my dear Ziaedin Shafiei , in a layman terms;;;;;;

A person without a clock is said to be; he is living in a 3 dimensional space...

A person with a clock is said to be; he is living in a 3 dimensional space with a clock called as space-time. Here clock purely obey special relativity and if he is in gravitational well clock varies point to point...

time never changes T to L....

I believe we should not follow fourth dimension of Time. The Time that is related to our sun and earth does not present for whole universe. Time is not tangible to be push to slow down or goes fast. All these are just unscientific theory that it is been around for hundred year, and it would be theory for ever if we keep follow this incorrect perception. https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative PS: spacetime of Einstein is not even working with our solar system, how could possible to relate it whole universe with billons of galaxies? Read "Time is Relative" perhaps we can do better for future new scholars. best to you. Javad

Classical mechanics was derived under standard conditions what means that the considered processes take place under nearly the same conditions. Therefore space and time are constant quantities or dimensions. Derivations are unmeasurable. This constancy is also our daily experience.

But time becomes perceptible only by changes like oscillations, transformation processes, movement, chemical reactions etc. All this changes are depending on energy. I think we have have to define "time" as dependent on energy. It is not a fourth dimension in an assumed space-time.

The non-constancy of time leads for its part to an anisotropy of space.

Einstein has probably put the cart before the horse.

Minkowski/Einstein “spcetime” is a fantastic vulgarization of objective reality that represents abstract space and time as tangible objects. It is a mental geometric construct of a fictive structure with purported material, mechanical and metrical etc., attributes. Minkowski even bragged about this “revolutionary” concept of space and time, “They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality”. This fantastic view of space and time has distorted the concept of objective reality and has led modern physics to the magic world of myths, mysteries and Fairy Tales and to its present misery.

Only a materialist dialectical world view (as opposed to the present Causality based view, so dear to Einstein and to physics) of objective reality can rescue modern physics in particular and natural science in general from the lowest point it reached in its history - courtesy of Albert Einstein and his powerful patrons - monopoly capitalism and theology.

A perspective of objective reality based on materialist dialectics can help a rational understanding of the universe from the microcosm of the quantum particles to the macrocosm of the galaxies and their clusters without any mystery or fantasy. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

G.W.F. Hegel’s dialectics very vaguely anticipated the “virtual particles” of modern quantum electrodynamics. Hermann Weyl in his book ―RAUM—ZEIT—MATERIE‖ discloses a philosophical position of the dynamical relation of space, time matter and motion, which is very close to that of Hegel. He began the book with some reflections of a philosophical nature: ―”Space and time are commonly regarded as the forms of existence of the real world, matter as its substance. A definite portion of matter occupies a definite part of space at a definite moment of time. It is in the composite idea of motion that these three fundamental conceptions enter into intimate relationship”.

For Hegel “space and time are potentials as ―possibility becoming ―reality [Wirklichkeit” through matter and motion in an eternal dynamical relation as the “virtual particles” of the quantum vacuum. Real matter in eternal motion arises from the virtual particle through quantum tunneling or some as yet unknown processes. In Hegel’s philosophy, “Motion is the process, the transition from time into space and vice versa: matter on the other hand, the relation of space and time, as latent identity. Matter is the primary reality, the existing Being-in-itself; it is not only abstract being, but positive persistence of space, as excluding, however, other space”. https://www.amazon.ca/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

A Chapter of the above book: Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Einstein himself in his later life fed to further confusion to the spacetime ―ether; when he said , "Spacetime does not claim existence on its own but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field". Einstein also reportedly said "...time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live". And just a year before he passed away Einstein expressed grave doubt about “spacetime” in a letter to his friend Michelle Besso, “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics”

But the bandwagon of modern official physics keeps on parading this fiction of “spacetime” and Causality, unabated and even with impunity; because it's whole virtual edifice depends on these two false pillars!

Dear s h s hussainsha

One does not need to have a ruler handy to know there is a space. Similarly, the concept of time is not dependent on carrying a clock.

In addition, you said, “time never changes T to L”

If you work out the dimension of ct it is L - like the other three dimensions.

With this new manipulation, the question is: where is time? What is it?

It has simply disappeared in space-time physics and replaced by a completely new concept, which is in fact a well-disguised space dimension.

This question is among a series of questions I have brought up to show how relativity has twisted science in a wrong way. On surface, all seems fine until one go just a little more dipper.

Dear Javad

In the abstract to your article, it is questioned: “Is it true, that Time can tick differently in different locations and by different observers… ?”

I have shown that relativity of time, in physics, was based on a huge analytical mistake by physicists at the end of 19th century and their mistake was not checked by later scientists. I have offered to pay £200 to a charity if somebody refutes my claim. So relativistic physicists are given more incentives to defend their physics.

In addition, the light clock which is the preferred clock in relativity is a thought clock, not real one. Moreover, it is a flawed instrument for scientific experiments. Please see the articles in RG if you are interested.

You are right that the concept of time is not yet clearly known. However, the issue here is the way time dimension is somehow completely changed by space-time concept only because a new coordinate system was needed in which Lorentz transformation equations be presented.

Time is t, ct is the 0-th or time-like component of position four-vector, which has units of length. Nevertheless, in theoretical physics we usually work in natural units such that c=1.

