What is time?

How is time defined?

How is time measured?

What are time-intervals?

What are variable time-intervals?

What are invariable time-intervals?

What happens if time is measured by variable time-intervals? Does time change if measured by variable time-intervals?

What happens if time is measured by invariable time-intervals? Does time remain the same if measured by invariable time-intervals?

Are time and space interconnected or independent?

Is an infinity associated with time?

Is an infinity associated with space?

Is the infinity of space independent of the infinity of time?

Is matter/energy interconnected with space and time or independent of space and time?

Is an infinity associated with matter/energy?

Is a finity (whimsical opposite-of-an-infinity) associated with matter/energy?

If there are both an infinity and a finity associated with matter/energy, are the infinity and finity of matter/energy independent of an infinity of space or/and an infinity of time?

Philosophy is 'the love of knowledge.' [1]

A philosophy is a set of concepts and principles and techniques for using those concepts and principles developed from experience and learning.

A basic philosophy is a set of fundamental concepts and principles for dealing with the people, things and events comprised of matter and energy which are reality.

A thing is an object, a unity comprised of matter/energy, which retains its identity over a much longer duration, or period of time, than a related event.

Examples: Jane, a ball, Dick. [From the reading primers some of us remember from grade school.]

An event is a relationship between or among things.

Example: Jane throws the ball to Dick.

A description of the relationship between/among things in an event is a description of causality, one set of things/events as causes causing or creating a new set of things/events as effects (which can become causes for causing new things/events, etc.), the link between/among things/events as causes and things/events as effects.

Causality is people/things/events as causes causing/creating new people/things/events as effects. Causality, technically, is an event in which people/things as causes, which are causes, cause/create other people/things as effects, which are effects, effects of the preceding causes.

People often get tripped into the belief that since we observe causality in sequences in which (1) people/things/events as causes (2) cause/create (3) people/things/events as effects that there is a sequence of causality back to a first cause, which means there has to be a first cause.

Some people think the first cause is a god, or the gods.

This a fundamental flaw in thinking.

Instead of thinking of, and looking for, a first cause in sequences of causality, people need to be thinking of, and looking for, a source of causality from which a never-begun, always has been, is, and will be, and therefore never-ending series of sequences of causality can emerge.

The source of causality must be infinite in duration, but not necessarily infinite in quantity—it could be finite in quantity.

There is a source of causality which is infinite in duration and happens to be finite in quantity: Matter/energy.

Thus, the source of causality is matter/energy which, because it cannot be destroyed but only changed in form (Thermodynamics, and E = mc2 and m = E/c2), is infinite in duration and finite in quantity.

A concept is a mental representation, or idea, of a object, a thing.

An accurate concept is a mental representation/idea of a real, actual, thing; an inaccurate concept is a mental representation/idea of a non-real, non-actual, thing.

A principle is a mental representation/idea of an event, a relationship between/among things, a mental representation/idea of causality between/among things.

An accurate principle is a mental representation/idea of a real, actual, event, of a real/actual relationship between/among things, a mental representation/idea of a real/actual causality between/among things in an event; an inaccurate principle is a mental representation/idea of a non-real, non-actual, relationship between/among things, a mental representation/idea of a non-real/non-actual causality between/among things in an event.

A description of the causality, or the relationship, between/among things/events as causes and things/events as effects, is an explanation of how things/events as causes caused things/events as effects.

An explanation is a description of the causality between/among things/events which are causes which caused other things/events which are effects.

A scientific explanation is a description of the causality between/among things/events comprised of matter/energy in which things/events which are causes cause things/events which are effects (and which can become causes for new things/events, etc.).

A scientific explanation contains prediction, prediction of causality, prediction that things/events which are causes will cause things/events which are effects.

Scientific explanations, as descriptions of causality, and predictions of causality, follow the form of the If P, Then Q logical argument.

The P is a set of conditions. The set of conditions would be the things/events which are causes. Thus, the P is actually P/Conditions/Causes.

The Q is a set of consequences. The set of consequences would be the thing/events which are effects caused by, resulting from, the things/events which are the set of conditions in the P. Thus, the Q is actually Q/Consequences/Effects.

All premises of all logical arguments must be verifiable/falsifiable/verified by observation/measurement of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy by the five senses of perception, vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste, either directly, possibly with the aid of machines such as telescopes or microscopes or audio amplifiers which augment the perceptual senses, or indirectly by the observable and therefore known effects of people/things/events upon observable people/things/events. You either see/hear/touch/smell/taste people/things/events directly, possibly with the aid of machines, or, because they are causes of effects, of events which are effects, and because you cannot see/hear/touch/smell/taste them directly, you see/hear/touch/smell/taste then indirectly by their effects upon people/things/events you can see/hear/touch/smell/taste.

Thus, all premises of logical arguments, including If P, Then Q logical arguments, must be verifiable/falsifiable/verified by observation, by the use of the five perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste. Unverifiable/unfalsifiable/unverified premises invalidate the conclusions of logical arguments.

This is inductive reasoning, where by observations of similar causes causing similar effects are justification for supporting a causal hypothesis, an hypothesis of causality, wherein all similar causes will predictably cause similar effects.

Once inductive reasoning produces valid causal hypotheses, deductive reasoning can be used to infer that similar causes will cause similar effects, and similar effects from similar causes.

The form of the If P, Then Q logical argument is thus:

Premise: If P, then Q.
Premise: P.
Conclusion: Q.

In logical arguments, the P is condition or cause, or a set of conditions or causes, and the Q is a consequence or effect.

