Does this seem reasonable then:
Can you give any example of "time" that does not involve "distance"?
Whenever people talk of time, they refer to a distance. Example: the distance the hand of a clock moves. The distance the Earth rotates about its axis. The distance a caesium atom vibrates.
Do you agree with this (step 1)?
Now, how do you measure a distance? You compare it with another distance, right? Do you agree with step 2?
But how do you compare one distance that could be anything, with another distance that could be anything? You can only say a ratio between the two. Agree with step 3?
If I place a biro along the edge of a sheet of paper; to find out how many birolengths the paperedge is long, requires me to move the biro in a series of jumps along the paper (or rotate the biro end over end). Agree with step 4?
And to measure a new piece of paper; I could use, as a ruler, my old piece of paper that is now subdivided as somany birolengths. Agree with step 5?
Haven't time to explain what I said about fields just now, but is this O.K.:
Is it O.K. to substitute "reference distance" for all uses of "time" in equations (based on Step 1)? If not, why not?
Example of substitution:
In "The Force Of Symmetry", by Vincent Icke it says that the dimension of Planck's constant is angular momentum: hbar = mass x speed x length = energy x time. So based on step 1, I say = energy x reference length.
The book says that the dimensions of speed of light c = speed = length x time. So I say = length x reference length.
The book says that Coulomb's law (electromagnetism) is force = charge squared / length squared.
It says that force x displacement = energy.
It say that then Coulomb's law is: charge squared = energy x length.
e is charge and the book says that only one dimensionless number can be constructed from hbar, c, and e namely alpha = e squared / hbar sq.
alpha = 1/137.036 is "fine structure constant" according to the book.
But if I substitute "reference length" for "time" I get: they said charge squared is energy x length. They said hbar is energy x time.
I say (step 1) time is just reference length; so
charge squared =
energy x length
(now taking 'length' as 'reference length) =
energy x time =
hbar
To keep note of the fact that I called something "reference" I will refer to that aspect as a "1 jump" in perspective
They say fine structure constant alpha = charge squared / hbar x c
so since I found charge squared = hbar (via a change in perspective by calling 'length' as 'reference length')
then we have alpha = (reference) hbar / hbar x c
so since hbar/hbar = 1 (but keeping note of the 'jump' in changing perspective)
we have alpha = 1 jump x c
and since c has dimensions speed or distance / time
which I call distance/ reference distance
then alpha = 1 jump x 1 jump
(as distance/ reference distance is just 1 x 1 jump in perspective.)
If the two jumps are not just cancelling back and forth; then there must be a third jump between then that is the result of them (like adding two vectors gives a third).
So I have "fine structure constant" is 3 jumps as in a triangle. Which tallies with my "3wayjump" theory though I only figured out this Coulombrelated stuff here now.
Is there any error in the logic?
Anything against going through physics this way? That is; replacing "time" with "reference distance" and acknowledging the "reference" by the concept of "1 jump (in perspective)"?
dolphin
