
Re: Moving Dimensions Theory's simplicity: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimension: dx4/dt =ic
Posted:
Apr 23, 2008 12:43 AM


On Apr 22, 10:10 am, hedgefundphys...@gmail.com wrote: > Moving Dimensions Theory > by Dr. Ranger McCoy > > ABSTRACT > Moving Dimensions Theory postulates that the fourth dimension is > expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, symbolized by the > equation: > > dx4/dt =ic > > http://physicsmathforums.com > > MDT provides a physical model underlying both quantum mechanical and > relativistic phenomenon. The simple postulate accounts for quantum > mechanics? actionatadistance and relativity?s length contraction, > as well as entanglement and the equivalence of mass and energy. MDT > provides a simple physical model showing that diverse dualities?wave/ > particle, time/space, and mass/energy?all originate from the same > principle. MDT provides a physical model underlying entropy and > unifying time?s thermodynamic, classical, quantum, and radiative > arrows. MDT provides a physical model accounting for the constant > velocity of light, the fact that the maximum velocity through space is > c, and the fact that c is independent of the velocity of the source, > as MDT considers photons as matter surfing the fourth expanding > dimension. Nonlocality is accounted for by an expanding fourth > dimension that is inherently nonlocal, and MDT shows that this > fundamental expansion is the origin of quantum mechanic?s > probability. MDT provides a physical model for time?time is not the > fourth dimension, but rather a phenomenon that emerges from a physical > reality wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the > three spatial dimensions. The theory resolves the EPR paradox while > also liberating us from the block universe implied by Einstein?s > relativity. Relativity freezes the expansion of the fourth dimension, > only ever considering instantaneous snapshots of the universe. > Quantum Mechanics treats the fourth dimension as a dynamical element. > Hence quantum mechanics is a science defined by flux?by differential > operators. > > I. MDT in Complete Agreement with Quantum Mechanics and Relativity > Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all > experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general > relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena > as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive > experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a > common physical model which shows that curious phenomena from both > relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental > physical reality. > Nowhere does String Theory (ST) nor Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) account > for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows > these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does > ST nor LQG account for waveparticle duality nor relativistic length > contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical > reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of > light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of > the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from > the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor > Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe > which troubled Einstein. MDT resolves this paradox. String Theory and > LQG lack definitive equations, whereas MDT presents a simple equation: > > It will be shown that relativity can be derived from this simple > equation, as we return to Einstein?s original work. It will be noted > that Einstein never stated that time is the fourth dimension, rather, > he and Minkowski?s formulations imply that the fourth dimension, > represented by x4 is equal to ict. Or x4 = ict. > > I. The Derivation of Einstein?s Relativity from Moving Dimensions > Theory > > The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial > dimensions. This simple postulate and reality underlies Einstein?s > two postulates of relativity, and it can be expressed mathematically > as: > dx4/dt =ic > > This equation agrees with Einstein. Nowhere did Einstein ever say > that time is the fourth dimension. Rather he and Minkowski stated Or > x4 = ict. > Many trained physicists have a kneejerk reaction that the fourth > dimension cannot be moving because ?dimensions cannot move.? But > dimensions can and do move. First off, since the universe is > expanding, spacetime is also expanding, demonstrating that dimensions > are moving and expanding. Secondly, general relativity demonstrates > that massive objects warp spacetime, meaning that as a massive object > moves though spacetime, it stretches spacetime, showing again that > spacetime in one area can move, or deform, relative to spacetime 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 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. They are to be > forgiven?it has been a long time since a simple postulate has been > offered in the realm of physics, and the foreign nature of truth?s > simple beauty is seen as a violent affront to the String Theorist?s > convoluted sensibilities. > Let us derive Einstein?s relativity and the Lorentz Transformations > from MDT?s simple formula: > > Let D be the constant ica+x4(a) and relabel u with t. Then we have > > Dropping the arbitrary constant, we get: > > Or > > x4 = ict > > Armed with this simple and most remarkable result, we are ready to > return to Einstein?s 1912 manuscript, and provide the motivation for a > fourdimensional coordinate system where the fourth dimension is > written as x4 = ict. > In his 1912 manuscript on relativity, Einstein wrote: > > Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation > The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light demands the > existence of a reference system ? relative to which every light ray > propagates in vacuum with velocity c. According to the relativity > principle, all reference system?? in uniform translation motion to ? > must possess the same property. Together with Laue, we call each > such system ?justified.? Now we ask: What kind of transformation > equations must obtain between the spacetime coordinates x, y, z, t > (with respect to ?) and x?,y?,c?,t? (with respect to ??) of the same > point event so that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of > light would hold with respect to both systems? > We can further demand, without reducing their generality, that the > transformation equations be homogeneous, because all that is needed > for this is that the path described by the origin of ?? with respect > to ? pass through the origin of ?, and that the origin of time scales > in ? and ?? be chosen in such a way that the clocks located at the > origins of the systems ? and ?? both read zero at the moment when the > two points coincide. > Suppose that at this moment of the coincidence of the two origins a > vacuum light signal is sent from O or O?, which, according to the > principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, propagates in a > spherical wave with respect to both systems then the spatial points > that are just reached by the signal at times t and t? with respect to > ? and ??, respectively, will be determined by the equations > > and > > This means that the equations > > and > > must be equivalent. Thus, the transformation equations that we are > seeking must be so constituted that the second equation turns into the > first one if x?,y?,z?,t? are replaced by their expressions in terms of > x,y,c,t. The transformation must therefore make the equation > > into an identity, where all that we know about the factor ?2 for the > time being is that it must not vanish. But one can see that ?2 must > be independent of x, y, z, t, for otherwise the righthand side > divided by ?2 could not be a homogeneous, complete function of second > order in x,y,z,t after the substitution is carried out. For now we > will examine the substitution for the case ?2 = 1 and we will show > later that from a physical point of view this is the only case > deserving of consideration. Instead of (15), we then have: > > If one introduces the variable u? = ict or u? = ict? in place of the > time variables t, where i denotes the imaginary unit, one obtains, > instead of (15a), the form > > Note that Einstein simply states ?If one introduces the variable u? = > ict or u? = ict? in place of the time variables t,? but he does not > state why this works. MDT tells us why this works. It works because > the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial > dimensions. It works because x4 = ict and > > Einstein continues in his 1912 Manuscript: > > As is well known, this choice of time variables derives from > Minkowski. Its great significance consists in the fact that by means > of it, equation (15a), which governs the substitution that we are > seeking, is brought into a form into which the spatial coordinates and > the temporal coordinate enter in the same manner. > Let the coefficients of the substitution that we are seeking be > denoted as in the accompanying array; the second horizontal row, for > example, shall signify that the equation: > > Obviously, those from among these coefficients that do not contain the > index ?4? or contain it twice are real, the rest being purely > imaginary. > > x Y Z t > x' ??? ??? ??? ??? > y' ??? ??? ??? ??? > z' ??? ??? ??? ??? > t? ??? ??? ??? ??? > > Equation (15b) is satisfied identically when the following relations > exist between the ... > > read more »
Falling space. God is in control.
Mitch Raemsch

