"I'm curious! Seems you are sent from heaven! If you want to. But from what you've written they seem wrong. Which I say naturally. All these theories, from the ones I've mentioned to the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack.."

In response to: "Seems you are sent from heaven!"
There's no need to insult me Raymond (Ha Ha).

In response to: "the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack..."
Careful, You are person 3!

I found the exchanges between myself and the DIMP guy. I also have his name and noted again that he also wrote Sci-Fi books. I copied all our exchanges into a word file and condensed it (only took 10 mins) into my best attempt at his main Jist. It's two A4 pages. I will post it below, once I have finished responding to recent comments. It will be a little disjointed as it's an amalgam of posts. I've removed any repetition I could find. You might, as I did, find the level of passion which comes from his 'slightly manic' style (only my opinion), interesting in a positive or negative way. I won't include his name but I'm sure he will be happy that I am disseminating his hypothesis.

"There are no point particles. This is an abstraction made in quantum field theory. The only true fundamental particles are two massless basic fields. All particle interactions, like proton decay, are easily explainable in this model. How can a basic particle like a quark change into another quark if it's fundamental? What is space? Maybe the hidden variables of quantum mechanics. Space is a means for charge to interact"

Maybe once I have posted what I have on the DIMP idea you will have more to go on.
He talks a lot about quarks.

With or without e, whisky feels good for me! I can't drink it with a straight face though. Can you taste the difference between Scotch and Irish whisky? To me they all taste the same, be it Johnny or Jack. Tastes awfully, but great! Must be the promise they hide!

Looking forward to that dimp text!

"Does he mean dimention? Or dimension?"

Probably just my typo. His own words will be posted below:

You are sent from heaven... :smile:

Now for the more important ones for me:

"You are missing that space for an accelerated guy is curved. That's the weird thing about space. It's relative stuff. It depends on your state of motion how it looks. If you fall freely in curved space it is flat. If you accelerate in flat space, it looks curved."

Ok, I understand that but are such effects not localised? As an observer, I would just see a receding red blob, wouldn't I? An observer would not see or detect spatial curvature. I can understand the motion curving or warping the space being traversed but to me, that suggests that the fabric of space is flexible not curved.

"Space around mass is not inherently curved though, just like space in intergalactic space is not inherently flat. It looks so, but it depends on your state of motion, your relative velocity wrt other bodies, how it appears. If you accelerate towards the speed of light, you will observe that clocks that are stationary in your frame have different ticking rates, like in a gravity field, the difference being that the field you see in that frame is uniform). Relative to the frame from where you leave all clocks in the accelerated frame tick slower and slower. In a gravity field, artificial or not, time at points where the clock stays stationary, tick at a different rate than clocks in rest in empty space."

This sounds like you agree with the posit that 'Space is not rigid, it's flexible.' Similar perhaps to a person swimming under water, you displace your volume of water. Move through space and you displace/flex your volume of space.

I understand your reference frame points and its repeated in Brian Greene's book 'The Elegant Universe' A person travelling at light speed may switch on a torch. The light from that torch would travel at light speed in all directions. In his own reference frame he would also age at the same rate he aged in the frame of reference he was in before he accelerated to light speed.

"This is an actual difference because acceleration is absolute. It's an actual feature of objects."
I understand that you never add a velocity to the speed of light, so the speed of light is a constant.
I also understand that traveling at a constant speed in dark space and in absence of any other sensory info, you would feel no different to being completely at rest. But you would feel accelaration. I think that is what you are describing by your words in the quotes above.

"If a force acts on them then they accelerate. The clock doesn't go faster for you (if you accelerate) though. Only wrt to non-acelerating ones. Seen from two frames with constant relative velocity, the time in the other frame seems to run slower. This doesn't mean that both clocks run slower than the other. It depends on how they started out and meet again (for which acceleration is needed), how their clocks compare. If your clock that accelerates to lightspeed returns, it runs behind the clock that stays behind (twin paradox). If you will go behind it and meet (after it stopped), the clocks will show the same time."

Yep, all good. I am familiar with the twin paradox. So my only open points so far are 'localised effect' and 'spatial flex'.

"That's my theory, yes. But in GR space is curved inherently."

What does GR stand for?


"Like a circle can be described without reference to the 2d space it's in."
Do you mean Mathematically(pure numbers or pixel values) or by its attributes, such as (name,radius, coordinates of centre point, line thickness, fill colour/pattern etc). This is a system used in computing called object orientated graphics.

"Without reference to an outside 4th dimension. If you place 3d space, the whole structure, on a 4d space, the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth."
This has some commonality with the Klein bottle guy but I could be recalling incorrectly.
I just have great difficulty trying to contemplate anything outside 3D. I can visualise the idea of other dimensions of the very small using the common 'Look at a 3D pipe from above and it looks 2D, you dont see the wrapped dimension. I can also easily visualise a doughnut shape but that's about it. I dont understand " the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth." I will have to research that one.


"If matter, contained on the 3d structures (a matter filled one and an antimatter filled one, although both contain the same amounts of the 2 basic massless matter/antimatter fields, but differently combined) accelerates again later on, as observations on supernovae have shown, the 4d structure has to be negatively curved again. This negatively 4d substrate represents dark energy. It gave rise to inflation near the mouth, then inflation stopped and turned the negative curvature to positive, and then, when accelerated far enough from the mouth, the negative returns, as is now happening."

Nope. I'm lost now. Would need to research and study. How can you get massless matter/antimatter fields??? Surely all matter has mass or else it's not matter its energy??

"It is precisely this dogmatic attitude towards intrinsic curvature of space that blinds most physicists. Einstein said the curvature is intrinsic, so... The problem with an extra dimension is how to keep matter in 3d. But if this can be done in string theory (gravity leaking in a fourth dimension while matter stays on three, it's no problem. Particles themselves can be a kind of torus too. The product space of three circles, SxSxS"

Only a layman style response but I have always taken it that the spherical shape presented in physics books, were never meant to be true representations of particles/atoms etc. I understand them as irregular shaped cloud-style concentrations of waveforms. A torus? Product of 3 circles S^3? visualises in my head as 'too pretty' doesn't fit with the chaotic quantum imagery.

"You are sent from heaven.."

Then when I return I'm going to try and destroy it because its description sounds like hell to me.
Nasty, nasty place with a maniacal dictator in charge of pointless automatons forced to 'worship' it for ever.

Here at last, the DIMP guy between quotes:

"Dimp stands for DIMensionless Point.
This is a new idea with a funny name that challenges all physics.
We know that photons are outside of time and distance.
My suggestion is that Dimp contains all photons.
That means Dimp contains all electromagnetic energy in a single dimensionless point.
Dimp is eternal and outside time, space, distance.
Dimp was here before the Big Bang and will be here after the Big Bang, and long after this space-time universe has ended.

Here is an analogy. The energy was in Dimp. The Big bang was an explosion that broke away from Dimp and began space – time; but space – time is not part of Dimp.
This can be seen as the fire analogy:
a fire = Dimp, and an ember = space – time, that broke away from the fire and is no longer part of that fire.
Dimp is outside space and distance. That means that there is no distance between any two photons, they share the same, no distance, point. This is hard to fathom. The idea that all energy is gathered in a single point outside of space-time and is eternal may be one of the hardest things in physics to comprehend or even imagine. Yet all that we know about photons and the speed of light say it IS so.
Next comes the idea that this energy was there before the big bang, is much much more energy than all the universe after the big bang, and that the Big Bang was a small subset of Dimp, just as an ember is a small subset of a massive fire. That means that DIMP is not part of Spacetime, Gravity, Mass. That means the forces of gravity and the electromagnetic force are not connected. They are separate and any attempt to unify them will fail. The goal of physics to unify forces into one, during the early Big Bang is wrong for the reasons listed above.

