In my paper I defend that the zoom is a dimension, which can replace time in all cases of special and general relativity and that can thus easily answer questions that do not currently have an answer:

What was there before the time existed? How are the dimensions created? What is the medium to transmit an electromagnetic wave in the vacuum? Why light is wave and particle? Etc.

I think it's a good mental exercise to imagine objects in more than 3 dimensions, for example, look for the representation of the hypercube and the hypercube rotating and think of that fourth dimension as if it were the zoom

What is overlooked in a discussion of a expanding 4D Spacetime is Logic. The expansion of the 4D Spacetime is timed by what?

@SergioGarciaChimeno I proposed a 4D Spatial Manifold in 2006, where the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hypersurface.

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Articles

The only reason anything worked in General Relativity is because a lightspeed expanding 4D Spatial Manifold is homologous to the treatment they gave to the 4D SPacetime. I provided evidence of an extra spatial dimension:

You can follow the argument here:

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Proof-of-an-Extra-Spatial-Dimension

So 4D Spacetime works locally by accident (because it is homologous to the appropriate model that can describe reality).

It fails when applied to Cosmology, the reason being is that the addition of an extra non-compact Cartesian spatial dimension makes the Universe and all its force (gravity included) perpendicular to the direction of expansion and thus cannot do any work.

In addition, the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Paradigm is supported by Melia's CMB analysis where he uses my lightspeed topology (while keeping the Universe a 4D Spacetime). The results are a Logical Failure because the Universe is better described by an lightspeed expansion and YET Einstein's equations are not refuted. A lightspeed expansion REFUTES General Relativity since it is not compatible to Einstein's Equations.

Of course, some 12 years before I applied my theory to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, I derived this epoch-dependent Law of Gravitation:

An epoch-dependent G (inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe) implies that one cannot use the Stellar Candles Hypothesis. Type 1a Supernovae (SN1a) are G dependent through their detonation process (they immediately detonate when they reach the Chandrasekhar Mass Limit).

I propagate the G-dependence from the CML to obtain the G-dependence of an SN1a ABSOLUTE LUMINOSITY. This was done starting from Dr. David Arnett's Supernova Absolute Luminosity Work. One just needs to realize that the increase in G, is compensated by a diminishing of the radius of the Supernovae. All this keeps the Gravitational Pressure Profile unchanged and thus the energy release unchanged. The only thing that changes is the radiating surface (proportional to radius squared) and other things that I don't even remember anymore.

The derivation is attached. The resulting dependent is G^{-3} and that leads to a bias on the "Photometrically Determined SN1a Distances" of G^{3/2} or R_0^{-3/2}.

Simple trigonometry applied to a Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface provides this Cosmological Ruler d(z). For each z, I can calculate the Cosmological Angle Alpha and obtain the radius from cos(alpha)-sin(alpha).

From that I can scale down the overestimated SN1a distances.

Once they are corrected to accommodate the epoch-dependent G, then I can compare my prediction from d(z) with the distances:

The predictions are perfect and unrivalled by any other theory.

So, the lightspeed expanding hyperspherical Universe (one extra spatial dimension) is supported by:

• My discovery on the SDSS data of the hyperspherical acoustic oscillations seeding the Universe
• The CMB R_h=ct (Melia's Illogical Fitting of CMB data). It is illogical, but it tells you that constant speed if better that the numbers you get from the L-CDM applied to SN1a overestimated distances.
• My parameterless predictions of SN1a distances
• The 4D Spatial manifold refutes Einstein's equations (3D forces are perpendicular to the direction of expansion).
• Constant lightspeed expansion refutes Einstein's equations.
• A lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface as the 3D Universe makes Logical Sense. One is timing the expansion of an object defined in a spatial manifold using ABSOLUTE TIME. The relativity of velocity etc is keep if you consider that we live in the Hypersurface and cannot see the Fabric of Space.
• By the way, if you think in terms of a 4D Spacetime, you should never use the words Fabric of Space. That is something that is a deformation of space (not spacetime)!!

