One Dimensional Time and Supposed Time Dilation

            In the theory of Special|General Relativity time is said not to be absolute. In spite of that affirmation, throughout the computations, time is maintained as a single dimension. In fact, it is stated time and again that there are three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. With that dichotomy, the word-concept of spacetime appears to be in contradiction, as it represents two distinct events, each with different dimensional features.
            The example of the twins, where one is an astronaut who ages less than his twin on Earth. Supposedly the astronaut ages slower due to his velocity in flight near the speed of light. And his two ages faster due to his being in slower motion on Earth. Throughout the writing on the theory of relativity time is shown to be represented by a timeline and a dimensional time cone. Time, duration is shown to reflect a certain direction in spacetime.
            The direction of time is thus apparent and one-dimensional. When, at the same time, the theory of relativity talks about spacetime supposedly being inter-related, as a single word-concept.
            In my view, time must have the same dimensions as those identified in space, given the spacetime word-concept thesis established by relativity.  This would also necessarily entail identifying the word-concept of a spaceline, the direction of space.
            Here, if the relativists state that space represents infinite directions, not simply a single spaceline direction as the timeline of duration of time, then the answer is obvious. If time accompanies/is space, if there is only spacetime, then necessarily time is equally infinitely directional as is space itself.
            Relativist physicists, however, appear unable to shed the idea that time somehow stands absolutely alone and separate from space in its dimensional characteristics. They state that time is not absolute in their model of relativity, but at the same time they maintain time to be singly dimensional and separate from space, even though they talk about and write about spacetime.
            I have not said anything about whether I believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is a material limit, or how one must analyze velocities of matter-energy yet.
            By maintaining time as one dimension, the relativists make time absolute, as before, a single manifestation against which all three spatial dimensions are computed. From the relativists' own logic it is impossible to define spacetime as a word-concept reflecting matter-energy as 3-space|1-time as having any kind of material significance. Attempt to understand it in this manner. The x,y,z-axes of space necessarily must have corresponding x,y,z-axes of time given the initial word-concept of spacetime and the theoretrical implication of inter-relatedness.
            Any spatial coordinate on any one of the x,y,z-axes necessarily has a temporal coordinate on any one of the corresponding x,y,z-axes.
            Spatial coordinates Sx1-Sy2-Sz3 necessarily correspond to temporal coordinates Tx1-Ty2-Tz3.
            If there are three dimensions of space, and spacetime is a single word-concept, then there must necessarily and theoretically be three dimensions of time.
            The reasoning here, however, is simply counterintuitive to the word-concepts of relativity [spacetime]. I am not saying that there are three dimensions of time. In fact, in this analysis, I am not stating what it is that I believe exists as matter-energy as forms of spacetime/motion. My view of spacetime/motion must await its own analysis in another book. For now, I limit my observations to what the logic of the relativist physicists purportedly propose, and how what they propose according to their own logic falls short of their theses.
One example: the relativists state that the speed of light in vacuum is a physical limit on the velocity that matter-energy achieves in spacetime. If this is so, then it makes little sense to square the numerical value represented by that speed limit as it is materially (according to their own theory) impossible to attain a higher velocity for matter-energy. Relativists today attempt to escape the contradiction of squaring the maximum limit of material velocity by stating that c-square does not represent velocity. Rather, they suggest that c-square represents a mathematical procedure or indicator, a big number as it were. That's what is so great about theory-building, one can affirm whatever at will; or, move the goal posts as it were. "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity." [Einstein, 1905, page 5. Emphasis mine.] In my view, this statement represents a rationalization for squaring the speed of light; and, likewise, no such thing as "an infinitely great velocity" of matter-energy exists. What exists is the speed of light in a vacuum measured between two selected points.
            What the relativists appear to miss is that c-square is precisely a symbolic multiple representation of the speed of light in vacuo given the fact that the photon is declared by them to be massless. If the photon is without mass, then it is impossible to cite c-square as representing a big number for anything other than speed. It does not represent mass. It represents the velocity of pure energy by the very definition of Einstein's equation: energy equals mass times c-square.
            "The speed of light in a vacuum is not an observed value, but a defined value." [Kouichi Hirabayashi, 2001,; emphasis mine.]

©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.