danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Yeah. I wasn't demented until Miles pointed out that what we refer to as time has always been, mathematically, a relative proportional velocity. The proportional part only enters in if you use a relative velocity scale to measure time that is different from the speed of light. What you can't use is a mystic one-way variable t connected to the geometry of time vs space in a higher dimension.I would have thought so... It almost seems that Dan is showing signs of dementia or something. It is troubling...
Time is not a higher dimension; it is the ONLY dimension in our space. The correct units for what we refer to as time are the same as (relative) velocity, BUT ALWAYS REFERRED TO LIGHT TRAVEL TIME (VELOCITY = c). Any equation that contains both c and t in the same expression is as redundant (in terms of the variable t) as it is wrong.
No wonder relativity for most is incomprehensible. It doesn't really need to be. Think more clearly about which velocities are being compared. A lot of ambiguity happens because t is equivocated with t' (in the notation of Lorentz). There can be as many primed t's as there are reference frames or observers. I challenge anyone to show that there is an invariant interval of the same magnitude in any of them, even for a SINGLE event. Even if there were, it would not physically mean anything. Time dilation is different everywhere there are different relative velocities, just like Lorentz calculated.
Demonstrate this is not the case, and I won't need to voluntarily commit myself for therapeutic treatment. How many physics profs did I have who never mentioned such a relationship? What exactly did they think they knew anything about? I don't think I am the delusional one.
Even the length contractions now make more sense. The time dilations referred to light travel time means there is more time for a light wave to traverse the shorter light travel time (distance) in the rest frame than in the primed one. Relative proportional velocities explain everything without covariance. Any variations in length is completely described without forcing a covariant relationship between length and time, just like Lorentz did. Mink rotations still don't make any sense.
At least, no one seems to be paying any attention. That's probably a good thing.
Are we having fun again yet?
Last edited: