Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[Boerseun]

Once again, to Micheal's detriment, an "observers A and B" story:

You have two observers, A and B. A is ten light years away from B, right now. But B is in motion relative to A, and at relativistic speeds, at that. So, from A's point of view, ten years might pass for every five years passing on B. Which means that the "now" that A is experiencing, is merely the point where time passing on A and B intersect. It's not because it's universal at all.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by modest

Anssi, there's a good treatment here and apparently a lot of work was done in the early 90's by a fella named J.M.C. Montanus:


I've been looking at these, albeit not in much depth, over the last couple days. If this system proves useful and usable then I believe it would be possible to say there exists an "absolute now" which agrees with observation *according to this system of dynamics*.

Just for your information, I precede him by some forty years. I first developed my picture of relativistic phenomena after I read One, Two, Three...Infinity (1947), Viking Press, Dover Publications, by George Gamow. I was, at the time, only eleven years old. My father had purchased the book and I found it interesting. Of course, my mathematics was extremely limited and my picture of reality was totally Galilean. My reactions to Gamow's relativistic examples was, “Oh, clocks don't measure time!' Something I am sure would never have even occurred to him. He brought up the issue of an unobservable fourth dimension orthogonal to the three we ordinarily perceive; in my childish mind that four dimensional space was as Galilean as the three dimensional space I already understood.

The specific examples he gave, together with the idea that “all we really see are shadows on the wall” had me thinking that this fourth dimension was being projected out: i.e., the true four dimensional universe was being projected onto a three dimensional space (the proverbial “wall”). As I understood Gamow, when we think we are standing still, we are actually moving at the speed of light in that fourth dimension; all movement through that four dimensional space took time no matter if it happened to be orthogonal to our perceived space or not. If you want, I can give you the exact mental model I had (the model I thought Gamow was trying to explain). In fact, go reread my opening post to An “analytical-metaphysical” take on Special Relativity! again. That is essentially what I thought Gamow was trying to explain.

The model gave exactly the solutions he gave for those specific relativistic examples and thus I came to believe I understood relativity. I didn't discover that wasn't what he meant until I got into college and actually studied standard Einsteinian relativity. Nevertheless, I continued to use my picture because it often gave quicker and easier solutions to some problems. Even when I used standard relativity (in those cases where Einstein's picture gave quicker and easier solutions) my picture still gave the correct answers though it was sometimes more involved. At the time, I was quite surprised that both pictures always gave identical answers but didn't much worry about it. I just presumed my picture was wrong because I had no reason for that “projection” I spoke of above.

I was not introduced to Quantum Mechanics until I got into graduate school (I got my BS in a small college which really didn't have that good a physics department). The most significant fact that struck me as a graduate student was that only massive entities could be seen as having such a thing as a “rest frame of their existence” (so to speak). If mass were essentially no more than momentum in that fourth dimension (in my Euclidean geometry) then was no different than E=|p|c used for massless entities. Since all our laboratories are constructed of mass quantized stuff and all our measurements are made with tools made of mass quantized stuff (in fact we ourselves are made of mass quantized stuff), the Heisenberg uncertainty principle demanded that position in that fourth dimension had to be unknowable. There was that projection mechanism I was unable to explain earlier.

My first year in graduate school, I mathematically proved (using the idea that mass was quantized momentum in the fourth dimension) that my Euclidean picture was perfectly isomorphic to Einstein's picture. I showed it to the professor I was taking quantum mechanics from and after I explained my picture to him he said that I was indeed right but that I should keep it to myself as it would just confuse the other students. So I did!

A couple of years later, a paper I was reading on field theory had a quote from Newton on his theory of gravity (as I remember it, he had said, “of course action at a distance is clearly impossible ... but ... seems to work“). I considered what the universe would look like if all interactions were “contact” interactions. Essentially exchange forces with a Dirac delta function interaction. I think it was sometime in 1966 that I first wrote down what was essentially the expression:

I knew the relationship had to be of some significance but, being unable to solve such a many body equation, I could find no way to make any use such a thing. I received my Ph.D. in 1971 and went off to earn a living. Prior to 1971, a Ph.D. in physics was a meal ticket but 1971 was the first year that we ever had actual unemployment in the field. I did not earn my living with physics.

It wasn't until 1982 that I discovered a path towards solution (that would be the proof that Schrödinger's equation was indeed an approximation to my equation). After working up what I thought was a good defense of the validity of my fundamental equation, I tried to get it published. I still have a number of rejection letters (together with the documents I had sent them) from several journals stating that my work was outside the interest of their journal. After being refused help in publishing by my thesis advisor (actually he wouldn't even read it himself, stating to me that “no one will ever read your stuff because you haven't paid your dues”) in late 1986 I sent a number of hand written copies to various physics departments some of which I know still exist (a few years ago, one university actually had the gall to ask for a monetary contribution along with a comment that they had a copy of that work in their physics library). The funniest reaction I received was from the Harvard Physics department; they sent it back to me with a letter which said “no one at Harvard could read it”. I don't think they meant it the way it sounded.

What I am getting at is the fact that Montanus could very well have read something of mine or talked to someone who had. But, if he did, I don't think he actually understood it because, if he did, he could have made it much easier to understand than he apparently has. As I said to Anssi, if anyone who knew physics and math actually took the trouble to look at what I am talking about, they would find it so obvious that there would be no question as to its validity.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

So I have just made the argument that "for the universe as a whole, there is one, perpetual, ongoing NOW."

Michael is of course correct; though I suspect he has no real comprehension of the physics required by that fact. And Modest, you seem to be missing the most central aspect of relativity theory itself. That is the idea that the phenomena being modeled is independent of your coordinate system. What that statement means is that, if your physics is correct, the answer you obtain for any given experiment is absolutely independent of the coordinate system you use to represent the phenomena. Perhaps students today do not understand that fact because they seldom do calculations in frames not at rest with respect to the phenomena of interest.

You should be aware of the fact that Lorentz and Fitzgerald actually showed that if the structures of physical objects was determined by Maxwell's equations, then the apparent contraction had to be a consequence of an error in simultaneity because of being in the wrong reference frame.

I am of the opinion that everyone is overlooking a much more fundamental issue here. Everyone is defining “simultaneity” via the assumption that the speed of light is the same in both directions and that is without a doubt the basis of the actual problem. All physicists in the universe could just as well do all their calculation in the rest frame of the background radiation. Then they would all agree as to the correct frame of reference and there would be no problems with identifying “simultaneity”.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

The real problem with that solution is that it makes the actual calculations so difficult that no physicist would even consider such a solution. Think about some poor guy doing an experiment in his laboratory calculating the energy levels in hydrogen who is required to use a measuring rod at rest with respect to background radiation. His standard measuring rod would change with the rotation of the earth (since he must use a different speed of light in opposite directions which varies because he is moving). Now the final result would be exactly the same (Maxwell's equations, in fact, insure that) but the intermediate calculations would be horrific.

Physicists do calculation in the rest frames of the associated phenomena because the calculations are usually much simpler in such frames; not because physics predicts different answers in alternate inertial frames. Somehow physicists today have totally lost sight of that fact. The fact that physics MUST give the same answer is often used to deduce certain very important facts. The apparent half life of fast moving particles for example; in the actual correct rest frames of many unstable particles, half lives can often be so short as to be unmeasurable but, if they are moving fast enough, those half lives become measurable characteristics.

I apologize for railing on like that but I just felt someone had to straighten out the issues.

Have fun -- Dick

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Excellent! I very much like your "Six Aspects of Time"! (you should copyright that )

I'm ready to move on and start discussing these. First, can you please clarify number 5? It is the only one that doesn't make sense to me (perhaps because I don't know what previous essay you are referring to)...

The essay was post #13 in "What is SpaceTime?". I shall reprint it here for future convenience, as I intend to refer back to it again. I have also numbered the statements. If this doesn't help explain Time definition #5, let me know.

Seriously what IS "time"? I'm just brainstorming here.


