Permalink Submitted by Anonymous on November 27, 2015

Your unified theory of everything is that time is the limit, not speed? How is that any different, if they are just referred to as a ratio? The main problem with saying "but what if the speed of light is not constant" is the hundreds of components inside the technological devices you used to post this, which would not work if the speed of light were incorrectly plugged into the equations that were relied upon in the schematics from which those devices are built upon. Your unified theory of everything can be summarized as "It's not length contraction, it's time dilation..." In order to have a theory, you need to be able to disprove it. Without giving us an equation, where we can then use it to make predictions to prove or disprove it through observation, your theory is philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I think physics is completely mathematical, and philosophy is the sense that we make from the mathematics... But saying "It's not E^2=m^2(d/t)^4... my theory is that you should disregard the fact that this equation was DERIVED, and just isolate t...

You can differentiate on d in relativity. You can integrate on d in relativity. You cannot come up with any meaningful integrals or derivatives for time in the equation. And being meaningful matters, because, as a derived equation, you can then plug this equation into equations that it was built upon and an equation will remain equal on both sides...

But I'm assuming you got lost at the point where I started bringing in the mathematics, and that is EXACTLY why this is a philosophical interpretation of what relativity would look like if we moved in seconds per meter.

## Your unified theory of

Your unified theory of everything is that time is the limit, not speed? How is that any different, if they are just referred to as a ratio? The main problem with saying "but what if the speed of light is not constant" is the hundreds of components inside the technological devices you used to post this, which would not work if the speed of light were incorrectly plugged into the equations that were relied upon in the schematics from which those devices are built upon. Your unified theory of everything can be summarized as "It's not length contraction, it's time dilation..." In order to have a theory, you need to be able to disprove it. Without giving us an equation, where we can then use it to make predictions to prove or disprove it through observation, your theory is philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I think physics is completely mathematical, and philosophy is the sense that we make from the mathematics... But saying "It's not E^2=m^2(d/t)^4... my theory is that you should disregard the fact that this equation was DERIVED, and just isolate t...

You can differentiate on d in relativity. You can integrate on d in relativity. You cannot come up with any meaningful integrals or derivatives for time in the equation. And being meaningful matters, because, as a derived equation, you can then plug this equation into equations that it was built upon and an equation will remain equal on both sides...

But I'm assuming you got lost at the point where I started bringing in the mathematics, and that is EXACTLY why this is a philosophical interpretation of what relativity would look like if we moved in seconds per meter.