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

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 .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

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

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

Prove it. So far, you not proved anything.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Movement is integrated with time, I agree.

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

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 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.

 

If go deep, into quantum level, everything have movement

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

 

Why , and How

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

And it is example of how you hearing only youself.

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

 

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.

 

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.

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!

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.