Results 1 to 30 of 91

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105

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

    About year and half ago I started thread in the ATM forum with proposal of unified field theory: "Spacetime-and-matter-as-emergent-phenomena-unified-field-theory". It was very useful discussion.
    Thanks to Reality_Check and other participants.

    The discussion shown to me that in my theory distance between start point and results, such as QM etc, it too big. After some thinking of results of the discussion, I decided to write article with foundations of the theory. It contains only foundations, quantum mechanics etc is not considered at all in the article. Later, I presented the article with foundations of the theory on several seminars and one international conference on physics. I cannot say it caused lots of interest, but some discussions happened. After one of seminars, in following email discussion, was found quite significant error in equations, I fixed it later. As of now, I not know any error in the article.
    The article, as far as I see, cannot be published in physics journals because it challenge realism. Editors from physics journals responds it should go to philosophy journals, editors from from philosophy journals write it is physics and should go to physics journals.

    Link to article is: https://vixra.org/abs/1812.0157
    Or, direct link to pdf document: https://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0157v5.pdf

    What is in the article?
    The article contains foundation of discussed earlier theory. It not contains any quantum mechanics, it only contains basis of theory.

    In the article, I propose following model:
    1. Time and dynamic is absent on fundamental level. No any motion, no energy, nothing related to time and dynamic on fundamental level
    2. On fundamental level there is Euclidean space, with al least 4 dimensions. (And yes, I know about impossibility to derive hypersurface with Lorentz metric in Euclidean space. There is solution for the theory)
    3. All dimensions are equal, there is no preferred direction.
    4. Reiterating that was written before – time and dynamic on fundamental level is absent. Completely. No anything like time dimensions etc.
    5. There is some field or field on fundamental level. The field(s) are defined at each point of fundamental space and have values belonging to set of real numbers (scalar field). (Scalar fields, described in textbooks for QFT, have different properties than these fields, so statement about insufficient degrees of freedom is not applicable here. But lets put it aside of the discussion) There is no time or dynamics. Thereby, the fields also have no dynamics. It also means full determinism. I will call these fields fundamental ones. I suppose that the fundamental fields are smooth and are described by certain partial differential equations. Each of the fundamental fields is independent of other fundamental fields. This means that there are no other fields in the equations describing any fundamental field.
    6. Quite obviously, it is not possible to add observer to the model in traditional way. Observer always requires time for its existence. Absence of time means it is necessary to add something else to add observers. Instead of time dimension, I use space dimension. Details are in article. All space dimensions, as I already write, are equal, no preferred direction. Observer is able to observe changes because I postulate that changes on consecutive 3-d hyperplanes in fundamental space can lead to appearance of observer. [These is hardest of understanding point of the model].
    7. Because observer appear as result of changes of field(s) on consecutive 3-d hyperplanes in fundamental space (I reiterate, there is no changes in fundamental space, But state of projections of fundamental field(s) on consecutive hyperplanes can change), observer is not exists objectively. And even more, Universe is not exists objectively. It exists only when there is some observer which observe it. Without observer, spacetime in the model is just mathematical abstraction.
    So, I propose subjective idealism in foundation of my theory. Fundamental space with defined on the space field(s) exists objectively. But, because observer cannot exists without time and dynamic, the space and fields exists in quite nontraditional way, without any ability for direct observation. Their presence can be verified only indirectly, based on how well the theory fit to observations.

    As one can notice, there is no relativism at the model. There is no aether at the model. There is no motion at the model. There is no gravity at the model.
    What I claim as done in the article in scope of the theory:
    1. Derived anthropic principle. Yes, derived, not postulated
    2. Derived principle of causality
    3. Derived equations of special relativity
    4. Derived principle of locality
    5. Found what is gravity
    6. Derived equations of general relativity. And I derived in in such way, that there is clear explanation why gravity part is absent in tensor of energy-mass.

    And all above done on model without time, without dynamic, without principle of locality, without gravity.
    So, I remove lots of phenomena from list of fundamental ones.

    The claims, as it can be seen, are quite big. I am interesting in testing the theory, test are the results correctly derived, are any obvious weaknesses.

    Thanks to moderators for allowing to open the thread.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,567

    One moderational note: this thread stands on its own, only the topic in the OP will be discussed.
    No links to the previous thread by Ans are allowed.
    Therefore, I also deleted the link at the beginning of the OP.
    Have fun discussing.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    ....1. Derived anthropic principle. Yes, derived, not postulated
    2. Derived principle of causality
    3. Derived equations of special relativity
    4. Derived principle of locality
    5. Found what is gravity
    6. Derived equations of general relativity. And I derived in in such way, that there is clear explanation why gravity part is absent in tensor of energy-mass.
    This is wrong, Ans.
    The anthropic principle is not a scientific principle that can be derived. It is a philosophical consideration. We note that the universe allows for life in the current era and that we exist.
    As soon as you write "four-dimensional Euclidean space" you cannot derive anything in relativity because it is mathematically impossible for relativity to exist in a Euclidean space. That is especially true for general relativity.
    "No time" is extremely wrong because time is what separates event. For example it took time separated the start of my typing rom the end of my typing. SR and GR explicitly have time as a 4th dimension. No time = no time dimension and makes it is impossible to derive anything in them.

    The PDF has:
    "There are two principal models of the nature at current time." which is wrong. There have been no aether models in mainstream physics for 115 years.
    "Let's assume that at the fundamental level time does not exist at all." is the "no time" error. We cannot assume that because that is not this universe. We see time at all fundamental levels. We see dynamics at all fundamental levels. You acknowledge this indirectly by writing "change" that needs time.
    Non sequitur: An unclear "consciousness is an epiphenomenon caused by the change of physical fields on hypersurfaces" postulate does not lead to the anthropic principle. At best it is trivial logic "consciousness exists thus consciousness exists".
    "Principle of Causality" is unclear assertions that are not about causality in physics.
    "Time Vector Direction" is word salad, not physics.
    "Derivation of Hypersurfaces and Observer" is word salad, not physics.
    "Symmetry to the Translations of the Emergent Time and Space" is word salad, not physics.
    "Observable Physical Fields" is word salad, not physics.
    "Inertial Frames of Reference" starts with a over-simplified definition that ignores your "no time" requirement. If there is no time then there is no speed and no inertial frames of reference! "The question now arises of how to move from one inertial frame of reference into another." followed by nonsense. The way to move from on frame to another is to change speed. "The first consequence, relativity of simultaneity" is not the relativity of simultaneity. Word salad about observed time dilation.
    "Energy" is word salad, not physics. Energy has a definition in physics.
    "Hyperplane Velocity and Angle of Rotation" ignores your "no time" requirement. If there is no time then there is no velocity and no rotation. Lots of "time" in that section!
    "Interactions Velocity Limit" is a "principle of causality" fantasy that says all interactions must travel at a "c" which is not the speed of light but an undetermined value (thus a fantasy). Some nonsense to make your "c" a constant and the same in all inertial frames.
    "Velocities transformation and non-conservation of cause-and-effect relations during the transition between frames of reference" is more "switch from one frame of reference to another" nonsense. Frames are switched by changing speed.
    "Derivation of Lorentz transformations" is close to a lie because you use a mainstream textbook to do this, not your ATM. I will assume that you followed the mainstream textbook accurately. That gives the mainstream Lorentz transformation where c is the speed of light, not your "c".
    "Physical Meaning of Lorentz Transformations and STR (Special Theory of Relativity by Einstein)" starts with your "no time" error. A "there is a violation of cause-effect relations when switching from one frame of reference to another" (in SR) error. SR uses Minkowski space rather then Euclidean space because SR is impossible in Euclidean space. A big problem is that you know this because you know about the Lorentz transformation. That has clear and obvious mixing of time and space which does not happen in Euclidean space.
    "Space-Time Direct Transformation in the Hypothesis Framework." is irrelevant word salad and math.
    "Principle of Locality" is word salad.
    "Curved Space-Time and Gravitation" is word salad with a fantasy that gravitation (GR) is "curvature of a hypersurface", etc.
    "Mass and Inertia" needs to actually say what they are!.
    "Hypersurface Space-Time Metrics" is a fantasy that "a special theory of relativity has been obtained.".
    "Object Motion in a Gravitational Field" is a delusion that "equation of an object free motion in the special theory of relativity" can be generalized to "an object motion equation of in a gravitational field". SR does not include gravity and strictly speaking has no acceleration. Your "curvilinear coordinates" seem not to be Euclidean space which is a requirement for your theory. Christoffel symbols are generally used in GR.
    "Gravitational Field Equations" is a bit of gibberish. You start with your imaginary hypersurface. You state a general form for an action S. Some nonsense and you assume that particles do not interact with a field. A "Now we can proceed to the derivation of the gravitational field equations." fantasy when you do not derive them. What you do is take an equation that is a similar form to an equation in a mainstream textbook but with different meanings for the symbols and substitute what the textbook defined them as.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2020-Apr-06 at 03:09 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Reality_Check, thanks for the comments.

    In the comments, I see one clear and big problem – it is comments not about my theory, it is comments about misconception of the theory.

    And key misconception is right at start:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    "No time" is extremely wrong because time is what separates event. For example it took time separated the start of my typing rom the end of my typing. SR and GR explicitly have time as a 4th dimension. No time = no time dimension and makes it is impossible to derive anything in them.
    So, you name key concept of theory as wrong right from start, without any consideration.
    And, without understanding of the concept, rest of theory looks meaningless.

    How to add time to system without time.
    Let us consider plane (x,y) with defined on the surface function f(x,y)=x+y
    Do you see any time dimension or dynamic here? I not see them
    Next, how to add dynamic and time to the model with plane with defined on the plane function.

    Quite easy to do. Take some line. Next, find how function on following line, after parallel shfit, would look. It is possible to find function which depend on distance between lines (it cannot be done in generic case, but lets consider case when it is possible).
    If take vertical line x=2 , how values of function would look for parallel line on distance s? Equation of the line is x=2+s
    For each point y, belonging to line x=2, value at lines x=2+s at same y would be: f(x,y) = x+y = (2+s) + y = (2+y) + s = f(x=2, y) + s
    So, if consider how values of function evolve during parallel transfer of line at point y, the value depends on s, distance between parallel lines. It is parameter of evolution in equations. Time is also parameter of evolution in equation. So I take the parameter, distance and use it as time. As result, instead of 2d plane, I got 1-d space and time.
    If take not vertical line, time can be added in same way. Just, instead of looking how function evolve at point y, necessary to look how function evolve along line, perpendicular to chosen line.

    In my theory I use not distance between lines, but distance between 3-d hyperplanes and, later between 3-d hypersurfaces. No any changes happens with defined on 4-dimensional euclidean space fields. So, there is no time and there is no dynamic on fundamental level of the theory. Fundamental fields in my theory, similar to function f(x,y)=x+y, not change over time, because time is not exists. How it is compatible with quantum mechanic, let’s put aside of the discussion.
    The model looks very counter intuitive, Such introduction of time looks more as mathematical trick. But what if it is correct guess? And in order to validate it, it is necessary to look for consequence of such time.
    And the article explain the consequences.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    So, you name key concept of theory as wrong right from start, without any consideration....
    I stated your fatal error of "no time" and the easily understood reason why it is wrong. In physics and the real world (not the math of an (x,y) plane), time exists. Worse is that you say there is no time, energy, or dynamics. That does not describe this universe and is not physics. If some magical way you can get from your "no time, energy, or dynamics" to physics that has the time, energy, and dynamics of this universe then you will be doing physics.
    A formal question to show the "not time" error:
    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.
    That will not be a story using words such as "evolve" or change" or "transfer" that have time in them as in this post. No time = nothing evolves or changes or can be transfered.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I stated your fatal error of "no time" and the easily understood reason why it is wrong. In physics and the real world (not the math of an (x,y) plane), time exists.
    First, you mixing here two assertions:
    1. Time exists in physics
    2. Time exists in real world

    Second, you assertions looks incomplete. I guess you mean “time exists and it is real phenomenon”.

    First, lets look at time in physics. Time in physios is parameter of evolution in equations. Time in physics, in current mainstream physics, cannot be quantized.
    All of it is not prohibit deriving time in way as I did for plane (x,y).

    Second, about time exists in real world and it is real phenomena. And here we are go into philosophy. Debates about realism vs idealism go for very long time. So far, realism was not proven. It means, there is no prove that time is real phenomenon. It is possible to use argument about “time is real” as argument against any realism-based theory. However, my theory is not based on realism, it is based on subjective idealism. So, the argument cannot be used against the theory. You basically saying: “the theory is not based on realism”. And I answer: yes, it is not based on realism.
    Such theory is very far from mainstream. Realism is mainstream. However, we are in ATM forum, so it is ok to go against mainstream. As long as non mainstream theory is not contradicts to observations and have, at least potential, predictive power.

    So, in case if derive equations where it is possible to use some parameter as parameter of evolution, it is possible to try to use the parameter as time. If such time is consistent with SR and GR – it is strong candidate for explanation of nature of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Worse is that you say there is no time, energy, or dynamics. That does not describe this universe and is not physics.
    As I shown above, it is simply philosophical bias, the assertion have no any scientific basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If some magical way you can get from your "no time, energy, or dynamics" to physics that has the time, energy, and dynamics of this universe then you will be doing physics.
    As I see, in order to do so without fundamental time and dynamic I need to show following:
    1. It is possible to add something which act as parameter of evolution to system without time and dynamic
    2. It is possible to add observer to the system (most tricky part of the theory, and you not even asked question about the part)
    3. It is possible to add motion and dynamic to the system. And, of course, the system should not have any time or dynamic, as f(x,y) in previous example have no time and no dynamic
    4. It is possible to derive equations of SR for the time and space
    5. It is possible to derive equations of GR for the time and space
    And, as far as I can see, it was already done in my article. If it was done correctly and without logical errors – I am doing physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A formal question to show the "not time" error:
    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.
    That will not be a story using words such as "evolve" or change" or "transfer" that have time in them as in this post. No time = nothing evolves or changes or can be transfered.
    Easy and simple.
    Note – I would use time as I derived in my theory. Example how I derive it on system without time I already shown.

    Let’s look again on plane (x,y) with defined on the surface function f(x,y)=x+y
    Next, take vertical line x=2. Look at parallel line at distance s: x=2+s.
    As I already shown: f(s) = f(s=0) + s
    How to add velocity v: y(s) = y(x=2) + v*s
    y(x=2) is value of y at line x=2. y(s) is value of y at line x=2+s
    It is exactly match classical equations of velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    No time = nothing evolves or changes or can be transfered.
    And about the assertion I already wrote it is not scientific assertion. I provided equation with velocity, which is exactly match classical equations of velocity. I see only several ways how ti can be refuted:
    1. Provide prove of realism
    2. Find some logical error. And find it not from point of view of realism, but with usage of scientific arguments
    3. Show that the equations not fits with observations, .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    ...
    This is the definition of velocity in 1 dimension x : v = dx/dt where dx is an infinitesimal change in position, dt is a infinitesimal change in time. That is not "y(x=2) is value of y at line x=2. y(s) is value of y at line x=2+s". That is simply 2 points on an (x,y) planes. There is no change in position (dx). There is no change in time (dt) because there is no time!

    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
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2020-Apr-07 at 09:18 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    So far my theory is not refuted.
    How it can be done, in easy and simple way?

    Well, let’s look on some opinion:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The anthropic principle is not a scientific principle that can be derived. It is a philosophical consideration. We note that the universe allows for life in the current era and that we exist.
    Here is assertion that anthropic principle cannot be derived.
    But I derived it in my theory. So, there is clear contradiction. In case if my derivation of anthropic principle contains logical errors, in case if anthropic principle was not really derived from model of my theory, it would be refutal for the theory. Sounds easy and simple, right? Just show logical error.

    Similar about principle of causality. I also derived it in scope of my theory, and if show that my derivation of the principle is wrong, it would be refutal of the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    As soon as you write "four-dimensional Euclidean space" you cannot derive anything in relativity because it is mathematically impossible for relativity to exist in a Euclidean space. That is especially true for general relativity.
    Another point which looks as easy and simple way to refute my theory. Hmm, where I mentioned that I know that it looks impossible? Right in introduction part of article.
    Prove that this prove of impossibility applicable for my theory, and it also would be refutal for my theory

    However, while it may looks as it is easy and simple to refute the theory, it is not.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    So far my theory is not refuted.
    How it can be done, in easy and simple way?
    I have seen a number of claims, but it isn’t clear to me that you have presented a falsifiable hypothesis.

    Could you state just what, specifically, your hypothesis is, some non-trivial predictions it makes that aren’t made by existing theory, and what evidence you have found that supports these predictions?

    Well, let’s look on some opinion:

    Here is assertion that anthropic principle cannot be derived.
    But I derived it in my theory. So, there is clear contradiction.
    Why should we care if you can derive some form of the anthropic principle from your arguments? How does this this lead to scientifically measurable results that can be used as a test for a hypothesis?

    Much like Reality Check, I don’t see where the science is here or the point of bringing up anthropic principle arguments when discussing what is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis.

    Similar about principle of causality. I also derived it in scope of my theory, and if show that my derivation of the principle is wrong, it would be refutal of the theory.
    Again, I am more interested in what testable predictions you can make that support your claims.

    However, while it may looks as it is easy and simple to refute the theory, it is not.
    I can make a claim that there is an invisible elf in my yard, but should anyone care that it is not easy to refute? What is more important is how the claim can be supported and if there is any actual support for the claim.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I have seen a number of claims, but it isn’t clear to me that you have presented a falsifiable hypothesis.
    That I present here is only part of bigger theory. Is it falsifiable or no – I see predictions in bigger theory, but I would prefer to not discuss the full theory here, too complex.
    So, as of now, in the presented article I shown that the hypothesis is compatible with SR and GR. And logic of it can be checked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Could you state just what, specifically, your hypothesis is, some non-trivial predictions it makes that aren’t made by existing theory, and what evidence you have found that supports these predictions?



    Why should we care if you can derive some form of the anthropic principle from your arguments? How does this this lead to scientifically measurable results that can be used as a test for a hypothesis?

    Much like Reality Check, I don’t see where the science is here or the point of bringing up anthropic principle arguments when discussing what is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis.
    You asking about what’s new the hypothesis add to science. And answer to your question is right in your question. Even deriving of anthropic principle alone from some physical model is significant result in foundations of physics.
    If something was derived from physical hypothesis – it is science.
    So, if my theory is correct, antropic principle is science, not philosophy, at least for cases covered by the theory.

    Also, just few posts above I already shown several points where my hypothesis contradicts to mainstream.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Again, I am more interested in what testable predictions you can make that support your claims.
    As of now, it is possible to test correctness of logic used for deriving the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I can make a claim that there is an invisible elf in my yard, but should anyone care that it is not easy to refute? What is more important is how the claim can be supported and if there is any actual support for the claim.
    Usually it is named as Russell’s teapot.
    Such argument typically used when someone try to add something extra and unnecessary to existing theory. However, I not add something additional, I reduce number of independent phenomena. So, the argument used incorrectly.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,766
    Ans,

    Our rules require that you provide direct and timely answers to the questions asked of you. Please do so now.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,376
    I see a lot of variables called t with units of seconds in this 'timeless theory'.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I see a lot of variables called t with units of seconds in this 'timeless theory'.
    The theory have no time as fundamental phenomena.
    However, I derived emergent time as parameter of evolution and use it in equations.
    Evolution etc is not means that there are some changes in fundamental 4 dimensional space with defined on the space field. Changes are not possible, because of absense of time and dynamic.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    The theory have no time as fundamental phenomena.
    However, I derived emergent time as parameter of evolution and use it in equations.
    Evolution etc is not means that there are some changes in fundamental 4 dimensional space with defined on the space field. Changes are not possible, because of absense of time and dynamic.
    Then you need to dial back your claims. For example you have not presented evidence that you have derived the Lorentz factor from your theory. What you have presented one of the standard derivations based on the established postulates of SR and claimed it as a success for your ideas.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    For example you have not presented evidence that you have derived the Lorentz factor from your theory. What you have presented one of the standard derivations based on the established postulates of SR and claimed it as a success for your ideas.
    My derivations of SR is not based on the established postulates of SR. Each of the postulates was derived in my theory first. Derived as result from model of the theory, not wrote it as postulates. It is easy to check.
    May be results are exactly same, just some difference in interpretations? No, results are different. In mainstream, there is no way to build Minkowski spacetime on base of Euclidean space, such prove is quite simple. My theory allows to do it.
    Another part that was done in my theory is derivation of equations of general relativity. And, again, results are exactly match equations of GR. However, there are difference in how they were derived.
    In standard derivation in textbooks principle of equivalence is postulated. I derived it, not postulated.
    In standard derivation in textbooks action is postulated. I derived it, not postulated.
    There is clear and simple explanation why tensor of energy-impulse have no part with gravity.
    Standard GR have problems with gravitational singularities. My theory, while have same equations of gravity, have no such problems, it is resolved.
    And there are lot of such differencies.

    So, my theory is not just another interpretation of existing theories.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    My derivations of SR is not based on the established postulates of SR. Each of the postulates was derived in my theory first. Derived as result from model of the theory, not wrote it as postulates. It is easy to check.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    However, the light signal velocity is the same in all IFRs
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Due to the principle of relativity, the functional relation of the dependence on the relative velocity should be universal, it is the same for all IFRs.
    Postulates one and two are in your derivation. So you claim you derived these from your theory first? Can you show that and show your derivation of the postulates you have listed? And no, I am not going to vixra to read anything. Present it here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Another part that was done in my theory is derivation of equations of general relativity. And, again, results are exactly match equations of GR. However, there are difference in how they were derived.
    In standard derivation in textbooks principle of equivalence is postulated. I derived it, not postulated.
    And please show this while you are at it. It is wort noting that 'action' is not really a postulate. It falls out of the more generally accepted foundations of GR - that the theory must be generally covariant, spacetime is described by a pseudo-Riemann manifold of sign -+++ and that the Einstein field equation describes its curvature. I suppose you could argue that the principle of least action is a postulate - is that what you were referring to?

    I'm asking because you have made a number of big claims and when pushed just copy pasted standard derivations that could be made without your theory. You've left out the important bits - I'm pretty sure people are fairly familiar with things like deriving the Lorentz relationship from basic postulates. If they are not Wikipedia and ten minutes fixes that. So I am not sure what the value in you presenting that here is. The important bit is to back up your claims that the underlying postulates can be derived from your ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    So, my theory is not just another interpretation of existing theories.
    Based solely on what you have presented here it is not even that. It is just a claim that if we assume t is not a time dimension but something that comes from your theory, but behaves just like a time dimension, then physics works. Which I have to say is an underwhelming insight.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,766
    Closed pending moderator discussion.

    Thread reopened.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2020-Apr-20 at 05:21 PM.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,766
    Both of you stop telling each to read text books and discuss this politely.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Well.
    As example, I can use thermal time hypothesis of Rovelli, one of authors of LQG.
    Is time in the hypothesis fundamental or no is quite fuzzy. He use automorphism to build time. And the paper is published, quite well known, and considered as scientific.
    Another example is M.Tegmark, with his mathematical universe. Again, question of time in his hypothesis is quite fuzzy. Quite famous work, again is time fundamental or no is questionable.
    So, based on examples above, it is clear that there is no prove that time is fundamental phenomenon. It is in mainstream, no doubt. But it was not proven.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Well.
    As example, I can use thermal time hypothesis of Rovelli, one of authors of LQG.
    You cannot use a hypothesis that is irrelevant to your ATM idea. The Thermal time hypothesis is about the different concepts of the flow of time in QM and GR and how to reconcile them. Rather than having an assumed physical time-flow in QFT, they propose that the physical time-flow will emerge from the thermodynamics.
    Von Neumann Algebra Automorphisms and Time-Thermodynamics Relation in General Covariant Quantum Theories (1994) by A. Connes, C. Rovelli.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You cannot use a hypothesis that is irrelevant to your ATM idea. The Thermal time hypothesis is about the different concepts of the flow of time in QM and GR and how to reconcile them. Rather than having an assumed physical time-flow in QFT, they propose that the physical time-flow will emerge from the thermodynamics.
    Von Neumann Algebra Automorphisms and Time-Thermodynamics Relation in General Covariant Quantum Theories (1994) by A. Connes, C. Rovelli.
    I read the work, years ago.
    I use the hypothesis not in support of my idea, but to show that question of what time is, not so obvious as some may think.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    736
    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.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    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.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    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?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    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?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,766
    Closed pending moderator discussion.

    ETA: Thread closed for cause.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2020-Apr-28 at 08:52 PM.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •