14 Comments
User's avatar
The Mick's avatar

Outstanding Article!

My simplest definition so far......

The quantization rate of the observer.

Time.

Humans, animals, computers would percieve rates of change differently.

The beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Although percived changes involve more than the five senses..

Heatbeat.

Biofield response/ strength (emf shield and sensory field)

Hair sensory

barometric pressure

etc

Cheers,

Michael.

Expand full comment
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

Thanks Michael. Fully agree with you. Quantum Mechanics discusses much the same phenomena. Clocks don't 'go slower' though the rate of clocking might well change as you say (gravity, air pressure, a solar flare, gamma rays, heat in the equipment etc etc)

Expand full comment
wayne john's avatar

"Humans, animals, computers would percieve rates of change differently."

"Heatbeat." Made me think about the quicker the heart beat, quicker the death (quote from somewhere). think of mouse and elephant life spans!

Expand full comment
Andrew Robert Richards's avatar

Another great article that logically separates space & time and therefore dispels the ‘spacetime’ myth. However, I struggle with your statement:

“Therefore, we can say that ‘time’ is always a subjective concept, and space is objective at a point in time. Time depends on our ability to count and put in an order (sequence) the changes that we observe to an object within ‘space’. Time is clocking the duration of a change to an object in its space, or the place in ‘time’ which is objective.”

With respect to time, is it true that time is either subjective or conceptual? Surely time (albeit not the counting of its arbitrary units) exists outside of human conception…?

Afterall, an apple will decay whether or not a human subject is observing it since this object (apple) will undergo a state change outside of human perception or conception. I have a memory (conception) that Roger Penrose explained time (and its directionality) as fundamentally an entropic process ie. always from order to disorder.

Where am I confusing things?

Expand full comment
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

It is difficult. Metaphysical in many ways, but the geometry is wrong as well. The apple will rot, but time is independent of the rotting. It rots but how long will it take? That is a calculation. I can invent that calculation based on many factors. They might be right or wrong. I could count it in hours, decaying newtons, reduced kg's, or lunar phases. Even with the rotting apple, time is not merged into space. Time has nothing to do with the space the apple occupies in a 3D universe.

Time in Relativity is pulled into a 4th dimension and curved. This is frankly insane. You can't build an axis for something that is subjective. The universe is not local and does not calculate time. It just is. Further, Einstein was right (imo) that time in space is far different than Earth time (gravity, magnetism). Time dilation is wrong in general, but it is right in that time will vary based on forces. This means we have 2 'clocks' the cosmos and our own. Time therefore can never be merged with something I can bite or chew on (apple, space, material matter), which itself is inconstant. A future post discusses gravity and the incorrect geometry around space/time -> Geometry cannot be the cause of anything. It is only a mathematical abstraction. It is not a force, nor a dimension.

Expand full comment
wayne john's avatar

another great article

Expand full comment
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

Thanks Wayne, glad you found it useful. Spacetime is just ‘accepted’ as an ‘axiom’, it is rarely analysed to see if it makes sense :)

Expand full comment
Jerry's avatar

The Hafele-Keating experiment was carried out on commercial airliners, not navy jets.

Expand full comment
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

True. Thanks - the Hafele–Keating experiment of October 1971-- four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners which flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against those of the United States Naval Observatory. Many explanations exist for the time dilation. Relativity was never proven.

Expand full comment
David O'Halloran's avatar

Excellent, thanks. What would a machine know about truth? Next machines will be reducing beauty to numbers.

Expand full comment
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

Yes. In clown world, beauty will be declared ugly. Working with AI, it is true that no one knows where or what the underlying data sources for the models are. Large Language models are removed even from those building AI engines. In other words they can be manipulated to give any answer deemed 'acceptable'.

Expand full comment
David O'Halloran's avatar

For me AI is dangerous. Machines that lie? Not good. We have had a hard enough time of it dealing with other humans and the natural world these last 3 thousand years or so. Why would any of us wish to waste our time arguing with an electronic brick wall or, even more stupidly, believing anything it might "say"?

Expand full comment
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

Yes AI is frustrating. It really does spew back the narrative. Few if any alternative viewpoints are offered.

Expand full comment
boonemcbride's avatar

Hammer-time

>

“Space-time”

Behold: The Aether

(Should I put this on a shirt with vapor vaporwave aesthetics)

Expand full comment