Deriving spacetime in four-dimensional Euclidean space without time and dynamics

Perhaps, but clearly your model has enough of spacetime in it for worldlines to work out. I mean, you are literally describing worldlines in your text (well, worldlines of field), and you are deriving time. You have assumed a spacetime theory!

Wait, you are talking about another article? Why not stick to the article you linked? Heck, why not stick to the section I've been talking about in the article that you linked? If you have to drag in other articles, that are uncited in the article you posted, that's a clear indication the article you posted is inadequate.

Well, I'm telling you that that impression is false, because that's not how science/scientists work(s). Anybody that studied science should have known that.

Alright, call it metaphysics if you want; it's certainly not physics.

Great! So you know about the role and importance of peer-reviewed, respectable physics journals!

Erm, there is only one science. Arguing some difference between "normal science" and "revolutionary science" is a pseudo-scientific, crackpot thing to do. I would refrain from that, if I were you.

So your ideas contain unfalsifiable parts? That's... bad.

As I said many times now: in the "model"-section. You may not have used the term, but you sure are describing them. Especially take a look at your "line of evolution" description.

And I noticed you forgot to respond to me pointing out you bringing in irrelevancies. Care to address that?

That is not at all clear from the "model"-section. You should probably re-write that, because it's tremendously misleading the way it is now.

And thus confirming the unfalsifiable parts. You have now explicitly proven you are not doing (pure) science. Metaphysics at best.

False. If something cannot be observed, it can also no be observed indirectly. Indirect observations are also observations.

Yes, that was my point. Thank you for confirming it.

OK, so you're not. Good; sorry for the confusion.

Sure, and if evidence ever turns up that it indeed is not the way reality works, you'll have something to reject SR by. But until that time, your model not having that conclusion/requirement is neither here not there.

Sure, but I don't see how that's addressing what I said?

No, that's the "growing block universe": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

(No longer relevant, as I've pointed out your confusion of the "block universe" with the "growing block universe".)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, so I re-read it again. Sorry philosophical claptrap it is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My model is theory of spacetime. Additionally to world lines to work out, it is possible many more conceptions. It not means that my theory is not original because it use some already well known conception.

What I talked about other articles was only about peer review etc. I propose to discuss only article with link in initial post, it would be easier. And I not discussed here anything from content of other articles except they exists and some of them relates to article being discussed.

Probably. As I said, I have different impression. May be I wrong.

No. If something falsifiable, it is possible to make predictions from it - it is physics.

They contains parts which canot be directly observed and they contains falsifiable parts too.

Usage of some conception, like world lines, not means that theory, which use it, not original.

Probably missed something. May you repeat it?

Why it should be in model section? Entire article is description of the model. Model section describe model, following parts derive consequences of the model. So if something not clear from model section - read rest of article, it is about deriving consequences from model.

Applying your llogic to quantum mechanics:
Where is particle between measurements? Wow, its trajectory between measurements cannot be falsified. Quantum mechnics contains unfalsifiable part. Metaphysics at best.

What is important, my theory (and quantum mechanics) contains predictions which are falsifiable. So, it means it is science.

False. If something cannot be observed, it can be indirectly verified based on other results of theory which predicts it.

Why I should reject SR? It compatible with my model. As for differences - they are not observable, but exists.

Usage of some well known concept not makes theory, which use it, not original.

Ok. I may say what eternalism have even bigger history than the block universe. It have lots in similar, but I think it is not same.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You see some errors in deriving SR/GR in my model? I not see that you wrote about it.
I guess you say it is philosophical claptrap simply because it contradicts to your philosophical vision.

 

No, I see it as philosophical claptrap, because it is philosophical claptrap. And it appears similar ideas have been forthcoming in the past. But as one who has confidence in the scientific method, if your hypothetical philosophical claptrap does have anything concrete going for it, it will in time be recognised, but Like many philosophical ideas, it will probably fade away and be lost forever in cyber space. Best of luck anyway...you'll need it.

 

From the OP..."However, the model, in order to derive spacetime from space without time and dynamics, has to use subjective idealism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism
Subjective idealism, or empirical idealism, is the monistic metaphysical doctrine that only minds and mental contents exist. It entails and is generally identified or associated with immaterialism, the doctrine that material things do not exist. Subjective idealism rejects dualism, neutral monism, and materialism; indeed, it is the contrary of eliminative materialism, the doctrine that all or some classes of mentalphenomena (such as emotions, beliefs, or desires) do not exist, but are sheer illusions.
Subjective idealism is a fusion of phenomenalism or empiricism, which confers special status upon the immediately perceived, with idealism, which confers special status upon the mental. Idealism denies the knowability or existence of the non-mental, while phenomenalism serves to restrict the mental to the empirical. Subjective idealism thus identifies its mental reality with the world of ordinary experience, rather than appealing to the unitary world-spirit of pantheism or absolute idealism. This form of idealism is "subjective" not because it denies that there is an objective reality, but because it asserts that this reality is completely dependent upon the minds of the subjects that perceive it.

 

So what was all this "you can't use worldlines with my model, because that requires spacetime"-arguing from you all about?

What you describe as-if it's something original in the "model"-section of the linked Vixra-text, is anything but, as I've demonstrated.

Alright, so you had an article that, with some minor tweaks, could've been published, and you decided to abandon it only to write some qualitative text? And that took you two years? That's not very efficient!

Agreed. You brought that article up in the first place, but it has obviously only led to confusion, so let's forget about it.

Nope, none of them relate. There are exactly four citations in your linked text, and none of them link to any of your other articles. So no, you yourself have indicated that aren't relevant.

I have no idea what ever gave you that impression. I've read various successful scientific papers, and none of them wait even the slightest moments to throw all relevant equations in your face.

If anything, it's quite bold explicitly not modelling your paper after proven successful writing methods.

Science, but I get your point. Yes, you are right. The problem is you are making claims that cannot be falsified; you even admit that yourself later. So it's not pure science what you are doing, and thus it cannot be called physics. As I said, it's probably metaphysics, because you include all kinds of philosophical aspects.

That is not actually addressing what I said. Do you ideas contain unfalsifiable parts, yes or no?

And I never made that claim.

I have however made the claim that the main subject of that entire section is a known prior idea. Some of your particulars may be original, but the core idea certainly isn't.

Look at the relevant quote you responded to in post #19. But for your convenience, I'll repeat myself:

"So, in order to warrant your irrelevant bringing-up of SR and GR, you are now irrelevantly bringing up big velocities? At no point have I mentioned or even said anything remotely connected to big velocities, so once again you are the one bringing up irrelevancies. Also, you are wrong: worldlines do not required (a proper description of) big velocities."

Because right now, apparently the section literally titled "model" does not describe your model completely. That's horribly misleading, and bad writing.

And a perfect reason to reject a scientific paper. You really should fix it.

Then why do you have a section named "model" in it? That's horribly misleading, and bad writing.

Except you've just admitted, it doesn't do a proper job of that, because important things are missing in that section.

So you neglect to point out critically important points in your model in the section label "model"? That's horribly misleading, and bad writing.

The section was quite clear. Only now it turns out it is incomplete. That's horribly misleading, and bad writing.

Actually, it can: just measure it between the other two measurements.

Come on, this isn't that difficult! I thought you were asking for MSc-level, not high-school level. This is beneath high-school level!

Fail. I suggest you go back and learn about what science is and how it works, because clearly you don't understand it at the moment.

Note that quantum mechanics ONLY contains predictions that are falsifiable. That was my point, which you have (once again) missed.

False. In science, nothing can be considered verified without observation. This is the very fundament of science. It's interesting that you claim to hold a MSc, yet you seem oblivious to the very notion of what science is and how it works.

You are the one bringing up the ideas of reality being dependent on the reference frame. That's a direct violation of SR. If that's not something your model leads to, then why did you bring up that irrelevancy in the first place?

And there we have it. Explicit confirmation that your model leads to spacetime as we know it.

Thank you for explicitly stating that worldlines hold meaning in your model.

Thank you for thus admitting that your "model"-section is merely a restating of the "block universe" idea, and thus that it is not at all original.

And thus your model can only be accepted over SR through Occam's Razor.

Tell me, how many postulates does your model have? SR has 2...

True, but how does that mean that I said something I didn't say? I think you've (once again) lost track of what you were arguing. Here, let me refresh your failing memory.

Post #16 (you): "I shown that gravity is universal force, it should interact with all other fields, strong equivalence principle was derived, and was shown that gravity should have speed equal to speed of light.
If my model is same as some existing model, may you show where that model derive same?"

Post #17 (me): "I never claimed that part of your text was the same as some existing model?"

Post #19 (you): "If model is same, in such case all consequences also should be same."

Post #21 (me): "Sure, but I don't see how that's addressing what I said?"

Post #23 (you): "Usage of some well known concept not makes theory, which use it, not original."

See that in post #16, you claim that I said that there is some other model out there, showing that gravity is a universal force, etc. I didn't, so I asked you where you got that idea from (post #17). Then you made some irrelevant remark (post #19), I asked you to address what we were talking about (post #21), and you made some other irrelevant remark (post #23).

How about you address what I said, and not just post some irrelevancies?

You "don't think it is the same"? How about you find out, before you make statements about it? I thought you said that you knew the "block universe" idea well?

 

Dude, you can't just, like, quote Wikipedia, demonstrating falsehoods needing only its first sentence. That's so not MSc-level!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually, now that I think about it, there's plenty MSc-level people publishing articles in peer-reviewed, respectable scientific journals. Are we sure we're not setting the level a bit too high here?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(I'll try and refrain from silly comments from now on, but I couldn't help myself...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

I see you are from The Netherlands? I actually have around 22 dvd's of one of the greatest musicians, showman, violinist, Orchestra Conductor of the Johann Strauss Orchestra...You know who I'm on about? Also saw him in concert in Melbourne on his Schronburn Castle tour of Australia....Andre Rieu!...sorry, let's get back on topic.

 

Guilty!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's quite some collection. I only have some CD's of him. I suppose you're better at "Netherlanding" than I am.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, stop bringing up irrelevancies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I really just skim through the post because it's way beyond my understanding
However I do have a question
Does a tea pot, door mouse, mad hatter or Alice get mentioned anywhere?

Breakfast time 7:30am

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Emergent , because the essence of time is about movement , celestral to the sub-atomic .

Dynamics exists on a fundamental level . Absolutely

 

Ok, you continue to insist on your vision of my model. You insist that worldlines (not mentioned anywhere in text) is core of model. Ok, show it.

 

No, in most of models time is not emergent and time is not about movement. Fot example, in Newtonian mechanics time and space are absolute.

Are any proves? No, such proves not exists. So it is just expression of your philosophical beliefs and it is not about science.

In my article, I show that if consider absense of dynamic on fundamental levcl, as consequence we get special and general relativity and easy unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.

 

You've (once again) lost track of what you were arguing. Here, let me refresh your failing memory.

Post #16 (you): "I shown that gravity is universal force, it should interact with all other fields, strong equivalence principle was derived, and was shown that gravity should have speed equal to speed of light.
If my model is same as some existing model, may you show where that model derive same?"

Post #17 (me): "I never claimed that part of your text was the same as some existing model?"

Post #19 (you): "If model is same, in such case all consequences also should be same."

Post #21 (me): "Sure, but I don't see how that's addressing what I said?"

Post #23 (you): "Usage of some well known concept not makes theory, which use it, not original."

Post #27 (me): "How about you address what I said, and not just post some irrelevancies?"

Post #34 (you): "You insist that worldlines (not mentioned anywhere in text) is core of model."

See that in post #16, you claim that I said that there is some other model out there, showing that gravity is a universal force, etc. I didn't, so I asked you where you got that idea from (post #17). Then you made some irrelevant remark (post #19), I asked you to address what we were talking about (post #21), and you made some other irrelevant remark (post #23). I asked you to address what I said (post #27), and you posted another irrelevant remark (post #34).

How about you address what I said, and not just post some irrelevancies?

 

You contradicts yourself. You said that my model is not original. Show it.
So far, I see only repeated statements about it, without proves.

 

You've (once again) lost track of what you were arguing. Here, let me refresh your failing memory.

Post #16 (you): "I shown that gravity is universal force, it should interact with all other fields, strong equivalence principle was derived, and was shown that gravity should have speed equal to speed of light.
If my model is same as some existing model, may you show where that model derive same?"

Post #17 (me): "I never claimed that part of your text was the same as some existing model?"

Post #19 (you): "If model is same, in such case all consequences also should be same."

Post #21 (me): "Sure, but I don't see how that's addressing what I said?"

Post #23 (you): "Usage of some well known concept not makes theory, which use it, not original."

Post #27 (me): "How about you address what I said, and not just post some irrelevancies?"

Post #34 (you): "You insist that worldlines (not mentioned anywhere in text) is core of model."

Post #35 (me): "How about you address what I said, and not just post some irrelevancies?"

Post #37 (you): "You said that my model is not original. Show it."

See that in post #16, you claim that I said that there is some other model out there, showing that gravity is a universal force, etc. I didn't, so I asked you where you got that idea from (post #17). Then you made some irrelevant remark (post #19), I asked you to address what we were talking about (post #21), and you made some other irrelevant remark (post #23). I asked you to address what I said (post #27), and you posted another irrelevant remark (post #34). I asked you to address what I said (post #35), and you simply repeat your original claim (post #37).

How about you address what I said, and not just post some irrelevancies?​

 

What you trying to prove?
What my model is not originial? Prove it.
What there are errors in my article? Prove it.

 

Added to article deriving of Lorentz transformations.
The Lorentz transformations were derived without postulate about existense of maximum speed of interactrion and its equality in all inertial frames of references, they were derived directly from model of hypothesis.