Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by md65536

  1. I don't want to sound mean-spirited here, because it is not my intention at all, but I strongly suspect that these two quotes are related. Your having not read any other scientific papers, it is easy to understand why your paper would be of little interest to the other people who write these papers. It is also pretty bold claiming that you think you've "figured out the nature of time better than anyone ever before me" when you admit an ignorance of all the literature before you.

    I mostly agree with you. My ignorance is definitely holding me back and making things difficult. I only "feel" like I've figured out how time works, I don't know it. I definitely feel like a crackpot. Every few days I think of something that completely changes the meaning of my theory, and there's no reason to believe that the current iteration is going to get it right.


    Okay so I'm a crackpot. frown.gif I admit it!


    On the plus side: The more I read about existing work on relativity, the easier it is to make sense of things, and the less "new" my ideas seem. But this is a good thing for crackpots; it means there's hope! The feeling of wanting to do it all yourself and take on the world because "everybody else is wrong" is a trap!



    The feeling that I've figured out time comes from this: IF I'm right, then it makes much more sense to explain relativity at an introductory level in terms of time, and not in terms of "the speed of light". But, I'll take another page from Book of Advice for Crackpots, and stop talking about "my theory", until the evidence is ready.


    Science is an iterative process. "On the shoulders of giants" is a typical motto. In short, it means that you learn the work that has come before you, and build upon it. Even if you are correcting or changing previous work, you are still building on it. No one person can develop all the ideas on their own, certainly not anymore, and not for quite some time. Even Einstein's papers are heavily referenced to work done before he published.

    Science is also revolutionary. Many of the greatest discoveries build upon previous work but turn it completely on its head. One new idea can open a floodgate for a lot of new ideas, from a lot of different people. Galileo, Newton, Einstein... they must have all experienced resistance to their ideas, which improved previous understanding but could be seen as a denial of established knowledge. I know this isn't true of everyone or all fields, but it seems like scientists don't expect any revolutionary ideas in some fields, and they close their minds to them. The generation that accepts the previous revolutionary idea becomes the next to say "it's only iterative from here on."


    But I think that the days of revolutionary ideas will only be over when scientists are quitting their jobs because there's nothing new left to do, and I don't foresee that happening any time soon.



    Uh... sorry I kinda went off topic there. My work iterates on Einstein's work

  2. Thanks for reading my paper and commenting on it. I'm in the process of rewriting it, because it's full of errors (misinterpretation of time dilation, a '+' instead of '-' in the Lorentz factor, oops! doh.gif) and unclear language, including much of the description of time.


    On the paper


    There are several fundamental things that are not very clear to me. But this is what I got out of the paper.


    We start from assuming space is Euclidean (this is not stated at all, in fact I am not sure if this is what is being assumed ),

    [math](\mathbb{R}^{3}, \delta)[/math]. The time is "added" to this via


    [math]||t_{1}-t_{2}||^{2} = \frac{1}{c} |x_{1}-x_{2}|^{2}[/math],

    I suppose I start assuming space is Euclidean, but it becomes clear that space can be distorted by length contraction, differently for different observers. Is space still Euclidean after that? In the end I would assume that the curved space described by general relativity is correct, however that (and any treatment of gravity) is beyond the scope of the paper.


    You've lost me on the math. Where do the squares on each side of the equation come from?


    for two distinct points with coordinates [math]x_{1}[/math] and [math]x_{2}[/math] (suppress the space indices). This to me looks just like a rescaling of the Euclidean inner product. Here [math]c[/math] is some universal constant with units of velocity, it can be chosen to the the speed of light in vacua.


    This does start to look a little bit like special relativity, but I see no way of mixing space and time as is required for all the phenomenological aspects of SR. The above rescaling of the inner product does look like the definition of a null path. In fact this was used as the definition of "time".

    The paper says that time and distance are proportional. It might be possible to claim that time and distance are equivalent. What is an example of a phenomenological aspect of SR that requires space and time to be "mixed" in another way?


    Specifically, the theory looks to be invariant under the Euclidean group. A claim is made that the Lorentz transformations can be recovered from this formulation, but it is not presented. Only the gamma factor is show to play a role here.


    There are several notions of time introduced in the paper. Also it is not always clear to what frame the time measurements are referring to.


    There is a lack of references.


    I cannot see that the paper will be of much interest.

    I'm doing a derivation of the full Lorentz transformation in the rewrite, but it still needs work. Earlier I thought that just the Lorentz factor itself was enough to show time dilation that matches special relativity.


    Yes, ambiguity in the language used to describe time and which frame is referred to, is a major flaw in the paper and needs much revision.


    It lacks references because I've never read a science paper! The theory follows from "general" information or high-school level stuff found on wikipedia. Would it be useful to put individual references to wikipedia pages in the reference section, and refer to them individually through the paper?


    I have to admit that I'm disappointed that you think the paper is not of much interest. I feel like I've figured out the nature of time better than anyone ever before me (the reality of it, but not the math). I'll try to drum up some more interest, in the Relativity forum, after I have a satisfactory rewrite. If I'm relegated to the pseudoscience forum after that, then I'll just have to continue the work on my own, as a crackpot. unsure.gif That's unfortunate, because this branches off into so many different topics that I have completely inadequate understanding of, and it'd be easier for others to figure out.


    Thanks for the comments,


  3. I doubt many people will read it in viXra. I occasionally look there for fun, there is the odd reasonable paper but most are junk. I would not advice posting there.


    However, it is your choice and I hope that it works out well for you.

    No, you're right, posting there alone will not guarantee anything. And ranting that people should read it won't help, either.


    I chose arXiv but couldn't even create a login without an institutional affiliation (let alone needing an endorsement). My e-mail to a prof at the local university, who specializes in relativity, has gone unanswered. I want to tell people, "Read this thing! It's important!" but I also want to say, "Please ignore my poor writing... it's only because I have no experience with this."


    I must face it... :( Until I can get even a single influential person to agree with me, and to have their work influenced by mine, I am almost by definition a quack. It doesn't matter how big I think the idea is, or how right I think I am... if I'm the only one who thinks so.


    I'd also advice spending more time on the writing. Professionals (i.e. people with more experience than you) spend weeks writing a publication - after having finished the work. Someone is going to read what you wrote (in the best case, at least) and you should not waste other people's time because you felt that working over your publication for the fourth time is boring.

    Good advice. There's a LOT I could do to improve the current paper. I might as well keep working on it.




    Perhaps I'll continue working on it (not as obsessively as this past week) and look into other suitable places to publish.


    PS. http://vixra.org/abs/1008.0012 if you're curious

  4. According the principle of relativity of velocities, one could consider light as standing still. Matter is moving ... in time.

    Light doesn't move relative to any velocity, if that's what you mean. Relativity is entirely based on that. You can't switch to a different frame in which you can see light moving slower or coming to a stop. There is also no similar valid concept my theory.


    This made me consider the idea of "stopping time". With my theory, there is a time difference across any distance, so any interaction that involves a distance necessarily involves time. To stop time for some interaction you would have to make distance 0.


    Some speculation:

    - There is no such thing as the flow of time at a single point. Time at any point is only a consequence of movement relative to other locations and interaction with other locations.

    - Time stops or doesn't exist in a singularity.


    On the other hand, one might also be able to say that for any 2 points that have no relative movement and no interaction (no signals of any kind are passed between them), their time relative to each other, is stopped. For me to have time stopped relative to everything, I would have to not be moving relative to anything, and I'd have to receive no light.


    (emphasis mine)


    Do you realize that your description of "infinite speed" is actually the same as "standing still"?

    No, I don't. I do realize that even using the word "speed" has a certain "icky wrongness" to it which is why I prefer to say "it doesn't have a valid speed".


    No, I don't agree that it is "standing still". Conceptually, the light that I am describing interacting across a distance at a single time value, means that that light only exists in a single instant. (Again, this is apparent to NO observer, because that instant appears to exist at a different time to each observer of the light, because everyone exists in different times.)


    To be considered standing still, one would have to exist in a given position for a duration, and my theory suggests that a uh... an individual light event (a signal, or a photon) has no duration.


    Having no duration might thus make it invalid to talk about it having a speed. Or the words "infinite speed" across a finite distance implies infinitesimal duration, or no duration (which expressed as d/t is undefined... that is it has no definable speed).

  5. I feel that there might be some quite trivial evidence opposing an infinite speed of light and varying time.


    You can calculate the speed of light using a chocolate bar and a microwave (see smaterthanthat.com).


    This is done by using a standing wave, the wave is not propagating. Yet the finite speed is still found.

    My theory shouldn't refute any observation of an apparent speed of light, because that is what any observer will see. It is as if time flows over the paths of light, more so than the converse. In the case of the microwave experiment, it doesn't display the nature of finite speed of light, but rather uses equations that assume a finite speed of light. The equations are correct, though, in that they accurately describe all observed results.


    I haven't dealt with the wave nature of light at all. I believe there will be an analogous concept... "standing wave" sounds promising as it doesn't require light to move forward. However, "frequency" is defined in terms of time, and that could be a major problem for my theory. That, and relativistic motion, are 2 major things I still have to deal with, and I should do that before asserting that the theory is right. It is definitely not as mature as it needs to be, yet.



    In md's ideas, I don't see anywhere "an infinite speed of light", although it may have been formulated that way. I see everywhere troubled formulations due not to any trouble in md's mind, but to a lack of applicable vocabulary. The concept of speed itself has to be reconsidered first before proceeding in anything else. Nothing is ready for someone who wants to talk about "time=distance". I know that in the first place.

    Yes, my theory does imply an infinite speed of light, or that light doesn't have a valid speed (as it no longer appears to move but rather just is in all the places it will be (ie. all the places it is measured from), at once... though not according to any observer). That's part of the "science" side of it. "time=distance" is just an attempt to describe the meaning of what the theory is saying, and is more metaphysics than science.


    I think the formulation is pretty solid... I describe the time offset between any 2 locations precisely, and the immediate transmission of light... that's all there is to it. I know that one aspect that's confusing and easy to mix up (and I probably have) is that specifying a time value depends on the location of a "time frame" that defines time for that location, but then you can calculate the time at other locations using that time frame. Does that need to be specified more precisely?


    In my blog and here I sometimes mix precise calculations with wildly speculative ideas, and I haven't separated (nor figured out, yet) what is part of the theory and what is just an idea. Does it help to say that the 2 points I made in the original post is all that matters, and all other statements (whether right or wrong) are just theoretical consequences of the theory?


    Yes, this is different than what relativity predicts.


    But it seems to me that if B and C are both 1 second in A's past, then the round trip for this would have to be 2 seconds rather than 3.


    Hm, how does your theory handle things moving at given fractions of the speed of light, as seen for example from red/blue shifts?

    I think I'm wrong about the prediction that deviates from relativity. I think that if light follows a curved path, that "distance" is also curved along that path. I think I'm skipping too far ahead trying to work through advanced ideas.


    I haven't dealt with relativistic motion or wave aspects of light yet :$


    As for B and C both being 1 second in A's past...


    Yes they have the same time offset relative to A, but any 2 separate points also have time offsets relative to each other.


    Okay, for sure my "lack of applicable vocabulary" is a problem here. I've been saying that time is not consistent between different locations. Does it make sense if I say that time is linear (or additive) in 1 dimension, but not 3 dimensions? Meaning that it doesn't allow you to add 3d vectors to calculate time. Though you can say that for location vectors, (C-A) = (B-A) + (C-B ), the same does not apply for time.




    Conclusion: The theory needs more work.

  6. First i want to mention that i had some serious errors within my post, i wrote it in a bit of a rush.

    No problem. It's only in going over various examples and situations that I can figure things out and realize my own mistakes.


    ... i was inferring that light had no time because it would be instantaneous between any given point. However when measuring the light, you must give it a reference frame because it is a "something" just like anything else and it interacts with the world around it. Therefore i must quote Einstein, "If i were traveling on a beam of light, what would i see?"

    Agreed on the first part but not the second. Light may be "stuff" but I'm not convinced. (E=mc2 says it's equivalent at least.) According to my theory there's no such thing as "riding on a beam of light." It is like asking "What would I see if I were riding on an instant in time?" I'm sure Einstein came up with some impossibilities; wasn't that how he figured out that it was intuitively impossible to travel at or faster than c? Based on my theory, an answer to "What would I see from the perspective of light?" some answers are:

    - I would see everything that's not obscured, all at once (incorrect though, for sideways directions). Meanwhile I'm infinitely long.

    - I would see all of space squished from the front and back into an infinitely thin sheet


    I just googled this and found the 2nd answer. I'm pleased of course :) but not really surprised (since everything in my theory has been modified as much as needed so far to fully agree with special relativity).


    I was trying to accomplish what you so eloquently wrote, though i do not understand why the Observers 2 initial time is 0, wouldn't it be -1 because when he receives the beam time has passed for him?

    From O1's perspective, O2's time is T-1 (or -1 if we set the initial T to 0).

    From O2's perspective, the initial time is U because it is independent of T. The initial U can be set to any value. U can be set to be sync'd with T (someone else linked this... http://en.wikipedia....ynchronization), so that U is 0 when T is 0. However, aside from synchronization and through previously sent messages, O2 has no way of knowing what time O1 has sent the first message, until it is received.



    I had to make some corrections to my blog based on this conversation but I think I'm starting to get a handle on this (aside from not attempting to tackle relativistic motion yet).


    I think this could be accomplished by carfully aiming a laser beam so gravitational effects of several stars or black holes bend it until it comes back (technically, if your aim was really good you should only need one black hole). Not what I was thinking of though.

    >> If light can be "bent" in a circle (or return via curvature of space)


    You know what? Come to think of it, I believe that you would see your own message received immediately! Is this a new prediction that Relativity doesn't predict? :)

    I think this, because it wouldn't violate causality. Though the "path" appears very large, information has not traveled that large distance (large time difference). It has only traveled the arbitrarily small distance between sender and receiver.


    Edit: this might violate causality, if the bending of the path can be considered information, in which case the answer's back to "I don't know".

    Edit again: If I sent a message aimed to curve around a black hole and back, I might be able to receive it instantly even if it gained information from the black hole, and not violate causality, if the information about the black hole was only information that is already available from where I am (that is, the light behaves like the black hole exists exactly as I observe it from here), and if no distant effect is measured (eg. interaction with the black hole).

    Wikipedia speaks of refraction as photons interacting with a series of particles. In this case the interactions would be considered events, like a series of relay stations sending messages when received, similar to your example below.


    What happens if your lightbeam gets sent along a large equilateral triangle (via reflection)? Of note is that all points on an equilateral triangle are equidistant from each other.

    What you see from any observer's POV is exactly what special relativity predicts.


    Say for A, B, C each 1 light-second apart, A sends to B, which is passed on to C and back to A...


    Remember that A can only "see" what information arrives to it, and only when it arrives, however it can predict the timing of distant unseen events.


    Okay, everything it from A's time frame. A sees that B is at t-1 and C is at t-1 according to A's time t.


    A sends to B at time t=0. It knows that B receives it when B is at (A's frame) time t-1=0, which is one second later.


    A's time is now t=1. B sends to C. A understands that C is one second in B's past and that C will receive the message one second later. The beautiful twist in all of this is that C is one second behind A, and B is one second behind A, but C is still one second behind B (and for completeness, A is one second behind C and A is one second behind B and B is one second behind C). So A predicts that C will receive the message after one second when it catches up to B. (I think that we would use B's time frame if we needed to do the actual calculations.)


    A's time is now t=2. A predicts that C sends to A at this time, and similarly knows that it will receive the message after 1 second when it catches up to C.


    A's time is now t=3. From A's time frame, C's time is t-1=2, and sees that C has sent a message at (A's frame) time t-1=2 (one second in A's past). A sees right now that C has sent a message because it receives that message right now.


    So A receives the message after 3 seconds.


    This agrees with other theories, which say that light has traveled a distance of 3 light-seconds, at speed c.

  7. Since my last message here I tried to sort out the details of signal timing and stuff, and wrote a blog post: http://metaphysicsdi...07/on-time.html




    You transmit and recieve a beam light simultaniously in the beam of lights relative time frame, but the sender and the reciever's observed send and recieve's time is offset by the distance between them.


    According to the moment experienced by the pulse of light (L) T = 0 at every instance.


    I hadn't considered a frame actually "moving", nor the idea of a beam of light's frame. Effectively, the light doesn't travel at a "speed". If there was such a thing as "the light's point of view", all it would "see" is a single instant. It would not experience time; it has no "time frame".


    Also, because every location has a different time frame, when you talk about a certain time like T, it must be tied to a time frame (in other words a specific location), such as "at time T according to O1's time frame."



    Sorry for the following space, I dunno what I did to the formatting.


    If O1 and O2 are 1 light-second apart:

    Event:...according to O1's frame...according to O2's frame

    O1 sends signal

    O1's time:TU-1

    O2's time:T-1U

    O2 receives signal and reflects the signal back to reply

    O1's time:T+1 (one second has passed)U-1

    O2's time:T (the same time I sent it)U (I see O1 send the signal at the same time that I receive it)

    [/td]^^^ Note that O1 doesn't

    observe this event happening.

    It only observes it when it receives the reply.

    O1 receives the reply

    O1's time:T+2 (2 seconds have passed)U (O1 has now caught up to the time I (O2) sent the signal)

    O2's time:(T-1)+2 = T+1 U+1 (one second has passed during the 1-way reply)

    ^^^ O2 doesn't observe this event happening (yet)


    O1 can define U can be defined in terms of T, and O2 can define T in terms of U, but no 2 observers' definitions of anyone's time will match (IE T = U-1 xor U = T-1)


    I think the foundation of your theory is that Time is a localized effect that is percieved by each observer differently due to the distance between the observer and the observed. Our current theories have a almost "aether" type of time, that is time encompasses all things the same and is percieved differently by the observed/observer because of the distance between them.

    Sort of... time is not exactly localized because any observer can measure the effects of time between any other locations.


    Perhaps instead: Time is well-defined only locally.


    Our current theories treat time as universal in an inertial frame, I think, and then treat it differently almost as a special case, when dealing with relativistic speeds?

  8. md, the 2 of us are on the same wavelength.

    I agree with time=distance, with all the consequences. See two faces of time

    But still after reading twice your blog, I don't understand your statement "Light is transmitted and received immediately".

    In the linked post, you say "There is no distance, there is no causality. Only Time." I would argue the opposite of each point. "There is no time" may or may not be true.



    But certainly I believe that causality is an unbreakable law, and anything I've written about must obey it or what I wrote was wrong.



    I'm not really sure how best to phrase the idea that "Light is transmitted and received immediately". I can try to say it in several ways, each of which ... I guess kind of depends on an interpretation of the words. HOWEVER the main thing to remember is that whatever I say that suggests exceeding c as a speed, involves an opposite thing about time, which combine to show no deviation from the apparent speed of light. To figure out how anything works within the TDR theory, you can start by describing the events as if time is universal (at least in an inertial frame) and light has a finite speed, because the observed results must be indistinguishable (otherwise, TDR doesn't match reality or observed experiments).



    Here are some other ways of saying it:


    - The speed of light is infinite. Yes, because it crosses a distance in zero time. No, because no observer can observe such a thing as zero time across a distance (sorry, convoluted). No, because it doesn't "move through space" with a speed.


    - Light is sent and received at the same time. Yes, because the "time value" at the sender when sent is the same value as at the receiver when it is received (haha, I just cringed), according to the sender's time frame. NO, because "the same time" takes on a new meaning, different from what we intuitively understand. It doesn't mean simultaneous (a concept which must be abandoned). Different places exist in different times, so there is no "same time" as we know it.


