iSoul Time is 3D

Not a marriage

A marriage is the union of a man and a woman for life. Marriage is recognized by all societies. Marriage is a social institution, and marriage customs differ from society to society. It is up to society to say what marriage is.

Marriage is normally recognized by the government though some people forgo such recognition. It can happen that the government will recognize relationships as marriage that society as a whole does not recognize. For example, the (Roman) Catholic Church has standards for divorce and annulment of marriage which differ from that of the government.

That is also the situation of society today concerning “same-sex marriages”. The government recognizes these but both the Catholic Church and many non-Catholics do not recognize them as marriages. Society and the government have different definitions of marriage.

We have seen in the 20th century how governments can attempt to redefine language. Totalitarian governments seek to make it impossible to think thoughts they find dangerous. George Orwell satifized this in what he called Newspeak. Forced labor camp was “joycamp”. Compliance to Party orthodoxy was “plusgood”. “Thoughtcrime” was the criminal act of holding politically incorrect beliefs or doubts.

“Compelled speech” is a legal term with wider connotations. It means the state is compelling individuals or corporations to speak, or to speak in a prescribed manner. There are cases in which it is consistent with democratic principles, such as requiring warnings on packages of cigarettes. However, when speech is compelled concerning controversial matters of society, it is coercive and against democratic principles.

For example, the state of California passed a law to force pro-life pregnancy centers centers to speak a message that directly contradicts their beliefs and mission. The Supreme Court struck down this law. Their ruling “makes it clear that no one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion.” (

The definition of marriage is also such an issue. The question is to what extent the government can force people to speak a language that re-defines marriage as something other than they believe it is. Such compelled speech should be forbidden in a democratic society, and people should be allowed to speak a language they understand and that reflects their beliefs about a basic institution of society, marriage.

What conservatives should do

Although I’m a centrist, not a conservative, I desire to see the political factions balanced in order to have a balanced politics. But for some time the political left has had excessive influence: they dominate the media (both mass and elite), education, the arts and sciences, professional associations, NGOs, the judicial branch, and in many cases the executive and legislative branches, too. The only places where conservatives might have an edge are in the military, business, and traditional religious bodies, but even these have drifted leftward. And the younger generation is more left-leaning than their elders.

In short, although conservatives have achieved some political success, they are coming from a position of weakness, not a position of strength. The conservative position on many issues has trended leftward over time since it is under constant pressure from the dominant left.

As a centrist, I would like this imbalanced addressed. Conservatives, or non-leftists, should hold an equal share of influence. Then the factions will balance one another, and they will need to compromise toward the political center.

That said, what can conservatives do to improve their political position?

Read more →

Immediate motion

I recently wrote about rest in space and time here. This post is about the opposite: immediate motion, arriving at a destination instantly.

Immediate motion means an infinite speed in space. An infinite speed results in an immediate change of place: something moves from one location to another in an instant. It’s here and there at the same time. The departure and arrival are simultaneous.

A body at infinite speed is at two places at the same time, but a speed ratio has a finite time interval. If it’s the same time, how can there be a finite time interval?

For speed the time interval is fixed as the length changes. If the speed approaches infinity, then the travel length in the numerator approaches infinity, so the time interval in the denominator becomes a smaller and smaller proportion and the ratio approaches infinity. The body is at two places sinultaneously.

Immediate motion also means a zero pace in time. A zero pace results in an immediate change of time: something moves from one time to another in an instant. It’s now and then at the same location. The departure time and arrival time are at the same location. I’m calling this simulocus.

But wait, two times at the same location seems like no motion at all. What gives?

For pace the length interval is fixed as the time changes. If the pace approaches zero, then the travel time in the numerator approaches zero, so the length interval in the denominator becomes a larger and larger proportion and the ratio approaches zero. The body is at two times simulocusly.

Does immediate motion exist? Not under the Lorentz transformation, in which there is a finite maximum speed. But the Galilean transformation implicitly uses an infinite speed of light. And the co-Galilean transformation implicitly uses a zero pace of light.

Principles of centrism

Previous posts on political centrism are here, here, and here. This post further develops what centrism is.

There are three principles of what centrism is:

(1) Centrism seeks balance in all aspects of the state and its relationship with individuals, society, and other states.

(2) Centrism is non-ideological because ideologies are imbalanced: what distinguishes one ideology from another is how each is imbalanced.

(3) Centrism seeks to ensure that all ideologies are countered by opposite ideologies in order to neutralism them. Because of this, centrism is often contrarian, going against the dominant ideology so that a contrary ideology is strengthened. The goal is to gain or regain balance.

Centrism is the political philosophy of balance.

Science or stories

Science has no stories. Stories have characters, plots, and narratives. Science has data, hypotheses, postulates, and theories. Science and stories are different. They should be kept separate.

Stories can refer to science or be about scientists, but that is not part of science. Science can refer to stories or collect data from stories, but that is not storytelling.

Evolutionary stories are not part of science. Evolution without stories is part of science. But evolution without stories is variation and adaptation.

The science community and its boosters confuse science and stories. They are different and should be kept separate.

History is a chronicle, a narrative, a story. But history is not science.

The Bible is a story of stories. It includes chronicles, poetry, parables, and letters. The Bible may refer to science, but the Bible is not part of science.

The stories of the Bible are not inconsistent with science as long as science is not confused with stories. If science is confused with stories, then there may be inconsistencies with the Bible. The answer is to stop confusing science and stories.

Biblical creationists follow the science community and its boosters in confusing science and stories. Creationism is about history and theology, not science.

Science or stories: focus on one or the other but don’t confuse them.

