Geometric Analysis of Special Relativity and Light Cone

How theoretically does a source of light evolve to accept a cone? Are we assuming something?

I'm not in physics or calculus. I completed grade 12. At 42 yo, I'm going back for AI. I'm just here because I took interest in the cone. Not the light cone, the regular cone.
v̂:= (x,y) -> x/sqrt(x^2+y^2), i*y/sqrt(x^2+y^2)
v̂(x,y)/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2))= 1+i*y/x
||v̂(x,y)/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2))||= sqrt(x^2+y^2)/x
I want the '1' on one side and the rest on the other side.
sqrt(x^2+y^2)/x-i*y/x=1, that's the quadratic formula in a poor disguise btw. There is also a property of the Lorentz Factor that acts like that but I don't want to make this a thesis.
û:= (x,y,z) -> i*x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)+j*y/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)+k*z/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)
û/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2))= i+j*y/x+k*z/x
||û/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2))||= sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x
I want the 'i' on one side and the rest on the other.
sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x-j*y/x-k*z/x=i
So, I pulled some shenanigans here. I do not believe this is a true statement. One of the limitations of removing the coordinates. I suppose I could square it all, but I wont. Instead I'll just hack it.
i*sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x-j*y/x-k*z/x
So, what we have here is a cone. I don't know if it has zeros in it like the 2d one. It does appear to have two tangents.
Umm, I just looked at the graph. It's not what I expected, a cone. It has a sclar (1/x) so it's a cone, but it's not a cone. It's a hyperbolloid. But it's different. This thing is kind of awesome. This is how we represent the real numbers, not the point cloud in a sphere. The color function (3 coordinates, [x,y,z]) and hamiltones make a gradient, the way it should. It has the grid on it, the way it should.

My problem is that if u can’t observe due to moving in the speed o light, u just can’t observe what’s happening at the first time, it doesn’t mean the time stops.

Beyond The Present

My question is, why 45 degrees? There's got to be a better explanation to just "that's the way it is" or "out of convention" Why 45 degrees?

How can we be sure that the observer's worldline is straight? How do we know the shape of the time vector?

the "cone" is an excellent way to show graphically that Minkowski's Spacetime and his diagram are nonsense. They don't represent reality in any way at all, in fact they mislead and misrepresent reality and make people get the wrong ideas. Einstein was the first to be fooled by this crap. Look at his silly theories. (things shrink because someone watches them move... ha ha. what a sick joke of pseudoscience

I have a tattoo of a light cone 😅

First right off the bat, you reduce 4 dimension spacetime to two dimensions. NO ONE is moving forwards or backwards in time. As you said it's relative to the observer. Second WHY 45°? To what restrictions did you refer? The speed of light? How is some one looking "into the future"? Raised more questions than it answered.

BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. The planets are not “falling” in “curved” SPACE. The following explains the fourth dimension AND the term c4 from Einstein's field equations. Consider what is the cosmological redshift (AND time dilation), as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. So, consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. Time (AND time dilation) are ultimately relative to the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravitational force/ENERGY is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This explains F=ma AND E=mc2. (Carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. GREAT. Notice that the sky is blue, and THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. Think QUANTUM GRAVITY.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This explains F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Stellar clustering ALSO proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM energy is gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). I have CLEARLY explained ON BALANCE why the planets move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN (ON BALANCE). TIme dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is (CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Indeed, time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is a galaxy. Importantly, a galaxy consists of stars together AND stars apart ON BALANCE. “Mass”/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, as E=mc2 IS F=ma (ON/IN BALANCE); as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Accordingly, ON BALANCE, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). It makes perfect sense ON BALANCE that the CONSTANT OR increased orbital velocities in the outer parts of some galaxies are manifest. Consider time dilation AND the cosmological redshift. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Importantly, consider invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE. For example, consider the birthing of stars in galaxies. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is (CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).

By Frank DiMeglio

Excellant. thank you

The presentation seemed rushed, and seemed to skip a few concepts at some points, but the animation is absolutely beautiful. Would you mind telling us what you used to produce it?

It's Simply went from One law to the Next
Where's my Cigar!
I'll take a cougar.
Hahaha

It's sort of funny that you discuss a lofty subject like light cones and relativity, yet you misspell "observer".

As clear as mud

You should replace "you can not travel in space (we're in spacetime) faster than the speed of light" by "Everything travels and it is at the same speed"

Yeah..that explained nothing..only dictated theory over animation,.the light cone and it's 45° angle is laughable..I've seen this for decades.. particle physics doesn't behave in any way that one can assume a space in space time OR a time in space time that could possibly be interpreted or represented in this manner..

I now can envision as the light sphere stretching outward, the side way darkness moving in so pull the top and bottom in so the final resulted the universe is like a tortoise or a ring if donut shape and that is why there is no zero and there could never anyone can reach infinity meaning there is never ending place fir the universe . ..

So are you saying you can observe the future and all the possibilities? With what? A telescope?
Or are you saying we can predict with calculations movements of gravitational objects?

I love dabbing a watching videos like this

only 114 likes, whyyyy

Useful, thanks.
Btw, observer, not observor

cool

Great!