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]

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.

 

 

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.

 

"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]

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]

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.

[IDMclean]

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 [math]\gamma[/math]. 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]

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]

but in what reference frame?

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

[Jay-qu]

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 :confused:

[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]

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]

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...

:hihi:

[EWright]

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

:hihi:

 

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]

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