Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 91

Thread: Deriving space-time in four-dimensional Euclidean space with no time and dynamics

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I have seen a number of claims, but it isn’t clear to me that you have presented a falsifiable hypothesis.
    That I present here is only part of bigger theory. Is it falsifiable or no – I see predictions in bigger theory, but I would prefer to not discuss the full theory here, too complex.
    So, as of now, in the presented article I shown that the hypothesis is compatible with SR and GR. And logic of it can be checked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Could you state just what, specifically, your hypothesis is, some non-trivial predictions it makes that aren’t made by existing theory, and what evidence you have found that supports these predictions?



    Why should we care if you can derive some form of the anthropic principle from your arguments? How does this this lead to scientifically measurable results that can be used as a test for a hypothesis?

    Much like Reality Check, I don’t see where the science is here or the point of bringing up anthropic principle arguments when discussing what is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis.
    You asking about what’s new the hypothesis add to science. And answer to your question is right in your question. Even deriving of anthropic principle alone from some physical model is significant result in foundations of physics.
    If something was derived from physical hypothesis – it is science.
    So, if my theory is correct, antropic principle is science, not philosophy, at least for cases covered by the theory.

    Also, just few posts above I already shown several points where my hypothesis contradicts to mainstream.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Again, I am more interested in what testable predictions you can make that support your claims.
    As of now, it is possible to test correctness of logic used for deriving the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I can make a claim that there is an invisible elf in my yard, but should anyone care that it is not easy to refute? What is more important is how the claim can be supported and if there is any actual support for the claim.
    Usually it is named as Russell’s teapot.
    Such argument typically used when someone try to add something extra and unnecessary to existing theory. However, I not add something additional, I reduce number of independent phenomena. So, the argument used incorrectly.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Postulates one and two are in your derivation. So you claim you derived these from your theory first? Can you show that and show your derivation of the postulates you have listed? And no, I am not going to vixra to read anything. Present it here.
    Yes, they are derived, not postulated.
    Their derivation based on previous part, previous part based on previous etc.
    So, if present only part with derivation of the postulates, it would be unclear.
    What I propose is: I may present first part, than next part etc. If present and discuss one part per day, it would require about 5-7 days to check that postulates were really derived. Is you interested in such approach?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    And please show this while you are at it. It is wort noting that 'action' is not really a postulate. It falls out of the more generally accepted foundations of GR - that the theory must be generally covariant, spacetime is described by a pseudo-Riemann manifold of sign -+++ and that the Einstein field equation describes its curvature. I suppose you could argue that the principle of least action is a postulate - is that what you were referring to?
    GR is close to end of the article.
    In general, action for body in field look as S=Sm + Sf+Smf (sorry, still not found how to insert latex here)
    Sm here action of body, Sf – action of field, and Smf – action for interaction of body and field.
    Einstein postulated that action for mass in gravity field is: S=Sm + Sg
    Here Sg is action of gravity.
    There is no explanation why Smg = 0. My theory explains it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Based solely on what you have presented here it is not even that. It is just a claim that if we assume t is not a time dimension but something that comes from your theory, but behaves just like a time dimension, then physics works. Which I have to say is an underwhelming insight.
    I already shown, in several posts, where my theory differ from mainstream.
    I not say that my theory is true and have no errors. I say that I not know any errors in the theory and I interested in testing correctness of logic in the theory.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    9,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Yes, they are derived, not postulated.
    Their derivation based on previous part, previous part based on previous etc.
    So, if present only part with derivation of the postulates, it would be unclear.
    What I propose is: I may present first part, than next part etc. If present and discuss one part per day, it would require about 5-7 days to check that postulates were really derived. Is you interested in such approach?


    GR is close to end of the article.
    In general, action for body in field look as S=Sm + Sf+Smf (sorry, still not found how to insert latex here)
    Sm here action of body, Sf – action of field, and Smf – action for interaction of body and field.
    Einstein postulated that action for mass in gravity field is: S=Sm + Sg
    Here Sg is action of gravity.
    There is no explanation why Smg = 0. My theory explains it.



