wrote:
Hello All,

Please respect that Moving Dimensions Theory is just a theory.

Please respect the restrictions on length of subject title.

Here's a good analogy of "surfing a wave" that sheds light on Moving
Dimensions Theory.

Surfing a Dimension: The Birth of Moving Dimesnions Theory

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=60

A few years back, while surfing a towering wave on the Outer Banks of
North
Carolina, a beautiful thought occurred to me. Suppose the wave I was
riding
represented a coordinate in a dimension. Then although I was
approaching
shore, I was not moving in this dimension. The dimension itself was
moving--I was stationary with respect to this dimension, but moving
relative to other dimensions. I was "surfing" a moving dimension.

The General Postulate of Moving Dimensions Theory: The
fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions.

In a flash I saw that that is why photons never age--they are moving
along
with the fourth dimension, and thus stationary relative to the fourth
dimension, while moving at the velocity of light relative to the three
spatial dimensions.

And behold! I saw that "moving dimensions" explained the equivalence
of
mass and energy. E=mc^2 arose because whenever matter "surfs" the
expanding time dimension, it appears as energy in the three spatial
dimensions.

In another flash I saw that that is why a photon's space-time interval
is
represented by a null vector, or a 0, no matter how far it travels
through
space.

Indeed, in his special theory of relaitivty, Einstein stated that an
object's velocity through space-time is always c. This means that even
objects stationary in the three spatial dimensions yet have a velocity
c
through the fourth dimension. How could this be unless the fourth
dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions? Even
"stationary" objects sitting on your desk are traveling at the velocity
c
through time! How could this be were it not that the fourth dimension
is
traveling at the vecolicty c relative to the object that is stationary
in
the three spatial dimensions?


Thus there exists a fourth expanding dimension, which matter can surf
as
photons, giving rise to our notion of time, as well as the equivalence
of
mass and energy in E=mc^2. And so it is that Moving Dimensions Theory
was
born as the wave crested and crashed about me, thundering on down, as I
fought to remain surfing amidst the foam, facing the setting sun
silhouetting the Hatteras light.

What Does It Mean For A Dimension to Move?
Einstein's well-regarded theory of General Relativity inherntly
necessitates the reality of moving dimensions. And yet some trained
physicists have a knee-jerk reaction that the fourth dimension cannot
be
moving because "dimensions cannot move."

But dimensions can and do move relative to one-another.

First off, since the universe is expanding, space-time is also
expanding,
demonstrating that dimensions are moving and expanding. Secondly,
general
relativity demonstrates that massive objects warp space-time, meaning
that
as a massive object moves though space-time, it stretches space-time,
showing again that space-time in one area can move, or deform, relative
to
space-time in another area. GR is a sound theory, backed up with
multiple
high-profile experiments, including the demonstration that starlight is
bent by the sun and the verification that orbiting stars radiate energy
in
the form of gravity waves. Thus there exist neither philosophical nor
physical barriers to the concept of moving dimensions, but for
artificial
ones within lazy minds.

A curious sign of the times is that some physicists will accept on
blind
faith the existence of ten, twenty, or thirty dimensions, dimensions
that
are curled up, or too small to measure, and yet they will reel in shock
and
horror at a perfectly obvious postulate--the fourth dimension is
expanding
relative to the three spatial dimensions.

The Purpose of Physics
The purpose of physics has ever been to unify diverse physical
phenomena with simple postulates, laws, and formulas reflecting the
deeper physical reality. MDT unifies relativity and quantum mechanics
by positing that they are both emergent properties of moving
dimensions. MDT's simple postulate-the fourth dimension is
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions-offers the first
satisfactory explanation of the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) effect
and the nonlocal behavior inherent to the math and physical reality of
quantum mechanics. Time itself is viewed not as the fourth dimension,
but as an emergent phenomena arising from the expansion of the fourth
dimension relative to the three spatial dimensions. This logic
alleviates a confusion of time with an actual fourth dimension where
one can travel back and forth at will, thus addressing Godel's,
Einstein's, Hawking's, Barbour's, and Penrose's concerns about
frozen time, and accounting for time's relentless arrow, the second
law of thermodynamics, and entropy.

More on my theory may be found below:

The General Postulate of Moving Dimensions Theory: The
fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions.

Questions Addressed by Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT):

Why is the speed of light constant in all frames?

Why are light and energy quantized?

Why does matter display both wave and particle
properties?

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics?
What causes entanglement?

Why does time stop at the speed of light?

