You are not going to chase-much less catch-any frame of light time history from the rear because there is no rear to it!

[Atlan0101]

As I've noted before, a frame of light, of time, of history, is single sided 1- and 2-dimensional frame, and stops there having no 3-dimensionality, much less 4-dimensionality: No back end or rear end to it to chase, much less to catch, from the rear. It has no "depth", no "deep", no "thick", no "mass", no "density", to it.

You only observe it, detect it, meet it, go into it, travel into it, from one direction and one direction only, front to front ('c') alone! Meeting it ('c') from front alone! You will not chase, much less catch, what is not there to chase, to catch!!! A physic that does not exist to observe, to detect, in any dimensionality, any possible way, form, or existence, that can be chased to catch up to!!! Its frame depth is '0' ('0-point' dimensional).

 

[Classical Motion]

What is a dimension? Is it a boundary? And what exactly is a length dimension anyway? Three orthogonal lines? If right angles count as another dimension, then we have zillions of them.

Just one length is orthogonal. And it has area. Length itself has area. A 1 foot length has 1 foot area. We only need and only have one physical length dimension. A dimension of position and orientation. Orientation should be considered a dimension too. So a length dimension and an angle dimension. And both dimensions vary the time and measurement. So we have two spacial dimensions. Length and angle.

The other dimension is time. This is a physical dimension too. But you can't touch or hold it. And we can't save and store it. But time is needed and used for a "length" to move any length. The limited velocity of light and mass gives us duration. Time is needed for movement.

So, for me, it appears we exist in a dimension of motion, which is composed of length, angle and time.

 

[Jzz]

What is a dimension? Is it a boundary? And what exactly is a length dimension anyway? Three orthogonal lines? If right angles count as another dimension, then we have zillions of them.

Just one length is orthogonal. And it has area. Length itself has area. A 1 foot length has 1 foot area. We only need and only have one physical length dimension. A dimension of position and orientation. Orientation should be considered a dimension too. So a length dimension and an angle dimension. And both dimensions vary the time and measurement. So we have two spacial dimensions. Length and angle.

The other dimension is time. This is a physical dimension too. But you can't touch or hold it. And we can't save and store it. But time is needed and used for a "length" to move any length. The limited velocity of light and mass gives us duration. Time is needed for movement.

So, for me, it appears we exist in a dimension of motion, which is composed of length, angle and time.

Fair enough, it seems your definition seems to be somewhat justified. But eventually, it comes as something of a surprise that the three spatial dimensions of length, width and height together with time are the only true co-ordinates that describe the world around us. Nothing, no object, place or location can be described without recourse to this co-ordinate system. A dimension is a co-ordinate system within which matter exists. The surprise lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to describe an alternate co-ordinate system. Ask any proponent of string theory to describe one of the multiple dimensions needed to explain string theory and you will get a blank stare, he can state that they exist but cannot in any sense describe an alternate dimension. To speak of curls is a mere obfuscation. The same applies to quantum mechanics and the Schrodinger equation, for each additional object added an extra three dimensions are needed for things to make sense. Since light as it travels involves an almost infinite number of particles it requires an infinite number of dimensions: namely, the wave function, within which to travel. Is this truly the theory that we use to describe how light travels. It’s worse than the mad hatter.

Instead of making an issue of this why not try to describe alternate dimensions. Your example of multiple dimensions formed of lines orthogonal to each other (as infinite) is, if you think about it, quite laughable.

 

[Atlan0101]

Quite laughable to you since you don't have a clue about infinity and three, and four, dimensions, closing, boxing, an object or system. I can go to infinity simply by reducing a 3- and 4-dimensional closed systemic box to 2- and fewer dimensions (to infinity). I can go to infinity by simply making a 'Menger Sponge' out of a block of 3- and 4-dimensionality. I can go to infinity in the horizon of the total ((+/-) 'c') constant of the speed of light.

You seemingly obviously can't imagine a deceleration to the negative, -300,000kps. relative, while sitting still in your chair at your computer, or standing still by a railroad track watching a train pass by at some positive speed (+) relative to you at what you would believe to be your own 'stop' (velocity '0') action in the universe, the preferred frame of Einstein as well. You seemingly can't imagine going at the speed of light from two directions at the same time as a 'pincer' action, being both negative (-) to its positive (+) of speed, and positive (+) to its negative (-) of speed, its photo-stop action '0' in the universe, all at once! Those dimensionalities of speed; that dimensionality of speed, is not 3-, not 4-, dimensionality! And not 1-dimensionality! I opened up the dimensionality . . . and kept the constant at the same time.

To be continued.... (Maybe.)

 

[Atlan0101]

"And not 1-dimensionality! I opened up the dimensionality . . . and kept the constant at the same time."

I contradicted myself at this point. At my age and retired I'm sometimes up from bed later or earlier, not being on any definite schedule. It is of course 1-dimensional in its constancy of speed ('c') . . . that is, regarding its "relativity" to space and time ("I opened up the dimensionality . . . and kept the constant at the same time").

Since it's short enough I'm going to repeat and explain the entirety of its "'relativity' to space and time", as I see it to be:
--------------------
With marked [] Changes:
As I've noted before, a frame of light, of time, of history, is single sided 1- and 2-dimensional frame, and stops there having no 3-dimensionality, much less 4-dimensionality: No back end or rear end to it to chase, much less to catch, from the rear. It has no "depth", no "deep", no "thick", no "mass", no "density", to it. [It is a window, a 'Looking Glass', with no glass, a doorway with no door.]

You only observe it, detect it, meet it, go into it, travel into it, from one direction and one direction only, front [facing] to front [facing] ('c') alone! Meeting it ('c') from front [from a facing] alone! You will not chase, much less catch, what is not there to chase, to catch!!! A physic that does not exist to observe, to detect, in any dimensionality, any possible way, form, or existence, that can be chased to catch up to!!! Its frame depth is '0' ('0-point' dimensional).

"[People] seemingly obviously can't imagine a deceleration to the negative, -300,000kps. relative, while sitting still in [their] chair at [their] computer or standing still by a railroad track watching a train pass by at some positive speed (+) relative to [them] at what [they] would believe to be [their] own 'stop' (velocity '0') action in the universe, the preferred frame of Einstein as well. [They] seemingly can't imagine going at the speed of light from two directions at the same time as a 'pincer' action, being both negative (-) to its positive (+) of speed, and positive (+) to its negative (-) of speed, its photo-stop action '0' [relative to the BB, Planck, and Infinity, 'Horizon' of the universe], all at once! Those dimensionalities of speed; that dimensionality of speed, is not 3-, not 4-, dimensionality! [...] I opened up the dimensionality . . . and kept the constant at the same time."
--------------------