Considering conditions and causes and consequences and effects, the form of the If P, Then Q logical argument is thus:

Premise: If P/Condition(s)/Cause(s), then Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s).
Premise: P/Condition(s)/Cause(s).
Conclusion: Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s).

Example: If (P/Condition/Cause) this rock hits that window with at least this velocity/force, then (Q/Consequence/Effect) that window breaks.

Premise: If (P/Condition/Cause) this rock hits that window with at least this velocity/force, then (Q/Consequence/Effect) that window breaks.
Premise: (P/Condition/Cause) This rock hits that window with this velocity/force.
Conclusion: (Q/Consequence/Effect) That window breaks.

For an If P, Then Q logical argument to be valid, the premises must be verifiable/falsifiable/verified by observation of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy using the perceptual senses.

There can be no speculations herein; all premises must be verified by observation.

Premise: If P/Condition/Cause: This rock hits that window with at least this velocity/force, then Q/Consequence/Effect: That window breaks (will break).

For this Premise to be a valid premise leading to a logical conclusion, observations of rocks of similar size and weight (of similar inertial mass) and velocity hitting windows of similar configurations must have produced consistent observations of the breakage of the windows, wherein it is logical to say that the P/Condition/Cause of the rocks of similar inertial masses hitting similar windows causes those windows to break.

This is inductive reasoning, where by observations of similar causes causing similar effects are justification for supporting a causal hypothesis, an hypothesis of causality, wherein all similar causes will predictably cause similar effects.

And this is also deductive reasoning, because similar causes can be expected, predicted, to cause similar effects, and similar effects can be expected, predicted, to be caused by similar causes.

Premise: P/Condition/Cause: This rock hits that window.

For this Premise to be a valid premise leading to a logical conclusion, the observation must have been made of this rock hitting that window. An observation of another rock not of similar size and weight hitting another window of another configuration for which causality/predictability had not been established would not permit a logical conclusion of the breakage of that other window.

Conclusion: Q/Consequence/Effect: That window breaks.

This conclusion can be verified by the observation of the rock hitting it and breaking it. It can be verified after the fact if physical evidence can be found to support the hypothesis that this rock hit that window, the logical connection being the previous observations that similar rocks hitting similar windows have caused the breakage of those windows. And it can be verified after the fact if credible eyewitnesses confirm that this rock did in fact hit that window.

A technique is an application of a concept and its related principle.

Examples:

A. Concepts: Jane, a ball, and Dick.
B. Principle: Jane throws the ball to Dick.
C. Technique: To get the ball to Dick, Jane can throw it; Jane's throwing the ball to get it to Dick.

A. Concept: Muscular strength, speed and endurance
B. Principle: Exercises can develop muscular strength, speed, and endurance.
C. Technique: Lifting weights to develop muscular strength, speed and endurance.

A. Concept: Invariable time-interval, defined as time-intervals either not subject to the effects of changes of motion (velocity) or gravity or otherwise synchronized to compensate for changes of motion and/or gravity.
B. Principle: Invariable time-intervals measure Absolute Time (AT) (time everywhere the same).
C. Techniques: (1) Create motion and gravity sensing self-adjusting clocks which then create invariable time-intervals to measure Absolute time; (2) Use radio signals to synchronize clocks with variable time-intervals to create the functional equivalent of invariable time-intervals (time everywhere the same) to measure Absolute Time.

A practical technique effectively utilizes concepts and principles; an impractical technique ineffectively utilizes (does not utilize) concepts and principles.

Knowledge is a set of accurate concepts and principles and practical techniques for using the concepts and principles developed from practical experience or scientific observation, experimentation, and measurement.

Operational definitions are needed for defining scientific terms.

An operational definition is a definition of a term or a phrase by the description of the observation and measurement of people, things and events who or which are related to the term being defined.

By relating the observation of observable people/things/events to terms or phrases being defined, for which definitions are needed, those terms or phrases which have been considered to be abstract can be made concrete.

Children often use operational definitions when they define abstract terms and phrases.

They often use formula sentences when they define terms or phrase operationally.

One formula sentence children use for operational definitions is thus: _____ [term or phrase being defined operationally] is when _____ [description of people/things/events relevant to the term/phrase being defined operationally].

Example: Love [term being defined operationally] is when someone says they like you and they do nice things with and for you [description of the people/things/events relevant to the term being defined operationally].

Example: Hate [term being defined operationally] is when someone says they don't like you and they do bad things to you [description of the people/things/events relevant to the term being defined operationally].

By the descriptions of people/things/events relevant to the term or phase being defined operationally, operational definitions can make abstract terms concrete.

Time is an abstract term.

A valid operational definition, by describing what people do when they 'are doing time,' ought to make concrete the abstract term time.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz:

The fundamental law of physics is the law of inertia. "A body keeps the same state as long as there is no cause to change its state." That is, it remains at rest or continues the same kind of motion—that is, motion with the same velocity in the same direction—until some cause changes it, and such cause we call a 'force.' " [Quotation marks in the original, but not attributed to anyone.]

This is really not merely a law of physics, but it is the fundamental law of logic. It is the law of cause and effect: "Any effect must have a cause, and without cause there can be no effect." This is axiomatic and is the fundamental conception of all knowledge, because all knowledge consists in finding the cause of some effect or the effect of some cause, and therefore must presuppose that every effect has some cause, and inversely. [Quotation marks in the original but not attributed to anyone.]

Here is a proposed operational definition of physics based in part upon Steinmetz's specification of the law of inertia to be the fundamental law of physics:

Physics is when people who are scientists known as physicists study changes of the inertial states of bodies caused by forces.

This sentence is structured somewhat like the operational definitions of children.

Here are several adult operational definitions of physics:

Physics is the science which studies how forces cause changes of the inertial states of bodies.