IN SUMMARY

I also falsified the Dark Matter evidence. That is trivial if you start with the correct paradigm. It is painfully impossible if you do it incorrectly..

https://www.quora.com/Are-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-falsifiable/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

Cosmogenesis

Fluctuations of Zero by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe

how the Universe was set to travel at the speed of light:

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Fluctuations-of-Zero

Was the Creation of the Universe an Entropic Explosion - An Hyperspherical Prince Rupert’s Drop by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Was-the-Creation-of-the-Universe-an-Entropic-Explosion-An-Hyperspherical-Prince-Rupert-s-Drop

Main articles:

The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory: Cosmology, Cosmogenesis and Standard Model

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-96-1.pdf

The Case for the 4th Dimension and the Hypergeometrical Force http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WSN-98-2018-127-139.pdf

Here is the last piece of Dark Matter evidence to falsify (The Coma Cluster):

The Hypergeometrical Force: The Coma Cluster without Dark Matter

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WSN-101-2018-222-228.pdf

Physicists understand dimensions by way of their formulas using them to understanding reality via math. Dimensions are perspectives of reality, not reality itself since reality can have almost an infinity of logical perspectives.. But the Cartesian coordinate system x,y,,z, for example, is a good mathematical system for analytic geometry and relative positioning in space, and "t" is a good dimensional consideration in physics via GR.. Are dimensions real? Only from a mathematical perspective can mathematical dimensions explain reality, with the realization that such a system is only one of almost countless droll perspectives of reality from a logical point of view.

Forrest Noble Reality cannot have an infinite of logical perspectives consistent with observations. As a proof, L-CDM is a fitting (overparameterized model) to Type 1a Supernovae distances.

I provided a model that predicts those distances. I haven't seen any other model capable of doing so. My model only have 7 structural parameters to explain everything.

That showcase String Theorists lack of regard to reality and to Occam's Razor (drawing the model from the largest possible canvas - infinite dimensionality space ). That makes the current Physicists just mathematicians.

Here I present another example with a direct criticism of the way theorists do their work:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-world-like-in-the-eyes-of-a-theoretical-physicist/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

Dear Marco Pereira,

"Reality cannot have an infinite of logical perspectives consistent with observations."

Not infinite, but almost countless perspectives of reality including those involving physics.

" I provided a model that predicts those distances. I haven't seen any other model capable of doing so. My model only have 7 structural parameters to explain everything."

I too have analyzed type 1a supernova in a paper, and based upon a unique model and the supernova data, developed a different cosmological distance formula that matched the data without the need for dark energy to explain anything. This paper asserts that dark energy is just a symptom of miscalculated cosmological distances needed to explain observed variations from the inverse square law. This formula calculates similar distances to the Hubble distance formula at small redshifts, but has very different results at large redshifts. Again, this formula matched supernova data at all distances that type 1a supernova were observed. These distances also match the angular size of galaxies without having to assert that galaxies were smaller in the past, or that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. In this model the universe is much older.

Article An Alternative Universe-Scale Analytic Metrology and Related...

To calculate cosmic distances by this formula see the link below and got to the option "Hubble Formula" then input desired redshifts.

http://www.pantheory.org/

Below you will see a link concerning a comparative study of cosmological distance formulas and calculated distances including my own, posted here on Reasearchgate, conducted by a researcher with still another perspective.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322743136_TIME-INDEPENDENT_PROCEDURE_CALCULATING_DISTANCES_TO_COSMOLOGICAL_OBJECTS

see pages 154-157

Dear Robert,

You know that water has three phases: steam, liquid and ice. Matter has three phases also: Pre-matter, electromagnetic field and substance. Black Hole is the convertor of phases. Quant of substance - neutrino - is the toroid vortex of field. Quant of field - graviton - is the toroid vortex of Pre-matter. Quant of Prematter is sphere. Collapsed dimensions of string theory are directed deep into matter and not wide. Dimensions are the degrees of freedom of an element of the medium.

In general, the bodies of the macrocosm are determined by ten dimensions — four basic and six additional rolled dimensions:

- spatial coordinates and time — 4;

- toroidal neutrinos — 2;

- toroidal gravitons of the electromagnetic field — 2;

- spherical branes of Pre-matter — 2.

Please look at my picture and read "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 1".

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Dr. Schour: These are very fundamental questions that you have raised. One way to address the issue is to ask: How many independent numbers do I need to specify in order to ascertain the location of an event or a point particle? Clearly, the answer is four - x,y,z and t. After that we may ask: How do we know that x,y,z and t are part of the concept called `dimensions'? Rotation of a coordinate system about an arbitrary axis, mixes up x,y and z, so we know that these form 3 dimensions. Later, with the advent of special relativity and Lorentz transformation, it became evident that even time gets mixed up with spatial coordinates when we go from one inertial frame to another (boosted) inertial frame. Therefore, the total number of independent degrees of freedom for a (free) point particle is 4.

