Moving Dimensions / Time Vector

[astro]

Hello!

Thanks

What do you mean by, "The other is conservation of space/time distance."

How is space/time distance a conserved quantity?

I think I know what you're getting at.

Thanks!

E :)




Hello!


It seems that we're approaching a deeper understanding regarding the true

nature of space-time. :)



I've downloaded your papers and I will peruse them over the coming days.



I'd love your feedback on the following!



The Theory of Moving Dimensions: The Time Dimension is Moving Relative to

the Spatial Dimenions



True, however I prefer to refer to “dimensions” as a
mathematical construct. Time then is coordinated to a dimensional model
as a vector with a magnitude that increases. In my paper (Linear
motion….), all motion is time motion. Linear motion along any axis
is simply a component of the time vector. I define “spatial
velocity” in terms of a component of time: VkT=cTp. Vk is velocity
in the k direction; Tp is the time component along the k axis.



Time is the “cause” of all perceptible change and hence and
changing property must be represented as a component of time. The
components must add vectorally to the total time vector. This quickly
leads to time dilation, length contraction and all the goodies of SR and
as a bonus the Dirac matrices.



In this paper I propose that the time dimension is moving relative to the

three spatial dimensions. Such a concept may be used to explain physical

phenomena encountered in relativity and quantum mechanics, while offering

a path for the unification of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, and an

explanation of dark matter and dark energy.



I believe it is one component albeit a very important component in an
explanation. The other is conservation of space/time distance.





Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the time
dimension

without that object gaining a velocity. Thus the time dimension itself

must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.



True, with the caveat stated above.





Another way of looking at this is asking, "Why does something always move

when it is rotated out of the three spatial dimensions and into the time

dimension?" If someone can conduct a Lorentz transformation on a ruler,

and rotate it into the time dimension without it gaining a velocity

through the three spatial dimensions, I would very much like to hear
about

it.


I agree with one exception. If we analyses the ruler at a previous point
in time it may simply appear to be moving. If it is very far away and it
takes photons a long time to reach the observer and time has changed
direction for the ruler and/or observer relative to each other, then the
ruler appears to be moving even though no energy was expended. The ruler
will also appear to be less massive. That is exactly what is seen in
distant galaxies: They are all small and appear to be moving very
rapidly.



Einstein's two postulates of relativity state:



I. The laws of physical phenomena are the same in all inertial frames.

II. The velocity of light in free space is a universal constant,

independent of any relative motion of the source and the observer.



I am not yet at a point where I am prepared to accept or deny
Einstein’s postulates.



I propose that the two postulates may be expressed in an alternative

manner, by stating the following law of moving dimensions:



I. The time dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions.



This can be shown illustrated in several ways: Consider an expression for

the space-time interval of zero length, or of the null vector, which

traces a photon's path through space-time:



x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=0

or

x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2t^2



Which for one spatial dimension becomes

x^2=c^2t^2



or x=ct



by taking the derivative of both sides with respect to t, we get




dx/dt = d/dt (ct) = c



so



dx/dt = c



And hence the time rate of change of the spatial dimension relative to
the

time rate of change of the time dimension is equal to the velocity of

light.



ct| /

| /

| /

| /

| /

|/_______________

x



Also, if we trace the path of a photon on a space-time diagram, the only

way for a photon to remain stationary in space-time is to move at the

speed of light, or to keep up with the expanding time dimension. The
null

vector, which represents a vector of zero length in

Space-time, implies zero movement through space-time.hence the zero

length. Even though a photon moves through space at a velocity equal to

c, it stays stationary in space-time. Is it not strange at first that in

order to remain stationary in space-time, a photon appears move at the

speed of light through space? This is only because the time dimension

itself is moving relative to space.

Einstein proclaimed that all objects travel through space-time at c.
Even

though we perceive a ruler along the x axis to be stationary, it is yet

traveling through space-time at the fixed speed of c, implying that time

is moving through it. Rotate it towards the y axis, and its projection

upon the x axis shortens, yet it still appears to be stationary, and it
is

still traveling through space-time at the rate of c. Rotate it into the

time dimension, and it's projection along the x axis shortens, but now it

begins to move through the three

spatial dimensions, while maintaining the fixed speed of c through

space-time. Again, we see it move through the three spatial dimensions as

it is rotated into the time dimension because the time dimension is
moving

relative to the three spatial dimensions.



As Brian Greene points out in the Appendix to Chapter 2 of The Elegant

Universe, we note that from the space-time position 4-vector


x=(ct,x1,x2,x3), we can create the velocity 4-vector u=dx/d(tau), where

tau is the proper time defined by d(tau)^2=dt^2-c^-2(dx1^2+dx2^2+dx3^2).

Then the "speed through space-time" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u,

((c^2dt^2-dx^2)/(dt^2-c^-2dx^2))^(1/2), which is identically the speed of

light c. Now, we can rearrange the equation

c^2(dt/d(tau))^2-(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2 to be

c^2(d(tau)/dt))^2+(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2. This shows that an increase of an

object's speed through space, (dx/d(tau))^2)^(1/2)= dx/d(tau) must be

accompanied by a decrease in d(tau)/dt which is the object's speed
through

time, which also may be considered the rate at which time elapses on it's

own clock d(tau) or the proper time, as compared with that on our

stationary clock dt.



When you read my paper, you will see that the Einstein, Minkowski method
is cumbersome in comparison. I do not need to define a “proper
time” to arrive at the energy momentum equations or any other
equations of SR.

I want to make one additional point. The literature on Relativistic
Energy is wrought with confusion. For example, I often see treatments
where kinetic energy is defined as total minus rest. However this
doesn’t add up. Take a circular orbit. The kinetic is mv^2. Adding
Moc^2 does not equal sqrt(p^2c^4 + Mo^2c^2). In my paper you will see
that this confusion is cleared up because Energy is a vector. Conserving
it simply requires maintaining a fixed direction (the components need not
be in the same direction).

[astro]

When you say,

True, however I prefer to refer to “dimensions” as a
mathematical construct. Time then is coordinated to a dimensional model
as a vector with a magnitude that increases. In my paper (Linear
motion….), all motion is time motion. Linear motion along any axis
is simply a component of the time vector. I define “spatial
velocity” in terms of a component of time: VkT=cTp. Vk is velocity
in the k direction; Tp is the time component along the k axis.

I note that you say that dimensions are a mathematical construct.

Is not everything in physics--mass, energy, and momentum--a mathematical construct?

Dimensions move.

In order for spacetime to curve, dimensions must flex.

As a massive star moves through spacetime, it warps and curves space and time.

That space-time is warping and curving relative to other space-time in the universe that is neither warping nor curving.

Hence, it is not too far off base to suggest that the time dimension is expanding faster than the spatial dimensions, especially when anything that is rotated into the time dimension always translates through space.

Best,

Elliot

[Dr_Strangelove]

Astro,

Conservation of space time distance is just a postulate of mine.

Given the success of conservation laws in science, I believe that any prudent theorist must at least explore the possibility that space time is conserved.

As we perceive time increase we would perceive space decrease.

This results in an objects (or energy conserved system), cycling through space time. The direction of time changes as time increases.

This causes gravity on a large scale and quantum mechanics on a small scale.

The gravity formula I derive from this treatment reduces to Newton's formula for objects in close proximith relative to the center of the space time rotating system and the MOND formula for objects relative to the center. MOND is an empirical formula that has been used to very accurately predict stellar motion relative to galactic center.

The details are all on my web site.
http://members.triton.net/daveb

[Dr_Strangelove]

Astro,

You say

Is not everything in physics--mass, energy, and momentum--a mathematical construct?

Dimensions move.

In order for spacetime to curve, dimensions must flex.

As a massive star moves through spacetime, it warps and curves space and time.

That space-time is warping and curving relative to other space-time in the universe that is neither warping nor curving.

Hence, it is not too far off base to suggest that the time dimension is expanding faster than the spatial dimensions, especially when anything that is rotated into the time dimension always translates through space.



You are correct. It is not off base at all.
I think General Relativity confuses everybody by making a "coordinate system" curved. The "curved systems" of GR are a geometric construct in some orthogonal coordinate system or mathematical equivalent. "Curvature” doesn't mean anything unless it is relative to a straight line somewhere.

This is why I would rather call space/time a geometric construct in some stationary coordinate system and time a vector in that system.

But you can call it whatever you want.

Let’s get on with the task of figuring out this damn universe.

[astro]

Imagine a ruler.

If the ruler is rotated into the time dimension, it gets shorter in the spatial dimension. (Lorentz contraction)

Also, less time passes for the ruler, as time is measured by the probability of a photonic emission, and there is less probability of photon emission for a moving object than there is for a stationary one. A moving object has less time passing through it, so there is less chance for a photon to escape.