Physics is the science which studies events which are changes of the motions of bodies/objects which are caused by forces which change the bodies'/objects' inertia/inertial states.

Time is when people use standards of duration for time-intervals, usually naturally occurring periodic motions or cycles, for measuring the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

Time is the use of time-intervals for measuring the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

The key component of time is the time-interval, which is the unit of the measurement of time, the unit of temporal measurement, which can be of any duration, and which is most often copied from a naturally occurring periodic motion, or cycle, such as the motion of the Earth around the Sun, which gives us our sidereal (Sun-based) definitions and specifications of time-intervals, temporal durations, of the year, month, week, day/night, hours, minutes, seconds, etc.

Once a time-interval, a unit of measurement which is a standard for the duration of events, is established, the occurrences of events in sequences of events can be measured.

People want to know if events occurred before, during, or after other events. The observation of before, during, or after is the gross or simple description of when the events occurred relative to the other events. When people want to know what is the measurement of the occurrence of an event, they want to know by how much of a unit of measurement of time, a time-interval, an event occurred before or after another event, or if an event fits the same units of measurement of another event, the same timepoints, in which case the two events, fitting the units of measurement, the same timepoints, are occurring together, are simultaneous, then the measurement of time-intervals of events is the specific description, or specification, of when events occurred relative to other events.

An object, such as a clock, or an event, such as the measurement of the units of measurement of time, the time-intervals, the intervals between timepoints, or points of time, has a specific rate of functioning, the tempo, or speed, at which it functions, at which it operates. Thus, a clock set with a specific time-interval has a specific speed, or tempo, of operation which is its rate of functioning, its rate of operation, and a machine set to stamp out a specific number of parts per unit of time, per time-interval, has a specific speed or tempo of operation, its rate of functioning.

A rate of functioning is the speed or tempo at which an object operates, or an event proceeds. A rate of functioning is also a rate of operation.

When things/objects are accelerated/decelerated, or pass into or exit denser or thinner gravitational fields, or both, then their rates of functioning change:

(A) If things/objects are accelerated or are passing into or through denser gravitational fields, then the rates of functioning of objects slow down relative to their rates of functioning when not accelerated/not passing into/through denser gravitational fields.

(B) If things/objects are decelerated or are passing into or through thinner gravitational fields, then the rates of functioning of objects speed up relative to their rates of functioning when not decelerating/not passing into/through thinner gravitational fields.

NOTE: The maximum rate of functioning for any object occurs when it is not accelerated in the K zero/AR reference frame and there is zero gravity.

In his book, Relativity, on page 99, Einstein said thus:  "Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time." [1]

In Einstein's early days, before the invention of atomic clocks, clocks were mechanical clocks.

Einstein's definition/specification of time, "[Mechanical] Clocks ... serve for the definition of time," is an operational definition. It links the abstract concept of time to an observable practical thing, a mechanical clock, and an observable event, the event of the clock's measurement of time by its time-intervals.

Mechanical clocks are set to a specific time-interval.

Mechanical clocks are subject to changes of motion and gravity.

Changes of velocity and/or gravity cause changes of inertial mass of objects.

(A). Increasing the speed/velocity (motion) of an object increases its inertial mass.

(B) Decreasing the speed/velocity (motion) of an object decreases its inertial mass.

We can experience change of inertial mass when we increase or decrease the speed of the swing of an object such as a ball attached to a string or rope around in a circle. As we increase the speed we experience an increase in the inertial mass: the object/ball 'feels heavier.' And when we decrease the speed we experience a decrease in the inertial mass of the object/ball.

When things/objects are heavier, such as the mechanism of a mechanical clock which is accelerated or enters a denser gravitational field, if the same force is applied to the thing/objects the force cannot cause the same movement within a specified time period. Increased mass affected by the same force produces less movement, and a slower movement., its mechanism

Changes of velocity and gravity cause changes of inertial mass which cause changes of rates of functioning of clocks. Increasing either velocity or gravity, or both, causes an increase in the inertial mass of the clock and a decrease in its rate of functioning; decreasing velocity or gravity, or both, decreases the inertial mass of the clock and an increase in its rate of functioning.

A clock's rate of functioning is set by its time-interval; its rate of functioning is its time-interval.

A clock's time-interval is used to measure time. Changing its time-interval changes its measurement of time. Increasing a clock's velocity/gravity increases its inertial mass and decreases its rate of functioning and therefore its measurement of time: over a specific duration of time, time between two timepoints, the clock subjected to increased velocity and/or gravity will read less measurements of time—its face readings will display less time measurements than similar clocks not subjected to the same changes of velocity and/or gravity; decreasing a clock's velocity/gravity decreases its inertial mass and increases its rate of functioning and therefore its measurement of time: over a specific duration of time, time between two timepoints, the clock subjected to decreased velocity and/or gravity will read more measurements of time—its face readings will display more time measurements than similar clocks not subjected to the same changes of velocity and/or gravity.

Does time change if the measurement of time is changed? Does time change if mechanical clocks subject to changes of velocity/gravity change their measurement of time, their rates of functioning?

The effect of the causes of changes of inertial mass caused by changes of velocity and/or gravity upon mechanical clocks is a change of time-interval, a change of the actual duration of a time-interval used to measure time, used to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

Time-intervals which change when effected by the causes of velocity and gravity are variable time-intervals.

Mechanical clocks, because they are subject to changes of inertial mass caused by changes of velocity/gravity, are constructed and set with variable time intervals.

When accelerated from a known velocity, the rates of functioning of mechanical clocks with variable time-intervals slow and therefore their measurements of 'time' are less than the measurements of 'time' by the K zero/AR reference frame motion-sensing clocks with their invariable time-intervals.

When clocks of identical construction and set to the same time-interval measure time and are not subject to changes of velocity/gravity, they should read the same measurements of time and therefore should have the same face readings.

When one of two identical clocks is kept upon the Earth and the other is sent into space, the Earth clock is not subjected to changes of velocity or gravity but the space clock is subjected to changes of velocity and gravity, and because the velocity is increased and the gravity is decreased, the observed net effect is the space clock slows down, its rate of functioning is decreased, and it reads fewer measurements of time-intervals, hence it measures fewer time-intervals, and when it is returned to the Earth and placed next to the Earth clock, we find the space clock face reading to be less than the Earth clock face reading, as if time for the space clock has slowed down.

This change of rates of functioning results from an increase in an objectís inertial mass. When accelerated, when their velocity is increased, mechanical devices accumulate more inertial mass and therefore slow down. Accelerated mechanical clocks accumulate more inertial mass with the result that their rates of functioning vary from nonaccelerated clocks, and vary by slowing down, with fewer measurements of time-intervals. Hence the spacetwin phenomenon wherein clocks and twins sent aboard accelerated spaceships accumulate inertial mass and thus the rates of functioning of their mechanical and biological clocks slow down/measure less time-intervals relative to earth clocks/twins.

What is speed?

Speed is defined and specified by r = dt

Where
r = Speed, or rate
d = Distance
t = Time, or time-interval, or interval between timepoints

For a specification of r, the speed of an object, we must have both d, the distance, and t, the time-interval, the interval between timepoints, as the measurement of time-intervals.

By r = dt, the spatial measurement of distance, d, is linked to the temporal measurement, t, of the interval between the timepoints during which an object travels a distance, d.

In theory, time and space are linked, interrelated, mutually dependent, not independent.

Are time and space interdependent? Or are they independent?

For an accurate r, d, which is distance, distance in space, a spatial measurement, must be invariable, and t, which is time, a temporal measurement, must be invariable.

If d and t vary for any reason, then r varies. Increases or decreases in d and t, in dt, cause increases or decreases in r.

Only in the Absolute Rest frame, AR, or ARF, or K zero ('zero' being used instead of the superscripted character '0' which is present in most but not all fonts), is d invariable and t likewise is invariable.

Is the speed of light (SOL) the same for all reference frames?

Is there is a difference between the actual SOL and the apparent SOL.

Is the actual SOL the same for all reference frames?

Or is only the apparent SOL the same for all reference frames?

Einstein himself said "The speed of light is the same for all observers." [4]

The key word herein is 'observers.'

The apparent SOL is the same for all observers but the actual SOL is not the same for all observers when they are observing.

The actual speed of light is 186,000 miles per second (mps) ONLY in the Absolute Rest (AR) reference frame, K zero [the term 'zero' is used because of the possibility that some fonts might not include the degree mark which is commonly used for a superscripted zero]. And only if there is no gravity. And only in a pure vacuum, defined as a spatial quantity completely devoid of any thing, event, or other phenomenon, such as gravity.

Let us establish an invariable time-interval for motion-sensing clocks which, when accelerated, always read the same as the K zero reference frame clock, the K zero clocks.

[As an alternative, we could send signals towards Spaceship which would synchronize at least one of its clocks to the K zero/AR reference frame clock.]

For the following Situations A, B, C and D:

(A) The Light Source and the Target both are in the K zero/AR reference frame;
(B) The actual distance between the Light Source and the Target is measurable, unchangeable, and a known quantity, d;
(C) Lightray A and Lightray B are both emitted simultaneously at Timepoint T1 and travel in parallel lines towards the Target;
(D) A timing device such as a clock can be used to time the arrivals of Lightray A, Lightray B, and Lightray C at the Target;
(E) Any gravitation aboard the Spaceship is disregarded, hence no 'frame dragging' is possible.

Situation A:

Lightray A ———————————————————————>|Target

Lightray B ———————————————————————>|Target

Both Lightray A and Lightray B are emitted at Timepoint T1 and should arrive at the Target at the same Timepoint T2.

Situation B: Lightray B passes through a Spaceship on its way to the Target. [Lightray B enters a window in the tail of the Spaceship, passes through the Spaceship without decreases in its speed due to friction or gravity, and without deviation from its course parallel to Lightray A, and exits a window in the nose of the Spaceship parallel to Lightray A.]

The Spaceship is traveling at a uniform speed and parallel to Lightrays A and B.

Lightray A ———————————————————————>|Target

Lightray B ———————>Spaceship—————————>|Target

Question: Does Lightray A strike the Target at the same time as Lightray B [Timepoint T2]?
Answer: Yes: ___ (?); No: ___ (?)

If Yes, then Lightray B was not accelerated while passing through the Spaceship, which means that while passing through the Spaceship Lightray B was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps.

If observers aboard the Spaceship observe Lightray B passing the dimension 'known' to be the length of the Spaceship at 186,000 mps, that means (1) their perceptual rates of functioning have slowed due to the acceleration which produces an increase in their inertial mass and their subjective experience of the perception of Lightray B is the same as would be their subjective experience of the perception of Lightray B were they nonaccelerated/in the K zero/absolute rest reference frame, therefore the SOL is observed to be 186,000 mps, this is an apparent SOL, and therefore not an actual SOL, (2) the dimension of the length of the Spaceship has contracted, diminished, and thus the lightray appears to be traveling the length of the Spaceship at 186,000 mps, or (3) the perceptual rates of functioning of the observers and the length of the Spaceship has contracted.

Thus, regardless of the reports of observers aboard the Spaceship, the actual speed of Lightray B is 186,000 mps.

