The Theory of Inexorability

THE THEORY OF INEXORABILITY

The Theory of Inexorability offers an explanation that unifies the Newton's absolute time and the Einstein's relative time. Also this theory unifies all frames of reference without using transforms.

The postulates of this theory are:

1- Time, in any frame of reference, is inexorable or absolute in the sense that the succession of moments is continuous and irreversible. Time (becoming) is unstoppable and unrepeatable. This postulate is represented by --> t (arrow of time).

2- From all frames of reference an object thrown by an observer reaches inexorably the same destination. It is not considered the observed trajectory. This postulate is represented by = d (same destination).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the picture above the object thrown by the observer on the plane will fall inexorably into their hands.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is an anagram of
Be either a frothy, oily, toxin.
The latter makes marginally more sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ophiolite, I can not compete with how much you know, so I have to be creative.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alternatively you could try learning stuff. One day I hope it will work for me.

 

No it does not.

It does not do that either.

 

Why not?

 

If I am reading your imprecise sentences correctly then transforms are of course necessary. If I am reading them incorrectly then they are simply wrong because they do not support observation.

 

I haven't said that transforms are unnecessary.

 

I thought you did when you said this:

Also this theory unifies all frames of reference without using transforms.

So I guess I have no idea what you are talking about. What are you trying to say?

 

I'm sure the answer will be the same as for your last cesspooled idea, but I'll ask again:

Does your idea make any testable predictions?

 

Does the "theory" cater for inexorable stupidity?

 

Posted by Russ-Watters:
"Does your idea make any testable predictions?"

1- Time always flows irreversibly regardless of speed. Newton and Einstein.

2- From all frames of reference an object thrown by an observer reaches inexorably the same destination.

OR NOT?

- Newton time stops, goes back and after a while continues forward.

- The ball thrown by the observer on the image will fall into the pilot's head, but the outside observer will see that the ball falls on the head of another passenger.

 

One observer will see the ball hit the pilot and another observer will see the ball hit a passenger? Really? That's your prediction? Well that's absurd -- we already know that isn't true. Hell, Galileo knew that wasn't true!

 

I don't think Sibilia speaks Latin. He certainly doesn't speak sense.

 

I suspect this poster may have a dim (and I mean dim) recollection of the concept of the relativity of simultaneity and has somehow mangled this into the ridiculous scenario he or she describes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Of course it's absurd. So my theory of inexorability is true.

 

Huh? I thought you meant that was a prediction of your idea - that's what I asked for. If that's your interpretation of Relativity, then you don't understand Relativity.

Good news though: it is possible that your idea accidentally matches Relativity, which would make it correct! (Though pointless)

 

WHERE DID THE RELATIVITY GO?

Division of Physics:

- Newton: absolute Physics (XVII, XVIII, XIX centuries)
- Einstein: relative Physics (XX century)
- Sibilia: inexorable Physics (XXI century)

With the Theory of Inexorability stops to be relevant the influence of speed (normal and fast) over time and the reference frame of observation (inertial and non-inertial). What really important is that time passes continuously with no return to the past. All observers, in spite of their reference frame, register that a thrown object by one observer always arrives at the same destination.

Elvis Sibilia of America (ESA)

 

Does your idea make any testable predictions that differ from current theory?

 

What moves, the train or the tracks?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It doesn't matter, the two reference systems will travel the same distance, but in different senses. The traveled distance is inexorable.