[Tony Stanton]

Science has always assumed time to be a separate dimension from that of space, although it is considered inseparable from space. We measure space in three dimensions and use time to model how we move through space.
I propose that space and time are not just inseparable but are exactly the same entity and using this assumption and the assumption that matter generates space where time is the result of the rate that matter generates space, I have modelled gravity, redshift, time dilation and force all without ever using Newton’s Universal gravitational constant. As far as I am aware I am the first person to accurately model gravity without ever using ‘G’.
You can find my paper here.

I would be happy to hear you thoughts.

Tony

[neutralino]

How do you define a "second" if you are not using the normal definition of time?

[Tony Stanton]

Neutralino

How do you define a "second" if you are not using the normal definition of time?

Good question, but if you read my paper you would see that a second is defined as a volume of space.
Each and every object generates about 1.1286 x 10^26 m^3 each second. On that assumption I have been able to model the gravity field of any object.

Tony

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton Good question, but if you read my paper you would see that a second is defined as a volume of space.

That's not precisely true though, is it? What you've said is

Originally Posted by paper matter radiates a zone of spacetime by a fixed volume each and every second

which isn't really a definition of a "second." What do you mean by "radiate" in this context? This doesn't make sense to me; what you appear to be saying is that matter changes the volume of spacetime every second, but also that the volume of spacetime is actually a unit of time. So, you are saying that matter is constantly changing the volume of spacetime in which it is sitting.

Further, later on you mention something about time periods, and distances measured over time periods, however you do not define "time period."

[dleviwing]

Time is a measurement based on a reference to a repetitive motion event. Since motion of the time measuring device (clock) is influence by motion, errors occur and must be compensated for by the use of Relativity. Time is NOT AN ENTITY; it is a method of communicating motion. The volume of an object (or space)only requires 3 dimensions of distance measurements to define it; if that object changes its spatial position then it requires the forth dimension of time to communicate that displacement. Space-time is nothing more than a mathematical methodology to define the subjective interpretation of the geometry of space based on the velocity of light producing the same numerical value in all reference frames of motion.

I always liked the comment made in the movie “Josie Wales”; "don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining". The embellishment of time is nothing more than an expression in scientific terms of the “Emperors New Cloths” and as the story goes, only fools can see the cloths.

[Tony Stanton]

Neutralino

That's not precisely true though, is it?

Yes it is!

which isn't really a definition of a "second." What do you mean by "radiate" in this context? This doesn't make sense to me; what you appear to be saying is that matter changes the volume of spacetime every second, but also that the volume of spacetime is actually a unit of time.

I would not expect you to understand it after reading through it once. To understand it you will have to use and play with my equations. Did you understand Einstein’s relativity straight away? I think not.
You also have to appreciate that you have been taught to think of space and time as separate dimensions so it will be difficult for anyone who is classically trained to think of spacetime in a completely different way.
Your body is radiating space while you are sitting there reading this. You are unaware of it but what you perceive as motion through time, times arrow, is the rate at which your body is producing the space around you.

So, you are saying that matter is constantly changing the volume of spacetime in which it is sitting.

Yes, exactly!

Further, later on you mention something about time periods, and distances measured over time periods, however you do not define "time period."

I haven’t defined a time period. Science uses the second so I have kept that convention. You could use a smaller period of time which means a smaller volume of space and different value for the spacetime constant (STC) but whatever time period is used that same time period must be used in the equations where ‘t’ is present to give the correct answer in the known dimension of the second that physics uses.

Tony

[Tony Stanton]

dleviwing

Time is a measurement based on a reference to a repetitive motion event. Since motion of the time measuring device (clock) is influence by motion, errors occur and must be compensated for by the use of Relativity.

Yes, but what form of Relativity. Both mine and Einstein’s give nigh on the same results except Einstein never included acceleration as a cause of time dilation.

Time is NOT AN ENTITY; it is a method of communicating motion.

I can see you are classically trained!

The volume of an object (or space)only requires 3 dimensions of distance measurements to define it; if that object changes its spatial position then it requires the forth dimension of time to communicate that displacement.

No it does not. The objects position relative to other objects remains the same but the amount of space that object has generated has increased. Don’t mix up distance with space.

Space-time is nothing more than a mathematical methodology to define the subjective interpretation of the geometry of space based on the velocity of light producing the same numerical value in all reference frames of motion.

It is thinking like that which has kept us locked in the gravity well of the Earth where we are choking in a polluted atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels when all we really need to do is understand time to free us and our children from pollution and give us a free ride to explore the Universe.

I always liked the comment made in the movie “Josie Wales”; "don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining". The embellishment of time is nothing more than an expression in scientific terms of the “Emperors New Cloths” and as the story goes, only fools can see the cloths.

Only fools believe everything they have been taught without question. Try my equations then come back to me if you are not getting the right answers

Tony

[dleviwing]

I responded to your theory once before; it was silly then and nothing has changed to convince me otherwise. I also find your claims to be unfounded and lacking correlation to known facts.

BTW: I don’t know what books you are reading but Relativity does indeed present time dilation as a function of accelerations.

[quanta07]

I have read you pdf.
You begin by assuming a premise to be true…..
Then proceed to use math drawn from illusions and reverse engineering to state that a ‘universal second’ is equal to a spherical VOLUME of radius ‘Ct’.
Then define the ‘universal clock’ in terms of LINEAR distance multiplied by the cube root of some number. Some really bad math here.

Matter does not radiate ‘spacetime’.
Just because you severely want this to be true, does not make it so.
Any and all conclusions based on this false premise ….. are False.

Space and time are inseparable, but each is unique, NOT the same.
I find the presentational logic invalid and the math reverse engineered and incorrect.

[neutralino]

To be honest, Tony, the thought process behind your theory is summed up in this sentence talking about the results of GPB:

Originally Posted by Tony I believe the “motional” procession will give a higher value because True Relativity predicts that local spacetime is rotating with the Earth and not being dragged around by the Earth.

It's not enough to say that "you believe" your theory will do such and such-- if you don't make quantatitive predictions, then it is useless to make such comments.

I agree with dleviwing and quanta07; sorry, but your theory just doesn't work for me!