Three relativity transformations

Two transformations of inertial reference frames are well-known: the Galilean and the Lorentz transformations. There is a third transformation as well, which will be called the co-Galilean transformation. Below is a derivation of all three transformations, closely following the paper Getting the Lorentz transformations without requiring an invariant speed by Andrea Pelissetto and Massimo Testa (American Journal of Physics 83 (2015), p.338-340). Their approach is based on the work of von Ignatowsky in the early 20th century.

We wish to characterize the transformations that relate two different inertial frames. Let us consider two inertial observers K and K′. Let r = (x, x2, x3) and w = (t t2, t3) be space and time coordinates for K and = (x´, x2´, x3)´ and = (t´, t2´, t3´) be the corresponding quantities for K′.

In order to simplify the argument, we will restrict our considerations to the subgroup of transformations involving x and t only, setting x2´= x2, x3´ = x3, t2´ = t2, and t3´ = t3. This is equivalent to choosing coordinates so that K and K′ are in relative motion along the x and t directions in K and the x′ and t´ directions in K´.

Read more →

Simultaneity without clocks

Watches didn’t always exist. Neither did clocks that were transportable or manufactured in large quantities. I mention this because one way to determine the simultaneity of events is to have synchronized clocks transported to multiple locations – even an endless number of locations in theory.

How can an observer determine the simultaneous events from their frame of reference? Answer: simultaneous events are observed simultaneously by an observer. But how can this be reconciled with other observers who may observe the same events as non-simultaneous?

That is the point of relativity: applying transformations to coordinates from different frames of reference so that the equations of physics are the same in all reference frames. But relativity requires a convention of simultaneity (or a demonstration of what events are simultaneous events). Since I have defined time in terms of stopwatches rather than clocks, how can simultaneity be determined?

Read more →

Space-time exchange postulate

Rates of motion are almost always expressed as a ratio with respect to time. For example, the average speed of a body is the travel distance of the body divided by the travel time. This makes the independent variable time and distance the dependent variable.

However, there is no physical dependency of motion on time rather than distance. One could just as well express the average rate of motion as the travel time of the body divided by the travel distance. The ratios are equally valid.

This is a general result. There is a binary symmetry between space and time. Travel distance and travel time are interchangeable as far as the equations of physics are concerned. J. H. Field has expressed this as a postulate for space-time exchange (STE):

(I) The equations describing the laws of physics are invariant with respect to the exchange of space and time coordinates, or, more generally, to the exchange of the spatial and temporal components of four vectors. (A four-vector has three components of length and one of distime.)

He avoids the question of 3D time by limiting the STE to the direction of inertial motion. Here we generalize the STE postulate to include 3D time:

(II) The equations describing the laws of physics are invariant with respect to the exchange of space and time coordinates, or, more generally, to the exchange of the spatial and temporal components of six-vectors. (A six-vector has three components of length and three of time.)

Field found the STE to violate Galilean symmetry, but this is incorrect because time is three dimensional, and there is a co-Galilean transformation symmetric to the Galilean transformation.

The STE postulate affirms the complete symmetry of space and time, which is built on the symmetry of length and duration. As distance is the metric of space, a kind of length, so distime is the metric of time, a kind of duration. The metric of space or time may be used to organize events linearly, with equivalence classes defined for events at the same position in the order.

Rest in space and time

Rest means no motion, or at least no motion detected by an observer.

We know what rest in space means: staying in the same place. That is, rest means no change of position, no travel distance, no length of motion. So at rest the numerator of the speed is zero.

Yet clocks tick on. The denominator of speed is not zero. The speed of rest then equals zero, that is, a zero length of motion divided by a non-zero quantity of time. Speed v = Δxt = 0/Δt = 0.

What is rest in time? It means staying at the same time. That is, rest means no duration of motion, no travel time. So at rest the numerator of the pace is zero.

In this case, is the length of motion zero, too? No. For pace the length is the independent quantity. It doesn’t depend on the motion. It depends on the given length or unit of length. So the pace of rest is zero, that is, a time of zero divided by a non-zero length. Pace u = Δtx = 0/Δx = 0.

Yet a zero pace seems to say one gets a change of place with no lapse of time. What gives?

Length of motion in the pace ratio is the independent variable. Whether length is conceived to be continually increasing, as if it were a clock, or just a quantity of length for comparison, it is independent of the motion measured. The numerator, the time, is what is measured and compared with a quantity of length to determine the pace.

It is similar with speed. Whether or not there is a clock ticking away, the denominator is a quantity of time compared with a quantity of length. All the clocks in the world could be broken, yet the denominator of speed, the change in time, would still be non-zero.

Consider a vehicle with an odometer and a stopwatch that is running whenever the vehicle is in motion. Both the odometer and the stopwatch would record no additional time for a vehicle at rest. This could not be represented as a ratio since 0/0 is not a valid ratio. Such a state has an indeterminate rate of motion.

Relativity alone

In a paper titled Nothing but Relativity (Eur. J. Phys. 24 (2003) 315-319) Palash B. Pal derived a formula for transformations between observers that is based on the relativity postulate but not a speed of light postulate. In a paper titled Nothing but Relativity, Redux (Eur. J. Phys. 28 (2007) 1145-1150) Joel W. Gannett presented an alternate derivation with fewer implicit assumptions. Here we’ll use Pal’s approach to derive the time-space version.

Consider two inertial timeframes S and , where the second one moves with legerity u, along the t-axis, with respect to the first one. There are two other time axes. The coordinates and radial distance in the S-timeframe will be denoted by t and x, and in the timeframe will be denoted with a prime. The time-space transformation equations have the form:

= T(t, x, u) and = X(t, x, u),

and out task is to determine these functions. A few properties of these functions can readily be observed. First, the principle of relativity tells us that if we invert the legerity in these equations, we must obtain the same functional forms:

t = T(t´, x´, –u) and x = X(t´, x´, –u).

Read more →