# md65536

Senior Members

1973

3

1. ## Theory of Time-distance Relativity

Not quite. Nothing can be instant across a distance because everything exists in a different time (the past, specifically) relative to everything else. The same "moment" is not experienced at the same time in different places, so there is a delay... I use the words "catching up", as in... if 1 transmits a message to 2 at time t, 2 does not experience receiving the message until time t, to which it must first catch up. The observable effect is the same as with special relativity. Yes... I think that time=distance and I mention that in the blog, but it seems more like an intuitive idea than a fact, because I haven't solidly grasped what it means. Sometimes when I'm writing down ideas it seems clear that time=distance, and other times if I use the wrong words I end up talking about light moving through time and it feels like I'm simply talking about "the speed of light" from a different perspective. I think that time is defined as a consequence of distance. Time=distance still feels false, because time seems to move forward at a fixed rate regardless of distance and motion (even though we know that's not true at relativistic speeds). An idea I had was that our perception of time "flowing" at a consistent rate, is a consequence of everything being temporally offset by consistent amounts. Time passing may be the constant "catching up" to everything around us, and vice versa. Like, if everything is lock-step out of sync with everything, ticking like clock gears... uh, it's vague... I haven't figured that out completely. I'm hoping that a more detailed analysis of what happens with the motion of physical objects will get some things figured out. > - Light is transmitted and received immediately. This is described in the blog posts... perhaps best in the second half of this one: http://metaphysicsdi...ng-in-past.html Yes! What Einstein was talking about there jives well with the new theory. The theory is modified to match special relativity, so sometimes it seems that it is nothing new at all but a different way of saying the same thing. However, I think that the main intellectual leap is that the apparent speed of light is a consequence of time-distance. It must be something new if we can talk about the same things without referring to the speed of light. All experiments show an apparent fixed speed of light, from all observers. This seems simple and intuitive. So this has been taken as fact, and all these bizarre consequences result from it. My theory describes the same phenomenon, but it starts with something that is bizarre and unintuitive. BUT!, once you accept that weird first step (co-relative time offsets let's say; localized definition of time and order of events; etc) then the same consequences follow, but they're no longer that bizarre. This is described in the blog posts (again the second half of http://metaphysicsdi...ng-in-past.html may be the best place... but the ideas evolve a bit as I write and I forget how detailed or nonsensical I'd previously described things). If light can be "bent" in a circle (or return via curvature of space) then I don't know what would happen. Perhaps it depends on "the time at the place where it's bent" or perhaps the theory falls apart or suggests something new. The case of a rangefinder involves reflecting light off something and receiving it back. In the blog I use the Earth and Moon as an example. I described it this way: - You shine a laser at a wall, which is in the past relative to you, so there is a delay (according to any observer anywhere) before it "sees" the laser. - When it does, it immediately reflects the light back, but again you're in the past relative to it, so there is a delay before you see the reflection. If any distance r is always proportional in time to r/c, then light will always have the appearance of moving at a fixed rate across any distance.
2. ## How would one publish a groundbreaking scientific idea?

I went ahead and posted about the theory and the blog. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50979-theory-of-time-distance-relativity/ I worked on this all day and I feel driven insane, and I don't want to make myself sick obsessing over a pet theory. Thanks for all the advice! m

4. ## How would one publish a groundbreaking scientific idea?

Haha, you may have fallen into the trap of a quack, because I have to say "I still want to work on it for a few days or however long it takes, to figure out the handful of ideas I have in my head." And then will I post the idea, and follow up with replies to criticism like "But it does make sense! You just don't get it! It makes sense to me but I just don't know how to write it clearly!"...? http://insti.physics...egel/quack.html (from DJBruce's link) sounds more like me the more I think about it. "paranoids with delusions of grandeur"... like perhaps worrying about people stealing my 'ground-breaking' idea??? In other words, I'll keep talking about it but I can't give any evidence cuz that's a secret. "Their theory could never be wrong"... and though I haven't proved it, it just 'feels right.' I'll post about the idea some time. I hope I'm not just a quack. m
5. ## How would one publish a groundbreaking scientific idea?

Dammit, so I'm not the first to think he's toppled relativity? > No one here will steal your ideas I'm worried that the basic idea is simple but the consequences are complex, so someone smarter than I could do all the math much quicker, and express the idea in the proper terminology, and discover all the relates ideas, before I have a chance to. :\$ Yet it would be nice to work with someone who could "deretardify" my writing. >> 1. You have to back your statements up with evidence. Then I think I will wait until I've examined and written up the evidence. I'll post again, either with "nevermind, it didn't work", or "it did!" or "does this make sense? I don't get it". According to "are you a quack?", I seem to be hovering the line. I have a new theory that is being constructed to fit with the old, so it agrees with all the experimental evidence. So far I haven't found any phenomenon that is explained by the old but not the new, nor any new predictions that differ from the old. Does that make it an "interpretation", and less valuable than a theory that describes new phenomenon? Thanks for the suggestion, m
6. ## How would one publish a groundbreaking scientific idea?

How would an average person, without connections in the science community, publish a new idea? How could someone get help with things like the math, the terminology used, etc? Or, help with evaluating the validity or novelty of the idea? What is the best way to balance "not being a crackpot" if the idea is bad, with getting due credit if the idea is good? And how to balance openly sharing the idea, with keeping it secret enough until you can greedily claim credit for as much work as you can do with it? I recently took on the challenge of understanding physics as a hobby, and have been blogging about it. As far as I know, no one reads the blog. My hope was that at some point, my understanding and writing would be competent and novel enough that it would be worth promoting the blog to some actual readers. Now I think I've stumbled upon an idea that could be, well, "huge". It seems to make sense, and it seems to work (at least so far). And, I strongly believe in it even though it's not yet mature. So I realize there is a good possibility of my being a crackpot. As well, I'm surprised to not find evidence that the idea has been considered before. I'm slowly working on the math, the explanations, and some non-rigorous proofs. Should I keep blogging about it? Or hide what I've already posted until I can take the idea as far as I can? m
×