Relativity+ : The Theory of Everything

[Farsight]

Sorry I've not been around for a while. I've been busy, and then sitting on my hands, keeping quiet. Now I feel I ought to say something. This is why I haven't been around for a while:

 

RELATIVITY+ : The Theory of Everything: Amazon.co.uk: John Duffield: Books http://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804

 

It's hard to get across just what a difference it's going to make. I know some of you here don't know me, and won't believe what I say. But this it. Now we know what energy really is, how mass works, and charge and gravity. Particle physics will never be the same again, nor quantum mechanics. String theory is dead, so's loop quantum gravity, they just don't know it yet. Say goodbye to parallel worlds. Faster-than-light travel ain't going to happen. Kiss time-travel goodbye, and shed a tear for all those brilliant movies that will look ridiculous for ever more. I doubt if the next series of Dr Who will ever be made, and sometimes I wonder just what the hell I've done. I hope the world will be a better place.

 

Ask me anything you like.

[CraigD]

Congratulations on completing and publishing your book, Farsight!

Ask me anything you like.

In order to illustrate a difference between your “Relativity+” theory and conventional Einsteinian Relativity, can you describe a closed timelike curve using one of the solutions that uses conventional Relativity, then, using Relativity+, show why it is impossible?

[Farsight]

Yes, but it'll take me quite a while to do it to your satisfaction Craig. I'll get back to you on this. I have to go to work shortly so in brief for now: the underlying reason is that time is cofounded with motion rather than space. Things move through space, not through spacetime. Spacetime offers a concept for describing this mathematically, but also offers non-real solutions. When you revert to the underlying reality, the necessary negative motion cannot be performed. Please note that Einsteinian relativity is not quite the same as the modern interpretation of relativity. For example curved spacetime is an effect not a cause.

[Farsight]

Sorry Craig, I forgot to say: thanks.

 

I've read the wikipedia article you linked to, and was a little surprised that it was descriptive rather than mathematical. Unless you'd like to give some direction, I'll refer to this article and point out where issues arise that lead to the non-real CTC solution. What I'll be saying isn't the common interpretation of relativity, but please refer to the "Look inside" sample chapter for some reassurance that what I describe is indeed "Einsteinian". I'll work offline and get back to you tonight.

[arkain101]

I tried to see how many copies had been sold and when it had gone up for sale. I couldn't find that. Do you got those stats? I am impressed.. is it your first book?

[Farsight]

Yes, my first. And maybe my last! It went up for sale on the 23rd January on Amazon.co.uk only, and a mere 29 copies had been sold as at last Friday. If you do a google search on the ISBN number (9780956097804 - Google Search) or use findbook (RELATIVITY+ : The Theory of Everything) you can see it listed by various other booksellers, but as yet it isn't in their bookshops. It's still early days, it hasn't had any official publicity because there's a lot of images in there. Whilst some images are public domain, others are not, and the institutions and individuals who granted permission are getting complimentary copies. After a reasonable period the review copies will go out and then people might start hearing about it. Initial reports are good, but the book trade is "order led" for books like this, so timescales are uncertain.

 

OK, back to CTCs.

[InfiniteNow]

Just goes to show that anyone can publish a book, but not everyone can get published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Farsight, you're ideas have been torn apart and debunked at sites across the internet. I'm looking forward to when we hear about the mobius loop again.

 

Oh, and I'll just say this up front so you don't forget... again. Where's the math?

[Farsight]

There's been antagonism, Infinitenow, but nobody has debunked the model. If somebody has "torn it apart" you'll surely be able to recall enough to give a calm measured explanation of where it falls down. There's no maths because it's analysing the underlying ontology.

 

Craig, re CTCs, I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for, but I hope it gets across the message that time is cofounded with motion:

 

Imagine a "freeze-frame" universe containing only two small objects. You and I aren't really there, we're in a bubble of artistic licence. There's nothing moving in this universe, and that includes photons, so by rights we can't even see our two objects. But because this is a gedankenexperiment, we can see them. We can see they're separated by space, so we can draw a horizontal axis on our Minkowski spacetime diagram. However because it's a freeze frame universe and no time is "passing", we have no justification for drawing a vertical axis.

 

To remedy this, we change our experiment such that it's a more conventional universe. There's still two motionless objects, but now we're physically there too. Our cameras are rolling, our eyes are flicking to and fro, our clocks are ticking, and our brains are whirring. So now we can draw the vertical axis on our Minkowski spacetime diagram, along with two vertical world lines to represent our two objects moving through Minkowski spacetime. But our objects aren't actually moving. The motion we introduced is in ourselves.

 

Now we introduce some lateral motion, such that we're flying past our two objects at close to the speed of light. Since motion is relative we declare our frame of reference to be superior, and trace a sloping world line for each of our two objects. We then do a flyby in the opposite direction to trace a world line in the opposite direction, and after some discussion we come up with a V. We reason that from our frame of reference the two objects could move in any direction through space at a maximum speed of c, and thus we arrive at the light cone. But the two objects have still not moved. The only things moving are us.

 

We now stand well back and press a gedanken button that attaches a device to object 1. This device contains a beacon that emits a flash of light once per second, wherein the timing mechanism is driven by a light clock comprised of a beam of light reflecting back and forth between two mirrors. The device also puffs out a spherical cloud of reflective dust, and is attached to our observation platform by a strong rope. This rope also serves as the trigger for an electron-positron "pair-production" experiment built into our device.

 

Then we press another button that converts object 2 into a black hole. We observe object 1 falling towards object 2. Initially the falling motion is sedate, and the light cone described by each flash of light is vertical. However as the falling motion increases we observe that the light reflected off the co-falling dust is no longer spherically symmetrical. Since this sphere is represented by a horizontal slice through a light cone, we say that the light cone is tilted in line with spacetime curvature. As the curvature and tilt increase we also notice a timing issue with the beacon. Instead of emitting a flash of light every second, it now emits a flash of light every two seconds. This gravitational time dilation increases the interval to four then nine then sixteen seconds, and then suddenly object 1 runs out of rope (with something of a jerk!). It's now poised at the black hole event horizon where the gravitational time dilation is infinite. We wait patiently for the next flash, but it never comes.

 

We then lower down a TV camera protected by a bubble of artistic licence. This allows it to examine object 1 free of the effects of time dilation and extreme gravity. The artistic licence similarly protects the transmission cable, so we can zoom in to the beacon and its light clock. After making allowance for the total radial length contraction, we see the beam of light motionless between the two mirrors. Time dilation here is infinite. The beam of light is no longer moving. It isn't moving towards the black hole because it's already at the black hole. We pan across to the pair-production experiment. This caused the emission of a 1022keV photon which was converted into a positron and an electron a picosecond before the rope ran out. We see that neither the electron nor the positron are moving. They have just been made out of light, and being similarly electromagnetic in nature we agree that they have been similarly frozen by the infinite time dilation. Hence they aren't falling. We also notice that due to the total lockdown, we can observe no black hole rotation.

 

We now see a situation which was similar to our original situation. We are again in a "freeze frame" environment. There is no more motion, and so no more events, hence there is no time. As a final gesture we release the rope that attached object 1 to the platform from the platform end, and it falls snaking past our camera. We drily observe that object 1 does not fall further, because of the infinite time dilation, and instead remains in place like cartoon roadkill. We conclude that with zero motion at this location any solution suggesting time travel via closed timelike curves must be an abstraction that subtly takes us below the zero through to negative motion, and should be considered a non-real solution.

[pamela]

originally posted by Infinite

Farsight, you're ideas have been torn apart and debunked at sites across the internet. I'm looking forward to when we hear about the mobius loop again.

well that is quite an accusation, care to provide back up for your claim?

[InfiniteNow]

There's no maths because it's analysing the underlying ontology.

Much as I suspected. No math = No testable predictions = Relativity(Minus).

Without the math, you may as well be arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, or what is the average hair length on the mane of a 6 year old purple unicorn.

 

 

 

well that is quite an accusation, care to provide back up for your claim?

CLICK HERE - Response to Pamela regarding iNows comments to Farsight

 

 

It's not science, and it really is that simple. I'll walk away from the thread now.

 

He DID post this in the Physics & Mathematics forum, and then explicitly conceded he had no math. If speculative philosophy is going to be discussed, then at the very least you guys may wish to consider moving this to an appropriate forum for doing so. Enjoy. :)

[pamela]

cute link inFINITE

 

Just in case you have forgotten the rules in your absence

from Hypography's forum RULES

How should I behave?

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

In general, back up your claims by using links or references.

If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.

If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

[Farsight]

He's merely linked to discussion forums including this one that show the evolution of the model. The top link is a to a forum where I received more abuse than intelligent discussion. Others vary. There was much valuable input along the way, but no debunking, which is why he can't back up his claim. It's just spoiler tactics from the competition.

[modest]

Farsight, Has the content of the book changed much from:

 

http://www.relativityplus.info/RELATIVITY+pdf.pdf

 

As far as the fundamentals, I wonder if you might define some of the basics like time, energy, movement, velocity, acceleration, and mass by your thinking (or, by your model I suppose).

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Is it too much to ask that, if this thread is being allowed to live in Hypography's Physics & Mathematics forum that Farsight be asked to supply some math? Philosophy is cool, but it irks some people (obviously, I'm included in that group) when it's housed in an arena such as this.

[modest]

It is acceptable for a member to post a physics-related idea sans math in this forum especially if they are receptive to criticism and/or help developing the model into a mathematical form. Any advice to the contrary would be appreciated in the user feedback forum.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks for the clarification, Modest. That makes sense. I'll let you guys take care of things without feedback from folks like me. Sorry for the distraction. I've just been involved with a LOT of posts from Farsight and probably let my past experiences with his disregard for correction and absence of maths influence my response here.

 

Please, carry on, and feel free to delete my contributions to this thread if I've been too much of a distraction.

[Farsight]

Farsight, Has the content of the book changed much from:

 

http://www.relativityplus.info/RELATIVITY+pdf.pdf

Yes and no. The general drift is the same, but I take more time to step through the chain of logic, and there's quite a lot more. There's 11+2 sections in the paper on 41 pages, and 30 chapters in the book on 222 (smaller) pages.

 

As far as the fundamentals, I wonder if you might define some of the basics like time, energy, movement, velocity, acceleration, and mass by your thinking (or, by your model I suppose).

I don't have anything down for movement, velocity, or acceleration. To tell the truth I haven't thought about it. Maybe I ought to, and give more priority to movement. To give you a flavour of what I mean, here's something I posted on another forum the other day:

 

Light moves, and while it's doing it, the earth moves once round the sun, we call it a year, and we mark off a light year. That gives us a distance. We also divide our year into 365 days then hours minutes and seconds. That gives us a time. But all that really happened out there is that stuff moved.

 

I'm not sure I've got "definitions" down for the other things either. It's more of a summary of the model. This sort of thing:

 

In barest essence energy is a volume of stressed space.

 

Mass is a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving in aggregate with respect to the observer.

 

Charge is curl, charge is twist. The electromagnetic field is a region of twisted space, and if we move through it we perceive a turning action which we then identify as a magnetic field.

 

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It's a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it.

 

Gravity is an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress, wherein the speed of light varies resulting in gravitational time dilation and attraction through refraction.

 

Edit: re InfiniteNow's point re the lack of mathematics, my aim was to understand what common mathematical terms actually represent. In the list above the terms are E m C t and G. I just don't know how I can do this using mathematics.