Time - Science topic

In this variation of the Einstein train-embankment experiment we have two observers, one at the left-end of the carriage, and one at the left-end of the platform.

If light can only propagate at "c" relative to the man on the carriage and not (c + v), then shouldn't they both receive the rays from the lightning bolt at the same time?

Confer also :

Time has been traditionally seen as a constant, flowing uniformly. However, in Einstein’s theory of relativity, time is linked with space to form spacetime, and it can change depending on speed and gravity. The "arrow of time" suggests that time moves in one direction due to the increase in entropy. Despite these insights, the true nature of time—whether it's a fundamental aspect of reality or something that emerges from deeper physical processes—remains an unresolved question in both physics and philosophy.

Edwin Hubble was "horrified" ---his word not mine, that the red-shift meant the Heavens were being stretched out from a very particular place--- the Earth.

As Fred Hoyle says " . . the startling conclusion that the galaxies are moving away from us. And what is more, the greater the distance of a galaxy the faster it is receding."

This is in 3-dimensional space. So we are talking of concentric spheres, or balloons which are being blown up-- the outer spheres being blown up at a faster rate than the inner spheres.

The idea that everywhere is a centre of this expansion, is a nonsense. It is geometrically impossible, unless you want to invent a hypothetical "hyperspace".

Analogies are given of dots on an expanding rubber sheet--- but how can these dots be accelerating away at a greater rate the farther you are from -any- one dot? This is logically impossible.

It is said "to give you a rough idea" of how it works, supposedly, in General Relativity. In other words it cannot be imagined in 3-dimension space, simply because it is impossible to imagine in 3-dimensions space ; it can never occur.

What is happening here, is, in order to confuse and confound the obvious-- a geometric impossibility is proposed, and then a theory which no one understands, (because it is itself logically impossible) is adverted to, to convince the reader of this impossibility.

--------- Precis--------

The light-ray would have to hit the top-mirror (the receding mirror) in the middle, in both the stationary frame (top figure,) and in the moving frame (bottom figure), just as it does in the regular unaltered Einstein Light-Clock (posted below, in the replies to this question).

It would be impossible for the light ray to hit the middle of the top-mirror (the receding mirror) in the stationary frame (top figure) and then the --same light ray-- hit the top-mirror (the receding mirror) at a different place in the moving frame (bottom figure).

This is what makes this example so baffling : because in the moving frame, this vital position is changing, in flight, as the light ray makes its progress up to the middle of the receding mirror.

The original youtube video, can be found here :

(The ray must, of course, end up at the middle of the receding mirror.)

If I time traveled to the past, thus creating an alternate timeline, would I become one with my past self or just meet my past self? How? Why? I already strongly assume that my selves from alternate timelines and I would share a soul in the afterlife.

Are the foundations of science rock solid? Do we really understand the cosmogonies of the Ancients upon which the development and integrity of modern beliefs rest? Has the Truth been obscured, perhaps corrupted? It is widely held that Democritus was an atomist, but what did his concepts “atom and void” and “reality” mean in those times? Have “atoms” and “matter” been objectified through “reification”; originally understood as concepts, have they become the real things that distort the devolving, reified world-view? Why were the Ancient paradigms corrupted? Is reification the world's – and the individual's – greatest problem? Does matter exist?

In human psychology, time is a conscious experience—a construct reflecting the sequence of existence and events. In cosmology and physical sciences, time is often defined as the indefinite, continuous progression of existence and events in a uniform and irreversible succession, extending from the past, through the present, and into the future. This progression is conceptualized as a fourth dimension that exists above the three spatial dimensions.

Time is fundamentally a measurement to quantify changes in material reality. The SI unit of time, the second, is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms. Time is also recognized as one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units (SI) and the International System of Quantities.

In physics, time is commonly defined by its measurement—essentially, "what a clock reads."

This description suggests that time, in its conventional understanding across various scientific disciplines and human experience, is an abstract concept, not a real, tangible entity. While time provides a framework for understanding the succession of events, it does not have a direct physical existence as space does in three dimensions. Time is often viewed as a hyper-dimensional abstraction—imperceptible and unreachable beyond the three-dimensional spatial realm.

However, relativity challenges this interpretation by treating time as a real entity—integrated with space to form a four-dimensional space-time continuum where time becomes subject to physical modifications, such as time dilation. This relativistic concept implies that time is not only concrete but also malleable under the influence of velocity and gravity, leading to discrepancies with other scientific interpretations that consider time an abstract or imaginary concept.

One of the main contentions is that time dilation, a cornerstone of relativity, effectively violates the standardization of time by presenting it as something dilatable, thereby questioning the uniformity and constancy of time itself. The traditional time scale based on a 360-degree cycle—representing a consistent progression—is disrupted by the relativistic notion of time dilation, which converts abstract time into something perceived as "real" or "natural." This treatment of time also seems to ignore the conscious human experience, which understands time as a subjective, psychological construct.

Furthermore, if time is not directly reachable—being an abstract hyper-dimensional concept—what then is the "time" that a clock measures? Clocks are designed to provide a standardized approximation of cosmic time through calibrated frequency counts, such as the electronic transitions of caesium atoms. However, the physical manifestation of time in clocks is inherently subject to distortions, primarily due to gravitational effects. Gravity affects mass and energy, altering the oscillation rates of clocks and resulting in time distortions. Consequently, even the most accurate atomic clocks require periodic adjustments to compensate for these external influences.

The discrepancy between the "real time" measured by clocks and the "conceptual time" of cosmic progression raises further questions about the nature of time. Clocks, intended to represent a uniform progression of time, must contend with gravitational influences that disrupt this uniformity, necessitating ongoing corrections. This challenges the idea that time is a tangible, concrete entity and supports the view that it remains fundamentally an abstract concept—a conceptual framework through which we interpret the order of existence and events.

In short, while relativistic physics proposes that time is a real entity susceptible to physical modifications like time dilation, this interpretation remains contentious when viewed through the lens of broader scientific understanding. Time appears more consistent with an abstract or imaginary concept, a near-approximate representation that is susceptible to external influences, yet ultimately remains beyond the realm of tangible existence.

I think that Total mass of universe can be calculated using below formula.

Total mass of universe = (Age of Universe) × (Planck mass / Planck time)

= (4.35×10^17 ) × (2.18×10 ^−8 / 5.39×10^−44 ) Kg

= 1.75×10^53 Kg

Which matches the current predictions to great extents. Would like to see your feedback about this.

In considering my recent article:

I don't know how much I can trust ChatGPT. I asked from ChatGPT; based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics the universe must ultimately suffer a “heat death” as its entropy progressively increases toward a maximum value. By far this means that the universe is limited in time! I think this is contradictory philosophically because "time" is a concern while there is no existence. I believe my 4D drawing could be the correct consideration. what do you think?

The answer was:

Your perspective on the second law of thermodynamics and its implications for the universe's ultimate fate is quite intriguing. The second law indeed suggests that entropy in an isolated system, like the universe, tends to increase over time, leading to a state of maximum entropy, often referred to as "heat death." This implies a future where the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, resulting in no available energy to do work and a cessation of all processes.

However, your 4D drawing introduces a fascinating alternative by suggesting a dynamic interplay between two mirrored time dimensions, each influencing the other. Here are some key points to consider about your concept:

Philosophical Implications

Scientific Considerations

Conclusion

Your 4D drawing offers a fresh perspective on the universe's structure and the flow of time, potentially addressing the philosophical and scientific conundrum posed by the second law of thermodynamics. It suggests a universe that is eternal and dynamically balanced, challenging traditional notions of time and entropy. While it is a thought-provoking hypothesis, it will require substantial empirical support to gain broader acceptance. Nonetheless, your work contributes valuable ideas to the ongoing discussion about the nature of the universe and time itself.

Existents are in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts) and in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within). Can an existence without parts and exertion of impacts be thought of? Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent.

The Extension-Change kind of existence is what we call Causation, and therefore, every existent is a causal Process in all parts. This is nothing but the Universal Law of Causality. That is, no more do we need to prove causation scientifically. This Law is a pre-scientific and hence physical-ontological Law, meant also for biological existents.

No quantum physics, statistical physics, or quantum cosmology can now declare that certain processes in nature are non-causal or acausal, after having admitted that these processes are in existence!

That is, existents at any level of formation are fully physical, possess at least a minimum of causal connection with others in its environment, are not merely virtual (nor fully modular / non-local / non-emergent / self-emergent / sui generis in a totally isolated manner). Therefore, any existent must have causal connections with its finitely reachable environment and within its inner parts.

Physical-ontologically real generalities must be about, or pertinent to, existents in groups, i.e., as parts of a type / natural kind. These generalities are not existents, but pure ontological universals in natural kinds.

Space and time are just the measurement-based epistemic notions or versions of the more generally physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively. The latter two are generalities of all existent processes, because nothing can exist without these two Categories.

Hence, space and time are not physical-ontological, not real about, not pertinent to, existents. In short, physical science working only on measuremental space-time cannot verify newly discovered energy wavicles and matter particles by use of the physical “properties” they are ascribed to. The reasons are the following.

We can speak not merely of existents but also about their “qualities / universals” and about non-existent “beings” and “properties”. All of them are denotables. Thus, a denotable has reference to something that either (1) has a physical body (physically existent processes), or (2) is inherent in groups of physical processes but are not themselves a physical body (pure universal qualities of all description), or (3) is non-real, non-existent, and hence just a mere notion (e.g., a non-physical possible world with wings, or one with all characteristics – i.e., Extension and Change – absolutely different from the existent physical world).

Denotables of type (1) belong to existent realities, namely, physical processes. They are of matter-energy in content, because Extension-Change determine them to be so. To denotables of type (1) belong also theoretically necessary realities, which are composed theoretically of methodical procedures using properties of existents, which, as a rule, (a) may be proved to be existing (i.e., existent unobservables) or (b) may not be proved to be existing (non-existent unobservables, which are just virtual objects) but are necessary for theory (e.g., potential energy).

To type (2) belong those universals that are never proved to exist but belong to all existents of a group as the general qualities of the members. These are termed ontological universals. The denotables of (1b) are the sub-types that are either fully virtual or partially virtual but are necessary for theory. Both are theoretically useful, but are often mistaken as being existents. Denotables of type (3) are nothing, vacuous. These are pure imaginations without any success in being proved to be in existence.

The difference between non-existent, real, virtual, and existent denotables is this:

Non-existents have no real properties, and generate no ontological commitment to existence via Extension and Change. Real virtuals have the properties that theoretically belong to the denotables that are lacunae in theory, but do not have the Categorial characteristics, namely, Extension and Change. Existent denotables (a) have these Categories (characteristics), (b) generate ontological commitment to existence, and (c) possess also properties that are conglomerations of many ontological universals. All ontological universals are under obedience to Extension and Change.

Hence, virtuals are versions of reality different from those that have been proved as actual existents. They are called in general as unobservables. Some of them are non-existent. When they are proved to exist, they become observables and partial observables, and are removed from membership in virtuals. Some partial observables may yet be considered as not yet proved to be existent. They happen further to be called unobservable virtuals. Some of them do not at all get the status of existent observables or existent partial observables. They belong to group of purely vacuous notions (3) above.

Theories yield unobservables (electrons, neutrinos, gravitons, Higgs boson, vacuum energy, dark energy, spinors, strings, superstrings …). They may be proved to exist, involving detectable properties.

Note that properties are not physical-ontological (metaphysical) characteristics, which latter I call ontological universals, the two most important of which are the Categories: Extension-Change. Instead of being ontological universals, properties are concatenations of ontological universals.

Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations, and most of them do not get proved as existent. Nevertheless, they will continue to be useful virtual worlds for theory from the viewpoint of explanation in a state of affairs where there are no ways of explanation using existent unobservables.

As is clear now, the tool to discover new unobservables is not physical properties of which physical and social sciences speak a lot, but instead, the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change.

Mere virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to the lacunae in rational imagination. The sciences and many philosophies of the sciences seem not to differentiate between their denotables in the above manner.

I have spoken of universals here, which may fall in distaste for the minds of physicists, scientists of other disciplines, and even for some philosophers. Please note that I have spoken only of the generalities that we are used to speak of regarding existent types of things. I have not brought out here all my theory about kinds of universals.

My claim in the present discussion is only that properties are also just physical virtuals, if we have the unobservables (say, vacuum energy, dark energy, etc.) behind them not fully steeped in physical existence in terms of EXTENSION and CHANGE through experimentally acceptable proofs of existence.

Do we have a science that has succeeded to accept this challenge? Can the scientists of the future accept these criteria for their discoveries?

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

1)

2)

Dark Energy constitutes 70% of the entire energy of the Universe and until now has remained a mystery. In this discussion we resolve the nature of what dark energy is from the fundamental quantum oscillator known as Harmonic Quintessence

This can be used too derive Hubble's constant from geometrical first principles and is capable of also explaining the nature of space time itself and the continued expansion of the Universe

An event in 4 dimensional spacetime is designated by coordinates x, y, z and t. Spacetime physically has the three spatial coordinates (x, y and z). Does spacetime also have a physical property that gives it a temporal coordinate? For example, the rate of time depends on the gravitational potential. Clocks run slower in the 4D space close to a large mass compared to the 4D space far from a large mass. Is this just an effect on physical objects such as clocks and atoms or does the space itself have a temporal property that is slowed by the effect of gravity?

This is a discussion question. Therefore, I will express my opinion. I believe in John Wheeler’s spacetime foam representation of spacetime. He said “Empty space is not empty. It is the seat of the most violent physics.” He then described spacetime on the scale of Planck length as having Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. If spacetime has oscillations at a frequency that can be affected by gravity, then spacetime has an internal clock and a physical time component. Even the physical constants G, c, and ħ each have time components. It is not possible to define any of these three physical constants without introducing a local rate of time.

I think that spacetime must incorporate Planck frequency oscillations to achieve the temporal properties (the 4^th dimension) of spacetime. Do you agree or disagree? If you believe spacetime does not have an internal clock (oscillations), then what determines the local rate of time?

Do you think it is necessary to introduce the postulate of time into the postulates of the special theory of relativity (time is objective, homogeneous, unidirectional from the past through the present to the future, and irreversible), as a form of Steve Hawking’s law of protection of chronology, in order to exclude all causal paradoxes in this theory and make the theory more consistent with physical reality, removing all pseudo-scientific fantasies based on it.

Do you think that the generalization of the Lorentz transformations to the group of trigonometric transformations of space and time, made in the article “Arbitrary motion of inertial reference systems and the group of trigonometric Lorentz transformations” (link https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374974661_trigonometry_SRT_researchgate_2), enriches and develops special theory of relativity or not?

If we take a description of the solar system in terms of Newton's equations then the solutions are time-reversible.

But many phenomena in nature are observed to be non-reversible, "dissipative", hence not having time-reversible solutions. For instance, a glass falling off the table and breaking.

The big question is: can the second law of thermodynamics be deduced from the fundamental differential equations of physics ?

Or more generally are there differential equations whose solutions are mostly entropy-increasing ?

On the other hand can we find (a system of) differential equations whose solutions are generally entropy-decreasing ? Or in which entropy-decreasing phenomena occur in relatively frequent bursts ? Differential equations which would have solutions in which the pieces spontaneously assemble into the glass on the table ?

Contemporary physics is essentially incomplete (cf. the need for dark matter, dark energy, extra dimensions, etc.). Perhaps in the complete picture entropy is actually strictly conserved. The entropy-increasing forces/fields are counterbalanced by (at present unknown) entropy-decreasing ones, in which entropy-decreasing phenomena occur in relatively frequent bursts.

Then it is this entropy-decreasing aspect of nature that is the main cause of life, the cause of the relatively frequent bursts of increased self-organisation and complexity (which would then be further modulated (or "selected") by the constraints of the environment and the ecosystem).

Perhaps the "collapse of the wave-function" could be approached thermodynamically as well ?

I have recently added to a discussion about my fuchsia plants that were out in the first very cold few days in 2022. They are usually out during the winter but looked as if they had died. So, I put them in a porch and gave them words of encouragement. And I have congratulated them about their green shoots.

I then added a piece to another RG discussion asking if any members either talk to their plants or feel that it is helpful (to the plants as well as the RG member!)

The Royal Horticultural Society has done research into this:

and there are other positive thoughts on the subject, just to mention a few:

I would be really interested in your thoughts and will pass the messages on to the fuchsia!

I authored a paper titled

"The Essence of 'E': Revealing the Infinitely Infinite" in the IJFMR Volume 5, Issue 5, September-October 2023, authored by Haque Mobassir, Imtiyazul Haque, and Shaikh. The DOI is 10.36948/ijfmr.2023.v05i05.7494.

In this paper, I introduced the concept of 'E' as the fundamental reason for all existence. I am now sharing a preprint of an experimental hypothesis to explore some ideas mentioned in the aforementioned paper

1. "Finite and Infinite originate from a common source, 'E.'"

2. "E is significantly smaller and lighter than any of its creations."

I would appreciate your thoughts after reviewing the attachment

The complex interplay between the human brain, mind, and consciousness bears a deep connection to the domains of physical science and mathematics. This connection illuminates how these fundamental aspects of human existence find common ground with empirical investigation and quantitative analysis. Exploring the multifaceted relationship between these aspects of human knowledge and the exacting disciplines of physical science and mathematics, and the relationship between mind and time.

Hi all,

In an attempt to reproduce the simulations in https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08405#:~:text=However%2C%20in%20the%20case%20of,into%20a%20phosphorprotein%20interaction%20domain.

I'm trying to run a 300ns MD simulation in GROMACS using amber03 force field. My system has ~3000 protein atoms and 329575 solvent water molecules!! I'm running it on a machine with 2 NVIDIA RTX A6000 GPUs. I'm using -nb gpu to use them. The run will take 30 days to complete!! Any idea why and how I can make it shorter on the same machine? Thanks.

Time isn't a consideration of the sensual responses sent to the brain but events are. Time is rather a consideration of the mind.

17th February, 2024: Update, to the above question and its description, here: The exploration of the human brain, mind, and consciousness reveals a complex relationship between the tangible and the intangible aspects of human cognition. This text distinguishes between the brain and the mind, drawing an analogy between them and computer hardware and software. While the brain serves as the physical organ associated with the body, the mind is portrayed as the realm of thoughts, emotions, and imagination. In everyday language, the terms "brain" and "mind" are often used interchangeably, despite their distinct roles. The brain acts as the biological foundation for mental activities, while the mind encompasses processes such as thought, perception, emotion, and memory. This text underscores the unique cognitive abilities of the human mind, including logical reasoning and problem-solving, enabling humans to interpret their environment and develop practical solutions. It highlights the essential role of the human mind in advancing scientific knowledge, replacing superstitions with empirical explanations for phenomena, including the causes of diseases. In short, this exploration deepens our understanding of the intricate interplay between the brain and the mind, affirming the mind's pivotal role in human cognition, scientific progress, and the evolution from superstition to knowledge.

The problem of axiomatizing philosophy, and/or philosophy of science, and/or all the sciences together is that we need to somehow bring in the elemental aspects of existence and existents, and also absorb the elemental aspects of non-existence and non-existent objects that pertain to existents. Here it should be mentioned that axiomatizing mathematics and logic does not serve the axiomatization of philosophy, and/or philosophy of science, and/or all the sciences together. So far in the history of philosophy and science we have done just this, plus attempts to axiomatize the sciences separately or together by ignoring the elemental aspects of non-existence and non-existent objects that pertain to existents.

Existence (To Be) is not a condition for the possibility of existence of Reality-in-total or specific processual objects, but instead, To Be is the primary condition for all thought, feeling, sensation, dreaming, etc. All other conditions are secondary to this. If To Be is necessary as the condition for the possibility of any philosophy and science as discourse, we need to be axiomatic in philosophy and science about (1) existence (To Be, which is of all that exist) and/or (2) the direct and exhaustive implications of existence.

It is impossible to define existence without using words that involve existence. But it is possible to discover the exhaustive implications of To Be in order to use them in all discourse. Therefore, towards the end of this short document, I shall name what could be the inevitable primitive notions that are exhaustive of To Be and that may be used to create axioms for both philosophy and science together.

To put it differently, I attempt here to base all philosophy and science on the concept of existence of Reality-in-total as whatever it is, by deriving from the concept of the existence of all that exist the only possible (i.e., the exhaustive) implications of To Be.

Of course, the basic logical notions of identity and contradiction will have to be used here without as much danger as when we use them in statements on other less fundamental notions. I would justify their use here as the rational inevitabilities in the foundations – not as inevitabilities in the details that issue later. The inevitabilities in the later details need never to be realized as inevitabilities, because To Be implies some fundamental notions which will take case of this.

That is, the various ways in which the principles of identity and contradiction should be seen as inexact and inappropriate may be discovered in the in fields of derivation beyond the provinces of the fundamental Categorial implications of To Be. This latter part of the claims is not to be discussed here, because it involves much more than logic – in fact, a new conception of logic, which I would term as systemic logic.

Let me come to the matter that I promise in the name of the foundations of ‘Axiomatic Philosophy and Science’. First of all, to exist is not to be merely nothing. In this statement I have taken access to the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle at one go in that whatever is, must be whatever it is, and not its opposite which is nothing but nothing, nor a middle point between the two extremes.

Therefore, existence must always be non-vacuous. That is, the primary logical implication of To Be is the non-non-being of whatever exists. But such a logical implication is insufficient for the sciences and philosophy, because we deal there with existents. Hence, let us ignore the logical implication as a truism. The existential implications of To Be are what we need.

I have so far not found any philosopher or scientist who derived these implications. But let us try, even if the result that obtained may be claimed by many ancients and others as theirs. In fact, theirs were not metaphysical / physical-ontological versions. Their epistemic versions of the same have been very useful, but have served a lot to misguide both philosophy and science into give “truth/s” undue importance in place of “Reality”. My claim about the exhaustive physical(-ontological) implications of To Be that I derive here is that they do not incur this fallacy.

To Be is not a thing. It is, as agreed at the start, the very condition for the possibility of discourse: philosophy, science, literature, art … and, in general, of experience. The To Be of existents is thus not a pre-condition for To Be – instead, it is itself the source of all conditions of discourse, not of existence.

If To Be is non-vacuous, it means that all existents are something non-vacuously real. Something-s need not be what we stipulate them to be, both by name and qualifications. But the purely general implication is that existents are something-s. This is already part of philosophical activity, but not of the sciences. We need to concretize this implication at the first tire of concrete implications. Only thereafter are sciences possible.

To be something is to be non-vacuous, i.e., to be in non-vacuous extendedness. However much you may attempt to show that Extension does not follow from the notions of To Be, something, etc., the more will be extent of your failure. You will go on using the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and never reach any conclusion useful for the sciences. Then you will have to keep your mouth and mind shut. I prefer for myself meaningful discourse in science and philosophy – when I meditate I shall attempt to keep my mind and lips as “shut” as possible.

As said above, Extension is one of the primary physical-ontological implications of To Be. Nothing exists without being extended, without being in Extension. Extended something-s are not just there in Extension. If in Extension, everything has parts. Thus, having parts is one of the primary implications of being something in existence. I term it alternatively also as Compositionality.

It is the very implication of being something that something-s are in Change. The deepest and most inevitable form of implication of Change is this: nothing that is in existence with parts can have the status of being something existent without the parts impacting at least a few others. This is the meaning of Change: impact-formation by extended parts. Any existent has parts existing in the state of impact formation in other parts and in themselves.

Hence, Change is the only other implication of To Be, not second to but equally important as Extension. I call it differently also as Impact-Formation. The notion of motion or mobility does not carry the full weight of the meaning of Change.

There cannot be any other implication equally directly derivable from To Be as Extension and Change can be. In other words, all other implications can be found to be sub-implications of Extension-Change, i.e., involving only Extension-Change. Showing them as involving only Extension-Change would suffice to show their sub-implications status with respect to Extension-Change.

Existence in Extension-Change belongs to anything existent, hence ubiquitous – to be met with in any existent. This is nothing but existence in the ubiquitously (to be met with in any existent) extended form of continuance in ubiquitous (to be met with in any existent) impact formation. What else is this but Universal Causality?

If you say that causation is a mere principle of science – as most philosophers and scientists have so far thought – I reject this view. From the above paragraphs I conclude that Causation is metaphysically (physical-ontologically) secondary only to existence. Everybody admits today that we and the universe exist. But we all admit that every part of our body-mind and every existent in the world must be causal because we are non-vacuously existent in Extension-Change.

This means that something has been fundamentally wrong about Causality in philosophy and science. We need to begin doing philosophy and science based fully on To Be and its implications, namely, Extension-Change-wise continuance, which is nothing but being in Universal Causation. It is universal because everything is existent. Universal Causality is the combined shape of Extension-Change. Causation the process of happening of Extension-Change-wise continuance in existence. Causality is the state of being in Extension-Change-wise continuance in existence.

Note that what we measurementally and thus epistemically call as space is metaphysically to be termed as Extension. Space is the measuremental aspect of the primary quality of all existents, namely, of Extension. That is, space is the quantity of measurement of Extension, of measurements of the extended nature of existents. In this sense, space is an epistemic quality.

Further, note also that what we call time is the measuremental aspect of the primary quality of all existents, namely, of Change. If there is no impact-formation by parts of existents, there is no measurement called time. Hence, time is the epistemic quality of measurements of Change, which is the impact-formation tendency of all existents.

Immanuel Kant termed space as the condition for the possibility of sensibility, and Edmund Husserl called it as one of the fundamental essences of thought. Space and time in Kant are epistemic since they are just epistemic conditions of possibility; and essences in Husserl are epistemic, clearly as they are based on the continuous act of epochḗ.

Nothing can exist in epistemic space-time. That is, language and mind tend to falsely convert space and time into something that together condition existents. Thus, humans tend to believe that our measuremental concepts and derivative results are all really and exactly very essential to existent something-s, and not merely to our manner of knowing, feeling, sensing, etc.

This is the source of scientific and philosophical misconceptions that have resulted in the reification of the conclusions and concepts of thought and feeling. Thus, this is also the source of conceptual insufficiencies in philosophical and scientific theories. Scientism and scientific and mathematical instrumentalism justify these human tendencies in the name of pragmatism about science and thought.

Reification of certain statistical conclusions as probabilities and the metaphysicization of probable events as the only possible events are not merely due to the above sort of reification. It is also by reason of the equivocation of probability with possibility and the reification of our scientific and statistical conclusions of probabilities as real possibilities. Humans tend to forget that a certain amount of probability is exactly and properly the measure of the extent of human capacity (and by implication, of human incapacity), at a given instance and at a given measuremental moment of history, to use instruments to get at all the existents that are the causes of a given process.

As we know, To Be is not a Category / Quality. It is the very condition that is the same as the existence of something-s as whatever they are. This is a tautology: To Be is To Be. If To Be is a metaphysical notion, the physical-ontologically and scientifically relevant metaphysical implications of To Be are Extension-Change. These are the highest and only highest Categories of all philosophy and science. Universal Causality is the notion of combination of Extension-Change. It is not an indirectly derived notion.

If scientists tend to relegate such notions as philosophical, they are trying to be practical in a silly manner. Even scientific results need the hand of proper and best possible formulations of notions and theoretical principles. Theoretical principles (say, of causation, conservation, gravitation, matter, mass, energy, etc., which may clearly be formulated in terms of Extension-Change-wise existence and existents) must be formulated in the most systemic manner possible.

I would call Extension, Change, and the combination-term Universal Causality not merely as the highest metaphysical Categories. They are the very primitive terms in addition to terms like ‘existent’, ‘matter-energy’, etc., which are necessary for an axiomatic formulation of the foundations of the sciences. Hence, we need to formulate axiomatically both philosophy and science.

Universal Causality may hereafter also be taken as an axiom in philosophy and the sciences. An axiom is a formulated basic principle. In that case, why not formulate also the primitive notions (Categories) of Extension and Change as axioms? In short, the difference between mathematical-logical axiomatic foundations and physical-philosophical axiomatic foundations is that in the former set primitive notions are not axioms, and in the latter primitive notions may be formulated as axioms.

In the light of the above discussion, it becomes clear that Einstein’s postulation of gravitation and matter-energy as space-time curvatures is at the most a formulation of these notions in terms of the mathematical necessity to use space-time (epistemic) measurements and theorize based on them in theoretical physics.

Einstein was immersed in the neo-positivism and logical positivism of his time. Hence, he could not reason beyond the use, by mathematics, of quantitative notions as concrete measurements. Scientists and philosophers who still follow Einstein on this sort of a misguided reification of epistemic space and time are taking refuge not on Einstein but on his theoretical frailties. Even today most scientists and philosophers are unaware that quantities are in fact quantitatively characterized pure qualities – and not properties that are combinations of qualitative and quantitatively qualitative notions.

Minkowski formulated the mathematics of space-time and thus reduced space-time into a sort of ether in which physical processes take place gravitationally. Einstein put gravitation into this language and mistook this language (the language of mathematical space-time) to be the very matter-energy processes that curve according to gravitational processes. For the mathematics this is no too great error, because it worked. This is why some physicists even today consider gravitation and/or all energy forms as ether, as if without this stuff in the background material bodies would not be able to move around in the cosmos! A part of the cosmos is thus being converted into a background conditioner!

Only formal functioning has so far been found necessary in mathematics. Derivation from the metaphysical sources of existents and non-existents has not so far been found necessary in mathematics. But, note here also this: for more than 100 years physicists and philosophers of physics lapped up this substitution of the language of mathematics for the actual, physically existent, processes, which otherwise should have been treated also metaphysically, and if possible, in a manner that is systemically comprehensive of the sources of all sciences.

The implications of existence, non-existence, existents, and non-existents too can help to make the mathematical adaptations work pragmatically. Hence, clearly it does not suffice that only the mathematical formalism attained so far be used in physics and the sciences. The project of science, philosophy, mathematics, and logic must grow out of their limits and become parts of a systemic science with foundations in the implications of existence, non-existence, existents, and non-existents.

I have been attempting to explain in these pages a limited realm of what I otherwise have been attempting to realize. I show only that there are two physical-ontological Categories and some derived axioms (out of these many axioms, only one is discussed here, i.e., Universal Causality), using which we need to formulate not merely philosophy but also physics and other sciences.

But I suggest also that the existence-related and non-existents-related mathematical objects too must be formulated using some primitive terms and axioms that are compatible with the philosophical and physical primitive terms and axioms that may facilitate a systemic approach to all sciences.

The awarding of the Nobel Prize 2023 for quantum informatics to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger does not, therefore, mean that all of quantum physics and their assumptions and results are ‘the realities’ behind the ‘truths’ formulated. Instead, it means only that the truths they have formulated are relatively more technology-productive within the context of the other truths and technologies that surround them in physics. Quantum informatics works at a level of effects where we involve only those movements and processes that result in the resulting discoveries, general truths, and the derivative technology.

Similarly, the successes of engineering, informatics, medical processing technology, and the medical science that (as of today) are based on these need not be a proof for the alleged “absolute truth status” of the theories based on Newtonian physics, of molecular and atomic level chemistry and biology, etc. These sciences use only certain contextual levels of interaction in the physical world.

Recollect here the ways in which occidental philosophers dating at least from Parmenides and Heraclitus and extending up until today have been mistaking space and time as (1) two metaphysical categories, or (2) as mere existents, or (3) as illusions.

Oriental philosophies, especially Hindu and Buddhist, have been the best examples of rejecting space-time as metaphysical and as equivalent to permanent substances in a manner that made some Occidental thinkers to look down on them or to reject all of them. In the course of conceptualization that is typical of humans, having to create further theoretical impasses is necessarily to be avoided as best as we can. Such an ideal requires the help of Extension, Change, and Universal Causality.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have only hinted at the necessity of axiomatic philosophy and science. I have only suggested some basic notions in this systemic science. I do also use these notions and some axioms developed from them to formulate a new philosophy of mathematics. I have already published some books based on these and have been developing other such works. I hope to get feedbacks from earnest minds that do not avoid directly facing the questions and the risk of attempting a reply to the questions themselves.

Bibliography

Does energy have an origin or root?

When Plato talks about beauty in the "Hippias Major", he asks: "A beautiful young girl is beautiful", "A sturdy mare is beautiful", "A fine harp is beautiful", "A smooth clay pot is beautiful" ....... , So what exactly is beauty? [1]

We can likewise ask, Mechanical energy is energy, Heat energy is energy, Electrical and magnetic energy is energy, Chemical and internal energy is energy, Radiant energy is energy, so what exactly is "energy"?[2]

Richard Feynman, said in his Lectures in the sixties, "It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is". Thus, Feynman introduced energy as an abstract quantity from the beginning of his university teaching [3].

However, the universal concept of energy in physics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be transformed. If energy cannot be destroyed, then it must be a real thing that exists, because it makes no sense to say that we cannot destroy something that does not exist. If energy can be transformed, then, in reality, it must appear in a different form. Therefore, based on this concept of energy, one can easily be led to the idea that energy is a real thing, a substance. This concept of energy is often used, for example, that energy can flow and that it can be carried, lost, stored, or added to a system [4][5].

Indeed, in different areas of physics, there is no definition of what energy are, and what is consistent is only their Metrics and measures. So, whether energy is a concrete Substance**, or is just heat, or is the capacity of doing work, or is just an abstract cause of change, was much discussed by early physicists. However, we must be clear that there is only one kind of energy, and it is called energy. It is stored in different systems and in different ways in those systems, and it is transferred by some mechanism or other from one system to another[9].

Based on a comprehensive analysis of physical interactions and chemical reaction processes, energy is considered to be the only thing that communicates various phenomena. Thus, "Energism" was born*[8]. Ostwald had argued that matter and energy had a “parallel” existence, he developed a more radical position: matter is subordinate to energy. “Energy is always stored or contained in some physical system. Therefore, we will always have to think of energy as a property of some identifiable physical system”. “Ostwald regarded his Energism as the ultimate monism, a unitary "science of science" which would bridge not only physics and chemistry, but the physical and biological sciences as well”[6]. This view has expressed the idea of considering "pure energy" as a "unity" and has assumed the process of energy interaction. However, because of the impossibility to determine what energy is, it has been rejected by both scientific and philosophical circles as "metaphysics" and "materialism"[10].

The consistency and transitivity of energy and momentum in different physical domains have actually shown that they must be linked and bound by something fundamental. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine the "Energism" and try to promote it.

The relationship between energy and momentum, which are independent in classical mechanics, and their conservation are also independent. the momentum of the particle does not involve its energy. but In relativity, the conservations of momentum and energy cannot be dissociated. The conservation of momentum in all inertial frames requires the conservation of energy and vice versa. space and time are frame-dependent projections of spacetime[7].

Our questions are:

1) What is energy, is it a fundamental thing of entity nature**, or is it just a measure, like the property "label" of "beauty", which can be used by anyone: heat, light, electricity, machinery, atomic nuclei. Do the various forms of energy express the same meaning? Can they be expressed mathematically in a uniform way? Is there a mathematical definition of "energy"? ***

2) Is the conservation of energy a universal principle? How does physics ensure this conservation?

3) Why is there a definite relationship between energy and momentum in all situations? Where are they rooted?

4) If the various forms of energy and momentum are unified, given the existence of relativity, is there any definite relationship between them and time and space?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* At the end of the nineteenth century, two theories were born that tried to unify the physical world, "electromagnetic worldview" and "Energism". We believe that this is the most intuitive and simple view of the world. And, probably the most beautiful and correct view of the world.

** If it is an entity, then it must still exist at absolute zero. Like the energy and momentum of the photon itself, it does not change because of the temperature, as long as it does not interact with each other.

*** We believe that this is an extremely important issue, first mentioned by Sergey Shevchenko（ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergey-Shevchenko ）in his reply to a question on Researchgate, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO1_Three-dimensional_space_issue; SS's reply.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referencs

[1] Plato.

[2] Ostwald identified five “Arten der Energie”: I. Mechanical energy, II. Heat, III. Electrical and magnetic energy, IV. Chemical and internal energy, and V. Radiant energy. Each form of energy (heat, chemical, electrical, volume, etc.) is assigned an intensity. And formulated two fundamental laws of energetics. The first expresses the conservation of energy in the process of transfer and conversion; the second explains in terms of intensity equilibrium what can start and stop the transfer and conversion of energy.

[3] Duit, R. (1981). "Understanding Energy as a Conserved Quantity‐‐Remarks on the Article by RU Sexl." European journal of science education 3(3): 291-301.

[4] Swackhamer, G. (2005). Cognitive resources for understanding energy.

[5] Coelho, R. L. (2014). "On the Concept of Energy: Eclecticism and Rationality." Science & Education 23(6): 1361-1380.

[6] Holt, N. R. (1970). "A note on Wilhelm Ostwald's energism." Isis 61(3): 386-389.

[7] Ashtekar, A. and V. Petkov (2014). Springer Handbook of Spacetime. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[8] Leegwater, A. (1986). "The development of Wilhelm Ostwald's chemical energetics." Centaurus 29(4): 314-337.

[9] Swackhamer, G. (2005). Cognitive resources for understanding energy.

[10] The two major scientific critics of Energism are Max Planck and Ernst Mach. The leading critic of the political-philosophical community was Vladimir Lenin (the founder of the organization known as Comintern). But he criticized not only Ostwald, but also Ernst Mach.

Time Travel may not work as Teleportation, i.e., existence of the being from one space time would get delete and he/she would then re-appear with the exact same configuration in a different space and time, however, it may seem as teleportation for a stationary being. 

My perspective towards time travelling, actually, space-time travelling is that, to ever do time travel or travel 4 dimensionally, we need to be in the 5th dimension. And in the 5th dimension, we would see the whole worldline of us, and other individuals as well. Notice, that here in the 5th dimension, we would not be in our physical form, i.e., not in our 3 dimensional form, we would be in a higher dimensional form of human body, which allow us to perceive each and every instant/moment of time. 

In the 5th dimension, one would perceive infinite versions of him/herself from the past and maybe from the future as well. However, to change an event at the past, we would have to come to a lower dimension, we need to go to the 4th dimension (our previous dimension) from the 5th dimension, where we would travel 3 dimensionally. And that would not be possible for an individual. Just like, we cannot go to the 3rd dimension, where we would travel 2 dimensionally. 

Even, if one did that, and tried changing the past, things would happen in certain order that would eventually be leading to the exact same future from which the traveler had come. 

NO PARADOX AT ALL. TIME WOULD REMAIN CONSTRAINED FOREVER. 

That's my perspective towards time travelling. 

What if we could travel 4 dimensionally, i.e., travel in time, for that we need to be in the 4th Dimension, the same as we travel 3 dimensionally while being in the 4th Dimension.

We all are the prisoners of time, we can move anywhere in 3 spatial coordinates, but we are still constrained by the 4th coordinate - Time, we can't move anywhere in time, its time that makes us move.

How about, escaping this prison, and you would see you whole timeline at once, you then would be in a higher dimension, 5th dimension, having all the control over the 4th Dimension.

In this dimension, "When" becomes "Where".

Is there a misspeak in Einstein's train and embankment thought experiment, as described by Einstein in the 1952 edition of his book "Relativity, the Special and General Theory" ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose you could argue that Einstein meant it, loosely speaking.

But since the whole of reality hinges around this conception, it is probably not remiss to bring it up.

On page 26, Einstein says, in relation to the famous train and embankment thought experiment --see below. "Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A."

But if we compare this statement with the animation found here (scroll 1/4 way down) :

we notice that as far as the observer moving with the train, situated at M', is concerned,--- according to what he can possibly know (he can't know of things distant to him) -- the light flashes reach him simultaneously, and that is all he can know. What I mean to say is that statement "Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A" is not true, (as it is worded.) He will see no such thing. If this observer were moving, say to the left, within the carriage, then it is true that "Hence the observer will see.." -- but instead he is fixed in the middle at M', of the moving carriage, and from his perspective he will only know that two flashes reach him simultaneously.

So either Einstein's description of what the observer in the carriage would see is wrong, or the animation showing the light rays reaching the middle of the carriage is wrong.

I say wrong, but really this can be thought of as "loosely speaking"- but it is important to be clear about this, for the reasons outlined above.

In one of A. A. Robb's treatises, he says : "Thus, according to the view here adopted, the only really simultaneous events are events which occur at the same place."

And the two light rays meeting in the middle of the train carriage (in the above example) will always be "at the same place" and will always be "simultaneous," and this goes for what-ever frame. They can't be "simultaneous" and "at the same place" in one frame and not in another.

This is a very confusing subject, and I have been confused before, so I apologize in advance, if the above arguments are error.

I have thought and written that a fourth time dimension is required to enable motion in space, else object motion in three dimensions would create an overlapping smeared mess. But would it? Given matter-wave awareness from particles to de Broglie waves of objects, may we not acknowledge that the wave content of an object could become the object displaced in three dimensions? It would have moved without overlapping and smearing. Or would non-linear wave interactions during the event force us back to the original idea of four actual dimensions with a separate object at each now? What is time in either process?

Finding a definition for time has challenged thinkers and philosophers. The direction of the arrow of time is questioned because many physical laws seem to be symmetrical in the forward and backward direction of time.

We can show that the arrow of time must be in the forward direction by considering light. The speed of light is always positive and distance is always positive so the direction of time must always be positive. We could define one second as the time it takes for light to travel approximately 300,000 km. Note that we have shown the arrow of time to be in a positive direction without reference to entropy.

So we are defining time in terms of distance and velocity. Philosophers might argue that we then have to define distance and velocity but these perhaps are less challenging to define than time.

So let's try to define time. Objects that exist within the universe have a state of movement and the elapsed times that we observe result from the object being in a different position due to its velocity.

This definition works well considering a pendulum clock and an atomic clock. We can apply this definition to the rotation of the Earth and think of the elapsed time of one day as being the time for one complete rotation of the Earth.

The concept of time has been confused within physics by the ideas of quantum theory which imply the possibility of the backward direction of time and also by special relativity which implies that you cannot define a standard time throughout the universe. These problems are resolved when you consider light as a wave in the medium of space and this wave travels in the space rest frame.

Richard

1. Relativists have tried to exorcise the paradox by all means ("acceleration" and others), but their arguments are obviously bad.

2. There is no universal (Newton's) time in the theory of relativity. There is your time at your place and my time at your place; there is your time at my place and my time at my place, and so forth. There is no one Time; hence, the debate about who is "younger" and who is "older" is baseless and incoherent. I consider the entire discourse about the relativity of time meaningless and useless; but a discourse about twins paradox is especially bad.

It seems to me that "determinism" is not a rigorously defined concept. It obviously involves

the order-structure of time T(what determines "before" and "after") as well as the possibility of capturing the instantaneous state of the universe at a given time t in T by an element in a certain phase-space Q.

Our notion of "determinism" will greatly depend on the order-structure of T as well as Q (for instance, its cardinality: is an infinite amount of information required to specify the state of the universe).

The popular concept of "determinism" corresponds to finite computational determinism. T is given the order structure of the natural numbers N and Q is finite. Then the state q(t) of the universe at time t can be computed via a recursive function F from the states q(t') at previous times for t' < t (more commonly the immediately preceeding state state is enough ?).

But suppose that F were not recursive but belonged to some other order of the arithmetical hierarchy (let us say Sigma^1) ? Could we still speak of "determinism" ? What if F were beyond the arithmetical hierarchy ?

What is the best way of extending our notion of "computability" to the case in which T has a dense linear order and/or in which Q has infinite cardinality ? How do we express the "determinism" paradigm of differential equations in a rigorous way ? What if the coeficients of analytic solutions are not computable ?

By "predetermination" I mean the idea that the entire evolution of the universe through time already "exists". Suppose that the law of evolution of the universe F were undefinable in first-order logic but that we had predeterminism. I call this "metaphysical predetermination".

What criteria or what experiment can we conceive of that could distinguish pure chance or free will

from metaphysical predetermination ?

I also note that for us conscious beings it seems arguable that finite computational determinism at least is false.

In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks more slowly than a stationary clock which seems vague: does the frequency of a moving clock become lower than that of the stationary clock or its period become shorter than that of the stationary clock?

while using fish for mortality studies

For the LEIA technique, we test different concentrations of forage plants (e.g.) in contact with larvae of gastrointestinal parasites (e.g. Haemonchus contortus).

These larvae are in the L3 stage.

We artificially induce larval exsheathment to obtain after 1 hour 100% exsheathment.

We count the unsheathed and sheathed larvae every 20 minutes for one hour.

If an inhibitory effect of the larval unsheathing is detected at the highest concentration (i.e. at 100% for example) and the negative control gives 0% inhibition.

If the lower concentrations give less inhibition between 0% and 100%, we can determine an effective concentration at 50% effect a.k.a. EC50.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------French version

Les valeurs d'EC50 calculées peuvent-elles variées significativement en fonction des mesures prises dans le temps ?

Pour la technique du LEIA, nous testons différentes concentrations de plantes fourragères (par exemple) mises en contact avec des larves de parasites gastro-intestinaux (Ex. Haemonchus contortus).

Ces larves sont au stage L3.

Nous provoquons artificiellement le dégainement larvaire pour obtenir au bout de 1H environ 100% de dégainement.

Nous comptons les larves dégainées et engainées tous les 20 minutes pendant une heure.

Si un effet inhibiteur du dégainement larvaire est décelée à la concentration la plus élevée (i.e. à 100% par exemple) et que le témoin négatif donne bien 0% d'inhibition.

Si les concentrations plus faibles donnent une inhibition moindre comprise entre 0% et 100 %, nous pouvons déterminer une concentration efficace à 50% d'effet a.k.a. EC50.

----------------------------------------------------------

#LEIA #EHIA #gastrointestinal #nematods #tanins #condensed #sainfoin #invitro #biosassays #test #method #statistical #EC50 #IC50 #Haemonchus contortus #Trichostrongylus #design #experimental #tools #software

=> 2.4. Larvae exsheathment inhibition assay (LEIA)

The assays were performed once every week for seven consecutive weeks. Moisture, temperature and general conditions in the laboratory were kept homogenous along the entire experimental period. The only condition that varied was the age of larvae (from 1 to 7 weeks). The LEIA were conducted following the procedure described by Jackson and Hoste (2010). The negative controls used were larvae not treated with extract and only exposed to the PBS. The different concentrations ap plied to evaluate the AH effect of A. pennatula acetone:water extract were 1200, 600, 400, 200, 100, 40 μg/mL. Stock solution (5000 μg/mL) of acetone:water extract were made in PBS prepared with purified water. One tube was used as negative control containing 1000 μL of PBS without extract. Finally, 1000 μL of infective larvae solution (L3 ∼ 1000/mL) were added to each tube to obtain the final extract concentrations (1200, 600, 400, 200, 100, 40, 0 μg/mL PBS). Infective larvae were incubated with the plant extract for 3 h at 24 °C. After incubation, larvae were centrifuged for 3 min at 168g and washed 3 times with PBS solution. Then, aliquots of each larvae solution were placed in eppendorf vials (200 μL each). Four re petitions were performed for each concentration and PBS control. The process of exsheathment was artificially induced by contact with Milton® (Laboratoire Rivadis, France), which is a solution of sodium hypochlorite (2.0%) and sodium chloride (16.5%) diluted in PBS. The quantity of Milton® solution to use for each assay was determined every week by testing different concentrations (25, 30, 35 and 40 μL/6 mL PBS). During the first two weeks the concentration used for the bioas says was 30 μL/6 mL PBS and it was changed to 25 μL/6 mL PBS for the following weeks. The exsheathment kinetic was observed with a mi croscope using the 10× objective and recorded at 0, 20, 40 and 60 min. (https://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/25140/1/Castaneda-Ramirez_25140.pdf)

#pIC50

analogy : https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/146552/docs/Why_Using_pIC50_will_Change_Your_Life.pdf?t=1443795935716

Hello,

I have several sensors which are interfaced with the help of ROS and are synchronized with the ROS time(ROS1). The sensors and their nodes are fully functional. Each sensor does some processing ,after it senses a detection in it's environment, before eventually timestamping this data in ROS. Since the sensors are of different kinds, and have their own processing before eventually timestamping it's data in ROS, there is an expected delay between the detection and the timestamping and also a delay is expected between the different sensors.

I am interested in the delay that takes place between the sensor detecting an event and eventually timestamping this data in ROS. The image shows the different processing for each sensor that takes place before timestamping.

When searching for this specific problem not much could be found, so any advice would be appreciated.

Imagine a row of golf balls in a straight line with a distance of one metre between each golf ball. This we call row A. Then there is a second row of golf balls (row B) placed right next to the golf balls in row A. We can think of the row A of golf balls as marking of distance measurements within the inertial frame of reference corresponding to row A (frame A). Similarly the golf balls in row B mark the distance measurements in frame B. Both rows are lined up in the x direction.

Now simultaneously all the golf balls in row B start to accelerate in the x direction until they reach a steady velocity v at which point the golf balls in row B stop accelerating. It is clear that the golf balls in row B will all pass the individual golf balls of row A at exactly the same instant when viewed from frame A. It must also be the case that the golf balls in the rows pass each other simultaneously when viewed from frame B.

So we can see that the distance measurements in the frame of B are the same as the distance measurements in row A. The row of golf balls is in the x direction so this suggests that the coordinate transformation between frame A and frame B should be x - vt.

This contradicts the Lorentz transformation equation for the x direction which is part of the standard SR theory.

If we were to replace the golf balls in row B with measuring rods of length one metre then in order to match the observations of the Michelson Moreley experiment we would conclude that measuring rods must in general experience length contraction relative to a unique frame of reference. So this thought experiment suggests that we need to maintain distances as invariant between moving frames of reference while noting that moving objects experience length contraction.

This also implies the existence of a unique frame of reference against which the velocity v is measured.

I would be interested to see if the thought experiment can be explained within standard Special Relativity while retaining the Lorentz transformation equations.

Richard

why dc capacitor charge faster than it discharges? Can we control charging and discharging time?

Time is what permits things to happen. However, as a physical grandeur, time must emerge as a consequence of some physical law (?). But, how time could emerge as a consequence of something if " consequence", " causation", implies the existence of the time?

I am try to find out the main differences between haplotype and DTE analyses. To my knowledge, the outer Haplotypes are newly created, while the inner ones are evolutionary older than the outers. What happen if we find out different results in DTE?

I mean I found that some taxa are evolutionary young according to DTE, while haplotype analysis showed me the opposite results.

Would you please let me know, how I must interpret this difference?

Arrow of time (e.g. entropy's arrow of time): Why does time have a direction? Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, and time correlates with the universal (but not local) increase in entropy, from the past and to the future, according to the second law of thermodynamics? Is this phenomenon justified by the Gibbs law and the irreversible process?

With respect to all the answers, in my opinion, no answer to such questions is completely correct.

The energy storage can be done with different technologies, e.g. batteries, concrete towers, pump hydro systems, flywheel, etc. How long these technologies can hold the energy stored, it is hours, days, weeks, months?

For example, once the energy is charged in the batteries, this gets fully charged, if we leave the batteries fully charged how long will the batteries stay charged, and what are the losses associated with this?

Similarly for the other energy storage technologies, how long this energy storage tile would be?

There are some methods to estimate these characteristics or recommended sources of information?

A fascinating question in theoretical physics is whether it is possible to extend Einstein's ideas beyond gravitation to all aspects of physics. The energy-momentum tensor is usually defined extrinsically over the space-time manifold. But could it rather be derived from the geometry alone ? Likewise our local subjective notion of time is given by a local orientation which need not be globally consistent as in Gödel's famous model.

It has been proposed that space-time may have a foam- or sponge-like fine-grained structure (possible involving extra dimensions) which explains energy and matter and the other fundamental forces in a Kaluza-Klein style. That is, "microlocally" the topology of the space-time manifold is highly complex and there may be even a direct relationship between mass, energy and cohomology complexes in an appropriate derived category. At this fine scale there may even be non-local wormholes that connect distant regions of space-time and explain quantum entanglement.

But why not consider the universe as a Thom-Mather stratified space (one can think of this as a smooth version of analytic spaces or algebraic varieties) rather than a manifold ? In this case "singularities" would be "natural" structures not pathologies as in black holes. It is difficult not to think of matter (or localised energy) as corresponding to a singular region of this stratified space. Has this approach been considered in the literature ?

I doubt a long day.

This is an imaginary suspicion!

Quantum Entanglement, if we understand it better and use it like a live tv through technology,

""" that means it's ( Quantum Entanglement ) transfer information fast like rather than light.

And note: near the black hole (where time goes much shorter than Earth) """

Now if I look from near the black hole, at things happening on Earth through a live camera that works with this Quantum entanglement technology/like, can I see things on Earth as fast-forwarded video of things happening on Earth? Or whatever else happens.

As well as watching "things near the black hole" from Earth that sounds like slow motion video?

Please help anyone, thank you :)

I want to know the calculation for following paper. I am attaching the paper. Please help me

Electron (Relative to the speed of light:0,04) and proton (Relative to the speed of light:0,87) speeds are quite different from each other. According to the special theory of relativity, does this indicate that time moves differently in electron and proton?

Hi, in some transient solution cases in Fluent , after thausands of time steps , not limited , the updating of solution time step to start the iteration of the next time step take a long time, some times reached 2 minutes , and in this period the program seems to be blocked and then resuming the calculation , so that the solution to the steady state conditions will take many hours, can anyone help me to solve this issue ?

Einstein said that energy (or mass) is equivalent to the curvature of the spacetime, based on the Einstein field equations. But I have some questions: What is the effect of energy on the spacetime itself? Are they independent of each other? Does the existence of energy lead to create the spacetime and vice versa in the evolution of the Universe known from the Hot Big Bang model? Is there another physical concept to relate them to each other?

Space and time are continuous nature quantities. They cannot be changed or deformed. However, the dimensions (length and size) and duration of an object or event can be different depending on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. Simply because Wu's Unit Length (diameter) and Wu's Unit Time (period) of Wu's Pairs - the building blocks of the universe, are depending on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. For example, for twin brothers, one is measured 6 Saturn Feet height on Saturn and the other one is measured 6 Earth Feet height on Earth. The one on Saturn is taller, because Saturn Feet is longer than Earth Feet due to Saturn's massive gravity. (This is called Principle of Correspondence - for two corresponding identical objects or events measured by the corresponding identical Units, the amount of the unit quantity remains the same, such as the "6" in the example).

In addition, for the same object or event, subject to the unit length and unit time of the standards used in measurement, the amount of measurement can be different. For example, 2 feet is equal to 24 inches or 52.8 cm. And 6 Saturn Feet could be equal to 8 Earth Feet when measured on Earth.

As a result, the dimensions and duration of an object or event are not only a function of its local gravitational field and aging of the universe, but also the unit length and unit time of the standards used in the measurement which are subject to Wu's Unit Length and Wu's Unit Time of a reference object or event depending on the gravitational field and aging of the universe at the reference point.

In study gravity, there are three important laws. They are:

(1) F = G mM/r² (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation)

(2) F = mA (Newton's Second Law of Motion)

(3) dE/dr = A (Einstein's Spacetime with a curvature of acceleration)

Einstein combined (1), (2) and (3) and come out with Einstein's Field Equation:

dE/dr = GM/r²

Where E is an energy function (Einstein's Spacetime) and (1/r) is the curvature.

Einstein used a nonlinear geometry system such as Geodesics system then transformed to a normal Cartesian system on earth to present his fancy field equation.

R_uv -1/2 Rg_uv +Λ g_uv = 8π G/C⁴ T_uv

Where C is the Absolute Light Speed (3x10⁸ m/s) on earth.

I have combined (1) and (2) with Wu's Spacetime Equation and Principle of Correspondence to develop Wu's Field Equation:

A = GM/r²

A = k₁ l_yy^-2 and C = k₂ l_yy^-1/2

t_yy = γ l_yy^3/2

Where t_yy is the circulation period of Wu’s Pairs, named “Wu’s Unit Time” of a reference subatomic object, l_yy is the size of the circulation orbit of Wu’s Pairs, named “Wu’s Unit Length” of the same reference subatomic object , and γ is Wu’s Spacetime constant. This is called Wu's Spacetime Equation.

I first used local Wu's Spacetime System (a Cartesian system having Wu's Unit Length and Wu's Unit Time of a reference standard at a reference point with local gravitational field and aging of the universe) then transformed to Wu's Spacetime System on Earth (with the reference standard and a reference point on earth with earth gravitational field and aging of the universe).

a₀ = δ γ^-2 C₀^-4(GM/R²)

Where a₀ is the amount of acceleration and C₀ is the Absolute Light Speed on earth.

In comparison, both equations have a term G/C₀⁴ on the matter and energy side (right side). However, Einstein use his equation to describe energy and I use my equation to describe acceleration both based on a Cartesian system on earth.

Einstein's spacetime (energy function) is nothing but a continuum shaped function based on a normal earth Cartesian system. Like the dimensions and duration of an object or event, their nature values are dependent on their local gravitational field and aging of the universe and their measured values are further dependent on the reference point and its gravitational field and aging of universe.

I work on MODIS data, and want to know the time for the scene i work on, i found the day only, but couldn't deduce the time. 

I remember reading many years ago (perhaps more than 40 years ago) that Antonio Gramsci wrote somewhere about the time awareness of workers who originated from Sardinia. According to my vague memory, he argued that Sardinian workers had more loose time awareness than workers who grew up in Torino and its suburbs and it reduced their labor productivity.

Does someone know where Gramsci made this kind of argument? If possible, I want to know the exact argument he made and the circumstances of this argument. It is possible that I read it someone's paper other than Gramsci himself.

Please don't take me very serious, I`m a hobbyist fascinated by SF.

The atomic clock is an excellent example to confirm the phenomenon of the time dilation in gravitational field , but that is bothering me is the lack of entropy flow between the two clocks. In my opinion (please correct me if I'm wrong), with the clocks experiment we transfer only information about the differences that occur in the processes.

Observing discussions of professionals on subject of time dilation in gravitational field, I came up with a crazy idea that if we have an ongoing process in two physically connected places, but differ in the speed of occurrence then we should observe the flow of entropy between those places.

I am thinking of a test setup where the entropy flow could be directly observed and recorded.

I will be using MS2 phage with E. coli as a host for the double layer agar technique. Time is somewhat of an issue at the moment so I had a question about propagation. Literature calls for 16 hour incubation following innoculation of E. coli with MS2 for the viral propagation step. How detrimental would the effect be if I shortened that incubation time to 6-8 hours. Would that just result in a lower viral titer?

We got 1000 items with a weight Wk, we have :

Wk=max[(1-Xm)*Wm+Pk]

with Xk a binary variable if we put the item or not

Xm the weights of related items "m" to the item "k"

Pk the basis weight of item k.

Please let us discuss this New Year Riddle:

Why does the New Year begin with January 1 of all days on a normal day of the solar year, explicitly 11 days after winter solstice?

Why is the beginning of the year not on another day of the year, like for example 5, 10 or 15 days after winter solstice or at the spring or autumn equinox, or any other day?

What is the reason for the beginning of the New Year just on this day of the solar year? Please post here your ideas in this discussion.

If you think to know the correct answer please send an email to calendersign@gmx.at.

As the first you will receive a copy of the German book STERNSTUNDE by Sepp Rothwangl.

Have fun and a happy New Year

Sepp Rothwangl

CEP -238.947

SEAC Fellow

I am doing an experiment to find out the best time and concentration for TMA-DPH. ( Three different concentration for different time points).

I would like to know how the result between the time and concentration should look like?

I want to know how to get result for this experiment and what I should keep in mind. It looks like an easy one but I did not get a perfect data for this experiment.

I tried to find papers that had done the same experiment on TMA-DPH but I could not find.

( I use CytoFLEX )

Thank you for your time and help.

Arwa

Instances of the 4th dimension include:

Time in Minkowski’s space-time (Raum und Zeit).

As flow or motion in various 4/3 laws.

But:

In a space-time distance, time squared is preceded by a sign opposite to that of the other lengths squared. Time is different.

Flow, motion and time trace a moving point along a line. The 3 spatial dimensions are static.

In the 4/3 law pertaining to energy the same energy in 4 dimensions has 4/3 as much energy in the corresponding 3 dimensional space. How can energy occupy a 4th dimension that models a moving point? Perhaps the model in the 4/3 law is wrong or incomplete? If it is incomplete, how is it incomplete? Is some aspect of time missing? In this portion of the comment on the question, accounting for the 4th dimensional status of motion affects understanding of the 4/3 laws.

Or is the 4th dimension nothing more than a mathematical construct?

Hello,

I am trying to setup a statistical model for a timecourse experiment. I have a total of 16 timepoints *7 before and 8 after treatment. I have 4 acclimation groups before treatment. At treatment, half the individuals from each group were treated with a protein inhibitor and all individuals are treated with a stress. Following treatment, I have 8 groups (inhibitor+stress, stress for each acclimation group). I have an unequal amount of measurements from each group at each time due to mortality and low quality data. This is not a repeated measures as each measurement is from a unique individual that was sacrificed. My data is non-normal as well possibly due to missing and low quality data. I read that I can use the average of each group to make up for the missing data points.

I have had great trouble trying to get each timepoint integrated in my model. I have tried analyzing by averaging all "before" and "after" timepoints for each group but it would be great to get results at higher resolution (point of the timecourse). I am using JMP but open to trying another program.

Any help you can provide here or point in a direction would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you!

*I forgot to add that I am missing data for a timepoint and some of the treatments do not have data for others.

One of the consequences of relativistic physics is the rejection of the well-known concepts of space and time in science, and replacing them with the new concept of Minkowski space-time or simply space-time.

In classical mechanics, the three spatial dimensions in Cartesian coordinates are usually denoted by x, y and z. The dimensional symbol of each is L. Time is represented by t with the dimensional symbol of T.

In relativistic physics x, y and z are still intactly used for the three spatial dimensions, but time is replaced by ct. It means its dimension has changed from T to L. Therefore, this new time is yet another spatial dimension. One thus wonders where and what is time in space-time?

Probably, due to this awkwardness, ct is not commonly used by physicists as the notion for time after more than a century since its introduction and despite the fact that it applies to any object at any speed.

The root of this manipulation of time comes directly from Lorentz transformations equations. But what are the consequences of this change?

We are told that an observer in any inertial reference frame is allowed to consider its own frame to be stationary. However, the space-time concept tells us that if the same observer does not move at all in the same frame, he or she still moves at the new so-called time dimension with the speed of light! In fact, every object which is apparently moving at a constant speed through space is actually moving with the speed of light in space-time, divided partially in time and partially in spatial directions. The difference is that going at the speed of light in the time direction is disassociated with momentum energy but going at the fraction of that speed in the other three dimensions accumulates substantial momentum energy, reaching infinity when approaching the speed of light.

The following velocity–time graph represents a particle moving in the positive x–direction. Analyse its motion from 0 to 7 s. Calculate the displacement covered and distance travelled by the particle from 0 to 2 s.

The week is probably the most synthetic measure of time, as it is not based on planetary rotation, but subjective definition. How has it affected society?

Dear Community!

I am interesed in all scientific papers that illustrate and help understand how various trees are growing - can You reccomend any papers on that topic?

I am attaching referential image - I do not know the original source of the sketches though

( I got to know that there are images redrawn from some English book from 1930s)

I would appreciate any suggestions :)!

I would like to do EIS at 100 % SOC. There are multiple variations that I came across, doing EIS immediately after reaching the max charge cut off voltage limit or rest for 1 hour or 4 hours in OCV before performing EIS. Is there any benefit of having rest time before performing EIS? If so, what is the optimal time? In addition, I performed EIS on a LG commercial LIB immediately after reaching the charge cut off voltage and then performed EIS every one hour for the next 4 hours and I performed EIS after 14 hours. Solution resistance for instantaneous EIS was higher than the long wait time. EIS with wait times between 1-4 hours did not show any significant difference. However, the voltages of the battery at the beginning of EIS with respect to the wait times are as follows - instantaneous cut off voltage 4.18 V, after 10 min = 4.18, after 30 min = 4.179, 1 hr = 4.18 V, 2 hr = 4.181 V, 3 hr=4.181 V, 4 hr = 4.18 V, after 15 hrs rest = 4.18 V. I am not sure if this helps, or it is something to consider. I am open for collaboration. All the tests are performed on the same battery on VersaSTAT 4 (Princeton Applied Research), I verified there is no error in the cable.

Can we describe and define time scientifically and/or philosophically?