4 hours ago, studiot said:

Here is what is worrying me.

And you don't seem to have answered my question, about fields.

In Physicists generally take a Field to mean a region (usually of space) to which a value (that may be positive, negative or zero) may be assigned to every point in that region.

For example a temperature field is a scalar field that has the structure you want to describe at every point in say a bar of metal or the atmousphere or whatever.

Temperature is the (scalar) field variable to which you can assign divergence, gradients and so on.

BUT

You cannot 'leave out space' as you have put it.

Until this point is clarified I don't see how you hypothesis can proceed.

Thank you for replying in such a constructive, on-topic manner, I really appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I understand that physicists typically define a field as a mapping over a spatial or spacetime domain. So when I say “space doesn’t exist” in my framework, it can understandably sound like I’m removing the very stage the field is defined on. To clarify, I’m not denying the use of coordinates. I still define a scalar field \tau(x, t) and take derivatives with respect to x. What I’m questioning is whether those coordinates represent an independently real “space,” or whether they’re just an emergent structure that arises from the dynamics of the temporal field itself. In my view, the grid we use in mathematics is simply a tool a way to label variation in \tau. Just like in fluid dynamics, where we use coordinates to describe the flow of a fluid but don’t mistake the grid for the fluid itself, here I’m treating time as the “fluid” that flows. Space is an emergent property of how that flow organizes itself. So while traditional field theory requires a domain like space or spacetime, I’m proposing that what appears to be physical space might just be a projection of the underlying gradients and phase structure of time. I’m not arguing that fields exist without a domain but that the domain may itself emerge from the field’s behavior. I hope that helps clarify where I’m coming from. If not, I’m happy to refine it further. I also recommend looking into the work of Lee Smolin, his views on time being fundamental and space being emergent are philosophically close to mine, though my approach is admittedly more radical and less formalized. Still, I think he might appreciate the direction, even if it’s early and not yet grounded in formal physics.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Are you referring to yourself incorrectly here, or is this a quote from someone else? If the latter, it must be attributed. If it’s ChatGPT, it a) carries no weight and b) knock it off, because the rules don’t permit that here.

“I still need some human inputs on the math but I ran it through wolframs computation model and it checks out, here’s a copy and paste” I believe you overlooked that section. The math and wording were not independently written by me, I’ve had help formalizing and expressing the ideas, and I’ve been transparent about that. But the conceptual framework, the structure of the theory, and the driving questions behind it are fully mine. I’ve used the tools and assistance available to me to express the theory as clearly as I can. If the forum rules don’t allow this kind of collaborative or assisted submission, I’ll step back respectfully. But I do believe the underlying framework is original and worth discussion. That’s all I’m trying to explore here.

Just now, Lightbleeder said:

To clarify,

I'm sorry but you haven't clarified anything.

You have merely repeated what you have already said before; equating clarification to repetition is not good enough in science and mathematics.

For instance you have still not defined your field variable althogh I assume it is unfortunately called tau.

I say unfortunate because tau has special meanings in conventional science, none of which accord with what you are trying to say.

You talk of differentiating with respect to x but have yet to offer a single example.

I take it that you mean x^{n ,} where the superscript conventionally refers to the number of axes employed.

You talk of fluid flowing and organising and compressing and so on, but do not seem to be offering any differentiation to model these processes.

I am not a great follower of trite popsci ditties but here is an apt one to consider.

Space is what prevents everything all happening in the same place and time is what prevents everything happening all at once.

Without both of these you have a derived function that is exactly zero everywhere and everywhen.

As to advocateing divorcing space and time, I have carefully avoided doing this for the above reasons.

Finally you introduced the misuse of the term field early in this thread and seem to like taking conventional terms with special meanings and trying to change them to suit yourself.

All that serves is to confuse your readers.

A new case in point is 'emergent'.

Space is no more an emergent ' property of how the fluid organises itself' (as a matter of interest how can a fluid organis itself without space ?)

than 7 is emergent from the sum of 3 and 4.

My own favourite example explaining emergence works like this

Emergence is a happens when the constituents of something interact in a way to produce some new property that none of the constituents by themselves couldmanage.

So take a pile of bricks, thrown together at random.

Even if some bricks lie on top of one another the resulting pile with not be strong or stable.
Yet if these same bricks are stacked in a certain way the stack gains the ability to span large distances of empty space perhaps bearing large loads, and enduring for long perios of time.
I am talking about an arch here and 'arching action'.

I class arching action as an emergent property of not only the bricks but also their configuration.

I note that another member also has a thread trying to establish a variable time axis to work on to explain physics and is running into the same difficulties you will.

Perhaps you two ought to get together and talk ?

5 hours ago, Lightbleeder said:

“I still need some human inputs on the math but I ran it through wolframs computation model and it checks out, here’s a copy and paste” I believe you overlooked that section. The math and wording were not independently written by me, I’ve had help formalizing and expressing the ideas, and I’ve been transparent about that. But the conceptual framework, the structure of the theory, and the driving questions behind it are fully mine. I’ve used the tools and assistance available to me to express the theory as clearly as I can. If the forum rules don’t allow this kind of collaborative or assisted submission, I’ll step back respectfully. But I do believe the underlying framework is original and worth discussion. That’s all I’m trying to explore here.

Running it through a computation model suggests math, not a chat. And quotation marks are still expected.

And it can only tell you if the math checks out, not whether it’s valid science. See rule 2.13 “you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made”