Situation C: Lightray B passes through a Spaceship on its way to the Target.

The Spaceship is accelerating while traveling parallel to Lightrays A and B.

Lightray A ———————————————————————>|Target

Lightray B ———————>Spaceship—————————>|Target

Question: Does Lightray A strike the Target at the same timepoint as Lightray B [Timepoint T2]?
Answer: Yes: ___ (?); No: ___ (?)

If Yes, then Lightray B was not accelerated while passing through the Spaceship, which means that while passing through the Spaceship Lightray B was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps. [This is the same conclusion as found in Situation B.]

Thus, regardless of the reports of observers aboard the Spaceship, the actual speed of  Lightray B is 186,000 mps.

Situation D: Lightray B passes through a Spaceship on its way to the Target.

The Spaceship is accelerating while traveling nonparallel to Lightrays A and B. [The Spaceship is accelerating over the path of a curve.]

NOTE: Imagine the path of the Spaceship to be a curve rather than the straight line shown in the illustration.

Lightray A ———————————————————————>|Target

Lightray B ———————>Spaceship—————————>|Target

Question: Does Lightray A strike the Target at the same timepoint as Lightray B [Timepoint T2]?
Answer: Yes: ___ (?); No: ___ (?)

If Yes, then Lightray B was not accelerated while passing through the Spaceship, which means that while passing through the Spaceship Lightray B was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps. [This is the same conclusion as found in Situations B and C.]

We thus note that in B, C and D that Lightray B struck the target at the same time, Timepoint T2, as Lightray A, which means in none of these situations did Lightray B strike the Target at a different Timepoint, earlier than T2, or T1, and thus Lightray B was not accelerated while passing through the Spaceship and thus entering its reference frame.

Thus, regardless of the reports of observers aboard the Spaceship, the actual speed of  Lightray B is 186,000 mps.

NOTE: Similar results would occur if the Spaceship were decelerating.

For the following Situation E:

(A) The Light Source and the Target both are in the K zero/AR reference frame;
(B) The actual distance between the Light Source and the Target is measurable, unchangeable, and a known quantity, d;
(C) Lightray A and Lightray B are both emitted simultaneously at Timepoint T1 and travel in parallel lines towards the Target;
(D) Lightray C is emitted when Lightray B passes into and through the Spaceship and strikes a light source inside the spaceship; Lightray C is emitted parallel to Lightray A and Lightray B
(E) A timing device such as a clock can be used to time the arrivals of Lightray A, Lightray B, and Lightray C at the Target;
(F) Any gravitation aboard the Spaceship is disregarded, hence no 'frame dragging' is possible.

Situation E: Lightray B passes through a Spaceship on its way to the Target and triggers a light source aboard the Spaceship which causes Lightray C to be emitted parallel to Lightray A and Lightray B.

The Spaceship is traveling at a uniform speed and parallel to Lightrays A and B.

Lightray A ———————————————————————>|Target

Lightray B ———————>Spaceship—————————>|Target
                                Lightray C ———————————>|Target

Question: Does Lightray A strike the Target at the same timepoint as Lightrays B and C [Timepoint T2]?
Answer: Yes: ___ (?); No: ___ (?)

If Yes, then Lightray B was not accelerated while passing through the Spaceship, which means that while passing through the Spaceship Lightray B was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps, and Lightray C was not accelerated due to the speed of its light source aboard the Spaceship but was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps.

Thus, regardless of the reports of observers aboard the Spaceship, the actual speed of  Lightrays B and C is 186,000 mps.

Situation F: Lightray B passes through a Spaceship on its way to the Target and triggers a light source aboard the Spaceship which causes Lightray C to be emitted parallel to Lightray A and Lightray B.

The Spaceship is accelerating while traveling parallel to Lightrays A and B.

Lightray A ———————————————————————>|Target

Lightray B ———————>Spaceship—————————>|Target
                                Lightray C ———————————>|Target

Question: Does Lightray A strike the Target at the same timepoint as Lightrays B and C [Timepoint T2]?
Answer: Yes: ___ (?); No: ___ (?)

If Yes, then Lightray B was not accelerated while passing through the Spaceship, which means that while passing through the Spaceship Lightray B was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps, and Lightray C was not accelerated due to the speed of its light source aboard the Spaceship but was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps.

Thus, regardless of the reports of observers aboard the Spaceship, the actual speed of  Lightrays B and C is 186,000 mps.

NOTE: A similar result would occur if the Spaceship were decelerating.

Situation G: Lightray B passes through a Spaceship on its way to the Target and triggers a light source aboard the Spaceship which causes Lightray C to be emitted parallel to Lightray A and Lightray B.

The Spaceship is accelerating while traveling nonparallel to Lightrays A and B.

NOTE: Imagine the path of the Spaceship to be a curve rather than the straight line shown in the illustration.

Lightray A ———————————————————————>|Target

Lightray B ———————>Spaceship—————————>|Target
                                Lightray C ———————————>|Target

Question: Does Lightray A strike the Target at the same timepoint as Lightray B and Lightray C [Timepoint T2]?
Answer: Yes: ___ (?); No: ___ (?)

If Yes, then Lightray B was not accelerated while passing through the Spaceship, which means that while passing through the Spaceship Lightray B was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps, and Lightray C was not accelerated due to the speed of its light source aboard the Spaceship but was traveling at the K zero/absolute rest reference frame speed of 186,000 mps.

Thus, regardless of the reports of observers aboard the Spaceship, the actual speed of  Lightrays B and C is 186,000 mps.

NOTE: A similar result would occur if the Spaceship were decelerating.

