"Solving the Mystery of Space and Time by Using Animacentric Relativity Principle" - by Stanislav Tregub 2022 - Article review

This document contains article review "Solving the Mystery of Space and Time by Using Animacentric Relativity Principle" - by Stanislav Tregub 2022
To order to read the article select: https://www.academia.edu/s/94f7cfb28d?source=ai_email



Page 1

Solving the Mystery of Space and Time by Using Animacentric Relativity Principle

The concepts of time and space have occupied the minds of people from time immemorial. The views on this matter can be divided into two categories.
Both views can be wrong.
Substantialism considers space and time as entities. It says that space is a kind of global container in which all objects are located, and time is a container of events.
Space and time are two complete different concepts.
Space, the universe and all what its contains is a physical concept.
Time is a complete different concept. It is related to the concept now and to the behaviour of a clock.
Another point of view is relationalism that says that space is relations between objects, and time is the dynamic sequence of their states.
The crucial dividing question: are space and time actual entities or just our concepts by which we define the measurement of all entities and their states?
The problem with this sentence is that if you introduce a concept like an entity you have to describe what it means and what it does not mean.
Space is a physical concept. An object is also a physical concept. An example of an object is a human. Humans have brains and have the capability to make a distinction between the past the present and the future. Each object exists in time, at present.
To describe the objects and their dynamics, we can invent an abstract coordinate system that would be a frame of reference with axes where we put space points as coordinate values.
A reference frame can only be used to describe the position of the objects at a specific moment.
We can add a time axis with specific units that would be the sampling rate at which we take measures of the change, or we can use a clock ticking with some rate as a conventional agreement for all the observers.
It is important that only one clock is used fixed to the coordinate system.

Page 2

If the frame of reference is stationary or moving at a constant speed it is called inertial.
If there is only one reference frame it makes only sense to declare that frame stationary or at rest.
To declare a reference frame as moving at a constant speed, requires a different reference frame which is at rest.
It is important that a clock fixed to a frame at rest and a clock fixed to a moving frame both tick at a different speed.
. Theoretically, if various frames are inertial there is no difference between their measurements of external signals.
What is the purpose to define a world which contains various reference frames which all move at different constant speeds? Remember none of the stars in our universe move at a constant speed.
The example with the ship shows nicely that in reality there are no inertial frames: the ship’s speed cannot be absolutely constant, and no sea is absolutely smooth.
There are two different issues: The physical reality and a reference frame.
To select a reference requires to select a frame which includes all physical objects considered.
. Theoretically, if various frames are inertial there is no difference between their measurements of external signals.
Generally speaking if various frames are involved which include the same objects, the position of these objects will be different.
This is usually called Galilean invariance which postulates that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames.
This problem is circumvented if only one reference frame is used.
Galileo Galilei described this principle in 1632 using the example of a ship moving at a constant speed on a smooth sea without rocking, which makes it equivalent to a stationary frame of reference for observers on it.
This maybe true in principle, but very difficult to use in reality.
By the way, the accuracy of the onboard clock and minimizing the influence of the movement of the ship and other factors was the main problem, without which a purposeful journey across the ocean was practically impossible.
That is still a problem in practice.
The example with the ship shows that the inertial frame of reference was and remains a kind of dream, since it could be an ideal measure of everything. It was this dream that gave birth to the absolutistic substantialism.
Why this name absolutistic substantialism?. It is better to describe this in common language.
Newton introduced the notion of absolute space and time as a universal frame of reference (background) for all measurements.
Does that imply that he uses only one (universal) reference frame?
For obvious reasons, instead of an intangible absolute and uniform time Newton used the usual reference frame of the clocks with a ticking frequency adjusted to the Earth rotation period as the measure of time.
Apparently Newton was not aware of the fact that moving clocks, moving at different rates, tick at a different rate.
A clock build, specific the oscillator involved, operating based on light signals.
The relativity principle introduced by Albert Einstein implies observers moving at various speeds and producing different measurements but still assumes the existence of distinguished frames that are uniform and allow for the equivalent expression of all measurements.
The exact strategy involved should be explained in more detail.

Page 3

Einstein was an absolutist despite the fact that he abolished the static nature of Newton’s space and time.
The meaning of the words absolute and static is almost the same.
Не chose the speed of light which is the fastest one for all observers and made an absolute and a universal reference out of it.
If you use the concept speed of light you are almost obliged to indicate how this speed is measured.
Just for the sake of saving the idea of abstract inertial frames, this postulate was added by Einstein to the physically valid postulate about the independence of the speed of light wave from the speed of the emitting source.
What this means that a flash of light emitted simultaneous from two different sources, moving relative, are one and the same. But that does not say anything about the speed of the flash.
The speed becomes a universal and absolute reference while in itself being the result of spatial and temporal measurements that are both relative. Theory of relativity produced an absolute.
This sentence performs magic with words.
The author of the book with the provocative name “The End of Time,” Julian Barbour wrote: “What is time?
The word is places a heavy on this sentence.
IMO it makes only sense to define the present moment as "now". Time has strictly to do with the behaviour of a clock.
The important thing is to get away from the idea that time is something. Time does not exist. All that exists are things that change” (Barbour, 1999).
I agree.
Calling the flow of events and our measuring of this flow with a noun “time” and thinking it is some entity is the same as thinking that the flow of the river is not a process but an entity Flow that sits in the river.
To suggest that time is something that physical flows is misleading. Time is typical a human consists. It is related to our awareness in our brain that certain events have happened in the past, are happening somewhere in the universe, and will happen in the future.
When it comes to the practical measurement of change, we do not need any “substance of time.” We only need a clock to count moments as discrete measures of a continual process.
We only need one clock to define the moment when each event has happened. In fact what we need is an universe filled with clocks, which all run synchrone.

Page 4

In the case of defining space and time as objects, the inevitable problem arose: these objects seem to be everywhere and nowhere
In relation to the previous discussion and conclusion it does not make sense to define time as an object
Therefore, the only confirmation that adherents of Einstein’s theory could come up with was the observation of clock readings under various conditions and at various speeds.
There is not enough detail supplied in this document to validate this claim.
The acceleration or deceleration of the clock for them became evidence of the curvature of the substance of time.
The only thing that can be experimental tested is that moving clocks, working with lightsignals, don't run synchrone. Moving meaning that length of the paths through space going from A to B, is different.
The concept was illustrated by a thought experiment called “twin paradox” where one of the two identical twins makes a journey into space in a rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more.
Implying that clock of stay at home twin has advanced more.
Another paradox hinted at inconsistencies in the idea of time travel.
To call this time travel is wrong.
The “grandfather paradox” plot is the following: a person travels to the past and kills his grandfather before the conception of his father or mother; this prevents his existence, so he cannot be traveling anywhere in the first place.
It is physical not possiple to travel to the past nor to the future.
The idea that time is not an object, but a process of measurement is relatively easy to grasp, though it breaks the millennia-old tradition.
Time has nothing specific to do with "a process of measurement".
If space is something, it cannot be nothing.
To understand this sentence you must first define the concepts something and nothing.
It should be clear that space cannot be empty, that means it is more a combination of nothing and something.

Page 5

These are the attributes of God.
Space and time have nothing to do with God.
In his book “The trouble with physics,” Lee Smolin wrote: “Might there be a deeper theory in which we don’t have to make any prior assumption about the number of spatial dimensions?
To understand we must first have a clear definition of what means spatial dimension.
Perhaps, in such a theory, the number of spatial dimensions could even change in time.
To understand we must first have a clear definition of what means spatial dimensions can change in time.
Obviously, the problem is a serious one as it concerns the foundation of any physical theory.
Part of the problem is to come up with a clear definition of what means space, time and speed of light.
What is more important: How do you mesure these parameters.
Might we suggest to ourselves that our abstract ideas about the existence of space and time as some substance out there everywhere and nowhere could just be wrong?
To call these parameters: substances, does not make much sense.
Now here is an old idea we might use: the source of space and time is the cognizing subject.
The problem with this sentence is that it uses four concepts: source, space, time and cognizing subject which are all at this moment not clearly defined.
Stemming from this foundation we can say that space is how the observer measures objects (length, height, depth, curvature) and their relations (distance, occlusion, perspective) and time is a measurement of dynamics (change, motion, duration, sequence).
The reason of this sentence is not clear, neither is it meaning.
To call time a "measurement of dynamics" does not makes much sense.
It means that the initial observational frame of reference is the Mind.
Our Mind has nothing to do with the evolution of the universe.
We can call it the animacentric relativity principle (from Latin animus — mind).
We can call it the mind-centric relativity principle But what does it mean?
First, there are no ideal and absolute observational frames of reference.
What does this has to do with the Mind?
Second etc, Third etc, Fourth etc
Nothing seems to be okay. But what is then the solution?

Page 6

So, if Aristotle, Kant, Leibnitz and other classical relationists were right that the Mind is the source of measurements, we find ourselves looking at the ontological question that is even deeper than the problem of space and time: what is the Mind?
But how can we use the Mind, to solve any physical problem.
This may sound surprising, but any theory of physics should deal with the concept of the Mind as it is a physical process.
It is correct that our Mind is a physical process. Infact every human being is a physical process, but that does not mean that understanding our Mind at all possible levels of detail, solves all the mysteries of the universe.
The concept called “Symphony of Matter and Mind” contains two models, Theory of Energy Harmony and Teleological Transduction Theory, that aim to be a unified theory of nature.
Okay. See Next.
The models do not create an intellectual universe where one has to choose: either believe the conjectures or believe what actual evidence supports.
Okay. See Next.
Not a single hypothesis within these models contradicts any actual evidence.
I would not expect that it does. At the same time: which are these hypothesis? Is there a list?
On the contrary, they are based on a huge amount of evidence accumulated within various fields of knowledge.
I can believe that. But there is no evidence in the article, which supports this claim.

Reflection 1 - Overview Animacentric Relativity Principle

What every physical article which discusses space and time at least should discuss is one experiment or one practical example to demonstrate its main message. In this case for example: how to use the Animametric Relativity Principle to simulate the movement of the planets around the Sun.
There is nothing of that.

Instead the article starts with two 'theories' substantialism and relationalism. The conclusion is more or less: both have problems.
A different subject discussed are reference frames. Also here there are two types: Abstract coordinate systems or external frames and observational frames. Also here the conclusion is more or less: both have problems.
Regarding the laws of motion both Newton and Einstein are discussed. Also here a more or less the same conclusion: both have problems. The main theme of the book is space and time. Also here the same conclusion: there are problems.

Now comes the main question: Does the article give any solution? The answer is No.
To claim that the solution is 'in the mind' of the people, is no solution.

At the same time it should be mentioned that the subjects discussed are very interesting. Many articles are written about the same subjects and support different opinions.
As I said the prove of the pudding is in the eating. Try to simulate the movement of the stars around the black hole within the constellation Sagittarius A*. The main lessons from such an execersize is: Use one coordination system, consider this frame at rest, use only one clock troughout this frame and consider the speed of light and the speed of gravity as two different physical issues.

Reflection 2 - Symphony of Matter and Mind

Following is a list of books, part of the series: Symphony of Matter and Mind.
  1. Music of Matter. Mechanism of Material Structures Formation.
  2. Theory of Energy Harmony. Mechanism of Fundamental Interactions.
  3. Music of Life. Physics and Technology of Living Matter.
  4. Algorithm of the Mind: Teleological Transduction Theory.
  5. Technologies of the Mind. The Brain as a High-Tech Device.
  6. Harmonies of the Mind: Physics and Physiology of Self.
  7. Inner Universe. The Mind as Reality Modeling Process.
  8. Dissonances of the Mind. Psychopathology as Disturbance of the Brain Technology.
No comments

If you want to give a comment you can use the following form Comment form
Created: 1 July 2022

Go Back to Article Review
Back to my home page Index