All of johnmerryman's Comments + Replies

Hello! Hey, I haven't had time to read your post yet but I wanted to suggest that you post over in the discussion section to get more visibility and feedback; I don't think too many people read through the welcome thread posts and those who do are usually just browsing user blurbs. Great to meet you!

Um, eh, well ... welcome. There are alternate explanations ("non-standard cosmology") to the big kawoomba (also known as Big Bang), I remember this arxiv paper which I don't claim to understand, related nature article from last year here. To quote: "If an atom were to grow in mass, the photons it emits would become more energetic. Because higher energies correspond to higher frequencies, the emission and absorption frequencies would move towards the blue part of the spectrum. Conversely, if the particles were to become lighter, the frequencies would become redshifted." I guess I mostly root for alternate redshift explanation because yay contrarianism. However, much of what you're writing about isn't physics, it's using a few terms borrowed from physics but it's mostly a philosophical interpretation with a large amount of poetic license, to put it favorably. In so far as you'd make a concrete prediction of an experiment, that could be falsified. People have trouble contradicting your theories because for a theory to be contradicted it would need to make a specific prediction, something which can be measured and then compared to what your theory predicts. How do you measure "The wave also goes to the function of our brain." or any of the other stuff? How would you either confirm or contradict it? A theory needs to satisfice two criteria to be considered correct: (1) It must not be contradicted by any evidence, and (2) it must be the shortest description of the phenomenon it purports to explain. So while I imagine that many elements of your theories do stand up to "not experimentally contradicted", that is because of their vague, verbose nature, which disqualifies them on complexity reasons*. In short, what you have seems less like a theory in the natural/physical sciences sense than a philosophy. Philosophies are perspectives on (mostly) life which provide a (hopefully helpful) mindset and ground some sort of telos: meaning-of-life, a grander scheme of things in w

As an effect of action, time would be more like temperature, than space. Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude. It is just that while amplitudes en mass expresses as temperature, frequency en mass expresses as noise and thus from a physicist's point of view, chaos and disorder. Therefore to measure time, only one oscillation is isolated and its frequency measured. Yet the overall effect of change is still cumulative, like temperature. It is potential, to actual, to residual. With time as an effect of action, we don't have to reject the present as a state of simultaneity, nor dismiss its inherent asymmetry, since the inertia of action is not bipolar. As action, a faster clock will simply use up its available energy faster and so fall into the past faster, or require more energy to sustain it. The tortoise is still plodding along, long after the hare has died. Keep in mind that narrative and causal logic are based on this sequencing effect and therefore history and civilization. Yet it is not sequence of form which is causal, but transmission of energy. Yesterday doesn't cause today. The sun shining on a spinning planet creates this effect we who exist at one point on this planet experience as days. Thus we tend to rationalize narrative connections between events that are not always as clear as we think. There are various philosophical debates around this issue, such as free will vs. determinism, yet if we look at it as future becoming past, it makes more sense, as probability precedes actuality. There is the classical deterministic argument that the laws of nature will provide only one course of action, determined by the eternal laws of nature, therefore the future must ultimately be as determined as the past, or the quantum Everrittian argument that the past remains as probabilistic as the future and so must branch out into multiworlds with every possibility. As for the first, while the laws might be fully deterministic, since information can only