It's About Time Again: The Stubborn Fantasy of "No Space, Time or Motion".

[everymansmedium]

The act of observation changes states within the universe.

That being said, I cannot abide by any implication that I am arbitrarily at some special location in space or time, as the growing block idea suggests.

I do not share a Now with you, we are in different locations in space, undergoing subtly different states of motion, thus our motion through time is varied.

The past and present do exist, but they do not invalidate the future, that is just an attempt to preserve free will in a purely causal model of reality.

I do not think causality is so simple as we assume though.

Hello Max:

The concept of a growing block, in my case is a beginning point for further thought. The observations at different observation points are if fact different observations but relative to many single dimensional strands of time. It is most likely that each observer is its own single dimensional strand of time, and the relativity that we experience is between the single strands of time. The specific now is relative to the observer. We each have our own now the comparison of my now to your now is the relativity that exists between us. This is not so very different from the relativity that exists between the observers as indicated by AE. The difference is that the relativity exists between the separate single strands of time that contain the observer. This is the thought that begins to make me think that maybe time and the observer are in fact one thing. That our sense of time is our sense of being or our sense of I AM. It is at the very least indicative of the fact that we need to find an understanding of time and the present accepted way of seeing time is very insufficient.

Yes the past does exist as a history of past now. Now is ever present. This does not validate nor does it invalidate any time that has not yet happened at NOW. For that matter there is nothing that I know of that can indicate the existence of any time that has not yet passed through now. The future is in the imagination only.

About causality and free will. They do not conflict in my way of seeing them. Free will is the freedom to calculate how best to define the way to continue. This is what takes place in our imagination before every action that we take. At times it may be somewhat less than 100% awareness of this task. Also if you compare the basic fundamental attributes of a force to that of a being you will see that they compare almost exactly.

A force must be apparent
A being must be aware of itself

A force must be constant
A being must have will. The will is to continue. Note: continue is the constant

A force and a being are the same they both can be initial cause. A force is potential energy A being is potential motivation. This is the same.

This is sufficient indication that a being can be a primary cause. This is the area that most needs to be looked at before a TOE is found. This I am sure is a major problem to determinism on one hand but in time it will be seen to increase our knowledge for it will show new areas for possibilities.


You will note that all of these areas that we have talked about are relative to areas in our science that have taken a specific direction for convenience rather than any specific knowledge. I am aware how different some of my thoughts are but no turns do I make for the sake of convenience. Nor do I let the possibilities of what I see cause me to stray for the sake of a less fearful reality. I believe in WYSIWYG. I do not turn my back on what might be truth because of fear.
You may also note that I am not a follower of any documented religion. I guess I am a non conventional monotheist, and that only because of what I see as logical probabilities.
John EMM

[Max™]

We cannot see the past or future.

We merely happen to be facing the future, and thus are aware of the past behind us.

Both exist.

[spacedout]

The past does exist, but we are not part of it. We live in a time-line in which the last step leads to the choice in the next step. Two steps cannot occur at the same time and it seems each cycle is moved up one step in time and follows a plus or minus x,y,z finite path that recycles. Everything exists at once we are a flowing identity in linear time-line. The past still exists and is alive as an other identity. the past still exists and always will we just moved through it.

[RascalPuff]

The 'Now' is an extension from Past to Present, just as the Future is a projected extension of the Present. In order to know where you are, you need know from whence you arrived. In order to know and/or determine where you're going, you need know where/when you are.

Einstein's Spacetime

On this page:

• Special Relativity
• | The Fourth Dimension
• | The Equivalence Principle
• | Gravity as Curved Spacetime
• | General Relativity
• | Relational or Absolute?

Special Relativity

Physics at the end of the nineteenth century found itself in crisis: there were perfectly good theories of mechanics (Newton) and electromagnetism (Maxwell), but they did not seem to agree. Light was known to be an electromagnetic phenomenon, but it did not obey the same laws of mechanics as matter. Experiments by Albert A. Michelson (1852-1931) and others in the 1880s showed that it always traveled with the same velocity, regardless of the speed of its source. Older physicists struggled with this contradiction in various ways. In 1892 George F. FitzGerald (1851-1901) and Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853-192 independently found that they could reconcile theory and experiment if they postulated that the detector apparatus was changing its size and shape in a characteristic way that depended on its state of motion. In 1898, J. Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) suggested that intervals of time, as well as length, might be observer-dependent, and he even speculated (in 1904) that the speed of light might be an "unsurpassable limit".
MichelsonFitzGeraldLorentzPoincaré


