To me a Lorentz Transformation describing motion over time for a single measurable observed event must and only can occur in one World Line.( x,y,z,t ) And it has been proven that these coordinates are not absolute and they can vary from one World Line to the next. But is it possible the real universe consists of one absolute X,Y,Z, and T that contains an infinite number of relative world lines. On the popular show “Looking Through the Worm Hole” they showed a couple of physicists that have a somewhat similar theory.  But I do not believe they have fully described their views. What if there was an absolute Time and what is the relationship between ours and it?

I really wish we could see more advanced visuals that would simulate a 4 dimension world. I know it is hard to comprehend since we can not really visualize anything greater than a 3d world.  If you can imagine a 1 dimensional world of a line, I would state motion within it is actually x,t. And a two dimensional world is not just x,y but x,y,t. And three dimensions is and always will be x,y,z,t.

But to start to visualize multiple World Lines including our own within a larger Universal Cube were there exists an Absolute Time (T) that our relative time (t) and all other world line’s t share. And if this is the case, can any measurement that we make to map the entire universe be based on our WL’s x,y,z,t that may have altered over time based on our velocity and or acceleration relative to the true Original Singularity’s Universal Time? Is it possible to understand what the true absolute values of X,Y,Z,T are?

Advertisements

If both time and space are relative than it is a given that the velocity of light must be relative to the observers world line. And the consequences of traveling faster than the speed of light is all based on a lie/mistake. You can not have a Lorentz Transformation with the observer frame not moving forward in time.

This train of thought brings me back to when I first stated this. And I was told the fact they are relative makes the velocity of the speed of light a constant. To them that was the point. But after countless hours of investigating this  and in the process finding a glowing error in a pivotal assumption of causality the only true point is that a single world lines observation is the truth within the confines of that world line.  Each observer with respect to their own world line will observe c to be close enough to a constant given slight medium variations to give it the term ‘Constant’.  But the point is you can not compare apples to oranges and one world line’s observation is not unequivocally the same as an others.  So A is B and B is C so A is C is not true when crossing world lines…

Time is as real as space. But neither are can be measured universally. And both are only relevant to one’s own world line. Just as time can not move in reverse space can not be measured as a negative value. Not Really Controversial Is It?

This is a very interesting article. Very well done. While reading this it made me think of the often quoted story about a ball traveling through a two dimensional world. If both space and time exist only within one’s own world line and are standard only to one particular frame of reference maybe it is the 5th dimension that ties the other 4 together transcending both space and time.

http://www.mrelativity.net/VBForum/showthread.php?247-Velocity-Addition-Mystery-Solved

This was written a few years ago but it seems to be some of the more interesting banter on why using the displacement equation for relative velocity is using acceleration versus constant velocity.  It would make sense that since an accelerating bodies displacement would be a curve that you would need calculus to determine the displacement. But computing two object’s relative velocity within a time frame of both of them moving at the same “CONSTANT” velocity away from each other would not required anything more than simple math. IF they are traveling at the same velocity time is the same.

I still believe this all went south when they used a Cartesian coordinate system with the time axis not moving to lay the foundation of the Lorentz Formula dictating that if you travel faster than an object that doesn’t seem to be effected by time you will in effect go back in time.

I really enjoyed the web sites author Joseph A. Rybczyk wording on how he approaches the subject with an open mind as opposed to most of the scientists that seem to just make the math work without questioning the foundation of the question and answers they are supporting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

I still can not back away from this. I find it to be wrong and misleading. As I stated earlier the use of a Lorentz Transformation with a time axis that is static as all other axes move forward is the basis for this error. And even if our best particle accelerators can not push matter faster than the speed of light it doesn’t mean anything. Since I do believe that if the power is stopped in the accelerator the particles do NOT continue forward at a constant velocity.  But if matter was accelerated in space and the propulsion was turn off the matter would continue at a constant velocity. And to any observer on this matter they would appear to be motionless. So if more propulsion was then applied the speed would increase without limitations except to how fast it could accelerate  Not its velocity as compared to its original starting point.

Please let it go and start trying to understand the universe is not tethered to our frame of reference.

Best,

Rick

This article really struck me. During the last year just getting a “Mainstream” physicist to provide me with more insight into their unwavering believe that the speed of light is a universal constant has been outrageously difficult.  (Although I do appreciate the few who have replied to me. It is very nice to know not all of them are condescending )  And to now read they can’t even agree with themselves makes me think there is still a possibility that since both space and time are relative that maybe they have all over looked this as they stare at the data from their equipment. One day I hope we will all agree we can not impose our space and time on all of either the largest or the smallest of what makes up our universe.

Best,

Rick