> Correct. Frequency is the inverse of time by definition.

f=1/t THEREFORE t=1/f very simple actually... One is the inverse of the other...

> To say time is the inverse of frequency is to say time
> is the inverse of inverse of time, which is, of course,
> to say time is time.

That statement, of course is NONSENSICAL!

Time is the inverse of frequency just like frequency is the inverse of time. A very SIMPLE math equation...See above...

If one takes "time" as the dominant dimension, then one is thinking in time terms (past, present and future), but if one takes "frequency" as the dominant dimension, then one is thinking in frequency terms (higher and lower frequencies).

Therefore, I could as well say that:

To say frequency is the inverse of time is to say frequency
is the inverse of inverse of frequency, which is, of course,
to say frequency is frequency!

So your argument above is boggus at best!!!

Note also what specifically happens when I CHANGED to using frequency as my main reference (vs. time!) then the concept of present becomes a bit less defined since one can FLOW across the frequency spectrum on a lot more dynamic basis, meaning that one can only get the present when projected into a very specific 3D dimensional space, like the Earth rotating around itself and the SUN on regular cycles. In other words, one can only re-calibrate with present reality when in stable frequency cycles...

It is a bit mind boggling, so I may not have explained it in the most accurate way!

-wirelessguru1