slug.com slug.com

1 2

[bigthink.com]

This idea is only based on the definition of time being a measurement. If we are measuring motion it can only be done with two points of motion. in order to arrive at the idea of time dilation we need a third point which would essentially be a center of gravity.
Then we add a third dimension to time. Time is, under its current definition, simply a measurement of relative particles in motion.

But redefine time as being simply the concept that something is persisting.
It could be just space. The next obvious question should be, "Is anything persisting?". We think there is - but is there? We can't really tell unless we can make a measurement. If nothing is moving time could be zero or it could be infinite. We have no way of knowing. Thus time became a measure of motion.

An interesting question might be, "Could the speed of light be the refresh time of the universe?".

FrankZeleniuk 8 Apr 30
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Two physicists, Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman, did a meticulous review of all the "speed of light" measurements of the different scientists who took them from the time measurements started to be taken until about 2 decades ago. They were astounded to discover that the measurements of the speed was getting progressively slower. Errors in the process of measurement would have the results go either way, but it was persistently in the direction of slowing down. "Nothing constant in the universe but the speed of light" became just "nothing constant." And this has jaw dropping implications. The interview starts @2:25.

Well thanks for that. He does say that the speed of light times Planck's Constant gives us a "constant".
Never the less, I'm inclined to think there is a refresh rate of the Universe. Zero point energy is still not a vacuum but is it relevant? A true vacuum would not even contain space. A refresh rate would include space as well.

@FrankZeleniuk

Zero point energy is still not a vacuum but is it relevant?

It seems it is. Vacuum would then be relative. A vacuum without space is nothing to be defined. But a vaccum here - space containing nothing - has sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence. And then there's zero point energy. Lots of activity measured in a vacuum. Maybe it's a vacuum here, but not in hyperspace or what is also known as the Metaverse.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:334825
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.