Thus, when Einstein said "The speed of light is the same for all observers" he was referring ONLY to the apparent SOL and not the actual SOL.

The human brain has a biological clock which functions at a basically uniform rate per second. [Computers have electrical clocks which function at uniform rates per second, hence the computer's 'clock speed.']

The human eye perceives motion/movement of things in events by 'taking pictures' at a uniform rate per second. In a sense, the human eye takes pictures at a uniform rate per second and the subjective experience is that of a uniform flow of things/events creating the sense of sequences and therefore history.

The physics of photography produce the sensation of motion by taking pictures called frames of things/events at a uniform rate of frames per second and when a developed film is played back at the same uniform rate of frames per second the physics produce the subjective illusion of motion.

If a developed film is played back slowly, the rate of frames per second is less and the subjective illusion is of slow motion—the people/things/events 'move slower.'

If a developed film is played back faster, the rate of frames per second is more and the subjective illusion is of fast motion—the people/things/events 'move faster.'

If a camera takes pictures/frames at a slower rate than the developed film is played back, then, when the developed film is played back at a 'normal' or faster rate of frames per second, the subjective illusion is that of fast motion. This is the principle behind time-lapse photography—the resulting subjective illusion is that the people/things/events are "moving faster' than normal.

If a camera takes pictures/frames at a faster rate than the developed film is played back, then, when the developed film is played back at a 'normal' or faster rate of frames per second, the subjective illusion is that of slow motion. This is the principle behind slow motion photography—the resulting subjective illusion is that the people/things/events are 'moving slower' than normal.

By referencing photography we can observe the phenomenon known as the rate of functioning and the subjective phenomenon of the perception of motion. When the subjective experience of motion is not changed but the rate of functioning is slowed and produces less frames per unit of variable-interval time, then the apparent SOL is greater than the actual SOL. The subjective experience of the variable time-interval of the moving reference frame is 186K mps while the actual SOL for the moving reference frame is 186K mps minus the speed of the spaceship.

We have now shown that the speed of light is an apparent phenomenon for all observers on moving reference frames and is only actual for observers in the K zero/Absolute Rest reference frame.

There is another gedankenexperiment which can reveal the apparent vs. actual SOL phenomenon.

When a single photographic picture is taken, the photograph is a two-dimensional portrait of frozen history.

What if we could take single three-dimensional photographs from the K zero/Absolute reference frame? We would then see the actual position of all things at that instant of frozen history. Then, as we take additional three-dimensional photographs at precisely timed intervals, we would then observe the changes of positions of all things from photo to photo. We could track the small stuffs—single electrons, atoms, or molecules, and we could track the big stuffs—stars, planets, moons, etc. We could see exactly what accelerates, rotates, decelerates, etc. And all the lightrays would be actual and not apparent.

Under these conditions, since a lightray can only itself be, we would note the actual position regardless of the reports of moving observers. We would be able to determine the difference between an observerís reported SOL and the actual SOL. And we should be able to determine that for observers aboard a spaceship the apparent SOL of the lightray B whizzing past the spaceship is not the actual SOL, which would be for the spaceship observers 186K mps less the speed of the spaceship. And we would see Lightray B strike the target at the same time as Lightray A.

There is still another gedankenexperiment which can reveal the apparent vs. actual SOL phenomenon.

Imagine being a Perfect Observer, or PO, and you can observe and not disturb, you can change your physical size to fit whatever perspective you need so you can easily observe and not disturb small stuffs as well as big stuffs, you can travel instantaneously throughout the universe at obviously superluminal speeds, you can exist inside the event horizon of a black hole or on its surface or at its core without being crushed or deformed in the slightest by gravity, you can exist inside the hottest of suns without being burned, you can increase your personal rate of functioning to the point where your observance of reality appears to be moving in what normal humans would say is slow motion, you have a new perceptual sense related to the human perceptual sense of touch that permits you to perceive and thereby observe directly all actual objects, all the things of reality, without having to rely upon physical phenomena which can be distorted by other physical phenomena, such as light which can be distorted by gravity, and you have the capacity to observe every thing in reality and keep track of it without exception, as greater than any computer tracking and information processing and storage could ever be imagined to be, so you can know every thing and every event in reality without exception. Therefore, as a PO, you can observe and not disturb without limit.

Because, as a PO, you can observe and not disturb, you can observe individual small stuffs directly and therefore eliminate the unknowns of quantum mechanics; you can thus predict precisely which atoms in a crowd of atoms will decay. Quantum theory will still predict the percentage of atomic decay in a crowd of atoms, but you will not need quantum theory because you can predict precisely which atoms will decay. You will thus find the regularity of the natural relationships between/among the things/events of reality to be beyond quantum effects to the point of ultimate determinism.

What will you observe of light? You will observe Lightray A strike the target at the same time as Lightray B and therefore conclude that the SOL is a constant in the K zero/Absolute Rest reference frame when gravity is absent and that moving observers subject to changes of rates of functioning due to increases of their inertial mass due to changes of velocity and/or gravity experience the apparent SOL phenomenon and thus conclude that although the apparent speed of light is the same for all observers the actual speed of light is always the same when light is not subject to gravitational or media distortion, as in a pure vacuum absent gravity, as in a pure K zero/AR reference frame.

In all these gedankenexperiments we find the same result: time is independent of space, therefore spacetime is an apparent phenomenon and not an actual phenomenon, therefore Absolute Time, Absolute Space, Absolute Rest, and Absolute Motion are all actual phenomena. The universe cannot be closed but instead must be open, or its spatial reality as unbounded space, unbounded geometry, would be violated. Time is actual and Absolute when invariable time-intervals are used, and is apparent phenomenon when variable time-intervals are used; and time as the temporal reality is infinite in duration. The physical reality as matter/energy is infinite in duration though finite in quantity, and is the source of all causality, with causality being an endless chain of causes and effects because there is no beginning nor ending to time and thus no beginning nor ending to the physical reality, thus there never was a first cause nor will there be a last effect. There was never a beginning to the spatial, temporal or physical realities, therefore the universe has always existed, exists now, and will always exist in the future, without an ending. The universe has always had a history, and will continue to make its own history. There is no thing or event that is real in contrast to being the content of an idea that does not exist in the universe. And the gods, if they exist, exist within the spatial reality, are subject to the temporal reality, and are comprised of the physical reality, although it is not impossible that they may be comprised of matter/energy not currently observed.

All of these conclusions are possible because of the concept of the invariable time-interval and the related principle that when invariable time-intervals are used to measure time then time is the same throughout the universe and thus all reality and is independent of space and physics. The invariable time-interval gives the temporal reality the asymmetry needed for an arrow of time and for an history of the universe and for the predictability of science. The invariable time-interval thus provides a reality to science and eliminates previous and current and future mystical elements, and provides a path to manís ultimate knowledge if not perfect knowledge of all reality.

The universe consists of at least three independent realities and their infinities: (1) the spatial reality; (2) the temporal reality; (3) the physical reality.

1. The spatial reality is the infinite emptiness which is space; space would be empty—a pure vacuum—except for the presence of the matter/energy which is the physical reality; the spatial reality is infinite in duration; the spatial reality is dimensionless, unbounded, limitless.

In the concept of the spatial reality we find the first infinity, of dimension, because of the limitless dimensions of space. If we were to create of latticework of rigid rods, specified to be of invariable and unbending finite length, absolutely straight and of absolute length, set at ninety degrees to each other, and absolutely parallel to each other, with no rods touching other rods except for intersections, and labeled for orientations from a starting point North<->South, East<->West, and Up<->Down, we would find that there would be no final or finite number of rigid rods we could add to the latticework, the number of rods which could be added to the latticework would be infinite, limitless, hence we would visually and tactually experience the infinity of space which is the spatial reality.

Thus, there is the spatial reality which is the spatial infinity.

2. The temporal reality is the concept of time which is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences by means of time-intervals; time as measured by invariant time-intervals is the same for all observers—time measured by means of invariant time-intervals in clocks which are motion/gravity-sensing and self-adjusting or otherwise synchronized by radio signals always show an increase in clock face readings; time moves forwards into the future, is irreversible and therefore is asymmetrical; there was never a beginning to time, nor will there ever be an ending of time.

In the concept of the temporal reality we find the second infinity, of time, with no final measurement of clock face readings when clocks created with invariable time-intervals —

(A) are set to measure timepoints into the future, from Timepoint T0 (Timepoint Zero):

or

(B) are set to measure time into the past:

or

(C) are set to measure both time into the past and into the future in a continuum:

The 'now,' which is the 'present,' is the current configuration of matter/energy, the present configuration of matter/energy, which is the physical reality, in the spatial reality; the now results from the immediate past configurations and the inertial masses of things, objects, comprised of matter/energy both at rest and in motion, and the future results from the combination of the immediate past and present configurations of matter/energy and the inertial masses of things at rest and in motion. Thus, at T0 we have a specific current and present configuration of matter/energy which resulted from the configuration of matter/energy in the immediate past at T-1 and which will cause the future configuration of matter/energy at T+1.

Photographs and videos taken with conventional cameras show in two dimensions the local configurations of matter/energy which are the now and the present when the photographs or videos were taken. Photographs and videos are thus frozen records of previous configurations of matter/energy. Because of their nature, the frozen records of previous spatial/temporal/physical configurations which are revealed by conventional cameras and videos are two-dimensional. If we could create cameras which could take photographs or videos in three dimensions, then we would see and experience the precise position of each thing comprised of matter/energy and therefore the precise configuration of all matter/energy at each Timepoint, at each of a series of Timepoints, therefore we would see the previous/past configurations which cause the present configuration and future configurations. We would see the flow of time as the flow of now/present configurations of matter/energy.

Thus, there is a temporal reality which is a temporal infinity.

3. The physical reality is the matter/energy (including gravity and the electric charge) which comprises all things [objects] and events [relationships between/among things]; the physical reality fills part if not all of space; its duration is infinite—matter/energy can be changed in form but never destroyed—matter/energy is indestructible: E = mc2 and m = E/c2; its quantity is finite—the sum total of matter/energy is a constant [Thermodynamics]; the physical reality as matter/energy is the source of causality, wherein things/events comprised of matter/energy as causes cause/create things/events as effects; nothing comes from nothing, therefore something can only come from something else.

In the concept of the physical reality we find the third infinity, the duration of matter/energy by the measurement of time into the past and into the future, with no beginning of time and no ending of time (with no final face readings or temporal measurements of clocks using invariable time-intervals), and we also find the first finity, the total quantity of matter/energy, the sum total of matter/energy, being a finite quantity.

From Thermodynamics, the First Law, we find that the definition of a closed energy system is a system (A) from which no matter/energy can be removed (it has no place to go, because there exists no other matter/energy system to which the removed matter/energy can be added) and (B) into which no matter/energy can added (there is no source of the additional matter/energy).

The matter/energy of the universe is a closed system because (A) no matter/energy can be removed from it (where would the removed matter/energy go?) and no matter/energy can be added to it (from where would the additional matter/energy come?).

Thus, the matter/energy of the universe, which is a closed system, is a finite quantity.

