# Deriving space-time in four-dimensional Euclidean space with no time and dynamics

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 3 First 123
• 2020-Apr-24, 07:00 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by PetersCreek
If you did answer, please provide a link to the post in which you cited a textbook that states it is "not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space."

Link to post in which I cited a textbook that states it is not possible to build inclined hypersurface with metric different from outer space:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
With easy. It is enough to just copy-paste first reference from article: S. Hawking, J. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, published by Mir, 1977
If you would find English version, look at chapter 5 (if I remember number correctly). In that part, there is prove that it is impossible to have inscribed hypersurface with signature of metric different from signature of space metric.
Signature of metric for 4d Euclidean space is (1,1,1,1). Signature of metric for Minkowski space, for Lorentz transformation, is (1,1,1,-1). Signature of metric for Lorentz-like transformation is (surprise-surprise) (1,1,1,-1)
So, it is impossible to build hypersurface in Euclidean space with metric (1,1,1,-1) , and it affect both Lorentz-like transformation and Lorentz transformation. Lorentz transformation is just one of Lorentz-like transformations

If someone not understood that is written above (and it would means insufficient level of knowledge in physics). The textbook explain, why it is not possible to build hypersurface with Minkowski spacetime metric in Euclidean space. Lorentz transformation is one of Lorentz-like transformations, just different speed. Signature of metric is same.
• 2020-Apr-26, 09:16 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
...

I did not ask a question in what you replied to. The facts are:
One more time: SR and the Lorentz transformation exist in Minkowski space which is not Euclidean space. SR and the Lorentz transformation cannot be derived purely from Euclidean space.
• 2020-Apr-26, 09:27 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
Any prove for your statement? I see only philosophical belief in response to my mathematical derivation of spacetime. ...

There is no mathematical derivation of spacetime in you ATM idea as the lack of actual answers to my questions shows. Wishful assertions are not a derivation.
IF01: Give your definition of velocity that has no time, Ans, or derive the definition of velocity that we use that has time from your theory.
IF02: How can your observer who is in a space with no time measure a change in x (the dx in velocity) when all you have is 2 unchanging points, Ans?[/QUOTE]

IF04: Give your source that states the pseudo-Riemann manifold used in GR is a curved hyperplane hypersurface, Ans (The EFE are defined in a pseudo-Riemann manifold thus you cannot derive them without a pseudo-Riemann manifold which you agreed with when I did my Euclidian space "derivation").
I have added why your assertion that you derived the EFE is extremely.

No proof is needed. You stated that you start with a (x,y) plane with no time. By your definition, the distance between any 2 points is a spacial distance.
• 2020-Apr-26, 09:31 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans

No you did not. You partially answered it with a citation of a book that I would have to buy and no quote from the book.
IF05: Cite and quote the textbook that states it is "not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space" (when that is what you do in your PDF!), Ans.

What you wrote about what may be Chapter 5 of "S. Hawking, J. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, published by Mir, 1977" may be that it states you cannot do what you did ("it is impossible to have inscribed hypersurface with signature of metric different from signature of space metric").. Also an obvious error that you have a "Signature of metric for Lorentz-like transformation is (surprise-surprise) (1,1,1,-1)". You started with a Euclidean space. You ended with a Euclidean space. You do not have any kind of Lorentz transformation because your equations are in Euclidean space with a metric signature of (1,1,1,1).
• 2020-Apr-27, 11:30 AM
Seems to be something of a language barrier going on.

By definition, hyperspaces exist in Euclidean space.

I really cannot discern the actual claim out of the broken english.
• 2020-Apr-27, 07:02 PM
Ans
Quote:

Seems to be something of a language barrier going on.

By definition, hyperspaces exist in Euclidean space.

I really cannot discern the actual claim out of the broken english.

I not see language barrier. Reality_check seems as understand that I claim as done. He not understand my ideas, but seems as reason is different than language barrier.

I spent quite a lot of time in US, in business trips. Once I was on 3 month duration business trip. Based on experience, I can say I can freely talk in english, I have large vocabulary, but my grammar needs improvement.

I will write answer to Reality_check tomorrow, no time today.
• 2020-Apr-27, 09:22 PM
PetersCreek
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
I will write answer to Reality_check tomorrow, no time today.

Ans,

You should have answered the question long before now because you've been asked several times. I've also warned you that you must answer. If you do not, you will receive a heavy infraction.
• 2020-Apr-28, 06:56 PM
Ans
It looks as in the discussion, I present both positions: position of mainstream and position of my theory. And seems as in the discussion, only I correctly present position of mainstream.
Why I think so?
I think so, because in the discussion, only I use scientific arguments from mainstream.
One only scientific argument in the discussion, about impossibility to have inscribed hypersurface with Minkowski metric in Euclidean space was proposed by me. Actually, it was considered in my article and it was shown why and how I was able to do what was looked as proven as impossible to do.
Mainstream not tell us: “A distance between points in Euclidean space is never a time”. No, it tell us: “distance between points in Euclidean space cannot be time because …”
And in the “because” part, there is clear mathematical prove of the statement. The prove is based on some assumptions. One of the assumptions is not applicable to my theory, and it make the statement not applicable to my theory.
So, when someone says “A distance between points in Euclidean space is never a time” it was either written from position of teacher or from position of author of such hypothesis.
If it was written from position of teacher – thanks, but I have degree in physics, so I have reasons to think I know physics well.
Why it is hypothesis, if it was written not from position of teacher? Because in mainstream, the statement was proven on basis of some assumptions.
If say “A distance between points in Euclidean space is never a time” with assumptions it applicable to everything, it means go beyond proven area. So, it means new hypothesis, not proven in mainstream.
So, Reality_Check here wrote some new hypothesis. May I ask for prove of the hypothesis?
• 2020-Apr-28, 07:09 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
No you did not. You partially answered it with a citation of a book that I would have to buy and no quote from the book.

We are talking about something written in textbooks, right?
If there is no access to one particular textbook, may be it should be in many other textbooks? Is it logical?
One only reason why I added in my article citation to that particular textbook is I read it right at time I need to make reference about that signature to something.
My search in google gave me lots of other textbooks with same statement, and it took less than a minute.
I think such knowledge should be known by anyone, who consider himself as specialist in SR or GR.
I remember I heard it during lectures on special relativity on first course, faculty of physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
IF05: Cite and quote the textbook that states it is "not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space" (when that is what you do in your PDF!), Ans.

What you wrote about what may be Chapter 5 of "S. Hawking, J. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, published by Mir, 1977" may be that it states you cannot do what you did ("it is impossible to have inscribed hypersurface with signature of metric different from signature of space metric").. Also an obvious error that you have a "Signature of metric for Lorentz-like transformation is (surprise-surprise) (1,1,1,-1)". You started with a Euclidean space. You ended with a Euclidean space. You do not have any kind of Lorentz transformation because your equations are in Euclidean space with a metric signature of (1,1,1,1).

You know, language of physics is math. I mathematically proved all my statements. It may contains errors (I not know any), but it is necessary to use relevant language (math) to try to refute it.

Interesting, you not said anything about signature for Lorentz-like transformation. In posts before it looked as you think it have same signature as Euclidean, it was so obvious against math.
• 2020-Apr-28, 07:13 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by PetersCreek
Ans,

You should have answered the question long before now because you've been asked several times. I've also warned you that you must answer. If you do not, you will receive a heavy infraction.

I think I answered every question and many times.
May you provide question, which you think was not answered?
• 2020-Apr-28, 07:15 PM
PetersCreek
Closed pending moderator discussion.