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

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Ans, Dec 15, 2018.

  1. Ans Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Good question.
    So far, I mostly concentrating on deriving existing widely accepted theories in scope of model of my hypothesis. So, there are no any new numerical predictions for any phenomena, which differ from existing theories. However, from the hypothesis it is possible to see areas where such predictions will arise after full development of the hypothesis. The areas includes, but not limited to:
    * Origin of Universe. They theory allows to avoid singularity at beginning of Universe.
    * Cosmology. The hypothesis belongs to class of superdeterministic theories. It allows different areas of Universe interacts without exceeding maximum interaction speed. As result, homogenity of observed Universe on large scales may have different explanation.
    * Black hole singularities.
    * Possibly, some new quantum effects for particles with very low energy.

    As of now, best what the hypothesis allow - it allow to explain causality principle, fine tuning problem, maximum speed of interactions and related effects, gravity, much more simpler than SR and GR (but with same equations) and with less postulates. Accoring to Occam Razor, it is good argument in favor of the hypothesis.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ans Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    My hypothesis is somewhat close to static interpretation of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_interpretation_of_time
    It have some specific, different than what is described on wiki.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ans Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    It is possible to derive SR and GR from hy hypothesis. And it is possible to derive postulates of SR and GR from postulates of my hypothesis. I never wrote it is not possible.

    And, as usually, you wrong. Postulates are only in "Model of the hypothesis" section of my article. First postulate of SR was derived from postulate anbd model of my hypothesis, but it was not literally written as additional postulate.
    For second, about setting Vt to speed of lght - it is not postulate, it is about usage of observerd facts. I derived Lorentz transformations, next I need to set value of Vt to match experiments. If set it to c, it would means it would satisfy to all known experiments.

    I know what Vt have units of velocity. Problem is - seems as you read article very briefly. In model of the hypothesis, it is not possible to set Vt to infinity, it must be finite. As for velocity, it is defined in same units but defined differently.

    I remember you wrote what there is error in my equations, and they are not match to Lorentz transformations? I have not seen prove of it. So far, you is unable to confirm your words.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    But for the first, you've already assumed it with your Minkowski diagram, and during the derivation of the second, you have to assume arbitrary things in order for it to work out. You've simply used SR's postulates to get SR's postulates. Your postulates are thus the moral equivalent.

    And neither did I, so I don't know why you'd bring that up?

    Are you saying your Minkowski diagram is something that you didn't assume? Please provide the complete derivation from first principles that led you to it then. Right now, as your article stands, it's pure assumption.

    I'm not talking about something being "literally written as additional postulate". As I said, you've assumed SR's first postulate with your Minkowski diagram, so it's no wonder you can then derive it. If you assume something, being able to derive that same thing isn't spectacular at all.

    So... all your complains about me pointing out you using "maximum velocity" were nonsense? Great!

    Also, no, the speed of light being a maximum speed is not observed fact, so you are wrong.

    By exploiting a mathematical mistake.

    So you now acknowledge that Vt is a velocity. Great! So why were you arguing it wasn't one before?

    So... it's a velocity. In fact, you equate it to one, so that's only more confirmation it is one.

    If a brief read is enough to find so issues, a closer look is unnecessary.

    That's only a limitation of your mathematical abilities. In SR, for example, it's easy to set it to infinity.

    I don't care you define it differently: you setting it equal to a velocity proves it is one.

    No, you've ignored my proving of it. If you haven't seen that, you've just admitted to another case of intellectual dishonesty.

    No, you ignoring my words doesn't mean they are not proven.
     
  8. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    237
    To my understanding you don't have a concrete solid new hypothesis yet, but you might have some interesting ideas in the form of speculations on to how to move forward. In other words, you are thinking out loudly your thoughts.

    I think this is very good because somebody out there might find something useful in your thoughts and you might help him build a nice model, that is well formulated and mathematically solid that will generate hypotheses than can be tested.

    My concern is, that person can then easily claim that he was not influenced by you whatsoever, and so you will get zero credit out of it (unless his conclusions are EXACTLY identical so in this case you can claim priority, but then again you don't have something solid out yet to defend your claim and win the dispute).

    Oh well!! But i guess its fine because getting the credit is not everything
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    It is only if you make a living at scientific research. I am no scientist, but if I can contribute just a new perspective or idea, I don't need the credit. The knowledge that I contributed to the conversation (even in a small way) is sufficient for my satisfaction.
    When I get a like, I'm a happy guy......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    globali likes this.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    You cannot measure the time of time, it does not exist independent of duration or outside of the universe,IMO.

    You can only measure time as an emergent result (duration) of a physical chronology.
    Spacetime is the chronological measurement of the existence and history of universal geometric space.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology
    https://www.quora.com/Does-time-exist-5

    Time is not a constant, it is dependent on the space configuration.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  11. river

    Messages:
    12,607
    True

    Disagree

    Time is not dependent on space configuration

    Empty space gives zero time
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    12,607
    Write4U

    Why would you go from time being a chronology of things

    To time dependent on the configuration of space ?
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    If you want to measure it. We even have a name for a spacetime measurement, "spacetime coordinate", which includes a time reference.
    The problem always is with reference to human observation. Space has no names, numbers, or any other symbolic representation other than its expressed physical spacetime patterns which require time to form and evolve, emerging (along with time) from dynamic fields.
    No, I disagree. Empty space is a misnomer, space is not empty by definition. It is a geometric object with measurable mathematical properties which does require time for it's continued chronological existence.

    All physical things in space experience the effects of entropy "over time".
    From Wiki;
    Outside of space there is no time, there is no existence of any kind, thus no time.
    The question "was time before the BB"? is moot. Without chronology, infinite time = 0, or

    Void (t = 0) --->BB (t = 1) ---> ST (t = 2) ---> ST (t = 3) ---> ST (t = "now" everywhere)...
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  14. river

    Messages:
    12,607

    Why wouldn't you , measure movement ?


    Room is a name for space
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    Oh, I would. Movement happens in space and therefore has several associated relative timeframes. One of them would be the measurement of duration of movement over distance. i.e. 60 miles @ 60 mph = 1 hr time
    It's a human symbolic word for space (which is itself a symbolic alphabetical pattern). It indicates a geometric structure with measurable properties. Enough room for a piano.

    The universe has no words or symbolisms other than generating recurring physical patterns which humans have codified into scientific symbolic languages, including the symbolic assignment of the term "time", for measuring chronological duration and/or changes in existence.

    The universe makes stuff and making stuff requires sufficient time to complete. The universe has a necessity for time and a greater permittive dimension allows for "sufficient time".

    Necessity and Sufficiency.
    IMO, being a permittive condition is a necessary and sufficient condition for emergent time along with spatial and physical change.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    The continual reconfiguration of dynamic ever changing space creates a necessity for time and, as a consequence for humans, a measurable chronology of spacetime. Spacetime is a "durable" thing.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    12,607
    I don't look at the measurement of movement as you do .

    You understand movement in terms of being on this planet or any planet

    I look at measurement of movement as being based on energy and matter, physical things .

    Inotherwords it is things that ultimately matter , to understanding what time actually means and the essence of time .

    Without the understanding of the essence of time , time becomes mistakenly a real dimension . Which is wrong thinking .
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    No, I don't.
    I see David Bohm's Pilot Wave model of the universe as a dynamic everchanging aspect of the geometric thing (permittive condition) we have named spacetime itself.
    Sure.
    Check out Bohm.
    Sure.
    Check out Bohm.

    In any case change, movement, duration, distance, all require time for the "physical function" itself. Measurable time for duration is granted by the greater permittive condition which permits the physical function in the first place.

    At Planck scale, this equation becomes fuzzy and unmeasurable according to Copenhagen Interpretation. Bohmian Mechanics solves several apparent paradoxes contained in Copenhagen and offers a purely deterministic universe, without "uncertainty".

    Is really good stuff because he was an eminent physicist as well as a deep philosopher.
    He was discarded for awhile by the scientific community, but there is a concerted swell of renewed interest in several aspects of Bohmian Mechanics and Metaphysical mathematical projection.

    "Wholeness and the Implicate order" has been praised by many colleagues. Below is link to .pdf file.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation (see download PDF)
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  19. river

    Messages:
    12,607
    Neither space nor time is a geometric physical thing

     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    Spacetime IS a geometrical construct. The 3 spatial dimensions create a geometry.
    Euclidean space
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space

    And Minkowsky space; what is Minkowski space?
    Hilbert space;l https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space
    This goes into more depth on the metrics of spacetime.


    Stuff that makes up space have spatial "values". How stuff interacts are the spatial "functions".
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  21. river

    Messages:
    12,607

    Yes

    Three spatial dimensions create geometry , BUT not an energy and matter , physically . Which is what geometrics is fundamentally based on . Energy and matter , forms .
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    Yes, geometrics is about patterns of all possible configurations, including matter.

    The geometric difference between dead and alive is the patterns your molecules are forming......chew on that.

    Point, Line, Plane and Solid;

    A Point has no dimensions, only position
    A Line is one-dimensional
    A Plane is two dimensional (2D)
    A Solid is three-dimensional (3D)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/


    and;
    https://wikidiff.com/geotemporal/spatiotemporal

    Add movement or measurement and spacetime patterns become dynamic four dimensional geometric patterns or "fields".

    All possible dimensional pattern configurations can be classified as fundamentally geometric.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  23. river

    Messages:
    12,607
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019

Share This Page