Jump to content

Theory of Time-distance Relativity


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sort of see what you are saying. When we see objects at the observational limits of the universe, the light we see is from the past state of those objects, and not their present. However, the light we receive is in our present, causing us to confuse what is going in the past with observational now.


For example, say I was 10 years old and 20 light years away from the earth. I transmit a picture of myself today in terms of simultaneous time. (we can't measure simultaneous time but one should be able to understand the concept). In twenty years, earth receives this picture because it takes light twenty years to go 20 light years in distance. Based on simultaneity, I am now 30 years old, but based on the signal (picture) the earth receives in the present, they say I am 10.


When I was 10 and took that picture, I was walking west at 3 MPH. But I only went about a mile, stopped and e-mailed the picture to earth. Then I went east back home. The picture the earth receives shows me going west. They then assume this is in their present and extrapolate me going west for the next twenty years.


Conceptually simultaneously exists, however light can't move fast enough for us to measure simultaneously, since the gap in distance causes a time delay.


One interesting consideration is since light travels at C, according to relativity, this means in its reference it sees complete time dilation and a point distance contraction. That means anything within finite time and distance is contained with its T,D point reference; simultaneous. Light also has finite components we call wavelength and frequency, that we see moving at C taking time to reach us. With the light are the conditions needed to meet both simultaneous and time-distance delay we measure. Also since C is not reference dependent, C-simultaneity is not reference dependent. However, reference motion impacts the finite measurement of the signal in space-time.


The universe we see is a history books of the past, since there is universal C-simultaneity, since at C all finite is simultaneous. It makes sense the farthest object moves the fastest since at the very beginning of the universe the BB gave the fastest motion. Science seems to confuse this past with an expanding universe; analogous to me at 10 going west and then we extrapolate my speed and direction. We don't know actual C-simulataneity,

Edited by pioneer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?



Anywhere that I've contradicted special relativity, I've turned out to be wrong. I do have a new formulation of time, which fits with the existing definitions of distance and velocity and junk, so that the end result is that the speed of light (as defined by the existing definitions) remains finite. This new formulation can also be used to describe a "non-observational" model of the universe, in which light transmissions are instantaneous -- though I still don't know how one would describe time in that model.


I think I'll again try to stop talking about the theory until it's ready to submit to a preprint archive. I'm having some trouble with the math unsure.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.