# Thread: Merry Xmass Einstein rate of causality?

1. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106

## Merry Xmass Einstein rate of causality?

Dear Prof Einstein

On the subject of "what governs natures rate of causality"?

Are rates of causality dictated by the atomic forces that generate the activity, which is then employed to define measures of time? or is time the principle of nature that governs nature's rate of causality?

Surely nature only has one principle that dictates rate of causality. I can envision how forces generate activity and dictate the rate of that activity. But I can't envision how times process operates, how can time be responsible for processes and effects that dictate and govern rates of causality? If time is assigned this role as governer of causality, then doesnt that require a scientific explanation?

Using clock operation as a reference, I see mechanical forces generating activity which we then use to derive times measure. So I'm tempted to classify time as merely being a measurement of activity that owes its cause to active forces.

Are rates of causality dictated by QM processes, or Relativistic processes?

If it is deemed to be QM processes both generate the activity and govern rates of that activity, then Relativity's spacetime coordinates which track variable rates of causality might be deemed as emergent from QM processes. This key principle of Relativity would be reduced to being a consideration of QM effects. In effect bridging the basis of the two.

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,325
Can you define a 'rate of causality'? Its not a standard term.

In GR causality is captured in primarily geometric terms as a series of causal sets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_structure). The same process and logic can be applied to the manifolds used in QFT.

3. Originally Posted by Shaula
Can you define a 'rate of causality'?
Exactly. I'm having trouble deriving any meaning out of that phrase....

4. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Hi Shaula, Cougar

Define "rate of causality?"

Duration between successive causal events.

We witness the world as a series of causal events unfolding around us. If you stop to focus on it, you realize that these rates of change occur proportionate to the value of motivating forces.

Take a clock's function for example. Clocks are force operated systems from which we derive times measure. Therefore it follows that time is a derivative of forces, does it not? The construction of clock's is a circumstance of refining mechanical parts to express value of force at a constant rate. The inertia of the balance wheel, set to oppose the restoration force of the hairspring.

I dont see exception within the wider circumstances of the natural world. Atomic forces that motivate atomic activity. Or the inertial force and gravitational force that strikes a balance and repeating orbits. Both of these systems large and small serve well as clocks, and are force operated systems.

I dont see how time can be said to govern rates of causality because everywhere I see rates of processes being governed by active forces. I have the distinct impression many people atribute the rate of causality to the process of time. But how does time impose its influence upon the world? What is times process? What is time?

I see a meter as an arbitrary measure of length. A meter is a measurement, its not real like an object is real. I see time in the same respect. A minute is an arbitrary measure of duration. Time is a measurement, and not a real object or a real process that imposes influences. Both meters and minutes are conceptual tools.

So if time doesn't cause effects, then what does? For that thing is a candidate for the governing of rates of causality. You only have to look at your fingers punching the keyboard to witness the relationship between force and the duration of causal events. I see forces motivating changes within the world, dont you?

5. But why do you think the observation that forces mediate causation would bother Einstein? He was very much for that idea.

Grant Hutchison

6. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,325
Originally Posted by Presocratics
Define "rate of causality?"

Duration between successive causal events.
Depends on the observer and the events. And since spacetime is continuous in GR/SR then it has a lower bound of zero.

Are you trying to get at the quantisation of time here? That is still an open question.

Take a clock's function for example. Clocks are force operated systems from which we derive times measure. Therefore it follows that time is a derivative of forces, does it not? The construction of clock's is a circumstance of refining mechanical parts to express value of force at a constant rate. The inertia of the balance wheel, set to oppose the restoration force of the hairspring...
...I see forces motivating changes within the world, dont you?
This was addressed in your ATM thread last year, with examples of how this could be avoided. Nothing has changed since then.

7. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
27,229
Originally Posted by Presocratics
I see a meter as an arbitrary measure of length. A meter is a measurement, its not real like an object is real.
Yes, we normally think of length as an attribute that an object can possess, we don't think of length itself as a real object.
I see time in the same respect.
We normally think of time as an attribute of an interval. In relativity, there is an effort to unify length and time, in the sense that time measures a kind of "length" of a path between two events that a single clock could be present at both events (and then you let that clock measure the time interval along whatever path is taken by the clock between those two events, so the time is a function of the path not just the events), whereas a ruler measures the length between two events that no clock could ever be present at both. The ruler needs to be rigid, and the ends of the ruler are at the two events in question. (Sometimes we have to imagine being able to do these things, if the actual technology to do them is not available). These meanings are called "proper time" and "proper length"-- all other meanings of time and length are arbitrary coordinates, just mathematical labels with no physical meanings other than the arbitrarily chosen dictionary that maps them into proper times and proper lengths. Also notice that no two separate events can have both a proper time and a proper distance between them, it's always one or the other (or neither if the events are separated by a path that light follows, because then no clock and no rigid ruler could ever be available).
So if time doesn't cause effects, then what does?
I personally wouldn't say time causes effects, rather time is an organizational property we employ when we attribute causation. But causation essentially doesn't exist in physics, it's more like a sociological construct that isn't in any of the equations-- more like what we use physics to do than something that is in the physics itself. All we have in physics are equations for predicting one phenomena based on others, and although the predicted phenomenon are often in the future of the events used to predict it, that's not a requirement of any of the equations. The equations are just as good at going the other way, and can "predict" a past event from a later configuration as a result.

However, there is an "arrow of time", which seems to stem from how we impose our will, or at least our perspective, onto our environment. For example, if you watch a movie where you see 100 coins, many showing heads and many showing tails, and you see the floor shake and all the coins flip over to showing heads, you conclude that the movie is being shown backward from how it was filmed (do you not?). But this is merely a kind of bias in what you know about how people make movies. You see it as normal for someone to intentionally put 100 coins on their head, and then flip them all, but you think it would be weird for someone to just keep filming a shaking floor until 100 heads came up, in which case the movie I described could be seen the same way it was filmed. If the film was just of nature, where there is not the choice to put all the coins on their heads (i.e., no free will making its presence felt), you would have no option than to just wait until you got all heads, and then the movies would look exactly the same either way they were filmed. So that's what I mean by "the way we do physics"-- we don't sit around and wait, we use our free will to set up the initial conditions we want. Our concept of the arrow of time, and related notions like causality, stem from that-- not from the physics itself.

All of which leads us to ask the very interesting question: is time something outside of us, or just one of our inventions, like the wheel? Is it all in how we make sense of the outside world, rather than something actually in that outside world? I believe that is more or less the same as the question you are asking, and it's a deep question, but if you want my opinion, it's that time is how we make sense of what we perceive, so it comes from us, though of course it has to work well or we wouldn't do it. We are clearly making sense of some kind of consistency or symmetry principle that says we perceive different cyclical processes occuring in various consistent proportions, and we don't know why but we want to use this to our advantage.
For that thing is a candidate for the governing of rates of causality. You only have to look at your fingers punching the keyboard to witness the relationship between force and the duration of causal events. I see forces motivating changes within the world, dont you?
When talking about causation, I think it's important to distinguish situations that involve conscious intent, which connect with our free will concept, from natural phenomena where we might tend to attribute causation, but it's not the causation of a pitcher throwing a baseball. We must first ask, is there any causation in the natural world that is not merely anthropomorphising our own free will concept? We can say gravity "causes" things to fall, but in what sense is that a "cause"? Gravity is merely the statement that things do, in fact, fall with great consistency. How is that a cause? And if we say there is a force there that causes things to fall, then we find in general relativity that gravity is not a force at all. Physics doesn't really do causation, but people sure do.
Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Dec-26 at 01:42 AM.

8. I think this quote nicely sums up Einstein's opinion on time:-
In 1963, philosopher Rudolf Carnap recalled a conversation he had with Einstein about what Einstein called "the Now." "Once, Einstein said that the problem of the Now worried him seriously," Carnap wrote. "He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation." He suspected, Carnap continued, "that there is something essential about the Now which is just outside of the realm of science."

9. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
But why do you think the observation that forces mediate causation would bother Einstein? He was very much for that idea.

Grant Hutchison
I dont really believe it would have bothered him. I have a creative license

Relativity Theory models a variable rate of causation, time dilation associated with relative motion and gravitational fields. It is a theory "heavily" involved in the matter of causation. Most people that investigate Relativity Theory take away from it, or assume from it that time plays the role of governing rate of causality/causation. But if you pursue that notion, then it doesnt offer up any context or answers. How does time impose its influence?

On the other hand, how does the principle of time mesh with the theory of fundamental force? It seems to me that fundamental force is an attempt to explain the nature of matter and its behaviors from a fundamental standpoint. That atomic forces serve as a theory of "first cause", from which all other world effects stem. And this makes a lot of sense, but in addition to atomic forces being the origin of first cause, this also places them a natural candidate for being the process that governs the rate of causality.

They might be described as being the engine that generate fundamental cause, and also govern the rate those causes are mediated. In the same way a car engine issues the force that causes the car to accelerate, while also governing the rate of acceleration.

Fundemental forces generate the activity, that we then use to define or derive times measure. So Relativity theory would be inclusive of this detail governing rates. The principle that governs the rate of causality/causation would serve as an important aspect of a theory that models the variable rates of causality/causation. Which spacetime does.

10. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Originally Posted by Shaula
Depends on the observer and the events. And since spacetime is continuous in GR/SR then it has a lower bound of zero.

Are you trying to get at the quantisation of time here? That is still an open question.

This was addressed in your ATM thread last year, with examples of how this could be avoided. Nothing has changed since then.
I'm not trying to get at quantization. I fear youre over thinking it.

Begin with a natural observation, the role that forces play in the operation of the world. Go outside and watch the wind blow the grass, and contemplate the role forces play in their dance, and then contemplate if time plays a role in governing the behavior, the activity of the grass? If you believe time imposes an influence, then articulate what that influence is and how it imposes that influence?

If forces govern the activity levels of the grass, then why do you need a theory that time governs activity levels? Is there a relationship between time and force? If there is, service the challenge of articulating that relationship?

Like I said, dont overthink it. Try to satisfy basic observations with basic deductions. Dot read wiki, or some other text book obscure complex mathematical model that says nothing about how to interpret this perfectly plain observation.

I didnt have an ATM thread last year. You and I had a private discussion about it

11. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Originally Posted by loglo
I think this quote nicely sums up Einstein's opinion on time:-
In 1963, philosopher Rudolf Carnap recalled a conversation he had with Einstein about what Einstein called "the Now." "Once, Einstein said that the problem of the Now worried him seriously," Carnap wrote. "He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation." He suspected, Carnap continued, "that there is something essential about the Now which is just outside of the realm of science."
Thank you. That is an intriguing account. It doesnt mention a relationship between force and time that satisfies the following observation.

Forces generate system activity, that we employ to derive times measure. All forms of time-keeping, both manmade and natural systems are associated with operational forces. This demands there be a relationship between force and time, and generating a reasonable description of that relationship is an interesting task. So far as I can determine it implicates force as the generator of activity, and the governer of rates of activity, which is essentially saying that forces generate and govern rates of causality, for which time is merely measured account of active forces.

Forces are the engine of change, and time is merely a measurement of change. So Relativity Theory spacetime coordinates which take account of times measure, and times variable rate, need pay homage to the origin of the cause, from which it takes its measure. Something like that anyway

12. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,325
Originally Posted by Presocratics
I'm not trying to get at quantization. I fear youre over thinking it.

Begin with a natural observation, the role that forces play in the operation of the world. Go outside and watch the wind blow the grass, and contemplate the role forces play in their dance, and then contemplate if time plays a role in governing the behavior, the activity of the grass? If you believe time imposes an influence, then articulate what that influence is and how it imposes that influence?

If forces govern the activity levels of the grass, then why do you need a theory that time governs activity levels? Is there a relationship between time and force? If there is, service the challenge of articulating that relationship?

Like I said, dont overthink it. Try to satisfy basic observations with basic deductions. Dot read wiki, or some other text book obscure complex mathematical model that says nothing about how to interpret this perfectly plain observation.
Very nice if you want to have a set of just so stories about how things work. I'll stick with scientific models, thanks.

Originally Posted by Presocratics
I didnt have an ATM thread last year. You and I had a private discussion about it
Which was started from here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...34#post2471634
Same points being made. But you are right, a lot of the discussion happened outside that.

14. Moved to ATM, please be aware that rule 13 now applies.

15. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Originally Posted by Shaula
Very nice if you want to have a set of just so stories about how things work. I'll stick with scientific models, thanks.

Which was started from here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...34#post2471634
Same points being made. But you are right, a lot of the discussion happened outside that.
Personal experience and observation of the world can aid in the interpretation of conventional theory's. Basic deductions gleaned from doing so can ground an understanding. Forces play a role in causation. Thats simple enough, then fill out the further consequences of this observation within terms of established theories like Relativity. That feels like a very natural means of inquiry. You dont do something resembling this activity?

Yes, this post topic is related to the old, however, this inquiry is focused on causation, what governs the rate of causation? What role does force play? What role does time play?

16. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
I'm curious what qualified this post for ATM, if somebody could fill me in please? I mean I said a lot us stuff, so i can believe I crossed several lines. But I didnt think anything major?

17. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,325
Originally Posted by Presocratics
Personal experience and observation of the world can aid in the interpretation of conventional theory's. Basic deductions gleaned from doing so can ground an understanding. Forces play a role in causation. Thats simple enough, then fill out the further consequences of this observation within terms of established theories like Relativity. That feels like a very natural means of inquiry. You dont do something resembling this activity?
Not really relevant to the discussion but obviously I am influenced by what I see. What I avoid doing is telling the universe that it has to behave in a certain way because of my interpretation of how things should be or the drawing of false parallels between things I believe should be related.

I've said most of what I'm going to say in the last set of discussions. The short version is I disagree with your "Forces cause causation" assertion and the follow on "So forces cause time" argument you put forwards and you were unable to provide any scientific model or framework that would have convinced me. I don't see the point of rehashing this, so I'm going to bow out unless something new, relevant and scientific is presented.

Originally Posted by Presocratics
Yes, this post topic is related to the old, however, this inquiry is focused on causation, what governs the rate of causation? What role does force play? What role does time play?
I gave you my understanding of the GR answer in a previous post. Causality is an expression of geometric relationships between events in spacetime. There isn't a 'rate of causality'. You don't seem to be happy with this and want to advance an alternative, which is probably why this is now an Against the Mainstream thread.

18. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Originally Posted by Shaula
Not really relevant to the discussion but obviously I am influenced by what I see. What I avoid doing is telling the universe that it has to behave in a certain way because of my interpretation of how things should be or the drawing of false parallels between things I believe should be related.
Is that a well used multipurpose generic criticism? ��Its served you well over the years I might guess

I have trouble understanding your reasoning. For one, I dont understand why you think it irrelevant to the discussion, while is actually specific to the discussion. And you suggest im bias by how I wish the universe to operate, while I cite conventional theory.

"atomic forces generate atomic activity, and we then reference atomic activity to derive measure of time for benefit of Relativity Theory".

Possable conclusion "atomic time is a derivative of atomic force"

Is'nt the theory of fundamental force intended as a theory of "foundational cause" or "first cause" or "origin of cause"? So in effect, a primary parameter of Relativity Theory "time" is extracted from a source "atomic activity" which is generated by a property of matter “atomic force” which is hosted within a fundamental theory of first causes, “fundamental forces”.

This is not an obscure connection. Its quite direct. It might be said that the theory of fundamental force owns atomic activity and therefor owns atomic time. The measurement placed on atomic activity offers a reflection of the system it is derived from, and in this case atomic time is a reflection of Atomic force. From where the parameter of time is derived and then lent to Relativity Theory and its spacetime coordinate system.

Direct connection between the concept of "spacetime" and a theory ascribed as a foundational cause. That’s interesting.

You don’t like blending theory’s, however there are many theory’s and just one world that all of them must correspond too is some way or another. So to some degree all of these ingredients must be added to the same mixing bowl. Sure you have to be extremely mindful while blending such ingredients, but I think I've justified a fairly firm basis.

Its quite justifiable that there is a relationship between time and force. Afterall, all time-keeping systems are associated with operational forces. So you only have to scrape the surface to uncover its basis, but it begs the question, how much deeper does this basis carry? Relativity Theory and Theory of Fundamental forces possess some crossover. That crossover presents an interesting study and generates some interesting perspectives and questions.

Originally Posted by Shaula
I've said most of what I'm going to say in the last set of discussions. The short version is I disagree with your "Forces cause causation" assertion and the follow on "So forces cause time" argument you put forwards and you were unable to provide any scientific model or framework that would have convinced me. I don't see the point of rehashing this, so I'm going to bow out unless something new, relevant and scientific is presented.
Thats fine. We’ll see what questions or challenges others present. Because you dont find my model as being apparent, that “forces impose causal effects”.

Originally Posted by Shaula
I gave you my understanding of the GR answer in a previous post. Causality is an expression of geometric relationships between events in spacetime. There isn't a 'rate of causality'. You don't seem to be happy with this and want to advance an alternative, which is probably why this is now an Against the Mainstream thread.
I defined "rate of causality' as being. "Duration between causal events".
Your response generally "There isn't a rate of causality". I'm not sure thats very inspired.

And you state "Causality is an expression of geometric relationships between events in spacetime."
Surely at some point, you cite atomic activity within your geometric account? That is from where the parameter of time is derived, is it not?

I don’t think you’ve clarified anything here. And including the question of why this thread qualified as ATM? ATM is the Cosmoquest bin isnt it?

19. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
So long as I'm relegated to ATM

Cars accelerate, we credit force. Trains accelerate, we credit force. Clocks accelerate, Relativists refer to "time dilation" with no thought of acceleration due to force.

Acceleration of systems and no associated force?

Why, when clocks are force operated systems no different to cars trains or planes? How does the principle of "time dilation" replace or exclude the notion of acceleration due to force?

What is it exactly that Relativity theory is thought to teach us, that explicitly disassociates force as being a cause of system acceleration?

General Relativity a gravitational theory with two destinct empirical properties that both correspond to distance square law.

1. "Force" expressed as weight, due to gravitational acceleration of Mass.
2. "Time" dilation effect expressed as a variable activity of clocks. (Clocks that reference atomic activity levels, which owe atomic forces as the cause, I might add)

Atomic time, atomic activity, atomic force, atomic Mass?????? Connection's anybody?

In spacetime coordinates, acceleration due to gravitational Mass, and time dilation effect both overlay one another, mutually dependant upon distance square law. Why?

How are these two empirical accounts reconciled with one another by conventional theory? What can we discern about the relationship that exists between "time" and "force"? A relationship that is apparent for the simple reason that clocks are force operated systems that measure time. In light of this, how can there be deemed not to be a relationship? And I assure you the intrigue runs far deeper than this, for this observation merely identifies the doorway that opens upon a wider scope of intrigue.
Last edited by Presocratics; 2019-Dec-28 at 07:14 AM.

20. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
1. "Force" expressed as weight, due to gravitational acceleration of Mass.
2. "Time" dilation effect expressed as a variable activity of clocks

Both of these effects correspond to gravities distance square law. What is the connection between the two principles?

Weight is associated with Atomic Mass which is credited as being generated by atomic forces.
And time and therefore time dilation is defined by variable atomic activity, and atomic activity owes it's cause to atomic forces.

The property of weight and the property of time dilation both stem from aspects of atomic force. They have atomic forces in common

21. This is in ATM as you are clearly debating the validity of mainstream physics.
It would be nice if you would start presenting something real, apart from trying to fit "time" into comparisons with "bodies".
Also, this is not the place for you to ask questions, this is a place for you to defend your stand on how "rate of causality" is to be understood.
It would also help if you could mathematically show how exacty your definition of "rate of causality" is working through physics and how exactly that lets Einstein roll over in his grave.

22. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Originally Posted by tusenfem

This is in ATM as you are clearly debating the validity of mainstream physics.
It would be nice if you would start presenting something real, apart from trying to fit "time" into comparisons with "bodies".
Also, this is not the place for you to ask questions, this is a place for you to defend your stand on how "rate of causality" is to be understood.
It would also help if you could mathematically show how exacty your definition of "rate of causality" is working through physics and how exactly that lets Einstein roll over in his grave.
Your link to the rules is broken. Thought you might like to know

23. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Relativity Theory "time dilation" tracks a variable rate of causality/causation.

Atomic forces, fundamental forces are intimately associated with causality/causation. For reasons a child can grasp. Forces are the drivers that cause the activity and the variable rate of activity, which classifies them as being the mediator of the rate of causality/causation.

Relativity's variable rate of causation stems from variable rates of atomic activity which are force operated.

Any detectives in the room?
Last edited by Presocratics; 2019-Dec-29 at 03:02 AM.

24. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,880

## Rate of Frustration

Originally Posted by Presocratics
Relativity Theory "time dilation" tracks a variable rate of causality/causation.

Atomic forces, fundamental forces are intimately associated with causality/causation. For reasons a child can grasp. Forces are the drivers that cause the activity and the variable rate of activity, which classifies them as being the mediator of the rate of causality/causation.

Relativity's variable rate of causation stems from variable rates of atomic activity which are force operated.

Any detectives in the room?
Could you please produce a mathematical formula for your "rate of causation", with worked examples?

25. Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Could you please produce a mathematical formula for your "rate of causation", with worked examples?

Let me make that official, please start presenting something with some body, no more word salat.
Final warning, your next post will be something that can be worked with, otherwise infractions and thread closure will be on the table.

26. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Could you please produce a mathematical formula for your "rate of causation", with worked examples?

"Rate of Causality" is a turn of phrase, an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses.

An aspect of progress might be the velocity of an object, its rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time.

Or, acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with respect to time.

Or, the Rate of Frustration? Perhaps is proportional to the square of onlookers who dont understand the relationship between the acceleration of mechanical systems and force. That the property of time dilation is empirically defined by acceleration of mechanical systems. Namely "clocks".

On the one hand conventional science has a theory of fundamental cause "fundamental forces". On the other hand has a theory of relativity that tracks a variable rate of causation "time dilation". Given the obvious marriage between cause and causation, is it really blasphemous to discuss two conventional theories within light of one another? I'm not breaking the terms within these independent theories while I discuss their possible crossover.

I dont think Einstein would be upset that I refer to the property of time as being a measurement system, and that time is not a property that mediates cause. That time is a measurement of another property that mediates cause, and that property being force. Clocks being mechanical systems for which spacetime measures as "time dilation" acceleration due to force.

Clocks measure time dilation as acceleration. FORCE = ACCELERATION!

27. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Could you please produce a mathematical formula for your "rate of causation", with worked examples?
You requested a formula.

Necessary causes
If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the prior occurrence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal...l_significance

28. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
106
If there is a well-extablished conventional theory "fundamental forces" that ascribes to a fundemental cause, or first cause, or origin of cause.

Then why does it become irrelevant when considering a second well-established conventional theory "Relativity theory", that ascribes to variable rates of causes, variable rate of causation?

Fundamental forces generate the atomic activity, that is then referenced by Relativity Theory to define parameters of spacetime. In short, Atomic force generated activity defines parameters of spacetime. Literally, and my explanation as such carries no weight here?

29. Okay, apparently you have nothing significant to show for your ideas, apart from more words and a rather insulting reply to John Mendenhall.