    I already shown, in several posts, where my theory differ from mainstream.
    I not say that my theory is true and have no errors. I say that I not know any errors in the theory and I interested in testing correctness of logic in the theory.
    My bold. Then go ahead and test it. Choose a representative broad spectrum of phenomena with which the mainstream theory is in good agreement. Demonstrate the calculations as done in the mainstream theory and for comparison demonstrate the analogous calculations with your theory. Then give us a convincing reason to embrace your theory as a scientifically useful alternative.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    ok, math to derive Lorentz transofrmations (it is quite badly formatted, not found how to insert latex here). Also note, most of text below was copy-pased from existing textbook. ...
    This derivation is irrelevant to your ATM idea. It is a waste of time to seem to declare arbitrarily that you have the conditions that start a mainstream derivation and copy-paste from a mainstream textbook. You first need to show how you get time from math that only has space in it, e.g. your (x,y) plane where x and y are space directions. Then
    1. Space and time homogeneity
    2. Space isotropy
    are reasonable conditions for your space and time but
    3. Presence of the maximum interactions velocity
    is wrong. You have an unknown maximum interactions velocity that you have labelled with "c". That "c" is not the known speed of light c that appears in the Lorentz transformation. Unless you can show that your "c" is actually c, you cannot derive the Lorentz transformation.

    IF03: Show that your unknown speed "c" is the speed of light c, Ans.
    I suggest you start by renaming your "c" to x, y, or z to avoid confusion.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    ...So, Occam razor here looks better for me.
    This is a misunderstanding of Occam's razor which is that entities should not be increased without need. In science, the application is that if two theories give identical results, then we should prefer the simpler theory. Your theory explicitly says it can give no results (no time, energy or dynamics)! GR gives results. Claiming wrongly - see my questions and below - that you can derive GR would make your theory have the same entities as GR but with an extra layer of complexity. That violates a preference for simplicity in the scientific method.

    Why you do not derive the Einstein Field Equations in "Gravitational Field Equations" is simply that you have an action S in a vague "certain curved hypersurface and the corresponding space-time". That is not the S in the Einstein–Hilbert action. That S is in a Riemann manifold. The Ricci scalar is a curvature in a Riemann manifold. Plugging GR action components into your action is obviously wrong. I could do the same error for classical physics where GR definitely does not exist and "derive" the EFE !
    1. S = Sm + Sg in a flat Euclidean spacetime.
    2. Substitute Sm and Sg from a mainstream textbook (L.D. Landau, E.M. Lif****z, Field theory, vol II, izd. 7, Moscow “Nauka” 1988), ignoring that the textbook presumably states that it is using a curved spacetime/Riemann manifold.
    3. Apply the action principle and of course the EFE will appear.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    My bold. Then go ahead and test it. Choose a representative broad spectrum of phenomena with which the mainstream theory is in good agreement. Demonstrate the calculations as done in the mainstream theory and for comparison demonstrate the analogous calculations with your theory. Then give us a convincing reason to embrace your theory as a scientifically useful alternative.
    While it is quite strange but doing that you propose is meaningless as of now. Because journals not accepting article with the theory, they would not accept article with predictions of the theory. So, check of the theory for logical correctness is more useful than predictions.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You first need to show how you get time from math that only has space in it, e.g. your (x,y) plane where x and y are space directions.
    Yes, deriving (x,t) from (x,y) is key point.
    I already shown how it can be derived.
    You have not shown any errors in that derivation, not wrote any arguments against that derivation, but repeating it was not done.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF03: Show that your unknown speed "c" is the speed of light c, Ans.
    I suggest you start by renaming your "c" to x, y, or z to avoid confusion.
    With easy. It is enough to just copy-paste "Space-Time Direct Transformation in the Hypothesis Framework." from the article:

    Space-Time Direct Transformation in the Hypothesis Framework.