Note: Infinity is not a number. Anyone who claims infinity is a number must tell us what that number is.

A finite quantity cannot be dispersed infinitely into an infinite volume.

There will be locations within the infinite volume of space in which there will be matter/energy and other locations in which there will be no matter/energy, and which, therefore, will be pure vacuums.

Thus, the finite quantity of the matter/energy of the universe will not be uniformly dispersed, but, instead, will be clustered non-uniformly.

Thus, the universe is not homogenous for matter/energy.

Thus, there is a physical reality comprised of matter and energy which is the infinity of physical duration and which is the finity of the quantity of matter/energy.

Causality being sequences in which (1) people/thing/events who/which are causes (2) cause/create (3) people/things/events who/which are effects, and people/things/events being causes and effects and comprised of matter/energy, which is infinite in duration but finite in quantity, the source of causality is matter/energy.

We therefore find three realities—the spatial reality, which is space, the temporal reality, which is the measurement of time, and the physical reality, which is the matter/energy which is the source of causality, and we find three infinities—the infinity of unbounded space, the infinity of the endless measurement of time (using invariable time-intervals), and the infinity of the duration of matter/energy, and we find the finity of the quantity of matter/energy.

Because there was no beginning to time, nor is there an ending, because there was no beginning to space, nor is there an ending, because there was no beginning to matter/energy, nor is there an ending, because nothing comes from nothing/something can only come from something, and because matter/energy is the source of all causality, then if a Big Bang occurred the energy was present as matter/energy, matter/energy was present as the source of the causality of the Bang, space was also present as the unbounded place within which the Bang could occur, and time was also present as a concept only needing to be realized which would provide the measurement of the occurrence of the Bang. The space, time and physics—matter/energy—needed for the Big Bang was present prior to the Bang. And if a Big Crunch occurs, space, time and physics—matter/energy—will be present after the Crunch.

We, as individual human beings, exist as configurations of matter/energy of the physical reality within the spatial and temporal realities.

If gods exist, they, too, exist as configurations of matter/energy of the physical reality within the spatial and temporal realities. They may be comprised of matter/energy not presently observed and therefore not presently known by human beings, but, nevertheless, they are comprised of matter/energy of some kind. They may have more knowledge and capabilities (powers) than than human beings, but, nevertheless, they are comprised of the matter/energy which is the physical reality. They may have existed without beginnings, and may continue to exist without endings, because they are changeless, because there is no inertia which can cause them to change, or because they can avoid the inertia which can cause them to change, but they are, again, nevertheless, comprised of the matter/energy which is the physical reality. Therefore, if they exist, the gods are physical, not spiritual.

When we combine the spatial and temporal realities and infinities with the reality, infinity and finity of the physical reality we have a concept of the universe as the space, or spatial reality, in which exist the things and events comprised of the matter and energy of the physical reality the configurations of which can be measured by invariable time-intervals of the temporal reality. And we see that there can only be one universe in which exist all things/events comprised of matter/energy. As there is only one physical reality, only one spatial reality and only one temporal reality there can be only one universe.

We live in the now, the present temporal reality, and we experience the current configuration of the physical reality within the spatial reality.

We experience the infinities of space, time and physics, and the finity of physics in the quantity of matter/energy. The infinities of space, time and physics and the finity of physics are all objective, because they can be observed and measured and therefore experienced independently of ourselves and our limitations and prejudices, by other creatures, and by machines.

With the three realities and infinities of space, time and physics, and with the finity of physics, we now have a concept of the universe which is based upon reality itself, is readily observable and therefore is verifiable.

The universe is defined as the combination of the three realities: the spatial reality, the temporal reality, and the physical reality.

We can call the spatial reality space, we can call the temporal reality time, and we can call the physical reality physics.

Thus, the universe is defined as the combination of space, time and physics.

We commonly think of 'universe' as 'all space/time/physics.' Thus, the term 'universe' generally means 'all there is.'

Some theorists speak of 'multiple universes' and 'parallel universes' as if there could be more than one universe. Thus, if people choose to speak of 'multiple universes' and 'parallel universes,' then the term 'universe' does not mean 'all there is,' and we will need to create another term, such as 'superuniverse' to mean 'all there is.'

But 'universe' means all there is,' therefore all 'multiple universes' and 'parallel universes' would have to exist within the 'universe,' which strongly suggests that if each 'multiple universe' and/or each 'parallel universe' consisted of/was comprised of three realities, space, time and physics, there would have to exist within one 'universe' more than one set of three realities, and this simply does not make sense; therefore, there is only one 'universe,' one 'all there is,' one set of three realities, one set of space, time and physics, and thus there cannot be 'multiple universes' and 'parallel universes.' And so it is that there is no 'superuniverse' but, instead, there is only one 'universe.'

Any set of mathematics which appears to prove that there exist more than one universe, as in 'multiple universes,' or 'parallel universes,' does not fit reality, and violates Einstein's dictum that "the mathematics must fit the physics," meaning mathematics must always be subservient to physics, to the physical reality, and never superior to physics.

Thus, 'universe' continues to mean 'all there is.' And in consideration of the infinity of time and therefore the temporal duration of the universe, 'universe' means 'all there was, is, and will be.'

References

[1] Definition of 'philosophy' as 'the love of knowledge.'

The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, Peter A. Angeles, ed., Harper Colliins Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New york, NY 10022.

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn, ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1996.

Introduction to Philosophy, Peter McInerny, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022.

[2] Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Four Lectures on Relativity and Space, Dover Publications, Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014, 1967, pp. 49-50.

[3] Relatvity: The Special and General Theory, translated by Robert Lawson, Crown Publishers, New York, 1961, p. 99.