Theory of Temporal Relativity

[EWright]

For those of you who haven't found my post in the Science Papers forum, I'd like to invite you to read and sound off on the first in a series of papers to introduce my Theory of Temporal Relativity.

The paper is writting in plain english with no use of formulas. I'd like to hear feedback, be it critical, supportive, inquisitive, etc. on the concepts I propose. This first paper is the foundation for others soon to come, so I'd like to see how it stands up, falls flat, or what issues I might have to address with it before laying out additional components of the theory.

Thanks in advance.

[UncleAl]

The paper is writting in plain english with no use of formulas.

If so, then it is wrong at face value.

The Global Positioning Satellite system works.
Particle accelerators work.
Computers and semiconductor devices in general work.
The electricity grid works.
The Standard Model works.
Multi-nuclear superconducting pulsed Fourier-transform nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers work.

There is not a single empirical contradiction anywhere at any scale in any venue. Unless you can propose a new experiment to falsify existing theory, what you have is either horribly wrong or degenerately equivalent. Absent a predictive mathematical framework, it is irretrievably wrong while still sealed in its box.

"Therefore one absolute measurable amount of time, has passed from the birth of the universe until the present.

No. Trivially not. Go out at night look to the horizon and see a galaxy. Look 180 degrees opposite and see another galaxy. Neither galaxy is in the other's lightcone. Each of the two parts of the universe do not exist for the other part. Neither they nor you have a clock that can be synchronized with any of the two others.

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891 (1905)

Read it. Look up the difference between "space-like" and "time-like" events. Do the math.

[EWright]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

If so, then it is wrong at face value.

The Global Positioning Satellite system works.
Particle accelerators work.
Computers and semiconductor devices in general work.
The electricity grid works.
The Standard Model works.
Multi-nuclear superconducting pulsed Fourier-transform nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers work.

Be careful not to make your statements out of context. I explain in the paper that I am not challenging the accuracy of Special Relativity or its predictions.

Originally Posted by uncle al

There is not a single empirical contradiction anywhere at any scale in any venue. Unless you can propose a new experiment to falsify existing theory, what you have is either horribly wrong or degenerately equivalent. Absent a predictive mathematical framework, it is irretrievably wrong while still sealed in its box.

I also point out that there should be no contractictions in observation or predictions or SR and Temporal Relativity.

Originally Posted by uncle al

"Therefore one absolute measurable amount of time, has passed from the birth of the universe until the present.


No. Trivially not. Go out at night look to the horizon and see a galaxy. Look 180 degrees opposite and see another galaxy. Neither galaxy is in the other's lightcone. Each of the two parts of the universe do not exist for the other part. Neither they nor you have a clock that can be synchronized with any of the two others.

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891 (1905)

Read it. Look up the difference between "space-like" and "time-like" events. Do the math.

My argument is that the universe has one age of 13.7 billion years, as your own links have pointed out (though you mistakenly reference it as 14.7 billion years). The universe as a whole can not have more than one age. Therefore, one abolute age has passed for the whole of the universe as measurements of the CMB show.

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by EWright

My argument is that the universe has one age of 13.7 billion years, as your own links have pointed out (though you mistakenly reference it as 14.7 billion years). The universe as a whole can not have more than one age. Therefore, one abolute age has passed for the whole of the universe as measurements of the CMB show.

but in what reference frame?

[EWright]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

but in what reference frame?

Measurements of the CMB measure the same in every direction in the sky with extreme uniformity. Furthermore, the CMB happened in all of space and is measured to be the same age from any point in space. Thus the universe is 13.7 billion years old from any current reference frame.

[Jay-qu]

I dont understand how that can work..

[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.

[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.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Go out at night look to the horizon and see a galaxy. Look 180 degrees opposite and see another galaxy. Neither galaxy is in the other's lightcone. Each of the two parts of the universe do not exist for the other part. Neither they nor you have a clock that can be synchronized with any of the two others.

Neither of these two galaxies is in our light cone, according to your conclusion they hence don't exist for us. What exactly does "not exist" mean? Why exactly would a spacelike interval go quite so far as implying it?

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

but in what reference frame?

I'd say his meaning would be cosmic standard time.