Theory of Temporal Relativity

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by EWright

I just want to be sure here, did you read the paper via the link in my initial post of this thread? My signature will also take you there now.

read some.. got lost, try again when I have some more time

[TheFaithfulStone]

I don't get it.

I still don't understand how it's possible to have more than one time dimension.

edit: Okay, I now understand what you're trying to do. I still don't think you quite understand that it's really just a coincidence that light travels at c It has nothing to do with light that makes it the universal speed limit. That is how fast massless particles travel. Therefore they should travel that fast no matter how fast YOU are going. That is the big "AH-HA!" that leads to all the weird relativity stuff.

You are introducing another term into the equation. Basically, everyone knows and accepts that light travels at c and that relativity works. I don't see much of a reason to add another element. (Photons travel at c] because that is the speed at which absolute time unfolds) especially when the CMB objection is addressed by inflationary theory, and the whole "one universe age" thing is addressed by the Weyl Postulate and comoving distance.

Furthermore, I don't really see any way to test it. The only way you'd ever find out if there was a universal time frame was if you could somehow go outside it.

Now, I'm by no means an expert, so be this received with attendant disclaimers, but that's my take on it.

TFS

[eloxer]

Well, at one point you are right: The universe has one and only one age. Unfortunatelly there is up until now no means of accessing that time. Why? Because every time measurement we can do is by counting events within the universe. The occurence of events (any kind of event) is not neccessarily fixed in a linear manner to the underlying clock even if it occures extremly regular to us. These are laws of computer based simulation. In order to explain: Imagine you had a computer simulation of a universe that is simulated step by step. The real age of the universe is the number of simulation steps. If some mechanism inside that universe measures time by some events that it cannot proof to be synchronized with the simulation's step time then time measurement is just relative. Without information from the outside it cannot proove external coincidence. Thus every time measurement is really highly relative.
But that also means that telling us that the universe is 13.7mio years old is useless (and wrong) because the reference frame didn't exist back then. Nevertheless one should not stop thinking about how to find a trick to figure out a more global experiment in order to find out about the simulation time - the real time.

Best regards.

[EWright]

Originally Posted by eloxer

Well, at one point you are right: The universe has one and only one age.

If on one this point I am right, then on both points I presume I am right; because time must also move variably within the universe relative to different observers.

Unfortunatelly there is up until now no means of accessing that time. Why? Because every time measurement we can do is by counting events within the universe. The occurence of events (any kind of event) is not neccessarily fixed in a linear manner to the underlying clock even if it occures extremly regular to us.

Not completely true. The uniformity of the CMB gives us this information. This uniformity in every direction shows that universal-time has moved at a constant pace for any any and every given time since the CMB until the present for all of space as measured from our vantage point.

These are laws of computer based simulation. In order to explain: Imagine you had a computer simulation of a universe that is simulated step by step. The real age of the universe is the number of simulation steps.

Although I am not familiar with computer simulation data input, the universal age will be independant of the relative steps being measured. These steps are only relative to other steps within the universal framework. Part two of my paper will touch on this.

If some mechanism inside that universe measures time by some events that it cannot proof to be synchronized with the simulation's step time then time measurement is just relative.

Correct. Time within the universal framework is relative, hence the title Theory of Temporal Relativity.

Without information from the outside it cannot proove external coincidence. Thus every time measurement is really highly relative.
But that also means that telling us that the universe is 13.7mio years old is useless (and wrong) because the reference frame didn't exist back then.

The CBM is the oldest and most distant reference frame and did exist at 13GY ago. While there was time before this point, there is little point in discussing it in this context. This is the age current physics assigns to the universe and for that reason it is the age I'm using for this discussion.

Nevertheless one should not stop thinking about how to find a trick to figure out a more global experiment in order to find out about the simulation time - the real time.

I agree fully, and am just trying to offer one such alternate view or starting point with my idea. I'm thankful for the feedback. I'll answer the other posts above shortly.