Objects conserve their rotation in space-time. This is the law of intertia.

Where space-time is warped, objects move so as conserve their rotation.

Best,

E :)







Astro,

Conservation of space time distance is just a postulate of mine.

Given the success of conservation laws in science, I believe that any prudent theorist must at least explore the possibility that space time is conserved.

As we perceive time increase we would perceive space decrease.

This results in an objects (or energy conserved system), cycling through space time. The direction of time changes as time increases.

This causes gravity on a large scale and quantum mechanics on a small scale.

The gravity formula I derive from this treatment reduces to Newton's formula for objects in close proximith relative to the center of the space time rotating system and the MOND formula for objects relative to the center. MOND is an empirical formula that has been used to very accurately predict stellar motion relative to galactic center.

The details are all on my web site.
http://members.triton.net/daveb

[Dr_Strangelove]

I will try to explain what I mean by space time rotation.

First we must differentiate between a spatial rotation that occurs in time from a space time rotation.

Spatial rotation in time.

When an object orbits another in a circular orbit, the coordinates to describe the orbital path could be simply x and y, two spatial coordinates. Time simply describes where it is on this path at a particular time.

Space time rotation

Take the above orbit and replace y with T (time). The orbit is now cyclical in space time. The values of T are limited (taking on positive and negative values) and the object retraces the same time over and over again.
The motion must be described with an observer’s time t (which is assumed linear). The position of the objects can be described by the angular frequency, radius and observers time t.
If this orbit is circular, then the space time distance sqrt(x^2+T^2) is conserved.
The angular momentum of this rather odd orbit certainly would not measure the same as the pure spatial orbit.

I believe it accounts for intrinsic spin. It is not unreasonable that this orbit has a z component of angular momentum of only ½ that of the equivalent pure spatial orbit, although I am still working on the details of the problem.

I believe that any spatial orbit must be “synced” to this base space time orbit and that synchronization will lead to quantum mechanics.

WEID!!!! You say.

Let me just remind the reader(s) that It is accepted as fact in physics today that anti particles travel backwards in time and that the Dirac solution to hydrogenic atoms, includes negative energy states (described by using backward time).

I think it is less weird myself.

[Dr. J]

I found a theory online very similar to what you guys are talking about. The author is David Barwacz and his web site is:

http://members.triton.net/daveb

Have you seen it?

[Elizabeth]

Hi,

I just completed a college level course in SR and like most people it left me with alot of questions.

I think you guys are are on the right track. I wish I had a professor like Dr. Elliot.

I don't have anything to add at this time, but I wanted to wish you luck.

I can't wait to hear more.

[Intergenuity]

Also, if we trace the path of a photon on a space-time diagram, the only
way for a photon to remain stationary in space-time is to move at the
speed of light, or to keep up with the expanding time dimension. The
null vector, which represents a vector of zero length in Space-time, implies zero movement through space-time.hence the zero length. Even though a photon moves through space at a velocity equal to c, it stays stationary in space-time. Is it not strange at first that in order to remain stationary in space-time, a photon appears move at the speed of light through space? This is only because the time dimension itself is moving relative to space.

Einstein proclaimed that all objects travel through space-time at c.

Now this is a really interesting poiint and one I have been argueing for a long time.

I have not yet found any one else prepared to state that lights speed is not relative to the universes rate of change before. that objects move at 'c' through space time. this salient point is so often missed or badly understood.

Does this mean that lights velocity is not relative but absolute to space time?

If one studies the light cones that AE used to describe EM space time it can be gleened i think that when we measure the velocity of light we are in fact measuring the rate at which spacetime changes or the rate that the entire universe changes at, thus the velcoity measurment is often taken out of context and treated as ordinary velocity.

It also means that the photon exists only in the "NOW' and because it is universally invariant the NOW also must be invariant as the photon s event is always in that NOW. SRT of course declares that time is relative and non-simultaneousness exists, however paradoxically light can only exist in the NOW.
Also the fact that it exists in the NOW means that it can not be witnessed as substance and only witnessed as effect only.

I must say that in 2 years of research i have never read any one agreeing and postulating the notion that light travels with space time and am impressed considerably.

Possibly the original poster of the above quote could identify themsleves i would like very much to know who it was that posted the above originally and if there are any other references that support that view.

[astro]

I'm treating this as an open-source physics project, if anyone would
like to join me at
http://killdevilhill.com/physicschat/wwwboard.html


The Theory of Moving Dimensions
Dr. Elliot McGucken
mcgucken@jollyroger.com
In this paper I propose that the time dimension is moving relative to
the three spatial dimensions. Such a concept may be used to explain
physical phenomena encountered in relativity and quantum mechanics,
while offering a path for the unification of Quantum Mechanics and
Relativity.


Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the time
dimension without that object gaining a velocity. Thus the time
dimension itself must be expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. Another way of looking at this is asking, "Why does
something always move when it is rotated out of the three spatial
dimensions and into the time dimension?" If someone can conduct a
Lorentz transformation on a ruler, and rotate it into the time
dimension without it moving through the three spatial dimensions, I
would very much like to hear about it.


Einstein's two postulates of relativity state:


I. The laws of physical phenomena are the same in all inertial frames.
II. The velocity of light in free space is a universal constant,
independendent of any relative motion of teh source and teh observer.


I propose that the two postulates may be expressed in an alternative
manner, by stating the following law of moving dimensions:


I. The time dimension is moving relative to the three spatial
dimensions.


This can be shown illustrated in several ways: Consider an expression
for the space-time interval of zero length, or of the null vector,
which traces a photon's path through space-time:


x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=0
or
x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2t^2


Which for one spatial dimension becomes
x^2=c^2t^2


or x=ct


by taking the derivative of both sides with respect to t, we get


dx/dt = d/dt (ct) = c


so


dx/dt = c


And hence the time rate of change of the spatial dimension relative to
the time rate of change of the time dimension is equal to the velocity
of light.


ct| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
|/_______________
x


Also, if we trace the path of a photon on a space-time diagram, the
only way for a photon to remain stationary in space time is to move at
the speed of light, or to keep up with the expanding time dimension.
The null vector, which represents a vector of zero length in
space-time, can only imply zero movement through space-time. Even
though a photon moves through space at a velocity equal to C, it stays
stationary in space-time. Is it not strange at first that in order to
remain stationary in space time, a photon appears move at the speed of
light through space? This is only because the time dimension itself is
moving relative to space.


Einstein proclaimed that all objects travel through space-time at c.
Even though we perceive a ruler along the x axis to be stationary, it
is yet traveling through space-time at the fixed speed of c, implying
that time is moving through it. Rotate it towards the y axis, and its
projection upon the x axis shortens, yet it still appears to be
stationary, and it is still traveling through space-time at the rate
of c. Rotate it into the time dimension, and it's projection along
the x axis still shortens, but now it begins to move through the three
spatial dimensions, while maintaining the fixed speed of c through
space-time. Again, we see it move through the three spatial
dimensions as it is rotated into the time dimension because the time
dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions.


As Brian Greene points out in the Appendix to Chapter 2 of The Elegant
Universe, we note that from the space-time position 4-vector
x=(ct,x1,x2,x3), we can create the velocity 4-vector u=dx/d(tau),
where tau is the proper time defined by
d(tau)^2=dt^2-c^-2(dx1^2+dx2^2+dx3^2). Then the "speed through
space-time" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u,
((c^2dt^2-dx^2)/(dt^2-c^-2dx^2))^(1/2), which is identically the speed
of light c. Now, we can rearrange the equation
c^2(dt/d(tau))^2-(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2 to be c^2(d(tau)/dt))^2
+(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2. This shows that an increase of an object's speed
through space, (dx/d(tau))^2)^(1/2)= dx/d(tau) must be accompanied by
a decrease in d(tau)/dt which is the object's speed through time,
which also may be considered the rate at which time elapses on it's
own clock d(tau) or the proper time, as compared with that on our
stationary clock dt.


As an object moves through space, it is rotated into the time
dimension, and less wave fronts of time are allowed to pass through it
relative to a stationary object, which bears the full brunt of wave
fronts. Thus a moving clock will run slower, as all clocks are based
on the probabilistic emission and propagation of photons, and as a
moving clock catches up with the expanding wavefront of time, the
chance that a photon will be emitted without being reabsorbed is
diminished.
Thus it is shown that the spatial and temporal dimensions are moving
relative to one-another. The laws and equations of relativity and
quantum mechanics rest upon this fundamental nature of physical
reality.


Relativistic and quantum mechanical phenomena can be accounted for by
the underlying nature of the relatively moving dimensions. Time
dialation, relativistic length contraction, and the equivalence of
mass and energy can all be seen to derive from this concept of moving
dimensions. The statistical wave nature of matter and energy also
rests upon the relative motion of the underlying dimensions.


