[criggsb33 (OP)]

Redefining Time

1 - There are three universal constants in nature, which should form the basis for all physical measurements and definitions: c, the speed of light; h, Planck's constant; and G, Newton's gravitational constant.

2 - We have defined mass, energy and time in terms of these constants.  But the one thing we have not defined in terms of these constants, nor of any other constant of nature, is space itself.  Space is considered a fundamental quantity because it can not be defined in terms of any other fundamental quantity.

3 - We know from special relativity that anything traveling at the speed of light experiences no time, from which we state the following:  our universe is divided into two distinct sections - one that experiences time, and one that does not.

4 - From E=mc², we infer that when mass changes to energy, the energy is distributed over a two-dimensional (2d'l) plane.  This equation could be hinting that the natural state of the universe is 2d'l.

5 - Something that is 2d'l cannot be seen. All of the objects with which we are familiar are believed to be of three dimensions.  Yet we see that electromagnetic radiation and gravity exhibit 2d'l characteristics (their strength, or intensity, is inversely related to the square of the distance between objects).  Light cannot be seen even when it interacts with three-dimensional (3d'l) objects. When we think we see light, we are actually seeing the 3d'l object's reaction to light.

6 - Thinking of light as a 2d'l entity helps explain the duality of light.  One could argue that while light travels in waves, it can only interact with 3d'l objects through particles (photons).

7 - Combining #3 & #4 (assuming that the natural state of the universe is 2d'l),  one section of the universe is 2d'l with time, and one section is 2d'l without time. The world that we know, our 3d'l world, is the 2d'l section with time. Therefore, the question becomes how exactly does time transforms a naturally occurring 2d'l state into the 3d'l world with which we are familiar.

8 - Objects with mass are limited to speeds that are less than c, so they must be located in the 3d'l part of the universe, the part that contains time.  Thus, what we are looking for is a relationship between mass and time.  We can find such a relationship with an accelerating object.  As an object accelerates its mass increases and its time slows (time and mass appear to be inversely related).  Additionally, the object's length in the direction of motion contracts (all objects of mass can be said to possess three lengths).

9 - In Einstein's relativity, a point in space can be described by using four coordinates, based on the idea that there are three dimensions of space and one of time.  Physical quantities are attributed to the four coordinates.  Both time and length in the direction of motion are relative, that is, they undergo a physical change as the velocity changes.  By assuming that our universe is 2d'l plus time, we need only three coordinates to locate a particular point or particle.  But this presents another problem.  If three coordinates are used instead of four, one of the quantities, either time or length, should disappear.  The question is, can the universe do without one of these fundamental entities?

10 - The intuitive answer is “no,” both time and length are necessary for our existence and the existence of the universe as we know it.  But what if time and length are the same thing?

11 - The meter is now defined as the distance, or length, that light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second.  But a second is actually a length itself.  Originally, a second was defined in terms of one complete rotation of the earth on its axis , 86,400 seconds being equal to one day.  In other words, one second equals the earth's circumference at the equator (40,030 km) divided by 86,400, or 0.46331 km, when expressed in terms of the earth's rotation.

12 - In addition, in special relativity the measurements of time dilation and length contraction are derived in exactly the same manner using the Lorentz transformation formula in which case the denominators of both the time and length equations are the same:  √(1-v²/c²).

13 - This means that the numerators of the time and length equations are proportional, which is just another way of saying that the numerators are also equal except for the proportionality constant.  It seems that we have been describing one thing, but using two different labels.  Therefore, we must conclude that time and length are equivalent.  Time is the length of objects and the length between objects.

14 - A corollary to this is that if time and length are equivalent, given that length comprises three dimensions of objects of mass, time and mass must be interwoven into matter in such a way that one cannot exist in its 3d'l state without the other, the importance of which will be clear later.

15 - If we say that time is the length of objects and the length between objects, we are saying that all objects of mass have a time connection with all other objects.  These time lines between objects appear to be infinite, and are what we previously mistook for space.

16 - Space is considered a fundamental quantity, but it cannot be measured.  In the development of quantum mechanics, Werner Heisenberg established a principle as related by Max Born in his Nobel lecture (December 11, 1954) in which he said, “The principle states that concepts and representations that do not correspond to physically observable facts are not to be used in theoretical descriptions.”  If we apply this principle to space, then space must be discarded.

17 - These time lines between objects of mass are 2d'l, and are the basis for our naturally occurring 2d'l universe.  Time lines between any two objects are one-dimensional, however with three or more objects as we find in nature, the time lines form dynamical 2d'l, polygonal connections.  This explains why gravity's intensity falls at the square of the distance between objects. 

18 - Time uses gravity to anchor its connection to all other objects of mass, and it uses the other forces of nature to shape and form 3d'l objects.  The two components of time, the length of objects and the length between objects, are directly related to the differences between gravity and the other forces of nature.  The forces of nature are to time what energy is to mass.  If this is true, then we would expect the forces of nature to be proportional to length.  And, indeed, this is exactly what we find.

19 - A redefining of time cannot be complete without an explanation of the difference in how time is perceived and what is actually occurring. 

20 - Time seems to flow forward like a conveyor belt, and we see ourselves as objects on the belt.  We seem to be constantly moving toward the future, but the future always manages to stay just ahead of us, and the past is always behind us, moving at the same speed, but in the opposite direction.  Even though we see ourselves steadily moving toward the future, we seem to be stuck on the conveyor belt in the present.
 
21 - Modern science has always treated time as an independent variable, and this has helped to perpetuate an illusion.  Time is the length of objects and the length between objects, and as such does not flow at all.  However, time does move, or change, but only with respect to its position within and between matter.

22 - The forces of nature are ultimately responsible for all movement in the universe.  It has long been held that motion is an inherit characteristic of matter.  Matter is always bounded by zero motion (absolute 0 degrees kelvin) and the speed of light, and within this realm is where everything happens.  Because time is an integral part of matter, any two bodies experience time uniquely.  When objects of mass move apart from each other, with respect to the two objects, time increases, and when they move closer, time decreases.  When objects interact with other objects, it is not just a mass to mass, or an energy to mass interaction, it is also a time interaction.  For example, when an electron gets too close to another electron, a photon is exchanged and the two electron are repelled.  This exchange of energy is also a time event.  Time events occur whenever energy is exchanged between objects.

23 - By far, most of the time events involve the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with our 3d'l world.  When light interacts with matter, energy is exchanged, thus, time events occur.  Each photon that interacts with an object of mass is a distinct time event on its own.  It is the sheer number of events occurring, as we see it, simultaneously and one after another that we sense as time's presence and the movement of time.  Our perception of elapsing time comprises a comparison of a series of time events with the rotation of the earth on its axis (our clock).  The present seem to flow forward because as soon as an interaction occurs, other follow, and especially with the properties of light as they are, we cannot detect a separation between events.  It is this enormous number of interactions occurring constantly, all around us, and one after another, that creates the illusion that time, or the present time, is flowing forward into the future. 

24 - However, no interactions, or events, ever occur in the future.  All events, or interactions, are confined to the present; the present being defined as the point of interaction of two objects, at least one of which is 3d'l.  The future does not exist except as a realm of possibilities that a time event will occur.

25 - The arrow of time goes in just one direction because time is the measure of the length, or distance, between two objects, or two parts of the same object, and the order of occurrence of time events, while not observer dependent, is always experienced from a local perspective and is directly related to the length of separation from other objects and the speed of light.

26 - The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system must stay the same or increase with time.  However, time is not independent, and whenever time is used as a parameter in measuring entropy, or anything else for that matter, one must understand that we are comparing one thing, the changes in entropy in this case, to the rotation of the earth on its axis.  In this regard, entropy is just a way of counting time events

27 - What this theory explains that current theory does not:

28 - Current theory does not explain why nearby space, or the space that our local galaxy cluster occupies, appears not to be expanding while the space that comprises the universe as a whole is expanding.  When we speak of an expanding universe, it is time, or the average measurement of time, that is increasing (the average length, or distance, between objects is expanding), not space.  3D'l space does not exist.  Time and mass are inversely related, so if a concentration of mass in one area of the universe, such as a galaxy cluster, slows time down, then it follows that in areas that have less mass, time increases.  This is why the time, or length, between galaxy clusters is growing, while the galaxy clusters themselves appear not to be expanding.