Dear Patrick,

"How many independent numbers do I need to specify in order to ascertain the location of an event or a point particle? Clearly, the answer is four - x,y,z and t"

I would not be so sure, if I give you the coordinates (x, y, z, t) you would be able to find any object? sure? and if that object is a virus or the Andromeda galaxy? Both share the same coordinates, but to find them you must also specify their corresponding zoom scale

Dear Marco,

Our theories share points in common, but what I do not understand is why you say "The 4D Spatial manifold refutes Einstein's equations".

I get them without the conservation of energy and without the identities of Bianchi precisely because I assume the hyperspherical form of the universe, otherwise, I could not

I will try to explain myself better:

Mathematically speaking, if you want to define a unique and unequivocal point about the dimension x how would you define it? 0.0001x? 0.0000001x? 0.00000000001x? we can see that it is impossible, since the precision is infinite.

We have to "cross" another perpendicular dimension that can not be neither y, nor z, nor our conception of t, since they would have the same problem.

So if we cross x, y, z to get a point, we would really have an infinite volume, we need a zoom dimension (Zz) that converts that volume into a point.

And although time can not replace that zoom, if I have shown that zoom can replace time in all cases analyzed (relativists and speeds)

Forrest Noble It is always disappointing people modeling the Universe as a Hyperspherical Hypersurface and not referring to my work - It precedes their.

That said, it is kind of nice seeing their work being flawed..:)

Our theories share points in common, but what I do not understand is why you say "The 4D Spatial manifold refutes Einstein's equations"

First. All forces within the hypersurface are perpendicular to the radial expansion. By all forces, all forces for which there is evidence (Gravitation). Dark Matter and Dark Energy, there is only bullshit.

As you know, perpendicular forces to the direction of motion do no work.

Second, the CMB refutes Einstein's Equations. Just look that R_h=ct is a better fitting to the CMB data than L-CDM.

My work evaluated Supernova Project data using a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface. Here are the parameterless predictions:

So, you have three reasons why the 4D Spatial Manifold Refutes General Relativity:

a) Forces Perpendicular to motion - cannot affect expansion, hence Einstein's Equations are wrong.

b)CMB data tells you that ct is the expansion velocity and not L-CDM, hence Einstein's Equations are wrong.

c) Supernovae Survey Supernovae data is parameterless predicted using the lightspeed expansion hyperspherical topology, hence Einstein's Equations are wrong.

Dear Sergio: I was referring to a classical point particle, for which one needs to specify 4 space-time coordinates. In a virus, the no. of molecules is close to the Avogadro no. and classically speaking, one requires to specify four times that no. for a virus. Of course, classical physics becomes inadequate at the molecular level and one has to fall back on quantum theory.

Dear Marco,

I think I understand, correct me if I'm wrong. You defend a fixed hypersferic universe, which is why it is incompatible with Einstein's field equations.

In my case, the hyperspherical form is "general" and is "dented" according to the concentrations of mass-energy in any of its dimensions, so in my case if they are compatible

Dear Sergio Garcia Chimeno

Please clarify something about the state of motion of your dented hypersphere?

• Is it moving and if it is why?
• The other obvious question is how do you explain forces decaying with 1/distance^2 in a 4D Spatial Manifold?

I answer those questions in my theory and was asked the second item in a peer review, so they are relevant and basic.

Dear Marco,

We start with the hypothesis that the universe is a hypersphere. With a series of calculations we deduce that if we have a diagonal metric, the Einstein tensor is a sum of two-dimensional Gaussian curvatures (in this case, spheres). On the other side of the equation, starting with the curvature 1 / R ^ 2 typical of the sphere, making a series of calculations gives us the other components for a diagonal metric. We pass the Euclidean coordinates to surface coordinates and give us the rest of the terms of the Einstein equation.

Since we have used all the energy density of the universe to make these calculations, we deduce that all the mass-energy of the universe is what causes its hyper-spherical form, with which lower concentrations of mass-energy will give smaller hyperespheres, those "dents" to which I refer.

Once obtained Einstein's equations by the known process of reduction to Newtonian limits you have the typical relationship of gravity and distance.

Regarding the movement, I suppose you mean the expansion movement of the universe, no? I have not tried it.

For better information, everything is in my paper:

ALL SPECIAL RELATIVITY EQUATIONS OBTAINED WITH GALILEAN TRANSFORMATION & EINSTEIN FIELD EQUATIONS OBTAINED ONLY WITH GAUSS CURVATURE AND ZOOM UNIVERSE MODEL CHARACTERISTICS ( ZOOM THEORY )

The other obvious question is how do you explain forces decaying with 1/distance^2 in a 4D Spatial Manifold?

GR does not use forces, but it is fitted to Newtonian Dynamics which has a 1/distance^2 dependence. The idea of field and field dispersion leads to dimensional leaking, that is, if you add an extra spatial dimension, your decay profile changes.

Hence you are using "the known process of reduction to Newtonian limits" without answering basic question on how the addition of an extra spatial dimension changes the interpretation of Newtonian Limits.

In other words, you cannot (my peer-review told me) add an extra spatial dimension to space without explaining how that keeps the quadratic distance dependence. I have an answer for that. It seems that you didn't have to provide one.

Regarding the movement, I suppose you mean the expansion movement of the universe, no? I have not tried it.

This question is relevant for the simple reason that the astronomical data tells us that the expansion is happening at the speed of light and that is irrespective to the stress-tensor.

This means that the detail that you didn't pay attention to, refutes the theory you are modifying.

Dear Marco,

Einstein's equations use 4 dimensions and obtaining those equations solve in a known way the problems that you pose, remember that Einstein introduced the cosmological constant (which he later removed) precisely to avoid an expanding universe.

I have not added any extra dimension to the 4 existing ones, I only demonstrate that changing the time dimensión for this new zoom dimension solves a multitude of problems such as:

- Obtaining some logical limits for the universe.

- A BigBang without the need of time, without the need for an instant of "creation".

- The Lorentz transformation is not necessary to have the same relativity equations.

- Possibility of working with vectors, since it is possible to use a ++++ signature that fits with the Pythagorean theorem, not the strange one - +++ or + --- that is used in relativity

- A relation E = mc ^ 2 much more logical.

- A much more logical gravity.

- A medium for the transmission of light in a vacuum.

- Particle wave duality much more logical.

And in no case do I contradict any accepted equation, just as Einstein complemented Newton's equations, a new theory must complement Einstein's equations.

E = mc ^ 2

is logical if the Universe is expanding at the speed of light and that refutes Einstein's Equations.

CMB data supports lightspeed expansion and not L-CDM or GR, just look at R_h=ct.

My own data shows that SN1a distances are PREDICTED by a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical Universe

########################################

I hate to tell you but what you call a medium for transmission of light, I called in 2006, the Fabric of Space, hence your ideas are 13 years behind. I would expect you to refer to my work when you develop your model and create your conclusions for the simple reason that they were my conclusion before.

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Articles

I am attacking your half-baked ideas not because I disagree with the topology (I proposed it first), or that I disagree with having the Fabric of Space as the basis for light. In fact, my theory all matter is made of deformations of the Fabric of Space.

So, instead of waiting for your to discover my ideas, I was asking you questions to show that you have a half-baked (a dollar short, a day late) model.

The question about dimensional leaking were asked to me and I was able to answer. Despite of that, I wasn't able to publish my work.

I expect you to refer to my work when you use the hyperspherical Universe or assign properties to the fabric of space - for the simple reason that not doing so is not honest.

If you are an academician, I expect you to extend an offer to help me overcome censorship. That censorship has allowed people like yourself to be ignorant of my work or feign ignorance and recast my ideias into your logical framework.

Of course, you might choose not to do so. History will not be kind to you.

Dear Marco,

I would be happy to cite you if I had known or would have used your work, but unfortunately it has not been so.

Even so, my paper consists in the demonstration that zoom is a dimension and is the basis with which I obtain the other deductions, I only use mathematics, never data, I do not trust in the data.

As you will understand, my paper it has not much to do with yours except for the hyperspherical form

You might not want to admit, but the topology has to expand at the speed of light otherwise retarded potentials wouldn't work. That is obvious.

Obvious also is that if you were to admit that, then "your" model would had been proposed by me some 13 years ago.