    What should be the space-time in the framework of the hypothesis under consideration at small angles? When the angle of rotation tends to zero, the loss of information should also tend to zero, since the fundamental fields should be smooth. Then, in this case, the space-time transformation should go over to the Lorentz transformations. Let’s verify it.
    Let’s find ratio of the duration of time in two inertial frames of references, moving relatively to each other. I will name 𝑣𝑡 the distance in fundamental space, equal to unit of time. As described above, this value is the same in all inertial reference systems.
    Let there be two inertial frames of reference moving relative to each other with velocity 𝑣 along axis 𝑥, and their origin points coincide.
    The figure 1 shows the axes 𝑥 and 𝑡 for the first frame of reference and axes 𝑥′ and 𝑡′ for the second frame of reference. The second frame of reference, moving with relative velocity 𝑣, is tilted at an angle 𝛼 relative to the first one. I would like to emphasize that the axis 𝑡 is usual space axis in Euclidean space. Length 𝑙 along this axis is related to the observed time by the following relation: 𝑡=𝑙/𝑣𝑡
    Simultaneous events are those events that occur on a same plane, perpendicular to the axis 𝑡.
    There are several points in the figure. Point 1 is the beginning of the coordinate system. I consider a case, when the beginning of the coordinate system is the same for both systems.
    Because 𝑣𝑡 in all inertial frame of references is the same, so 𝑣=𝑣𝑡tg(&#120572, where 𝛼 – angle between 𝑡 and 𝑡′.
    Let 𝑡 be the time elapsed in the first reference frame from point 1, and 𝑡′ - time elapsed in the moving reference frame during the time 𝑡. Time duration 𝑡 in the first frame corresponds to the distance 𝑣𝑡𝑡, this is distance between points 1 and 4. The same time span 𝑡 in the second frame of reference corresponds to the same distance; it is distance between points 1 and 5. Point 2 is the intersection of a line perpendicular to the axis 𝑡′, and passing through the point 5. Similarly, point 3 is the intersection of a line perpendicular to the axis 𝑡, and passing through the point 4. In order to determine which time interval in the first frame of reference corresponds to the time 𝑡′ in the second one, it is necessary to find the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle of points 1, 5 and 2. From the figure, it can be seen as follows: 𝑡=𝑡′cos (&#120572
    Now let us consider how these equations obtained above will behave when 𝛼 tends to zero.
    At small angles tg(&#120572≈sin(&#120572
    From here, we get sin(&#120572≈𝑣/𝑣𝑡
    Then, from the known value of the sine, we get:
    cos(&#120572=√1−𝑠𝑖𝑛2(&#120572=√1−(𝑣𝑣&#1199052 𝑡=𝑡′√1−(𝑣𝑣&#1199052

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    From the same figure it can be seen 𝑡′=𝑡cos (&#120572=𝑡√1−(𝑣𝑣&#1199052
    Now consider the coordinate transformations. Let velocity 𝑣 be directed along x-axis. Then, when you rotate the coordinate system to switch to moving frame of reference, y and z will remain unchanged: 𝑦=𝑦′ 𝑧=𝑧′
    In the second frame of reference, after rotation, 𝑥′=𝑥0/cos (&#120572
    Then 𝑥′=(𝑥−𝑣&#119905/cos(&#120572=𝑥−𝑣𝑡√1−(𝑣𝑣&#1199052 𝑡′=𝑡−(𝑣/𝑣𝑡2)𝑥√1−(𝑣𝑣&#1199052
    These equations become familiar if 𝑣𝑡=с
    Here с – light velocity. This means that the distance corresponding to the unit of length of time is equal to the distance traveled by the light for the same time duration.
    Thus, it was found that at small angles of rotation and in the absence of loss of information, rotation in 4-dimensional space turns into Lorentz transformations.
    An additional consequence is that in order to perform such a transition, the condition 𝑣𝑡=с should be satisfied.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Crazy formatting. I see the forum support latex, but there is no option in menu to insert latex.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Yes, deriving (x,t) from (x,y) is key point.
    I already shown how it can be derived.
    You have not shown any errors in that derivation, not wrote any arguments against that derivation, but repeating it was not done.
    Ans,

    1. You've said quite about how others
    "have not shown any errors in that derivation, not wrote any arguments against that derivation". They don't have to. They can if they want to but they are not required to do so. It is entirely up to you to demonstrate the validity and utility of your claims.

    2. You've been asked for you're derivations. If you have them, provide them. This thread has 19 days left before closure.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I could do the same error for classical physics where GR definitely does not exist and "derive" the EFE !
    1. S = Sm + Sg in a flat Euclidean spacetime.
    2. Substitute Sm and Sg from a mainstream textbook (L.D. Landau, E.M. Lif****z, Field theory, vol II, izd. 7, Moscow “Nauka” 1988), ignoring that the textbook presumably states that it is using a curved spacetime/Riemann manifold.
    3. Apply the action principle and of course the EFE will appear.
    No, you cannot. There is error right in first step.
    In a flat Euclidean spacetime S = Sm, because Sg=0
    Also, if you would write action for any field in flat spacetime as
    S = Sm + Sf
    it also means obvious error, because you miss Smf part.
    You have to postulate that Smf=0. And it was done and it works for gravity only, in curved spacetime.
    As for my hypersurface - it is also curved spacetime.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Crazy formatting. I see the forum support latex, but there is no option in menu to insert latex.
    It's not in the post formatting controls but you can insert the tags manually. Start here.

    If you have further issues, questions, or complaints about how the forum operates, please post in
    Forum Inroductions and Feedback.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    No, you cannot. There is error right in first step.....
    Which is my point - that is the error you make as I explained in the part of my post you did not quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Why you do not derive the Einstein Field Equations in "Gravitational Field Equations" is simply that you have an action S in a vague "certain curved hypersurface and the corresponding space-time". That is not the S in the Einstein–Hilbert action. That S is in a Riemann manifold. The Ricci scalar is a curvature in a Riemann manifold. Plugging GR action components into your action is obviously wrong. I could do the same error for classical physics where GR definitely does not exist and "derive" the EFE !
    A Riemann manifold is not a curved hyperplane. You do not have any Riemann manifold in your theory. You do not have any Sg in a Riemann manifold. You also have Sg = 0 (or undefined).
    This is a hyperplane. Note that it is embedded in an ambient space. Curvature may only be defined by that ambient space
    This is a Pseudo-Riemannian manifold as used in GR. Note that there is no mention of an ambient space. That is why in the Einstein Field equations, there are indexes that go 1, 2, 3 ,4 (3 space dimensions and a time dimension) but not 5 for an ambient space. The curvature in GR is intrinsic and does not refer to any ambient space.

    Just in case:
    IF04: Give your source that states the Riemann manifold used in GR is a curved hyperplane, Ans.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    I already shown how it can be derived.
    No you did not and I stated your errors. Imagining that time appears is not deriving that time appears. Wanting observers to have to have real bodies is not knowing what observers are and still did not give time.

    IF01: Give your definition of velocity that has no time, Ans, or derive the definition of velocity that we use that has time from your theory.
    IF02: How can your observer who is in a space with no time measure a change in x (the dx in velocity) when all you have is 2 unchanging points, Ans?

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    With easy. ...
    I have read your PDF before and you do not show that your "c' is the speed of light c. "Space-Time Direct Transformation in the Hypothesis Framework.".
    You do a calculation that cannot get the Lorentz transformation, with that you have not established exists in your theory. You end by asserting that your vt is c just because you get an equation that looks like time dilation.
    This is the Lorentz transformation which is more than time dilation. It is impossible to get the Lorentz transformation from a rotation of a Euclidean space. The [Lorentz transformation is a boost or rotation or both in a Minkowski space.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2020-Apr-13 at 10:02 PM.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Which is my point - that is the error you make as I explained in the part of my post you did not quote:

    A Riemann manifold is not a curved hyperplane. You do not have any Riemann manifold in your theory. You do not have any Sg in a Riemann manifold. You also have Sg = 0 (or undefined).
    This is a hyperplane. Note that it is embedded in an ambient space. Curvature may only be defined by that ambient space
    This is a Pseudo-Riemannian manifold as used in GR. Note that there is no mention of an ambient space. That is why in the Einstein Field equations, there are indexes that go 1, 2, 3 ,4 (3 space dimensions and a time dimension) but not 5 for an ambient space. The curvature in GR is intrinsic and does not refer to any ambient space.
    I use not hyperplane, but curved hypersurface. And the curvature results in intrinsic curvature of spacetime, for observer. It can be easily checked, if consider my derivation of time in timeless space.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Just in case:
    IF04: Give your source that states the Riemann manifold used in GR is a curved hyperplane,
    Hmm. In mainstream science it is not curved hyperplane or curved hypersurface, I remember courses on general relativty and on differential geometry.
    In my theory it is, and I shown it results in same equations as EFE.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    No you did not and I stated your errors. Imagining that time appears is not deriving that time appears. Wanting observers to have to have real bodies is not knowing what observers are and still did not give time.
    Arguments which I see, for me sounds as “It is not so because it cannot be so”.
    It is not scientific argument, it is philosophical argument.

