Theory of Temporal Relativity

[KickAssClown]

Well it's like this:
Mass is Energy. Energy is Electromagnetic.

Therefore Mass is like Energy but unbalanced. It is either more Electric or More Magnetic. In my view this is what causes Velocity, I am not sure how yet, but it's the cause I am sure. By the equations and various theories regarding the nature of Mass-energy and Space-time, it is then defined that Mass is made up of Electromagnetic Fields, as is Light, but not in equal purpotions.

Therefore, if mass is defined according to EM fields, then it will deform as it approaches c.

[HydrogenBond]

One way to make temporal relativity work is to look at the fundamental building blocks of the universe; protons, electrons and neutrons. These all formed very early and have been sychronized since them. If we take any hydrogen proton on earth, cut it in half and count the rings, it should be the same as protons anywhere in the universe.

[EWright]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One way to make temporal relativity work is to look at the fundamental building blocks of the universe; protons, electrons and neutrons. These all formed very early and have been sychronized since them. If we take any hydrogen proton on earth, cut it in half and count the rings, it should be the same as protons anywhere in the universe.

Perhaps I don't understand the physics you are talking about. Isn't a hydrogen atom just one proton orbited by one electron? So I don't follow your logic here. If a hydrogen atom isn't like one you find on earth, then it isn't really a hydrogen atom, is it?

[HydrogenBond]

I was only making a distinction between hydrogen protons and nuclear protons. The hydrogen protons are essentially the same now, in the past and throughout the universe. When they become nuclear protons, they are dependant on when they were fused due to being alterred via mass burn. Neutrons come under the same category as nuclear protons, although some neutrons have been around since the beginning.

The universe is synchronized via energy. At the speed of light of energy its reference sees distance contracted to zero and time at a singularity. Within that reference all the particles are overlapped. Where things appear to differ is via the finite time and distance potential expressed by energy. In other words, energy shows finite distance and time expressions (wavelength and frequency) even though at the speed of light these should be singular. This departure from the C-reference defines potential in distance and time. If we add this together we get synchronisty at C, with temporal departure within time and distance potential that is separate from C, defining what appears to be noncoordinated distinct interactions.

If we fast forward the universe either into blackholes or absolute zero, the temporal variation within energy will come to an end allowing full coordination at C to be more apparent.

[Erasmus00]

As far as I can tell, what you've done with this theory of temporal relativity is step into one subset of general relativity.

The fact that c is the rate at which the "future becomes the past" so to speak is, loosely speaking, true in standard relativity as well as your theory.

In a more mathematical (and precise) way, we could say that the magnitude of the four velocity vector is constant. Hence, as the spatial components get larger, the temporal must change to compensate.

Now, in your theory you have singled out "cosmic time" as a particularly special time, which amounts to choosing one set of coordinates and calling them "standard." The only problem with this is that there are some areas of space that these coordinates don't cover. Consider that inside the event horizen of a black hole, your coordinates blow up.(i.e. your "cosmic time" cannot extend below the horizen of a black hole) However, other choices of coordinates (kruskal-szekeres for instance) can cover all the way down the singularity.

In general relativity, we say that all coordinates are equally valid, so we can set up lots of different coordinate systems. In your version we have simply singled one particular one out as special. Does this make sense?
-Will

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Well it's like this:
Mass is Energy. Energy is Electromagnetic.

Energy is not always electromagnetic. It can be kinetic, gravitational, related to the strong nuclear force, etc.
-Will

[KickAssClown]

Energy is not always electromagnetic. It can be kinetic, gravitational, related to the strong nuclear force, etc.

You know how funny that sounds? The photon is defined in terms of Electomagnetics. Energy is defined in terms of the Photon.

Gravity, according to what you go by, is either A) A force (mr/t^2) and related to potential energy, or B) A geodesic effect on energy propagating through space-time

Strong is like wise a force. Kinetic energy is energy, but it's always in units of the photon. Same for potential energy.

Energy is energy. Energy is Electro-Magnetic(not in terms of the force, but in terms of the Fields) in nature.

[EWright]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

You know how funny that sounds? The photon is defined in terms of Electomagnetics. Energy is defined in terms of the Photon.

Gravity, according to what you go by, is either A) A force (mr/t^2) and related to potential energy, or B) A geodesic effect on energy propagating through space-time

Strong is like wise a force. Kinetic energy is energy, but it's always in units of the photon. Same for potential energy.

Energy is energy. Energy is Electro-Magnetic(not in terms of the force, but in terms of the Fields) in nature.

With all due respect guys, can we please keep the arguments regarding K-Clown's theory to his relevant thread?

[EWright]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

As far as I can tell, what you've done with this theory of temporal relativity is step into one subset of general relativity.

Well in that case I'm glad to have hit upon an idea that at least appears valid. I was not aware that it may be more related to GR than SR. Any additional points you have on this will be appreciated, and I'll do my best to address your concerns or challenges, as they relate to my theory.

The fact that c is the rate at which the "future becomes the past" so to speak is, loosely speaking, true in standard relativity as well as your theory.

In a more mathematical (and precise) way, we could say that the magnitude of the four velocity vector is constant. Hence, as the spatial components get larger, the temporal must change to compensate.

Interesting points. I will have to look up and give thought to the "four velocity vector" and its relation to my ideas. I assume when you refer to "the temporal" in your above statement, that you are referring to measurable units of time, as opposed to universal or cosmic time?

Can you explain further what you mean by "loosely ... true"?

I view the future-time horizon as time unfolding to become the present as opposed to the past. I make the distinction because I feel there may be a sort of "slack" between this constant time arriving and time as we view and measure it. Measureable time then becomes variable the faster it approaches the future-time horizon. This is a concept I am still considering, but have not become fully comfortable with as of yet.

Now, in your theory you have singled out "cosmic time" as a particularly special time, which amounts to choosing one set of coordinates and calling them "standard." The only problem with this is that there are some areas of space that these coordinates don't cover. Consider that inside the event horizen of a black hole, your coordinates blow up.(i.e. your "cosmic time" cannot extend below the horizen of a black hole) However, other choices of coordinates (kruskal-szekeres for instance) can cover all the way down the singularity.

I'll look up kruskal-szekeres as well, and hope to gain an understanding of how other theories describe the physics within a black hole. I'm assuming kruskal-szekeres breaks down at the singularity like all others as far as I know?

My theory does consider the goings-on within a black hole including the singularity itself. However, as with the rest of my theory, it is intuitively based as opposed to mathematical. Some parts will be more speculative than others, but the purpose is to put new food-for-though out there to be considered by those who may be able to apply the necessary physics to the events I describe.

In general relativity, we say that all coordinates are equally valid, so we can set up lots of different coordinate systems. In your version we have simply singled one particular one out as special. Does this make sense?
-Will

While this one is singled out, all other frames of reference within its context can consider themselves relative to one another with no real speciality, with the possible exception of black holes. For measurements sake, they will all be able to claim the same equal validity as in previous relativity theory. However, in terms of their relation to universal-time, it will depend.

I'm specifically curious to know whether you agree that universal or cosmic time (i have to look up cosmic-time to see if it is what I am referring to exactly) is a constant. Given the uniformity of the CMB in every direction, it seems to me that a constant time must have passed for the whole of the universe (though not its subparts) since the origin of the CMB. Or in otherwords, that the known universe has one age, measurable in terms of the CMB, and that it can only be this one age as measured from anywhere in the universe at the current time.

[Qfwfq]

EWright I think you definitely should deepen your grasp of relativity, as so far formulated with 4-vectors and Lorentz covariance, before proposing an alternative. The things you say can be viewed to some degree as a loose way of saying how Minkowski and others have described it in mathematical formalism, in part you are proposing a "manner of speaking" description which is non-standard but perhaps defendable.

One might say that you are trying to invent the wheel. Nothing wrong with that, if you choose to do so, but you might be told that you could have much more easily bought one, and of top quality.

Originally Posted by EWright

With all due respect guys, can we please keep the arguments regarding K-Clown's theory to his relevant thread?

Yes, and also without remarks about how funny something sounds (it was a valid objection).