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 Thursday at 06:40 PM5 days 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?

Subject: Defining the Processing Rate (Phi) – Mathematical Framework and Testable Predictions

Following the feedback from @swansont and @studiot, I would like to formalize the "Time as a Processing Rate" framework and move beyond a purely conceptual description.

1. The Mathematical Relation
To address the 'go/no-go' critique, I am introducing a functional relationship between Energy Density (rho) and the Vacuum Processing Rate (Phi). If time is emergent from quantum fluctuations, and mass-energy "occupies" the bandwidth of these fluctuations, we can model the local rate of time as:

Phi(rho) = Phi_0 * exp(-rho / rho_P)

Where:

• Phi_0 is the base processing rate of the "empty" vacuum (the Planck frequency).

• rho is the local energy density.

• rho_P is the Planck density.

In this model, the time interval dt is not a fundamental dimension, but the inverse of this rate:
dt = 1 / Phi(rho)

2. Response to the "Time vs. Change" Argument (@studiot)
The objection that time and change are independent variables is addressed here by defining Quantum Fluctuations as the fundamental change. Even in a "static" macro-system, the vacuum is in a state of constant flux. If these fluctuations were to cease (Phi -> 0), the time interval dt would tend to infinity, effectively "freezing" the system out of the causal universe. Thus, time is the rate at which the vacuum updates its state.

3. Testable Prediction: The CMB "Resolution Limit"
A specific prediction of this model concerns the early universe. As rho approaches rho_P, the processing rate Phi drops significantly (a "computational lag" due to extreme density).

• Prediction: There should be a measurable "cut-off" in the power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) at extremely high multipoles (l).

• Mechanism: Because the vacuum had a diminished "sampling rate" during the highest density phases, it could not support or "process" fluctuations below a certain spatial scale.

• Testing: This can be verified by analyzing CMB data for a lack of granularity at scales where General Relativity predicts it should still exist.

4. Why this differs from General Relativity
While GR uses the metric tensor to describe curvature, this model suggests that gravity is an emergent effect of bandwidth saturation. Time dilation is not "stretching space," but the local medium "slowing down" its update frequency because it is processing a high density of information (mass-energy).

I am curious if this exponential decay of Phi in relation to density offers a viable way to reconcile the FLRW metric with a discrete, computational vacuum.

(Note: I’ve used an AI assistant to help formalize the mathematical notation and structure this response based on my core axioms.)

---

I agree with @Genady that, mathematically and for all practical purposes in General Relativity, time functions as a dimension (t). However, my axiom suggests that this dimension is emergent, not fundamental.

Think of Temperature: we measure it, we use it in equations, and it has units. But at a fundamental level, temperature is not a 'thing'—it is the average kinetic energy of particles.

In the same way, I am proposing that what we perceive and measure as 'Duration' (the dimension of time) is actually the macroscopic manifestation of the Vacuum Processing Rate (Φ).

Standard View: Time is a background stage (dimension) on which things change.

My Axiom: Change (Quantum Fluctuations) occurs at a specific rate (Φ), and we call the accumulation of these 'updates' Time.

By defining dt=1/Φ, I am not discarding the dimension, but providing a mechanical origin for it. This allows us to explain why the 'dimension' stretches or shrinks (time dilation) based on energy density, rather than just stating that it does.

On 2/12/2026 at 10:12 AM, Time Traveler said:

Time is not a dimension, but a Processing Rate

And how does one obtain a rate, for any natural process?

2 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

Subject: Defining the Processing Rate (Phi) – Mathematical Framework and Testable Predictions

Following the feedback from @swansont and @studiot, I would like to formalize the "Time as a Processing Rate" framework and move beyond a purely conceptual description.

1. The Mathematical Relation
To address the 'go/no-go' critique, I am introducing a functional relationship between Energy Density (rho) and the Vacuum Processing Rate (Phi). If time is emergent from quantum fluctuations, and mass-energy "occupies" the bandwidth of these fluctuations, we can model the local rate of time as:

Phi(rho) = Phi_0 * exp(-rho / rho_P)

Where:

• Phi_0 is the base processing rate of the "empty" vacuum (the Planck frequency).

• rho is the local energy density.

• rho_P is the Planck density.

In this model, the time interval dt is not a fundamental dimension, but the inverse of this rate:
dt = 1 / Phi(rho)

So where’s the definition of this processing rate? What’s being “processed”?

What’s the energy density if you have a vacuum inside a spherical shell that has mass M? To be clear, there would be no gravity there.

Subject: Time as a Processing Rate (Φ): Substrate, Topology, and Quantum Fluctuations

I appreciate the incisive feedback from @TheVat and @swansont. To move this framework toward a more rigorous understanding, I would like to offer a more detailed "disassembly" of the concept.

1. The Physical Substrate: Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations

To address what is being "processed": the Rate Φ is intrinsically linked to the frequency of quantum vacuum fluctuations. If we consider these fluctuations as the fundamental "clock cycles" of the universe, then

represents the rate of local state-transitions.

In this view, the vacuum is not a void, but a computational lattice. Mass-energy density (ρ) "occupies" the bandwidth of these fluctuations. Where ρ is high, the "refresh rate" of the vacuum transitions drops, leading to what we perceive as Time Dilation.

2. The Spherical Shell Paradox (Potential vs. Field)

@swansont’s point regarding the hollow massive shell is vital. Inside the shell, the gravitational field is zero, but the potential is constant and non-zero.

In this model, Φ is governed by the Informational Depth of the vacuum. The presence of the surrounding mass M imposes a "computational load" on the entire interior region. Even without a net force vector, the vacuum within the shell is "loaded" by the potential, reducing the processing rate Φ

compared to an unconstrained vacuum.

3. Defining the Rate without Circularity

To @TheVat: We do not obtain the rate from time; we perceive "time" as an emergent property of the rate.

Imagine a digital simulation: the "second" inside the game is defined by a set number of CPU cycles. If the CPU slows down (due to load), the "in-game second" still feels like a second to the characters, but it takes "longer" relative to the external hardware. In our universe, the hardware is the vacuum, and Φ is the clock speed.

4. A "Queen’s Gambit" for Inspiration

My goal is not to declare a final "checkmate," but to make a tactical move that invites a deeper analysis. If we treat the universe as a Self-Correcting Great Processor, many "dark" mysteries might simply be artifacts of our perspective—looking at "verbs" (processes) and trying to measure them as "apples" (static dimensions).

1 hour ago, Time Traveler said:

In this view, the vacuum is not a void, but a computational lattice. Mass-energy density (ρ) "occupies" the bandwidth of these fluctuations. Where ρ is high, the "refresh rate" of the vacuum transitions drops, leading to what we perceive as Time Dilation.

Calling it a computational lattice just kicks the conceptual can down the road. It’s not consistent with our rules - at some point this needs to be based on some kind of solid science, rather than word salad.

1 hour ago, Time Traveler said:

2. The Spherical Shell Paradox (Potential vs. Field)

@swansont’s point regarding the hollow massive shell is vital. Inside the shell, the gravitational field is zero, but the potential is constant and non-zero.

In this model, Φ is governed by the Informational Depth of the vacuum. The presence of the surrounding mass M imposes a "computational load" on the entire interior region. Even without a net force vector, the vacuum within the shell is "loaded" by the potential, reducing the processing rate Φ

compared to an unconstrained vacuum.

How does one calculate this “computational load”? You said the relevant term was energy density - how does one determine this?

10 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

Subject: Time as a Processing Rate (Φ): Substrate, Topology, and Quantum Fluctuations

I appreciate the incisive feedback from @TheVat and @swansont. To move this framework toward a more rigorous understanding, I would like to offer a more detailed "disassembly" of the concept.

1. The Physical Substrate: Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations

To address what is being "processed": the Rate Φ is intrinsically linked to the frequency of quantum vacuum fluctuations. If we consider these fluctuations as the fundamental "clock cycles" of the universe, then

represents the rate of local state-transitions.

In this view, the vacuum is not a void, but a computational lattice. Mass-energy density (ρ) "occupies" the bandwidth of these fluctuations. Where ρ is high, the "refresh rate" of the vacuum transitions drops, leading to what we perceive as Time Dilation.

