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

[river]

Space consistes of matter and energy. Time emerges with the chronological interactions of matter and energy.

Space consists of energy and matter both views are true

Only if some being is there to measure the chronological interactions of matter and energy . Otherwise time will not emerge .

The potential of the measurement of movement is always there .

But this does not change that time is based on a physical things and their movements .

 

[Write4U]

Space consists of energy and matter both views are true

Only if some being is there to measure the chronological interactions of matter and energy . Otherwise time will not emerge .

You mean there will be no observer to experience and measure the time of duration of physical chronologies.

The potential of the measurement of movement is always there .

Agreed. Time is a universal potential (constant) as "that which may become reality".

But this does not change that time is based on a physical things and their movements .

Agreed. Measurable time is an emergent quality, simultaneous with duration of a specific physical chronology.

 

[Ans]

So your previous post in which you said you didn't assume the SR postulates was wrong; I'm glad we agree.

No, we not agree.
I use only postulate of my theory, and not use any additinal postulates. If you disagree, show it.

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.

I had impression you hear only youself, and in the post you gave another confirmation to the opinion.

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.

Show what it somehow contradicts to model of my hypothesis. Some of yout stetements are wrong, but I already wrote about it,

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.

If they are same, it is not possible to derive more than were derived in SR. I derived more. So, you is obviously wrong.

Then you should straighten out your notation, because that is terribly misleading, and a common source of confusion and errors in SR.

It is well described in article. In order to understand it, it is enough just to read it and try to understand.

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.

Prove it. So far, you not proved anything.

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

You simply not accepting any arguments and you hear only youself. I consider that questions as answered, it is clear for any non biased reader. If you will change from your intellectually dishonest behavior to normal behavior, you will admit it.

 

[Ans]

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 .

Movement is integrated with time, I agree.

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

This is not real prove of fundamentality of time and dynamics.

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

It is philosophical argument.
Scientific approach: consider there is no time and dynamic at fundamental level. See results.
Result is: SR and GR immediately arise in model without time and dynamic at fundamental level.
This is very strong argument in favor of absense of time and dynamic at fundamental level

 

[Ans]

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

As for energy, it is easy to find what is is in hypothesis of absense of time and dynamics. It is just first integral for equations of movement.
Movement is also can be simply found in model without time and dynamic, it is described in my article.

 

[Ans]

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

Well, it is possible to talk about deriving spacetime from 4 dimensional manifold with Euclidean metric, instead of 4 dimensional euclidean space. But it will not change anything, except it will make article more hard for reading.
Plus, based on definition of space, time is not required to define 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.

It looks as your hypothesis, not relevant to my hypothesis.

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

No.
In my hypothesis, entire causality principle is just another emergent phenomena. How and why it arise in model of my hypothesis, desribed in article.

 

[Ans]

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 .

Time is necessary for existence of Universe. But what is necessary for time? My hypothesis answer it.

 

[Write4U]

time is not required to define space.

Time is required to allow the continued existence of space.

Time does not exist until it is needed for chronological functions. (Necessity and Sufficiency), at which time it emerges from nothing. Time has no independent existence and is always related to a chronology of physical change.

 

[Write4U]

Movement is integrated with time, I agree.

Not really. Relatively there are things that do not move, yet they are subject to time.

Time is the measurement of a chronology of anything.

The overarching chronological time frame is spacetime. All other timelines are emergent with all ongoing chronological individual or group behaviors within the universe, and are relative to 3 D space coordinates which are separated by distance (time).

 

[Ans]

Time is required to allow the continued existence of space

Time is required to allow the continued existence of anything.
But what is time without existence? Seems as existence is required to allow time.
So, we see cycle. And it can be broken if "exists"
something more fundamental than time and existence.

Time is required to allow the continued existence of space.

Time does not exist until it is needed for chronological functions. (Necessity and Sufficiency), at which time it emerges from nothing. Time has no independent existence and is always related to a chronology of physical change.

Time is necessary for chronological functions, agree. But is not means what time must be fundamental. What is it is possible to build chronological functions without fundamental time and dynamics?
And my hypothesis propose way to do it.

 

[Ans]

Not really. Relatively there are things that do not move, yet they are subject to time.

If go deep, into quantum level, everything have movement

Time is the measurement of a chronology of anything.

The overarching chronological time frame is spacetime. All other timelines are emergent with all ongoing chronological individual or group behaviors within the universe, and are relative to 3 D space coordinates which are separated by distance (time).

Again, asking question. What if it is possible to build chronlology of events without time? And, as far as I can see it, it is possible to do in my hypothesis.

 

[Write4U]

If go deep, into quantum level, everything have movement

Again, asking question. What if it is possible to build a chronology of events without time? And, as far as I can see it, it is possible to do in my hypothesis.

Actually, IMO, the universe does not have any sense of the term "time" or "duration", just as it does not have any sense of the "decimal numerical system". The universe does not need to know time, relative time is automatically permitted and accessible as part of its existing geometry.

Chronology (from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chrónos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia)[2] is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time. Consider, for example, the use of a timeline or sequence of events. It is also "the determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events".
Chronology is a part of periodization. It is also a part of the discipline of history including earth history, the earth sciences, and study of the geologic time scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology

Remember the old saying; "space is what keeps things from happening in one place, time is what keeps things from happening all at once". This is an unbreakable spacetime law, IMO.

But for human understanding of natural chronologies we have invented "time" as a countable universal quality, just as a number is the human mathematical symbol for a "value", but has no meaning to the universe.

I am confident that for humans time is an indispensable tool for cosmologists and theoretical physicists, just as number systems are an indispensable tool for scientists in general.

 

[NotEinstein]

No, we not agree.
I use only postulate of my theory, and not use any additinal postulates. If you disagree, show it.

And as I pointed out, your postulates are equivalent to SR's.

I had impression you hear only youself, and in the post you gave another confirmation to the opinion.

Not really; I just filtered out the irrelevancies you brought up. That almost nothing is left of your response afterwards is not my fault.

Show what it somehow contradicts to model of my hypothesis. Some of yout stetements are wrong, but I already wrote about it,

Here, take this response for example. I prove that Vt is indeed a velocity, and that you knew that. You completely ignore my point and waffle something vague about me being wrong.

Instead of admitting you were clearly wrong, you are being intellectually dishonest. Please stop that.

If they are same, it is not possible to derive more than were derived in SR. I derived more. So, you is obviously wrong.

I never claimed you should be able to only derive SR. I only claimed your hypothesis' assumptions include the SR postulates, not that it is limited to them. So it is you that is obviously wrong.

It is well described in article. In order to understand it, it is enough just to read it and try to understand.

Except that it is not, as I pointed out. Switching notation halfway through a derivation is bad style.

Prove it. So far, you not proved anything.

Well, I proven you are intellectually dishonest, so your claim here is wrong.

You simply not accepting any arguments and you hear only youself. I consider that questions as answered, it is clear for any non biased reader.

Where is your answer then? Please point me to it.

If you will change from your intellectually dishonest behavior to normal behavior, you will admit it.

Well, let's find out who of us two is intellectually dishonest then! Point me to your answering of that post.

 

[river]

Time is necessary for existence of Universe. But what is necessary for time? My hypothesis answer it.

Why , and How

energy and matter , ( physical things ) existence . And Movement(s)

 

[globali]

What if it is possible to build chronlology of events without time? And, as far as I can see it, it is possible to do in my hypothesis.

imagine we had the technology and resources to achieve very high energies or speeds.
can you describe in detail a specific experiment that can test your hypothesis? what would the results expected to be from your hypothesis vs mainstream and why?

please explain

 

[Write4U]

IMO, it is a semantic problem.
Time is a human invention to identify and measure "duration between start and finish of chronological events". No change of any kind can happen without duration of the functional process, including quantum itself.

 

[river]

IMO, it is a semantic problem.
Time is a human invention to identify and measure "duration between start and finish of chronological events". No change of any kind can happen without duration of the functional process, including quantum itself.

Agreed

Including " quantum itself " indeed .

river

 

[Ans]

And as I pointed out, your postulates are equivalent to SR's.

You contradict to youself, in one post:

I never claimed you should be able to only derive SR. I only claimed your hypothesis' assumptions include the SR postulates, not that it is limited to them. So it is you that is obviously wrong.

And it contradicts to your first sensense. If something more than SR can be derived, it means postulates are ,not equivalent.

Here, take this response for example. I prove that Vt is indeed a velocity, and that you knew that. You completely ignore my point and waffle something vague about me being wrong.

And it is example of how you hearing only youself.

Where is your answer then? Please point me to it.

I consider it as answered. Any readers can consider it for themself, was it answered or no.

 

[Ans]

Why , and How

energy and matter , ( physical things ) existence . And Movement(s)

Did you read article? Energy in my hypothesis is one integrals of motion.
Movement can be found as rotation of hypersurface. What it means in details, and how it is equivalent to observed motion, is explained in article.

 

[NotEinstein]

You contradict to youself, in one post:


And it contradicts to your first sensense. If something more than SR can be derived, it means postulates are ,not equivalent.

Erm, that's not a contradiction? I pointed out that the two postulates you have there are equivalent to SR's in this context, not that they are equal in general. So you being able to derive more from them only would mean your postulates could be more general/broader, not that they are not the moral equivalent to SR's.

And as I pointed out, you literally assume the first postulate with your Minkowski diagram, and you literally assume the second by having a maximum velocity and arbitrarily setting it to the speed of light.

And it is example of how you hearing only youself.

No, it's turning more and more into an example of you not knowing that a velocity is a velocity.

Look, I thought you wanted MSc-level talk? You don't know that the speed of light is a (scalar) velocity, even after it having explicitly been pointed out to you!

I consider it as answered. Any readers can consider it for themself, was it answered or no.

So you confirm you are indeed unable to do that. Great; let's indeed have the readers decide for themselves.

Edit: Oh, and I see that last bit also resolved the challenge I post of you proving you are not intellectually dishonest. Thank you.