# Thread: Constructing Time from Four Axioms

1. Here goes:

A1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.

A2: x = x

A3: x + y = y + x

A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = the empty set.

Index.....Statement...………………………………………………………………………… ………….. Reason

1...…...….Construct S = C x C................................................. ......................................A1, A2

1.1...…….S is 4 dimensional....................................... .............................................…...1

1.2.........Set the components of S = S_1,2,3,4 in the following order: Re, Im, Re, Im.....1, A2

2......…...S can transform into two Riemann Spheres......................................……... A1, 1

3............Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS..............................…..A1, 1

4............Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_3, 4 and call it P_T.................................…A1, 3

4.1......…I'm going to use physical terminology below........................................…..De cleration

4.2...…..Construct "physical space" = S_P = CxC/S_4.......................................…...…A1, A2

5......…..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S1,2,3) when encountering a space node and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this "freq" =
T_S......................….............A1, 4, 4.2, A2

7......…..Define "Change in freq" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....5

8...........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_3,4............................................. ....................1

11..........Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this "Changes in freqs.".........5,7

12.........Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)].................................................. .................................................. .......................1-11, A3, A2

13.......Construct MxT_S, M element of Natural Numbers subset of C..................................5, A4

14.......Define " Basic time" = t_B = {1/[(1/M) (\sum \limits_{n=1}^M n#T_S)]}*Delta t_B.......................12, 5,
A3

15........Couple t_B to every node of S_P and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST...........4.2, A2, A2

15.1.....Construct S_i = CxC............................................... .........................................A1

16........Construct RSxRS in S_i, call it Pp................................................ ..................15.1, 2

17........Isolate the Riemann Circle in Pp and call it P_BT.............................................. ......A1, 16

18........Let P_BT advance by one (rotate relative to S_i1,2,3) when encountering A B_ST node and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this "freq2"= T_BST...…………………………………………………………………………………….......... ....................17, A2

19........Construct KxT_BST, K element of Natural Numbers, subset of C..................….......18, A4

20........Define "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BST)]..............................A3, A2, 18

21.......Pp is in every particle of the clock............................................. .............................Requirement

22.......Tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on the Pp in the clock and on the route in B_ST.............................................. .................................................. .................................18, 21

23.......Tim1 = Time.............................................. .................................................. ........A3, 22

For the Riemann Circle rotated through any finite amount, infinity is still at the north pole of the corresponding Riemann Sphere.

2.

3. Moved to Personal Theories.
You didn't get far on SciForums pushing this, what makes you think you'll do any better here?

4. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Moved to Personal Theories.
You didn't get far on SciForums pushing this, what makes you think you'll do any better here?
What they may not realise is if they define time using a clock, all the parts of the clock, how they fit together and how they function must be specified.

5. And... wrong again.

6. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
And... wrong again.
I didn't yet see a definition of time, except my own. Please quote one - an Alien that just understands language must be able to use the definition.

7. Originally Posted by talanum46
What they may not realise is if they define time using a clock, all the parts of the clock, how they fit together and how they function must be specified.
Actually, it is a benefit of defining time in terms of a clock that a clock can be defined by instructions of how it is built. This provides genuine meaning to the definition of time as a physical notion. By contrast, you have provided no connection to the physical world.

8. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by talanum46
What they may not realise is if they define time using a clock, all the parts of the clock, how they fit together and how they function must be specified.
Actually, it is a benefit of defining time in terms of a clock that a clock can be defined by instructions of how it is built. This provides genuine meaning to the definition of time as a physical notion. By contrast, you have provided no connection to the physical world.
The numbers and space connects it. What is the benefit? Can the instructions be typed on a page without pictures?

There is motion in a clock so the definition would be circular.

It is highly unlikely that current clocks give the correct time according to my construction.

9. Originally Posted by talanum46
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by talanum46
What they may not realise is if they define time using a clock, all the parts of the clock, how they fit together and how they function must be specified.
Actually, it is a benefit of defining time in terms of a clock that a clock can be defined by instructions of how it is built. This provides genuine meaning to the definition of time as a physical notion. By contrast, you have provided no connection to the physical world.
The numbers and space connects it. What is the benefit? Can the instructions be typed on a page without pictures?

There is motion in a clock so the definition would be circular.

It is highly unlikely that current clocks give the correct time according to my construction.
Defining time as what a clock measures, and defining a clock by instructions to build it, is not circular. Furthermore, it defines a physical notion (time) in terms of a physical notion (building a clock). While it is useful to describe physical reality in terms of mathematical quantities, unless there is a connection between the mathematics and the physics, the mathematics is meaningless. The way to define physical quantities is to describe how those physical quantities are measured (or to define them in terms of other physical quantities that are defined by how they are measured).

10. Yes, but you must set the clock into motion in order to measure, that makes the (required) extension of the definition circular. My construction does assign meaning to mathematical quantities.

The clock so constructed won't neccesarily measure the correct time.

11. Originally Posted by talanum46
Yes, but you must set the clock into motion in order to measure, that makes the (required) extension of the definition circular.
Really?? What sort of clock are you referring to? Atomic clocks are based on the energy levels of atomic orbitals and the frequency of the light emitted when electrons transition from one orbital to another.

Originally Posted by talanum46
My construction does assign meaning to mathematical quantities.
I don't see any connection to physical notions. It isn't enough that you mention physical quantities. You have to provide a truly physical connection. Without it, it can't be used in the physical world. For example, what is a second? Although it's true that a second is an arbitrarily defined unit of time, it still is a specific interval of physical time. What is this specific interval of physical time?

Originally Posted by talanum46
The clock so constructed won't necessarily measure the correct time.
What do you mean by "correct time"? In particular, why wouldn't a constructed clock measure it?

12. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by talanum46
Yes, but you must set the clock into motion in order to measure, that makes the (required) extension of the definition circular.
Really?? What sort of clock are you referring to? Atomic clocks are based on the energy levels of atomic orbitals and the frequency of the light emitted when electrons transition from one orbital to another.
A mechanical clock. An atomic clock has moving electric currents. The last instruction must be: "Activate the clock." because one need to test it. This is where the circularity arises.

Originally Posted by talanum46
My construction does assign meaning to mathematical quantities.
I don't see any connection to physical notions. It isn't enough that you mention physical quantities. You have to provide a truly physical connection. Without it, it can't be used in the physical world. For example, what is a second? Although it's true that a second is an arbitrarily defined unit of time, it still is a specific interval of physical time. What is this specific interval of physical time?
It is in line 23: "Tim1 = Time". Time is physical. A second is a fraction of a year. Time was fitted to a year.

Originally Posted by talanum46
The clock so constructed won't necessarily measure the correct time.
What do you mean by "correct time"? In particular, why wouldn't a constructed clock measure it?
The correct time is if time advances as in line 18: one turn for every B_ST-node P_BT encounters. (The inverse average of many T_BST's). A constructed clock would not measure it because it was fitted to a year. Thus not as in 18.

13. Originally Posted by talanum46
An atomic clock has moving electric currents. The last instruction must be: "Activate the clock." because one need to test it. This is where the circularity arises.
How exactly does a circularity arise from activating the clock? Actually, the benefit of defining time as what clocks measure is that it does avoid the Münchhausen trilemma.

Originally Posted by talanum46
It is in line 23: "Tim1 = Time". Time is physical.
Actually, "Time" in line 23 is not physical. It is just a word.

Originally Posted by talanum46
A second is a fraction of a year
How does this relate to your construction of time? The point of my question was to ask how your construction of time can be used (for example) to set my alarm. That's what I mean by the "physical world".

14. How exactly does a circularity arise from activating the clock? Actually, the benefit of defining time as what clocks measure is that it does avoid the Münchhausen trilemma.

Which of the three options does it avoid?

It is just a word.

So is instructing someone how to build a clock. It's up to the user to link words to physical objects.

How does this relate to
your
construction of time? The point of my question was to ask how your construction of time can be used (for example) to set my alarm.

My construction gives the correct time. It's something to check clocks against.

15. Youre purposly quibbling about the semantics of line 23 to avoid the problem that you are incoorect about physical clocks.

16. Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
Youre purposly quibbling about the semantics of line 23 to avoid the problem that you are incoorect about physical clocks.
And you are purposely not linking the word "time" to physical time in order to quibble.

Let me tell about the circularity: as the clock gets activated there is movement in the clock and movement presuppose time, but we are trying to define time - circular.

17. Originally Posted by talanum46
How exactly does a circularity arise from activating the clock? Actually, the benefit of defining time as what clocks measure is that it does avoid the Münchhausen trilemma.
Which of the three options does it avoid?
All of them. It avoids circularity because the definition of the clock, as instructions to construct it, do not make any reference to time. This is actually not true for all types of clocks, but for an atomic clock, it is true. It avoids infinite regression because the definition stops at possessing the clock. And it avoids being axiomatic because a clock is a tangible physical object.

Originally Posted by talanum46
It is just a word.
So is instructing someone how to build a clock.
Not necessarily. One can show someone how to build a clock.

Originally Posted by talanum46
It's up to the user to link words to physical objects.
And what physical object is time?

Originally Posted by talanum46
My construction gives the correct time. It's something to check clocks against.
How? You still haven't provided anything tangible.

18. Originally Posted by talanum46
Let me tell about the circularity: as the clock gets activated there is movement in the clock and movement presuppose time, but we are trying to define time - circular.
Whether or not instructions to build a clock lead to circularity in the definition of time depends on whether the rate-determining components of the clock are specified in a time-dependent manner. In the case of an atomic clock, the rate-determining component is the radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133. This specification makes no reference to anything that is time-dependent. You mentioned the electric current used to operate the clock, but while electric current is a time-dependent notion, it does not affect the radiation frequency of the caesium-133 atom, and hence there is no circularity.

19. And what physical object is time?

An object that advances, depends on a clock and on the route of the clock through spacetime.

How? You still haven't provided anything tangible.

By determining the route of the clock through B_ST and then computing.

Whether or not instructions to build a clock lead to circularity in the definition of time depends on whether the rate-determining components of the clock are specified in a time-dependent manner. In the case of an atomic clock, the rate-determining component is the radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133. This specification makes no reference to anything that is time-dependent. You mentioned the electric current used to operate the clock, but while electric current is a time-dependent notion, it does not affect the radiation frequency of the caesium-133 atom, and hence there is no circularity.

The transitions are presumeably caused by photons, which depend on time.

20. No they dont. So you are actively ignoring fact

21. Originally Posted by talanum46
And what physical object is time?
An object that advances, depends on a clock and on the route of the clock through spacetime.

How? You still haven't provided anything tangible.
By determining the route of the clock through B_ST and then computing.
How does this differ from defining time as that which clocks measure?

Originally Posted by talanum46
Whether or not instructions to build a clock lead to circularity in the definition of time depends on whether the rate-determining components of the clock are specified in a time-dependent manner. In the case of an atomic clock, the rate-determining component is the radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133. This specification makes no reference to anything that is time-dependent. You mentioned the electric current used to operate the clock, but while electric current is a time-dependent notion, it does not affect the radiation frequency of the caesium-133 atom, and hence there is no circularity.
The transitions are presumeably caused by photons, which depend on time.
Well yeah... it's a clock... of course it depends on time. To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock requires a clock.

22. It actually does since you need a reference time to calibrate your clock to. A year is a timespan of the natural clock: Earth orbiting the Sun.

23. To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock requires a clock.

It actually does since you need a reference time to calibrate your clock to. A year is a timespan of the natural clock: Earth orbiting the Sun. And a cesium atom is another natural clock. How are you sure every second is exactly a second?

24. Originally Posted by talanum46
To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock requires a clock.
It actually does since you need a reference time to calibrate your clock to.
An atomic clock does not need to be calibrated. The caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz and this is the basis of its use as a primary standard. Do not confuse the redefinition of the second with calibration of the clock. The only reason the new second was made to conform to the old second was to maintain backwards compatibility. But from a purely logical perspective, it was not necessary to compare the new clocks with any old clocks. One could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom.

Originally Posted by talanum46
How are you sure every second is exactly a second?
The simple answer to this is the constancy of the laws of physics. But to determine the appropriateness of the use of caesium-133 as a primary standard, one could measure the precision of the caesium-133 atom oscillation frequency. Caesium-133 is not perfect, that's why other technologies are being explored as possible future standards of time.

25. A year is A wholly arbitrary time frame as well, move to Jupiter or a different solar system and the year is different. You are still waffling

26. An atomic clock does not need to be calibrated. The caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz and this is the basis of its use as a primary standard. Do not confuse the redefinition of the second with calibration of the clock. The only reason the new second was made to conform to the old second was to maintain backwards compatibility. But from a purely logical perspective, it was not necessary to compare the new clocks with any old clocks. One could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom.

They restored the circularity by requiring backwards compatibility with seconds. They must have set the amount of transitions at which a second should tick over. This is equivalent to calibrating the clock.

27. Originally Posted by talanum46
An atomic clock does not need to be calibrated. The caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz and this is the basis of its use as a primary standard. Do not confuse the redefinition of the second with calibration of the clock. The only reason the new second was made to conform to the old second was to maintain backwards compatibility. But from a purely logical perspective, it was not necessary to compare the new clocks with any old clocks. One could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom.
They restored the circularity by requiring backwards compatibility with seconds. They must have set the amount of transitions at which a second should tick over. This is equivalent to calibrating the clock.
No, I said: "To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock requires a clock.". It was not necessary to maintain backwards compatibility, one could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom. In this case, no clock would be required to construct a clock. And even if the new second was made to conform to the old second to maintain backwards compatibility, only the first new clock would require calibration to the old second. Subsequent clocks would not require any clocks because the first new clock has already provided the information that the caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz. But to establish circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing each and every clock requires a clock, not just the first clock.

To appreciate this, perhaps it would be helpful to consider an example of a clock whose construction does require a clock. It should be noted that we are considering universal clocks, clocks that can be used anywhere in the universe, not just on earth. The clock to be considered is the pendulum. The period of oscillation of a simple pendulum is:

where is the length of the pendulum, and is the acceleration field in which the pendulum operates. For the clock to operate anywhere, has to be known. But depends on time, and hence a clock. Note that this circularity applies to every pendulum, not just the first, and that this prevents any pendulum from being a universal clock.

But the circularity that applies to a pendulum does not apply to an atomic clock, and therefore an atomic clock can be used as a universal clock.

28. No, I said: "To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock
requires
a clock.". It was not necessary to maintain backwards compatibility, one could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom. In this case, no clock would be required to construct a clock. And even if the new second was made to conform to the old second to maintain backwards compatibility, only the
first
new clock would require calibration to the old second. Subsequent clocks would not require any clocks because the first new clock has already provided the information that the caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz. But to establish circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing each and every clock requires a clock, not just the first clock.
We have already established that the transitions depend on photons which depend on time. Your talking about frequency requires: oscillations per second, how did they establish the measurement, without a clock?

A clock that can't be activated is useless.

29. Nope, the only thing this thread has established is your bone-headed tendency to ignore anything that shows you are wrong...

30. Originally Posted by talanum46
We have already established that the transitions depend on photons which depend on time.
I already replied to this in post #20 above, where I said: "Well yeah... it's a clock... of course it depends on time."