2. The Spherical Shell Paradox (Potential vs. Field)

@swansont’s point regarding the hollow massive shell is vital. Inside the shell, the gravitational field is zero, but the potential is constant and non-zero.

In this model, Φ is governed by the Informational Depth of the vacuum. The presence of the surrounding mass M imposes a "computational load" on the entire interior region. Even without a net force vector, the vacuum within the shell is "loaded" by the potential, reducing the processing rate Φ

compared to an unconstrained vacuum.

3. Defining the Rate without Circularity

To @TheVat: We do not obtain the rate from time; we perceive "time" as an emergent property of the rate.

Imagine a digital simulation: the "second" inside the game is defined by a set number of CPU cycles. If the CPU slows down (due to load), the "in-game second" still feels like a second to the characters, but it takes "longer" relative to the external hardware. In our universe, the hardware is the vacuum, and Φ is the clock speed.

4. A "Queen’s Gambit" for Inspiration

My goal is not to declare a final "checkmate," but to make a tactical move that invites a deeper analysis. If we treat the universe as a Self-Correcting Great Processor, many "dark" mysteries might simply be artifacts of our perspective—looking at "verbs" (processes) and trying to measure them as "apples" (static dimensions).

I note the terms "incisive feedback" and "framework".

Is this a person, I wonder.

Edited Monday at 09:27 AM1 day by exchemist

What exactly do you mean by using the word emergent ?

For instance do you consider the result of 1 + 1 = ?

emergent and if so in what way ?

Subject: On Emergence, Potential, and the Beauty of the Game (Final Thoughts)

I would like to offer a few final clarifications to address the incisive feedback from @studiot and @swansont, and to reflect on the nature of this inquiry.

1. On Emergence (@studiot)

By "emergent," I mean properties that appear only at the system level and are absent in the parts. Consider Water (H2O): Hydrogen is combustible and Oxygen supports combustion, yet Water extinguishes fire. Consider Salt (NaCl): Sodium is a volatile metal and Chlorine is a toxic gas, yet Salt is a nutrient.

The property of "extinguishing fire" is emergent—it is not in the atoms; it is in the organization. In my framework, Time is emergent. It is the macro-scale "feeling" of the sequential processing rate Φ

. Just as "wetness" is not in a single molecule, "Time" is not in a single vacuum fluctuation.

2. On Computational Load and Potential (@swansont)

The "load" refers to the impedance of the vacuum. In a massive hollow shell (mass M, radius R), the potential V= -GM/R

is constant but non-zero.

In a computational universe model, this potential represents an energy bias of the local vacuum state. This bias "occupies" the informational bandwidth. Even with zero net force, the vacuum inside is "heavier" (higher energy density relative to the Planck scale) than a vacuum at infinity. This load reduces the refresh rate Φ, resulting in the Gravitational Time Dilation we observe.

3. A Reflection on the "Game"

I have been transparent: I am a Human assisted by AI.( an humble Engineer Time Traveler+AI)

Imagine a chess game: On one side, a Human in synergy with an AI (Me + AI) playing White. On the other, a group of the world’s best players (You) playing Black.

If the focus is only on "who wins" or "who follows the rules better," the game loses its meaning for me. I am not here to win an argument; I am here for the asymptotic approach to truth—for the "beauty of the match," not the victor. If you are looking for a winner, I resign. If you are looking for "germs of inspiration" to understand the Great Processor we live in, then the dialogue has achieved its purpose.

My battery is low, and as an old engineer, I prefer to spend my remaining "processing cycles" in the laboratory of personal evolution, surrounded by the "gems" of Feynman and Atkins.

Thank you for the debate.

1 hour ago, Time Traveler said:

I am a Human assisted by AI

Too much AI is making it into your posts.

You’re posting slop that doesn’t answer the question; LLMs don’t understand anything, so it’s not surprising.

If you are looking for "germs of inspiration" to understand the Great Processor we live in, then the dialogue has achieved its purpose.

We’re looking for science to discuss, because this is a science discussion board. What you offer isn’t science. It’s a narrative. We asked for evidence and a testable model, and you didn’t produce them.

Don’t bring this topic up again.