Difficult to evaluate, with potential yellow flags.
Read full explanation
Let's rename the theory of relativity
A misunderstanding of someone's name
I think the nature of the theory of relativity is obscured by its name. Usually people are buried in the declaration that 'time and space are relative', but I interpret it completely the opposite way. Paradoxically, time and space must be flexibly transformed in order for fundamental physical laws, such as the law of invariance of energy in the universe, to not go against any circumstances.
In the end, time and space change at their own expense in order to preserve the consistency of all the other laws of physics. It's a reversal of perspective beyond just the expression "relative."
Einstein started with 'the speed of light is unchanged' and came to the conclusion that for the speed of light to be unchanged, the measurements of time and space must vary depending on the observer.
In the end, he first established the axiom that 'the laws of physics should be the same for all inertial systems'. And he came to the conclusion that the measurements of time and space should vary depending on the observer in order to ensure the consistency of the law. What he proved is the 'law invariant theory'. The law is the absolute standard, and time and space are the dependent forms that are adjusted to implement it.
So I think "absolute" is more accurate than "relativity" in this theory. In fact, modern physicists also use terms like "Laurant's invariance" or "covariance" and focus more on maintaining the law.
So why is light invariant?
We often give the textbook explanation that "time slows down because the speed of light is constant," but I want to overturn this cause and effect ontologically. The reason why the speed of light is observed unchanged is that it is the physical limit of freedom that this system of the universe allows. All beings with mass are bound to move in a lattice of space-time under the resistance of the time axis.
On the other hand, light with zero mass is completely free from any resistance. Light has flawless freedom. That's why light is the limit of freedom flowing along the 'boundary line of time/space' and is the most free being in our space-time.
We have only seen the movement of objects as spatial distance, but we are actually moving in four dimensions including the time axis. The larger the mass, the more difficult it is to create a change in the time axis (slope), but light without mass is running with the maximum freedom that the universe allows.
What does it mean that light is at that speed?
Many consider E=mc2 to be a mysterious formula falling from the sky, but in fact it is the simplest and clearest link between Newtonian mechanics and modern physics.
This is the result of adding 'the limit value of v is c' to E=1/2mv2, Newtonian dynamics's kinetic energy formula. The c in the formula does not simply substitute a value, but rather means the 'absolute limit value of speed' that our space-time allows. In other words, it is a constant that defines the structure of time-space.
E=mc2 refers to the 'stop energy' already contained by the mass when the object is at rest, and E=1/2mv2 is just a mathematical approximation of the kinetic energy added when the object moves at low speed.
Newton didn't know the energy of a stationary object and only calculated the amount of change in a moving object. Newton even created a calculus to calculate the amount of change, but he didn't know the grammar of space-time.
It's the grammar of time and space?
If mass is 'resistance' on the space axis, then velocity is 'slope' on the time axis. And c is the maximum slope that the universe allows, the transformation limit of space-time. Eventually, mass completely turns into energy means that it has become a 'state of light' that has zero resistance in space (slope) and converges even the passage of time to zero. It is this formula that re-interpreted the classical world that Newton described with mass and force, with the slope and speed of space-time.
What is the state of the light?
Objects with mass cannot reach the speed of light. This is what Einstein said, too. Objects in motion slow down and distance short. I said this. What if we put Newton's calculus in here? Differentiation is limit. Time slows down to the limit. Time stops. Light stops. The speed of light we see is 300,000 Km/S, but the time of light is stopped and the distance is extremely short. When it gets extremely short? Zero. (The eigentime defined for light converges to zero.)
As soon as light is born, it travels the shortest distance in a stopped time and is absorbed somewhere. It starts and ends at the same time, but it moves from the end to the end of the universe and exists until something meets it.
This is a philosophically attractive, but physically forbidden area of interpretation. I'm not a physicist, am I?
So, is the speed of light constant? Is it always the same?
This insight inevitably leads us to ask the question, "Why did our universe choose this speed?" This is a question directly related to how the magnitude and direction of the force were determined during the Big Bang. The speed of light that we observe c is the grammar that our universe has adopted to consistently maintain its own laws. Then, in a parallel universe that would have had different initial conditions, the speed limit (c) itself may be different from ours. Each universe would have chosen a different ratio of space-time to ensure the consistency of its existence.
If there is a different universe, it can have different grammar and laws than our universe.
Is there another universe? We talk about parallel universes a lot. I don't know. ________________________________________ Epilogue: That's it for today!!! My brain is so complicated that I organized it to cool it down for a while. If the response is good, I'll continue, but if I'm too busy, it might be a little late.
Let's rename the theory of relativity
A misunderstanding of someone's name
I think the nature of the theory of relativity is obscured by its name. Usually people are buried in the declaration that 'time and space are relative', but I interpret it completely the opposite way. Paradoxically, time and space must be flexibly transformed in order for fundamental physical laws, such as the law of invariance of energy in the universe, to not go against any circumstances.
In the end, time and space change at their own expense in order to preserve the consistency of all the other laws of physics. It's a reversal of perspective beyond just the expression "relative."
Einstein started with 'the speed of light is unchanged' and came to the conclusion that for the speed of light to be unchanged, the measurements of time and space must vary depending on the observer.
In the end, he first established the axiom that 'the laws of physics should be the same for all inertial systems'. And he came to the conclusion that the measurements of time and space should vary depending on the observer in order to ensure the consistency of the law. What he proved is the 'law invariant theory'. The law is the absolute standard, and time and space are the dependent forms that are adjusted to implement it.
So I think "absolute" is more accurate than "relativity" in this theory. In fact, modern physicists also use terms like "Laurant's invariance" or "covariance" and focus more on maintaining the law.
So why is light invariant?
We often give the textbook explanation that "time slows down because the speed of light is constant," but I want to overturn this cause and effect ontologically. The reason why the speed of light is observed unchanged is that it is the physical limit of freedom that this system of the universe allows. All beings with mass are bound to move in a lattice of space-time under the resistance of the time axis.
On the other hand, light with zero mass is completely free from any resistance. Light has flawless freedom. That's why light is the limit of freedom flowing along the 'boundary line of time/space' and is the most free being in our space-time.
We have only seen the movement of objects as spatial distance, but we are actually moving in four dimensions including the time axis. The larger the mass, the more difficult it is to create a change in the time axis (slope), but light without mass is running with the maximum freedom that the universe allows.
What does it mean that light is at that speed?
Many consider E=mc2 to be a mysterious formula falling from the sky, but in fact it is the simplest and clearest link between Newtonian mechanics and modern physics.
This is the result of adding 'the limit value of v is c' to E=1/2mv2, Newtonian dynamics's kinetic energy formula. The c in the formula does not simply substitute a value, but rather means the 'absolute limit value of speed' that our space-time allows. In other words, it is a constant that defines the structure of time-space.
E=mc2 refers to the 'stop energy' already contained by the mass when the object is at rest, and E=1/2mv2 is just a mathematical approximation of the kinetic energy added when the object moves at low speed.
Newton didn't know the energy of a stationary object and only calculated the amount of change in a moving object. Newton even created a calculus to calculate the amount of change, but he didn't know the grammar of space-time.
It's the grammar of time and space?
If mass is 'resistance' on the space axis, then velocity is 'slope' on the time axis. And c is the maximum slope that the universe allows, the transformation limit of space-time. Eventually, mass completely turns into energy means that it has become a 'state of light' that has zero resistance in space (slope) and converges even the passage of time to zero. It is this formula that re-interpreted the classical world that Newton described with mass and force, with the slope and speed of space-time.
What is the state of the light?
Objects with mass cannot reach the speed of light. This is what Einstein said, too. Objects in motion slow down and distance short. I said this. What if we put Newton's calculus in here? Differentiation is limit. Time slows down to the limit. Time stops. Light stops. The speed of light we see is 300,000 Km/S, but the time of light is stopped and the distance is extremely short. When it gets extremely short? Zero. (The eigentime defined for light converges to zero.)
As soon as light is born, it travels the shortest distance in a stopped time and is absorbed somewhere. It starts and ends at the same time, but it moves from the end to the end of the universe and exists until something meets it.
This is a philosophically attractive, but physically forbidden area of interpretation. I'm not a physicist, am I?
So, is the speed of light constant? Is it always the same?
This insight inevitably leads us to ask the question, "Why did our universe choose this speed?" This is a question directly related to how the magnitude and direction of the force were determined during the Big Bang.
The speed of light that we observe c is the grammar that our universe has adopted to consistently maintain its own laws. Then, in a parallel universe that would have had different initial conditions, the speed limit (c) itself may be different from ours. Each universe would have chosen a different ratio of space-time to ensure the consistency of its existence.
If there is a different universe, it can have different grammar and laws than our universe.
Is there another universe? We talk about parallel universes a lot. I don't know.
________________________________________
Epilogue: That's it for today!!!
My brain is so complicated that I organized it to cool it down for a while.
If the response is good, I'll continue, but if I'm too busy, it might be a little late.