[Tony Stanton]

I have created a mathematical theory of three dimensional spacetime that can match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true. I would like to hear your comments on such a radical theory.
Some of you may already have heard of it but this is my latest version. The theory is called True Relativity and can be found here.

Tony

[theunify]

Well Tony, a theory is good, based in Cosmology, and very suitable for Introductory purposes in any Course Study; However I think your "radical ideas" lack a fully developed conclusion.

[Tony Stanton]

Theunify

Could you be more specific?

Tony

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Tony, I had a message all composed, but my computer crashed, so here's what it was with a little extra, in my e-mail to Alexander;

Hi Alexander S. Zarzerskiy, I have recently finished reading your entire site of excellent ideas and math. I also just posted about you to members on our site; http://www.toequest.com/forum/ Below is a message I answered to one of our physicists, Tony Stanton, about a new theory of True Relativity, as he calls it. It's a classical model of 3D space, fields and gravity. It may be of interest to you.

I'd like to know if you have had success publishing your ideas with any reputable physics organizations, as I feel your ideas of immediate value. Also, do you have a community of physicists/mathematicians to work with? I would further like to invite you to join us at ToeQuest, if you have the stamina for contending views, as we allow all ideas, to flush out the true. I am one of the moderators, and we have several good physicists, mathematicians and philosophers, etc. We'd be humbled to have you join us...

Sincerely,
Lloyd Gillespie

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton I have created a mathematical theory of three dimensional spacetime that can match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true. I would like to hear your comments on such a radical theory. Some of you may already have heard of it but this is my latest version. The theory is called True Relativity and can be found here. Tony

Hi Tony, I think you have some very good fundamental work. I am still processing your pdf on TR. At this moment I would like to tell you, your information is corroborated by Alexander Zazerskiy's work. He's a physicist/mathematician from Latvia. His main work is using classical kinematics to model the electron containing its own self-contained field, and sub-quantum field, vs., dragging. I think his mathematics may be of great use to you, as he has tracked out where the early classical math was corrupted by Max Born, and others upon Minkowsky's death, and also my mention of the Solvay Conference of 1910, http://www.toequest.com/forum/t-q-physics-alliance/2120-universal-evolution-3.html etc., on the same history of ideas. [the Solvay information is down this page a bit, titled, On the Co-creation of Classical and Modern Physics.] I would advise you to read his entire site, as he's been publishing, through his children's interpretations, into English and French. It may take reading the entire site, as I have, to put all the facts together accurately. He has solved the Maxwell-Lorentz equations, and Levi-Civita's kinematics of fluids further, or completely. His math directly relates to proofs of your field ideas. He's located at; http://www.ltn.lv/~elefzaze/

I think we're finally getting somewhere...

Good luck,
Lloyd

[Tony Stanton]

Lloyd

Thanks for your post. I must tell you first of all that unfortunately I am not a physicist, just a mere amateur but the mathematics of TR works extremely well in modelling gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true.

The concept of TR is very radical and testable but because I am an amateur I have no access to facilities to be able to test the claims of TR and I am hoping that some professional with the right facilities will take up the concept and test it with my help.

The results of the gravity probe ‘B’ are due in April and if TR holds merit the value for frame dragging will be higher than expected by General Relativity. Without help from a professional who really understands the math of the GPB experiment I am unable to make a quantitative prediction of the results which is very unfortunate because if I were able to quantitatively predict the results, the physics community would have to sit up and take notice of True Relativity.

I will take a close look at Alexander’s work and see how it may fit in with TR, although linking three dimensional spacetime with four dimensional spacetime may prove a little difficult, especially because I am only an amateur.

Thanks again Lloyd for your interest in TR.

Tony

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Tony, Alexander's math is three dimensional. He's one of the few physics community's physicist/mathematicians working in three dimensional classical mechanics...

regards,

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton Lloyd Thanks for your post. I must tell you first of all that unfortunately I am not a physicist, just a mere amateur but the mathematics of TR works extremely well in modelling gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true. The concept of TR is very radical and testable but because I am an amateur I have no access to facilities to be able to test the claims of TR and I am hoping that some professional with the right facilities will take up the concept and test it with my help. The results of the gravity probe ‘B’ are due in April and if TR holds merit the value for frame dragging will be higher than expected by General Relativity. Without help from a professional who really understands the math of the GPB experiment I am unable to make a quantitative prediction of the results which is very unfortunate because if I were able to quantitatively predict the results, the physics community would have to sit up and take notice of True Relativity. I will take a close look at Alexander’s work and see how it may fit in with TR, although linking three dimensional spacetime with four dimensional spacetime may prove a little difficult, especially because I am only an amateur. Thanks again Lloyd for your interest in TR. Tony

[Tony Stanton]

Lloyd

Tony, Alexander's math is three dimensional. He's one of the few physics community's physicist/mathematicians working in three dimensional classical mechanics...

A quick look at his site reveals his approach is vastly different to TR but it will take some time to read and digest properly. It is refreshing to know other are considering three dimensional spacetime to be a real possibility.

