# Proof Minkowski Spacetime is Poorly Conceived

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by danshawen, Apr 21, 2016.

1. ### SchneibsterRegistered Member

Messages:
390
It's an arbitrary set of coordinates with an origin and an orientation, defined in order to apply mathematics to physics. It optionally has a curvature if the physics you're doing calculations about are on a manifold that is not flat.

It is not a physical object.

danshawen likes this.

3. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
Nothing at all in your definition (coordinates, origin, orientation, curvature, or calculations based on them) has any inertia. Geometry was developed from a consideration of solid matter by Euclid and Pythagorus in ancient Greece. Empty space does not have any geometry, curvature like solids, or inertia. Absolute space and absolute time are dead since 1905. Minkowski has been dead since 1908. I only wish he had died much sooner. If he had, perhaps absolute space and time would have actually predeceased him, instead of surviving and growing and insinuating itself in a dozen other incarnations related to pseudophysics.

If you don't think that is a problem, I certainly can't help you work through it. Your calculations will result in no results worth studying, having, or knowing.

Last edited: Apr 25, 2016

5. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
Schneibster, help me out here please. This statement from Dan appears to me to be totally irrelevant. Inertia is present in the objects that lie within the reference frame, therefore there is no need (and probably no meaning) for any aspect of the frame to possess inertial. Calling it an inertial reference frame relates to the objects within it, not the frame itself. (When replying, remember I am a simple geologist.)

danshawen, Schneibster and exchemist like this.

7. ### SchneibsterRegistered Member

Messages:
390
Yes, you're correct, math has no inertia.

If you don't know the difference between experiment and theory, I can't help that.

The Classical Greeks weren't all that hot on experiments and stuff. You might get your hands dirty.

danshawen likes this.
8. ### SchneibsterRegistered Member

Messages:
390
It is, pretty much, irrelevant.

The reason it's called an "inertial" reference frame is because if you choose an object that is not in a gravity field and not accelerating, that object possesses motion only due to inertia, and if it's not moving that also is due to its inertia. This goes back to Newton's First Law of Motion: an object in motion tends to remain in motion at a constant velocity, and an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force, often called the "Law of Inertia." Such an object is therefore said to be "inertial."

If you choose a frame of reference that considers such an object to be still, then that is an "inertial frame of reference." And if you choose a frame that doesn't contain such an object, but still is not in a gravity field and not accelerating, Special Relativity Theory (which I usually abbreviate SRT for convenience) says that is also an inertial frame of reference; no object is required to base your frame of reference on; you can choose any frame you like with an origin anywhere and oriented any whichway and it will still be inertial, as long as it is not in a gravity field and not accelerating.

Relativity says that motion is relative; however, it also says that acceleration is absolute, and that gravity is absolute too. You can always perform an experiment to determine if you are in a gravity field or under acceleration; just release something in midair. If you're in a gravity field or under acceleration it will fall.

Hopefully that will clear things up for you. If not, ask!

Good question, BTW.

Ophiolite and danshawen like this.
9. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,374
I think he's just pointing out that Dan's remarks on the subject make no sense. But you knew that......

danshawen and Schneibster like this.
10. ### el esRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
322
danshawen;

I don't get how you relate time dilation with your concept of rotational bound energy manifesting as matter.

"The passage of time continues for bound energy, or at least, on the outside."

I think somewhere you had it that time stops for rotational bound energy as matter.

11. ### SchneibsterRegistered Member

Messages:
390
It was still a good question.

Geologists deserve to know at least as much as computer scientists. Just kidding, Ophiolite.

12. ### el esRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
322
I can't find a good quote, but somewhere you equated the time dilation of rotational bound energy (matter) to be the same as for that of a photon.

This seems to predict that radioactivity and beta decay should not happen. Something must be wrong somewhere with your concept or my understanding of what you are trying to say.

danshawen likes this.
13. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
No, it doesn't. In the 1990s the resolution of the clock paradox proved that ACCELERATION takes a backseat to INSTANTANEOUS VELOCITY in relativity theory. This is one of the few advancements of the field that made headlines and made a difference to anything concerning relativity in the last 100 years.

General Relativity's Principle of Equivalence (gravitational and inertial acceleration) has taken a definite setback in 2012 with the idea that the Higgs mechanism imparts inertial but not gravitational mass to a lot of fundamental particles of matter.

Nature evidently doesn't care about acceleration (the second derivative of position with respect to time) at all. The only reason we care about it is because Newton invented calculus and it happens to be a handy means to demonstrate a practical use of the math. So is JERK, SNAP, CRACKLE and POP.

Last edited: Apr 26, 2016
14. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
The time dilation is a function of radius (distance from the center) in the case of the simple particle I have put together with a pair of photons. The point that is exact geometric center of a particle of matter that is bound energy is the only absolute space, and there is no time dilation at all at that point compared to the rate at which time flows outside of the particle. The further from the center the propagating energy is, the greater the effect of time dilation.

Although my model does not explain electric charge at all, the particle I had in mind composed of bound photons would be something like an electron. Gluons, quarks and color charge exchanges in protons and neutrons would likewise experience time dilation and free neutrons only last about 15 minutes outside of a nucleus before decaying, so there must be an additional time dilation effect from the proximity to protons. This is actually a rather strong argument for the idea that time dilation is an overridingly important quantum effect that seems to have been largely neglected in current mathematical models of quantum mechanics. This is one deficiency I hope this discussion may help to remedy.

15. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
For one thing, conservation of energy doesn't work at all without inertia. Depending on what realm you are working in, this can be a big deal.

If you don't have conservation of energy, perpetual motion machines and reactionless thrust become possible. I don't have to tell you, those are pseudoscience and frauds, and this is an easy test to tell that they are.

Physics (the real deal) doesn't work very well without inertia either. You can replace time with probabilities and save yourself an annoying infinity here and there, but you can't take math like that very far at all without losing a firm grip on the hard properties of physical reality.

16. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,374
You seem to miss Ophiolite's point, which is simply that an "inertial frame", being merely a choice of coordinates - in other words one choice of mathematical "perspective" from which to view and measure - does not itself have any inertia.

Schneibster, danshawen and Ophiolite like this.
17. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
I was also just making sure that my ignorance was not any deeper than I suspected it to be.

Schneibster and danshawen like this.
18. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
As you are a geophysical specialist, I would have expected that you might not be entirely satisfied with explanations of physics like Lorentz, Minkowski, and the like propose.

Sure, you could carry with you some sort of holographic laser device that sets up the unbound photonics equivalent of Einstein's clock and meter stick inertial reference frame grid everywhere you go, on a relativistic celestial train or whatever. And carrying around all that geometrical infrastructure with you will not avail you very much. If space curves around a planet, your grid will not follow that curve as much as you might expect, or even for the reason you expect. The Earth orbits the Sun orbits the galaxy falls into Andromeda and follows it in the direction of the great attractor while the entire known universe accelerates outward and / or spins. How will your grid respond to all of these relative motions?

I suppose Einstein liked trains because his theory illustrates a physical reality about trains not so obvious with particles or photons. Unlike the holographic grid, trains have much more moving inertia in one direction (along the straight track) than another (the amount of force needed to derail it).

Michaelson Moreley was all about trying to see the equivalent of traction in the aether that was theorized to be the medium through which the light traveled. If you could actually detect that, then space itself would have inertia and trains could use that instead of track, and starships with frictionless drives and also perpetual motion machines driven by the aether wind could be used to generate electricity from relative motions.

The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field, has the equivalent rest mass of a tellurium nucleus and decays in about a zeptosecond into either a pair of gluons (strong force) or a pair of electrons (EM force). Particle physicists claim that the inertial rest mass it imparts to electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons, neutrinos, and their antiparticles is in no manner related to gravitational mass, the only other thing in the universe that imparts a kind of inertia that is not entirely at rest.

If you see in this a looming crisis in physics that is the result of too much mathematical woo and not enough physical substance, or even an elementary understanding of what inertia is about, you would not be alone. This happened mainly because leaving out time as a variable mitigated a problem in terms of too many infinities. It also effectively eliminates inertia. Time was simply replaced with probabilities. And it did work brilliantly. Until Higgs was discovered, forcing them to remember what inertia was supposed to do.

Einstein's Princeton buddy Kurt had a lot of substance to say about the limitations of mathematical woo. Kurt left Minkowski's star student Hilbert with a lot of mathematical woo egg on his face, in actual fact. Any symbolic language, including any system of mathematical reasoning, is logically incapable of capturing all of the truth there is, in physics, or anything else. This is because, by its very nature, gaps in understanding naturally arise because no symbolic system that is not physical can capture all of the truth of physical reality. Whatever you choose to ignore may not be ignored by physical reality, and it will be sorted out in detail there independent of whether as a practical matter, you can calculate it or not. For all their fuss about the math, they are more easily blindsided than they are prone to admit. Scores of mathematicians wasted their finite lives trying to calculate the last digit of pi.

Sorry. I know that I promised, no more soliloquies.

Last edited: Apr 26, 2016
19. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
Without time and/or inertia, it will be impossible to even understand what it is that makes a static geometry static.

Relativistic space is manifestly not static. The only dimension that makes any real sense there is time, and Minkowski corrupted that idea by making light travel time covariant with other vectors comprised also of light travel time. Time and energy is all there is, so what real sense did that make? What sense did it make creating a 4d interval based on a contrived invariant that is only invariant because it contains a more fundamental invariant, the speed of light? Relativity as a physical principle was sabotaged by the vanity of Einstein's teacher.

If geometry is all you really know anything about, you do geometry until you die and are put in a box on the other side of the dirt.

Last edited: Apr 26, 2016
20. ### el esRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
322
danshawen:

You now find yourself needing a geometric theory of time dilation in QM, after being critical of the geometric theory of SR.

danshawen and Schneibster like this.
21. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
I have no problem with that.

The only absolute space is the exact geometric centers of bound energy / particles. Time has an absolute origin in the instant of "now".

22. ### el esRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
322
Carry on.

Your concepts are too metaphysical for me.

You will need an absolute base line for absolute time.

danshawen likes this.
23. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
No. Time dilation depends on relative motion and / or proximity to other energy or gravitational fields that are a result of proximity / energy density of the same.

This is not metaphysical, alternative or pseudoscience. It derives of the original Special Relativity playbook uncorrupted by Minkowski's fruit and nut filled version of spacetime.