Ω-Theory

Time as a Rigid Matrix and Transformation is Relative

The Ω-Theory: A Redefinition of Reality?

The Formula (Ω-Axiom)

As prerequisite:

( ∇Φ ∥ ∇W ) ∧ (dΦ = 0)

Mathematical interpretation:

∙ ∇Φ: Change of form

∙ ∇W: Gradient of resistance

∙ dΦ = 0: Coherence

As statement:

“The form Φ is stable when its local change (∇Φ) follows the gradient of the potential W and it is globally coherent (dΦ = 0).”

These are the most compact, precise, and complete formulations.

Meaning of the Symbols

Φ (Phi)

The form of a system.

This can be: structure, pattern, state, field, organization, topology.

W

The resistance or drive potential.

This is the “gradient” that determines where a system moves or how it stabilizes.

∇Φ

The gradient of the form.

It describes how the form changes locally.

∇W

The gradient of resistance.

It describes where the system “wants to go” — the path of least resistance.

∇Φ ∥ ∇W

The two gradients are parallel.

This means:

The change of form follows the path of least resistance.

dΦ

The exterior derivative of the form.

It measures whether the form has open edges, gaps, or incoherences.

dΦ = 0

This means:

The form is coherent, cyclical, consistent, self-contained.

Interpretation in One Sentence

A system is stable and coherent when its form changes along the path of least resistance without creating any open, incoherent transitions.

That is all.

“How can you take the derivative of something from which you can derive everything?”

Quite simply:

∙ Φ is not “everything.”

∙ Φ is the form you are currently observing.

∙ Ω is the structure that describes how forms function.

So don’t derive “Ω.”

Derive Φ — the concrete form of a system.

Ω is not the object of derivation.

Ω is the condition under which derivations make sense at all.

This is like:

∙ You derive a function, not mathematics.

∙ You derive a movement, not physics.

∙ You derive a form, not Ω.

Thus the apparent contradiction vanishes.

The Ω-Version

∙ Φ = Form

∙ W = Resistance

∙ ∇ = Change

∙ d = Coherence check

And the axiom states:

A form is stable when it changes along the path of least resistance without creating any open edges.

Core Idea:

The Ω-Theory Basic Assumptions:

Time is not relative. Transformation is relative. Time as a rigid matrix and coordinate system. No interaction or interplay. No stretching, bending, or compressing of time.

Implications:

Explains phase transitions, biological aging, cycles in nature, and irreversibility without time travel.

Transformation is irreversible; perfect “rejuvenation” is impossible due to changed contexts.

The Origin of Time:

How did time originate?

1. “Time” before the word: Experience without abstraction

(before language / Early Stone Age, >50,000 BCE)

Before there was a word for time, there was already temporal experience, but no time as an independent concept.

Humans distinguished:

∙ Day / Night

∙ Warm / Cold

∙ Hunting season / Hunger season

∙ Before / After

∙ Now / Not-now

Time was not a “thing,” but an order of events.

One would not have said: “Time passes”

but implicitly:

“After summer there is more fruit and vegetables”

“After winter many birds return”

Time = experienced sequence.

2. First linguistic traces: Time as cycle

(ca. 10,000–5,000 BCE)

With agriculture and settlement, something new emerges:

∙ Sowing

∙ Harvest

∙ Seasons

∙ Repetition

Here appear the first proto-temporal concepts, mostly as:

∙ “Moon”

∙ “Sun”

∙ “Return”

∙ “Circle”

But:

Time is cyclical, not linear.

It is:

∙ Not an arrow

∙ Not a stream

∙ But a return

Time = rhythm of nature

3. First explicit time concepts

Mesopotamia (ca. 3000 BCE)

In Sumerian and Akkadian texts we find terms for:

∙ Days

∙ Months

∙ Years

∙ Reigns

∙ Favorable / unfavorable moments

But:

Time is always bound to something

(Harvest, king, god, star)

No abstract “t”.

Ancient Egypt (ca. 2600 BCE)

Here it becomes very exciting, because the Egyptians had two time concepts:

Neheh → Cyclical, renewing time

(Sun, Nile, return)

Djet → Permanent, solidified time

(Death, monument, eternity) → Time is not a unity, but a field of tension.

This is conceptually astonishingly modern.

4. Greece: Time becomes a concept

(ca. 600–300 BCE)

Here “time” appears for the first time as an abstract object of thought.

Concepts:

∙ Chronos – measurable, elapsing time

∙ Kairos – the right moment

∙ Aion – lifetime / world-time

In today’s usage, Chronos = time.

For the Greeks, this was a reduction that only came very late.

Originally, chrónos meant:

∙ Duration

∙ Extendedness

∙ The consumption of something

∙ The condition that something is finite

Chronos is not a clock and not a movement.

Chronos measures nothing – it enables something to be measurable.

Chronos vs. Kairos vs. Aion

The three time concepts of the Greeks showed only through their interplay what Chronos really is.

Chronos – structural duration

∙ Quantitative

∙ Countable

∙ Finite

∙ Devours everything that exists within it

→ Bearer of finitude

Kairos – the incision

∙ The favorable moment

∙ The cut in the continuum

∙ The point where structure shifts

→ Event / Transition / Resonance

Aion – the timeless

∙ Eternal order

∙ Cyclical totality

∙ No before/after

→ Meta-structure beyond duration

Chronos is situated between Aion (structure) and Kairos (event).

Aristotle (Physics, Book IV):

“Time is the number of movement according to the before and after.”

This is extremely important:

∙ Time does not exist independently

∙ Time is a measure, not a substance

∙ Without change → no time

→ Time = relation, not substance.

5. When did time become “linear”?

Very late.

Jewish-Christian Tradition (ca. 500 BCE – 300 CE)

Creation → History → End

∙ Uniqueness

∙ Progression

Here emerges:

∙ Past

∙ Present

∙ Future as a directed line

This is the foundation for:

∙ Historiography

∙ Progress thinking

∙ Later: physical time

6. Early definitions summarized

Epoch	Time is …
Early human	Sequence of events
Neolithic	Natural cycle
Mesopotamia	Divinely regulated order
Egypt	Cycle and Duration
Greece	Measure of change
Late antiquity	Linear world process

Nowhere was time at the beginning:

∙ A “flowing something”

∙ A universal clock

∙ An absolute quantity

7. One sentence that bundles everything

Time does not arise from itself – it arises where change is distinguished.

This theory attempts to logically remove time from the paradoxical relationships with some observed phenomena in order to overcome the blockades in the further development of physics through correct interpretation of results.

Assumption:

Time is the coordinate system and measuring tool that defines time as a measure for transformation. But time is NOT relative, rather transformation is relative. Time becomes a rigid measuring tool. Time is separated from space and matter. It is the magnifying glass with which we can describe and measure areas and fragments of our 3-dimensional reality.

Why this perspective? Time is not a physical force; it is and always has been a theoretical construct to define our reality. Therefore, measuring time is paradoxical in itself. Measuring time with time is like measuring one rubber band with another rubber band.

What we actually measure with time and what a clock displays is the speed or rate of transformation. In the case of the clock itself, it is its own mechanical transformation or atomic transformation in relation to observations in their local areas. Quite simply, we measure with time what we observe.

Experiments regarding subjective “time perception” in patients with elevated temperature have shown that time perception changes. Is that really so? Other organisms should perceive the same but know no time. What all know and feel, however, is their own metabolism. This accelerates at higher temperature. Is it therefore not more likely that one perceives one’s own transformation rate or a theoretical construct that we defined quite some time ago and repeatedly differently across epochs?

Time travel is not possible because transformation is not reversible. Similar lattice patterns can emerge. But because the neighboring lattice areas constantly change dynamically, a similar lattice pattern, which one could call rejuvenation, is surrounded by a different pattern structure, resulting in a changed interaction.

Example:

A melting and refreezing crystal assumes (approximately) the same lattice structure. However, the water molecule has experienced a different history (different collisions, different hydrogen bonds). Its local pattern identity is similar, its universal context is completely different.

Biological aging and regeneration: 

The aging process is the progressive “warping” of the cellular/organic internal structure away from its optimum. Regeneration (“rejuvenation”) is the (partial) return to this optimum. Perfect rejuvenation is impossible because the internal and external parameters have been irreversibly co-transformed.

Thermodynamics and “arrow of time”: 

The second law (increase of entropy) describes the statistical tendency of the overall lattice to transition from highly ordered structures (low entropy) to less ordered structures (high entropy) – following the principle of least resistance on a large scale. A local “rejuvenation” (increase of order) is only possible through an even greater increase of disorder in the surrounding relational framework (e.g., waste heat, waste products).

Quantum state reset: 

Even in quantum mechanics, the “reset” operation of a qubit does not describe a return to the exact past, but the active forcing of the system into a defined basis pattern, regardless of its previous entanglement history.

The Actual Blockade: Time as Secularized Theology

Why:

Modern physics claims to be religion-free –

but its concept of time is not.

Implicit dogmas of today’s time concept:

∙ Time exists in itself

∙ Time flows

∙ Time is universal

∙ Time is fundamental

These are not empirical statements, but metaphysical postulations.

They function exactly like religious axioms – only without God, instead with “t”.

Newton did not abolish God – he replaced him with absolute time.

An invisible, omnipresent, all-ordering medium.

This is theologically structured, even if it is mathematically disguised.

Why this blocks science

As soon as time is set as ontologically primary:

∙ You may no longer question it

∙ You may only measure it, not explain it

∙ Every alternative definition automatically becomes “unscientific”

This is no longer physics, but dogma maintenance.

And this is exactly what the arguments refute:

∙ Not the mathematics.

∙ Not the experiments.

∙ But the unquestioned ontology and the mystification of time.

From this results:

When you distill everything, what remains – in almost frightening clarity – is this:

Time is not a physical object,

but an ontological ordering condition for change.

Or:

Time is not a dimension, but a structure of the availability of states.

This is not an esoteric statement.

This is a radical de-theologization of physics.

The core reads:

As long as time tacitly assumes the role of God,

physics will not advance – only calculate more precisely.

1. What does this really mean:

If you remove everything ornamental, historical, and explanatory, one single radical reversal remains:

Time is not a physical actor-element — but a rigid ordering and measurement scheme.

Exclusively transformation is relative.

2. The decisive shift in perspective

Modern physics implicitly makes:

Time → cause

Change → consequence

This reverses:

Transformation → primary

Time → descriptive coordinate system

This is not a semantic subtlety, but an ontological inversion.

And precisely here lies the liberation from:

∙ Time paradoxes

∙ Time travel

∙ Block universe mysticism

∙ “Flowing time”

∙ Metaphysically disguised theology

“Measuring time with time is paradoxical”

Subjective time perception = transformation rate

The perceived is the self-transformation rate of a system

This is exactly the point where many discussions have been going wrong for decades.

Irreversibility without “arrow of time mysticism”

∙ No return

∙ No past

∙ No time travel

∙ But structural similarity with changed context

Ω defines time ontologically. Nothing more.

The Ω-Theory Can Be Reduced to 5 Axioms

Ω – Axioms

1. Time is not a physical process.

2. Time is not relative and not dynamic.

3. Time is a rigid coordinate and comparison scheme for transformation.

4. All observed “time phenomena” are relative transformation rates of systems.

5. Transformation is irreversible due to changed context structures.

Ethics Guideline:

The use of Ω for military defense purposes is permitted with restrictions. For offensive or preemptive military operations, including weapons systems, combat operations, or surveillance, use is prohibited.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​