Ant Death

Well I was off tto bed until I realised I'd missed your comment and I respectfully disagree with your comment. You are explaining how we have historically perceived the four dimensions, i.e. 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension but if time does not function on the 3 axes of space then Einstein's theory cannot work either. I am saying that time is not a dimension in itself but functions on the four dimensions just as a train functions on train tracks. Of course I still get older when sitting still because I am only stationary on three out of the four dimensions. If I add movement on one of the other three (space) dimensions then I age slower because my duration is less but the universe ages at the same rate no matter what I do. Even in Einstein's theory we all age a day but with velocity we can take less than 86,400 seconds to complete the 86,400 second long day. As for the limited speed of light, inertial frame of light when observed from all other frames is a limited 299792458m/1s but (even according to Einstein's time dilation) time stands =0s when travelling at the speed of light (299792458m/0s in the inertial frame of light) so if velocity of light could be measured from the inertial frame of light it would equal 299792458m/0s which equates to infinite true velocity. Infinity is also the result when V=c is input into the Lorentz Transformation formula however, according to Einstein, length (space) has also disappeared to zero so the universe of space and time would cease to exist at the speed of light according to Einstein's theory yet light physically achieves velocity of light within the universe. My theory also removes all the twin paradoxes, grandad paradox and rigid object/hole paradox. Now I'm definitely off to bed. Thank you all for your input.

1: First of all my apologies for posting a URL. I wasn't aware that was against the rules, sorry, wont happen again, though it does confuse me as to why here is a link icon for URLs on the reply toolbar. 2: yes Earth clocks are moving in more than one spatial dimension. Motion is cumulative irregardless of direction (as it is with Einstein's time values) but each dimension is at 90o to the other three so just apply Pythagoras Theorem which equates to Time2=duration2 + X distance2 + Y distance2 + Z distance2 3: In its simplest form the concept is that time and space are equal and opposite. Time is a property of the universe that applies to everything inside the universe and functions across all four dimensions. A change of position on any dimension is a change of position in space and a change of position in time. All motion is cumulative irrespective of direction, just as it is in Einstein's version. Clocks only measure change in time on one of the four dimensions. Length does not contract and is a physical property of the universe. Time(s)2 = Duration(s)2 + Distance(s)2 therefore Duration(s)2 = Time2 - Distance(s)2 which is equivalent to time dilation. A rest clock moves 0m so its distance(s) is also 0, time and duration are equal for an observer at rest within the universe. All Newton's laws remain valid. True velocity = motion distance/motion clock duration. F=ma when a is calculated using motion clock readings.prort We can represent each observer in the form of a right angled triangle where the vertical is observer clock time (duration), the horizontal is observer change of location in space and time Xm/299792458m*1s and the hypotenuse is universe time (the amount of future) which is the same for all observers. 4: I got from 0.95c to 0.0975s because I embarrassingly put a typo in the excel formula when doing the quick calculation for your reply. My apologies (again). Corrected version Halflife of muon = 1.56x10-6 Einstein's version Observer frame: d = 10km; t = 34x10-6s = 21.8 halflives: Velocity = 294117647m/s: Muon frame: d = 2km; t = 6.6x10-6s = 4.23 halflives My version Observer frame: d = 0km = 0m/299792458m*1s = 0s: (observer frame & clock are not moving); observer clock t= 34x10-6s = 21.8 halflives Universe time (34x10-6s)2 = observer clock (34x10-6s)2 + observer distance (0s)2 Muon frame: Universe time is the same for all frames: d = 10km (no length contraction) = 10000m/299792458m*1s = 33.4x10-6s Universe time (34x10-6s)2 = muon clock duration (???) + muon distance (33.4x10-6s)2 Therefore Muon clock duration = universe time (34x10-6)2 - muon distance time (33.4x10-6)2 = 6.4x10-6 = 4.1 halflives. 5: Not 4.75 times speed of light. In my theory, observed velocity of light is 299792458m/1s rest frame clock duration but true velocity of light is 299792458m/0s light frame clock duration which equates to infinite m/0s. Observation is flawed. Observation dictates the sun goes round the earth and it was the logic of Dr Copernicus that corrected the observation error. Observation dictates that a star is one position but the logic of Stellar parallax defines its true position. Even Einstein's gravitational lensing proved observation is flawed yet his theory of relativity relies solely upon one inertial frame observing another. 6: The established method of synchronising clocks that are at rest relative to each other is more than sufficient because the distance time element is at ninety degrees to the future and not recorded by clocks. However once synchronised they cannot be moved or they will fall out if synchronicity, exactly the same as they would according to Einstein's theory. 7: I don't have one set of rules for one frame and one set of rules for another. For every individual reference frame: Universe time (s)2 = motion frame clock duration (s)2 + motion frame distance (s)2 When comparing one reference frame with another (relativity) universe time is constant to all reference frames, clock duration (s) and distance (s) therefore depend upon motion (m). The fixed constant relationship between space and time is 299792458m to 1s. Einstein's equation should have been 1/root(1-d2/c2) where c is 299792458m distance not m/s velocity. If you can understand Einstein's theory then you should understand mine because mine is simpler. My explanations of it might not seem that way but that's an error in my wording, not my logic. I'm now off to bed. Thank you all for your questions and queries. Apologies if I missed replying to any as there have been quite a few. I'll reply to any further queries when time allows. Regards Ant.

For the whole model see my webpage url deleted although I have changed the terminology since writing the webpage due to questions received so I hope that doesn't confuse the reader with regards to the concept of my theory. In essence, time is a physical property of the universe and functions on all four dimensions (so does space) but clocks only record the change of position on one of the four dimensions. You are not understanding the concept of my theory. Time and space are using the same axes so if you move on the axes of space and time uses those same axes then you have moved on the axes of time as well. It is positively Newtonian in nature. Any change of location in space is an equal but opposite change of location in time. You cannot apply the philosophy and conclusions of Einstein's theory to my theory. They are completely different theories of variable time The Muon experiment. EINSTEIN'S THEORY Velocity of Muons = 0.95c = 284800000m/s (same for rest frame and muon frame) Time dilation: Muon frame clock time 0.0975s per 1s rest frame clock time = 0.975 seconds of muon decay Length contraction: 1000m rest frame equates to 97.5m muon frame. My theory produces the exact same time values as Einstein's theory but without length contraction and mass increase) Muon inertial frame clock reading still = 0.0975s (0.0975 seconds of muon decay, just the same as in Einstein's version of relativity) The only difference is in the muon frame distance value and velocity. Einstein's theory predicts that velocity is the same for both inertial frames but distance is less when measured in the motion frame. My theory predicts that distance measurements are the same for both inertial frames and velocity is higher when measured in the motion frame. To answer another query. yes you can see the building that is 100m away from you but your inertial frame has not crossed that 100m distance so it would be logically inconsistent for your clock reading to be applied to that 100m. EXPERIMENT Place an atomic clock and a distance measuring device at the end of a 2m rotating arm (motion frame). The floor circumference (rest frame) of its rotation equals 12.566m. Place another synchronised atomic clock to the side and set the rotating arm in motion (at any velocity) long enough for their to be a calculable and noticeable difference between the motion frame (end of rotating arm) and the rest frame (floor circumference). Both theories predict the same time difference between atomic clocks. Einstein's theory predicts the distance travelled by the end of the arm will be less than the 12.5666m floor circumference * number of rotations due to length contraction. I say both distance measurements will be identical.

Thanks for responding Swansont. 1: I have compared my theory to the experiments done on muon decay and it is fully consistent with the results. The time values of my theory are identical to the time values of Einstein's theory however, Einstein's theory puts velocity as distance measured in rest frame/rest frame duration (clock time) whereas with my theory (without length contraction) true velocity = distance/motion frame duration (clock time). The rest frame has moved a distance of zero metres so the only distance value that can be applied to a rest clock and inertial rest frame is zero metres. The distance value belongs to the motion frame, not the rest frame so the motion frame clock reading is the key variable. 2: The speed of light in its own inertial frame is infinite, even in Einstein's version of relativity. In Einstein's version, time dilates to zero at the speed of light. 299792458m/0s ergo infinite metres/0s is is also the result of putting V=c into the Lorentz Transformation. 3: You ask: Then why does it take a noticeable/measurable amount of time for light to travel to/from a satellite? Why do experiments measure a finite value of about 3 x 10^8 m/s? Glad you asked. In short, while we have moved 1s on the future axis, light has moved 299792458m (=1s) on one of the three non-future axes and the fixed constant linear relationship between time and space is that a change in space of 299792458m is also a change in time of 1s as both time and space use the same four dimensions. Inertial frame of light: 1s time squared = 0s duration squared + 1s distance time squared Where 1s distance is equivalent to 299792458m on that axis of the 4 dimensional universe. Standard Velocity of Light (as measured) = 299,792,458m/1s Time True Velocity of Light (c) = 299,792,458m/0s Duration = Infinite m/0s Duration If space distance from Location A to Location B = X metres Location B relative to location A: time distance = Xm /299,792,458m x1s Event 1: Light departs location A Inertial frame of rest observer: Universe time = 0s; Duration = 0s; Distance = 0s Inertial frame of light at location A: Universe time = 0s; Duration = 0s; Distance = 0s Event 2: Light arrives at location B For both inertial frames, Universe time = X/299,792,458s Inertial frame of rest observer: Duration (rest frame) = X/299,792,458s: Distance = 0s (0 metres) Inertial frame of light: Duration (light frame) = 0s: Distance = X/299,792,458s Inertial motion frames measuring light: If motion frame true velocity = Ym/1s duration (motion clock) Light frame true velocity = Infinite m/0s future time = Ym/0s future time Variance between motion frame and light frame = 0m/1s future time. The exact same variance as the variance between the light frame and the rest frame. The speed of light is a derived constant relative to all other inertial frames. Light has moved 299792458m and the observer has moved 1s and that is why the speed of light is constant 299792458m/1s relative to all other inertial frames. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of variable time, not the cause. I am saying that distance, not velocity, is the key to understanding relativity. There is no length contraction so a distance measurement is the same when measured from any inertial frame. However, only an inertial frame's clock reading can be applied to that inertial frames distance of motion to determine velocity. The historical calculation of velocity is motion frame distance/rest frame clock reading but that cross-matches reference frames. True velocity of any motion frame is motion frame distance/motion frame clock reading.

Time functions on all four dimensions of the universe. Space also functions on the same four dimensions. As time and space share the same axes, any change of position in space is also a change of position in time. This provides a fixed constant linear relationship between space and time where 299792458m of space = 1s of time. The units of space (metres) can now be converted into the units of time (seconds) and vice versa. The axis of each dimension exists at 90o to the axes of the other three dimensions so we must apply Pythagoras Theorem. For each inertial frame: TIME (s)2 = Duration (s)2 + Distance (s)2 Time is universal and equal for all observers. Duration is as recorded by clocks and unique to each observer dependant upon change of position (distance) within the universe irregardless of the rate of change (velocity). Distance is total change of position on the axes of the universe, not net change of position. All motion is therefore cumulative irrespective of its direction. An inertial rest frame (relative to the universe) has a distance value of zero metres so with absence of motion, time and duration have the same value. An inertial motion frame has a distance value greater than zero so duration values are less than time values. Inertial speed of light frame has a duration value of zero seconds so for light, time and distance have the same value. There is no length contraction due to velocity. Length is a physical property of the universe that is constant for all observers. True velocity = motion frame distance (m) / motion frame duration (s) Inertial rest frame velocity = 0m/1s = 0 metres / infinite seconds Inertial light frame velocity = 299792458m/0s = infinite metres / zero seconds These are the two extremes of possibility when it comes to velocity. The relative difference between the two frames is equal to 1 second for every 299792458m. There is no mass increase due to velocity. It would take infinite energy to accelerate any mass to infinite velocity (speed of light). Light can attain infinite speed (and must) because light is not a mass so the restrictions of a mass value (even that of zero) does not apply to light.

Lets see if the private university educated minds can answer these questions then. The inner core of the planet is a solid metal ball that is in direct contact with a molten and gaseous soup of all sorts of chemical elements. Why doesn't the metal core melt? If it is due to pressure thebn why is the solid inner core correctly thought to contain lighter elements inside? The crust of the planet is formed by molten magma rising up from the gaseous and molten soup and the crust contains a lot of weakly radioactive uranium that according to your theories can only be produced in a supernova. If that is true then where did all the uranium come from. If your only argument is spelling of one word then your argument is weak. How can the solid rock without any toolmarks in the Nazca desert accurately portray angles and lifeforms and clearly show the exact moment of the creation of man from monkey (check the hands and fingers) while still attached by an umbilical cord to the planet as all other life forms in air, sea and on land roam free. How can it still survive in an arid plain below the water table and near to a major river that sends water moisture into the air and ground? I am talking about a geological formation. The rich families that own and control universities now also own and control large parts of the NHS through trusts. I am fighting these corrupt people on many fronts using logic and words and not using nuclear arsenals and other lethal weapons that science has created. I can answer my questions. Can you? In reply to HallsOfIvy. I never said I did not understand basic physics. I said I had no qualifications. There is a universe of difference between my statement and your assumption. All of the mathematics surroynding Albert Einstein'brilliant work is derived from just two statements made by Albert Einstein and not accepted by the scientific community until many years later. I am not allowed to add any more posts for the time being so I amc addaing comments using the edlit function. If all theu planets in the solar system revolve around the sun then why does their combinetd gravity not produce oscillations in the positioning of the sun?

Dear Moderator. The very first comment I made on this thread proves thay your understanding of the genius of Albert Einstein is much more of a vague hand wavy guess than my logical conclusions. Light can be created by an electrical energy current. The light created travels at the speed of light. At the speed of light the length of a finite universe is zero. The vague hand wavy guesses are not coming from me you stuck up pretentious idiot. I guess my membership will be terminated, my comments deleted and the science community will be the worse off for it. Without discussion science cannot progress and even humans have stopped evolving at just 10% of brain capacity. Anybody who does not conform to the norm is classed as disabled. The illogical logic of humans.

Dear Moderator. Thank you for your guidance I will take on board your instruction. I did look at specualtion threads first but my topic seemed more suited to this section of your very useful site and as I don't have qualifications in this subject I was hoping to gain from the education of your followers. Apologies if I crossed a line and my logic paths do lead to possible predictions but in biology and geology. The basis of my thinking began with relativity and the genius of Albert Einstein. Regards Ant Dear Moderator I am attempting to test my logic hypothesis and the constricts of your speculations forum requires provable evidence, predictions, a complete model and ways of testing. While my hypothesis is speculative it does lead to these things but for a hypothesis to become a theory like the big bang theory which predicts the creation of the universe and the energy within it. My speculative hypothesis also has to stand up to scientific argument in order to evolve. Also my logic arguments like those displayed above cast doubt on currently accepted theories. My speculative hypothesis involves a unified theory including classical physics, relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, biology, geology, and much more including the point of creation and religion. An hypothesis needs all the things you request to become an accepted theory or a law of physics but I am in the early stages of trying to find a way forward with my speculative understanding and I thought a science forum would be the ideal place to test my understanding against higher educated minds. Can you please advise where I can get informative comment on my hypothesis which obeys the laws of equal and opposite reactions all throughout the hypothesis. Thanks Ant

I would have thought that as light itself travels at the calculated speed of light then it is possible. I believe that pure light is not both a wave and a particle but pure light can create a wave such as the electromagnetic spectrum which travels at the accepted and measured speed of light and can create a particle which has mass. This may not be the accepted explanation but as science has proved everything must have an equal and opposite effect. The opposite of pure light would be pure dark and that would be the equal and opposite as we see when we look outwards. I will appreciate all arguments against so I can develop my understanding. Thanks

Am I correct in saying that as you approach the speed of light distance contracts? If this is true then at the speed of light the length of a finite universe would be zero and light would be instant. I do have a theoretical solution to this dilemma which also explains the dual nature of light as both a wave and a particle but would appreciate learned comments first. Thank you.