    I think I already provided answers to both questions.
    In order to understand answers, it is necessary to really consider derivation of (x,t) from (x,y).
    If anyone can do it, he may either understand answers or find some error in them (if it exists).

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I have read your PDF before and you do not show that your "c' is the speed of light c. "Space-Time Direct Transformation in the Hypothesis Framework.".
    You do a calculation that cannot get the Lorentz transformation, with that you have not established exists in your theory. You end by asserting that your vt is c just because you get an equation that looks like time dilation.
    You may look again and check. I get not only time dilation, but also same equations for space transformation. And the equations looks exactly as Lorentz transformation if assume vt=c
    So, I have good basis for the assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is the Lorentz transformation which is more than time dilation. It is impossible to get the Lorentz transformation from a rotation of a Euclidean space. The [Lorentz transformation is a boost or rotation or both in a Minkowski space.
    It is easy to notice that I get the transformation in some limit case, not for generic case for rotation in Euclidean space. And reason for usage of the limit case was well explained and justified.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    I use not hyperplane, but curved hypersurface. ...
    I made a mistake but you are still wrong. A vague "curved hypersurface" is still not the mathematically defined pseudo-Riemannian manifold.
    This answer to IF04: Give your source that states the pseudo-Riemann manifold used in GR is a curved hyperplane hypersurface, Ans. makes your ATM idea wrong.
    This is the Einstein–Hilbert action of general relativity, defined on a pseudo-Riemann manifold (R is the Ricci scalar and "In Riemannian geometry, the scalar curvature (or the Ricci scalar) is the simplest curvature invariant of a Riemannian manifold.").. It cannot be used if you do not have a pseudo-Riemann manifold. You do not have a pseudo-Riemann manifold. Thus you did not derive the EFE which are defined in a pseudo-Riemann manifold.

    As I pointed out before, this is as invalid as substituting the Einstein–Hilbert action into a classical action in Euclidean space and you agreed. We could do the same fro Minkowski space and it would still be invalid. Dosing the same for a vague "curved hypersurface" is still invalid.

    A minor point: A curved hypersurface is still embedded in a higher space like its flat hyperplane and thus definitely not a pseudo-Riemann manifold. Your "and the corresponding space-time." would be a 5D space. GR is a 4D space.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    I think I already provided answers to both questions.
    In order to understand answers, it is necessary to really consider derivation of (x,t) from (x,y).
    If anyone can do it, he may either understand answers or find some error in them (if it exists).
    You start with an (x,y) plane with 2 fixed points because you have no time.
    • You have not derived (x, y, t) or (x, t) or anything similar.
    • You have not shown how an observer without time measures an x1 and then (i.e. after time has passed) a x2 and subtracts them to get a change in x.

    You imply that you have not and cannot do this. That invalidates your current ATM idea because you cannot connect it to the observed world which has time. You need to throw away all of the "no time, energy, dynamics" stuff and start again.
    Is that your actual answer?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2020-Apr-15 at 09:11 PM.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    ...
    It is impossible to get the Lorentz transformation from a rotation or any other transformation of a Euclidean space because it and SR (and us!) exist in a Minkowski space. You transform a Euclidean space. You cannot get the Lorentz transformation regardless of somehow getting equations that look like it.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,292
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    2. You've been asked for you're derivations. If you have them, provide them. This thread has 19 days left before closure.
    Repeated for emphasis. Please post your derivations. If you do not, you risk thread closure and infraction.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It is impossible to get the Lorentz transformation from a rotation or any other transformation of a Euclidean space because it and SR (and us!) exist in a Minkowski space. You transform a Euclidean space. You cannot get the Lorentz transformation regardless of somehow getting equations that look like it.
    You contradict to yourself.
    Either I get equations that look like it, or it is impossible to get Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space.