Originally Posted by talanum46
Your talking about frequency requires: oscillations per second, how did they establish the measurement?
By measuring the frequency of the radiation associated with the transition of caesium-133. But they only had to measure this once, not for every atomic clock that is produced. Thus, the clock that was used to measure the frequency is not the clock that establishes a circularity. Actually, the clock that establishes the circularity is the clock that is being constructed, which is needed in order to construct the clock. Perhaps you can explain the problem with circularities, and how measuring the frequency of the radiation associated with the transition of caesium-133 creates that problem. In logic, circularities are akin to paradoxes. But there is nothing like that occurring with the measurement of the frequency of the radiation associated with the transition of caesium-133.

31. A clock depends on time and measures time: profound physics should follow.

To build a mechanical clock requires to measure the spring constant: kx = ma - x, m, a must be measured and this requires a clock.

32. A Cesium clock contains an osscilator and a servo mechanism. The osscilator needs to be tested and this requires a clock.

33. Originally Posted by talanum46
A Cesium clock contains an osscilator and a servo mechanism. The osscilator needs to be tested and this requires a clock.
One problem with your argument is that atomic clocks actually work, so clearly any circularities you think exists isn't actually a problem, so why do you think it is a problem?

34. Yes! This is the question I (and I’m sure many others) have wanted to ask! Why is this calibration (circularity?) of yours a problem for grounding the parameter as a useful one in physics?

35. Why is this calibration (circularity?) of yours a problem for grounding the parameter as a useful one in physics?

Because you then need an infinity of clocks (nature's clocks must also be tested or their physical laws). You need to calibrate clock A with clock B, clock B with clock C etc.

36. Originally Posted by talanum46
Why is this calibration (circularity?) of yours a problem for grounding the parameter as a useful one in physics?
Because you then need an infinity of clocks (nature's clocks must also be tested or their physical laws). You need to calibrate clock A with clock B, clock B with clock C etc.
But that obviously isn't the case with the atomic clocks currently in use.

37. Originally Posted by talanum46
Why is this calibration (circularity?) of yours a problem for grounding the parameter as a useful one in physics?

Because you then need an infinity of clocks (nature's clocks must also be tested or their physical laws). You need to calibrate clock A with clock B, clock B with clock C etc.
Wrong

38. Originally Posted by talanum46
To build a mechanical clock requires to measure the spring constant: kx = ma - x, m, a must be measured and this requires a clock.
Whether a mechanical clock can be a universal clock is difficult to answer. I'm inclined towards thinking it can't but I'm unsure.

The reason this thread has my interest is because a number of years ago I had a hypothesis about the nature of universal clocks (clocks that can act as a primary standard of time anywhere in the universe, not just on or near earth). This thread has helped be to refine the principles involved. For example, consider clocks based on nuclear magnetic resonance. If the clock is based on chemical shifts, then because this depends on the strength of the applied magnetic field, which ultimately depends on a time standard, it would not fulfil the requirements of a universal clock. By contrast, if the clock is based on J-coupling constants, then because this is independent of the strength of the applied magnetic field, it does fulfil the requirement of a universal clock, even though a strong magnetic field is still required for the clock to operate.

39. What post number helped you?

40. My paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.

41. Is it? Has it actually been accepted, peer reviewed and has a ,publication date?

Or have you mearly submitted and not heard back?

42. paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
I don't believe you...

43. Originally Posted by talanum46
My paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
How much did you pay them to publish it?

44. Originally Posted by PhDemon
paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
I don't believe you...
It is a pay to publish ("predatory") journal.

45. Ah, in that case they'll accept any old shit... I thought he meant this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advances_in_Physics

46. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Ah, in that case they'll accept any old shit... I thought he meant this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advances_in_Physics
I think they choose names that are very similar to reputable journals. There could be a whole series of them: Advonces in Physics, Advances in Phisycs, etc

47. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by PhDemon
paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
I don't believe you...
It is a pay to publish ("predatory") journal.
The editorial staff is, shall we say, less than stellar. The EIC boasts that his doctorate is equivalent to "Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D) in Physics from any Accredited University of USA." That's taken directly from the EIC's personal webpage, under "Education". None of his publications has anything to do with physics.

The journal's website shows that they'll publish your manuscript for about $100. They do talk about "peer review". No doubt, the peers are equivalent to "any...of USA." 48. Originally Posted by tk421 The journal's website shows that they'll publish your manuscript for about$100. They do talk about "peer review". No doubt, the peers are equivalent to "any...of USA."
Some people have deliberately submitted nonsense to journals like this and concluded that "peer review" must consist of showing the manuscript to the office cat (at best).

49. I think the "peer review" just makes sure your check or bank transfer has cleared

50. "Or have you mearly submitted and not heard back?"I heard back. They are going to publish in 5 to 7 day's time from yesterday.

51. Well if you want to pay 100 bucks to get your silly ideas "published" that's your lookout. It doesn't mean anyone is going to take you seriously...

52. Originally Posted by talanum46
"Or have you mearly submitted and not heard back?"I heard back. They are going to publish in 5 to 7 day's time from yesterday.
This is the expected result. The check cleared, and the office cat mewed no objections.

53. Originally Posted by talanum46
"Or have you mearly submitted and not heard back?"I heard back. They are going to publish in 5 to 7 day's time from yesterday.
You do inderstand that you are supporting a predatory journal with no academic standing at all right? You have litterally wasted youre money to damage your reputation more

54. I didn't pay them to accept my paper for publication - that would take hundred-millions. Visit their webpage, it looks decent.

55. Only if you're an idiot...

56.

57. In a predatory journal that will publish any old nonsense...

58. Originally Posted by talanum46
Have you at all done any research into what a predetory journal is? It is not an accepted reputable source of publishing

59. They claim to be a peer reviewed Journal.

60. Originally Posted by talanum46
They claim to be a peer reviewed Journal.
Scammers always claim to be genuine. That is how they convince gullible people to give them money.

61. There is no criticism on the content of my definition any more.

62. Because we know we are wasting our time and you are a loony...

63. I defined basic spacetime and time. See below:

Defining time.

Willem F. Esterhuyse

Abstract

We define Time, not by stating it is what a clock measure, and then describing a clock.

1. Defining time.

A1: Complex numbers exist.
A2: x = x
A3: x + y = y + x
A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = Empty set

We have to define a particle, from 4-dimensional space. So define first a complex space: two superimposed copies of the complex plane call this C <-> C (from A1). From C and a copy of C for both C's construct two superimposed Riemann Spheres (RS <-> RS). Identify a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and south poles of RS <-> RS call this Pp.
We prove RS <-> RS is a particle: RS <-> RS can have spin and has finite size and can have momentum. Therefore RS <-> RS is a particle.

Construct physical space as: RxRxR (R is the Real numbers) set this = S_p. Where x = Cartesian Product.

Define "advance by one of Pp" by "Pp rotates by one unit as measured along the circumference of the circle, let this rotation be a quantum rotation: a rotation from state A to state B without visiting the in between states". The advancement does not move the infinity at the RS <-> RS north poles since: infinity - constant = infinity.

Let the particle part "Pp" advance by one every time it encounters a space point. Call this "freq" = T_s. Space expands and fluctuates so this does not give a static Pp.

Now construct changes in freq by: T_sf - T_si. Construct {for all n = 1 toN: n(T_sf -T_si)_n}. Call this changes in freq.

Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_SF - T_SI)_n]

Couple Delta t*_B to every point of S*_p and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST.

Having defined B_ST we can now define time. We need another particle, so define like above a RS <-> RS. Isolate a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and sout poles and call it Pq. Let Pq advance by one when encounntering a B_ST point. Call this "freq3" = T_BST.

Construct KxT_BST with k element of Natural numbers. Now we can define tim1 as: "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BSTn)].

If we require Pq is in every particle of the clock, we can prove tim1 = time. This is done by listing the properties of tim1 and comparing these with the properties of time:
tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on Pq in the clock and on the route in B_ST. This is exactly the properties of time therefore:
tim1 = time, and we are done.

In practice we only require that the clock contains particles with circles not containing any left out or added points.

Bibliography:

[1] Kotz and Purcell. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. Saunders College Publishing, 1987
[3] Nagashima Y, Elementary Particle Physics. Volume 1: Quantum Field Theory and Particles. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. 2010.
[4] Hdjensofjfnen, Wikipedia, Internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. 2019.

64. Originally Posted by talanum46
I defined basic spacetime and time. See below:

Defining time.

Willem F. Esterhuyse

Abstract

We define Time, not by stating it is what a clock measure, and then describing a clock.

1. Defining time.

A1: Complex numbers exist.
A2: x = x
A3: x + y = y + x
A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = Empty set

We have to define a particle, from 4-dimensional space. So define first a complex space: two superimposed copies of the complex plane call this C <-> C (from A1). From C and a copy of C for both C's construct two superimposed Riemann Spheres (RS <-> RS). Identify a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and south poles of RS <-> RS call this Pp.
We prove RS <-> RS is a particle: RS <-> RS can have spin and has finite size and can have momentum. Therefore RS <-> RS is a particle.

Construct physical space as: RxRxR (R is the Real numbers) set this = S_p. Where x = Cartesian Product.

Define "advance by one of Pp" by "Pp rotates by one unit as measured along the circumference of the circle, let this rotation be a quantum rotation: a rotation from state A to state B without visiting the in between states". The advancement does not move the infinity at the RS <-> RS north poles since: infinity - constant = infinity.

Let the particle part "Pp" advance by one every time it encounters a space point. Call this "freq" = T_s. Space expands and fluctuates so this does not give a static Pp.

Now construct changes in freq by: T_sf - T_si. Construct {for all n = 1 toN: n(T_sf -T_si)_n}. Call this changes in freq.

Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_SF - T_SI)_n]

Couple Delta t*_B to every point of S*_p and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST.

Having defined B_ST we can now define time. We need another particle, so define like above a RS <-> RS. Isolate a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and sout poles and call it Pq. Let Pq advance by one when encounntering a B_ST point. Call this "freq3" = T_BST.

Construct KxT_BST with k element of Natural numbers. Now we can define tim1 as: "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BSTn)].

If we require Pq is in every particle of the clock, we can prove tim1 = time. This is done by listing the properties of tim1 and comparing these with the properties of time:
tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on Pq in the clock and on the route in B_ST. This is exactly the properties of time therefore:
tim1 = time, and we are done.

In practice we only require that the clock contains particles with circles not containing any left out or added points.

Bibliography:

[1] Kotz and Purcell. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. Saunders College Publishing, 1987
[3] Nagashima Y, Elementary Particle Physics. Volume 1: Quantum Field Theory and Particles. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. 2010.
[4] Hdjensofjfnen, Wikipedia, Internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. 2019.
Well, there's certainly a good deal of B_ST here.

One question: where, in what you you have posted here, do you draw on reference [1]? There does not seem to be any chemistry here.

65. There was time of reactions in it: reaction rate. The particles I intend to define eventually make up chemistry.

Some of those frogs sits inside the flaps of the box.

66. You are certainly making stuff up...

67. Noe of the references seem relevant to anything posted. And referencing a username on an Internet forum is particularly moronic.

68. I can define basic spacetime and time. See below:

Defining time.

Willem F. Esterhuyse

Abstract

We define Time, not by stating it is what a clock measure, and then describing a clock.

1. Defining time.

A1: Complex numbers exist.
A2: x = x
A3: x + y = y + x
A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = Empty set

We have to define a particle, from 4-dimensional space. So define first a complex space: two superimposed copies of the complex plane call this C <-> C (from A1). From C and a copy of C for both C's construct two superimposed Riemann Spheres (RS <-> RS). Identify a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and south poles of RS <-> RS call this Pp.

We prove RS <-> RS is a particle: RS <-> RS can have spin and has finite size and can have momentum. Therefore RS <-> RS is a particle.

