Against Time as another Dimension in Physics

Einstein’s Theory hang on the notion that Time is independent from the 3 other dimensions such as x-coordinate, y-coordinate and z-coordinate. How independent is time from them? Are it independent from the other three in the same way them are independent from each other?

Length, width and Height are independent in the sense that any object make a change in one of them doesn’t necessary imply the change of other two. Thus any object in the universe can change only one out of the three dimension without changing the other two. There is no built-in causality chain in the definition of these 3 dimension themselves to connect the change of one dimension to change of another dimension. If there is any relationship between the change of them, that relationship is formed due to something not inherent in the dimensions themselves: Gravity. It is inherently and theoretically possible a change in one dimension doesn’t imply a change in another dimension. And this theoretical possibility has been verified many times in the universe(for instance, by light traveling in straight line which only 2 out of 3 dimensions varies). They are independent of each other Mathematically in the sense that one dimension doesn’t contain the other two functionally, and description of one doesn’t give us any information of the other two. It is a complete and adequate description by each of them without referring to other. Physically they are independent from each other, in the sense that in the existing model of universe, there are no theoretical necessity that change in one dimension must cause change in any other dimension.
Time, however, is defined by periodic change of position of planets. We recognize a year by the time it take for Earth to return to its angular position from the sun(which could be verified by observing the pattern of season in weather). If there is no observable regularity in the system, then time can never be defined. Thus the definition of time is inherently depends on other three dimension. To be more accurate, time is calculated from the change of other 3 dimensions, time is a function of other three. Thus time is Mathematically and Physically impossible to be separate from the other three. Time make no sense without an implicit reference to the other three, and it is causally related to the other three dimensions. Unless we could discover phenomena that time could be referred without any implicit reference to the other three, I am strongly against the usage of time as an independent dimension in discussion of Physics. Since it is an logical and practical impossibility in existing framework of Physics and Mathematics, therefore any theory implies time is vary independently of the other 3 dimension is invalid.(i.e. Theory of Relativity)
Why does human held the illusion that time as an independent dimension to be an inherent truth? It is because of our experience that biological process is irreversible(probably built-in in the blueprint of DNA), and has regularity that we can measure. That irreversibility come from physical measure of entropy resulted from complexity inherent in any biological entity. In a sense, Life is necessary for Time to exists.

Hypothesis on the Electrical Generation Process

It remain a puzzle to me that why a steady electrical current could produce a stable magnetic field in an electromagnetic coil while it require a variable magnetic field to produce a steady electrical current. Here is my hypothesis on how that happen.
When a steady magnetic flux is passing through a metallic object, the outlying electrons of atoms would thus ally its axis of rotation in the same direction as the magnetic flux. Since electrons are only rotating within the bond of atoms, therefore no electrical current is produced. Now when the magnetic flux has changed its direction, that means the electrons would either increase/decrease its speed of rotation. Similar to how objects placed on a spinning wheel would fly off to the side when the wheel speed up or slow down ’suddenly’, thus the change of magnetic flux would induce the change of speed of the electrons spinning around the atom, so some electrons may gain enough kinetic energy to move freely as electrical current. As the outlying electrons fly off the atoms, those atom would carry net-positive charge. Therefore although individual electrons in that atom still ally their direction of spin to the magnetic flux, the atom as a whole would produced a magnetic field opposing the incoming magnetic flux. That is how Lenz’s Law produce its effect microscopically. Thus more rapid the change of the external magnetic flux, more electrical current produced as more outlying electrons from atoms fly off.
But how is ’suddenly’ defined here? I hypothesize that there is a quantized speed for accelerate and decelerate the rotational speed of outlying electrons, which is a property of the electromagnetic field within the atoms. There is an upper limit for the capacity of atomic electrons to accelerate and decelerate the rotational speed of outlying electrons. If that limit is exceeded through the change of external magnetic flux, the outlying electrons are fly off as electrical current. Or maybe if the rate of accelerate and decelerate the rotational speed of outlying electrons is not a multiple of quantized rotational speed of outlying electron, then we would see electrical current produced; otherwise the atom would just adjusting its rotational speed of outlying electron without any electrons fly off. Therefore it strike me as there may exist an optimal way to produce electrical current for individual metals.

The theory of Rotational Relativity

The theory of Rotational Relativity deal with a more common phenomena than Einstein's theory of Relativity, since every object in the universe spin: From electrons to atom to planets to Milky way to galaxy. Therefore it is necessary to understand what effect would the spinning of other objects relative to the reference object.
In according to Einstein's paper on relativity applied in Electromagnetism, any object would experience a magnetic field generated by relative motion in accordance to Faraday's rule. Thus, since any objects in the universe is surrounded by other objects rotating relatively to it, therefore it would be as if the electrons bonded to atoms in these (non-conducting) rotating objects are rotating relative to the object. As a consequence, the object would experience magnetic flux of various strengths: Some are pointing upward as North, some are pointing downward as South… etc. Thus, if we are not in the center of universe, we should expect a net magnetic flux acting on each electron that depending on the position of: An Universal Magnetic field.

Speculation of 070905

Consider a cylinder which is almost full of water. Now we use a rubber tube to rotate the water either clockwisely or anti-clockwisely. Then we observe a phenomena that Einstein claim to have his own explanation: the water near the external surface of the cylinder rise up, while the water close to center of radius fall down, thus forming a cone with the surface of water. As we all understand, centripetal force only provide axial acceleration, which acting only only the plane parallel to the bottom of cylinder, then why does the water fall progressively downward as it approach the center of radius?
Einstein's explanation is that when we stir the water, the whole universe is helping in centrifugal the water, therefore we would see the water become cone shape. I consider this explanation to be wrong and inadequate.
The reason I consider this explanation to be wrong is because one of the principle states that the mass of Cosmo is approximately evenly distributed, therefore the attraction force of the Cosmo in any direction of the cylinder is even. The net force acting on an object must therefore be zero. If anyone bother to go through the Mathematics of that(classical mechanics), you will be certain that the water in the cylinder should NO behave in this way. Moreover, this presuppose that this phenomena would not happen in the middle of the Cosmo, which I consider is against common sense.
My hypothesis of this phenomena has something to do with gravity. The gravity has been diluted near the exterior of the cylinder, while gravity has increased near the center of radius. I consider this phenomena may also model the action of gravity: Gravity essentially cause spiraling of nearby ether by continuously providing a clockwise/ anti-clockwise torque to it. In here I consider this phenomena is literally equivalent to the phenomena of gravity. So gravity, at its heart, is a rotational motion we interpret as linear. i.e. mechanic of rotational kinetic maybe a better description of it.
In accordance to my hypothesis, anti-gravity is thus an equal torque acting on the space/ether which has identical strength but opposite direction of action. Interestingly, whether we rotate clockwise or anti-clockwise, the center always go downward, and we can only deconstruct a spiral locally by providing the torque in opposite direction to local action.
This surely an inspiration to some, an non-sense to other.