Welcome.

[Dr_Strangelove]

Welcome to the Time Vector Forum. I am David Barwacz. My Time Vector theory can be viewed at: http://members.triton.net/daveb
I want to thank Dr. Elliot for setting up this forum for discussion on the theory.
Dr. Elliot’s idea of time as a moving dimension is effectively equivalent to treating time as a vector.

There are two more parts to the theory:
1) Time not only is a vector (or a moving dimension), but changes direction.
2) Space/time distance is conserved.

Please post questions/comments.

[astro]

Hello! Could you please elaborate on:

1) Time not only is a vector (or a moving dimension), but changes direction.

&

2) Space/time distance is conserved.

Each time I read your explanations, I see something new!

Furthermore, how does your theory account for dark matter/dark energy?

Best,

Dr. E:)

[Dr_Strangelove]

1) Time not only is a vector (or a moving dimension), but changes direction.

&

2) Space/time distance is conserved.

Each time I read your explanations, I see something new!

Furthermore, how does your theory account for dark matter/dark energy?



Assume we want to describe the path of an object in space/time.
Pick an arbitrary point in time and call it T=0. The object begins stationary relative to an observer and hence it is only advancing in time. It has a "direction" in time.
Then for any Time T, there exist a spatial distance S from the object to some fixed point in space/time such that S^2+(cT)^2=constant.

The object follows a circular path in space/time.

At time T, the object has not been accelerated by any external force yet its direction in space/time has changed.
The direction it is moving in space/time must be it's time direction since it has not been acted upon by an external force.

The direction of Time has changed for the object.

Let's say the observer is moving on a space time circle and that his speed through time is much much slower. The motion is so slow and the radius of his path large enough that his motion over any reasonable time period can be considered linear.

The observer sees the object in a sort of weird orbit. The angular momentum of this weird orbit is 1/2 that which the observer would measure for the equivalent purely spatial orbit. (This explains intrinsic Spin)

Now, the time it takes an object to make a complete orbit is inversely proportional to the objects total energy.

For us and baseballs, grains of sugar etc. the cycle time is enormous and we see no perceptible change in these objects. They are all essentially traveling linearly in time over a period of thousands if not millions of years. they appear to us to "remain at rest".

For very small things like electrons however, the cycle time is very fast. They always appear to be moving and we cannot ignore the intrinsic spin. An electron at rest will not remain at rest.

For intermediate objects such as fullerenes, the cycle time becomes perceptible and interference patterns show peak spacing smaller than present theory would predict. This is only now becoming evident as experiments are being preformed on larger and larger objects. This smaller spacing is the result of the time it takes the fullerenes to cycle (become waves, but that's another topic) after exiting the gratting.

The Doppler anomaly seen on all distant space craft is a result of the craft moving at a slightly different direction in time then we are.


As for Dark matter and dark energy, there is no need for them in my theory. My gravitational formula reduces to Newton’s for objects in close proximity relative to the center of the galaxy and to the MOND formula for objects relative to the center of mass of the galaxy.

The Hubble formula can be explained as follows:
For the Universe as a whole cycle time is enormous, however it has been around long enough to have changed direction in time. As we look further away we are looking back in time, when the direction was different. Just as in SR, when time is rotated we perceive motion, we must perceive motion in distant objects.
There is no need to assume dark energy.

[astro]

Hello!

You write:

"My theory demands that objects cycle through space/time. Small objects
cycle rapidly. Gravity is the result of space "shrinking" as time
increases. They must go through a cycle where time runs backwards (QFT
requires a similar idea). When they do, space must expand
(anti-gravity)."


Imagine the time dimension as a uniformly expanding spherical wavefront.

An object (an electron) has a probability of being in the spatial
dimension and a probability of being in the time dimension.

An object cycles through space-time as the time dimension expands through
it--remember Einstein said that our speed through spacetime is always c,
even if we are stationary in space--would that not mean that the time
dimension must be moving at the rate of c? Hence objects are continually
cycling through space-time, as the time dimension is moving through all
objects.

Because the time dimension moves as a wave, you can think of an electron undulating, or "bobbing" in a circular motion in spacetime.

An object fully rotated into the time dimension moves at the speed of
light and has zero length--it would be a photon, but it still cycles
through the spatial dimension, as the time dimension, where it is fully
located, propagates through the spatial diemsnion as a wave, undulating.

Photons exist completely in the time dimension, rotated out of the spatial
dimension.

Hence a photon has zero length in space.

If you double the energy of a photon, you double the frequency and double
the momentum, and halve the wavelength.

The shorter wavelength is because two photons must pass you by in the
same time interval.

Triple the energy of a photon, and it's really just three photons passing
you by--that's why you'll measure three times as many wavecrests, or three times the frequency.

Couple a free electron with a photon, and the combined object must exist
more in the time dimension, and it is carried along--hence movement.

The more energy (photons) you give to a free electron, and the greater
chance the electron has of being in the time dimension as the dimension
passes by. Hence its shorter wavelength.

The more an object is rotated into the moving time dimension, the faster
it moves.

I think we're getting at the same thing.

The time dimension is moving, propagating as a wave.

We perceive it as a scalar, because it constantly propagates as a spherically symmetrical wavefront t. We're so used to the dimension moving, providing constant motion, that we have clocks which measure its progression--hence its a scalar, with no particular direction.

All clocks are based on the emission of photons. An uncoilling spring, a quartzcrystal, etc.

The reason time slows as an object accelerates is that there is less chance of a photon to be emitted the faster an object travels.

But time, like the other dimensions, is a vector. Calling it a scalar is a historical accident. The time on a clock is removed from the true nature of time, and hence the confusion. The time on a clock measures the emission of photons from electrons in the clock's spring, and the photons are emitted because as the time dimension travels by the electrons, expanding, it carries the photons away.

[Dr_Strangelove]

Interesting idea.

I am gonna need some "time" to think about it.

[fraleysinger]

strangelove:"Let's say the observer is moving on a space time circle and that his speed through time is much much slower. The motion is so slow and the radius of his path large enough that his motion over any reasonable time period can be considered linear.

The observer sees the object in a sort of weird orbit. The angular momentum of this weird orbit is 1/2 that which the observer would measure for the equivalent purely spatial orbit. (This explains intrinsic Spin)

Now, the time it takes an object to make a complete orbit is inversely proportional to the objects total energy."

(1) This is a delta-time or time period. We can make a clock by counting the cycles in a proton which has the fastest stable clock (repeating time period). Somewhere along the line we have to refer to the Compton-Dirac equation: h_bar*c/Rp. The radius of the proton, Rp, is about 0.21fm (I think the 'real' radius of a proton is 3 times Rp). This is the clock that the rest of the universe keeps time to (as I tried to say in "Time").

(2) Spin 1/2h_bar may be so simple as the center of mass traveling in a circle. The stuff that makes up the mass (or samples the energy), however, may be in semi-random paths or 'weird'.

fsinger

[amrit]

on what you say here seems also for you time is movement
time is movement of particles and bodies into a-temporal space

[Epsilon=One]

on what you say here seems also for you time is movement
time is movement of particles and bodies into a-temporal spaceTime is the counting of units of any "clock."

The trick is to define the "clock."