@ Ziaedin Shafiei

my dear Ziaedin Shafiei ,......as Daniel said in theoretical physics we usually work in natural units such that c=1. we really don;t change T to L...

I hope you will get success to brought up to show how relativity has twisted science in a wrong way. best of luck....

Dear Daniel

If one falls into the arctic ocean, he does not start shivering just because we say the water temperature is −2 °C. He also does not feel warmer if we say the temperature is 271.15 °K or even higher 488.07 °R. This units are based on various conventions.

Therefore, it does not matter what unit is assumed for c, dimensional analysis gives us the conclusive result that the 0th dimension has the same physical dimension as the other three.

If we allow this type of manipulations in science then one can assume any unit for any quantity. For example, the dimension of mass flow rate, ṁ, is MT–1. One can arbitrary, as it is done by relativistic physicists, represent it with cṁ with dimension of MLT–2 which is the dimension of force and still call it mass flow rate quantity.

The point is that the new coordinates is called spacetime not spacetime-like.

I do not know if the suffix "-like" can clarify a scientific issue.

Dear Ziaedin,

My argument is that this is not a physical issue, but rather a matter of terminology: what do we call 'time'? Provided it is not fundamental, you can simply bypass it by putting c=1.

But now I realise that your question is more subtle. Precisely because we usually set c=1, we rarely have the need to discuss about the fundamental concepts of relativity.

You might argue that one of the greatest achievements of special relativity was putting space and time on the same ground. All observers move at the speed of light: an observer at rest would move at c through the T axis, thus crossing a 'distance' ct during a time interval t. In this picture, I think, time as a fundamental physics concept is t; ct is the coordinate which tells you how much distance in the T axis you cross through space-time. This is a very suggesting picture, but you have the right to cast doubt on these 'time-like' coordinate and displacement concepts.

I would say that the answer to this problem is not considering space and time on the same ground, but rather keep them as different dimensions. Four-vectors and tensors should be regarded as convenient mathematical tools. The opposite sign in the 00th component of the metric tensor is already suggesting you that you should not consider space and time the same dimensions.

To summarise: t is the time parameter as we usually understand it, ct is a new coordinate introduced in Minkowski, or more general space-times, which are an abstract mathematical construction.

@ Ziaedin Shafiei

my dear Ziaedin Shafiei ...your analysis about science is good (If we allow this type of manipulations in science then one can assume any unit for any quantity)...but what you manipulated in the above is not at all acceptable at least mathematically ....because

1) why you multiplied c for mass flow rate.

2) mathematically; if you are multiplying c, it should be multiplied to both left hand side and right hand side so that mass rate will remain as mass rate.

In Special Relativity we are manipulating in a acceptable manner to both math and physics so that we are getting some fruitful results.

Dear s h s hussainsha

You asked "why you multiplied c for mass flow rate. "

This is exactly my question, which you also highlighted. We cannot just multiply c and viscosity and still call it viscosity. Likewise, any fundamental/primary quantity such as time cannot be multiplied by c and still referred to as time. Excusing ourselves by saying c can be equaled to 1 does not remove the problem.

I simply demonstrated the way relativistic physicists do unfounded manipulations for a non-familiar case, which you quickly noticed is not correct.

@ Ziaedin Shafiei

my dear Ziaedin Shafiei...may I know what you discovered mistake in SR....

Dear s h s hussainsha

Many thanks for your interest. If you are not busy please read the following three articles, which I have uploaded to RG.

Preprint Michelson and Morley Experiment Does not Validate Length Con...

This article shows the initial analytical mistake of M&M experiment. This mistake was the reason of length contraction, which was also adopted by SR. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the case. Simply, relativistic physics founded by this very mistake. Time dilation had to be consequently introduced by SR to justify the working characteristic of the light clock.

Article Is Time Dilation a scientific theory?

This article shows light clock is not a reliable instrument for scientific experiment. It is an imaginary instrument and if we tilt the clock, it does not keep the time at the same rate. Simply, it is similar to a sand clock but an imaginative one.

Preprint Special Relativity: The Revival of Metaphysics

This article tries to show a few shortfalls of SR. For example, I have shown a counter example to one of the main principle of SR “the laws of nature are the same for all inertial reference frames”.

I have also tried to raise my concerns with relativistic physics as various questions in RG, including this one.

Please read "The Concept of time"; http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0292

Dear Hans

I could not find any relevance between the question asked and your article. Can you please correct me if I am wrong.

It would be beneficial if you give a simple example in your article of how you find/calculate your proposed proper time and why it is different from or better than the time in classical mechanics or relativistic physics.

Ziaedin Shafiei

Time has many explanations, most are false. In a mathematical model the value of c equals 1.

In spacetime coordinates both proper time and coordinate time exist. In a quaternionic model, time is a dimension in a four dimensional number system.

The symbol c stands for the speed of light. However, in the physical and mathematical models it specifies the speed at which shock fronts travel in a rather flat field. In an expanding field, either the clock tick or the spatial lengths are affected. It depends where your preference goes.

Dear Hans

"Time has many explanations, most are false." ...

"any fundamental/primary quantity such as time cannot be multiplied by c and still referred to as time. Excusing ourselves by saying c can be equaled to 1 does not remove the problem."

Ziaedin Shafiei

The universe steps with universe wide progression steps. The range of proper time steps equals the range of the time stamps that are stored in a read-only repository that physical reality applies to archive the life stories of all elementary particles that exist in the universe. In this way an average clock tick can be defined. However, since the universe keeps expanding and this expansion varies with location the actual progression step varies a bit with location.

Each elementary particle hops around in a stochastic hopping path. This hopping path recurrently regenerates a coherent hop landing location swarm. A location density distribution describes this swarm. The distribution equals the square of the modulus of the wavefunction of the particle.

This definition of proper time allows that other things can happen outside the range of proper time values. It also allows that the clock of a traveler will differ from the clock that was left behind at the departure of the traveller when the traveller comes back from a trip through a deformed part of the universe. These phenomena have been measured with accurate clocks. Observers must travel with proper time and can only access data that were archived with for them a historic time-stamp. That information reaches them via the field that embeds both the observed event and the observer.

Thus, also observed data are very treacherous. Mathematics can provide a much more trustworthy description of what actually happens.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

Time is measured ct in relativity simply to measure it in meters because c is constant (apart from that it is a more natural way of measuring it than in seconds), but that does not mean that stationary objects are moving at the speed of light, it I could do the same with any other constant.

Imagine that we measure it with the Planck's constant for example ht, would that mean that now the stationary objects move more slowly? No, the analogy would be like measuring the same time in mega seconds and micro seconds, it doesn't change the time, just the scale

Dear Sergio

When I said, “stationary objects are moving at the speed of light in the direction of time coordinate” I just read it from space-time coordinates. It is not my interpretation, it is acknowledged by relativistic physicists. If you disagree, please tell me what happens after one second in the supposed time dimension, assuming the object is in (0,0,0,0) at the start.

c is not any constant, it is the speed of light with a dimension. If it was just a scaling factor such as micro and nano, then there is no objection but c is not randomly chosen to be here, it is the result of presenting Lorentz transformation equation (LTE) in a graphical system, Minkowski space-time. We cannot replace it with h as it spoils LTE.

We know h is Plank constant and f is frequency but hf is called energy not frequency anymore. Thus, the question can be generalised as; what is time? t or ct? And why not ht or Gt or kt or Ft or Rt…? However, as it is obvious why c is chosen then I used the simplified version of the question.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

It was not a good example to use Planck's constant, sorry. A constant that relates distance and time is necessary, and I think we only have c.

But I insist, the choice of c is only because it is constant regardless of the speed of the observer, it is an "arbitrary" choice if there were another constant that relates space and time could be used without problem.

Also think that the relativistic moment used to calculate the kinetic energy is 0 in the absence of v, if it were displaced as you say that moment would be mc

"If you disagree, please tell me what happens after one second in the supposed time dimension, assuming the object is in (0,0,0,0) at the start."

That the scale we have chosen has increased by 1 c, or 300,000 km (approx).

Notice that now there is no time on our scale, only distances, it makes no sense to set a speed

Dear Sergio

OK, we agreed that any constant is not suitable just because it is a constant. But why we need a constant here at all and where it is coming from? if we say there are 3 space and one time dimensions what is the need to multiply t by c to change it to yet another space dimension. The reason for this multiplication is just because space-time is another representation of Lorentz transformation equations (LTE). It is easy to demonstrate this claim by using time and just one spatial dimension.

x = γ(x’ + vt’) = γ(x’ + βct’) (a)

t = γ(t’ +vx’/c2 ) = γ(ct’ + βx’)/c (b)

Now square both sides of (a) and (b) and then subtract them, you end up with Minkowski space-time formula.

x2 - (ct)2 = x’2 - (ct’)2

That is why it is said that Minkowski diagrams is just geometrical version of Lorentz transformations.

I have shown that LTE is based on a false foundation so goes for space-time. Please see my previous answers in this forum for any reference.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

Very good observation. Yes, that is probably the reason for the use of ct.

But why do you say: "I have shown that LTE is based on a false foundation so goes for space-time."?

As you have shown, you have established an invariance between the two coordinate systems but instead of with the signature (++++) typical of the Pythagorean distances, with the signature (- +++) typical of the distances of the Minkowski schemes

Where is the problem?

Dear Sergio

As the new space-time is merely created on the foundation of Lorentz transformation equations, it has picked up, and highlighted, all the flaws. Simply, junk in - junk out.

You pointed out one flaw but the list is long such as changing t to ct and supposedly going at the speed of light in ct direction while standing still in any inertial reference frame.

(++++) is always superluminal in space-time unless one stands still, to only go at the speed of light in the fake ct direction.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

I insist again that although ct derives from the Lorentz transformation it is a measure of distance.

I suppose you mean that in 1 second we have a distance of c, in 2 seconds a distance of 2 c, in 3 seconds a distance of 3 c, what is the speed? c.

No. That is not correct.

The definition of velocity implies a distance and a "perpendicular" dimension, time.

If you do that you are reapplying a perpendicular dimension (time) 2 times, something not contemplated in relativity and that doesn't make much sense either.

Dear Sergio

SGC "I insist again that although ct derives from the Lorentz transformation it is a measure of distance."

This is exactly what I have said. We are not given three space and one time dimensions. Space-time is four space dimensions, one in disguise. Thus, I repeat the question: where and what is time in space-time?

Please do not take it lightly that space-time is a second generation of a false conclusion.

Dear Ziaedin,

Time has always been to define a movement in our 3 dimensions, using it as a fourth dimension and compare it with any of our 3 dimensions (an hourglass, a lit candle, etc).

Relativity changes that movement by a distance, 4 distances in total, 4 dimensions.

If you want to obtain the speed in any of these dimensions (the speed at which ct advances) you have no choice but to transform a perpendicular dimension (distance) into a movement t = d / c and compare "perpendicularly" as has always been done. If you do this you will see that the distance ct advances as t only that every second has a "width" of c in the graph, which is the expected behavior of time.

If you look closely, time really is any "thing" that makes a movement keeping our 3 dimensions fixed (the expansion of the universe could and in part is, considered as time) and it is logical that it depends on a speed in our 3 dimensions (as long as the universe is hyperspherical).

Although it is a new theory, I think that the following article (by changing the focus) will help you better understand spacetime, relativity and dimensions:

Preprint ALL SPECIAL RELATIVITY EQUATIONS OBTAINED USING GALILEAN TRA...

Dear Sergio

I had a look at your article and as it is not related to this question, I excuse myself not to comment on it. However, as you have accepted length contraction and time dilation in the article, one point is necessary to mention here. I have shown that the concept of length contraction only exists because Fitzgerald and then Lorentz made a big mistake in their analysis of null result from M&M experiment. That is why I do not consider any relativistic physics valid unless one proves me wrong. You are more than welcome to do so.

Mistake --> length contraction (see figures 12 and 13 of the attached article)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ziaedin_Shafiei/post/Can_special_relativity_be_categorized_as_metaphysics/attachment/5afb54dd4cde260d15dedded/AS%3A626667995271168%401526420701509/download/Michelson+and+Morley+Experiment+Does+not+Validate+Length+Contraction-ZS-1p3.pdf

I have given a summary of other mistakes in an earlier answer a while ago in this forum.

Dear Ziaedin,

Very well explained, many drawings and clear equations, I like it, I look at it in detail and give you an answer ..

The fourth dimension (ct) is cited for the immaterialistic part of the Universe. However, this four dimensional coordinate system should NOT based on geometric perpendicularity, as they are not independent, and instead has a tetrahedral symmetry. These are the reasons that the fourth dimension ct: a) is inconceivable to us, b) has a minus sign (related to its imaginary value/notion), c) embodies the factor c (that is wrong to consider constant during Universe's history) in order to keep the same dimensional-unit among the four dimensions, and d) the vector summation of all four dimensions should be equal to Zero (or to the identical Infinity).

In simple words, Time(t) is a term that represents complex necessary mental procedures we have to follow in order to keep truck of our reality.

Albeit our reality is completely identified by the three space dimensions, we are unable to estimate them spontaneously and this forces us to use the obscure term of Time(t).

In Euclidean coordinates time and space are independent variables. In spacetime coordinates the coordinate time depends on space coordinates.

Dear Hans and Ioan

We know exactly from where the four dimensions are coming from. They are simply a different form of Lorentz transformation equations (LTE). I repeat the transformation from LTE to Minkowski space-time in below. That is why there is ct for time and that is why their signature is (+++-). Please tell me if I am wrong.

"Using time and just one spatial dimension for simplicity;

x = γ(x’ + vt’) = γ(x’ + βct’) ----------------(a)

t = γ(t’ +vx’/c2 ) = γ(ct’ + βx’)/c -------(b)

Now square both sides of (a) and (b) and then subtract them, you end up with Minkowski space-time formula.

x2 - (ct)2 = x’2 - (ct’)2

That is why it is said that Minkowski diagrams is just geometrical version of Lorentz transformations."

The four dimensions of our living space originate from the quaternionic number system that quaternionic Hilbert spaces use to define their inner products and the eigenvalues of their operators. The Lorentz transform converts the Euclidean format of the quaternionic storage bins to the spacetime coordinates that observers perceive when they receive this information via the field that embeds both the observed event that is archived in the Hilbert space and the observer, which lives in this dynamic field that we call our universe.

Quantum physicists apply Hilbert space to model their quantum physical theories. Hilbert spaces can only cope with number systems that are associative division rings. The most elaborated associative division ring is the number system of the quaternions.

See "A Self-creating Model of Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0223

Dear Hans

" The Lorentz transform converts the Euclidean format of the quaternionic storage bins to the spacetime coordinates ... "

The difference between science and any old story is that science must be based on correctness of the statement. Every scientific story should not contradict a correct experiment and logic. It must also be based on correct analysis. For example, there are numerous candidates for dark matter but none is yet proven. One thus cannot prefer his/her own version until it is experimentally verified.

Have you checked the correctness of those systems and transformations in your statement? I am not sure as I have found out that Lorentz transformation equations (LTE) are based on a mistaken analysis of M&M experiment. As I scientists one is not allowed to use LTE in science unless one can prove that the analysis was in fact correct.

Dear Ziaedin

It is true that four dimensions " are simply a different form of Lorentz transformation equations (LTE)" . However, they are not coming from any mathematical manipulation but from our Universe itself. H2O is not so because the valence of H is (+1) and the valence of O is (-2) but the other way round.

It should be strongly emphasized that these four "dimensions" DO NOT imply a four dimensional mathematical space because they are interdependent. So, we continue to deal with a THREE dimensional mathematical space (three independent dimensions/variables) that we have not found/realized yet the universal form of transformation that occurs between them and the Time by using the appropriate coordinate system. This weakness led us to misuse Time as a fourth crypto-idependent (and not a dependent) variable with numerous conceptual misunderstandings.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

Regarding the attached document, on page 11 you have an error:

As you are calculating the time of the observer considered mobile, you have to apply the temporary dilation with respect to To, it would be:

γ Tab c - γ Tab v = c To/2

γ Tv = γ Tab + γ Tba = To γ^2

And I would give the expected:

Tv = To γ

Dear Ioannis Hadjidakis

" The fourth dimension (ct) is cited for the immaterialistic part of the Universe. However, this four dimensional coordinate system shouldNOT based on geometric "

No, all relativity is based on geometry and the dimensions are always perpendicular at one point, whatever its metric

Dear Hans van Leunen

" The four dimensions of our living space originate from the quaternionic number system that quaternionic Hilbert spaces use to define their inner products and the eigenvalues of their operators "

Perhaps with the Hamiltonian formulation, with the Newtonian formulation not

Dear Sergio

Many thanks for reading the article and providing feedback.

The equation which you think has an error is

𝑇AB𝑐 − 𝑇AB𝑣= 𝑐𝑇0 /2 -------- (1)

Dear Sergio,

The right quote of my answer is " The fourth dimension (ct) is cited for the immaterialistic part of the Universe. However, this four dimensional coordinate system should NOT based on geometric perpendicularity, as they are not independent, and instead has a tetrahedral symmetry. "

Perpendicularity of two dimensions implies that the two variables denoted by these are independent and this is NOT true for Time and Space. So, dimension of Time (t or ict) SHOULD NOT be geometrically perpendicular to Space dimension(s).

To clarify this: for (3+1) spacetime the independent variables are three (not four). These could be x,y,z or ict,y,z or x,ict,z or x,y,ict and should be perpendicular. The fourth dependent one (ict or x or y or z respectively) should not be presented within the same coordinate system. However if we like to represent all four variables (independent and dependent ones) within the same system geometrically, its dimensions should loose their perpendicularity. (see also my previous answer)

Dear Ioannis,

I don't know any "immaterialistic part of the Universe", "tetrahedral symmetry" and "ict"

In the relativity that I know spacetime has 4 independent dimensions, perpendicular to each other, as shown by the minkowski schemes, four-vectors and tensors used

From Ziaedin's answer and relativity (we all know):

"Using time and just one spatial dimension for simplicity;

...

x2 - (ct)2 = x’2 - (ct’)2

... "

The last equation could be written as: x2 + (ict)2 = x’2 + (ict’)2 , and for t=0, x=0 and so:

x2 + (ict)2 = x’2 + (ict’)2 = 0

Do these relations relate the variables x with t? If NO, ... . If YES, How we could consider them independent?

Dear Ioannis,

I have a circumference x^2 + y^2 = 1, therefore

x^2 = 1 - y^2

The dimensions x and y are not independent by that? evidently no

Dear Sergio,

I doubt that I understand your argument.

Equation x^2 + y^2 = 1 refers to a circle with radius(r) 1, and in its general form is

x2 + y2 = r2 or x2 + y2 - r2 = 0 .

Its close relativity general relation, for (2+1) spacetime, is

x2 + y2 - (ct)2 = 0.

In both cases we have three variables of which two are the independent ones.

We never attempted to represent all three (independent and dependent) variables (x,y,r) by different dimensions within the same graph (because this is just impossible and meaningless) as we do try to do, in relativity, for x,y,ct.

PS: If xk is not pure number (k any integer index) and x1n + x2n + ... = b, then either b is not a pure number or b=0.

All: The following observation may be helpful also here -- because it denies absolute time, t.

Velocity dependent mass is mathematically correct, but NOT sufficient, physically, for the prediction of the motion of particles in accelerators of particles. This is known for +100 years, and is also stated and shown in the DESY report of 2017, cited in arXiv. One would also need to include an absolute definition of time (DESY report, Conclusion, first paragraph), thus classical. This is true -- but only for comoving observers (not necessarily identical).

Thus, velocity dependent mass does not fit in generally -- it is not even wrong for non-comoving observers, while it is a false positive (actually, a negative as the field changes not the mass) for comoving observers. Time cannot be absolute, that is the conclusion.

All: Actually, time t appears in complex form in Minkowski space, as (√−1 )*t or i*t. One can apply the Wick rotation to it, but what is going on? Complex?

As Edward Titchmarsh ( a famous mathematician) observed, √−1 is a much simpler concept than √2, which is an irrational number.

There are certainly people that regard √2 as something perfectly obvious, but sneer at √-1.

This is because they think that they can visualize the former as something in physical space, but not the latter. Investigation shows, however, the complement: one can not really visualize √2, but one can visualize √−1, and apply it in physics and engineering. One could do this in the real-line only, but one can also use the complex plane, as shown in:

Preprint Overview of Complex Analysis and Applications

Time is a very complicated concept. Especially if you adhere to the view that the universe has a beginning, the concept of time must cope with that view.

See: "The Concept of Time"; http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0292

All: I could cite many other reputable sources, and it is unlikely we are all wrong, but Carroll at Caltech says that [1], there is no absolute notion of "simultaneous events"; whether two things occur at the same time depends on the coordinates used.

Therefore the division of Minkowski space into space and time is a choice we make for our own purposes, not something intrinsic to the situation. Almost all of the "paradoxes" associated with SR result from a stubborn persistence of the Newtonian notions of a unique time coordinate and the existence of "space at a single moment in time." By thinking in terms of spacetime rather than space and time together, these paradoxes tend to disappear.

[1] https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html

Ed Gerck " Almost all of the "paradoxes" associated with SR result from a stubborn persistence of the Newtonian notions of a unique time coordinate and the existence of "space at a single moment in time. "

I think that most of the people publishing papers about SR paradoxes in the 1960s didn't seem to understand that analogous pseudoparadoxes appeared under NM.

So for instance, if we have the barn-pole paradox, where a set of doors open the moment they are touched by the pole and close the moment the pole has passed, then when we look at a receding pole, it appears shortened, whereas if we look at an approaching pole, it appears lengthened. But the same temporal perspective effects alter the apparent timings of the doors opening and closing, so it's NOT as if one observer sees the lengthened pole sticking out through both ends of the barn, and another sees the shortened pole fully enclosed with both doors shut.

One set of observers may see Doors A opening before Doors B close, another may see Doors A opening after Doors B close. The nominal underlying simultaneity is something projected by an individual observer based on their particular beliefs about how light "really" propagates, and if different observers have different beliefs, and nobody can establish who is right, then there's no physical definition of "real" simultaneity.

Given that the NM relationships predict that a moving pole is seen to be shorter under NM than it is under SR for a given nominal velocity, I don't think that most of these authors really understood the relationship between NM's and SR's physical predictions.

Dear Ed

It has been shown in this forum that Minkowski space-time (MST) is nothing but rearranging of Lorentz transformation equations (LTE). If the idea of length contraction has no scientific foundation, so it also applies to LTE and MST.

Thus, the main paradox is that why relativistic physicists try to defend relativity only by trying to “clarify some confusions” instead of accepting that Lorentz created the whole razzmatazz of relativity by committing a glaring analytical mistake.

ZS and all: I think you missed it, but LT is not supposed in Minkowski SR, it is deducted as the only answer possible, and also applies to ARBITRARY movement, such as accelerated.

Dear Ed

Of course, any coordinate system in the mind of a mathematician cannot restrict the movement of any objects in the universe. The issue is the correct assumptions/foundation for the coordinate. I surely did not miss the origin of Minkowski space-time.

The question in this forum is what/where is time in Minkowski space-time?

ZS: Your answer above contradicts your answer immediately above it. Having the verdict before the trial is only good for queens, and make-believe children literature. It has NOT been shown in this forum that Minkowski spacetime is nothing but rearranging of Lorentz transformation, on the contrary.

It is more than most people can accept, because they generally consider breaking a law more "powerful" than following it -- but not Maimonides, for example -- he wrote, "One is obligated to conduct his affairs with others in a gentle and pleasing manner." -- showing that there is an outside force that must be obeyed.

Dear Ed

I have committed myself in RG to pay £1000 to the first student who can claim that length contraction has a scientific base. You can now help one of your student to win the prize.

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

Regarding the question in this forum - Here is the repeat of the relation between LT and Minkowski I wrote a while ago:

" But why we need a constant here at all and where it is coming from? if we say there are 3 space and one time dimensions what is the need to multiply t by c to change it to yet another space dimension. The reason for this multiplication is just because space-time is another representation of Lorentz transformation equations (LTE). It is easy to demonstrate this claim by using time and just one spatial dimension.

x = γ(x’ + vt’) = γ(x’ + βct’) (a)

t = γ(t’ +vx’/c2 ) = γ(ct’ + βx’)/c (b)

Now square both sides of (a) and (b) and then subtract them, you end up with Minkowski space-time formula.

x2 - (ct)2 = x’2 - (ct’)2

That is why it is said that Minkowski diagrams is just geometrical version of Lorentz transformations.

I have shown that LTE is based on a false foundation so goes for space-time. Please see my previous answers in this forum for any reference."

ZS: Your "prize" seems like other "prizes" that are never paid, because it is never "convincing enough" subjectively ... even though objectively convincing.. a known phenomenon (look up materialism, for example).

Like most people, one is usually better persuaded by the reasons which one themselves discover than by those which have come through others. Self-trust tends to be higher than trust on others, for this reason. Cooperation (e.g., with humans or AI) is then best defined as different agents (human or AI) doing different things, at different times, for the same objective.

Understanding that, even contrarians or "evil" bots are cooperating. And misinformation destroys itself, sooner or later, as we see in all RG discussions.

