I'm treating this as an open-source physics project, if anyone would
like to join me at

http://killdevilhill.com/physicschat/wwwboard.html

The Theory of Moving Dimensions
Dr. Elliot McGucken

In this paper I propose that the time dimension is moving relative to
the three spatial dimensions. Such a concept may be used to explain
physical phenomena encountered in relativity and quantum mechanics,
while offering a path for the unification of Quantum Mechanics and
Relativity.

Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the time
dimension without that object gaining a velocity. Thus the time
dimension itself must be expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. Another way of looking at this is asking, "Why does
something always move when it is rotated out of the three spatial
dimensions and into the time dimension?" If someone can conduct a
Lorentz transformation on a ruler, and rotate it into the time
dimension without it moving through the three spatial dimensions, I
would very much like to hear about it.

Einstein's two postulates of relativity state:

I. The laws of physical phenomena are the same in all inertial frames.
II. The velocity of light in free space is a universal constant,
independendent of any relative motion of teh source and teh observer.

I propose that the two postulates may be expressed in an alternative
manner, by stating the following law of moving dimensions:

I. The time dimension is moving relative to the three spatial
dimensions.


This can be shown illustrated in several ways: Consider an expression
for the space-time interval of zero length, or of the null vector,
which traces a photon's path through space-time:

x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=0
or
x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2t^2

Which for one spatial dimension becomes
x^2=c^2t^2

or x=ct

by taking the derivative of both sides with respect to t, we get

dx/dt = d/dt (ct) = c

so

dx/dt = c

And hence the time rate of change of the spatial dimension relative to
the time rate of change of the time dimension is equal to the velocity
of light.

ct| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
|/_______________
x

Also, if we trace the path of a photon on a space-time diagram, the
only way for a photon to remain stationary in space time is to move at
the speed of light, or to keep up with the expanding time dimension.
The null vector, which represents a vector of zero length in
space-time, can only imply zero movement through space-time. Even
though a photon moves through space at a velocity equal to C, it stays
stationary in space-time. Is it not strange at first that in order to
remain stationary in space time, a photon appears move at the speed of
light through space? This is only because the time dimension itself is
moving relative to space.

Einstein proclaimed that all objects travel through space-time at c.
Even though we perceive a ruler along the x axis to be stationary, it
is yet traveling through space-time at the fixed speed of c, implying
that time is moving through it. Rotate it towards the y axis, and its
projection upon the x axis shortens, yet it still appears to be
stationary, and it is still traveling through space-time at the rate
of c. Rotate it into the time dimension, and it's projection along
the x axis still shortens, but now it begins to move through the three
spatial dimensions, while maintaining the fixed speed of c through
space-time. Again, we see it move through the three spatial
dimensions as it is rotated into the time dimension because the time
dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions.

As Brian Greene points out in the Appendix to Chapter 2 of The Elegant
Universe, we note that from the space-time position 4-vector
x=(ct,x1,x2,x3), we can create the velocity 4-vector u=dx/d(tau),
where tau is the proper time defined by
d(tau)^2=dt^2-c^-2(dx1^2+dx2^2+dx3^2). Then the "speed through
space-time" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u,
((c^2dt^2-dx^2)/(dt^2-c^-2dx^2))^(1/2), which is identically the speed
of light c. Now, we can rearrange the equation
c^2(dt/d(tau))^2-(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2 to be c^2(d(tau)/dt))^2
+(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2. This shows that an increase of an object's speed
through space, (dx/d(tau))^2)^(1/2)= dx/d(tau) must be accompanied by
a decrease in d(tau)/dt which is the object's speed through time,
which also may be considered the rate at which time elapses on it's
own clock d(tau) or the proper time, as compared with that on our
stationary clock dt.

As an object moves through space, it is rotated into the time
dimension, and less wave fronts of time are allowed to pass through it
relative to a stationary object, which bears the full brunt of wave
fronts. Thus a moving clock will run slower, as all clocks are based
on the probabilistic emission and propagation of photons, and as a
moving clock catches up with the expanding wavefront of time, the
chance that a photon will be emitted without being reabsorbed is
diminished.
Thus it is shown that the spatial and temporal dimensions are moving
relative to one-another. The laws and equations of relativity and
quantum mechanics rest upon this fundamental nature of physical
reality.

Relativistic and quantum mechanical phenomena can be accounted for by
the underlying nature of the relatively moving dimensions. Time
dialation, relativistic length contraction, and the equivalence of
mass and energy can all be seen to derive from this concept of moving
dimensions. The statistical wave nature of matter and energy also
rests upon the relative motion of the underlying dimensions.

As one rotates into the time dimension, one becomes more orthogonal to
the spatial dimensions, and thus one's length contracts. And too, as
the time dimension is moving relative to the spatial dimensions, one
begins to move.

Wave-particle duality and quantum mechanical probabilistic behavior
can be accounted for by the relative motion between the dimensions, in
which both particles and waves exist. Feynman's many-paths integrals,
reflecting the notion that a particle travels all paths, can be
accounted for by the fact that until it interacts with other matter in
the three spatial dimensions, there is a probability that a particle
or photon may exist as a pure wave, rotated into the fourth dimension,
moving along with expanding time, independent of the spatial
dimensions. So it is that radiowaves may pass through walls, carrying
energy and thus mass.

The second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy) can be accounted
for with the fact that all particles and matter have a chance of
existing in a dimension expanding at a constant rate, equally in all
dimensions, relative to the rest. The spherical symmetry of a photon's
wavefront may be viewed as the result of matter having been rotated
into the time dimension--the matter has become orthogonal to the
spatial dimensions, and it is now expanding along with time, equally
in all directions.

Einstein's second postulate, stating that the velocity of light is a
universal constant, holds to be true because the velocity of light is
merely the rate of propagation of a dimension relative to the other
dimensions. Although this relative rate of propagations between
dimensions may vary, we shall always interpret it as a constant,
because we are used to measuring the velocity of the propagation of
energy relative to the velocity of the propagation of energy, which we
write as c.

Relativistic time dialation occurs because as an object approaches the
speed of light, the object approaches the speed of the propagation of
energy. As time is measured with regards to the propagation of energy,
such as the emission of a photon (in an electrical circuit or a
mechanical spring) or or the occurence of a random event which
liberates energy, less time will pass for an entity which is
propagating at a rate which is close to the propagation of energy
itself. As an entity gains velocity, it is roated into the moving time
dimension, and it in a sense it catches up with the dimension.

Relativistic length contraction is always accompanied by an increase
in velocity, as the probability that each quantum of the object
resides in the time dimension is increased. Relativistic length
contraction can be accounted for by the fact that as an object gains
velocity its probabilistic wave function, or its essence, is rotated
into the time dimension, and thus it appears shorter from the
persepective of the three spatial dimensions. At the speed of light
the object would have to be a photon, so as to be completely absent
from the spatial dimension, as any presence or probability that a
particle is in the spatial dimnsion means that there is a probability
that the time dimension will expand without carrying it along, in
essence leaving it behind for that moment it exists in the spatial
dimension.

Any material entity gains more energy as its velocity increases, and
relativity demonstrates that the entity also gains more mass. When
energy is added to an entity, it may also appears as mass, as that
energy has a finite chance of interacting with the spatial dimensions.

All matter has a spatial component, or a probability of interacting
with space, whereas a photon only interacts with that which is in the
time dimension.

In order to cause an entity to move, quanta of energy must be added to
it, and the entity will thus gain a new probabilities for existing in
the space and time dimensions, as its overall wavefunction, including
its mass and energy, is rotated out of the spatial dimension and into
the time dimension. This rotation into the time dimension will be
proportional to the amount of energy that has been added.

As only photons can exist purely in the spatial dimension, no entities
but for photons can ever reach the speed of light, as all matter has a
finite chance of existing purely in the spatial dimension. This
property gives rise to the concept of mass, as to exist in the spatial
dimension curves the fabric of space-time about the existence.

An entity moves through space-time according to its probability of
existing in space and time. The more energy a given entity has, the
more likely it is to exist in the time dimension, or be moving along
in the dimension which is expanding relative to the spatial
dimensions. Hence its greater velocity, and also its augmented chance
of interacting with matter over a fixed distance. This increased
chance of interacting with matter over a given distance can be
associated with a shorter deBroglie wavelength or a higher frequency.
A more energetic photon has a higher frequency, as it is composed of
more substance, and more momenergy must pass a given point at any
given time. A less energetic photon carries less momenergy, and thus
there is a smaller chance of it interacting with matter as it passes
on by. A more energetic photon has a higher probability of interacting
with matter as it passes it by, as its shorter wavelngth and higher
frequency represent a greater, more persistant existence in
space-time.

A photon has no spatial dimensions, as it is matter rotated into the
time dimension. Einstein's famous equation which expresses the
equivalnce between matter and energy:

E=mc^2

holds true because radiative energy, consisting of photons, is merely
matter which has been rotaed tinto the expanding time dimension.

In quantum mechanics energy is accounted for by the operator which
represents the infinitesimal change with respect to time, while
momentum is accounted for by an operator which represents the
infinitesimal change with respect to space. Both momentum and energy
are defined with the concept of change and probability. And too,
inherent in all waves are the concepts of motion and probability.

Einstein's postulates derive from the fact that in all inertial
reference frames, the relative motions between the dimensions is fixed
at a constant rate, because the relative motion between the dimensions
is measured relative to the relative motion. Thus the laws of physics,
and all physical concepts, which are all fundamentally based on the
concept of motion or change with respect to time, are also fixed in
all interial frames, and the speed of light is constant in all
inertail frames.

As physics concerns itself at all levels with changes relative to both
space and time, it makes sense that all physics, time, motion,
reality, life, and consciousness itself are founded upon a stage which
is endowed with intrinsic motion.

The underlying fabric of all reality, the dimensions themselves, are
moving relative to one another.

I'm treating this as an open-source physics project, if anyone would
like to join me at

http://killdevilhill.com/physicschat/wwwboard.html

Ranger West wrote:

I'm treating this as an open-source physics project, if anyone would
like to join me at

http://killdevilhill.com/physicschat/wwwboard.html

The Theory of Moving Dimensions
Dr. Elliot McGucken

In this paper I propose that the time dimension is moving relative to
the three spatial dimensions.
[snip]

It ceased being meaningful with that sentence. If "time" moves then
it moves in a coordinate frame in which you can quantify its movement
[e.g., sqrt(/_\x^2 + /_\y^2 + /_\z^2) in Cartesian coordinates]. If
you cannot quantify its movement, how do you know that it moves at
all?

1) There are no global coordinate frames in covariant physical
reality, or in any tensor theory.

2) You are only addressing spatial homogeneity. What about spatial
isotropy? How do you know that time does not rotate vs. the spatial
coordinates? One unsupportable claim opens the way for all contingent
others.

3) If you need coordinates to describe the movement of a
coordinate, then you do not have a minimal basis set of orthogonal
coordinates - they can only move against a fixed primitive background
that is your real coordinate system. Go fix your mistake.


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
Ranger West wrote:

I'm treating this as an open-source physics project, if anyone would
like to join me at

http://killdevilhill.com/physicschat/wwwboard.html

The Theory of Moving Dimensions
Dr. Elliot McGucken

In this paper I propose that the time dimension is moving relative to
the three spatial dimensions.
[snip]

It ceased being meaningful with that sentence. If "time" moves then
it moves in a coordinate frame in which you can quantify its movement
[e.g., sqrt(/_\x^2 + /_\y^2 + /_\z^2) in Cartesian coordinates]. If
you cannot quantify its movement, how do you know that it moves at
all?

It did not cease to be meaningful with that sentence. Just because
something is new does not make it meaningless.


1) There are no global coordinate frames in covariant physical
reality, or in any tensor theory.

there doesn't have to be. Time expands relative to the three spatial
diemnsions.


2) You are only addressing spatial homogeneity. What about spatial
isotropy? How do you know that time does not rotate vs. the spatial
coordinates? One unsupportable claim opens the way for all contingent
others.

Occam's razor.


3) If you need coordinates to describe the movement of a
coordinate, then you do not have a minimal basis set of orthogonal
coordinates - they can only move against a fixed primitive background
that is your real coordinate system. Go fix your mistake.

If dimensions can curve relative to one another, then dimensions can
move relative to one another.

Eisntein showed that as a mass moves through space-time, it warps
space-time, thus warping dimensions.

If dimensions could not stretch and bend relative to smooth
dimensions, then all of GR would be a fallacy.

All I'm saying is that time is naturally expanding at the rate of c
through the three spatial dimensions. It explains a lot, as accounted
for in the rest of my paper. Please read it.

& please answer these questions:

Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the time
dimension without that object gaining a velocity. Thus the time
dimension itself must be expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. Another way of looking at this is asking, "Why does
something always move when it is rotated out of the three spatial
dimensions and into the time dimension?" If someone can conduct a
Lorentz transformation on a ruler, and rotate it into the time
dimension without it moving through the three spatial dimensions, I
would very much like to hear about it.

"Ranger West" wrote in message
om...
Uncle Al wrote in message
...

There is NO time or spacetime dimension. There is only continuity
of space and particles. Relativity is alone relative rate of change of
position in space and relative rate of change of state IN the continuum
of the continuity called our universe.




from: Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

"Ranger West" wrote in message
om...
Uncle Al wrote in message
...
Ranger West wrote:

snip

In this paper I propose that the time dimension is moving relative to
the three spatial dimensions.
[snip]

It ceased being meaningful with that sentence. If "time" moves then
it moves in a coordinate frame in which you can quantify its movement
[e.g., sqrt(/_\x^2 + /_\y^2 + /_\z^2) in Cartesian coordinates]. If
you cannot quantify its movement, how do you know that it moves at
all?

It did not cease to be meaningful with that sentence. Just because
something is new does not make it meaningless.

True. The total absence of meaning of your clause "the time dimension is
moving relative to the three spatial dimensions" has nothing to do with its
novelty and everything to do with the ignorance of the concept of "motion"
reflected in its composition.

Motion is *BY DEFINITION* a change of position as a function of time. Time
and space are the metrics against which all motion is measured.

1) There are no global coordinate frames in covariant physical
reality, or in any tensor theory.

there doesn't have to be. Time expands relative to the three spatial
diemnsions.

"Expansion" of time is measured using what instruments, and against what
references???

2) You are only addressing spatial homogeneity. What about spatial
isotropy? How do you know that time does not rotate vs. the spatial
coordinates? One unsupportable claim opens the way for all contingent
others.

Occam's razor.

Which tells us you know nothing about what Uncle Al said. Ockham's razor is
called for when unnecessary postulates are used. Your postulation of
"motion" of time relative to space is unnecessary. It is even illogical.

3) If you need coordinates to describe the movement of a
coordinate, then you do not have a minimal basis set of orthogonal
coordinates - they can only move against a fixed primitive background
that is your real coordinate system. Go fix your mistake.

If dimensions can curve relative to one another, then dimensions can
move relative to one another.

You are also ignorant of analytical geometry. A circle has curvature
relative to almost everything, yet it need not "go" anywhere. In geometry
"curve" is not a verb but an adjective.

Eisntein showed that as a mass moves through space-time, it warps
space-time, thus warping dimensions.

Einstein showed us that mass *exists* in space time and that all motion is
relative. Space is curved near the mass.

All I'm saying is that time is naturally expanding at the rate of c
through the three spatial dimensions. It explains a lot, as accounted
for in the rest of my paper.

Describing time as a fourth dimension perpendicular to the three
conventional dimensions and scaled by a factor of sqrt(-1)*c explains a lot
more.

One can convert observations of electromagnetic phenomena in any inertial
frame of reference into other inertial frame of reference with a simple
combination of coordinate translations and rotations that give rise to the
generalized Lorentz transforms. IOW, if a charge is stationary in one frame
of reference (representable by a diagonal tensor), then its representation
in another frame of reference which is moving at a constant velocity WRT the
first frame (which can be obtained by rotation of the four-dimensional
space-time coordinate system) is obtained and is represented by a
generalized four-tensor with the diagonal elements describing the electric
charge and the off-diagonal elements describing the magnetic field. The
applicable operators (translation, rotation, the d'Alembertian) are
distributive and linear, so any number of charges and any combination of
motions that can be represented in one frame can be perfectly characterized
in another frame.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/dAlembertian.html

Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the time
dimension without that object gaining a velocity.

Simply put, but backwards. TYou have the cart pulling the horse.

Imparting a linear velocity to an object changes the frame of reference in
which it can be considered stationary to one which has been rotated in the
x-t plane with respect to the first frame.

Thus the time
dimension itself must be expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions.

That simply does not follow from your premise.

Another way of looking at this is asking, "Why does
something always move when it is rotated out of the three spatial
dimensions and into the time dimension?"

Again, you have it backwards. You should ask, why does the frame of
reference in which an object is considered stationary always rotate when the
object is moved?

If someone can conduct a
Lorentz transformation on a ruler, and rotate it into the time
dimension without it moving through the three spatial dimensions, I
would very much like to hear about it.

You are talking about "rotation in time" as if is was a physical process
applied to the *object* and not to the *frame of reference*.

*Velocity* is what is done to the _object_, which leads to *rotation* of the
_frame of reference_.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Hello Tom,

I'm not arguing with Tensor analysis.

"tadchem" wrote in message ...
"Ranger West" wrote in message
om...
Uncle Al wrote in message
...
Ranger West wrote:

snip

In this paper I propose that the time dimension is moving relative to
the three spatial dimensions.
[snip]

It ceased being meaningful with that sentence. If "time" moves then
it moves in a coordinate frame in which you can quantify its movement
[e.g., sqrt(/_\x^2 + /_\y^2 + /_\z^2) in Cartesian coordinates]. If
you cannot quantify its movement, how do you know that it moves at
all?

It did not cease to be meaningful with that sentence. Just because
something is new does not make it meaningless.

True. The total absence of meaning of your clause "the time dimension is
moving relative to the three spatial dimensions" has nothing to do with its
novelty and everything to do with the ignorance of the concept of "motion"
reflected in its composition.

Motion is *BY DEFINITION* a change of position as a function of time. Time
and space are the metrics against which all motion is measured.

Absolutely. So we can measure the movement of time against space.
Time expands at the speed of light with respect to space.


1) There are no global coordinate frames in covariant physical
reality, or in any tensor theory.

there doesn't have to be. Time expands relative to the three spatial
diemnsions.

"Expansion" of time is measured using what instruments, and against what
references???

Use a photon. A photon is rotated completely into the time dimension.
In one second, it will be 3x10^8 meters from its starting point.

You can use many different detectors to detect the photon, and a laser
to generate it.


2) You are only addressing spatial homogeneity. What about spatial
isotropy? How do you know that time does not rotate vs. the spatial
coordinates? One unsupportable claim opens the way for all contingent
others.

Occam's razor.

Which tells us you know nothing about what Uncle Al said. Ockham's razor is
called for when unnecessary postulates are used. Your postulation of
"motion" of time relative to space is unnecessary. It is even illogical.

Why is it illogical? New ideas are always unnecessary, aren't they?

3) If you need coordinates to describe the movement of a
coordinate, then you do not have a minimal basis set of orthogonal
coordinates - they can only move against a fixed primitive background
that is your real coordinate system. Go fix your mistake.

If dimensions can curve relative to one another, then dimensions can
move relative to one another.

You are also ignorant of analytical geometry. A circle has curvature
relative to almost everything, yet it need not "go" anywhere. In geometry
"curve" is not a verb but an adjective.

You misunderstood me. As the earth orbits the sun, it curves the
spacetime in its immediate vacinity. As it passes a point, it
stretches the spacetime. When it leaves the point, the spacetime
relaxes. Hence the spacetime becomes more curved and then less curved
relative to neighboring spacetime. Thus space and time can move
relative to other space and time. All I'm saying is that time moves
relative to space--it's really not all that new.


Eisntein showed that as a mass moves through space-time, it warps
space-time, thus warping dimensions.

Einstein showed us that mass *exists* in space time and that all motion is
relative. Space is curved near the mass.

Yes, he did. Yes, space is curved near the mass. And as the mass
passes, the space curves more, and then curves less. Relative to
what? Relative to flat spacetime.


All I'm saying is that time is naturally expanding at the rate of c
through the three spatial dimensions. It explains a lot, as accounted
for in the rest of my paper.

Describing time as a fourth dimension perpendicular to the three
conventional dimensions and scaled by a factor of sqrt(-1)*c explains a lot
more.