Thanks Lloyd for pointing out his site.



Tony

[quanta07]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton I have created a mathematical theory of three dimensional spacetime that can match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true. I would like to hear your comments on such a radical theory. Some of you may already have heard of it but this is my latest version. The theory is called True Relativity and can be found here. Tony

Hi Tony,
Have downloaded the PDF and I will review the theory.......Q7

[quanta07]

Hi Tony,
On page 2…
"The foundation of TR is that each object in this Universe generates its own spacetime field around itself"
When describing a field, you must specify the vector types that compose the field and their direction.
Are they acceleration vectors?

"at a constant flowing volume and it is this flow of volume that we experience as the flow of time, hence the flow of the volume of space generated by our own bodies is why we as human beings experience a flow of time."
This I can not dispute, as I believe this is partially true, because ‘Volume’ is the first domain of the equation of expansion, and volume is the spatial property of linear time.

the first equation for Vd…….the parameter ‘s’ must be in terms of distance
you have defined it as……..

s = displacement of an object at that point due to the gravity field of the mass.

before you continue to build on this function, you must show that the parameter ‘s’ is meters or feet, a measure of distance. The key function you have built is invalid until ‘s’ is distance within Vd.
On page 3….
You state ‘time is the flow of space’

Time cannot be extrapolated in three dimensional spacetime because time is the flow of space

This is what you wish to prove..NOT what is….

Because there is invalidity in the very beginning, all you build and all that follows is invalid.
I am not saying the theory is not worth pursuing…just show ‘s’ as a function whose units are in terms of distance before continuing….
By the way, within this document, you will find volume define in all parameters including acceleration.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics-articles/427-pure-mathematics-space-time.html?garpg=2
‘Gravity’ is a product of the quantum effect and all mass has a ‘gravity’ field emanating about it.
Time has vector properties and is defined by a MacLaurin series within cosmic expansion

Happy Thoughts………Q7

[Tony Stanton]

Quanta07

Hi Tony,

On page 2… "The foundation of TR is that each object in this Universe generates its own spacetime field around itself"

Hi quanta07, yes, all objects including you and me.

When describing a field, you must specify the vector types that compose the field and their direction. Are they acceleration vectors?

No, vectors are of use only in four dimensional spacetime. If you wish to know how long it takes for the field of an object to reach a certain point in space then equation (13) will give you that value. Time and space are exactly the same entity so you can interchange them as shown in equations (14) and (15). Vectors are not necessary in this concept but they are useful if you view spacetime as a four dimensional metric.

"at a constant flowing volume and it is this flow of volume that we experience as the flow of time, hence the flow of the volume of space generated by our own bodies is why we as human beings experience a flow of time." This I can not dispute, as I believe this is partially true, because ‘Volume’ is the first domain of the equation of expansion, and volume is the spatial property of linear time.

Well it is a start that we may agree on something.

the first equation for Vd…….the parameter ‘s’ must be in terms of distance you have defined it as…….. Quote: s = displacement of an object at that point due to the gravity field of the mass. before you continue to build on this function, you must show that the parameter ‘s’ is meters or feet, a measure of distance. The key function you have built is invalid until ‘s’ is distance within Vd.

The term displacement is in the SI units of the metre but you are right I should have stated that fact but in the paper I refer to the metre in

“The distance that light travels in one second is d = 2998792458 m so due to this fact, TR contends that the largest radius of the spacetime field that can be generated by any mass-less particle in a period of one second is r = 299792458 m”

So I mistakenly assumed anyone reading it would know I am referring to the metre as a unit of measurement. In fact this concept would work if you used the zog as a measurement of distance and the gag as a measurement of time providing you know how many zogs light travels in a gag. In this case I am referring to the metre so I will make that point when the paper is updated.

On page 3…. You state ‘time is the flow of space’ Quote: Time cannot be extrapolated in three dimensional spacetime because time is the flow of space This is what you wish to prove..NOT what is….

Yes, this is what I am setting out to prove and it is the reason why I have included three simple experiments that will prove TR has merit and the spacetime field exists.

Because there is invalidity in the very beginning, all you build and all that follows is invalid.

There is nothing invalid, all measurements in this theory are based on SI terms but in three dimensional spacetime the measurement of the second is just a multiple of volume ‘Phi’.

I am not saying the theory is not worth pursuing…just show ‘s’ as a function whose units are in terms of distance before continuing….

This unit of the metre will be included in the next updated version, thanks again.

By the way, within this document, you will find volume define in all parameters including acceleration. http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics-articles/427-pure-mathematics-space-time.html?garpg=2 ‘Gravity’ is a product of the quantum effect and all mass has a ‘gravity’ field emanating about it.

That is just supposition and as physics has no idea what causes mass, other than the elusive Higgs boson, I tend to disregard non-facts when formulating TR.

Time has vector properties and is defined by a MacLaurin series within cosmic expansion

In for dimensional spacetime yes, but vectors are not needed to find out what the field is doing in three dimensional spacetime. All that is required is a little geometry.

Thanks for looking at my paper you have been most helpful.

Tony
____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity.