It is not so much imagining it that is difficult, but rather providing a minimum of mathematical formalism to model the idea, and supporting data.
That puts me in a pickle because while you demand methematical formalism, AC prefers conceptual coherence and realism.
Let's see. Every theory rest on a set of fundamental premises ...in my opinion then fewer - the better. Below is my best attempt:
(x
2 + y
2 + z
2)
½ / (t
2 + u
2 + v
2)
½ = c
In English it would be something like:
1) Space and Time are two reciprocal aspects of motion, as in the well known relation speed=space/time. More space per time is equivalent to less time per space and less space per time is equivalent to more time per space, when the speeds are being equal.
2) Each aspect of motion acts in its own geometric reference system. IOW: The spatial aspect of motion does not have direction in time, it takes place in a separate geometric reference system (x,y,x). Symmetrically, the temporal aspect of motion does not have direction in space, it takes place in a separate geometric reference system (t,u,v).
3) Only the speed of light is possible at Planck time scale (or Planck length scale). IOW: If the temporal coordinate changes by one unit time, then the spatial coordinate must also change by one unit of space (in arbitrary direction). Symmetrically, if the spatial coordinate changes by one unit space then the temporal coordinate must also change by one unit of time (in arbitrary direction). The pairing of a unit of space with a unit of time is called a unit of motion. The probabilistic directions of either aspect give rise to quantum probabilities and are the source of indeterminism. Notice that the equation (x
2 + y
2 + z
2)
½ / (t
2 + u
2 + v
2)
½ = c has solutions for many directions of either aspect.
4) Speeds other than c are possible collectively over many units of motion, due to the directional freedom of each aspect of motion. For example if over two units of motion the spatial aspect reverses direction but the temporal aspect does not, then this collective speed observed by the third unit of motion might look like zero speed when the spatial coordinates do not progress but the temporal coordinates do.
5) Multidimensional pseudoscalar progression is indistinguishable from scalar progression (per Geometric Algebra) and appears as one-dimensional progression to pseudoscalar observers. This is the reason why the expansion of a proverbial balloon can be described by one number only despite that the balloon is expanding in three dimensions.
6) A unit of motion cannot observe itself but it can be observed by other units of motion. Full motion relativity applies to these observations and is further extended by temporal relativity. The latter give the appearance of spatial fields of forces through normalization.
7) The all familiar three-dimensional Euclidean reference system is a result of relating its origin to matter, not the the natural expanding reference system of the universe.
8 ) Matter is inverse three-dimensional motion that arrests the three-dimensional expansion of space while leaving the temporal expansion unimpeded.
9) Antimatter is three-dimensional motion that arrests the three-dimensional expansion of time while leaving the spatial expansion unimpeded. This is the reason material observers do not encounter much antimatter,
10) Energy is one dimensional inverse speed imbalance. IOW: a motion that remains after two dimensions of the natural expansion have been cancelled. i.e. the photon. Photons appear to move at the speed of the natural expansion (speed of light) with respect to the stationary Euclidean reference system because they participate in the motion of the expansion, while the Euclidean system - does not.
The list above started as a list of axioms but I see that it turned out to be a mixture of axioms and conclusions, so I'll stop now and wait if anyone is able to understand it as it is or the lack of comfort afforded by the the stationary Euclidean geometric reference system + 1 auxiliary time dimension (Minkowski's spacetime) is just too much for folks.
BTW: I eschew esoterica and I am not an esoteric scientist.
Author
Topic: Free energy is easy, ask an intelligent question... (Read 10303 times)
