not made out of DNA, I think the idea fails. The molecular bonds holding non-living things together, rocks for example, do not decay over time. But if they are subjected to enough external force then they will break.

6

Parodites had a cool idea about gravity, that it was really just quantum ‘air pressure’. Like how molecules are always moving in the air and creating a sustained pressure-force attempting to compress things. He thought of gravity as this same effect only occurring at the quantum level, as a consequence of the constant energies moving around down there.

I don’t know if that’s true or makes complete sense, but it is worth thinking about.

I always felt like gravity is a logical phenomenon manifested physically. What I mean by logical phenomenon is simply the fact that 'things tend to want to remain as they are, as opposed to fundamentally changing/breaking apart". Everything that exists, every being, whether a rock or an atom or a person, exists in such a way that it has or possesses or is comprised in part by, with or for a tendency to hold itself in existence. This is also called self-valuing, an idea created by Fixed Cross.

If things only exist insofar as they already have this tendency to one degree or another, which makes sense because if they didn’t have this tendency then they would tend not to continue to exist, as compared to those things which do have it, …then when you try to pull something apart or stretch it out there occurs a counter-force trying to keep it together. Think about a rubber band, or holding some putty in your hand. You begin to stretch it out and you can feel another force trying to keep it together.

I think reality is like this. Especially if the big bang theory is correct, then reality is really just ‘one thing’ that was stretched out. But underlying the separateness of the physical stuff and energies we perceive, underneath at maybe the quantum level or beyond, it is all still one thing. As it was stretched out a counter-force appeared trying to hold it together, that counter-force is what we call gravity.

The more of reality occurs in a given space, the more this tendency manifests because the more reality is there to represent or instantiate the counter-force. Basically the reality or the universe is trying to hold itself together on all levels, atomically and below all the way up to the biological and cosmic levels. We can see examples of this all over the place in many different forms. One of those examples is what we call gravity. Just stuff trying to hold itself together, to value itself as it is which is logically speaking a necessary property of being qua being.

7

Well rocks do wear down but dont age over time, and since they don’t experience time, this doesn’t disprove my theory.

8

Time could be mistaken as an interwoven artifact of the cosmos but the passage of what resembles time may just be reality because I can sit here and just age. My cells will break down based on a genetic preface, not an external concept signifying “age” but because my cells say they have endured enough based on perfect or rigorous conditions. This makes the universe more of an effect of what goes on, cause and effect, rather than a tutelage of secondary complexs since time is subordinate to gravity. We know its controlled by large amounts of gravity up until the point that time completely stops, that may signify that aside from being relative, time is also relegated to material/atomic functions, not an over lord of cosmic order. The universe is kenetic and energy filled.

I don’t think we need “time” for this, gravity will effect time relatively if we apply enough.

9

I mean the idea is that rocks do not have an in-built aging process, and they do not necessarily need to wear down over time. That just depends on the environment around them. Absent any external factors imposing, a rock can sit there for eternity without decaying.

10

I think it is a mistake to reify time as a concept. Time is not its own thing, like space is. Time is simply the fact that things change, and those changes can be measured relative to other changing things and relative to other stuff that may not appear to change yet. Time “itself” is, I suspect, not really a thing at all. Then again, neither is space itself really a thing. Space is just other stuff, far removed and subtler things through which other things exist, are composed of, and may move. In that sense space and time do not really exist but are merely abstractions occuring because of vast relative distances between different stuff.