Equivalence of space and time

From Absolute Theory
Revision as of 03:55, 20 September 2020 by Till (talk | contribs) (Conclusion)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search


Albert Einstein discovered the equivalence of mass and energy. He recorded this in the equation E = mc². This means that energy and mass grow or shrink in the same proportion. You have an energy of 3. Then you have a mass of 3. The units of measurement are deliberately left out. c is equal to 1. c² also. This results from the division of Planck space and Planck time. Both correspond to 1 [1].


In Albert Einstein's equation E = mc² there is actually already the knowledge that the speed is always c. During my physics class at school, a big question from the old days was whether work and energy are one and the same. W = m * v² applies to the work. This can be deduced from the fact that the work is equal to the force times the displacement, i.e. W = F * s. The force F in turn is m * a and a is v / t. So we get W = m * v / t * s and since s / t = v, W = m * v². If work and energy were the same now, one could equate the two equations and would already have v = c or, transformed, s = t * c. Hence, space and time would be equivalent terms. Albert Einstein also saw it that way and based his four-dimensional time on the vector (x1, x2, x3, ict), which ultimately means that vector (s) = time times unit vector c.

But there is another way. Space and time are both quantized. That is, they consist of a multiple of a basic unit. In mathematical terms:

Space = Planck length * natural number


Time = Planck time * natural number

Planck length is: l (p) = 1.616252 10 ^ −35 m.

Planck time is: t (p) = 5.39124 · 10 ^ −44 s.

These are the smallest possible dimensions of time and space.

What is the equivalence now? You can see that both are dependent on a natural number. Critically, one can say that the set of all natural numbers is not always the same, i.e. that m = n does not hold.

Let's assume two different numbers m and n. Natural numbers, I always think of induction as evidence. So:

Let us consider the case n = 1 :

Time is Planck time. Now let's go through the possibilities.

The case of natural number m = 0: Then space = 0 and time = 1. The speed is space through time, i.e. speed = 0. Einstein said that nothing stands still, that is, that the speed cannot be 0. Accordingly, this case falls out.

m = 1. Then we get a speed of 1 or c.

m > 1. If m is the space greater than 1 with a constant time of 1, the result is a speed greater than 1 or greater c. Einstein ruled that out too, so m cannot be greater than 1. For n = 1: v = 1 or v = c.

Let's consider the case n -> n +1 :

That's easy. We have m = n = 1 for the case n = 1. If we now add +1 we get: n + 1 = m + 1. This means that our equation v = 1 or is also correct for the case n + 1

v = c


After complete induction, v = c applies. One can also say that the speed is always equal to the speed of light, even if we have to change the concept of speed for this. Up to now, v has only ever described the speed of movement in physics, but sometimes I used it synonymously with the total speed, which is more than the movement. More on that later. Since speed = space / time, s = t * c or s = t, if you use the unit system of Planck units. You can see that as with E = mc² the division always results in 1. Space and time develop in the same way. They are equivalent terms. But there is also the faster than light of locomotion.

Now you can critically note that not everything moves relative to me with c, that you would see. Yes, that is a fallacy. In any case, v = c applies absolutely. A distinction must be made between the speed of movement and the speed that sweeps over the same space several times, such as rotation or frequency. According to Pythagoras, these are composed as follows: v (red) ² + v (for) ² = v². That much is clear. So we get v = sqr (v (red) ² * v (for) ²) = c. In each case, the abbreviation red applies to the speed that covers several places and for for movement. This is also a wonderful simplification for Einstein's relativistic root. The relativistic root, also known today as the gamma factor, is sqrt (1 - v² / c²). If you first expand this with c, i.e. sqrt (c²), the result is the expression sqrt (c² - v²). but this is ultimately just another term for our equation above with v (rot) and v (for). It turns out that this expression becomes sqrt (v (red) ²). Then the relativistic root expanded with c is nothing else than our velocity v (red) which sweeps over several places. With this one can considerably simplify many of Einstein's equations (see also the main article Relativistic root). If you are bothered by the double use of v and would rather leave v as the speed of movement, you can also use the following equation:

(f / f (max)) ² * c² + v² = c²

I will deliver the constant f (max) later. I still have to see if it really is f (max) in the mks system. But the check works: I replace f / f (max) with the relativistic root and get: (1 - v² / c²) * c² + v² = c² <=> c² - v² + v² = c² <=> c² = c².

In absolute terms, we move not only in the world, but with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the galaxy, and with the galaxy around higher systems to the center of the universe. This applies to the speed of movement, partly also to the rotation. So when the earth rotates, we rotate with it. This center of the universe can therefore be used as a reference point for the speed of movement. Point of reference, the physicists are puzzled because one of Einstein's great axioms was that there is no absolute point of reference, and since my theory is based on Einstein, that would be a contradiction. It's unbelievable that this can also be solved. There is no absolute reference point, but 2. With regard to the speed of rotation, the light and precisely the light that moves with c is the reference point. Of course light has a mass according to the Conservation of mass and is therefore subject to gravity. If it is subject to gravity, however, it will move more slowly, which means that it is no longer light per se in the sense of my theory. I mean ultimately the light with the [elemental mass]]. Of course, Einstein's cosmological principle then becomes shaky in my theory because there is a direction in the universe to the reference point and away from it. I plan further explanations on the page Structure of the Universe.

You can also see that black holes, because they are reference points and move less, that the speed v (red) crossing several locations must be higher for them. In the case of the black hole in the middle of the universe, it is speed of light, which means that time passes incredibly quickly here.

In addition, it must be stated that we all operate on a micro level. We are all made of light, which contains the elemental mass and of which quarks are also made. These move back and forth at the speed of light, according to the plausible theory. But since space and time have to be preserved after the maintenance of the basic quantities, the velocity also remains constant when two photons or quarks are connected. From this point of view, too, v = c results. If we assume an elemental mass has the extension s = 1 and the time t = 1 and connect 2, then they have the extension s = 2 and t = 2, in a simplified and abstract way. Whereby more and more v (red) comes into play with the mass, so that the space as an extension is replaced by the space that is swept over several times.

And last but not least, it can also be that relatively v = c applies, apart from the space-time vector already shown. This is awesome. It is now not so easy for the reader to express, but many have drank too much alcohol in their youth, so that everything revolves around you. In doing so, the brain loses our normal view of what we consider to be relative. Babies also experience this in their first few months until human vision asserts itself. You may not believe me or accuse me of an island talent, but I think I remember. Of course, I don't want to encourage anyone to have borderline experiences with alcohol. And these statements are a bit like in the allegory of the cave and are not yet firmly established. One can also say that at the quark level everything moves relatively with c. The way is open here to draw interesting conclusions about the curvature of space according to Einstein and to analyze the structure of our world. And if someone starts to stress again, you could simply say: "I'm already moving at the speed of light, I can't go any faster.

Einstein and the equivalence of space and time

Albert Einstein also assumed that every object moves in space-time with speed of light, so that accordingly v = c and that space and time are equivalent terms. In his opinion one can convert time into space and vice versa. For example, with an object that moves quickly, time passes correspondingly more slowly in order to maintain the equivalence of space and time. According to the absolute theory, however, space cannot be converted into time and vice versa, mainly because of the space conservation law and the time conservation law. The proven fact that time passes more slowly can only be explained by the fact that when time is measured by means of a balance wheel, the time is determined based on the tremor, i.e. the multiple passing of the same places. If a body moves, this movement slows down and with it the time measurement. Einstein also saw this in a similar way, he says, if one were to measure the time with a pendulum, that a different value would result for the time dilation.

Pulsating speed

In retrospect, I noticed that Plato's distinction between the speed of rotation and speed of movement still needs to be expanded, namely by the pulsating speed or the overall frequency. So the more a body pulsates, the less it rotates with constant movement. This explains the discussion about the equivalence of rotation speed and mass, namely that Venus rotates less than the earth, but still has the same mass. Venus has a higher temperature and accordingly pulsates more, which also explains the contraction of places according to the theory of relativity. The pulsating speed crosses places several times during the contraction, so one can also speak of a compression of the places here. This pulsation can certainly also be viewed as a frequency.

Recommended books

I particularly recommend Einstein's original texts. All of my youth I have only read secondary literature. The true genius of Einstein can only be seen in the original texts.


Sketch 1

Sketch 2


Essay and proof, translation together with Bernhard Hagen can be downloaded for a small donation.