Of course it does.


One can convert observations of electromagnetic phenomena in any inertial
frame of reference into other inertial frame of reference with a simple
combination of coordinate translations and rotations that give rise to the
generalized Lorentz transforms. IOW, if a charge is stationary in one frame
of reference (representable by a diagonal tensor), then its representation
in another frame of reference which is moving at a constant velocity WRT the
first frame (which can be obtained by rotation of the four-dimensional
space-time coordinate system) is obtained and is represented by a
generalized four-tensor with the diagonal elements describing the electric
charge and the off-diagonal elements describing the magnetic field. The
applicable operators (translation, rotation, the d'Alembertian) are
distributive and linear, so any number of charges and any combination of
motions that can be represented in one frame can be perfectly characterized
in another frame.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/dAlembertian.html

Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the time
dimension without that object gaining a velocity.

Simply put, but backwards. TYou have the cart pulling the horse.

Who made you the God that determines cause and effect in this case?

Imparting a linear velocity to an object changes the frame of reference in
which it can be considered stationary to one which has been rotated in the
x-t plane with respect to the first frame.

So very true on a mathematical level. But what is really happening on
a physical level?



Thus the time
dimension itself must be expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions.

That simply does not follow from your premise.


Yes it does.

Another way of looking at this is asking, "Why does
something always move when it is rotated out of the three spatial
dimensions and into the time dimension?"

Again, you have it backwards. You should ask, why does the frame of
reference in which an object is considered stationary always rotate when the
object is moved?

Again, who made you the absolute God to dictate what questions I
should ask?


If someone can conduct a
Lorentz transformation on a ruler, and rotate it into the time
dimension without it moving through the three spatial dimensions, I
would very much like to hear about it.

You are talking about "rotation in time" as if is was a physical process
applied to the *object* and not to the *frame of reference*.

*Velocity* is what is done to the _object_, which leads to *rotation* of the
_frame of reference_.

You're stopping at simple mathematical analyisis.

Hell yes, acceleration is a physical process applied to an object. I
don't accelerate my car's reference frame when I step on the gas--I
accelerate the car.
And the reference frame follows. Long before physicists conceived of
reference frames, the universe was happy to move.

A rotation in time, also known as a "boost," is a physical process
resulting in the object accelerating.

Simply put, one cannot rotate an object into time without that object
gaining velocity.

Thus the time dimension must be moving relative to thre three spatial
dimensions.

Dr. Elliot McGucken




Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"Ranger West" wrote in message
om...
Hello Tom,

I'm not arguing with Tensor analysis.

"tadchem" wrote in message
...

snip

"Expansion" of time is measured using what instruments, and against what
references???

Use a photon. A photon is rotated completely into the time dimension.
In one second, it will be 3x10^8 meters from its starting point.
You can use many different detectors to detect the photon, and a laser
to generate it.

That is fine for detecting a photon, but what about *measuring* the
"expansion of time?" You *say* the photon is "rotated completely into the
time dimension" - does that mean it has no spatial dimension, not even a
direction?

What of objects that are not "rotated into the time dimension?" Are they
totally devoid of temporal extent - appearing and disappearing from physical
reality in the same instant?

I am *trying* to get you to DEFINE the terms you are using - terms such as
"rotation" as you are applying it to rotating objects into the time
dimension.

Why is it illogical? New ideas are always unnecessary, aren't they?

No. New ideas are necessary when observations (such as the advance of the
perihelion of Mercury Einstein considered or the independence of
gravitational acceleration on mass observed by Galileo) are not adequately
described by current ideas.

You are also ignorant of analytical geometry. A circle has curvature
relative to almost everything, yet it need not "go" anywhere. In
geometry
"curve" is not a verb but an adjective.

You misunderstood me. As the earth orbits the sun, it curves the
spacetime in its immediate vacinity.

Curvature of spacetime near the earth is due simply to the proximity of the
earth and is independent of the motion of the earth around the sun. Even
Newton recognized that gravitation varied with the masses and the distance
involved, NOT with the velocity.

As it passes a point, it
stretches the spacetime. When it leaves the point, the spacetime
relaxes.

This fails to *quantitatively* explain the measured curvature of spacetime
at points NOT directly in the path of the earth, or at points a significant
distance such as points of the orbit of the moon.

Can you come up with something that depends on the earth's velocity that is
at least as accurate as F = -G*M*m/r^2 with respect to physical
measurements?

Hence the spacetime becomes more curved and then less curved
relative to neighboring spacetime.

Spacetime curves and un-curves as the masses come and go. OK.

Thus space and time can move
relative to other space and time. All I'm saying is that time moves
relative to space--it's really not all that new.

Non sequitur. Measurements are made within frames of reference, as
comparisons between ARBITRARY points - usually one point identifying the
object of interest and one point identifying the frame of reference of an
observer. Are you measuring a point representing one space (and/or time)
against a point representing another space (and/or time)?

I still can't picture what you must be imagining as you say "space and time
can move relative to other space and time."

Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the time
dimension without that object gaining a velocity.

Simply put, but backwards. TYou have the cart pulling the horse.

Who made you the God that determines cause and effect in this case?

Excuse me! I simply forgot that I own no devices capable of applying a
velocity to an object because there is no such thing. What I actually own
is a 1992 Chevrolet Lumina with a V_6 Space-time Coordinate System Rotation
and Translation Transformation Inductor. When I turn it on and properly
adjust and control it, it is capable of rotating and translating space-time
coordinate systems, resulting in the illusion of velocity.

Interestingly, it is capable of rotating coordinate systems further into
time or further away from time, but not completely into time (the speed of
light, ot infinite speed you tell me) or completely out of time (stasis as
described by the great hyperphysicist Larry Niven).

Imparting a linear velocity to an object changes the frame of reference
in
which it can be considered stationary to one which has been rotated in
the
x-t plane with respect to the first frame.

So very true on a mathematical level. But what is really happening on
a physical level?

A little Demon hired by Maxwell is directing subatomic particles into
different directions depending on their surface curvature and/or life
expectancy.

Thus the time
dimension itself must be expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions.

That simply does not follow from your premise.


Yes it does.

Show me how. What is the expansion rate as a function of the angle of
rotation? What happens of the angle is reversed? What angle of rotation
will take an object completely out of time? Define your variables, show
*all* your work in the mathematical derivation of the expansion-rotation
correlation.

Again, who made you the absolute God to dictate what questions I
should ask?

Think of me not as a God but as the Devil's Advocate.

If you know whereof you speak, you should have no trouble addressing my
queries with something other than an ad hominem counter-stroke - something
substantive.

*Velocity* is what is done to the _object_, which leads to *rotation* of
the
_frame of reference_.

You're stopping at simple mathematical analyisis.

No. That is where we must START. The mathematical analysis will lead to
quantitative (read "testable") predictions. The outcome of these tests will
determine whether an hypothesis is valid or not.

Hell yes, acceleration is a physical process applied to an object. I
don't accelerate my car's reference frame when I step on the gas--I
accelerate the car.
And the reference frame follows. Long before physicists conceived of
reference frames, the universe was happy to move.

I am glad you see it even that clearly - "the reference frame follows". Can
you accept then that the physical motion is the more proximal cause of the
observed effects, and that the "reference frame" is an arbitrary imposition
by the observer?

When a tree falls in the forest, it disturbs the air. Whether or not is
"makes a sound" depends on whether the word "sound" is defined in terms of
the oberver (the psychological/perceptual definition) or the motion of air
(the physicakl/mechanical definition).

A rotation in time, also known as a "boost," is a physical process
resulting in the object accelerating.

Simply put, one cannot rotate an object into time without that object
gaining velocity.

Where can I obtain a "time-rotation induction device?"

Thus the time dimension must be moving relative to thre three spatial
dimensions.

Moving in what direction? How fast? What device can take my frame of
reference and rotate it in a forward or backward time direction?

Dr. Elliot McGucken

Dr. of what, may I ask? I have worked with many "doctors" of many different
kinds, and the only ones I have known (so far, anyway) who insisted on using
the formal appelation in informal discourse did so out of insecurity,
because they though that it bought them some small measure of respect.

The last "McGucken" I met owned a hardware store in Boulder, Colorado - a
VERY successful hardware store. I respected that.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA