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

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.

Do you want mayonnaise with that?

Ans: Any chance of you, after all this time, finally addressing what I said? (Specifically, see post #38 if your memory fails you again.)

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.
Oh, and just for completeness I checked out that new section: you are wrong. You start out by silently assuming that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference. You do this in your graph: you draw the two frames of reference using the same "sheet of paper". Any event happening in one will thus also happen in the other. (If I remember correctly, this assumption contradicts statements you've made before in this thread?) The sharing of the same set of events means the same laws of physics governs both frames. In other words, this is you assuming (the equivalent of) the first postulate of SR.
You also derive an equation that looks remarkably like the Lorentz-transformation, but it contains a velocity. This velocity represents some maximum velocity: it's the highest speed possible without taking the square root of a negative number. You just arbitrarily set it to the speed of light, without any justification. This is you assuming (the equivalent of) the second postulate of SR.

So no, I'm not surprised your results match SR's: you've assumed the same postulates along the way.

And while I'm at it: there's a huge typo in your equations: the second equation in the "Special theory of relativity and Lorentz transformation"-section is in direct contradiction with the fifth. I think you'll find that when you correct it and apply that correction through to the end, your equations in fact do not match the Lorentz transformation anymore.

Is time exists on fundamental level or is it emergent phenomena? Is dynamics exists on fundamental level or is it emergent phenomena?

Emergent and with no ability , in and of its self , too change anything , without and within any thing(s) themselves

What is not asked is , what is the essence of time ?

The essence of time is movement , the measure of any movement by any thing .

In a time equation I can change any piece of the equation , but it will not change the physical dynamics of the thing .

If however I add or substract physical things in a physical equation , in energy and/or matter I can change time

Therefore time is NOT at true dimension . Because it changes nothing , no thing , in the micro and macro Universe of things

Dynamics is absolutely fundamental to all of life and energy/matter existence

Last edited:
Hmm. In my model there is solution to fine tuning problem. In model with world lines it is absent. It is another big difference.
A time-line is an emergent result of a chronology. Beginning - duration (time) - end = time-line
The essence of time is movement , the measure of any movement by any thing
Movement is not necessary, only "duration" of existence.
My model is theory of spacetime
No, your model is a theory of space, not time. If you are going to offer a theory which does not address time, you cannot use the word in the title of your paper.

Last edited:
A time-line is an emergent result of a chronology. Beginning - duration (time) - end = time-line

True

Duration is not time , duration is physical movement of things without measure . Just the forces that are present in the envirnoment of influence and the essence of the physical thing its self

True

Duration is not time , duration is physical movement of things without measure . Just the forces that are present in the envirnoment of influence and the essence of the physical thing its self
Dictionary result for duration, noun
1. the time during which something continues.
"a flight of over eight hours' duration"
synonyms:full length, length of time, time, time span, time scale, period, term, span, spell, stretch, fullness, length, extent, continuation, continuance, perpetuation, prolongation
"the student's fees will be paid for the duration of their course"
1. Keyword; "continuation" of existence.

1. Keyword; "continuation" of existence.

By time definition

Duration is defined by me as , energy/matter existence in and of themselves , based on physical states , plasma is a physical state of energy .

Not because of time but because of all of their physical properties and their interactions .

Therefore time is irrelevant

Back in a few days

Oh, and just for completeness I checked out that new section: you are wrong. You start out by silently assuming that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference.
Quoting myself from the article:

"The consequence of similarity of laws of nature. As there is no preferred direction at the level of fundamental space, it means that in the emergent space-time physical laws are identical in all inertial frames of reference."

So no, it was not done silently.

You do this in your graph: you draw the two frames of reference using the same "sheet of paper". Any event happening in one will thus also happen in the other. (If I remember correctly, this assumption contradicts statements you've made before in this thread?) The sharing of the same set of events means the same laws of physics governs both frames. In other words, this is you assuming (the equivalent of) the first postulate of SR.
No, events in different inertial frames of references can be not isomorphic to each other..
Quoting myself from the article:

"Let’s consider a thought experiment. Two observers decided to observe some phenomena in some spatial area. Both observers meet, each takes a clean notebook where they will record the results of the observations. Then the first observer remains in same area, the second at some vehicle accelerates to near-light velocity. Each of them regularly records observable phenomena in the assigned region of space. Then the second observer returns, meets with the first observer, and they compare the results recorded in notebooks. Can there be different results in notebooks? To answer this question, it is necessary to remember that the space-time in this hypothesis is built around the selected observer, and is built with the requirement to satisfy to principle of causality. Therefore, for each of the observers, what he sees in the notebook should satisfy the principle of causality. This means that while observers may record different events, the causality principle must be followed for them. This means that for any observer the events during the transitions to another inertial frame of reference look isomorphic. However, if in any way the observer could see events at the same time in different reference frame, he would see that events in different reference frames are not isomorphic with respect to each other.
"

You also derive an equation that looks remarkably like the Lorentz-transformation, but it contains a velocity. This velocity represents some maximum velocity: it's the highest speed possible without taking the square root of a negative number. You just arbitrarily set it to the speed of light, without any justification. This is you assuming (the equivalent of) the second postulate of SR.

So no, I'm not surprised your results match SR's: you've assumed the same postulates along the way.
And again you wrong. Vt is not velocity.
Quoting myself:

"I will name Vt distance in fundamental space, equal to unit of time. "

So, none of SR postulates were used.

And while I'm at it: there's a huge typo in your equations: the second equation in the "Special theory of relativity and Lorentz transformation"-section is in direct contradiction with the fifth. I think you'll find that when you correct it and apply that correction through to the end, your equations in fact do not match the Lorentz transformation anymore.
No, both the equations are correct and not contradicts to each other.
They may looks contradicting, but only at first glance. They describe different cases.
Second equation is about moving from second inertial frame to first, and fifth is about moving from first to second. Look at picture - second equation is about distance between 1 and 5 divide by distanse between 1 and 2. Fifth is about distance between 1 and 4 divide by distance between 1 and 3.

Equations are pricesily match Lorentz transformations.

No, your model is a theory of space, not time. If you are going to offer a theory which does not address time, you cannot use the word in the title of your paper.
I derive both observed space and time from space without time. So it is theory of spacetime.

Have to go now, may be I will post replies to other posts later.

Since time I posted the first post in the thread, were some changes.
My article was rejected in one journal, without review. Several days ago I have send new version of article to another scientific journal. Yesterday they have send message they decided to send the article for peer review.

I derive both observed space and time from space without time. So it is theory of spacetime.
..........

Space requires time to be space.......

Before space and time, there was only an infinite timeless permittive condition.
Then there was space, then there was time as an emergent dimension of space chronology.

This is the universal functional potential of "necessity and sufficiency". Is that what you mean?

Last edited:
Quoting myself from the article:

"The consequence of similarity of laws of nature. As there is no preferred direction at the level of fundamental space, it means that in the emergent space-time physical laws are identical in all inertial frames of reference."

So no, it was not done silently.
So your previous post in which you said you didn't assume the SR postulates was wrong; I'm glad we agree.

No, events in different inertial frames of references can be not isomorphic to each other..
Quoting myself from the article:

"Let’s consider a thought experiment. Two observers decided to observe some phenomena in some spatial area. Both observers meet, each takes a clean notebook where they will record the results of the observations. Then the first observer remains in same area, the second at some vehicle accelerates to near-light velocity. Each of them regularly records observable phenomena in the assigned region of space. Then the second observer returns, meets with the first observer, and they compare the results recorded in notebooks. Can there be different results in notebooks? To answer this question, it is necessary to remember that the space-time in this hypothesis is built around the selected observer, and is built with the requirement to satisfy to principle of causality. Therefore, for each of the observers, what he sees in the notebook should satisfy the principle of causality. This means that while observers may record different events, the causality principle must be followed for them. This means that for any observer the events during the transitions to another inertial frame of reference look isomorphic. However, if in any way the observer could see events at the same time in different reference frame, he would see that events in different reference frames are not isomorphic with respect to each other.
"
You have only confirmed what I said. If those two observers each draw their own Minkowski diagram, they will draw the same diagram (albeit with different axes). If you claim otherwise, you are contradicting SR, and thus your hypothesis fails to be internally consistent and can be rejected without further consideration.

And again you wrong. Vt is not velocity.
Quoting myself:

"I will name Vt distance in fundamental space, equal to unit of time. "
So why call it Vt? Once again you are misleading.
Oh, and it is a velocity; just check the units, and remember that you equate it to the velocity of light. So you are also trivially proven wrong by your own statements.

So, none of SR postulates were used.
Again, your post only confirms what I said: you did use them, by outright assuming their equivalent. You may have worded them differently, but they are, in fact, the same.

No, both the equations are correct and not contradicts to each other.
They may looks contradicting, but only at first glance. They describe different cases.
Second equation is about moving from second inertial frame to first, and fifth is about moving from first to second. Look at picture - second equation is about distance between 1 and 5 divide by distanse between 1 and 2. Fifth is about distance between 1 and 4 divide by distance between 1 and 3.
Then you should straighten out your notation, because that is terribly misleading, and a common source of confusion and errors in SR.

Equations are pricesily match Lorentz transformations.
No, they don't match. If you re-do your calculations more carefully, (perhaps after improving your notation) you'd see that. But that isn't even necessary, because it is of course obvious when you look at your Minkowski diagram, and how the Minkowski and your coordinate system both respond differently to the same boost.

And I notice you have once again failed to address what I said in post #38. Care to explain your intellectually dishonest behavior?

Have to go now, may be I will post replies to other posts later.

Since time I posted the first post in the thread, were some changes.
My article was rejected in one journal, without review. Several days ago I have send new version of article to another scientific journal. Yesterday they have send message they decided to send the article for peer review.
Please don't forget to notify us when your text finally gets published in a peer-reviewed respectable science journal.

Ans said:
I derive both observed space and time from space without time. So it is theory of spacetime.

..........

Space requires time to be space.......

Before space and time, there was only an infinite timeless permittive condition.
Then there was space, then there was time as an emergent dimension of space chronology.

This is the universal functional potential of "necessity and sufficiency". Is that what you mean?

Disagree

Where is energy and matter here ?

Further neither having anything to do with the existence of space and time in the first place ?

Energy and matter should be first in understanding space and time . Not ignored completely

Space and energy and matter are intertwined . With the fundamental existence of our Universe .

Time is mathematical concept to understand movement , therefore has nothing to do with the fundamental existence of the Universe in the place , .......with bringing the Universe into existence .

Where is energy and matter here ?
Space consistes of matter and energy. Time emerges with the chronological interactions of matter and energy.