between3and26characterslon Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 The more I work on my theory, the more it appears to be exactly like special relativity (sometimes I even wonder if there's a difference). My current view of it is that Time Relativity provides a new definition of time that works perfectly with special relativity (SR). It doesn't replace relativity, just its definition of time. In fact, I might be able to sort of "slip it in before special relativity", and use it to explain some of the "existing understanding of physics" that SR is based on. I definitely don't know enough about the physics of everything connected with relativity. I haven't even considered "mass" (so I can't show E = mc2, kind of an important part of SR). All I can say is "I'm not aware of any contradiction between this theory and SR". I will also try to claim that time relativity corresponds to special relativity. Certainly, any prediction made by this theory that deviates from SR could potentially disprove it. Why have this theory? 1. It explains a lot of relativity junk in an intuitive way (which I've yet to do...). 2. It provides a better definition of time that might be immensely useful in quantum mechanics (this is yet to be seen). Newton said, "If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants" he was saying that his theories were the logical consequence of existing theories. Einstein took two existing principles and united them, his theory was the logical consequence of the principle of relativity and the constant speed of light in vacuo. We understand what distance is and we understand what time is and from those two notions we can work out what speed is and therefore what the speed of light is. We know that all observers measure the SOL as c and because c is finite we can use Lorentz transformations to work out time dilation and length contraction. Again I'm not saying your theory is wrong, just that it doesn't follow from everything that has gone before it. If speed = distance/time and you're saying that information is transmitted and recieved instantly (as your theory describes) then we will have to redifine all previous physics to fit your theory? To give you an analogy, it seems to me like you've built a roof but you haven't got a house to put it on, yours is a top down approach rather that the building on foundations approach. You say that you don't know all the physics connected with relativity but you are sure your theory doesn't contradict relativity. Then you make 2 very bold claims which you assert you haven't proven yet. Then we come to Occam's razor, which side does your theory fall on? Sorry to sound so negative, I'm not trying to put you off, I'm trying to be constructive. Give you some food for thought. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now