Uh, what was that?

Yow. That was a post that needed editing–blogging has the problem of you can really ramble–I try to be organized and I often go back and edit, but sometimes a post just doesn’t come through. Which is a shame, because it contained a really great realization, I think.

The twist ring theory describes a geometry that explains why the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference. Any system that perceives time (e.g., has a clock) that varies linearly with the relative velocity of its frame of reference is going to have a constant speed of light in every possible frame of reference, and the twist ring theory is one of those. My previous post goes into detail (kind of messily, but the concept is there).

I’m not sure I’ve read anywhere about any studies of geometries that allow for constant speed of light like this one–where the constant speed of light can result from classical geometry rather than claiming time is a dimension coupled with spatial dimensions (I’ve never really believed this, I’ve always suspected time is a property of objects, not a dimension in its own right). Now I see how field twists cause clocks measuring time to be influenced by the relative velocity of a frame of reference–and if so, then the standard model space-time dimensions model is not correct. The math works out, but the interpretation of time as a dimension would be wrong.

And what do you suppose the odds of convincing anybody of that is? This has crackpot written all over it. And yet the sad thing is, I am suspecting this idea is right. Hardly anybody actually reads blogs, so I’m pissing into the wind (many thanks to anyone who does read this stuff–I hope these posts give you interesting things to think about).

Since I’ve come up with these theories and all of the corollaries I’ve worked out over the years, I’ve repeatedly felt like this is wasting time and thought about throwing in the towel and doing something else. Feynman says be skeptical of your pet theories and be diligent about searching for the truth, even if it doesn’t line up with what you’ve believed. Yet all the thinking I have done has made me more sure, not less–and this latest revelation (twist rings are a methodology/geometry that intrinsically provides a constant speed of light in all frames) has really elevated my awareness that this has possibilities.

I’ve thought of writing a peer reviewed paper, but Unitary field twists and the resulting twist ring theory are too speculative for physicists, regardless of how sure I am of it. Such a project would require a gigantic amount of work and research, all for something that almost certainly would get shot down. I could write a “Letters” paper to the physics journal, which I believe isn’t held to quite such a high standard, but it still would be a gigantic project.

Anybody out there want to offer an opinion? Throw in the towel? Write a paper? Just continue my howling at the moon here?

Agemoz

Advertisements

One Response to “Uh, what was that?”

  1. erbdex Says:

    Quite an insight there man!
    Applaud!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: