DTL (Discrete Time Location) Theory

[Binyamin Tsadik]

About 10 years ago, I came up with a theory that got rejected from every theoretical physics journal that exists, and I got shrugged off from every Theoretical Physics professor that I could contact.

 

Nobody has every agreed to even hear the theory.

 

So I recently posted a description of it on YouTube.

 

Maybe someone can look at it and tell me why people are so against hearing new theories.

 

Part 1. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=997N_QRUCG4

Please start the video at 6:40 minutes, that way you can skip the clumsy introduction and me just getting my bearings straight.

 

Part 2 answers a few questions that I got so far from my Father.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=es_PfNz7W64

 

Hopefully a few of you will understand enough to bring up flaws and queries to delve deeper into the theory's relevance.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

Here is the video at 6:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=997N_QRUCG4&feature=player_detailpage#t=400s

 

I have had people argue with me about the first part and state that it was wrong, can anyone confirm please that the projection on the earth's frame of reference from the ship's frame of reference is correct?

 

I still see no problem with it despite many objections.

[Ophiolite]

Maybe someone can look at it and tell me why people are so against hearing new theories.

I have not yet looked at the video. I shall do so later.

 

People are generally not against hearing new theories, however you probably don't have a theory, you have a speculation, or a hypothesis. A theory would be well validated by many independent observations and experiments.

 

'People' are confronted by many 'new theories' all the time. These almost never offer anything of value, but reflect misunderstandings, or even ouright ignorance on the part of the proposer. Statistically it is likely that your 'theory' will fall into the same category and so 'people' are reluctant to invest time in considering it. The fact that you call it a theory rather than a speculation, or provisional hypothesis adds to the suspicion that you have nothing to offer, since you seem not to understand the scientific process.

 

I do not intend to sound critical, but wish to answer your question honestly.

 

Would you consider summarising your hypothesis in writing? Youtube videos are also not the ideal way to communicate a formal idea. McLuhan said, The medium is the message. Youtube sends the wrong message.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

I have not yet looked at the video. I shall do so later.

 

People are generally not against hearing new theories, however you probably don't have a theory, you have a speculation, or a hypothesis. A theory would be well validated by many independent observations and experiments.

 

'People' are confronted by many 'new theories' all the time. These almost never offer anything of value, but reflect misunderstandings, or even ouright ignorance on the part of the proposer. Statistically it is likely that your 'theory' will fall into the same category and so 'people' are reluctant to invest time in considering it. The fact that you call it a theory rather than a speculation, or provisional hypothesis adds to the suspicion that you have nothing to offer, since you seem not to understand the scientific process.

 

I do not intend to sound critical, but wish to answer your question honestly.

 

Would you consider summarising your hypothesis in writing? Youtube videos are also not the ideal way to communicate a formal idea. McLuhan said, The medium is the message. Youtube sends the wrong message.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write back.

 

The Youtube video was really just a last resort because I have tried for 10 years to describe this idea to the physics community. I understand the scientific process and I do not care much for people's differing definitions for the word theory. It is a theory, it could be a wrong theory, or a theory built based on misunderstandings, but it is still a theory. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis is for the result of an experiment, a theory is more encompassing. But I digress. I am not here to argue about the English language.

I am here to present a Physics Theory to a more accepting audience. Perhaps an audience that will actually look at the ideas before they judge them.

 

And about the medium.

The medium is not the message. Only the superficial and shallow people that knit pick about the proper use of superficial words would make such a mind numbing statement. It is like saying "only the good looking know how to sing and write good lyrics." It is superficial nonsense and very very unscientific.

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

The Youtube video was really just a last resort because I have tried for 10 years to describe this idea to the physics community. I understand the scientific process and I do not care much for people's differing definitions for the word theory. It is a theory, it could be a wrong theory, or a theory built based on misunderstandings, but it is still a theory. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis is for the result of an experiment, a theory is more encompassing. But I digress. I am not here to argue about the English language.

I am here to present a Physics Theory to a more accepting audience. Perhaps an audience that will actually look at the ideas before they judge them.

In the context of general English language usage you use the term perfectly correctly. You do not appear to be using correctly from the standpoint of science. That is more than a trivial observation, but calls into question your competence to engage in scientific thinking. I offer that observation as serious advice: call it a hypothesis and you encounter less resistance to having the idea considered.

 

And about the medium.

The medium is not the message. Only the superficial and shallow people that knit pick about the proper use of superficial words would make such a mind numbing statement.

Whether or not you agree with McLuhan I do not know of any of his critics who would have called him superficial and shallow. His iconic "the medium is the message" phrase lies at the heart, for example, of marketing technique. You are posting here because you have been totally unsuccesful at marketing your idea. I am suggesting that part of the problem may be the medium you are using by which to communicate your message. Last resort or not, Youtube does not tend to convey a sense of professionalism or academic expertise. I think you ignore this point at your peril.

[imatfaal]

Thank you for taking the time to write back.

 

The Youtube video was really just a last resort because I have tried for 10 years to describe this idea to the physics community. I understand the scientific process and I do not care much for people's differing definitions for the word theory. It is a theory, it could be a wrong theory, or a theory built based on misunderstandings, but it is still a theory. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis is for the result of an experiment, a theory is more encompassing. But I digress. I am not here to argue about the English language.

I am here to present a Physics Theory to a more accepting audience. Perhaps an audience that will actually look at the ideas before they judge them.

 

And about the medium.

The medium is not the message. Only the superficial and shallow people that knit pick about the proper use of superficial words would make such a mind numbing statement. It is like saying "only the good looking know how to sing and write good lyrics." It is superficial nonsense and very very unscientific.

 

 

Well as this is the first time you have tried here perhaps we could try the non-youtube version as well. I will watch your video.

 

Whether you find the minutiae of language tiresome or not, many of us rejoice in the depth and subtleties offered by our languages. In scientific contexts - and you are aiming to communicate with those involved in science - there is a considerable difference between hypothesis and theory; wikipedia has some nice pages on the two concepts.

 

I watched from 6 minutes to 12 minutes. your analysis is incorrect. you are assuming that the closing speed of two objects is limited to c. from each of the objects frame of reference the other one is limited to less than c; but the closing speed is not so limited as no object is travelling at greater than c and the relative velocity from each frame of reference remains less than c. From the frame of reference of the earth in your example the gap will close (ie this is not a physical movement or transmission of data so is not forbidden) at higher than c.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

I watched from 6 minutes to 12 minutes. your analysis is incorrect. you are assuming that the closing speed of two objects is limited to c. from each of the objects frame of reference the other one is limited to less than c; but the closing speed is not so limited as no object is travelling at greater than c and the relative velocity from each frame of reference remains less than c. From the frame of reference of the earth in your example the gap will close (ie this is not a physical movement or transmission of data so is not forbidden) at higher than c.

 

Here is an elaboration I made on this first concept

 

http://youtu.be/r2urZlbgPWE

 

 

Another great video that explains special relativity very very nicely is

 

Edited July 24, 2012 by Binyamin Tsadik

[swansont]

I watched from 6:40 to just past 10:00. You were sloppy in keeping your frames of reference straight. It's not clear which reference frame was used for the numbers you gave, but the conclusion that the light takes 400 years regardless of closing speed isn't correct. There will be length contraction or time dilation, depending on what frame you use to analyze the situation.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

I watched from 6:40 to just past 10:00. You were sloppy in keeping your frames of reference straight. It's not clear which reference frame was used for the numbers you gave, but the conclusion that the light takes 400 years regardless of closing speed isn't correct. There will be length contraction or time dilation, depending on what frame you use to analyze the situation.

 

How long will it take a photon to reach the ship traveling at the speed of 1/4 C, from 400 light years away then?

 

 

I already posted this earlier but this is a replay that I prepared for this issue

http://www.youtube.com/embed/r2urZlbgPWE

 

 

Well as this is the first time you have tried here perhaps we could try the non-youtube version as well. I will watch your video.

 

 

6.1 Macro DiscreteTime Location - It is known that light (with no interference) alwaystravels at the same speed (for any frame of reference), regardless of anobject's motion or acceleration. Thiseffectively means that light will reach a specific object at the same time (forthat object's time reference) regardless of the object’s motion.

 

Additional thought into this point reveals that all mass(assuming that the graviton behaves the same as undisturbed light) in theuniverse is effectively at the exact location that sight puts them in (althoughthey can in actuality exist at a different location) because mass informationtravels at the speed of light.

 

These masses are all 'trapped' in time, unless their speedcan 'escape' this time. This leads tothe conclusion that all particles are located at Discrete Time Locations.

 

 

 

6.2 Quantum DiscreteTime Location - An extensioninto Quantum Mechanics will reveal the true nature of particles.

 

A wave in space that possesses the ultrahigh,graviton frequency will have a small wavelength and thus divide space intosmall units. This unit will alwaysappear to have the same distance between it (despite Doppler shifting whichwill be discussed later). This ultimate,high frequency creates discrete quantum divisions in space – Discrete TimeLocations.

 

 

 

6.3 Mass – Particles are analogous to wavesources. These sources exist in discretetime locations relative to all other particles. These proposed waves in space create an attractive motion when they beatin opposition with the sources. In otherwords, two particles that exist 180 degrees out of phase will attract, and twoparticles that are in phase will repel.

 

For this definition to hold true to mass, every particle'sgraviton source, will have to exist out of phase with every other particle'ssource in the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.4 Charge – Thisnext frequency is half the frequency of the graviton. Thus particles in discrete time locationshave the option to exist in two possible locations on a wavelength (in or outof phase from each other) and thus can attract or repel.

 

 

 

 

6.5 Quarks/Flavor– The next frequency is one-third of the mass frequency. This leads to 3 possible relationshipsbetween discrete time locations. Theseparticles exist 120 degrees apart from each other at this frequency.

 

 

When we add two vectors with respect to the third we get a180 degree difference leading to an attractive force. Each color can attract the other 2 colors but repel the same one.

 

 

 

6.6 Four-State –When the frequency in space is one quarter of the mass frequency, a particlecan have 4 discrete time locations on one wavelength.

 

 

When two particles are 90 degrees apart from each other, we get no interaction. This 4state positioning permits a source to have no interaction with 2 types,repulsion with the same type and attraction with an opposing type.

 

 

 

6.7 Doppler Shifting

 

 

 

Doppler Shifting is a macroscopic effect. All vectors from a given particle arepossible directions in space. When aparticle source moves in a certain direction, a Doppler shift will occurrelative to all other particle sources in every direction.

 

When a particle source moves towards another particlesource, the wavelength between them will get smaller because both particlesources appear to oscillate faster relative to the other. Therefore, the frequency increase of the waveis identical to the frequency increase of the source and therefore theparticles are still ‘trapped’ in their phase (location).

 

 

 

6.8 Extension forparticles that travel faster than light

 

According to this model, a particle that travels faster thanlight in relation to another particle's frame of reference, will 'escape' itsdiscrete time location with relation to both particles. Along the Gluon/Quark wavelength it willappear to be shifting between Quark-states/flavors.

 

 

[swansont]

How long will it take a photon to reach the ship traveling at the speed of 1/4 C, from 400 light years away then?

 

In which frame is the distance 400 ly? You still haven't specified that.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

In which frame is the distance 400 ly? You still haven't specified that.

 

Ha ha, very good!

Use the earth's frame of reference for 400 ly, however when you do the transformation with length contraction and time dilation you will see that it remains at 400 ly for the new frame of reference as well.

 

You could make a mistake and get 309.84 years

Edited July 25, 2012 by Binyamin Tsadik

[swansont]

Ha ha, very good!

Use the earth's frame of reference for 400 ly, however when you do the transformation with length contraction and time dilation you will see that it remains at 400 ly for the new frame of reference as well.

 

You implied that it would remain this distance for all speeds, because the time is always 400 years.

[imatfaal]

Here is an elaboration I made on this first concept

 

http://youtu.be/r2urZlbgPWE

 

 

Another great video that explains special relativity very very nicely is

 

 

This is maybe why you haven't had much success promulgating your theory. I mention a problem and you post a private video I cannot access and generic 15 min bad soundtrack einstein-lite video.