Background: Why are positive and negative exactly the same?
They have to be because the waves of each are exactly the reverse in destructive interference.
That is what I suggest charge is – exact destructive interference of waves.
Fact: The total charge of the universe is zero. Number of surviving electrons matches the number of surviving protons.
QUARKS MAY BE 3 CRESTS AND TROUGHS OF WAVES.
Quarks are crests and troughs of waves that make a proton or neutron.
Proton as two crests and one trough wave =3 quarks = +2/3 -1/3 +2/3
Neutron as two troughs and one crest wave = 3 quarks = -1/3 +2/3 -1/3
This suggest that if quarks are parts of a single wave, we may not need the idea of quarks
This suggests that, like electrons; protons and neutrons are in orbitals.
This suggests that the neutron orbital is SLIGHTLY smaller than the proton.
THE OLD IDEA THAT PROTONS AND NEUTRONS ARE STATIONARY PARTICLES MAY BE WRONG.
My Diagram suggests that protons and neutrons are NOT stationary particles, but active wave/particles in orbitals that are MUCH smaller than the electron orbitals around the nucleus.
Then too, these waves/particles that make up the proton and neutron, must have incredible superposition, and destructive interference – not to mention momentum. – that would be a massive STRONG force between them. Could that be a clue to the strong force?
Fact: Atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons do behave like particles. … Atoms, electrons, protons, and neutrons also behave like waves! In other words, matter is just like light in that it has both wave-like and particle-like properties.
Fact: Superposition does not mean that an electron may have one momentum or another – it means that the electron literally has all the momenta at once.
PIONS AND KAONS MAY BE WAVES TOO.
We now think pions and kaons are two quarks.
What if they are extremely small waves such that the wave has one crest and one trough – each representing one quark.
ELECTRON AND PROTON MAY BE THE SAME SIZE
Both the quark and the electron are virtually the same size at (10)-16 cm.
But I suggest that the 3 quarks (up and down quarks) are really just the crests and troughs of extremely small orbitals.
THEN, that suggests the electron and proton may be virtually the same size.
But how can that be?
Fact: The 3 quarks of a Proton = 1% of the mass of the proton.
The binding energy of a proton = 99% of the mass of the proton.
Summary: So instead of a zoo of strange particles, we are looking at different waves that combine or ‘decay’

Here are ideas on waves and existence.
On the quantum level an electron wave represents existence . When the wave is at the anti nodes or crests, it is most likely to be in existence. When the wave is at the nodes, it is not likely to exist at all!!!!
So if Dr. Hoang is correct, then on the quantum level, the electron wave/particle comes in and out of existence during parts of the wave!
What if I took this idea further.
Would that mean that a proton wave acts the same way as the electron wave?
Would that mean that the existence of not only fundamental wave/particles come into and out of existence, but all quantum particles do as well?
Would that mean that when any two waves experience constructive interference such that each wave is then enhanced in it’s crests, then does that mean their existence is stronger.
Would that mean that when any two waves experience destructive interference where the waves reduce the crests to a more ===== form, then does that mean their existence is much weaker or that they are non existent?
Further is this a clue to how mass comes into existence?
https://youtu.be/e-xsKfZ7BOA

So why does a free neutron take 11 minutes to decay, and protons are virtually immortal? They are both made of 3 quarks.
QUARKS DO NOT MAKE SENSE – or the 3rd quark is REALLY weird.
Proton = 2 up , 1 down quarks. Neutron = 2 down, 1 up quarks.
So the difference between the two is the 3rd quark.
Both have one up and one down.
That leaves the difference between the proton and neutron as the 3rd quark.
So difference between a proton and neutron is due to whether the 3rd quark is up as in a proton, or down as in a neutron.
So, if that’s true then:
The third quark determines two things:
If it has an up quark – proton, then the particle is immortal.
If it has a down quark – neutron, then the particle decays in 10 minutes.
If it has an up quark – a proton, then the particle has less mass then the neutron.
If it has a down quark – a neutron, then the particle has .1% more mass than the proton.
So the down quark weighs .1% more than the up quark.