29 - This also explains why the expansion of the universe is accelerating without invoking dark energy.  As the average density (mass to area relationship) of our naturally occurring 2d'l universe decreases, the average metric of time (the average length between objects) increases.  In general relativity the cosmological constant is given to explain the expansion of the universe and it is equivalent to an energy density of the vacuum, which is calculated based on the volume of a 3d'l space.  However, if 3d'l space does not exist, this calculation should instead be based on the 2d'l areas created by time line connections between objects of mass, and this should yield an energy density about equal to the critical density that we observe, thus, eliminating the need for an illusive and repulsive dark energy.

30 - The quantum effects of uncertainties and non-localities can be explained by the absence of time in the 2d'l parts of our universe.  2D'l, mass less and timeless particles do not conform to the parameters imposed in determining 3d'l measurements of position and momentum.

31 - It predicts that there is no singularity at the center of black holes.  As matter falls into a black hole, it is very similar, if not identical, to an accelerating object reaching the speed of light.  But in the case of a black hole, there is nothing to prevent the object from falling through the event horizon.  If falling through the event horizon is equivalent to reaching the speed of with an accelerating object, then time must stop at the event horizon.  And without time, or length, as concluded earlier, mass cannot exist in its 3d'l form.  What is left is pure energy in its 2d'l state and the forces of nature, which, except for gravity, will have transitioned into something else.  So, it seems that only 2d'l entities are allowed in a black hole.  The 2d'l, sphere-shaped event horizon may be all there is to a black hole.  This also explains why the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the area of its event horizon.  An object falling into a black hole will be destroyed at the event horizon. 

32 - A reformulation of relativity using just three coordinates should get rid of the infinities of relativity, thereby not just confirming this prediction, but also providing a mathematical basis for the proof of this hypothesis.

33 - In quantum theory, the addition of a fourth dimension requires a fourth quantum number in describing the electron that has no counter part in classical mechanics, and its interpretation is unclear to this day.  Using just three dimensions to describe the universe should render general relativity and quantum theory easier to reconcile. 


Note:  The above is a summary of a paper I have completed titled “Redefining Time,”  This summary contains no references, however, I will gladly make a pdf version of the fully referenced paper available to anyone upon request.   

[Halc]

Just some initial comments, many just about terminology.  There seems not to be enough information to comment on this whole 2D space thing.  I can't follow the description, and 2 spatial coordinates plus time is not enough to specify an event.  Perhaps some examples would clarify.

1 - There are three universal constants in nature, which should form the basis for all physical measurements and definitions: c, the speed of light; h, Planck's constant; and G, Newton's gravitational constant.

2 - We have defined mass, energy and time in terms of these constants.  But the one thing we have not defined in terms of these constants, nor of any other constant of nature, is space itself.  Space is considered a fundamental quantity because it can not be defined in terms of any other fundamental quantity.

All three of the above constants (and I don't think the list is exhaustive) are meaningless without a definition of space.  All three are also meaningless without time.  Sure, G isn't directly time related, but force is meaningless without time.

3 - We know from special relativity that anything traveling at the speed of light experiences no time

Nothing that 'experiences' can move at light speed, which is a different statement.  The frame of a photon is not a valid reference frame since such a frame does not conform to Galilean relativity.  The laws of physics do not hold.

4 - From E=mc², we infer that when mass changes to energy

Mass is already energy and neither can be not the other.  The formula says they're the same thing.

the energy is distributed over a two-dimensional (2d'l) plane.  This equation could be hinting that the natural state of the universe is 2d'l.

No idea what you're suggesting here.  Is this where the 'new theory' part comes in?  Examples would be nice.

5 - Something that is 2d'l cannot be seen. All of the objects with which we are familiar are believed to be of three dimensions.  Yet we see that electromagnetic radiation and gravity exhibit 2d'l characteristics (their strength, or intensity, is inversely related to the square of the distance between objects).

These things can be measured, so this seems to contradict the claim that it cannot be seen.

Thus, what we are looking for is a relationship between mass and time.  We can find such a relationship with an accelerating object.  As an object accelerates its mass increases

Acceleration does not increase mass.  For instance, the moon is accelerating all the time, but it's mass due to that is unchanged.  Yes, I know about relativity, but mass dilation and length contraction are frame dependent values, and have nothing to do with acceleration.

