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

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Ans, Dec 15, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,884
    This NOVA presentation by De Grasse-Tyson explains the formation of the fundamental elements.



    and



    Waves and wavelengths are geometric structures, except for the original background "noise" which has no point of origin but is smoothly distributed through all of the Universe. i.e. the universe itself is a dynamic geometric (mathematical) structure
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    11,761
    Movement(s) is basis of all physical things , in the Universe . It is a three dimensional form .

    It is the basis of the existence of everything .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    11,761
    Waves and wavelengths are geometrics based on physical energy form .

    Neither are just mathematical concepts .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,884
    I disagree. All recurring regular patterns such as atoms are discrete three dimensional forms, geometric patterns (things) and therefore mathematical in essence.

    Make spacetime a dynamic geometric pattern and over time all existent patterns (all things) were derived from the original spacetime mathematical geometric patterns.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  8. river

    Messages:
    11,761

    What original spacetime geometric patterns ?
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,884
    Chaos, with emerging patterns such as dynamic fields of elemental particles (quarks, etc.) and emerging elements such as Hydrogen and Helium.

    Atoms are patterns. Molecules are patterns. Plants are patterns. Animals are patterns.
    Everything is patterned.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  10. river

    Messages:
    11,761

    Why , chaos ?
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,884
    BB created an initial chaotic state which began to self-order into patterns as the plasma cooled and the first dynamic patterns (fields) appeared. From there the first elements emerged.
    (this is agreed by all regardless if you believe in Quantum foam, String theory, Brane theory, Higgs field, etc.)

     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  12. river

    Messages:
    11,761
    BB is incomplete . It actually violates the law of conservation of energy

    BB , has no ability to capture energy , and bring it back into existence . And the recycle it .
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,884
    I don't understand what you are saying here. The BB was a single event, all natural laws are derived from the subsequent values created and released during the event.

    IMO, the BB was a mega-quantum event. How that came about is still a mystery, AFAIK.

    It also violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but being a "beginning" no universal laws were in effect yet. That came later with the formation (patterning) of physical objects and their constant respective mathematical values and their constant mathematical interactive functions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  14. river

    Messages:
    11,761
    The Universe is not an event . Its about events , energy forms of existence . A sphere of energy and space

    There was never BB . BB is gravity based theory . Gravity is not the basis of our Universe . It is far to weak to have any consequence to anything that matters .

    Physical objects will under BB and energy , will eventually lose all energy and become non-existent . The Universe will become non-existent .
     
  15. Ans Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Picture in article is not postulate. It was derived from model of hypothesis. Seems as you not read the article in enough details to notice it. And yes, it is fully proven in article. If you
    disagree, you may try to find what was not proved.

    Also. about your other points. In introduction part of the article, there is reference to bbok of Howking and Elliot. In that book, there is mathematical prove why it is not possible to derive Minkowski spacetime from Euclidean space. So, seems as you need to improve your knowledge to understand the article.

    Universality of SR is observed fact, there are no any experiments which contradicts to it, so you is obviously wrong.

    In SR, yes. In my hypothesis - no, because postulate of my hypothesis is not equivalent to postulates of SR and GR.
     
  16. Ans Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    In my opinion, this is solid new hypothesis, with mathematics and with potential for new predictions.
    Actually, it is part of bigger theory, of my unified field theory: http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0596
    I wrote separate article, which not mention bigger theory, to improve chances for publication in good journals.

    First, most of my articles were published. Not every article, but all article which describe current state of theory, so there is nothing what is not protected. The publications are in paper, indexed, even exists in some scientific index systems. Publications were in journals with nearby zero impact factor, so it mostly for protection of priority.
    I have some publications in good journals. For example, in Phys Rev Letters. They were written during my postgraduate education, when I was on PhD track, and have no relation to theory I develop now.

    As for exactly identical conclusions. As far as I see, there is no other way to build theory without time and dynamic. So, I clearly took priority here.

    If someone will write exactly same and claim he was not influenced by my works - I not see how it can be proved, espesially because I develop the theory for five years, presented it in seminars and conferences, there are videos in youtube. In next two weeks, I would particate in another seminar with 15 minute presentation, at 11 march - one hour presentation of my theory at another seminar, at Moscow state university.
     
  17. Ans Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    I agree what time is not exists independent of universe. And it is written in my article.

    It looks as philosophy.
    My theory allow to derive equation of observerd spacetime (SR and GR), from assumption of absense of time and dynamic on fundamental level. And it have potential to predict new phenomena. Question is - are the equations were really correctly derived?
    If answer is yes, the theory may be correct.
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,736
    I found it, but why didn't you point me to it in the first place?

    It's the first line of the "Model of hypothesis"-section: "Let us assume that there is a four-dimensional Euclidean space with some fields." This silently assumes SR's first postulate: there's a single space and a single set of fields that's the same for all observers.

    I never claimed that that should be possible? So, seems as you need to improve your reading skills to understand the post.

    There being no contradictory data doesn't mean it's proven impossible. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so you is obviously wrong. Please learn basic scientific principles.

    Wait, you are right on this; I stand corrected. Your model can have more postulates, thus restricting it further than SR. That would mean SR is a generalized version of your model, and thus your model can safely be discarded because it's superseded by SR. That's an interesting position of you to take...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I see that once again you've ignored important parts of my response. I'll just add that to the pile of proof of your level of intellectual honesty.
     
  19. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    135
    You never know!

    What does potential for new predictions even mean?
    Also what do you think is the main reason it hasn't lead to predictions yet after 5 years of development? How do you think this can change?
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
  20. river

    Messages:
    11,761
    Observed movement

    Continue
     
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,004
    Deriving spacetime in four-dimensional Euclidean space without time and dynamics

    please talk about the dynamics
     
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,004
    niel-de-what-who ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    int it time Neil & Morgan & Barack all got together and did some type of science documentary on planetary science, maybe human evolution of space travel etc...with a bit of future stuff thrown in. maybe a few cameos
    getting a bit dizzy at the thought ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page