Quarks have no measurable physical extension, and seem to exist at points. Yet that single point does all this and more.
The proton has an up quark, and that magic third quark also determines half of the electromagnetic force in the universe and it in no way is like the electron, the other half, except in being an opposite charge.
When three quarks team up only a small part of the proton’s mass comes from the masses of the quarks. Most is binding energy. So that third quark has virtually no mass but can do all these magic things.
Quarks interact strongly and link in twos or threes to make particles such as pions, protons, and neutrons. Yet the other half of the charge world, electrons, does none of these things.
Physics is a science of pairs. For every particle there is an anti-particle. Virtual particles come in pairs. Spin, waves destructive and constructive interference, etc. In these cases the pairs are virtually identical and or mirror images of each other. So why would electromagnetic charge have electrons and protons so different from each other, and in no way seem built on exact opposites, or mirror image opposites. "

"With or without e, whisky feels good for me! I can't drink it with a straight face though. Can you taste the difference between Scotch and Irish whisky? To me they all taste the same, be it Johnny or Jack. Tastes awfully, but great! Must be the promise they hide"

If you want to talk whisky then this is probably the wrong site. So with humility towards the indulgence and patience of any other readers, I will keep this short.

Johnny Walker has some respectable creations and there are some 'ok' Irish whiskeys but there are few (in my opinion) same with Japanese and Canadian whiskys but sample the range of 10 year up to 30 year single malts from Ardbegs to Caol ILa's to Lagavullins to all the whiskys that start with the word Glen. Go through The Islays, the highlands and lowlands, the Strathspeys Then we can talk.
You are unlikely to get a really good single Malt for under £80. Maybe if your lucky, you might pick up a bargain. I was given a £400, 27-year-old, Bowmore by family when I retired. Delicious, I have a dram from it, every birthday and Hogmanay. I love the peaty's, the peatier the better. The likes (or Yikes!) of Jack Daniels is just burnie fire water that deserves to be drowned in flavoured, fizzy anything.

Ok, I understand that but are such effects not localised? As an observer, I would just see a receding red blob, wouldn't I? An observer would not see or detect spatial curvature. I can understand the motion curving or warping the space being traversed but to me, that suggests that the fabric of space is flexible not curved. — universeness

You would see a torch moving away from you getting redder and redder in a flat space. The guy holding the torch would see a curved spacetime, with a varying metric.

This sounds like you agree with the posit that 'Space is not rigid, it's flexible.' Similar perhaps to a person swimming under water, you displace your volume of water. Move through space and you displace/flex your volume of space.

I understand your reference frame points and its repeated in Brian Greene's book 'The Elegant Universe' A person travelling at light speed may switch on a torch. The light from that torch would travel at light speed in all directions. In his own reference frame he would also age at the same rate he aged in the frame of reference he was in before he accelerated to light speed. — universeness

Well, actually how space is curved is a difficult qùestion. GR, general relativity, doesn't answer that. It states it. Where there is acceleration, there is curvature (it is normally stated that where's mass/energy, there is curvature). But how this curves space(time)? Quantum gravity describes it as an exchange of gravitons, but this exchange takes place in flat space and there lies the problem that both string theory and Loop quantum gravity don't solve. Me on the other hand...

I understand that you never add a velocity to the speed of light, so the speed of light is a constant.
I also understand that traveling at a constant speed in dark space and in absence of any other sensory info, you would feel no different to being completely at rest. But you would feel accelaration. I think that is what you are describing by your words in the quotes above. — universeness

Indeed. In dark space you can feel it. It could be you accelerate in empty space or istand still n curved space.

