My (Discovered) Unified Field Theory

George Gamow in his book “Thirty Years That Shook Physics” states the following. “It was once suggested by Dirac that Newton’s “constant of gravity” is not really a constant but a variable which decreased in inverse proportion to the age of the Universe. And he may very well be right!”

Dirac never discovered a viable model that worked. I have.

I can confidently state the following.

All the fundamental laws or principles of physics are based upon a geometric expansion of Spacetime.

The following properties of nature are predicted.

1. The inverse square law as a property of spacetime
2. The principles of Conservation of momentum and conservation of Energy are geometrically determined.
3. The speed of light is geometrically determined by an extra dimensional expansion which also produces the E = mcc relationship.
4. The relationships of Quantum Physics are the result of the probabilistic expansion of space-time a “grain” at a time.
5. Since the model predicts physical properties of quantum physics and the inverse square law, the long sought for theory that unites quantum physics with gravitational physics is realized. What Einstein and so many others tried to do is now done. (I am being a bit brash, but I think it is the only way I can get some attention. The mainstream will just ignore me otherwise.)
6. The model is consistent with the observations and relationships associated with Special and General Relativity but the geometry is significantly different.
7. It resolves many of the astrophysical problems associated with the big bang.
8. No dark energy and no dark matter are needed.

The basic geometry can be described in two parts, but both parts are based upon the same set of field equations.

The basic geometry; Part 1

First a few definitions.

There are two dimensions of time.

Relative time - This is the time interval between points as expressed by the speed of light. It is also the local measure of intervals of time.

Absolute time - Also called Cosmic time or more meaningfully, Historical time. This dimension of time demarcates a point’s location historically. The movement of creation (The big bang if you wish) marks the beginning of time and from that moment on every location in spacetime has a unique moment in history. We each occupy a unique place in time that no one else can ever have. This is truly a unique independent measure of time.

The basic geometry

A volume of spacetime varies to the square of the absolute time elapsed. If you double the age of the universe the volume enclosed increased 4 times. Simple isn’t it.

This is a uniform expansion, which means that everything is expanding at this rate, even rulers. Traditionally such an expansion has been argued as being trivial, if everything remains proportionally the same, nothing has changed. However, objects in the past would be denser and thus the effect of gravity would be more powerful in the past. If the Earth were 1/2 it’s present diameter, the effect of gravity on the surface would be increased 4 times. The effect of gravity diminishes with the passage of time, just as Dirac and Gamow believed.

S = Volume of Spacetime
S == T^2

The volume of any object is a distance measure cubed times some constant,
D^3 x k = S = A Volume of spacetime. Combining the relationships results in the following

D^3 = k T^2

[size=3]Note; this is the exact form of Kepler’s Law.
Actually, the theoretical model truly produces Kepler’s law. It will be shown that this is indeed the relationship predicting the inverse square law required for celestial stability. Kepler’s law, which was experimentally established, is now theoretically predicted from a geometric model. Epistemologically, this is as important a relationship as E= mcc, or e = hv

Rewriting the above equation we get

D = k T^(2/3)

Taking the first derivative with respect to absolute time we get how the absolute velocity will vary for two points in spacetime

V = k (2/3) / T^1/3

Similarly for Acceleration we get

A = (-k 2/9)/T^(4/3)

We do not know the value for k but since this is a geometrically described rate of expansion it is possible to state that at a particular time, T1, points in spacetime are a particular distance D1. Similarly at another later time, T2, the objects are at location D2. Dividing the two relationships by each other eliminates the constants resulting in

D1/D2 = (T1/T2)^(2/3)

Similarly for Velocity and Acceleration we get

V2/V1 =(T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 = (T1/T2)^(4/3)

These formulas are actually field formulas in that they describe, in absolute measures, the properties of an object when associated with a point in free space. (Free space means that no other unaccounted force is acting.)

The Ratios of Time
(Capitol letters indicate “absolute measures”, 1 and 2 are earlier and later measures respectively)
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)

E = energy, which for now can be considered just the square of the velocity term but this relationship is valid for all forms of energy.

There are two important checks that need to be made; will celestial stability be preserved and will relative measures of time be preserved.

Celestial Stability and the Laws of Physics.
Two objects proportionally expanding maintain their relative distances so it is only from an “eye of God” perspective that such an expansion can be visualized. The laws of physics should be consistent, irregardless of the observer’s perspective. The question is, will such an expansion preserve celestial stability for both an “absolute” observer and a “relative” observer? If the Earth were expanded away from the Sun, the Gravitational Force would be reduced more than the Centrifugal force, resulting in the destruction of the solar system. Any theoretical expansion must preserve celestial stability for both the “eye of mankind” and the “eye of God”.

Centrifugal force must equal Gravitational force; The laws of physics are consistent.

Assuming two orbiting systems start with a stable orbit, will the stability be preserved by absolute measures?

Centrifugal force varies as

CF = = V^ 2/R
Gravitational Force varies as
GF = = 1/ R^2
== means proportional to, for the masses involved

Centrifugal force must equal Gravitational Force for stability

CF = GF
V^ 2/R = 1/ R^2
According to the Ratio of times formulas, the absolute velocity and absolute distance varies over the passage of absolute time. If one plugs in how the proposed measures of absolute velocity and absolute distance vary over time, it is found that the necessary celestial balance is preserved no matter what two measures of T1 and T2 are considered.

Example
Centrifugal Force1/Centrifugal Force2 =
Gravitational Force1/Gravitational Force2, which =
(V1/V2)^2/(D1/D2) = (D2/D1)^2

Substituting the ratios of time field temporal relationship for the velocity ratios, and for the Distance ratios, transforms
(V1/V2)^2/(D1/D2) = (D2/D1)^2 , to
((T2/T1)^(1/3))^2 / (T1/T2)^(2/3) = ((T2/T1)^(2/3))^2
(T2/T1)^(4/3) = (T2/T1)^(4/3)
(I used a slight “trick” here, I wonder if anyone catches it. Hint, it is not in the algebra, it is in the application of the relationships).

Theoretical model produces inverse square law structure of spacetime

Newton’s Law of Gravitation establishing the inverse square law for gravity is experimentally derived. Similarly the inverse square law observed for electromagnetic and electrostatic relationships are experimentally established. It is not based upon a theoretical model. For example, Einstein’s Energy equation, E = mcc, was theoretically derived, it was not initially determined by experimental observations. The proposed geometric model does predict inverse square relationships for spacetime.

The proof, deriving the inverse square law
According to the uniform expansion model
A1/A2 = (T2/T1)^4/3 and R2/R1 = (T2/T1)^2/3

From the above equation it can be seen that by squaring the relationship that predicts how the radius between two objects changes with the expansion of spacetime will produce the same relationship that predicts the acceleration associated with the same points. Acceleration varies according to the square of the distance measures.

(R2/R1)^2 =( (T2/T1)^2/3 )^2 = A1/A2 = (T2/T1)^4/3

This theoretical model produces a field structure that is consistent with producing the inverse square relationships of space-time.
Actually the inverse square law is being predicted. A geometric model is producing the inverse square laws as a property of spacetime.

Preserving Relative measures of time.
It is easy to see that a uniform expansion maintains relative distance measures; proportionally everything remains the same. Our relative measure of time is another matter, for this model to be correct, all relative measure of time must also keep their relative measures. From an Absolute perspective outside the expansion, relative time is slowing down, but since all relative measures of time are all slowing down at the same rate, relative measures of time are perceived as constant.

In order to preserve a constant measure of relative time, all clocks or physical processes, according to Absolute measures, must also slow down at the same exact rate.

Lets see if this is true

First a light clock
Imagine a light clock, which is simply a tube with mirrors on each end, with some kind of source and a detector. The time it takes for light to travel a cycle in the tube describes and interval of time. According to the proposed relationships, in absolute measures, the velocity of light slows over the passage of cosmic time as well as the length of the tube increases. This means that a relative interval of time is slowing down in absolute measures.

If one looks at the relationships in a light clock, the relative intervals of time vary as

delta t2/delta t1 = T2/T1 ,
(The reader can derive this relationship. Use the Ratio of Times formulas for V for the speed of light and the length of the light clock).

If the age of the universe were to double, the absolute measure of time associated with a cycle in the light clock would also double. (The speed of light “slows” and the length of the clock increased.).

If one applies the Ratio of Times formulas to an orbiting system, the same change in relative intervals would be found, double the age of the universe and it the absolute orbital interval takes twice as long, based on absolute measures, to complete the orbit.

If one applies the Ratio of Times formulas to a pendulum, even though the form of the equations are drastically different, the same exact slowing exists, double the age of the universe and it takes twice as long for a pendulum to swing a cycle.

If one considers a spinning planet, the same time relationships are predicted. Double the age of the universe and it takes twice as long to describe a revolution.

No matter what system is considered, even ones that require relativistic considerations, the relative measure always remain locally the same.

Using a geometric model that is based upon an “eye of God” perspective, some very fundamental relationships are being established. Relative clocks are keeping their relative measures. This corresponds to establishing the principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. All relative measures of distance and time are established and conform to a geometric expansion of spacetime using an “Eye of God” perspective.

“Before God we are equally wise – and equally foolish”
Albert Einstein

Snowflake

Cool!! Has it been accepted for publication???

Just a little question: how is an "eye of God" perspective possible in a universe where relativity applies?

Oh I talked to 'em... and got confirmation... 8)

Hi Lurker

Thank you for the positive response. It means a lot to me.

My experience has been that “mainstream” theorists are so entrenched in General Relativity that if any model alters gravity with out using tensors, they simply ignore you. However once it looks like others are listening to your ideas (Thank God for Grad students), they begin to pay attention. You have helped me more than you know. Thank you.

Regarding publishing, I have made several presentations of various aspects of the theory (The 8th Gravitational conference at Wake Forest in NC, a poster board and oral presentation at MIT, and 2 presentations at the American Physical Society’s Convention in Florida.) All that will come out of these presentations is a publication that lists the abstracts. I have recently been to the Natural Philosophical Society convention and they expressed interest in publishing at least one of the papers in it’s entirety. (A few years ago I tried to have the work published in a mainstream journal but it was rejected. The reason was “It was too simple to be true”. )

Again, thanks.

John AKA snowflake

Hi Gullible Jones

You asked

Just a little question: how is an "eye of God" perspective possible in a universe where relativity applies?

Relativity still applies. I have done nothing to alter any of the mathematical relationships of relativity.

Snowflake

Gullible Jones

I looked at my response and it did not quite answer your question.

Lets say we draw dots on a rubber membrane. All these dots represent points in the metric of relativity. Each point is separated by a relative measure of distance and each point is separated by a relative measure of time.

Now lets expand the membrane. Since this is a uniform expansion, all rulers are proportionally expanded, so all relative measures of distance have stayed the same. As I showed in the paper posted here, all relative measures of time also stay the same. So based upon relative measures, everything stays the same. All the relationships of relativity still work. I have not changed them one bit.

Now if one has a little imagination, it is not too hard to assign your perspective of the membrane expanding to that of an “eye of God” perspective watching spacetime expanding.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge”
Albert Einstein

Snowflake

Superb logic and deduction, Snowflake. I had always suspected that the speed of light was slowing down and, if it was an intrinsic part of the nature of the universe, derivable from first principles. Unfortunately, I never had the mathematical wizardry, or gusto, to work it out.
Are you saying, as I believe, that the speed of light is extra-dimensional and therefore the only non-expanding ruler, ie, as we expand it remains the same consequently appearing to shrink.
For your next trick, can you determine a formula for the speed of light, and it's diminishing variability, to extrapolate an age of the universe. Good confirmation if it correlates with accepted values.
Keep up the good work, this is very exciting stuff.

I suppose that the hyperspacial "eye of God" perspective would work, in this case... But what about establishing that same perspective for the higher dimension? Wouldn't that require an infinite number of dimensions?

People have been making more or less accurate measurements of the strength of gravity for a a couple of centuries now. If you want to be taken seriously you should used these published resources to place an upper bound on the rate of space-time expansion and show that it is compatible with your theory. Bonus points for using Kepler's observations of Mars.
True for spheres and cubes. Not true for cylinders (V = k z r^2) or ellipsoids (V = k a b c), or are you just doing dimensional analysis? If so even the dimensional analysis wouldn't be correct for objects with fractal surfaces. You did say any object didn't you?
That should be:

V = k (2/3) / T^-1/3
A = (-k 2/9)/T^(-4/3)

This may just be a typo, since you give an apparently correct expression for V2/V1 and A2/A1 latter on.
Do you have any justification for why you take the ratio D1/D2 for distances but then take the inverse ratio for the velocities and accelerations: V2/V1 A2/A1? It looks entirely arbitrary and the danger is that given enough arbitrary manipulations to can turn almost any equation into almost any other equation. You really need to provide some physical reasoning for the flip.

Snowflake is right is his derivations. V = dD/dT = k (2/3) * T^(-1/3) = k (2/3) / T^(1/3) and A = dV/dT = (-k 2/9)*T^(-4/3) = (-k 2/9)/T^(4/3). 2/3 - 1 = -1/3, and that's on top. Same thing for the next derivative. (I'm being detailed here for my own benefit as well as anybody else's since it's currently 3am.)

I was going to correct these, but I didn't read the LHS well at first. It might make for a better presentation if you used the same ratios in all four of these equations, snowflake (i.e. D2/D1 = (T1/T2)^(-2/3) ).

Also, you wrote, "E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)," but said that energy was the square of the velocity. Wouldn't it be "E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)" instead?

My mistake. I didn't see the quotient symbol (even while I was cutting and pasting).

What cause in this theory an expansion. Does the time T has an energy to overcome gravity ?.

How do you explain that the expansion acceleration begins 6 billions years ago and the expansion as it is since 14 billions years ago ?

OK, you've got a real problem here. A velocity has two properies: magnitude and direction. Since you have previously defined V = dR/dt, all you have is the radial component of a velocity. However, the velocity that should get plugged into CF is the component of the velocity perpendicular to the radial component. See for example this definition of angular velocity. Plugging in the radial component of velocity is simply incorrect, and none of your previous equations provide any value for the component of velocity perpendicular to the radial component.

Ok i'm a layperson, and eve i have some problems with your theroy here.

It's with the algebra, your formulas are only accountin for 1 of your two time dimensions. It either the Local time, or the absoute time, but not both.

When you ploting in a 5 dimensional contruct, all the dimensions should be acounted for, if if there is no change in motion in one of them.

IE for a three dimensions but only with motion along two, i come up with a formula of lV = (X^2 + Y^2 + (Z^2 = 0))^1/2

For a 4D Space time, I come up with a formula of lV = (X^3 + Y^3 + Z^3 + T^3)^1/3

In a five dimensional costruct, I come up with something like.
lV = (X^4 + Y^4 + Z^4 + LT^4 + AT^4)^1/4

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

I've been lurking here for about a year. Made a point to register tonight just to say that I think this thread is very interesting and, AFAIK, credible. Good job!

When I was 11, I used to take long walks pondering the mystery of the 1837:1 ratio of the mass of the proton to the electron. I degenerated and became a lawyer. But I still love thinking about this stuff. I have always intuited that gravity changed over time, and it's interesting to read a theory about that here.

__________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

To all the kind people who reviewed this work and are waiting for a response, I would like to assure you that I shall be responding soon. I have most of Monday free and I will respond then. I have to work this weekend.

Thankfully yours,
Snowflake

Hi Senor Molinero

Thank you for your kind words.

You stated

"Are you saying, as I believe, that the speed of light is extra-dimensional and therefore the only non-expanding ruler, ie, as we expand it remains the same consequently appearing to shrink. "
I did not think of explaining it that way, but I guess you could. The speed of light slows down, based upon absolute measures. The speed of light always appears to be constant locally and it gives an accurate historical “absolute” measure of “look back time”.

You also stated, “can you determine a formula for the speed of light, and it's diminishing variability, to extrapolate an age of the universe. Good confirmation if it correlates with accepted values. “

First, I must admit that the proposed model is not complete. Why are the distance measures for the force of gravity so much larger than the distance measures associated with electromagnetic forces? Why does the proton have so much more mass than an electron even though they carry the same magnitude of charge? There has to be some geometry here that I am missing. (But I believe all these constant relationships are based upon a geometric process).

However, the rate of the expansion of spacetime is geometrically tied to the speed of light and results in establishing Hubble’s varying rate of expansion. The expansion is Flat, (Minkowski or Friedman cosmology). The age of the univese is 2/3 1/Ho but the details of this requires a bit more than a simple post. I am rechecking my work and I am fairly certain that no dark energy is necessary and no dark matter is necessary.


John

Hi Gullible Jones
You stated,

I suppose that the hyperspacial "eye of God" perspective would work, in this case... But what about establishing that same perspective for the higher dimension? Wouldn't that require an infinite number of dimensions?

I suppose you could stack dimensional relationships upon dimensional relationships. The only rule that I would like is that each dimensional relationship would correspond to some physical measure of the reality we observe.

John

Hi Tobin Dax
You said

"Also, you wrote, "E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)," but said that energy was the square of the velocity. Wouldn't it be "E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)" instead?"

Yes you caught a typo, thank you very much. I wish I could say I left it in deliberately to see if anyone was really checking the algebra but I missed it in my proofing of the paper before I posted it. At least I said what I wanted the expression to look like correctly. This is a serious enough of a mistake that I do not want it lost in a long post.

John

Tobin Dax Continued

You said

(I'm being detailed here for my own benefit as well as anybody else's since it's currently 3am.)

O.K. I’m curious about this. “your” benefit? Your help has been selfless, are you just a “good Samaritan” living out your creed or is there some way some of the ideas expressed help your ideas?

Snowflake

Hi czeslaw

You asked
"What cause in this theory an expansion. Does the time T has an energy to overcome gravity ?.

How do you explain that the expansion acceleration begins 6 billions years ago and the expansion as it is since 14 billions years ago ?"

There are three questions in your post
1. The Cause
2. Overcoming gravity
3. Explain varying Expansion rates

1. The cause
I do not know the cause of the expansion . A “God did it” answer is a copout. What appears to be happening is that spacetime is like a “sponge” and the universe is expanding geometrically from a very compressed state.
2. Overcoming gravity
The expansion of the Universe in this model is “Flat”, meaning that the rate of expansion is exactly equal to the rate necessary to counteract the effect of gravity such that after an infinite amount of time has elapsed, the rate of expansion will become 0.

3. Explain the appearance of varying expansion rates.
The reason the “mainstream” states that the universe is presently accelerating, and in the past was decelerating, is based upon the assumptions of the model they use and comparing it to the observation. There are two mistakes that they make. 1. Their model does not include an “offset” due to galactic distance. 2. Their model does not have the cause of the cosmological red shift right and the assumed cosmological variation in velocity is not quite right.

The offset
In the mainstream model the universe begins as one “singularity”. In the proposed model the universe instead begins as multiple singularities with each galaxy the “point” where matter enters highly compressed volume of spacetime. In a uniform expansion the relative distance between the galaxies is fixed (barring local dynamic interaction). For example, in the past when the universe was 1/2 it’s present size, all the galaxies become half sized and the distance between the galaxies becomes 1/2 of what it presently, so there is this fixed relative distance between galaxies that the mainstream is not accounting for. This “fixed” relative distance between galaxies introduces an offset to the model.

The red shift
The cause of the red shift is due to expansive motion along an unobserved dimension. Just as we can imagine a Flatland universe moving in an unobserved dimension, our universe is in motion along an unobserved dimension. It is the varying velocity along this unobserved dimension that is responsible for the cosmological red shift. The variation in the “unobserved” velocity of the universe is from expansion and it conforms to the same geometrically expressed relationships found in the proposed Ratios of Time formulas.

I almost did not mention this “unobserved dimension” since it introduces another level of complexity. Introducing this rather wild idea of motion along an “unobserved dimension” without also showing how this extra complexity results in a very simple explanation for the properties of inertia and Einstein’s “intrinsic energy” of a rest mass, seems a bit capricious. This “unobserved motion” along and “unobserved dimension” is really the second part of the geometry that I have yet to explain in detail, but the laws and relationships are consistent with the model being proposed.

Snowflake

Hi CharlesEGrant

Issue 1. Problem with gravity varying over time.
You said
“People have been making more or less accurate measurements of the strength of gravity for a a couple of centuries now. If you want to be taken seriously you should used these published resources to place an upper bound on the rate of space-time expansion and show that it is compatible with your theory. Bonus points for using Kepler's observations of Mars. “

The gravitational constant is constant; the effect of gravity is not since density decreases with the passage of time. The effect of gravity varies far beyond any observed “bounds” you are referring to but it takes a difference in cosmological measures of time to discern a variation.

I gave the “proof” in which two orbiting bodes that started in a stable orbit preserved their orbit, which therefore keeps the gravitational constant “constant”. The model even predicted Kepler’s law. However, what is inferred in your question, I belief is this, what would these orbiting bodes look like when observed over cosmological distances? Shouldn’t it be possible to see this increased effect of gravity? The answerer is yes, and if one did not account for it, one would assign massive black holes in the center of orbiting stars observed in the core of our galaxy and have to add dark matter to keep spiral galaxies in orbit.

I realize that stating that the model negates the need for dark matter is meaningless without the figures. So for now it is simply an unsubstantiated claim.

John

Hi CharlesEGrant

Problem with Velocity

Another good point you brought out was about velocity.

You said.

“OK, you've got a real problem here. A velocity has two properies: magnitude and direction. Since you have previously defined V = dR/dt, all you have is the radial component of a velocity. However, the velocity that should get plugged into CF is the component of the velocity perpendicular to the radial component. See for example this definition of angular velocity. Plugging in the radial component of velocity is simply incorrect, and none of your previous equations provide any value for the component of velocity perpendicular to the radial component.”

This is an excellent point and you are absolutely right. I was wondering if anyone would catch that oversimplification. Out of showing this derivation to over 150 people in the last few months of seminars and conferences, you are the first to catch this. Very astute.

Just to make sure everyone knows the issue, in the derivation of the Ratio of Time formulas the rate that distance measures vary over time was given as

D = k T^(2/3), gives the distance between two points as a function of absolute time.

When the derivative was taken to get velocity
V = k (2/3) / T^1/3
Which would be the change in velocity between the two points in absolute time.

However, when I checked for Celestial stability, the variation in the velocity was not the radial velocity but the actual velocity of the object at the time.

Similarly the acceleration expression is not the relative acceleration between the two points, but the actual acceleration the objects are experiencing.

In order to resolve this issue I need to explain the physical characteristics of the model.

Imagine balloon that is full of air. The contents in under pressure, which corresponds to a tension in the surface of the balloon. Now lets say we could expose the surface of the balloon to a physical process that causes the balloon to “relax”, its modulus of elasticity is decreased. The balloon would correspondingly expand outwards, and the molecules of air in the balloon that would normally be hitting the receding walls of the balloon would correspondingly have their “rebound” velocity diminished. This reduction in the velocity would be averaged out and a drop in the average velocity of the air in the balloon would directly correspond to a drop in temperature in the balloon. There would be a loss of energy within the balloon.

This time imagine a volume of spacetime and it is expanded, again there is a corresponding loss of energy. In this model the membrane is apart of the structure of space itself.

(Side bar explanation; How to make a three dimensional membrane. If you take a piece of paper and crumple it up, it’s fractal dimension is 2.5, half way between a plane and a solid. Sufficiently, (and correctly) crumple a theoretical piece of paper, it will eventually closely conform to a three dimensional volume).

Now when the “fabric of space” is expanded, the velocity of all things, (electrons to planets to galaxies), will be diminished. The direction of the velocity has nothing to do with the process since direction has nothing to do with energy loss; it is only the magnitude of the velocity that is involved. I have often thought that the proper name for the proposed model is “The Geometry of Energy Loss”.

(It is possible to use an “extra dimensional” geometric explanation by defining the “absolute dimension of time” as perpendicular to the relative time between points, which would correspond to changes in velocity perpendicular to the relative time interval between points. This kind of mind warping dimensional explanations take on an artificial feel and are not that meaningful. Energy relationships are independent of direction and provide a better grasp of what is happening. )

If you still do not like the derivation, just play with the relationships a little to see if they work. Allow the velocity and acceleration to vary as proposed because I am asking as nicely as I can. Assume the relationships for how velocity and acceleration vary over absolute time are not derived but simply stated as properties of spacetime. If you do, you will find that all relative measures of distance and time will be preserved, so no harm is done, every thing locally will stay the same.

The benefit of such an allowance is significant, the inverse square law becomes a characteristic of spacetime (theory predicts observation) and the effect of gravity becomes a function of cosmic time, to mention a few.

John

Hi Dgavin

You stated
“Ok i'm a layperson, and eve i have some problems with your theroy here.

It's with the algebra, your formulas are only accountin for 1 of your two time dimensions. It either the Local time, or the absoute time, but not both.

When you ploting in a 5 dimensional contruct, all the dimensions should be acounted for, if if there is no change in motion in one of them.

IE for a three dimensions but only with motion along two, i come up with a formula of lV = (X^2 + Y^2 + (Z^2 = 0))^1/2

For a 4D Space time, I come up with a formula of lV = (X^3 + Y^3 + Z^3 + T^3)^1/3

In a five dimensional costruct, I come up with something like.
lV = (X^4 + Y^4 + Z^4 + LT^4 + AT^4)^1/4 “

Regarding relative or absolute time I try to be consistent in the terms used. Lower case letters refer to relative measures and Capitol letters are Absolute. What I tried to do is show that the rules of physics will be consistent no matter which reference system is used, Absolute or relative. For example Celestial stability has to be preserved in each case.

Regarding the dimensional construct, this can be a bit tricky since some of the dimensional relationships are not apart of our observation.

What is interesting, for a layperson, your incorporation of time as one of the dimensions, which is consistent with the philosophy in general relativity.
It appears that your incorporation of an additional dimension is that of conventional models, ie an extra dimension is a spatial dimension. My model is bit different in that the extra dimension does not relate to the other dimensions based upon the Pythagorean theorem.

For example,
Take an object and double its size and double size of the ruler, everything locally has remained the same. In order to describe this change one needs another measure of length.

Take a pendulum and an atomic clock to measure the length of the “cycle”. Double the interval of the time for both the pendulum and the clock so locally all measures of time have remained the same. One needs another measure of time.

These additional measures of distance and time must conform to reality in such a way as to preserve dynamic structure.

Snowflake

Hi Bruce

Thanks for your positive response. It truly means a lot to me. Eventually the Mainstream guys will jump in and try to discredit the ideas. It should get interesting.

It is a kind of war, like all stupid wars. Think like I think, and if you do not, we will either destroy you or invalidate your existence by ignoring you.

Again, thank you

John

It came from a coding project during my time in the army. I had to code for a 10 dimensional construct, back when no programming language could handle array's over three dimensions. To figure out how to code it right with the language limitations, I had to get and understand of how 1-d related to 2-d, then to 3-d, then to 4-d. I sort of stumbled onto the realsation when thinking about movement in the different contructs, that there is a simple rule to follow. Movement in 1-D is X, in 2-d is (X^1+Y^1)^1/1, so on so forth, upto the 10-D construct at a power of 9.

Once i nailed that down, i was able to write a sorting algorythym for the 10-D data that was not only extrememly fast, but could properly sort the data across the array (dimensional) boundries.

To order the data using the machines sort routine took around 48 hours and 90 passes over the base data file to get it arranged properly into the 10-D contruct. When i did it with a dimensional move algorythym, was able to properly order the base data into the construct in less then an hour and in a single pass.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Yes, expanding 4 dimensionally... moving in two directions... at 90 degrees to each other... and most importantly.. slowing down.

Have you read my post.. "unification".. its right next door.. its alot of images, but i think you should give it a read, as i feel convinced that you of all people shall see the coerilation with your proposals and mine.
its facinating,..
Exactly.. Pi and such.. it rules the foundation of all motion.
Exactly.. its ruled by the 4D motion of space..
and in the next phase, or set of dimensional rise we have matter formation.
What do you mean by "grain"?

-MT

Hi Mosheh Thezion

There are some common concepts in our work. We share some common ideology in that we believe the universe is based upon some kind of order. Also, I always like presentations that include drawings, and graphs.

You asked
What do you mean by "grain"?

I’ll answer that as a separate posting.

Snowflake.

The Casimir Effect

The physical explanation for quantum physics becomes more realistic under the proposed uniform expansion model. Consider the Casimir effect.

The Casimir effect is an observed attraction between two plates that are extremely close to each other.

The following is part of a description of the Casimir effect from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

“The Casimir effect is caused by the fact that space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that continually form out of nothing and then vanish back into nothing an instant later. “

Alternatively, I would state the following;
The Casimir effect is caused by the fact that spacetime is expanding a small “piece” at a time. As this “grain” of spacetime integrates itself on the existing structure of reality, small displacements are induced.

These grain like expansions would appear to be “virtual” or “imaginary” since the cumulative effect locally appears to result in no change what so ever. Double the size of an atom and double the size of your ruler and everything virtually appears to have remained the same.

Note, in no way are the formulas associated with Quantum Physics being changed, just the physical explanation.

Since the proposed uniform expansion is consistent with a physical explanation for quantum physics, and it introduces the inverse square law as a property of spacetime, Quantum physics and Gravitational physics are being established from the same model. This is therefore a unified field theory.

Snowflake.