Einstein in 1905

None of these eminent physicists, however, put the whole story together. That was left to the young Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who already began approaching the problem in a new way at the age of sixteen (1895-6) when he wondered what it would be like to travel along with a light ray. By 1905 he had shown that FitzGerald and Lorentz's results followed from one simple but radical assumption: the laws of physics and the speed of light must be the same for all uniformly moving observers, regardless of their state of relative motion. For this to be true, space and time can no longer be independent. Rather, they are "converted" into each other in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant for all observers. (This is why moving objects appear to shrink, as suspected by FitzGerald and Lorentz, and why moving observers may measure time differently, as speculated by Poincaré.) Space and time are relative (i.e., they depend on the motion of the observer who measures them) — and light is more fundamental than either. This is the basis of Einstein's theory of special relativity ("special" refers to the restriction to uniform motion).
Back to Top
The Fourth Dimension


Minkowski


Lightcone diagram showing the worldline
of a moving observer

Einstein did not quite finish the job, however. Contrary to popular belief, he did not draw the conclusion that space and time could be seen as components of a single four-dimensional spacetime fabric. That insight came from Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who announced it in a 1908 colloquium with the dramatic words: "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".
Four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is often pictured in the form of a two-dimensional lightcone diagram, with the horizontal axes representing "space" (x) and the vertical axis "time" (ct). The walls of the cone are defined by the evolution of a flash of light passing from the past (lower cone) to the future (upper cone) through the present (origin). All of physical reality is contained within this cone; the region outside ("elsewhere") is inaccessible because one would have to travel faster than light to reach it. The trajectories of all real objects lie along "worldlines" inside the cone (like the one shown here in red). The apparently static nature of this picture, in which history does not seem to "happen" but is rather "already there", has given writers and philosophers a new way to think about old issues involving determinism and free will.
Einstein initially dismissed Minkowski's four-dimensional interpretation of his theory as "superfluous learnedness" (Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord..., 1982). To his credit, however, he changed his mind quickly. The language of spacetime (known technically as tensor mathematics) proved to be essential in deriving his theory of general relativity.
Back to Top
The Equivalence Principle



Einstein's happiest thought (1907): "For an observer falling freely from
the roof of a house, the gravitational field does not exist" (left).
Conversely (right), an observer in a closed box—such as an elevator or
spaceship—cannot tell whether his weight is due to gravity or acceleration.

Soon after completing his special theory, Einstein had the "happiest thought of his life" (1907). It came while he was sitting in his chair at the patent office in Bern and wondering what it would be like to try to drop a ball while falling off the side of a building. Einstein realized that a person who accelerates downward along with the ball will not be able to detect the effects of gravity on it. An observer can "transform away" gravity (at least in the immediate neighborhood) simply by moving to this accelerated frame of reference — no matter what kind of object is dropped. Gravitation is (locally) equivalent to acceleration. This is the principle of equivalence.

(To be continued)

[RascalPuff]

To understand how remarkable the equivalence principle really is, imagine how it would be if gravity worked like other forces. If gravity were like electricity, for example, then balls with more charge would be attracted to the earth more strongly, and hence fall down more quickly than balls with less charge. (Balls whose charge was of the same sign as the earth's would even "fall" upwards.) There would be no way to transform away such effects by moving to the same accelerated frame of reference for all objects. But gravity is "matter-blind" — it affects all objects the same way. From this fact Einstein leapt to the spectacular inference that gravity does not depend on the properties of matter (as electricity, for example, depends on electric charge). Rather the phenomenon of gravity must spring from some property of spacetime.
Back to Top

Gravity as Curved Spacetime

Einstein eventually identified the property of spacetime which is responsible for gravity as its curvature. Space and time in Einstein's universe are no longer flat (as implicitly assumed by Newton) but can pushed and pulled, stretched and warped by matter. Gravity feels strongest where spacetime is most curved, and it vanishes where spacetime is flat. This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".

A standard way to illustrate this idea is to place a bowling ball (representing a massive object such as the sun) onto a stretched rubber sheet (representing spacetime). If a marble is placed onto the rubber sheet, it will roll toward the bowling ball, and may even be put into "orbit" around the bowling ball. This occurs, not because the smaller mass is "attracted" by a force emanating from the larger one, but because it is traveling along a surface which has been deformed by the presence of the larger mass. In the same way gravitation in Einstein's theory arises not as a force propagating through spacetime, but rather as a feature of spacetime itself. According to Einstein, your weight on earth is due to the fact that your body is traveling through warped spacetime!
Computer animation showing
Newton's conception of space & time
Computer animation showing
Einstein's conception of spacetime

While intuitively appealing, however, the rubber-sheet picture has its limitations. Mostly, these have to do with the fact that it allows us to visualize the spatial aspect of Einstein's theory, but not the temporal one. To see this, we need only remember that Newtonian gravity must be approximately valid, whatever Einstein says, and Newton tells us that bodies move in straight lines unless acted upon by a force. Why, then, do the orbits of planets around the sun on the rubber sheet appear so far from straight, if there is no attracting force reaching out through spacetime to tug on them? The answer is that planetary trajectories are very nearly straight — in spacetime, not space.

The worldline of the earth, for example, resembles a stretched-out spiral whose width in space is only one astronomical unit, but whose length in the time direction is measured in lightyears! Another way to appreciate the importance of the "time" in "spacetime" is to apply the equivalence principle and ask whether the fact that we experience a gravitational field on the earth's surface is "equivalent" to stating that the earth's surface is continually accelerating outward. Obviously not, for we do not observe the earth to grow larger! (Wrong: Refer URl at bottom of this page...) The trouble is that, in speaking of the earth's surface, we have again lapsed into thinking of acceleration in spatial terms. On earth, where speeds are small compared to the speed of light and the gravitational field is weak, it turns out that nearly all of our weight arises due to the warping of time, rather than space. What this means in practice is that gravity on earth is "equivalent" to acceleration mostly in the sense that clocks on the surface run more slowly than clocks in outer space.
Back to Top

General Relativity

General relativity is based physically on the equivalence principle, but the theory also has a second, more mathematical foundation. Known as the principle of general covariance, it is the requirement that the law of gravitation be the same for all observers — even accelerating ones — regardless of the coordinates in which it is described. (It is for this reason that Einstein named his new theory "general", as opposed to "special" relativity — he dropped the earlier restriction to uniformly moving observers.) As he later said, to express physical laws without coordinates is like "describing thoughts without words". In this labor he was aided above all by his friend the mathematician Marcel Grossmann (1878-1936). Another mathematician named David Hilbert (1862-1943) nearly beat him to his final equations.
GaussRiemannGrossmannHilbert


Einstein in 1916

But the phrase "Einstein's spacetime" is entirely appropriate. No theory of comparable significance before or since is more nearly due to the struggle of a single scientist. At the end of 1915 Einstein wrote to a friend that he had succeeded at last, and that he was "content but rather worn out".

Relational or Absolute?

In 1918, Einstein described Mach's principle as a philosophical pillar of general relativity, along with the physical principle of equivalence and the mathematical pillar of general covariance. This characterization is now widely regarded as wishful thinking. Einstein was undoubtedly inspired by Mach's relational views, and he hoped that his new theory of gravitation would "secure the relativization of inertia" by binding spacetime so tightly to matter that one could not exist without the other. In fact, however, the equations of general relativity are perfectly consistent with spacetimes that contain no matter at all. Flat (Minkowski) spacetime is a trivial example, but empty spacetime can also be curved, as demonstrated by Willem de Sitter in 1916. There are even spacetimes whose distant reaches rotate endlessly around the sky relative to an observer's local inertial frame (as discovered by Kurt Gödel in 1949). The bare existence of such solutions in Einstein's theory shows that it cannot be Machian in the strict sense; matter and spacetime remain logically independent. The term "general relativity" is thus something of a misnomer, as pointed out by Hermann Minkowski and others. The theory does not make spacetime more relative than it was in special relativity. Just the opposite is true: the absolute space and time of Newton are retained. They are merely amalgamated and endowed with a more flexible mathematical skeleton (the metric tensor).


Nevertheless, Einstein's theory of gravity represents a major swing back toward the relational view of space and time, in that it answers the objection of the ancient Stoics. Space and time do act on matter, by guiding the way it moves. And matter does act back on spacetime, by producing the curvature that we feel as gravity. Beyond that, matter can act on spacetime in a manner that is very much in the spirit of Mach's principle. Calculations by Hans Thirring (1888-1979), Josef Lense (1890-1985) and others have shown that a large rotating mass will "drag" an observer's inertial reference frame around with it. This is the phenomenon of frame-dragging, whose existence Gravity Probe B is designed to detect. The same calculations suggest that, if the entire contents of the universe were to rotate, our local inertial frame would undergo "perfect dragging" — that is, we would not notice it, because we would be rotating too! In that sense, general relativity is indeed nearly as relational as Mach might have wished. Some physicists (such as Julian Barbour) have gone further and asserted that general relativity is in fact perfectly Machian. If one goes beyond classical physics and into modern quantum field theory, then questions of absolute versus relational spacetime are rendered anachronistic by the fact that even "empty space" is populated by matter in the form of virtual particles, zero-point fields and more. Within the context of Einstein's universe, however, the majority view is perhaps best summed up as follows:
Spacetime behaves relationally but exists absolutely.
James Overduin, November 2007

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toetheory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html

[RascalPuff]

The past does exist, but we are not part of it. We live in a time-line in which the last step leads to the choice in the next step. Two steps cannot occur at the same time and it seems each cycle is moved up one step in time and follows a plus or minus x,y,z finite path that recycles. Everything exists at once we are a flowing identity in linear time-line. The past still exists and is alive as an other identity. the past still exists and always will we just moved through it.

Consider the first and last sentences of the above paragraph. They are non-sequiturial; that is, they appear to contradict each other. Whereas, contrary to the opening sentence of the above paragraph ('The past does exist, but we are not part of it), we are - categorically - the sum total of our Past experiences, culiminating to the Present; the condition of which Present directly determines our/the Future.

Much of the contentious content in responses to the beginning post of this thread, are based on solipsism, which, until further notice (and in accordance with Webster's dictionary) is a philosophhically founded mental state, not necessarily applicable to the existential universe at all. Due to its leading commencement to this thread, the first post is repeated here (solipsist advocates having steered the thread off topic):

'Is There Really Time?' What is Time? What is space. What is motion?'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether or not anything or consideration really exists is an endemically popular tonic. ('Maybe we're a hallucination. Maybe everything is nothing'.)

A lot of seriously proffered equivocation occurs in glib denouncements of the existence of anything, particularly with regard to whatever spatial issue of 'truth': space and/or time.

As though Plato was not a student of Socrates, and that each and both of them did not long ago put to rest, the rasberry dispirited vanity of such allegedly 'unanswerable questions & unresolvable riddles'.

The Western Civilization marked discarding of 'reality' has long been a (an alleged Eastern Civilization inspired) ploy for those who avert the responsibility of recognizing and acknowledging it.
Euclidiean and Pythagorean geometry and pi r as well as E= MC squared would and do exist in fact, with or without anthropomorphic existence or realization. The physical universe is as indifferent to humanity as the mathematics and philosophy that irrevocably and eternally prove 'truth', whether or not idle individuals deign to acknowledge such realities - such eternal trutns - or not...

THE MYTHOLOGY OF ARBITRARY SPACE & TIME:
The present standard of measurement for space is said to have been determined by a King who extended his arm and hand and pronounced that the distance between the tip of his nose to the end of his index finger would henceforth be the definitional standard, now called a 'yard'.
Divisible into three feet. Each foot divisible into 12 inches, each inch divisible into innumerable sub-divisions... (Re: 'Xeno's Paradox')

This (unarguably) capricious determination of the value of space, unfortunately brought about a misunderstanding that the existence and/or value of time is likewise arbitrary (a 'human invention') - just as the - above described - value of space was determined by arbitrary means.

(People did not invent motion, space or time. Words for those conditions, yes, but, not the existential conditions themselves.)

Whereas, space - what we have only recently learned to be inseparable from time (Yes. Minkowski was right - contrary to a popular - 'New Age' - school of thought saying otherwise); philologically evolving from 'space and time', to 'space-time', would still in fact exist, whether humans existed, to observe, measure or ambivalently standardize it or not (There are arguments that there is no universe before a given person arrives here and there will be no universe when such an argumentive person leaves. Such contentions are bonkers of course).

The formal definition of time is synonymous with motion, and conversely.
Motion occurs in space; within which space-time is the interval between two or more events. The reason Einstein modified Newtonian Classic Mechanical translation of 'Time and Space', to the Relativistic expression of space-time.

Repeat: There cannot be time without space, and conversely - much as there is no magnetism without electricity, or electricity without magnetism: therefore equals electromagnetism. (Monopoles - electricity or magnetism independent of <non concurrent with> the other, have yet to be found or proven. The same is true of 'particles', 'black holes', the 'big bang theory', and bastardized thermodynamic interpretations lurching to the myth of an 'inevitable', 'universal entropic heat death'...)

As previously reviewed:
Terrestrial time standards (as a down-to-earth - relatively local - example) are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) through space around the sun.
A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is traveling at some 256 miles per second, bound toward Vega).
An earth month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year.
A week is 1/4th of that month.
A day is 1/7th of that week.
An hour is 1/24th of a day.
A minute is 1/60th of an hour.
A second is 1/60th of a minute...
Consequently, a second of time - for unavoidable example - is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth, in its annual orbit around the sun. (There are those who would and do argue that there's no such thing as 'speed', or, 'a mile per hour' - these are included among the philosophically floundering misanthropes at issue here...)

A 24 hour day is based on the rotational motion of the earth on it's own axis. The circumference of the earth is just over 24,000 miles; that is how fast the earth is spinning - per hour. Proving very simply and elegantly that space, time and motion are synonymous - no singular facet of this triangular consideration existing without the 'other two'...
Time has come today from the past to the present and future. ABC, Moments 1, 2, 3; etceteras, squared...
Einstein's 'Non-Absolute Relativistic 4-D space-time.'
What it is:
Time, furthermore, in a physically expanding universe of 4 dimensions, is shorter and faster in smaller, past (microcosmic) spaces. and, slower (dilated) in future (macrocosmic) larger spaces; when compared to present time at any given moment of an observer in the eternal present: exactly between small-fast-space and large-slow-space.

In a 4-dimensional (physically expanding universe) a *square mile is not the same spatial size, when compared with itself; from the present: relative to (smaller, more dense) past or (larger, less dense) future 4-D expanding physical matter, and (causing the observed - non 'big bang' initiated expansion of space - Hubbles expanding, 'red shift', Universe.)

Neither therefore, is 60 *miles per hour (or 186,282 m.p.s. - the speed of light; '*celeritas constant <* C >) always the same relative speed. Nor is a year, month, week, day, hour or second, always the same comparative duration in the Present ( when compared with itself) in the physically expanding universe's Past or Future.
Proving among other things that the value of time varies with the value of space it occurs in.
Refer (the cause of) relativistic 'time dilation.' And relativistic 'non-absolute time'.
Relatively slow time occurring in relatively larger spaces; relatively fast time occurring in relatively smaller spaces...
The covariant relativity of time values - resulting in 'non-absolute time and space'.
For which, until now, there are not even any failed explanations.
In a 4-D (physically as well as spatially expanding) universe, the value of time and space (4-D space-time) inevitably varies, from coordinate system to coordinate system.

The speed of light for example, is ever-increasing, while remaining constant: relative to the coordinate system in which it originates and from which it is measured.
The value of time being covariant with the smaller and larger - earlier and later - 4-D space-times it occurs and/or is measured in.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toetheory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html

[spacedout]

A basic question is how is 3 dimensions made -- could it just be linear x,y,z time-line groupings that simulate diagonal directions as in the formula
D = (x^2 + y^2 +z^2)^1/2 in which movement is first say 3 units in the x-direction and then 4 units in the y-direction and then in the z-direction? Of course the speed of the steps has changed by the square root of the energy packets and the velocity v = 1/c^2. If this is true then E = mc^2 where the speed of light squared is energy and the mass is the number of D energy packets that are not divided in to components x, y and z.

[spacedout]

The problem with modern physics is that it doesn't address why we have 3-dimensions let alone how the other dimensions occur. Special relativity is based on relative movements in an aether system just like sound waves in air. The difference is that we are also part of the propagation of waves and therefore cannot travel faster than the speed of light. If a clock is traveling at the speed of light its hands will not move. When we measure things, using the clocks, the dimensions of objects do not change. If we move through the aether our clocks will run slower and distances traveled will be larger relative to the aether but the relative distance remains the same in the moving coordinate system. Three dimension in space are an absolute necessity.

Gravity is imposed on the 3-dimension as a 4th dimension -- it could be that the aether is compacted or rarefied -- maybe this is an explanation for the slowing of time in the aether. Compressed air will change the speed of wave propagation as will rarefying a medium. The speed of light slows in a stronger gravitational field. In refridgeration compressing a medium heats it and when the heat is removed and then depressurized its molecules move slower -- the speed of sound is directly proportional to the speed of the molecules in the medium so the cooler medium woul tranmit slower waves. I believe the same thing is going on with the aether which is a very large series of x, y and z quantum stepped movements representing a chronological time-line in which presents points of the time-line cannot be occupied together by other chrological time-line present movements.

A TV set relates a full picture to one relocating point of varing amplitudes and quantum leaps -- I can't see any reason that nature wouldn't also take this approach. If one step at a time is in our world it would explain the arrow of time because oncle a chronological step is taken it leaves a space behind that could be filled by the time its chronological movement is made -- this would lead to inertia.

If 3-dimensions are just 3 groupings in linear time then the charges for quarks and leptons could be explained -- for instance the six sided compaction of the x, y and z components of space compactions that can give the charges. An electron would have 6 sides negative -- each side 1/6 charge to give the charge we give for the electron. An anti-up quark would have one side positive and 4 sides negative giving a charge of -2/3. a down quark would have a charge of -1/3. A netrino would have 3 sides negative and 3 sides positive giving a charge of Zero. All the other particles can be derived the same way.

[SteveA]

A basic question is how is 3 dimensions made -- could it just be linear x,y,z time-line groupings that simulate diagonal directions as in the formula
D = (x^2 + y^2 +z^2)^1/2 in which movement is first say 3 units in the x-direction and then 4 units in the y-direction and then in the z-direction?

If we add time as an internal "aging" of an object to this mix, it becomes a statistical root mean squared computation of energy/entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square

c = (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2) ^ 1/2

But what it this measurable time component of an object other than a rate at which internal components interact? We could list this time as the cumulative changes or "energy" of various properties p0,p1,p2,... (with a scaling component, r, that could be related to the ratio of total versus detected changes).

r*t^2=(p0^2+p1^2+p2^2+...)

So we could rewrite the original form (ignoring the scaling factor) as:

c= (x^2 + y^2 +z^2 + p0^2 + p1^2 + p2^2 + ...) ^1/2

We could rewrite this as:

c^2 = x^2 + y^2 +z^2 + p0^2 + p1^2 + p2^2 + ...

Now c is a value that's currently defined to be an exact value. Let's redefine this on a scale at which a velocity of c equates to a quantum unit of change and if all objects are changing at a constant rate (if c is constant), then we can state that there exists a scale at which (I'll rewrite the properties in terms of velocities or as deltas):

(1)^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2+dp0^2+dp1^2+...
1=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2+dp0^2+dp1^2+...

If these are quantized changes, then a change in any dimensional property of an object would be equal to a quantum unit, 1, and in order to satisfy the equation, would require that all other properties remain unchanged (their deltas would be 0),

1=1^2+0^2+0^2+0^2+...=1+0+0+0+...=1

If we assume all changes in the universe are cumulative in a fundamental form, then these deltas should have a representation in which they're only positive (in which case we can still use relative measurements to create the appearance of complimentary properties), and then we can remove the squaring operations and rewrite this as:

1=dx+dy+dz+dp0+dp1+...

The information presented by an object would then be in the serial order in which these various properties changed (accumulated) over time. For inertial motion, this could be a periodic sequence of constant length.

Notice that if we only detect change, then we could have the existence of:

0=dx+dy+dz+dp0+dp1+...

but these non-motions could be undetectable, and if we measure a value larger than 1, then we can detect it as two independent motions.

If we wanted to move back to a classical representation, we can just assume randomness and a Brownian motion, throw away information and return to statistical energies by computing the root mean squared.

[spacedout]

If a step along a time-line is a step in time a step in energy and a step in distance then the formula would become D = (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^1/2. The t^2 is in the movements and D is constant. Force and energy is just a play in probable movement represented by time-line steps.

If our world is just clicks is time like as in a clock we would see distance as a clock tick and distance as a clock tick and also energy as a clock tick all as one phenomina. Living as part of this world presents forces and such things as relativity and even gravity. If a step can be in a forward direction it also can be in the reverse or minus direction. Everything has an identity to a whole thing as a part and we are part of the whole universe that is our identity. A step could be an identity in time if the past always exists -- there isn't any reason why it can't. We are time related to occurances of probability such as having the right conditions to exist at the right time and that is our identity. I believe that there are identities in a past, present and future projection of a time-line even before it happens as everything is possible. Every step in the time-line changes the direction of the next existance of the time-line and the time-line is fixed as a distance of infinite steps that represent say an inch with twice that amount in 2 inches. Infinity does exist and we are made of steps like the inch along a time line continuum that represents the infinite steps in an inch. Infinity is part of everything.