9 - In Einstein's relativity, a point in space can be described by using four coordinates, based on the idea that there are three dimensions of space and one of time.

A point in space needs only the 3 spatial coordinates (plus a definition of the orientation of all three axes).  A point in spacetime needs 4.  Use the terms correctly.

But what if time and length are the same thing?

Minkowski says they are the same thing.  One can directly specify the separation between points in spacetime using either time or spatial units.

Originally, a second was defined in terms of one complete rotation of the earth on its axis , 86,400 seconds being equal to one day.

Measured from noon til noon.  One rotation takes about 86,164 seconds.

16 - Space is considered a fundamental quantity, but it cannot be measured.

Perhaps, but then you have to tell me what's invalid about the reading I get from putting a tape measure up to my child.  Admittedly it measures proper length, not length.  To do the latter, one needs to pimp out the tape measure tool a bit, but it can be done.

20 - Time seems to flow forward like a conveyor belt

In a view that has a concept of spacetime, it does no such thing.  If you're going to use the block model, you can't mix terminology with terms from the flowing model.  I suppose you could posit that space flows as well, and there is but one preferred location along the axis along which it flows.

and we see ourselves as objects on the belt.

That's just it.  I buy into spacetime, so I see myself as a worldline, not as an object on a belt.

24 - However, no interactions, or events, ever occur in the future.  All events, or interactions, are confined to the present; the present being defined as the point of interaction of two objects, at least one of which is 3d'l.  The future does not exist except as a realm of possibilities that a time event will occur.

Hard to tell which side of the fence you're on.  Point 9 seems to suggests time being a dimension, yet here you reference the concept of a nonexistent 'the future' which is a reference to a preferred present denied by the view that suggests time being another dimension.

In general relativity the cosmological constant is given to explain the expansion of the universe

The cosmological constant was posited to cancel the expansion of the universe that the theory otherwise predicted.  The constant was dropped when the expansion was observed.  This is strange since Einstein seems unusually open to the predictions GR made before measurements confirmed them.  I wonder why he kept the bias for a static universe.

31 - It predicts that there is no singularity at the center of black holes.  As matter falls into a black hole, it is very similar, if not identical, to an accelerating object reaching the speed of light.  But in the case of a black hole, there is nothing to prevent the object from falling through the event horizon.  If falling through the event horizon is equivalent to reaching the speed of with an accelerating object, then time must stop at the event horizon.

Up to this point, I tend to agree with this argument.

[criggsb33 (OP)]

Thank you for your critique. 

If time and length are equivalent, as argued, then there are three spacial coordinates to specify an event.

Regarding space - throughout history philosophers have argued over just what space is.  Science seems to have settled on the definition that space is a 3d'l entity in which objects and events occur.  But this definition is based more on intuition than anything else.  How would you define space (it cannot be measured)? and even more importantly, how would you define time?  I make the point in my paper that these two entities are not clearly defined.  And when upwards of 80% (my estimate) of science is based on how things change over time, it is imperative that we have a clear definition of space and a clear definition of time.  Otherwise the entire foundation of science could be based on a false premise.

Looking at E=mc², what does c² mean.  We know that c + 1 meter/sec is an impossible speed, so it cannot be referring to a linear measure.  On the other hand, the area of a square is derived by multiplying one side by the other.  Isn't it telling us that when mass converts to energy the energy spreads out over a flat square area, a 2d'l area.

Regarding light being invisible, it is not the same to measure an effect and to not being seen.  Two or more beams of light crossing one another at a point pass through freely without reacting or interfering.  If light is 3d'l, how could this be possible.

This project had its origins in a peculiarity which seemed to be ignored by science, that is, why is it in nature that in the most basic of things we see signs of squares and square roots.  We see it in gravity, electromagnetism, and even in E=mc², to name the most obvious.  Clearly we live in a three-dimensional world, but just what role does this two-dimensionality play?  In my paper, I explore this question, and the results of my analysis, which go against the grain, seem surprising.  I found that once we discover what time is, many of the unanswered question of science fall out naturally, as I tried to summarize here.

[Halc]

If time and length are equivalent, as argued, then there are three spacial coordinates to specify an event.

Give an example of a 3-coordinate event then.  If I can specify a different event with those same 3 coordinates but varying a 4th unspecified coordinate, then your assertion is falsified.

Regarding space - throughout history philosophers have argued over just what space is.  Science seems to have settled on the definition that space is a 3d'l entity in which objects and events occur.

I've never seen that definition in a scientific setting.  Events don't occur in 3D, by definition.  I've never seen science define space as an 'entity', although I've seen something along those lines in philosophy.

How would you define space (it cannot be measured)?

I can measure it just fine.  The ability to do so doesn't define what it is.

Regarding light being invisible

Light is arguably the only visible thing.  I'd argue against that, but a statement that light isn't visible seems trivially falsified.

[criggsb33 (OP)]

Regarding light being invisibleLight is arguably the only visible thing.  I'd argue against that, but a statement that light isn't visible seems trivially falsified.

Here is my reasoning:    When light strikes a 3d'l object, some of the rays are absorbed by the object, and some are reflected.  We see the object because of the reflected rays, which are actually secondary light created by the object as a reaction to the incident light.  Our eyes react to the reflected light, which arrives on our retinas as a 2d'l image, and send a signal to our brain where the image is interpreted as 3d'l objects.  At no point in this process do we actually see the light.  We can only see the 3d'l object's reaction to light.

[Halc]

Regarding light being invisibleLight is arguably the only visible thing.  I'd argue against that, but a statement that light isn't visible seems trivially falsified.

Here is my reasoning:    When light strikes a 3d'l object, some of the rays are absorbed by the object, and some are reflected.  We see the object because of the reflected rays, which are actually secondary light created by the object as a reaction to the incident light.

OK, you're saying you can't illuminate a photon with ambient light.  That's no different than pretty much any other subatomic particle, and many larger things.
This isn't exactly big news.

[criggsb33 (OP)]

There seems not to be enough information to comment on this whole 2D space thing.  I can't follow the description, and 2 spatial coordinates plus time is not enough to specify an event.  Perhaps some examples would clarify.

Time is the length of objects and the length between objects.  This does not say that space is 2d'l.  What I'm saying is that space does not exist.  It is not 3d'l, 2d'l, or 1d'l.  It simply does not exist.  What does exist is time.  Time is a length.  Time is the length between objects of mass.  For 2 objects, the time line is 1d'l.  For 3 objects, the time lines are triangular.  For 4 or more objects, the time lines, or lengths, are polygonal.  Regardless of the number of objects these time line connections are 2d'l areas, not volumes of space.

For example, the earth, moon, and sun form a dynamical 2d'l connection, which by no means excludes other objects of mass within this vicinity, each object contributing proportionately as to the product of its mass and inversely to the square of the distance from other objects.

[Bored chemist]

Regarding light being invisibleLight is arguably the only visible thing.  I'd argue against that, but a statement that light isn't visible seems trivially falsified.

Here is my reasoning:    When light strikes a 3d'l object, some of the rays are absorbed by the object, and some are reflected.  We see the object because of the reflected rays, which are actually secondary light created by the object as a reaction to the incident light.  Our eyes react to the reflected light, which arrives on our retinas as a 2d'l image, and send a signal to our brain where the image is interpreted as 3d'l objects.  At no point in this process do we actually see the light.  We can only see the 3d'l object's reaction to light.

If I put a piece of black paper between  my eyes and the object then I can  no longer see the object.
If I use a piece of glass instead then I can see the object.
The reason for this is that black paper blocks light and glass does not.

If what I see isn't light, how does the experiment work?

[criggsb33 (OP)]

If I put a piece of black paper between  my eyes and the object then I can  no longer see the object.If I use a piece of glass instead then I can see the object.The reason for this is that black paper blocks light and glass does not.If what I see isn't light, how does the experiment work?

The point that I'm trying to make is that electromagnetic radiation is 2d'l, and something that is 2d'l cannot be seen.  We cannot actually see the radiation.  What we see is the 3d'l object's reaction to the radiation.  In your example, by putting a dark sheet in between the object and the observer's eyes, the radiation which was created by the object as a reaction to the incident light is blocked.  Suppose, instead, that we remove the object and we focus our eyes on where the object was.  What will we see then?  If we limit the experiment to the light source, the object, and the observer,  we will see nothing.  The light is still there, we just can't see it.  This is a subtle distinction, but critical to our understanding.