This has some commonality with the Klein bottle guy but I could be recalling incorrectly.
I just have great difficulty trying to contemplate anything outside 3D. I can visualise the idea of other dimensions of the very small using the common 'Look at a 3D pipe from above and it looks 2D, you dont see the wrapped dimension. I can also easily visualise a doughnut shape but that's about it. I dont understand " the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth." I will have to research that one — universeness

The Klein bottle is a kind of Mōbius strip and bears indeed resemblance with a torus. I don't think there is an a Tòrus form exactly, but only the inside, stretching out to infinity. The 4d torus is unimaginable. But you can imagine a 2d one. Then the two universes emerging are circles starting at the center, one up and one down.

Nope. I'm lost now. Would need to research and study. How can you get massless matter/antimatter fields??? Surely all matter has mass or else it's not matter its energy? — universeness

The neutrino was thought massless once too. The Weyl equation is suited (in quantum field theory). If the two basic fields are massless then mass comes into existence if they interact strongly, by a new charge called hypercolor.

Gonna read the dimp! I'm typing on a phone, with one thumb and a fucking small screen. My laptop is still dead.
Nice talking with you!

Forgot one!

Do you mean Mathematically(pure numbers or pixel values) or by its attributes, such as (name,radius, coordinates of centre point, line thickness, fill colour/pattern etc). This is a system used in computing called object orientated graphics. — universeness

Attributes, the metric components, in the metric tensor. Theses are defined intrinsically but can be immersed in a higher dimension.

"Gonna read the dimp! I'm typing on a phone, with one thumb and a fucking small screen. My laptop is still dead.
Nice talking with you!"

Yeah, cheers Raymond. Thanks for your comments. I hope there are others around this Forum who have the physics depth, to be able to bounce ideas around more fruitfully than you are able to achieve with me and my current physics level.
I'm afraid that any new learning in the area of cosmology is only going to be unidirectional at present from you to me. I will attempt to leave you alone for a while but I'm sure we will converse again.
araverybestfurnoo!!! ('all the very best for now!!!', in case you don't do scots dialect)

araverybestfurnoo — universeness

Araverybestbestfuryuutoo! Furnoo!

I can't make anything of this.

QUARKS MAY BE 3 CRESTS AND TROUGHS OF WAVES.
Quarks are crests and troughs of waves that make a proton or neutron.
Proton as two crests and one trough wave =3 quarks = +2/3 -1/3l
+2/3
Neutron as two troughs and one crest wave = 3 quarks = -1/3 +2/3 -1/3 — universeness

The first thing I thought: hey! Quarks as composed of 3 subs. Like I think. What he means though is that each quark is either an up crest or a down crest. I don't agree here. The wavefunction can have crests or troughs. These waves combine in a proton. He takes the quarks out. Quarks are accompanied by wavefunctions, and these are spatial cross sections of the quantum fields. I think the quarks and leptons are composite. When these massless composites interact by means of a new hyperstrong colorlike charge, they acquire an effective mass, meaning that while all particles are massless they can still act as if.

I have read it all. From a physicist's point of view, it's an opinion only. A nice one but an opinion. The dimp outside the universe? Nonsense. The photon field lies inside, though he is right it doesn't exist in space nor time. You are the first who actually asks sensible questions, together with jgill.

Keepopthesail Scotsman!

"Keepopthesail Scotsman!"

Ha ha nice try Raymond, you are close but it would be 'keepuprasailman' or 'keepupyersailman'
in proper 'Glaswegian'

Thanks for taking the time to read the DIMP hypothesis. I upset him I think, when I said I thought his idea was a bit pedestrian, based on my own limited analysis. I did tell him about my limited Physics.
But I do genuinely try to respect all knowledge seekers. I don't always succeed but I get my fair share of insults or camouflaged putdowns fired right back at me.
Thanks also for your 'good questions' comments.
All power to your impressive Physics knowledge.
I count such scientific depth of subject knowledge, amongst the best hopes for the progression of our species in a hopefully positive and honorable direction.

Ha ha nice try Raymond, you are close but it would be 'keepuprasailman' or 'keepupyersailman'
in proper 'Glaswegian' — universeness

Are you in "Glasga"? Scotland appeals to the imagination! I saw "Trainspotting". But that was Edinborough. That Spud character made me laugh. O man, I wish my laptop was back alive and kicking. It's kind of frustrating. My thumb dictates me!

Born in Glesga(well done) and lived most of my life there but moved away 15 years ago.
Didn't like Trainspotting, too depressing. Drugs have destroyed a lot of lives all over the world, I just can't let go of the seriousness of the topic, enough to laugh at portrayals of messed-up junkies.
Edinburgh people call us 'weegies' and we call them 'burgers.'

Buy a new Laptop ya cheapskate! Physicists are all minted are they not?

I want my old back in life. Every day I tell myself to contact the firm, Medion, and then I don't. I studied physics but just don't wanna use it to make money with. The book can change that. Damned, I'm gonna contact them now. All my information is on that computer, and I can't log in on a lot of my original accounts with my phone. I forgot the password of my original email account, and had to look at my computer to log in again. Which couldn't be done. I've written quite some stuff already. Thanks man! You are the drop! :razz:

Flat spacers claim global space is flat and thus infinite. — Raymond

Is this meant to imply that flat spacers are like flat earthers? Is space curved if there is no mass? If not, then how do you know that the curvature is not just a property of the mass and its influence on surrounding objects, like the earth and its gravity.

"Dimp stands for DIMensionless Point.
This is a new idea with a funny name that challenges all physics.
We know that photons are outside of time and distance.
My suggestion is that Dimp contains all photons.
That means Dimp contains all electromagnetic energy in a single dimensionless point.
Dimp is eternal and outside time, space, distance.
Dimp was here before the Big Bang and will be here after the Big Bang, and long after this space-time universe has ended. — universeness

If we remove time from its "fourth dimension" relationship with space, and allow that time can pass without any physical change, time becomes prior to physical existence. Then time becomes the zeroth dimension, and we have the basis for the reality of dimensionless points. There is allowed for, activity within the dimensionless point, as time does not require physical activity, and time is conceived as prior to space. When time is prior to space, we need principles to allow for the coming into being of space, as space is then something which is generated in time. This means that we must allow that space itself is not static, but changing, as the concept of spatial expansion indicates.

Is this meant to imply that flat spacers are like flat earthers? Is space curved if there is no mass? If not, then how do you know that the curvature is not just a property of the mass and its influence on surrounding objects, like the earth and its gravity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Flat spacers like flat Earthers, yes! There is evidence for global space being closed. Space beyond the horizon doesn’t necessarily continue to infinity. Like in flat Earth (where it actually stops, but you get it). If space was infinite then the wavelength spectrum would be unbounded (or the frequency spectrum start above zero). Measurements on the CMBR suggest a bound. So the conclusion should be a closed universe. Which doesn't mean it's heading for a big crunch though. All galaxies show a time-dependent acceleration wrt to each other). Galaxies seemed to accelerate slower, or not at all, than earlier. That's why Webb telescope data are "important". To observe the universe expansion way further back. I bet it was even decelerating then.

Its clearly a concept and not an actual thing or at least in my eyes this is the case. The way I see it people have experienced and viewed change and decided to categorize it as time or at least partly as time but it's an untangible non-real thing I mean hell we can't even naturally keep it we have to make clocks to keep it for us because it's unnatural to know what time it is now you can know that the sun setting or the sun's coming up but that's different than knowing the exact time to the second


The consequence to making this stupid concept is it change the way we viewed situations that we experience or hear about and so now we have the wrong understanding in the wrong idea on what history is and what the future is we think of the past as something that we could eventually one day travel to in some stupid machine and or the future as if these are both places that are physically somewhere just not here right now and that we could somehow go there when that's ridiculous and not the case there's only now

"I want my old back in life. Every day I tell myself to contact the firm, Medion, and then I don't. I studied physics but just don't wanna use it to make money with. The book can change that. Damned, I'm gonna contact them now. All my information is on that computer, and I can't log in on a lot of my original accounts with my phone. I forgot the password of my original email account, and had to look at my computer to log in again. Which couldn't be done. I've written quite some stuff already. Thanks man! You are the drop!"

Such a familiar story to me. I was regularly red in the face for 26 years telling my pupils/students to
backup their work, passwords, software etc, etc on a secure, regular manner using more than one device and store the copies away from the originals.
But most of them only complied periodically and I had to deal with "Oh no sir, my computer broke and ive lost all my stuff," more times that I can recall.
I have a good regimen for backing up. Good luck with your old faithful Laptop.
Use cloud computing or at least an external SSD to regularly back up.

Luckily I have a lot of memory cards! And there are a lot of photographs and words already print out! I virtually love every aspect of art, and especially photographing, painting, poetry, physics, and shaping wood. That's a true kicker! When I walk with our dog in the "woods", I often find wonderfully shaped trunks and branches. I take them home and give them "a treat". I have my book in shape but it needs a lot of adjustment. I tell the science in a story. It gives insight in the scientific part of the cosmology0, the process of the theory taking shape, my own criticism, how it's frowned upon by most people (you at least try to understand it, instead of burning it from the start because it doesn't comply to the orthodoxy; I'm unimpressed by the orthodoxy though! Maybe I burnt Dimp from the start too, but I have good arguments; I haven't seen them yet) Maybe I can send you a finished chapter once in a while, to check out... I don't think you agree with some parts, but just to know how it reads for other people before actually sending it to the publisher. But then I have to translate in English. Tomorrow I send my laptop for lap-up! Thanks Scotsman!

Good logical analysis. However, we know already --or can easily find out-- that time is not real. (The word "real", of course, considered as something physically existing or occurring.)

Everything that physically exists can be observed or sensed or located or identified in any way. Time is not offered for any of these. Because it is not physical. It's a dimension. It is used to measure motion and change.

This is a simplified approach, of course, and there are other like this. For example, when we talk about time, we also have to talk about past, present and future. Neither of them however actually exists: past has gone; it does not longer exist, present becomes past at the moment we try to identify it and future has not happened yet. The reason why is so, is that time refers to a continuum, which has no start, middle or end points. As the old mate Heraclitus said "Everything flows".

Everything flows". — Alkis Piskas

Panta rea. Still when compared in different frames time is very real. We can say that some processes are ahead in time compared to others. If an irreversible process constitutes time, then the reversible periodic motion of a clock might not have intrinsic meaning (the perfect clock is imaginary), but the difference has. Or the difference between the clock right now and one hour ago. It's one hour. Still, the clocks are always deceiving.

But in GR space is curved inherently. — Raymond

Once one moves into 4-D, the "curvature" of space becomes an algebraic concept, not a geometric concept. And implications back to 3-D probably remain algebraic. Einstein called gravity a force. All those images of Earth sinking into a net and balloons expanding are misleading. IMHO. :cool:

Why are these pictures misleading? The only thing that's misleading are gravity used for the pulling in and applying 2d for 3d. A 3d space curved in 4d is not to see (well, maybe a 2d slice). But if the rubber sheet represented 2d space around a 2d mass, the picture would be correct. Of course without gravity pulling and time curvature iscthe most important for low velocities. :cool:

Once one moves into 4-D, the "curvature" of space becomes an algebraic concept, not a geometric concept — jgill

Can you elaborate on that? For example, why can't a circle exists in 2d?

Einstein called gravity a force. — jgill

That's exactly what he not did. Gravity is no force.

I have a proof that time is real. I'll show it to you. — Banno

There you go. Incontrovertible.

Hence we can conclude that whatever else might be said about the "argument" in @Agent Smith's OP, it reaches the wrong conclusion.