0. Time is not a static "thing" like distance or dimension.
1. Time is a manifestation of changes of state.
2. Time is a manifestation of the sequential nature of state change; a thing or collection of things goes through a sequence of states.
3. Each state is observably unique in some way.
4. Time is a manifestation of the monadal identification of state; a thing or collection is in exactly ONE state at the boundary between past & future.
5. Therefore, time is a manifestation of a sequence of singular, monadal state changes.
6. Since these state changes cannot be simultaneous (infinite transfer of information & energy is not allowed in our universe), then these states must be "spread out" over some locations within a state-space; like a sequence of points on graph paper.
7. This separation of the individual state-space locations is a measure of "occurrence"; individual state-spaces "occur" at different points within this continuous state-space metric.
8. This state-space metric is what we "locally" call Time.
9. Time derives from vastly ongoing, continuous, global and micro sequences of singular monadal state changes in matter/energy.
10. These state transitions can, at some convenient scale, be observed and tracked.
11. The clock does not track Time; the clock tracks its own carefully configured internal state transitions.
12. Time could then, in theory, be brought to a halt if matter/energy could be configured such that it was permanently in one state and there were no state transitions possible.
13. The internal state transitions of matter/energy are not driven by "time"; they are driven by fluctuating gradients of mass density and energy density; from the cosmo-macro scale all the way down to the sub-atomic quantum scale.
14. At every scale, gradients of mass density and energy density "flow" like waves in all directions; their "flow" is itself a self-organizing, self-actuating sea of directed state transitions.
15. These "flows" perpetuate and trigger all "events" (state transitions) at ever increasing scales of distance.
16. There is a joke that "Time" is that property of the Universe that prevents everything from happening simultaneously; It's not a joke.
17. But it isn't "Time" that does this; it is the property that any subset of the space/mass/energy can only be in one singular state.
18. Observation in its most basic sense, requires an observer that has continuous internal state transitions; the only way to observe an "event" (state transition) outside of the observer, is for that "event" to affect a corresponding "event" (state transition) inside the system of space/mass/energy that we call an "observer".
19. It is this self-organizing pairings of external/internal events that make up what we call "perception".
20. Our perception of Time (in a local sense) is merely a measure of the number of sequential events that we can perceive; this is a function of our atomic and chemical makeup, in that very simple space/mass/energy systems can "perceive" more external events than can a very large complex space/mass/energy system.
21. The Rate at which our internal space/mass/energy system can identify or perceive external state transitions is our perceived flow of time (local).
22. Time (global) can be tracked only to the extent that there are space/mass/energy systems, at a specified location, which respond to global (at all scales) gradients; if there are many such systems independently responding to gradients, then Time (global) at that location "flows" at all Rates to which the systems respond.
23. Therefore, outside of a sentient space/mass/energy system with a well-defined local time scale, time (global) flows at all time scales.
24. At any given point (and only a point) there is no one flow of time or scale of state transitions. There are potentially state transitions at ALL scales, and therefore, rather than there being "no time", I posit that there is (are) ALL times, ALL time scales, ALL rates of state transition, as the point is bombarded by mass/energy/gradients of ALL values.
25. Our self-aware sentience, complex as it is, experiences only a very narrow bandwidth of mass/energy/gradients and the corresponding internal "perceptive" state transitions.
26. We think of our local Time sense as an appreciation of Time as it is & as only it can be; the way TIME REALLY IS.
27. We are blind; just as our eyes can only perceive the EM spectrum in one tiny bandwidth, so can we only perceive TIME in a tiny bandwidth.
28. Does TIME "exist"? Wrong question.
29. Do continuous monadal singular state transitions exist at every spacial scale? Yes. Are they driven by continuous, from every spacial direction, mass/energy/gradients of every conceivable amplitude? Yes. That's what exists.
30. All else is semantics.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Just for your information, I precede him by some forty years. I first developed my picture of relativistic phenomena after I read One, Two, Three...Infinity (1947), Viking Press, Dover Publications, by George Gamow. I was, at the time, only eleven years old

<...>

What I am getting at is the fact that Montanus could very well have read something of mine or talked to someone who had.

Interesting, but the question of who developed this idea first never crossed my mind and most-certainly isn’t something I meant to imply. Besides providing people with alternative explanations and interpretations (which, who knows, Anssi may actually find useful), I think it’s worth pointing out that this Euclidean formalism is gaining some momentum in physics circles. There’s a useful list of publications here:

Euclidean relativity general principles and links page

Until a couple days ago I had no idea anyone besides yourself was advocating such a thing, something I stumbled upon by doing a google search for "velocity addition" + "euclidean metric". I found the page linked above as the third result and I’m finding the publications very helpful. As a novice in physics I struggle to understand the intricacies implied in using the different geometries.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Michael is of course correct; though I suspect he has no real comprehension of the physics required by that fact.

As I understand, Michael could be correct according to an alternative system of dynamics/kinematics. I’ve seen no convincing argument that the one system must be correct over the other, so it seems odd that you’re willing to agree that there *is* “one, perpetual, ongoing now” rather than saying there can be according to such-and-such definitions (which, by the way, are not Michael’s definitions).

Originally Posted by Doctordick

And Modest, you seem to be missing the most central aspect of relativity theory itself. That is the idea that the phenomena being modeled is independent of your coordinate system. What that statement means is that, if your physics is correct, the answer you obtain for any given experiment is absolutely independent of the coordinate system you use to represent the phenomena.

Is coordinate invariant?

~modest

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

...I first developed my picture of relativistic phenomena after I read One, Two, Three...Infinity (1947), Viking Press, Dover Publications, by George Gamow. I was, at the time, only eleven years old. My father had purchased the book and I found it interesting. ...
Michael is of course correct; though I suspect he has no real comprehension of the physics required by that fact. And Modest, you seem to be missing the most central aspect of relativity theory itself. That is the idea that the phenomena being modeled is independent of your coordinate system. ...
You should be aware of the fact that Lorentz and Fitzgerald actually showed that if the structures of physical objects was determined by Maxwell's equations, then the apparent contraction had to be a consequence of an error in simultaneity because of being in the wrong reference frame....

Dr. D.
This is one of your best posts, IMHO. It is also one of the few posts of yours that I understood!
"One, Two, Three, Infinity" was one of the most influential books I encountered as a child. I found it in our senior high school library when I started the 9th grade, and kept it checked out for an entire semester!

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by modest

Anssi, there's a good treatment here and apparently a lot of work was done in the early 90's by a fella named J.M.C. Montanus:

I've been looking at these, albeit not in much depth, over the last couple days. If this system proves useful and usable then I believe it would be possible to say there exists an "absolute now" which agrees with observation *according to this system of dynamics*.

Yeah, actually I'd rather put it something like this "if this system proves logically equivalent (to standard relativity) then it would be valid to understand reality in terms of absolute now".

I mean, usefulness for us is really not a measure of ontological correctness. But, at the same breath it must be stated that it is indeed quite interesting that a valid paradigm with "absolute now" can be so simple (and hence useful).

Note that having a valid model with absolute simultaneity does not yet mean that any sort of "ontological simultaneity" could be measured. As it is in relativity, we can't be "here and there" simultaneously to probe simultaneity, it is our assumptions of the speed of information that give us our notion of simultaneity. I guess that is why DD keeps saying, we could simply choose a preferred frame accordingly to the background radiation. It is very much an arbitrary choice without ontological significance, you see.

Also, I'm glad you stressed the "according to this system of dynamics", as that is indeed the important point. It is a different paradigm, all the dynamics are seen differently, and when you are used to the dynamics of relativity, and investigate DD's work with all that in mind, many things can certainly be misunderstood and can seem quite invalid from the get-go. Like Kuhn said, one paradigm cannot be investigated from within another, and people should be careful with that.

But, I think it's important to stress, and hopefully you agree, the definitions of space, time, and simultaneity that Michael is using amount to nothing more than Galilean relativity. As such, it cannot be considered consistent with nature.

I honestly don't expect to reach Michael. I really have no way to tell what he is thinking with all the ambiguity of his posts, and just the fact that he is completely oblivious to all that ambiguity tells me that he has got quite a poor grasp of the essential issues involved here. That's not meant as an insult towards you Michael, it's just that you seem to walk straight into all the possible communication pitfalls, making it absolutely impossible for "relativity experts" to understand how you mean your assertions exactly (even when they really try).

What I'm hoping I can do with my posts is to aid you or anyone else who is interested to seriously investigate DD's work. Aid as in in trying to explain you the correct perspective for reading his presentation right. There are many things there to be misunderstood if you are not very careful (as ambiguities exist there too)... You have to really understand "what" is being described by the math. Come to think of it, it is actually quite similar circumstance as trying to explain special relativity to someone used to newtonian picture. Just think about how many things can be understood wrong during that communication :I

-Anssi

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by modest

Interesting, but the question of who developed this idea first never crossed my mind and most-certainly isn’t something I meant to imply.

I understand that but I have faced so many years of derision for my ideas that I was kind of put off by the fact people were publishing the same kind of thing totally refused to me. I guess the whole thing is over and my work will never be recognized. I suppose it is really unimportant anyway, particularly at my age. I was surprised that I turned out to be reference #11 in that list of links you gave. I note that the site referenced in that link no longer exists; however, there happens to be an archive copy (which appears to be complete) at

Relativity/Quantum Mechanics

In case anyone is interested, I still have a copy of all the files originally on “home.jam.com/dicksfiles” and would appreciate them being available on site somewhere if possible.

Originally Posted by modest

I think it’s worth pointing out that this Euclidean formalism is gaining some momentum in physics circles.

Yes, I could not complain about that. I looked around a bit but didn't see the formalism being used to generate general relativity. That subject is also covered in that old web page of mine.

Originally Posted by modest

Until a couple days ago I had no idea anyone besides yourself was advocating such a thing ...

And, obviously, neither was I. I read a little there and personally found it much less clear than my presentation.

Originally Posted by modest

As a novice in physics I struggle to understand the intricacies implied in using the different geometries.

Could I interest you in going through my presentation line by line? I think you and I could get through it much quicker than either Anssi or Bombadil and, once you understand what I am doing, your assistance in dealing with others would certainly be appreciated.

Originally Posted by modest

I’ve seen no convincing argument that the one system must be correct over the other, so it seems odd that you’re willing to agree that there *is* “one, perpetual, ongoing now” rather than saying there can be according to such-and-such definitions (which, by the way, are not Michael’s definitions).

The central point of Einsteinian relativity is that no convincing argument for any specific system can be proved correct. That is in fact the whole issue. Simultaneity can only be defined in terms of the inertial coordinate system one decides to use. Certainly the rest frame of the universe could be the one chosen and thus a universal, ongoing now would be defined. As I said to Bombadil, the correct physics of the universe might very well depend upon using that rest frame, in which case Einstein's explanation of relativity would be erroneous. Actually, I suspect that is the case as I obtain exactly such a result when I develop general relativity. Of course, there always exists the possibility that I have made an error as no one competent has ever reviewed my work (that is, to my knowledge).

Originally Posted by modest

Is coordinate invariant?

Not in the sense you mean it as I am not really concerning myself with changes in coordinate systems. The factor cdt (or as I put it v_?t) is simply the distance an element moves during the time dt. It defines how distance is measured in my geometry. It is deduced from the fundamental equation and thus is so defined only in the rest frame of the universe. The point in my deduction is that we are talking about generating your expectations and those expectations depend very much upon how you define “the universe”. Any aspect of the “real universe” which you ignore is not part of “the universe” defining your expectations.

If you follow my presentation “An “analytical-metaphysical” take on Special Relativity!” it should be clear to you that the transformations between special relativistic frames of reference must be exactly equivalent to the common relativistic transformation: i.e., if they are not, the expectations between two observers using a different “rest frame of the universe” will not be using the same fundamental equation and thus will have different expectations (they won't agree on the physics; the proper explanation of phenomena).

And Anssi, have you ever read my original web site? It seems to me it was still available when we first started talking. Let me know if you want a copy.

Have fun -- Dick

[Michael Mooney]

Pyrotex:

I guess I'm just used to discussions of physics and cosmology being more "physical" and less philosophical. What leaps to mind are questions: What do you mean by "the universe as a whole" compared to just "the universe"? What do you mean by "transcends local FORs"? I don't doubt that the universe exists, and any observer anywhere in the universe will experience "now". So, "now" would be universally accessible, or experiencable. When you say "that only leaves NOW" it appears you are using a semantic word-game as metaphor. You logically "eliminate" the future and past, but only in a rather simple semantic sense. So, two out of three time-states are eliminated, leaving only "now". Sure, if I have three apples and remove two, I will only have one left.

But it appears that you want "that only leaves NOW" to be a demonstration or proof (if you will) that there must therefore be a universal omni-simultaneous "now" that applies everywhere. Wrapping my mind around this is quite easy. But the propositions that (1) everywhere in the universe has a "now"; and (2) all these "nows" are the SAME now -- are not identical.

By "the universe as a whole" I mean all there is, known and unknown... i.e., not limited to the cosmos within our cosmic event horizon.
By "transcends local frames of reference" I mean beyond the relativity paradigm of "from observer A's perspective as compared with observer B's or C's."
When I say "that only leaves now" I mean that NOW is perpetually "the present" and that neither "the present" or "time" are entities. That is, there is no "instant" of time between what is not yet happening (anywhere)..."the future" and what has already happened (everywhere)..."the past." It is not just semantics. It is time/now ontology at the most fundamental level.

Re:

But the propositions that (1) everywhere in the universe has a "now"; and (2) all these "nows" are the SAME now -- are not identical

...
To "have a now" reifies the simple present... now everywhere... into an entity that differes with location. The simple statement "It is now simultaneously everywhere" belies this making "now" (or time for that matter) into a local environment of some kind which differes at different locations.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Reply toPyrotex:
(continued after an interruption)"
Me:

In this sense, time is not a thing but the *concept* of "event duration" as in "elapsed time" for whatever specified event to happen as "designated" by the observer's arbitrary "beginning and ending of the observed event".)

Pyrotex:

Time is actual several things. (1) It is indeed a human "concept", actually an umbrella concept, that describes a number of observable phenomena. (2) Time is an aspect of the observable universe, in that Humans found it necessary to coin the concept in order to describe the aspect. (3) Time is both a "location" in a linear sequence of discrete events, and a "distance" or "duration" between two events. (4) Time is an arbitrary measurement of the "location" and "distance" between observable events; arbitrary in the sense that the "units" of time and how they are measured, is arbitrary. (5) Time is a physical manifestation of deeper structures in the universe, which I alluded to in my previous essay which you dissed without giving any explanation for why you didnt' like it.
(6) Time only has meaning in a greater context of observations (of events) and measurement; time can only be observed if events trigger a sequence of cause-effect phenomena that lead from the events to the observer; terminating in a parallel sequence of secondary events in the observer; what the observer "measures" is the time between these secondary events.
Quote:

#1: Check.
#2: An "aspect" in the sense that motion happens and "time" describes "what elapses" during a given designated event's motion... not "time itself" as such an event. Big difference as I see it!

#3:
I do not see time as an entity with a location, but posit that "event duration" (in the common vernacular) is what "time" means... how long it takes a given designated movement of an object to "happen."
The obvious once again: The "event": of a photon traveling from sun to earth... the "distance" between them requires 8.3 minutes of "time" for the journey.

#4: Yes, units of time are arbitrary. The distance between two objects )obviously at different "locations" is simply the space between them. The "travel" between two locations/objects "takes "time." The distance itself is not "time."

#5: This is a blatant reification of "time." "Things manifest", and how long that "takes"... whatever the 'snapshot setting' on the time-elapse camera set by the observer... is "time."

#6: I agree but it can be simply stated that it "takes time for things to happen." That does not mean that some "thing.. time" is created as things happen.

"Out of time" again for this session.

The universe exists in a universal Now. Now is everywhere. There is only one Now.

YES! Obvious, but its implications for "what is time" is amazingly elusive for most folks especially as concerns such reification as "dilated time" and all the "spacetime" fabrication!

Michael

[modest]

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Yeah, actually I'd rather put it something like this "if this system proves logically equivalent (to standard relativity) then it would be valid to understand reality in terms of absolute now".

I mean, usefulness for us is really not a measure of ontological correctness. But, at the same breath it must be stated that it is indeed quite interesting that a valid paradigm with "absolute now" can be so simple (and hence useful).

Yes, I agree. Usefulness does not establish ontology between logically equivalent interpretations. Simplicity... well, I think Occam's razor can sometimes be appropriately drawn on, but I honestly don't know enough in this case to even guess if that would be appropriate.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I understand that but I have faced so many years of derision for my ideas that I was kind of put off by the fact people were publishing the same kind of thing totally refused to me. I guess the whole thing is over and my work will never be recognized. I suppose it is really unimportant anyway, particularly at my age.

I won't even pretend to put myself in your shoes and say I understand... I honestly cannot imagine. You might look at it as a kind of vindication, but, regardless, you should not give up advocating your view. That's really all you can do—it being out of your hands if others recognize it or not.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I was surprised that I turned out to be reference #11 in that list of links you gave. I note that the site referenced in that link no longer exists; however, there happens to be an archive copy (which appears to be complete) at

Relativity/Quantum Mechanics

I had no idea

You should email the guy that made the site to give him the updated link. His email is on his bio page:

Dimensions in special relativity - About the author

He seems like a very likable and approachable fella from his writing.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

In case anyone is interested, I still have a copy of all the files originally on “home.jam.com/dicksfiles” and would appreciate them being available on site somewhere if possible.

On Hypography?... I'm not sure what would be possible, but can ask.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Could I interest you in going through my presentation line by line?

Absolutely. I'll put a post together in the othe rthread. It might take a couple days as I'm pretty busy the rest of this week, but I do expect it will be a fruitful discussion (at least for me).

~modest