View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:30 am

Welcome to vixra

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Author Message

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 1
Post Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
The starting point for the concept is the idea that what we use as clocks don't measure the true time. Based on this idea, we can define time as absolute and think that clocks don't measure the absolute time, but they have a tick rate that depends on the speed relative to the flat absolute space. The idea is what I think is a natural interpretation of what happens in the very popular thought experiment of Einstein's relativistic train. If the light beam is a light clock, it becomes clear that the trajectory of the light beam is the only thing that makes the tick rate change. The idea is that the same thing happens with all the clocks we use. Following this idea we can construct a whole theory closely following the empirical evidence we already have. This model suggests that space doesn't have a variable geometry, instead complex particles inner geometry changes what we call time and space. This concept is only intended to be a starting point for a proper theory of space. Usually theories start from simple concepts. If the concept is wrong, then mathematics can't do anything to fix it, unless you accept the mathematical predictions are irrational. Mathematics can be used to further develop the theory and to make sophisticated predictions. My opinion is, both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity theories, at some point, apparently make irrational predictions.
This paper, only contains few principles that are intended to give a better and more natural explanation of the reality.

I would appreciate a review of my paper. This would help me identify potential issues.
Here is the link for it:

Thank you!

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:07 pm
Report this post
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Donate Now
Donate Now

Forum theme by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Hosted by © 2017 | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact