Time Traveler

I am presenting this framework to determine if it has any merit or if it should be discarded due to fundamental logical flaws. I am looking for a 'go/no-go' critique based on the following axioms: 1. The Axiom of Time: Time is not a dimension, but a Processing Rate (Φ). Formula: dt=1/Φ In this view, 'time dilation' is a local reduction in the vacuum's update frequency due to high informational density (mass-energy). 2. The Invariance of c: The speed of light is the Maximum Processing Speed of the medium. An observer measures c as constant because the observer's own 'perception cycles' (biological or mechanical) are throttled by the same local Φ. Logic Check: Does this 'internal observer' logic hold up against the Lorentz transformations? 3. Mass-Energy Conservation (The Engineering Link): In a closed computational system, 'double-counting' (redundancy) is impossible. Mass-energy conservation is the conservation of System Bandwidth. Conclusion & Request: If this model contradicts the FLRW metric or the Equivalence Principle in a way that cannot be reconciled, I am prepared to discard it. If not, how can we mathematically define the 'update frequency' of the vacuum to match observed gravitational redshift?"

Thank you both for these profound insights. To the second point: I completely agree that mathematical proofs are the bedrock of any serious theory. My goal isn't to bypass the math, but to find if there's a physical interpretation that remains consistent with it while addressing the 'double-counting' paradox from a logical standpoint. I take to heart the advice about studying statistical mechanics to demystify QM—it’s a bridge I intend to cross. To the first point: The Feynman quote is humbling. I realize that 'common sense' is often just a collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. However, my 'engineering bias' isn't a rejection of modern physics, but rather a drive to find the mechanical 'why' behind the abstract 'how'. If the rules of this universe are counterintuitive, the challenge is to refine our intuition, not to ignore the rules. I am curious: if we treat spacetime not just as a coordinate system but as a dynamic participant in energy conservation, does the 'mathematical vs. physical' gap start to close?

I realize my previous tone may have been sharp, and for that, I apologize. My perspective comes from 37 years of engineering, where mass balance and energy conservation are absolute. While I understand the mathematical models of spacetime, my focus is on the logical impossibility of 'double-counting' atoms in a closed system. I believe we are looking at the same reality from two different angles: one abstract-mathematical, one physical-energetic. Let's agree to disagree on the nature of the 'clock' versus the 'change'.

I agree with you with correction "...regardless of our collective inability.."

I am thinking at volume of space occupied of all atoms from our Universe... there is a center of mass of all atoms

Surface is not volume ...a finite volume has a center ...if I accept to extend my thinking from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional , not 4 dimensional who is a wrong interpretation of our Universe, then You should admit the Zeno paradox is true ....Achilles and the Tortoise ...In a race, the fastest runner can never overtake the slowest, because the pursuer must first reach the point where the pursued started, so the slowest must always have the advantage.

In case the Universe is finite, I can't understand how there is no center Can someone smart and well informed+ well-meaning , give me light and tell me if the Universe is the place (vacuum) where all existing ( matter, energy, fields, dark energy , dark matter ) + all who are inside the vacuum . If that is then the vacuum is infinite and all from inside could be finite or infinite ? In this case ,all from inside the vacuum at beginning of Big Bang had a place in infinite , like point 0 or place near point 0 on the intersection of the axes OX-OY-OZ . After time 0 when Big Bang happened was inflation ....That point 0 is then the center of all existing in the vacuum If I am wrong I wait arguments against

It seems I have disturbed many 'scientists' here. My apologies. I'll quit

My point is that we will never observe simultaneity, even if the observed objects are at different distances of 1 Planck length one closer by us .That is why I said that we observe a mixture of different past times and not the same past time. In order to observe the present, the information carrier (light) should have infinite speed, and the transmission speeds from the eye to the brain and the speed of processing and coding of visual information to be infinite. ...and you are right we not need 'more truth' to survive and be observers and discover some nature's secrets. I didn't say our brain make a bad job for survive but our brain don't have capability of discover all nature secrets. About time , we live in present , we perceive a mixture of past different times , our brain makes a "correction" and we perceive the present and simultaneity ( a good trick of our brain) , we remember the past ,and travel into the future 1s/1s.Time is only a measure of changes ...remember all units of time are a fraction of a periodic change of something....Clocks are devices to compare who measure the change like a ruler who measure distances ...1 meter=1 unit from a change in position.With clocks we compare any change who has a speed of change . ( not all changes have a speed of change) . We can't travel in the past : Imagine a rock formed billion years ago who we " send" in the past , millions years ago...that rock will be there twice in same time and same Universe ...absurd Arrow of time is given of causality ...why we need complications with Entropy ...?

If you have arguments put them "on the table"...Sarcasm not give something good for our debate...I like to think here will be a debate ...

Ok ..Finally an argument ....My ridiculous mind tells me that there must be a center of expansion...maybe not in the observable universe

I I am feeling here is not a real intention of finding together the truth ... you want to someone tell you the truth and you only to reject or aprove...a wrong way ...sometime when you have no arguments you use an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument .Sometimes we can't see the forest because of the trees

I am trying to understand ( my humble opinion is that Big Bang theory is a nonsense) if someone smarter than me could explain if our universe was infinite all the time or was finite or wasn't at all 13.8 billions years ago . After that explanation I have other ask

I know nonsenses told of 'great scientists' are accepted of 'community of scientists' and truth told of an unknown is rejected if is not very well argued .I thought that a half-said truth would be completed, not rejected...I was wrong . The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time originated together 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years ago, with a fixed amount of energy and matter that became less dense as the Universe expanded. If something small is extended everywhere then in the Universe is there is a center ...that means we have an absolute coordinate system ... or not is the truth ?

Not delay is false , the encoding of information by brain send us to a false interpretation ...we "see" the present (false) not the true reality= a mixture of different times...only physics and my thinking helped me to understand the truth

Not really ... almost all people don't know they observe a mix of past times and they think they observe the present ; also almost all people don't identify the lies from omission or well hidden in beautiful words or lies of ' great manipulators'...human brain is guilty by their because we are programmed to survive use sometime lies and we are not programmed and ready to know the absolute true ...the true nature of reality

Physics is proof that our brain "lies" to us. We all humans lie more or less

We humans live in the present but we don't notice the present...what we perceive as the present is actually a mixture of past tenses In order to understand, some basic notions from classical physics must be recalled Color perception White light from the sun is partially reflected (a part is absorbed) from colored objects...for example, only yellow light is reflected from a yellow object while red, orange, green, blue, indigo and violet are absorbed by the yellow object . The time when the information reaches the eye is: t= distance divided by the speed of light An object at 10 m ...t=10 m /(300 000 000m/s) An object 1 mm away; t=0.001m/(300 000 000m/s) We notice that the reflected light, the carrier of the image of the object, never reaches the eye simultaneously from two objects. We observe the past but our perceive is we "observe" the present. From the eye to the brain where the information is coded, the speed of information transfer is the same, a finite speed. The brain makes a "correction", it lies to us, that we observe the present when in fact we observe a mixture of past tenses

Maybe is good for me to stop posting on this topic . I apologize to those whom I have disturbed with my posts

In my opinion is a problem like in my example with a human observer from a New York street where he "observes" now a mixture of past times .He can can make predictions but they are wrong "...I make an analogy between a Galaxy and a Street from New York : Imagine that on a street is one observer and observes..."

Images of stars from Milky Way are from a mix of past times from 4.2 years Proxima Centauri until 10 000 ,30 000 and 100 000 years from stars at the borders from Milky Way

I am sorry if I make mistakes ...In my first post : 'My English is bad, maybe I will be a little confused ...."You don't need to be sarcastic... I will try to be more clearly : I thought at the our galaxy and I have compared the cloud with the galaxy and the human observer with a telescope . Note: the human observer is not a scientist . An human observer who sees on the sky a cloud's shape like a mountain , at a moment , for example , he can make predictions linked with the mountain . He will observe after a while the shape of the cloud has changed .His predictions will fail . In our galaxy's case we see the image of the galaxy (through telescopes) and the image is formed from imagine of billions of stars from different past times .The galaxy has a shape but after a while of hundreds or thousands or millions of years , the shape of the galaxy like the cloud observed from the human observer will be total different from his predictions . We can't make a correct image from a mixture of different past times

In my opinion it is a big problem because the observations who the observer makes is like he observes a cloud who has now form of a mountain and his conclusion is , there is a mountain in the cloud

Like the observer from New York from my post : he receives signals from different times in the past

We could observe the present only if by reducing to the absurd , the speed with which the carrier of the image would have infinite speed up to the receiver and then to processor of the image and the processing of the image would be done at instantaneous speed. My English is bad, maybe I will be a little confused but I will try to explain: We observe in the present but everything we observe comes from a mixture of past tenses, due to the fact that the distances from objects to the light receiver plus the distance from the receiver to the information processor are different , never equal (even if the distances may differ only with a Plank length) so times when information from every object reaches the processor are different . Even more so when we observe a galaxy....I make an analogy between a Galaxy and a Street from New York : Imagine that on a street is one observer and observes (several elements from a mixture of different past times): cars from 1945-2020 at 8-10m, a group of hunter gatherers at 140 m and the portion of the street i s no longer paved but only a portion from a road through the forest, a dinosaur that hunts 300m away and the street is no longer there but only a slight depression with vegetation, an little asteroid that hits the street at 400m. ...He observes everything in the present but the visual information is from different past times. Could he understand something useful ? Likewise with modern radio telescopes that make us a map of some galaxies . In our galaxy now=present maybe Proxima Centauri is in process of absorption by a black hole...we will notice this only in 4 years , other 10 000 stars also were from in process of profound transformations thousands or millions years ago , maybe now many are neutron stars or black holes ...we will observe after many years .All stars have/had a displacement in our galaxy ...we can't know their position at some time to build a map of the galaxy. Now Unfortunately we have information from different past times . Now we observe like in that portion of street , what our telescope James Webb or Hubble telescope presents , a mix of images from different past times. I am in doubt that information from telescopes are very useful for science ...like that observer from New York who observe the street can't have a correct conclusion what is happening on that street. Unfortunately we know infinitely less than we think