What underlies the gravitational redshift?

How come a photon does not age?

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same
thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?

Why are mass and energy equivalent?

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points
in? Why entropy?

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts
traveling with the velocity c?

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of
relativity?

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?

What underlies the laws of Inertia?

Why does general relativity fail at short distances?
Why does quantum mechanics dominate at short distances?

Why have so many great minds, Einestin, Godel, Wheeler,
Hawking, and Penrose called for a new conception of time?

What underlies all motion? What is the geometry of
motion that is missing in GR?

Why is time-reversal invariance violated?


If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope
for it. --Albert Einstein

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders
of giants. --Isaac Newton

Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, felt that the
pioneer scientist must have "a vivid intuitive
imagination, for new ideas are not generated by
deduction, but by artistically creative imagination."

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way
by gradually winning over and converting its opponents:
What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out.
--Max Planck


Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT)

Today I am writing regarding Moving Dimensions Theory--a
deeper model for explaining diverse phenomena in both
quantum mechanics and relativity.

The General Postulate of Moving Dimensions Theory: The
fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions.

The Specific Postulate of Moving Dimensions Theory: The
fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions at the rate of c in quantized units of
the Planck length.

Relativistic, classical, and quantum mechanical
phenomena, as well as time itself, are emergent
properties of this fundamental principle. Newton's laws,
the principle of Inertia, Einstein's postulates, and the

http://physicsmathforums.com
http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=60

The time measurement is said to be about 13.7 billion years.

The space measurement in a line observed is approximately 13.7 billion
times 9.7 trillion kilometers.

The ratio is one to one, space to time. The average velocity of so-called
expansion is c. Never anything greater, never anything less, cosmological
constant. No expansion.

The far distant collapsed horizon--yet to be observed--does not change.
Does not evolve. Never has changed. Never will change. Zero change. Zero
evolution. Zero time.

As with Earth's horizon we are not in the distant horizon we observe from
wherever we are on the surface of the Earth. As with Earth's horizon we most
certainly are one with its horizon. That horizon is not here where we stand,
obviously. Here where we stand is integral to that horizon, obviously. I
flatly contradict myself but I make two true statements none-the-less.

Immediately prior to the so-called Big Bang, the so-called naked
singularity supposedly had infinitesimal breadth indistinguishable from zero
and infinite depth indistinguishable from one. Sometime or other it is
supposedly to acquire infinite breadth indistinguishable from one and
infinitesimal depth indistinquishable from zero (infinite mass or density
indistinguishable from one (massive) to infinitesimal mass or density
indistinguishable from zero (massless)). Foolish humbug! Flummery!

A finite being can never, will never, observe directly--nor directly
detect in anyway--an infinite Universe (U). The infinite, as well as the
infinitesimal, is outside the bounds of relativity, outside the bounds of
relative universe (u). Pure unadulterated arrogance leads would be
omniscient gods to tell the rest of us that nothing is outside the bounds of
relativity. There is no place or point or horizon of breakdown or collapse
of relativity with regard to the home of these gods, Mount Olympus.

In distant horizon there is an apparent(!) merger of everythingness in
zero time--to include G, EM, SI, and WI. The horizon fronts infinite, at
once inclusive of the infinite. It also fronts infinitesimal, at once
inclusive of infinitesimal. The same permanent horizon fronts both infinite
and infinitesimal and is inclusive of both--in and to zero time or better
yet, in cosmological constancy. The same ever unchanging horizon of
relativity's breakdown. The same collapsed horizon. Finite universe (u) is
always in opposing position (or opposing dimension) to infinite Universe
(U)...as the stark clarities of individualism stands always in opposing
position to the uniformly featureless gray blob of communism.

We (general term "we" to include anything and everything finite and
individual) are outside the distant horizon of everythingness and
nothingness in opposing position to it. At once we are inside that same
[universal] [uniform] horizon being one with it. That same permanently
distant permanent horizon (zero time: timeless) is at once distantly inside
us.

Zero time, timelessness, that which would be the time of an infinite
Universe, is Universal Mean Time as I see it. It is of a piece with a
distant collapsed horizon from anywhere and everywhere that does not change,
does not evolve, does not progress, does not regress, does not shift in
space nor time (does not move)....

This the above is just my own interpretation of the picture. My own
deductions.

GLB

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Hpc9f.495920$x96.310591@attbi_s72...
The time measurement is said to be about 13.7 billion years.

The space measurement in a line observed is approximately 13.7 billion
times 9.7 trillion kilometers.

The ratio is one to one, space to time. The average velocity of so-called
expansion is c. Never anything greater, never anything less, cosmological
constant. No expansion.

The far distant collapsed horizon--yet to be observed--does not change.
Does not evolve. Never has changed. Never will change. Zero change. Zero
evolution. Zero time.

As with Earth's horizon we are not in the distant horizon we observe from
wherever we are on the surface of the Earth. As with Earth's horizon we
most certainly are one with its horizon. That horizon is not here where we
stand, obviously. Here where we stand is integral to that horizon,
obviously. I flatly contradict myself but I make two true statements
none-the-less.

Immediately prior to the so-called Big Bang, the so-called naked
singularity supposedly had infinitesimal breadth indistinguishable from
zero and infinite depth indistinguishable from one.

If you are going to incomprehensibly waffle on at least make an attempt to
get the facts correct. In modern times the inflationary epoch is what is
called the big bang and it does not start out from a singularity.

Rest of rubbish snipped.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Hpc9f.495920$x96.310591@attbi_s72...
The time measurement is said to be about 13.7 billion years.

The space measurement in a line observed is approximately 13.7 billion
times 9.7 trillion kilometers.

The ratio is one to one, space to time. The average velocity of
so-called expansion is c. Never anything greater, never anything less,
cosmological constant. No expansion.

The far distant collapsed horizon--yet to be observed--does not change.
Does not evolve. Never has changed. Never will change. Zero change. Zero
evolution. Zero time.

As with Earth's horizon we are not in the distant horizon we observe
from wherever we are on the surface of the Earth. As with Earth's horizon
we most certainly are one with its horizon. That horizon is not here
where we stand, obviously. Here where we stand is integral to that
horizon, obviously. I flatly contradict myself but I make two true
statements none-the-less.

Immediately prior to the so-called Big Bang, the so-called naked
singularity supposedly had infinitesimal breadth indistinguishable from
zero and infinite depth indistinguishable from one.

If you are going to incomprehensibly waffle on at least make an attempt to
get the facts correct. In modern times the inflationary epoch is what is
called the big bang and it does not start out from a singularity.

Rest of rubbish snipped.

Bill




Are you inflationary? If it is an inflationary Universe then you are
inflationary.

GLB

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Fke9f.527667$xm3.313929@attbi_s21...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Hpc9f.495920$x96.310591@attbi_s72...
The time measurement is said to be about 13.7 billion years.

The space measurement in a line observed is approximately 13.7 billion
times 9.7 trillion kilometers.

The ratio is one to one, space to time. The average velocity of
so-called expansion is c. Never anything greater, never anything less,
cosmological constant. No expansion.

The far distant collapsed horizon--yet to be observed--does not change.
Does not evolve. Never has changed. Never will change. Zero change. Zero
evolution. Zero time.

As with Earth's horizon we are not in the distant horizon we observe
from wherever we are on the surface of the Earth. As with Earth's
horizon we most certainly are one with its horizon. That horizon is not
here where we stand, obviously. Here where we stand is integral to that
horizon, obviously. I flatly contradict myself but I make two true
statements none-the-less.

Immediately prior to the so-called Big Bang, the so-called naked
singularity supposedly had infinitesimal breadth indistinguishable from
zero and infinite depth indistinguishable from one.

If you are going to incomprehensibly waffle on at least make an attempt
to get the facts correct. In modern times the inflationary epoch is what
is called the big bang and it does not start out from a singularity.

Rest of rubbish snipped.

Bill




Are you inflationary? If it is an inflationary Universe then you are
inflationary.

For the rest of us maybe - but in your case since you obviously have no
brain there is nothing to inflate. If you want a serious discussion myself
and others are happy to oblige. If you want to act the idiot then you will
be treated accordingly.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Fke9f.527667$xm3.313929@attbi_s21...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Hpc9f.495920$x96.310591@attbi_s72...
The time measurement is said to be about 13.7 billion years.

The space measurement in a line observed is approximately 13.7 billion
times 9.7 trillion kilometers.

The ratio is one to one, space to time. The average velocity of
so-called expansion is c. Never anything greater, never anything less,
cosmological constant. No expansion.

The far distant collapsed horizon--yet to be observed--does not
change. Does not evolve. Never has changed. Never will change. Zero
change. Zero evolution. Zero time.

As with Earth's horizon we are not in the distant horizon we observe
from wherever we are on the surface of the Earth. As with Earth's
horizon we most certainly are one with its horizon. That horizon is not
here where we stand, obviously. Here where we stand is integral to that
horizon, obviously. I flatly contradict myself but I make two true
statements none-the-less.

Immediately prior to the so-called Big Bang, the so-called naked
singularity supposedly had infinitesimal breadth indistinguishable from
zero and infinite depth indistinguishable from one.

If you are going to incomprehensibly waffle on at least make an attempt
to get the facts correct. In modern times the inflationary epoch is
what is called the big bang and it does not start out from a
singularity.

Rest of rubbish snipped.

Bill




Are you inflationary? If it is an inflationary Universe then you are
inflationary.

For the rest of us maybe - but in your case since you obviously have no
brain there is nothing to inflate. If you want a serious discussion
myself and others are happy to oblige. If you want to act the idiot then
you will be treated accordingly.

Bill




I included a disclaimer in my first response. My view. My deductions. You
ignored it. Apparently you can not comprehend a disclaimer.

I know about the revision to the view that the so-called Big Bang has no
particular starting point in space, cannot be placed in space, but has a
particular starting point in time and that is what the line or arrow of
continuity runs from to anywhere in space including Earth. Astronomers are
locating fully developed galaxies closer and closer to the point in time
claimed for the so-called Big Bang. Evasively, the claim of cosmologists
becomes the whole process of development to maturity occurred vastly faster
in space and time back then than is the nature now. There is nothing wrong
with cosmology. There is something very wrong with cosmologists. Soon it
will be that--according to cosmologists--in one instant in time there was
the Big Bang and in the very next instant in time there formed fully
developed, mature, galaxies. At that moment cosmology will become strictly
comparable to astrology as nothing more nor less than idiocy.

We view innumerable histories out there all right, but none of them are
our history. No arrow of time there. None of those universes are our
universe--past or present.

Again, these are strictly my views. I'm not into totalitarian state
political correctness. Time turns over continuously upon a hub of zero. It
is not expansionist.

GLB

wrote in message
oups.com...

You have not confronted this statement:

Why do you need a 4th expanding dimension to emerge the illusion
of time?

Simply, existing space can be considered to be expanding spherically
and that itself would create the continuity of the universe, no time
or time dimension or 4th dimension required. The three spacial
dimensions being thus three expanding spacial dimensions.




Spirit of Truth

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

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:beh9f.496362$x96.166893@attbi_s72...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Fke9f.527667$xm3.313929@attbi_s21...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Hpc9f.495920$x96.310591@attbi_s72...
The time measurement is said to be about 13.7 billion years.

The space measurement in a line observed is approximately 13.7
billion times 9.7 trillion kilometers.

The ratio is one to one, space to time. The average velocity of
so-called expansion is c. Never anything greater, never anything less,
cosmological constant. No expansion.

The far distant collapsed horizon--yet to be observed--does not
change. Does not evolve. Never has changed. Never will change. Zero
change. Zero evolution. Zero time.

As with Earth's horizon we are not in the distant horizon we observe
from wherever we are on the surface of the Earth. As with Earth's
horizon we most certainly are one with its horizon. That horizon is
not here where we stand, obviously. Here where we stand is integral to
that horizon, obviously. I flatly contradict myself but I make two
true statements none-the-less.

Immediately prior to the so-called Big Bang, the so-called naked
singularity supposedly had infinitesimal breadth indistinguishable
from zero and infinite depth indistinguishable from one.

If you are going to incomprehensibly waffle on at least make an attempt
to get the facts correct. In modern times the inflationary epoch is
what is called the big bang and it does not start out from a
singularity.

Rest of rubbish snipped.

Bill




Are you inflationary? If it is an inflationary Universe then you are
inflationary.

For the rest of us maybe - but in your case since you obviously have no
brain there is nothing to inflate. If you want a serious discussion
myself and others are happy to oblige. If you want to act the idiot then
you will be treated accordingly.

Bill




I included a disclaimer in my first response. My view. My deductions. You
ignored it. Apparently you can not comprehend a disclaimer.

I know about the revision to the view that the so-called Big Bang has no
particular starting point in space,

Your pretentious incohernet ramblings indicate otherwise.

cannot be placed in space, but has a particular starting point in time
and that is what the line or arrow of continuity runs from to anywhere in
space including Earth.

The principle of continuity does not demand that time suddenly sprang from
nothing.

Astronomers are locating fully developed galaxies closer and closer to the
point in time claimed for the so-called Big Bang. Evasively, the claim of
cosmologists becomes the whole process of development to maturity occurred
vastly faster in space and time back then than is the nature now.

You are rambling innocently again - sorry - my mistake - you have never
displayed coherence to begin with.

There is nothing wrong with cosmology. There is something very wrong with
cosmologists. Soon it will be that--according to cosmologists--in one
instant in time there was the Big Bang and in the very next instant in
time there formed fully developed, mature, galaxies.

That has never been the claim.

Bill

At that moment cosmology will become strictly comparable to astrology as
nothing more nor less than idiocy.

We view innumerable histories out there all right, but none of them are
our history. No arrow of time there. None of those universes are our
universe--past or present.

Again, these are strictly my views. I'm not into totalitarian state
political correctness. Time turns over continuously upon a hub of zero. It
is not expansionist.

GLB

glbrad01 wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Fke9f.527667$xm3.313929@attbi_s21...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"glbrad01" wrote in message
news:Hpc9f.495920$x96.310591@attbi_s72...
The time measurement is said to be about 13.7 billion years.

The space measurement in a line observed is approximately 13.7 billion
times 9.7 trillion kilometers.

The ratio is one to one, space to time. The average velocity of
so-called expansion is c. Never anything greater, never anything less,
cosmological constant. No expansion.

The far distant collapsed horizon--yet to be observed--does not
change. Does not evolve. Never has changed. Never will change. Zero
change. Zero evolution. Zero time.

As with Earth's horizon we are not in the distant horizon we observe
from wherever we are on the surface of the Earth. As with Earth's
horizon we most certainly are one with its horizon. That horizon is not
here where we stand, obviously. Here where we stand is integral to that
horizon, obviously. I flatly contradict myself but I make two true
statements none-the-less.

Immediately prior to the so-called Big Bang, the so-called naked
singularity supposedly had infinitesimal breadth indistinguishable from
zero and infinite depth indistinguishable from one.

If you are going to incomprehensibly waffle on at least make an attempt
to get the facts correct. In modern times the inflationary epoch is
what is called the big bang and it does not start out from a
singularity.

Rest of rubbish snipped.

Bill




Are you inflationary? If it is an inflationary Universe then you are
inflationary.

For the rest of us maybe - but in your case since you obviously have no
brain there is nothing to inflate. If you want a serious discussion
myself and others are happy to oblige. If you want to act the idiot then
you will be treated accordingly.

Bill




I included a disclaimer in my first response. My view. My deductions. You
ignored it. Apparently you can not comprehend a disclaimer.

I know about the revision to the view that the so-called Big Bang has no
particular starting point in space, cannot be placed in space, but has a
particular starting point in time and that is what the line or arrow of
continuity runs from to anywhere in space including Earth. Astronomers are
locating fully developed galaxies closer and closer to the point in time
claimed for the so-called Big Bang. Evasively, the claim of cosmologists
becomes the whole process of development to maturity occurred vastly faster
in space and time back then than is the nature now. There is nothing wrong
with cosmology. There is something very wrong with cosmologists. Soon it
will be that--according to cosmologists--in one instant in time there was
the Big Bang and in the very next instant in time there formed fully
developed, mature, galaxies. At that moment cosmology will become strictly
comparable to astrology as nothing more nor less than idiocy.

We view innumerable histories out there all right, but none of them are
our history. No arrow of time there. None of those universes are our
universe--past or present.

Again, these are strictly my views. I'm not into totalitarian state
political correctness. Time turns over continuously upon a hub of zero. It
is not expansionist.

GLB

I support your "hub of zero" argument.
The one-directional nature of time points to the mathematical
conception of time as one-signed numbers rather than two-signed (real)
numbers. Upon deeper inspection of sign an identity relation reveals
that for any magnitude x:
- x = 0
in the one-signed case, just as
- x + x = 0
in the two-signed (real) case.
So there is your hub of zero, the conception of the present, the
graphically immeasurable time. It does retain a context of
one-directional flow. With one-signed numbers there is no such thing as
subtraction as there is with the real numbers. Accumulation yields only
larger and larger values. Yet all of these larger values evaluate to
zero when a graphical analysis is attempted.

Furthermore sign can be increased. In three-signed numbers
- x + x * x = 0.
These are two-dimensional entities that happen to be equivalent to the
complex numbers. A product for polysigned numbers exists.
(See http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html)
The product appears broken by magnitude behavior beyond sign three.
The natural progression
P1, P2, P3, ...
yields spacetime.
All of this is covered in greater detail on my website.
-Tim