Time. There is no absolute and true time. There is only one time, The Now, through which we know what we know about life. Although measured in seconds, a more consistent… and mathematical time… In the Quiet Expansion, the 202 mathematically-integrated doublings of the Planck base units (a base-2 progression), Isaac Newton sense of space and time (absolutes) are rebuffed, Space, time, mass and energy are so intimately and totally related through light, none have an independent status. Time does not pass independently. And, there is no empty space.
Two equations suggest these conclusions are closer to the truth than Newton was.
Barbour, J. B., 1982, “Relational Concepts of Space and Time,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33: 251–274.
Rynasiewicz, R., 2000, “On the Distinction between Absolute and Relative Motion,” Philosophy of Science, 67: 70–93.
–––, 1996, “Absolute Versus Relational Space-Time: An Outmoded Debate?,” Journal of Philosophy, 93: 279–306.
Earman, J., 1986, “Why Space is Not a Substance (at Least Not to First Degree),” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 67: 225–244.
–––, 1970, “Who’s Afraid of Absolute Space?,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 48: 287–319.
Earman, J. and J. Norton, 1987, “What Price Spacetime Substantivalism: The Hole Story,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38: 515–525.
Hoefer, C., 2000, “Kant’s Hands and Earman’s Pions: Chirality Arguments for Substantival Space,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 14: 237–256.
–––, 1998, “Absolute Versus Relational Spacetime: For Better Or Worse, the Debate Goes on,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49: 451–467.
Maudlin, T., 1993, “Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Space-Time is Probably a Substance,” Philosophy of Science, 60: 183–203.
The Argument, a Priori, for the Being and the Attributes of the …
William Honyman Gillespie