My signature below provides a link to the first paper on my Theory of Temporal Relativity. Others will follow soon.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

I still don't understand how it's possible to have more than one time dimension.

I dunno but, perhaps, it could be something like DoctorDick with his t and tau...

[EWright]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I dunno but, perhaps, it could be something like DoctorDick with his t and tau...

I've read a little of DDs stuff, but I have trouble following some of it. I'll send him a pm and ask him to sound off here on my ideas.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by EWright

I've read a little of DDs stuff, but I have trouble following some of it. I'll send him a pm and ask him to sound off here on my ideas.

Oh, this oughta be good.

TFS

[Qfwfq]

Sit back'n'watch... Popcorn anyone?

[EWright]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Your quote is good. I like your notion, but you forget somethings.

Mass is energy, Energy is Electromagnetic, is Light. As EM fields accelerate they deform. Mass does likewise, so a body of mass that is accelerating contracts along the x-axis (the direction of motion). As a body of mass approaches c it's x-axis distance contracts by a factor of . I take this as mass that approaches c is light-like, and more like a wave. Mass that is significantly slower than c is point-like, and therefore more like a particle.

K-Klown, Thanks for the point you make regarding my signature. I'd be interested in your views on the full actual article (signature will link you to it).

You say "as EM fields accelerate", however, I'm not clear what you mean by this. Electromagnetic fields, or light, are measured to travel at a constant speed and do not slow or accelerate. The reason according to my Theory of Temporal Relativity is that light is measured at this speed because that is the rate at which time arrives (or that the future becomes the present) and thus can not exceed this speed, but will always travel at it. (If it were not for this time barrier, I believe light may then travel at infinite speed.) Please let me know what you think of other points in my theory. Part II will address such things as lenght contraction and mass at relative speeds.

[EWright]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

I don't get it.

I still don't understand how it's possible to have more than one time dimension.

edit: Okay, I now understand what you're trying to do. I still don't think you quite understand that it's really just a coincidence that light travels at c It has nothing to do with light that makes it the universal speed limit. That is how fast massless particles travel. Therefore they should travel that fast no matter how fast YOU are going. That is the big "AH-HA!" that leads to all the weird relativity stuff.

That's the big "AH-HA" with no explanation as to WHY light travels at c relative to yourself no matter how fast you are going. That should not be good enough. Einstein made it a postulate, meaning that if you assume that light travels at a constant speed, then the rest of SR falls into place, which it does. But WHY is it that if you could travel .8c you would still measure light as traveling at c? It's because light that is the rate at which time is arriving (see post before this one, as I make this point there). And time arrives at this rate no matter what speed you are going. However, UNITS of measurable time (seconds, minutes, years, etc) are variable within this framework of of this constant universal-time.

You are introducing another term into the equation. Basically, everyone knows and accepts that light travels at c and that relativity works. I don't see much of a reason to add another element. (Photons travel at c] because that is the speed at which absolute time unfolds) especially when the CMB objection is addressed by inflationary theory, and the whole "one universe age" thing is addressed by the Weyl Postulate and comoving distance.

I agree, light will be measured to travel at c and relativity does work absolutely precisely as a means of measurment, prediction, etc. I make the point in the article that I do not disagree with relativity; I just think the basis for some of it goes a step further. It is not science to say "everyone knows and accepts that..." without asking "why?". Granted inflation can explain some things, but there are also questions surrounding Inflation Theory. There are other ways to explain the CMB, including Brane theory. I do not feel it is correct to say we should stop looking at other possibilities because old or current ones explain it "good enough".

Furthermore, I don't really see any way to test it. The only way you'd ever find out if there was a universal time frame was if you could somehow go outside it. Now, I'm by no means an expert, so be this received with attendant disclaimers, but that's my take on it.

TFS

The CMB has already gone outside of our fixed frame for us. It's flatness and uniformity show that from the time this 'first light' was released a constant passage of universal-time has passed from then until now. It is the man-made units of measureable time that are then relative within this framework.