Construct physical space as: RxRxR (R is the Real numbers) set this = S_p. Where x = Cartesian Product.

Define "advance by one of Pp" by "Pp rotates by one unit as measured along the circumference of the circle, let this rotation be a quantum rotation: a rotation from state A to state B without visiting the in between states". The advancement does not move the infinity at the RS <-> RS north poles since: infinity - constant = infinity.

Let the particle part "Pp" advance by one every time it encounters a space point. Call this "freq" = T_s. Space expands and fluctuates so this does not give a static Pp.

Now construct changes in freq by: T_sf - T_si. Construct {for all n = 1 toN: n(T_sf -T_si)_n}. Call this changes in freq.

Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_SF - T_SI)_n]

Couple Delta t*_B to every point of S*_p and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST.

Having defined B_ST we can now define time. We need another particle, so define like above a RS <-> RS. Isolate a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and sout poles and call it Pq. Let Pq advance by one when encounntering a B_ST point. Call this "freq3" = T_BST.

Construct KxT_BST with k element of Natural numbers. Now we can define tim1 as: "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BSTn)].

If we require Pq is in every particle of the clock, we can prove tim1 = time. This is done by listing the properties of tim1 and comparing these with the properties of time:
tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on Pq in the clock and on the route in B_ST. This is exactly the properties of time therefore:

tim1 = time, and we are done.

In practice we only require that the clock contains particles with circles not containing any left out or added points.

Bibliography:

[1] Kotz and Purcell. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. Saunders College Publishing, 1987
[3] Nagashima Y, Elementary Particle Physics. Volume 1: Quantum Field Theory and Particles. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. 2010.
[4] Hdjensofjfnen, Wikipedia, Internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. 2019.

69. Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true...

70. Originally Posted by talanum46
I can define basic spacetime and time. See below:

Defining time.

Willem F. Esterhuyse

Abstract

We define Time, not by stating it is what a clock measure, and then describing a clock.

1. Defining time.

A1: Complex numbers exist.
A2: x = x
A3: x + y = y + x
A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = Empty set

We have to define a particle, from 4-dimensional space. So define first a complex space: two superimposed copies of the complex plane call this C <-> C (from A1). From C and a copy of C for both C's construct two superimposed Riemann Spheres (RS <-> RS). Identify a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and south poles of RS <-> RS call this Pp.

We prove RS <-> RS is a particle: RS <-> RS can have spin and has finite size and can have momentum. Therefore RS <-> RS is a particle.

Construct physical space as: RxRxR (R is the Real numbers) set this = S_p. Where x = Cartesian Product.

Define "advance by one of Pp" by "Pp rotates by one unit as measured along the circumference of the circle, let this rotation be a quantum rotation: a rotation from state A to state B without visiting the in between states". The advancement does not move the infinity at the RS <-> RS north poles since: infinity - constant = infinity.

Let the particle part "Pp" advance by one every time it encounters a space point. Call this "freq" = T_s. Space expands and fluctuates so this does not give a static Pp.

Now construct changes in freq by: T_sf - T_si. Construct {for all n = 1 toN: n(T_sf -T_si)_n}. Call this changes in freq.

Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_SF - T_SI)_n]

Couple Delta t*_B to every point of S*_p and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST.

Having defined B_ST we can now define time. We need another particle, so define like above a RS <-> RS. Isolate a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and sout poles and call it Pq. Let Pq advance by one when encounntering a B_ST point. Call this "freq3" = T_BST.

Construct KxT_BST with k element of Natural numbers. Now we can define tim1 as: "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BSTn)].

If we require Pq is in every particle of the clock, we can prove tim1 = time. This is done by listing the properties of tim1 and comparing these with the properties of time:
tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on Pq in the clock and on the route in B_ST. This is exactly the properties of time therefore:

tim1 = time, and we are done.

In practice we only require that the clock contains particles with circles not containing any left out or added points.

Bibliography:

[1] Kotz and Purcell. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. Saunders College Publishing, 1987