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?"

---

Time is a measure of duration. Thus by the definition above, it is a dimension, contrary to

20 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

Time is not a dimension

1 hour ago, Time Traveler said:

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?"

---

You already have a thread about this that you seem to have abandoned ?

Don't waste your (and other's ) time on a false concept of 'time'.

Time and change are independent variables that are sometimes related, but not always.
When they are you can sometimes deduce a subsidiary variable the time time rate of change.
But you can also deduce a rate of change with regard to other non time variables.
These are basic mathematical definitions and procedures.

They are independent because you can have one without the other.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by studiot

1 hour ago, Time Traveler said:

If this model

You haven’t presented a model. You have one equation, which is unenlightening - that a rate has units of 1/time. One can’t really do much with it.

What specific prediction can you make, and how is the idea testable?