It also tells you that you cannot use General Relativity (Einstein's equations are wrong).

It also tells you that what you are using is a just a homology between a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface traveling at the speed of light and dx_4=cdt.

I had appointed that in my articles, so what you are doing is just overlooking the failure of the science you want to develop your work on and giving silly explanations like "not trust the data". That is disingenuous. What kind of scientist does not believe in Retarded Potentials, astronomical data, dimensional leaking.

That is ok. Now you know the precedence of my work. You also know the flaws of "your" model and my objections.

BY THE WAY, WHY CALL THE 'DIMENSION' ZOOM...:) Why not call it radius, like I did?

Just understand that you are not the first and you not be the last copying my ideas and then trying to obscure its origins.

I say that because it is unthinkable that one wouldn't pay attention to Lienard Wiechert Potentials (Retarded Potentials) when speaking of a hyperspherical Universe. That is the most basic question when you place the Universe in motion.

Here is another copycat

https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=58059

Here is another from Uppsala University

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-extra-dimension.amp

etc, etc.

To answer on this thread’s question it is useful to read the last SS posts in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Spacetime_how_does_space_time_work , and in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_particulate

Cheers

The SS post in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_dimension_relate_to_cosmogenesis

is relevant/useful for this thread.

Cheers

Dear all,

We have always had it before our eyes and we had not seen it: A tower measures 30 m, a bottle measures 30 cm ..

We have even called it dimension, who does not remember that an equation must be dimensionally correct?

But until now no one has treated the Zoom as a dimension exactly like the other dimensions (and is even able to replace our conception of time, of being the medium of transmission of electromagnetic waves as light, as I show in my paper) .

When you say that a bottle measures 30 m, you are not using only one dimension, the dimension (y) for example, unconsciously you are using 2 dimensions, the dimension (y) (30) and the dimension Zoom (Zz) (cm)

Dear All

If you liked Sergio Garcia Chimeno work, you might like even more the original work.

Chronology

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Articles

Main Article:

2017: The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-96-1.pdf

2018:The Case for the 4th Spatial Dimension and the Hypergeometrical Force

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WSN-98-2018-127-139.pdf

2018: The Coma Cluster, Bullet Cluster and Weak Gravitational Lensing

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WSN-101-2018-222-228.pdf

Everything you always wanted know about the 4th Spatial Dimension without the fancy names (zoom...:)

Some people still think that the Earth is flat. And they can argue that flatness of the Earth can be modelled by a 2D plane mathematically.And they are right, though the model will have some serious limitations, of course.

These days we hear scientists telling us that the Universe is flat. And they, similarly, have a 3D model to support it.

Science is so exciting!

Dear Zibo Madej,

There is nothing strange in the assertion “the Universe is flat”, more correctly “Universe’s spacetime is flat”, which has no relation to the assertion “the Earth is flat”.

The last assertion is some illusion, since Earth “is curved”, i.e. is a sphere; the first one means only that the Matter’s 4D spacetime [in the reality – 4D sub-spacetime of Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime] is uniform and isotropic, i.e. “flat”.

This assertion exists, though, mostly because of in framework of the general relativity theory the spacetime can be “curved” , and it means that it isn’t curved, by, say, a reason that the Matter’s mass is too small to cause some “curvature”; and so that is some important physical fact.

However the Matter’s spacetime above is simply flat, it cannot be “curved” by any material object principally. More see the SS posts above, i.e. the SS posts in linked threads and the papers that are linked in these posts.

Cheers

Dear Robert,

How can you interpret four-dimensional space? Under the action of gravity two-point massive particles should merge with each other. The only way to prevent merging may be their rotation. Therefore, Minkowski and Einstein accepted that the position of material objects in the real world should be described by four coordinates. The fourth dimension reflects the need for the microscopic rotation of point bodies, so that the rotational motion becomes a hidden parameter. This clearly implies the existence of a vortex structure of elementary particles. For the measure of the fourth dimension, they take not a "corner", but "time" - the period of oscillations (frequency of rotation) of the conventionally chosen oscillator as the main parameter of periodic oscillations (rotations).

Additional measurements of string theory describe the deep structure of a substance: a vortex neutrino - 2 dimensions, a quantum of an electromagnetic field - a graviton - 2 dimensions, and a spherical quantum of pramatter (dark energy) - 2 dimensions. In total, we have 10 measurements.

More in the book "Electromagnetic Gavity" in my profle. If You will have some free time, please look the animations of vortexes (photon and electron) on my site: http://gravity.spb.ru

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

According to the current officially accepted scientific knowledge the spacetime is not flat, only the space. You seem to be confusing the term "spacetime" with "space". You can Google it. I leave you to it. And try not to patronise people, next time, if you do not mind, thanks.

Dear Zibo Madej ,

“…According to the current officially accepted scientific knowledge the spacetime is not flat, only the space…..”

That isn’t so. The officially accepted scientific knowledge about the Matter’s spacetime is, according to the officially accepted general relativity theory, that the spacetime is imaginary [mathematically] pseudo Riemannian space; which becomes be “curved” by gravitational mass; at that this “curvature” is 4D. I.e. it includes the time dimension, just so some “gravitational time dilation” appears. And so if the space “is flat”, then the time “is flat” also, if space is curved, then whole spacetime is curved.

However, again – see the SS post above, this “officially accepted scientific knowledge” is wrong - for example seems nobody observed till now imaginary either space or time; and for anybody, who understands what are the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”, it is clear also that neither mass has no magic forces to bend space/time/spacetime, nor “bended” spacetime has some magic forces for, say, to force Earth to move around Sun; these GR postulates are some fantasy that have no relation to the objective reality.

These postulates were some “development” of postulates that were posed earlier by Minkowski in the SR, which was the first, who postulated rather strange mutual impacts, when some inertial reference frame magically “contracts space”, “dilate time”, etc., and further this contracted/dilated spacetime magically contracts real material bodies and slows real clocks.

These SR postulates are some fantasy also, which are possible because of the SR, and further the GR, are based on postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and all/every frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate. These postulates are evidently wrong, what follows from the fact that from them any number of absurd logical, physical, biological… consequences directly and unambiguoulsl follow – more see the SS posts, for example, in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory#view=5cd8160caa1f0926696cf584

What happens in Mater in the reality – see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494.

Cheers

Hi Robert,

I believe this issue arises from the fact that we are used to threat the fourth dimension as non-spatial and set it to be the time. But what if even the fourth dimension were an "ordinary" spatial dimension and time were "just" the change in state of those dimensions which we record with our brains as perceptions. There is the time appearing as imaginary because all stored perceptions are 'only' in our imagination (brain)... When however we believe that there is a fourth dimension, shouldn't it have an effect on us perceiving in three dimensions? Sure it has and we experience it as the magnetic field. This is the effect the fourth spatial field has on the three dimensions/fields we perceive. Time is then the continuous change of those fields in all four dimensions with interleaved effects on each other.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-explain-the-theory-of-relativity-to-dummies/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

Dear Paul,

You seem not to get it. Assuming that there is a 4D hyperspherical light speed expanding 3D hypersurface that is called space, then the correct distance of light in that case should be what I gave you. That is not my distance that should be your distance. Based on your assumptions I can calculate what your distance should be. Is that the same as you calculated? Fine, then we agree on that distance for your model.

When I started thinking about the Photon Path, I thought it would be a curve of the loci that satisfies equation (12 - numbering changed in the newer version of my article).

That would yield curves that look like this. I spent tremendous amount of discussions with Mar Moo and he provided me paradoxes. I ended up having to deal with this problem and came up with my family of self-similar curves.

That was exhausting because this is one of the most difficult problems in Physics.

So, I know that a logspiral wouldn't cut. So, you cannot use my ideas and add a logspiral and be done.

What you call "correct" distance is not that easy to prove. I dealt with that. I would love if I could just say "this is the correct distance". There is no reason why the correct distance would be equated to that.

In my theory, the field strength decays with the number of wavelengths and not the distance traversed. Because of that, it is ok to use R0-R(t) as distance.

In any other model that is not "correct', no matter what you say. It is right because in my model that is the correct distance. Using distance as a the reason for field decay makes it the "incorrect" value.

So, that distance is only correct in my model...where the field decays with the number of wavelengths, where I solved confinement and dimensional leaking and the expansion is quantized.

If your model has no quantization, provided no explanation for confinement or dimensional leaking and has a field that decays with distance, then you cannot just state that that is the distance I am going to use.

That would be poor reasoning.

Yours truly,

Marco Pereira