Proof Minkowski Spacetime is Poorly Conceived

Totally.

Miles convinced me that EVERY velocity is only proportional time. So naturally, if you insist on time being proportional to the speed of light (and those Lorentz transforms do exactly that), they will appear to be rock solid until, like Mink, you insist that time is mutually orthogonal to the other three dimensions and start doing frickin geometry with it. And you think I'm delusional?

How about this instead:

The rate of rotation of the universe's only spin zero boson is infinite. It has a finite radius. It has a finite rest mass. It decays on the order of a zeptosecond, which I think is considerably faster than it takes light to traverse its own radius. We now have a contender for a process that is faster than a quantum of light can propagate, AND it is the particle that is the foundation of the Standard Model AND it imparts inertia to electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons, neutrinos, AND their antiparticles.

Tell me again, how delusional it is to think that Mink spacetime has run out of time. What is delusional is to think that c is still the gold standard of time when we are looking at something much faster. Time is intimately involved with inertia, and we have proof. If your gold standard of time is c, you are thinking just like a 19th century mathematician. Your days as a theoretician using such outmoded concepts are numbered, and they are few.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
Totally.

Miles convinced me that EVERY velocity is only proportional time. So naturally, if you insist on time being proportional to the speed of light (and those Lorentz transforms do exactly that), they will appear to be rock solid until, like Mink, you insist that time is mutually orthogonal to the other three dimensions and start doing frickin geometry with it. And you think I'm delusional?

How about this instead:

The rate of rotation of the universe's only spin zero boson is infinite. It has a finite radius. It has a finite rest mass. It decays on the order of a zeptosecond, which I think is considerably faster than it takes light to traverse its own radius. We now have a contender for a process that is faster than a quantum of light can propagate, AND it is the particle that is the foundation of the Standard Model AND it imparts inertia to electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons, neutrinos, AND their antiparticles.

Tell me again, how delusional it is to think that Mink spacetime has run out of time. What is delusional is to think that c is still the gold standard of time when we are looking at something much faster. Time is intimately involved with inertia, and we have proof. If your gold standard of time is c, you are thinking just like a 19th century mathematician. Your days are numbered, and they are few.
Click to expand...

Dan you are in Alternative for a reason and you are lucky this has not been moved to Pseudo. You do not make any sense, any more, not even slightly. I think "delusional" is le mot juste, I'm afraid.
 
Time is a scalar; a proportion based on relative velocity and nothing else. Energy is a vector, but energy is not time. Making time into a vector In any mathematical sense is delusional. Scalars evidently may have a single direction to go along with their magnitude. In the case of time, it is either along the direction in which energy propagates, or toward a center of radial, rotational mode of energy propagation that is part of the bound energy we refer to as matter.

Now I have completed once and for all time the definition of what physics has been talking about for over a century.

Have no fear. As I have explained, nothing academic or occupational concerns me about any of these remarks in the least.

Thanks to Miles Mathis, whose writings helped complete my understanding of physics.

Anyone who uses any part of this thread, including and especially my last post on sciforums, should take care to render credit where credit is due. Miles evidently deserves most of it.
 
Last edited:
Now inertia makes perfect sense as it relates to time. Whereas unbound energy like photons can have inertia only in a single direction along which they are propagating, bound energy, because it is internally rotating in every direction, has an a inertial propagation component in every direction to match. This is the mechanism that imparts what we understand as inertia to all fundamental particles of matter, and also accounts for relativistic mass increase whenever bound energy travels at a velocity relative to other bound energy.

Whereas time as a 4D component of Mink spacetime explains almost nothing about the nature of time, inertia, or anything else, my definition is functional on many levels.

I also understand how the Higgs mechanism might be involved in order to do this.

All of my questions are now answered. It has been a long road. Thanks to all of you.
 
Last edited:
Wow. You're quite welcome.

Are you really done?
deadhorse.gif
 
Dr_Toad said:
Nice.

Where are you from, misspelling "gitup" like that? :D They don't teach y'all to spell in Maryland?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to ride the dead horse, and I don't care if its wave function or legs have collapsed or not. It can still crawl us to the last roundup. The geometry still works about as well as that horse. We have triangulated our destination in another dimension with covariant time, and Schroedinger's cat and Pythagorus are still very much alive there. Their light cones flipped over I guess. It works as well backwards as forwards, and a minus sign won't fix it. So much for math that can consistently express or calculate any physical, temporal, or mathematical relationship that exists. What I have in mind to replace it won't either. There will be many hidden variables and uncertainties at first.

Happy trails!

Miles agrees about Mink, but seems to think both the Higgs discovery and LIGO's black hole merger and gravitons were frauds. I've suspended judgement on the other until or unless they can show us another gravity wave. One wrong out of four isn't really that bad, is it? Leonardo, he is not. Lots of juicy details about the OPERA and BICEP2 fiascos on his website though. His sort of skeptical crankery is just too easy.
 
Last edited:
The God said:
Since you are pushing Photon Spin, you should read Descartes theory of color, due to spin motion of Photons along with linear motion......some more ideas you will get on this.
Click to expand...
Except that mine is not a confused or a fuzzy sensory argument.

Time is proportional to relative velocity, just as inertia is. Time is not a scalar in the vector mathematical sense. It has an arrow that is ALWAYS the same direction as the direction of the propagation of energy, whether bound or unbound. This explains the difference in inertia between bound and unbound energy. A photon has inertia in one direction only. A fundamental particle of matter has inertia in every direction, because internal to the particle, the energy is rotating in every direction.

The Lorentz transformations do not need a velocity transform because time dilation IS a proportional relative velocity transform. What sense did it really make to compound the problem by creating another layer of geometrical spacetime transformations on top of those?

I'm not confused, but I have exceeded the level of ability of anyone on this forum to help me to develop this as a new law of physics. Of this I am certain. A quick check on the threads that suppose that time travel might be possible confirms this. Minkowski thought this was possible too. No way.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
I'm not confused, but I have exceeded the level of ability of anyone on this forum to help me to develop this as a new law of physics. Of this I am certain.
Click to expand...

I like that......sure you have, but please count me out from that anyone..
 
danshawen said:
Except that mine is not a confused or a fuzzy sensory argument.

Time is proportional to relative velocity, just as inertia is. Time is not a scalar in the vector mathematical sense. It has an arrow that is ALWAYS the same direction as the direction of the propagation of energy, whether bound or unbound. This explains the difference in inertia between bound and unbound energy. A photon has inertia in one direction only. A fundamental particle of matter has inertia in every direction, because internal to the particle, the energy is rotating in every direction.

The Lorentz transformations do not need a velocity transform because time dilation IS a proportional relative velocity transform. What sense did it really make to compound the problem by creating another layer of geometrical spacetime transformations on top of those?

I'm not confused, but I have exceeded the level of ability of anyone on this forum to help me to develop this as a new law of physics. Of this I am certain. A quick check on the threads that suppose that time travel might be possible confirms this. Minkowski thought this was possible too. No way.
Click to expand...
Seriously delusional.
 
Ophiolite said:
Except that Dan is smart enough to know he is not as smart as he thinks he is!
Click to expand...
If I were as smart as Daecon thinks I think I am, I probably wouldn't have wasted a year before I started ignoring distinctly unhelpful folks. Not too bright on my part. Everyone who I am not ignoring have all been helpful, and even a few of the ones I now ignore were not really that bad, just a waste of my time trying to get them to think outside of the lines they had been indoctrinated to think.

And I have told you, without Mile's help, this problem would never have been solved. So, sorry, no Dunning-Kruger here. Otherwise, I might have been concerned about that.

Time dilation is ALWAYS proportional to relative velocity. Where time is concerned, you are always comparing the rate at which the hands of a clock move as compared to the rate at which something else moves, or in the case under consideration, the rate at which light propagates as compared to the rate anything else happens. Any measure of time is a measure of proportional relative velocity, referred to a temporal origin related to wherever / whenever bound or unbound energy is traveling or propagating in a particular direction. I'm sorry if some folks here can't think proportion and relativity at the same time (pun intended).

We know from Lorentz that time dilates based on relative velocities, EVEN the relative velocity of the solid road on which you have nailed your coordinate systems in Galilean or other forms of relativity. There is no need for a velocity transform. The formula for time dilation is key. This is the missing velocity transform. Lorentz contraction or Minkowski rotation are unimportant artifacts. You could use them to gauge relative velocities also, but like Doppler shifts, they may change due to other effects. For instance, the acceleration due to Dark Energy at cosmological distances is as likely to be the result of a rotation of everything in the universe as it is to be an indication that the universe in bulk is expanding. The shift might not even be evident in the CBR, and in fact, we already know that it is not.

You don't really need either contractions or rotations. Time dilation, intimately related to inertia and to the propagation of energy at all scales, in bound and unbound forms tells the whole story, in every case, without 4D geometry or Lorentz covariance or spacetime curvature introduced because someone didn't recognize that the velocity transforms were already in place.
 
Last edited:
A most awkward and unconventional way for a new physical law to present, and not the outcome I expected at all. I fully expected someone here to point out my mistake and go away embarrassed, my stupid physics homework problem from over 39 years ago solved. But no...
 
danshawen said:
I'm not confused, but I have exceeded the level of ability of anyone on this forum to help me to develop this as a new law of physics. Of this I am certain.
Click to expand...
Ophiolite said:
Except that Dan is smart enough to know he is not as smart as he thinks he is!
Click to expand...
I would have thought so... It almost seems that Dan is showing signs of dementia or something. It is troubling...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top