As one rotates into the time dimension, one becomes more orthogonal to
the spatial dimensions, and thus one's length contracts. And too, as
the time dimension is moving relative to the spatial dimensions, one
begins to move.


Wave-particle duality and quantum mechanical probabilistic behavior
can be accounted for by the relative motion between the dimensions, in
which both particles and waves exist. Feynman's many-paths integrals,
reflecting the notion that a particle travels all paths, can be
accounted for by the fact that until it interacts with other matter in
the three spatial dimensions, there is a probability that a particle
or photon may exist as a pure wave, rotated into the fourth dimension,
moving along with expanding time, independent of the spatial
dimensions. So it is that radiowaves may pass through walls, carrying
energy and thus mass.


The second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy) can be accounted
for with the fact that all particles and matter have a chance of
existing in a dimension expanding at a constant rate, equally in all
dimensions, relative to the rest. The spherical symmetry of a photon's
wavefront may be viewed as the result of matter having been rotated
into the time dimension--the matter has become orthogonal to the
spatial dimensions, and it is now expanding along with time, equally
in all directions.

[astro]

The second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy) can be accounted
for with the fact that all particles and matter have a chance of
existing in a dimension expanding at a constant rate, equally in all
dimensions, relative to the rest. The spherical symmetry of a photon's
wavefront may be viewed as the result of matter having been rotated
into the time dimension--the matter has become orthogonal to the
spatial dimensions, and it is now expanding along with time, equally
in all directions.


Einstein's second postulate, stating that the velocity of light is a
universal constant, holds to be true because the velocity of light is
merely the rate of propagation of a dimension relative to the other
dimensions. Although this relative rate of propagations between
dimensions may vary, we shall always interpret it as a constant,
because we are used to measuring the velocity of the propagation of
energy relative to the velocity of the propagation of energy, which we
write as c.


Relativistic time dialation occurs because as an object approaches the
speed of light, the object approaches the speed of the propagation of
energy. As time is measured with regards to the propagation of energy,
such as the emission of a photon (in an electrical circuit or a
mechanical spring) or or the occurence of a random event which
liberates energy, less time will pass for an entity which is
propagating at a rate which is close to the propagation of energy
itself. As an entity gains velocity, it is roated into the moving time
dimension, and it in a sense it catches up with the dimension.


Relativistic length contraction is always accompanied by an increase
in velocity, as the probability that each quantum of the object
resides in the time dimension is increased. Relativistic length
contraction can be accounted for by the fact that as an object gains
velocity its probabilistic wave function, or its essence, is rotated
into the time dimension, and thus it appears shorter from the
persepective of the three spatial dimensions. At the speed of light
the object would have to be a photon, so as to be completely absent
from the spatial dimension, as any presence or probability that a
particle is in the spatial dimnsion means that there is a probability
that the time dimension will expand without carrying it along, in
essence leaving it behind for that moment it exists in the spatial
dimension.


Any material entity gains more energy as its velocity increases, and
relativity demonstrates that the entity also gains more mass. When
energy is added to an entity, it may also appears as mass, as that
energy has a finite chance of interacting with the spatial dimensions.


All matter has a spatial component, or a probability of interacting
with space, whereas a photon only interacts with that which is in the
time dimension.


In order to cause an entity to move, quanta of energy must be added to
it, and the entity will thus gain a new probabilities for existing in
the space and time dimensions, as its overall wavefunction, including
its mass and energy, is rotated out of the spatial dimension and into
the time dimension. This rotation into the time dimension will be
proportional to the amount of energy that has been added.


As only photons can exist purely in the spatial dimension, no entities
but for photons can ever reach the speed of light, as all matter has a
finite chance of existing purely in the spatial dimension. This
property gives rise to the concept of mass, as to exist in the spatial
dimension curves the fabric of space-time about the existence.


An entity moves through space-time according to its probability of
existing in space and time. The more energy a given entity has, the
more likely it is to exist in the time dimension, or be moving along
in the dimension which is expanding relative to the spatial
dimensions. Hence its greater velocity, and also its augmented chance
of interacting with matter over a fixed distance. This increased
chance of interacting with matter over a given distance can be
associated with a shorter deBroglie wavelength or a higher frequency.
A more energetic photon has a higher frequency, as it is composed of
more substance, and more momenergy must pass a given point at any
given time. A less energetic photon carries less momenergy, and thus
there is a smaller chance of it interacting with matter as it passes
on by. A more energetic photon has a higher probability of interacting
with matter as it passes it by, as its shorter wavelngth and higher
frequency represent a greater, more persistant existence in
space-time.


A photon has no spatial dimensions, as it is matter rotated into the
time dimension. Einstein's famous equation which expresses the
equivalnce between matter and energy:


E=mc^2


holds true because radiative energy, consisting of photons, is merely
matter which has been rotaed tinto the expanding time dimension.


In quantum mechanics energy is accounted for by the operator which
represents the infinitesimal change with respect to time, while
momentum is accounted for by an operator which represents the
infinitesimal change with respect to space. Both momentum and energy
are defined with the concept of change and probability. And too,
inherent in all waves are the concepts of motion and probability.


Einstein's postulates derive from the fact that in all inertial
reference frames, the relative motions between the dimensions is fixed
at a constant rate, because the relative motion between the dimensions
is measured relative to the relative motion. Thus the laws of physics,
and all physical concepts, which are all fundamentally based on the
concept of motion or change with respect to time, are also fixed in
all interial frames, and the speed of light is constant in all
inertail frames.


As physics concerns itself at all levels with changes relative to both
space and time, it makes sense that all physics, time, motion,
reality, life, and consciousness itself are founded upon a stage which
is endowed with intrinsic motion.


The underlying fabric of all reality, the dimensions themselves, are
moving relative to one another.


I'm treating this as an open-source physics project, if anyone would
like to join me at


http://killdevilhill.com/physicschat/wwwboard.html

[Intergenuity]

It is unfortunate that I lack the formal maths ability needed to follow your last post in detail. However from what I do understand you are discussing a constantly changing event horizon commonly referred to as the center of time or the NOW. Some use the word Dynamic present [MacM]
Possibly you have heard of Harry Ziegler and the Luxon theory?

The biggest problem faced by showing light has a relatve velocity of zero is that whilst relative passage of time is still valid [dilation] a relative NOW is ruled out. [Meaning that possibly the common interpretation of SRT is in conflict.]
Thus absolute and relative time co-exist.

I have posed a similar idea in my laymans tongue in the relativity forum.

Light velocity vs mass vel;ocity (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=8)

You will have to excuse my poor use of terminology, however the guist of what I am saying may prove similar to your own research. Your comments there would be most welcome.

It means that a time diagram of simultaneous Nows is valid:
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/relativenow.jpg
Diagram 1 being the outcome of lights relative velocity being zero.
Diagram 2 being what I believe to be the current SRT assessment.

[Epsilon=One]

Much of the below is erroneous because the statements rely upon interpretations of SR and GR, which both, imperfectly, describe Nature. Said theories are fine at predicting, within narrow limits; however, they are way to simplistic, and limited, to use for actually understanding the phenomena of Reality as it is presently observed.

Nothing less than a "new physics" is required to reconcile the Standard Models internally and with one another . . . and particularly, with observation and logic.

These theories of Einstein's were wondrous and the product of insight and true genius, near a century ago, when there were few tools and no computers to observe the Cosmos . . . and almost no viable theory.

Today with little effort (simple logic, simple math, and simple desktop computers) the Pomo enigmas can be rationalized such that the lay public can better understand what Feynman couldn't.

Of course, there might be such disarray among the pontificators and grantees that the risk of admitting the Sun does not circle the Earth may not be worth it. Best check with Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) first.

No one understood, nor seemed to listen or care, better than Einstein that SR and GR were contrived.

When you say,

I note that you say that dimensions are a mathematical construct.

Is not everything in physics--mass, energy, and momentum--a mathematical construct?

Yes, but you must understand where the mathematics comes from. And, "Why?"

Dimensions move.

In order for spacetime to curve, dimensions must flex.

As a massive star moves through spacetime, it warps and curves space and time.

No. Massive stars perturb "dark" matter.

That space-time is warping and curving relative to other space-time in the universe that is neither warping nor curving.

Hence, it is not too far off base to suggest that the time dimension is expanding faster than the spatial dimensions, especially when anything that is rotated into the time dimension always translates through space.

Time evolves at a constant rate; it is more fundamental than other dimensions, which it affects exponentially. Time is nature's very complex metronome . . . and difficult to discern from an anthropic, single Realm of Reality (http://).