Re: Postulate #1: Time Dilation
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: Sea Squid: "Peak Oil - Is there any possibility of burning coal in the automobile?"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles"
- In reply to: Ron Poteet: "Re: Postulate #1: Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Postulate #1: Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:49:45 +0100
Ron Poteet wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> For over thirty years I've been studying the unresolved questions in
> physics. Each time a new question appears it adds a new hint to the
> unresolved issues of physics. A few months ago while I was reading a book on
> the history of the square root of minus one I had an incredible moment of
> insight; during that moment the room that I was sitting in turned blue, I
> experienced an incredible feeling of excitement and euphoria. It was a
> moment of absolute clarity and certainty. I thought for a moment that I was
> having a stroke. But after a period of about five seconds I realized that I
> had discovered the answer to the problems which had intrigued me for so
> long: that answer was that matter, energy and time has multiple dimensions!
>
> I worked on it for a couple of sleepless weeks and developed a complete and
> concise theory which I call MEAT, for Matter, Energy And Time; the MEAT of
> physics. Simply put the theory is as follows: "Matter, energy and time are
> conserved quantities. They exist in multiple dimensions. All matter moves as
> matter waves of energy in imaginary dimensions of time. Particles of mass
> are stationary and exist in a real dimension of time."
>
> That's it. Of course, between the lines of those few short sentences is a
> lot of new physics.
>
>
> Let's start with the conservation of time: if time were not conserved we
> would have run out of it a long time ago. We wouldn't exit and neither would
> the cosmos without the conservation of time. Interestingly, it's the first
> question that occurs to a young student studying relativity, what's happened
> to the rest of time? The answer is that it goes into wave motion, and as
> such, it conserves time. An interesting side to this is that for ensemble
> averaging to equal time averaging, time must be conserved. The proof of this
> relation has not been possible until now. Matter, energy and time are so
> tightly bound together that one cannot exist without the other, and if one
> is conserved so must the others. Each conserved form of energy exists in its
> own orthogonal imaginary dimension of time. And each form of energy (linear
> motion, angular motion and random thermal motion, etc.) must be accounted
> for in the time dilation of particles in real time. That is why time is
> conserved.
>
>
> The conservation of matter means that the energy required to convert a
> stationary particle to a wave of energy must transfer to another particle
> within the object when the wave converts back to its particle after
> displacement. Particles quit converting only when that energy is removed
> from the object.
>
> The conservation laws requires that a fixed (or at least what the matter
> sees as being fixed) frame of reference must exist. This obviously spells
> doom for inertial frames of reference in relativity.. This refrence frame is
> most likely to be composed of strings.
It was a stroke. Definitely.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Sea Squid: "Peak Oil - Is there any possibility of burning coal in the automobile?"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles"
- In reply to: Ron Poteet: "Re: Postulate #1: Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Postulate #1: Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
