I still haven’t checked up on the resources given to me by these people (my own motivation is the greatest impedance in my solution of anything…), though the ideas of treating any dimension as 1/d comes from The Elegant Universe. Anyway, here is the basic outline of the time discussion cont’d with other participants (Milany Aece is a screen name I often use):

--- Jennifer Giles <arcology2@yahoo.com> wrote:
I was just wondering if there is ever any justification for treating time as 1/t instead of simply t, in the mathematics of physics.

My reasoning is:

1) much of relativity is based on observations dependent on non-Euclidean geometry
2) the observations hold for very large areas
3) in the case of time, they hold for very large velocities
4) time is a dimension, and therefore perhaps velocities are areas

but therein lies the problem. (area equals width X length) A=wl, but (velocity equals distance over time) v=d/t, not v=dt (distance X time); however, if time=1/t, then v=dt (velocity = distance X time). This could be interpeted as an area, because it is a measurement in one dimension multiplied by a measurement in another dimension (albeit non-spacial). If there is any merit to this reasoning, it would also imply that there is a dimension whose measurement is 1/t, and that time is possibly only a by-product of this "true" dimension. Let me know what you think.
~Milany

Date:	
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:51:04 -0700 (PDT)	

From:	

Subject:	
Re: time=1/t	

To:	
"Jennifer Giles" <arcology2@yahoo.com>	

Howdy Milany,

Wow you really know your stuff....actually much more than I know about classical physics. There is a website at www.reciprocalsystem.com. I think the people at that website will be able to talk to you much more intelligently than I could. This is what I know:  According to Dewey B Larson, SpaceTime is actually what he calls 'Motion' and it is composed of 2 components: Space and Time, which exist in 3 dimensions each. Therefore, there are actually a total of 6 dimensions, not 4. As you probably know, there are actually 2 Theories of Relativity: The ‘General' and the 'Special'.  The general theory of relativity 'works' as evidenced by the atomic bomb.  However, its applications are limited by the fact that it does not acknowledge the other 2 dimensions. As far as I know, the special theory of relativity is pretty much discredited by larson. Again, there are people at the yahoo groups connected with this information, and they are much more capable of handling this question than I. Tell you what, though.  How about if I give this question to the group and see what they think? I'll let you know.  Give it a few days though.  Thanks for following up.
jim ruff

--- Jennifer Giles <arcology2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks - I appreciate being referred to them. Also - thanks for the address, I checked out isus.com and it doesn't seem to exist. There is an isus.org but it seems to be some kind of business group. Thanks again!
~Jennifer

Date:	
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:54:42 -0700	

Subject:	
time as 1/t?	

From:	

To:	
isus-discuss@yahoogroups.com	

CC:	
arcology2@yahoo.com	

Howdy Group,
Well, here's a puzzle for all you brilliant people. In the Physics room at Yahoo Chat, someone asked me a question regarding the treatment of Time.  I let her know I would ask you and give her the answer.  Would that be all right?  Or if you prefer, her e-mail is included, you could answer her directly.  

Date:	
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)	

From:	

Subject:	
Re: time=1/t	

To:	
"Jennifer Giles" <arcology2@yahoo.com>	

howdy milany,

well you received two answers.  one person stated that you cannot use both t and 1/t in the same equation, which he (jan) said you appeared to be doing. the other person, bruce, gave a different explanation, and here it is:

It would seem that she has an apprehension of two things:

1) Velocity has a key role in the relationship between space and time. Pursue this line; since the speed of light is common to all reference frames in relativity, suggest making it the "natural datum" from which to reference things, and define it as 1.0 (the parametric approach). Then you can build on the fact that anything <1.0 is sublight -- therefore mass, etc., must all be temporal displacements.
 
2) Intuition of "time as area": consider this, in "equivalent space" (inside the unit boundary, where 3/1, 2/1, 1/1 becomes 1/2, 1/3, ...), the equivalent of space is 1/t (since the is no space inside the unit boundary). Thus, motion, s/t in equivalent space would be (1/t) / t = 1/t^2. Time "squared" is temporal area inside unit space (which would be the "space" of the atom). See page 6 of Basic Properties of Matter, and Chapter 8 of Nothing But Motion.

You could also suggest that if "time" were an area (hinting at coordinate time -- it could also be a volume), then "distance per temporal area", s/t^2, would be acceleration, not velocity.

Bruce