    For rest of posts, I would answer tomorrow, I have only few minutes now.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    9,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower
    My bold. Then go ahead and test it. Choose a representative broad spectrum of phenomena with which the mainstream theory is in good agreement. Demonstrate the calculations as done in the mainstream theory and for comparison demonstrate the analogous calculations with your theory. Then give us a convincing reason to embrace your theory as a scientifically useful alternative.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    While it is quite strange but doing that you propose is meaningless as of now. Because journals not accepting article with the theory, they would not accept article with predictions of the theory. So, check of the theory for logical correctness is more useful than predictions.
    Then perhaps you are in the wrong forum. Testing theories against observations is what we do in astronomy and cosmology. My educated guess is that picking the brains of mathematicians who specialize in purely abstract thought exercises in higher-dimensional spaces would be a good idea.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Looking at questions, it is clear that they represent absence of understanding of ideas of my theory.
    Without understanding of ideas of any theory, it is not possible to really consider it except check its claimed predictions for correctness.
    In presented article, I claim I derived SR and GR in the article. It is mainstream theories, so it is meaningless to test SR and GR as predictions. Check for logical correctness of derivation cannot be done without understanding ideas and framework of the theory.
    So, here I would try to explain the ideas.

    First, let’s consider system without time and dynamic.
    What the system should have, at minimum? It should have space. Without space, we can talk only about empty set, and I have no idea how build any non-trivial system on basis of empty set.
    If there is space only, again I have no idea how build any non-trivial system on basis of space only.
    Let’s add some field to the system, and make the field defined in each point of space. Because the system have no time and dynamic, value of the field at each point of the space cannot be changed.
    We are talking about physical system. So, it looks logical to expect what value of the field at each point is defined by value of the field in surrounding points. So, it is possible to say that the field should be described by some partial differential equations.
    What is simplest possible model for described system? For field, simplest possible field is scalar field. Value of the field belongs to set of real numbers. For space, most simple case is Euclidean space. Note – the scalar field is not same as in textbooks for QFT. It has no any quantum properties and no dynamic.
    While scalar field and Euclidean is most simple choice, it is possible to consider more complex fields and more complex spaces. For most that I wrote below, there is no difference in consequences.

    Example of system without time: two dimensional plane in Euclidean space with defined on the plane field f(x,y)=x+y. Obviously, there is no time and no dynamic in such system.

    Next step is find time and dynamic on system which have no time and dynamic. We feel passage of time, see dynamic, so in order to try to consider model without time and dynamic for physics, it is necessary to find time in the model.
    Because the system have no time and dynamic, it not possible to use usual time. Usual time is some fundamental phenomena. In model without time and dynamic, time cannot be fundamental phenomena. So, it must be derived from something else. What time is in equations of physics? It is parameter of evolution for equations. So, if derive something as parameter of evolution, it can be consider as time. Let’s name such parameter of evolution as emergent time, to distinguish it with time as fundamental phenomena. Here comes evolution. But there is no evolution in system without time and dynamic. So, it is necessary to find what can be used as evolution.
    Split space of system into parallel hyperplanes. The hyperplanes should not intersect, and they should completely cover entire space. I taking hyperplanes with number of dimensions as n-1, where n is number of dimensions for space of entire system. Hyperplanes should be build in such way, that it should be possible to predict values of field on each following hyperplane, if know value on previous hyperplane. Instead of predicting values of field on each following hypersurface, it is possible to predict values of some part of the field, if projection of the field on hyperplanes can be splitted into separate parts. As parameter for equations to predict value of field on following hyperplanes, it should be possible to use distance between hyperplanes. I consider only fields, which allow to do described above.
    If look on above, is it look as evolution and time? There are changes on hyperplanes, and there is parameter of evolution, as it exists in physics. So, it looks as evolution of projection of field on hyperplane. I would name it emergent evolution. Hyperplane here act as space where evolution happens. So, it is possible to talk about emergent space.
    What prevents us from use it as time, space and dynamic? We think our consciousness requires time to think.
    So, in order to try to apply the found emergent time, emergent space and emergent evolution to physics, it is necessary to somehow find ability for consciousness here.
    So, I add postulate to the theory: system without time and dynamic can contain intelligent observer on basis of emergent space, emergent time and emergent evolution.
    Note – the postulate say that intelligent observer can exists in system without time and dynamic on basis of emergent space-time and emergent evolution, but it not say that intelligent observer exists in every system without time and dynamic.
    What if some system is not allow intelligent observer to exists? In example above, with field f(x,y)=x+y it is clear that observer cannot exists in the field, the field is too simple to support states for body of intelligent observer. If system is not allow to exists for intelligent observer, the found emergent space-time can be considered simply as mathematical abstraction. That bring the emergent space-time into being is intelligent observer in the spacetime. So, observer in the model is necessary for existence of Universe. Here was derived anthropic principle.
    It is quite fundamental result, because it was derived from scientific model. It means that for models without time and dynamic, anthropic principle is not philosophical principle, it is inevitable scientific consequence of any model without time and dynamic.
    And another result here: there is no free will for intelligent observer. System witjout time and dynamic means superdeterminism.

    Next step. Any model of intelligent life, known to me, requires fulfillment of principle of causality. Intelligent life is necessary for existence of Universe (if time and dynamic are not fundamental), so principle of causality is consequence of anthropic principle. Here was derived principle of causality.

    Next step. Let’s say there is some intelligent observer in some emergent spacetime. It exists on some set of hyperplanes. Next, let’s consider hyperplanes which are at some angles to hyperplanes of mentioned intelligent observer. And let’s consider such hyperplanes, where exists another intelligent observer. Should it observe same events as first observer? May be it should be possible to look on events, observed by first observer, and predict events observed by second, and vice versa?
    Why it should be so? There is no such requirement in model. Intelligent observers in different emergent space-times are independent from each other. The events should become same in limit of very small angles, but it is one only requirement.
    Here comes another fundamental result of the theory: events may differ in different spacetimes on same system.

    Next, where is events in the system?
    Events happens in spacetime only. So, in order to talk about events, it is necessary to add spacetime for events.
    If look at example with plane (x,y) and field f(x,y)=x+y, it is possible to split the plane into parallel lines and predict value of field on following lines if know value of field on some line and know distance between lines. The distance act as emergent time, line act as emergent space. Together. They form emergent spacetime. So, ii is not correct to ask: which events happened between points (1,1) and (1,2)? It is necessary to provide emergent spacetime where they happens.

    And next, question of speed become quite trivial: speed is v=s/t, there s is distance in emergent space, and t is emergent time.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Then perhaps you are in the wrong forum. Testing theories against observations is what we do in astronomy and cosmology. My educated guess is that picking the brains of mathematicians who specialize in purely abstract thought exercises in higher-dimensional spaces would be a good idea.
    I want to note that there is no mainstream scientific theory in area where I propose my theory. My theory is unification of GR and QM. And there is no mainstream theory in the area. All BSM theories either have no gravity or have big problems with gravity and only promise to resolve them. Theories with quantum gravity have own set of problems.
    So, I not trying to replace any existing mainstream theory with my theory, because nothing to replace. Main result, which I trying to achieve, it is synthesis of GR and QM in one model with one field. And, so far, it looks good.
    So, I have no need to prove that my theory doing something better than existing mainstream theory, it is enough to prove it do that it claims to do.
    Main result for my theory would be simply ability to have both GR and QM in same model. So, it requires mostly test of logical correctness of theory. Test of additional predictions of the theory would be necessary, but only after test of logic of the theory.

    That I challenge in mainstream is realism. If my theory would be proven, it would means scientific refute of realism, most core concept of modern mainstream in philosophy.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,292
    Closed pending moderator discussion.

    Thread reopened.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2020-Apr-20 at 05:21 PM.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    You contradict to yourself.
    Either I get equations that look like it, or it is impossible to get Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space.
    I was very clear. You got equations that look like the Lorentz transformation. The equations are not the Lorentz transformation because the Lorentz transformation does not exist in Euclidean space. The Lorentz transformation exists in Minkowski space. This is textbook special relativity. Newtonian mechanics exists in Euclidean space. SR exists in Minkowski space. Minkowski space is not Euclidean space.
    Last edited by tusenfem; 2020-Apr-21 at 07:09 AM. Reason: repaired quote tag

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Looking at questions, it is clear that they represent absence of understanding of ideas of my theory. ...
    My questions are based on the simple fact that time exists and you still have not derived time from a (x,y) plane with 2 fixed points or in any other way. Your ATM idea thus falls at the first hurdle and the rest is almost moot. I pointed out a couple of other obvious errors.

    The "intelligent observer/emergent space-time" story in this post did not derive time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •