[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

If Minkowsky still alive today then he could answer since he was responsible for joining space and time for special relativity. But if you come up with your own personal relativity theory then you can do whatever you want.

At this point in my life, I will probably remain just a theorist as my math skills aren't sharp. I was ok in Calculus and my Physics education in formulas and equations was only basic. I seem to have taken an alternate path away from the advance math and science education found in the Universities although I do still have a great interest in them. I find it difficult to put into words as a theory from what I see, so that others, mathematicians, scientists, and other theorists, can understand it. I try to connect to everyone on some level with this discussion as I believe they all have something important to offer. Maybe, some mathematician would get an idea from the time particle theory and come up with a working formula for his or her own use. The quantum stuff coming out today seems cool but...jargon, if I may be so bold, and superfluous.

[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

It was in the TOE files.

It's easy to read, just combine two fields, like 'future' and 'space' and that generates 'wishes' and so on to the higher fields, like 'learning' plus 'change of structure' leads to 'creation'. You can see that time plays a large role.

And a change of outlook with vision brings growth. It's like a flow chart for life, TOE to being...cool.

[dipayankar]

It is difficult to envision that. Relativity would be violated. Also if we start violating physical rules, then we can safely say that the big bang 'manufactured' mass and energy which is not true.

Originally Posted by timeparticle

Yes. Time particles in a photon, numbering ten, can only move at that restricted speed of light. But if one of the ten gets knocked off the string of ten, to make nine, the speed restriction has changed. The string now moves faster than light, and is light no more. What would happen if you squared a time particle velocity?................Big Bang!

[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

It is difficult to envision that. Relativity would be violated. Also if we start violating physical rules, then we can safely say that the big bang 'manufactured' mass and energy which is not true.

Hi guys, It's me, Timeparticle. I thought I might interject for a moment. My idea was to assert that the time particle is the singularity at the beginning of creation. Remember, a time particle moves at the speed of instantaneousness and as it is a velocity, can be squared. So, therefore, the square of a time particle is creation... or the big bang. Additionally, if you want to say there exists more than one universe, then, a time particle cubed is the creation of all the universes... parallel or not.

Therefore, the singularity of time squared created mass or matter, space , energy and a lot more time.

[analog]

Originally Posted by timeparticle

Therefore, the singularity of time squared created mass or matter, space , energy and a lot more time.

Do you have a noncontradictive mechanism/framework by which all this happens? Your posts are basically describing what we here call FS (fundamental substance) from which all this arises, but I think you might see it slightly different.

If you need more ideas to further your thoughts, let me know; I might have some concepts that interest you.

later,

Tim

[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by analog

Do you have a noncontradictive mechanism/framework by which all this happens? Your posts are basically describing what we here call FS (fundamental substance) from which all this arises, but I think you might see it slightly different.

If you need more ideas to further your thoughts, let me know; I might have some concepts that interest you.

later,

Tim

Hi, Tim. Ok, what would be your thought on the idea that a particle of time was the first thing to exist?

[analog]

I wouldn't call it a particle of time as much as I would call it the fundamental substance that constructs our universe (aether). All this substance knows how to do is move, thus the term absolute motion, and in a universe which knows nothing but motion, time is thus the relationship of this motion.

It's how this FS moves that gives rise to all the phenomena you mentioned (e.g., mass, matter, space, perceived energy, relative motion, relative time, etc.). Varying densities of the FS manifest matter and space, mass is a measurement of the uniform motion which formed the autonomous volumes (i.e., matter), and varying types of energy are perceived as this motion transitions from uniform motion (constructive/condensing) to random (destructive/expanding), to form our universe.

This framework basically takes everything to an absolute state, whereby even time was in an absolute state initially as the FS was at absolute linear velocity/absolutely condensed; what some would call the state before the initial event/bang/collision; you could consider it a singularity of sorts from which everything expanded.

[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by analog

I wouldn't call it a particle of time as much as I would call it the fundamental substance that constructs our universe (aether). All this substance knows how to do is move, thus the term absolute motion, and in a universe which knows nothing but motion, time is thus the relationship of this motion.

It's how this FS moves that gives rise to all the phenomena you mentioned (e.g., mass, matter, space, perceived energy, relative motion, relative time, etc.). Varying densities of the FS manifest matter and space, mass is a measurement of the uniform motion which formed the autonomous volumes (i.e., matter), and varying types of energy are perceived as this motion transitions from uniform motion (constructive/condensing) to random (destructive/expanding), to form our universe.

This framework basically takes everything to an absolute state, whereby even time was in an absolute state initially as the FS was at absolute linear velocity/absolutely condensed; what some would call the state before the initial event/bang/collision; you could consider it a singularity of sorts from which everything expanded.

Ok. But motion isn't time. There is motion before time exists. This motion is sub- time. The three components of a time particle exists before time does. The three components are two cones and a time particle band. The two cones float around, if you will, separately, then come together, attracting to each other, at the small ends. When this occurs, a band wraps around the small ends of the cones to hold them together.

So, maybe absolute motion can be considered sub-time. This sub-time motion exists before creation. So, as soon as the time particle is created, as a singularity, a big bang effect can occur. Before time, there is only motion. After time, there is matter, energy, space and so on.

Therefore, absolute motion or sub-time motion can be predicted before creation.

[analog]

Originally Posted by timeparticle

Ok. But motion isn't time. There is motion before time exists. This motion is sub- time.

While in the initial state of absolute velocity, all internal motions were absolutely uniform (one degree of freedom); thus no internal contrast of motion within the aether; thus no relative internal instances of time. The only reference to motion was external to the void through which the aether moved, which is why time was at its absolute state.

Our everyday experiences are of relative motions; thus relative time as we witness the conservation of absolute motion. The initial absolute states are the only means we have to measure the relative universe in which we live. We have no means to determine how long the initial state was around before the change, but by knowing the value of absolute velocity and condensation we have a pretty good ruler to measure how long the aether has been in this current relative state.

What would you say the mechanism which you subscribe to time simplifies in your effort to explain our world?

[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by analog

While in the initial state of absolute velocity, all internal motions were absolutely uniform (one degree of freedom); thus no internal contrast of motion within the aether; thus no relative internal instances of time. The only reference to motion was external to the void through which the aether moved, which is why time was at its absolute state.

Our everyday experiences are of relative motions; thus relative time as we witness the conservation of absolute motion. The initial absolute states are the only means we have to measure the relative universe in which we live. We have no means to determine how long the initial state was around before the change, but by knowing the value of absolute velocity and condensation we have a pretty good ruler to measure how long the aether has been in this current relative state.

What would you say the mechanism which you subscribe to time simplifies in your effort to explain our world?

To explain why it's simple to say why a time particle is the singularity, is easy. Everything starts with time. "It's time to get started" or "It's time to create the universe" is just the natural way we think.
To explain why light, gravity and electromagnetism moves at the same speed is also important. They all have the same number of time particles in their basic forms. What differentiates the three are the way time particles are connected to each other for each of the three forms. Photons are in a string, gravitons are in a stack and particles of electromagnetism are in a circle.
Scientist always try to break things down to it's smallest component. This is a good way to analyze structures in life. We look through microscopes to find cures for viruses and bacteria detrimental to our health. So, it's natural to look for and find the smallest particle in the universe so we may understand it's inner and outer workings.