Dear Ziaedin,

"I have committed myself in RG to pay £1000 to the first student who can claim that length contraction has a scientific base"

I have shown it you in my first answers, it is traditionally a consequence of Lorentz's transformation, I showed you how the deduction you went up was wrong and I added a theory that shows that same effect in a more "real" way with the Galilean transformation.

I change those £ 1000 that you owe me for you listen it to what you are told :D

Dear Sergio

I just checked the early messages by you in this forum. I think I have responded to your last answer to me and then I did not receive any more comment from you.

Yes, I'm sorry, I forgot ..

It was something like because I used Lo or To as my own length..

I thought you would realize why and I didn't give it any importance..

I am sure you can deduce it yourself and it is important that you see it for yourself to convince yourself

Dear Ziaedin,

It is very good to always question what is established, it is the engine that drives science.

But the relativity has more than 100 years in which it has been looked with magnifying glass, you will not find any mathematical failure.

I will explain it with the Galileo's transformation, which I think is more logic and easier to understand.

You live in a hypersphere, so any speed in that hyper-surface generates a centrifugal force.

This speed means that the length experienced by the mobile observer is composed of the distance traveled and the distance through the hyper-radius generated by that centrifugal force

Therefore for the fixed observer that length will be smaller than the Lo length, since as they live in 3D it will be the projection in his hiper-surfice that he will experience like length.

Now you just have to use c to have unalterable lengths, rotate vectors and you will see the typical Lorentz transformations.

Dear Sergio

SGC " But the relativity has more than 100 years in which it has been looked with magnifying glass, you will not find any mathematical failure. "

I think criticism of relativity has not been strong in the past as no one looked at the foundation of the issue.

I have tried to show an obvious failure, analytical mistake, in relativistic physics and now you say there is none. In that case why do you think my argument is wrong?

We should first agree that the accepted analysis is wrong/right then I will be happy to discuss your new analysis/method.

Dear Ziaedin,

"I have tried to show an obvious failure, analytical mistake, in relativistic physics and now you say there is none. In that case why do you think my argument is wrong?"

I already showed you that your calculations were wrong in a previous answer, reviewing it now I can't follow the thread of the argument, has anything changed?

Tell me again where is that obvious failure, analytical mistake, in relativistic physics please

Dear Sergio

I responded to your comment on 9th sep. in this forum. My answer starts with "Many thanks for reading the article and providing feedback." I showed that there is no mistake in the calculation in page 11.

The analytical mistake I refer to is shown in the attached article. To save your time please go to middle of pages 7 after Figures 10 and then read pages 8 and 9. The mistake is that Lorentz only considered the movement of light in M&M experiment to conclude the possibility of length contraction. But if we also examine the movement of the half-silvered-mirror we see that the idea does not apply to that movement thus the idea is not correct. It is like to have a theory for solar system which is only based on examining the movement of Mars but when we try to apply the theory to the Earth it does not work. Thus the theory is a failure from start.

Preprint Michelson and Morley Experiment Does not Validate Length Con...

Dear Sergio

For your information I will reward £1000 to the first student who can refute my claim.

For detail please see the following forum in RG:

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

ZS: Save the illusion you (or anyone else in the XXI century) will give cash to such an answer, and go to

Preprint 24 Common Misconceptions of Mass and Energy in Special Relativity

Dear Ed

Thanks for your kind verdict. You had the opportunity, for the last two years, to refute my scientific claim. You explicitly accepted my argument in your first comment but later on started to challenge it but did not say why you changed your mind and what is your scientific reason.

Now, you have the opportunity to calmly refute my claim by helping one of your students to win the prize. I just do not know what can stop you to do so. Instead you prefer to come up with such comments as above.

Dear Ziaedin,

I accept the challenge, when I have any time I will put myself to it.

But I don't want money, by showing you that relativity is correct but that just like Einstein improved Newton's theory, Zoom's theory improves relativity I already have enough.

ZS: You wrote, "You had the opportunity, for the last two years, to refute my scientific claim." I had no such "opportunity" -- I told you this type of arguments will not fly in Einstein SR, and the same will not fly in Minkowski SR. These efforts to "refute" SR to gain notoriety, at least of doing so, are futile efforts, because NO one should try to attack a system that is able to rationally deny the very existence of such weapons.

Dear Ed

As I said, you are happy to write countless comments with various excuses just not to respond to my pointed criticism. What any reader can gain from these exchanges when somebody with the ability of you cannot respond to my valid criticism with science?

Thanks Sergio

If you do not want the reward I will donate the amount to a legitimate charity of your choice. This also applies to Ed and anyone who is not a student. I will upload the receipt for your information.

Daer Sergio Garcia Chimeno

Hope you have not forgotten your promise. You accepted the challenge on 9-Oct-2019 and I will keep my promise to donate £1000 to your nominated charity when you successfuly reject my pointed claim.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei ,

Sorry, lately I've been working on a project that I think is quite interesting and I haven't paid much attention to your question.

I never use special relativity and to answer correctly I should review notes and I have not done it sorry. But I think I remember that your mistake was that you did the contraction 2 times because you used the movement of light in the same direction and not perpendicular.

Even so when I have a while I will answer you correctly, obviously without claiming anything from you.

Dear Sergio Garcia Chimeno

There is no need to know relativity. The issue is about the correct analysis of M&M experiment. Please try to write your answer in one of the the three relevent questions with the following links, as this question is about time not M&M experiment.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity

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

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

I Agree With Ziaedin Shafiei

Dr. Ziaedin Shafiei… thanks for this important question.

follow

Dear P. Contreras

Chapter one of the book simply teaches relativity in Minkowski space-time coordinates. Please see the footnote in page 4. It is well known that Minkowski space-time is a derivative of Lorentz Transformation Equations. A simple version of this transformation is given in one of the older answers in this forum.

In all the equations before the graph in page 6 time is denoted by cT. One way to drop c is measuring the speed of light in geometric unit system, i.e. c =1.

Another way is arbitrarily dividing time by c as they have done it in the graph.

The notion of time only makes sense in a well-founded model of physical reality. That model must also explain the beginning of time and the creation of the universe.

See https://youtu.be/H8rF5gtnrgk for a sensible approach.

Dear Hans van Leunen

The issue here is the flawed foundation of relativity due to a wrong analysis of M&M experiment. Please let us settle this point first.

Preprint Michelson and Morley Experiment Does not Validate Length Con...

I remember Hilbert space when working on H-infinity control method years ago. It is interesting that it has so many applications but it cannot solve the problem at hand. To build trust, physicist really need to address the issue raised.

The more I have looked at the issue the more insubstantial the theory becomes. Please look at the two simple investigations to appreciate my concern:

Preprint Electromagnetic Force and Special Relativity

Article Is Time Dilation a scientific theory?

Ziaedin Shafiei

In the purely mathematical Hilbert Book Model, all dynamic geometric data of discrete objects and all dynamic fields are archived in the Hilbert repository, which is a system of Hilbert spaces. These Hilbert spaces store data in Euclidean format. Observers must travel with a scanning (proper) time window and can only retrieve data from storage bins that for them possess historic timestamps. A dynamic field that acts as our universe transfers the information from the storage bin to the observer. This transfer affects the format of the data and converts the Euclidean format to the perceived spacetime format. A hyperbolic Lorentz transform describes this coordinate transformation. The fact that the field can be deformed by massive objects also influences the information transfer.

The HBM considers all elementary particles as elementary modules. Together these elementary modules constitute all other modules in the universe. Some modules constitute modular systems. The HBM considers all modules and modular systems as observers.

I recently discovered the Hilbert repository. It is a system of Hilbert spaces that share the underlying vector space. It shows great similarities with the standard model. Read "Exploring reality"; https://vixra.org/abs/2010.0106

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm and Hans van Leunen

I have not said that special relativity is wrong and here is my own correction or new brilliant theory. The problem is much deeper. Science has been put aside in special relativity and I have just tried to show this major point in my few articles in RG. I thus do not think that any patch work or complementary idea can fix the theory.

• When Lorentz and FitzGerald did not correctly analyse M&M experiment and ended up with creative conclusions, I simply asked where is the science? And in this case high school science?
• When Einstein created imaginary equipment and relied on imaginary experiments, I asked where is the science? Why do we need to bring back metaphysics?
• When Feynman could not prove what was claimed in Einstein’s 1905 paper, I asked where is the science? Where is the proof for Einstein’s claim? Where is the Falsification Principle?
• When top universities repeat Feynman calculations, verbatim, in their best effort to teach their students the wonder of relativity I asked where is the science and critical inquiry?

One of the above questions is enough to convince one doubt the foundation of relativity but unfortunately everyone has jumped on the bandwagon and has left the real world into a new form and realm of metaphysics.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

We may not agree on the definition and domain of metaphysics but we definitely must agree on the definition and domain of science. I make it simple for everyone by a few examples. One can say that the sum of angles of a triangle can be different from 180 degrees in a non-Euclidean geometry but in Euclidean geometry one cannot add only two angles of a triangle and conclude that the sum of angles of a triangle is always less than 180 degrees. One cannot ignore the rotation of Venus and Uranus and conclude that all the planets are rotating in the same direction.

The mistake made by Lorentz and FitzGerald which was eventually adopted in special relativity is this type of mistake, relying in only one case and ignoring other cases. The same goes for the light clock.

The Feynman calculation, for proving Einstein right, relies on no case otherwise he could give it as an example. This is how bad the situation is. Physics community has accepted something and teaching it even if there is no proven example. Please see my articles in RG for the above three mistakes.

I do not think I am right beyond doubt. That is why I have asked the below questions in RG and I am more than happy to apologise to everyone if I am proven wrong besides paying the nominated prize or donation.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity

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

Sydney Ernest Grimm

You might consider the alternative approach that is described in "Exploring reality"; https://vixra.org/abs/2010.0106

Sydney Ernest Grimm

If you are not convinced by the proposed foundations, I guess that you found flaws in these starting points. I took these foundations from the works of David Hilbert and John von Neumann and from the long established concepts of vector spaces and number systems. I never found flaws in these theories. Please indicate what your critics are.

Preprint Representing basic physical fields by quaternionic fields

You cannot deny the great similarity between the Hilbert repository and the Standard Model.