    - If you shone a single momentary flash of light across a galaxy, say (or an inertial frame), that light would exist for only that moment and be seen across the galaxy only in that moment. NO, because everything exists in different time frames so that "moment" exists in different times relative to any observer, including the sender. Yes though, if you sent the flash at time t=0 and could consider each point in the galaxy at time t=0 from the sender's perspective, which of course would be impossible. That is, the sender sees every point in the galaxy existing in its past (relative to the distance to that point), but if the sender could see every point existing in its present, the flash would appear to reach every point in that moment.



    Whatever way you think about it, if you imagine moving across the distance between sender and receiver, you are moving through time, and so there is never an appearance of anything happening immediately or instantly.


    This definitely requires some more thought, though.

  9. Write a paper and send it to a reputable journal that covers the subject you have worked on.


    You want other people to pick up your idea and work on it. However, you also want proper credit.


    Yes, I want to share the idea but also hoard it. To write a proper paper would take too much effort at this point... I would have to go back to school and learn the proper way to write, the proper terminology, the proper references, research, etc. I tried for one day to write "professionally", and it was far too draining.


    Perhaps the theory will evolve or die. Perhaps I'll learn the right way to do science, over time, and write a paper in the future.

  10. So event 1 and is in event 2's past, and event 2 is in event 1's past and they can transmit information instantly between them?

    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.



    Well.... I kind of expected this. I guess I was one of the people philosophizing about it here and there. I agree with you, although I'm not understanding it fully. Are you saying that time is more than a spacial dimension?

    It is not new. If you had proposed that time=distance, yes that would be new.

    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:



    Very good, very good, definitely better than the average crackpot. I think however that you are about a century late... http://en.wikipedia....synchronization

    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.



    In addition, what happens if your light does not go straight but instead returns to the original place, like with a laser rangefinder?

    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.

  11. I had this idea that started off crazy but then it started to make some consequences of special relativity seem more intuitive. This is an alternative interpretation of the reality that relativity describes. However, all of the rules for the theory are based on special relativity, specifically so that it doesn't contradict any observations predicted by relativity. So far I haven't run into any problems where the theory falls apart, but I haven't tackled relativistic motion, and I'm not sure whether the theory will fall apart, or if there's even any hope that it could suggest any possible result that is different from relativity (fingers crossed on twin paradox).


    Here's the theory:


    - Time is relative to distance. Any 2 points separated by a distance of r are offset in time relative to each other by a value of -r/c. This is independent of direction (so both points exist in each other's past) or point of view.

    - Light is transmitted and received immediately (though there is never the appearance of it, since every receiver is "behind" in time relative to any sender).



    - You lose the concepts of universal time, simultaneity across distance, etc (instead of throwing them out when you start dealing with relativistic motion, you throw them out when dealing with even stationary objects).

    - Everything appears as special relativity predicts. Everything appears as if light is traveling at a fixed speed through common time.

    - Concepts such as c as a universal speed limit, time dilation, etc. seem to be intuitive consequences.



    I've been writing about this on a blog. I meant to get this theory up to some kind of "pro scientist" level before announcing it but so far the quality of my writing has been "remedial school". Sorry in advance if you find these posts tedious.


    The main post about it: http://metaphysicsdiary.blogspot.com/2010/07/theory-of-time-distance-relativity-part.html

    Trying to deal with movement: http://metaphysicsdiary.blogspot.com/2010/07/movement-involves-change-in-time.html

    Some early hypothesizing: http://metaphysicsdiary.blogspot.com/2010/07/everyone-you-know-is-living-in-past.html


    There are also some scattered posts philosophizing about it here and there, and earlier posts with wild speculation about various junk.



    So... what do y'all think?! :)


    It is easy to prove that the effects seen when measuring the speed of light based on orbit timing of Jupiter's moons fit the theory, and I just fudged my way through showing that the aberration of light fits.

  12. I'm intrigued to know what this idea is.

    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.



  13. 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,




  14. 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?






  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.