My model is theory of spacetime.
So what was all this "you can't use worldlines with my model, because that requires spacetime"-arguing from you all about?
Additionally to world lines to work out, it is possible many more conceptions. It not means that my theory is not original because it use some already well known conception.
What you describe as-if it's something original in the "model"-section of the linked Vixra-text, is anything but, as I've demonstrated.
What I talked about other articles was only about peer review etc.
Alright, so you had an article that, with some minor tweaks, could've been published, and you decided to abandon it only to write some qualitative text? And that took you two years? That's not very efficient!
I propose to discuss only article with link in initial post, it would be easier.
Agreed. You brought that article up in the first place, but it has obviously only led to confusion, so let's forget about it.
And I not discussed here anything from content of other articles except they exists and some of them relates to article being discussed.
Nope, none of them relate. There are exactly four citations in your linked text, and none of them link to any of your other articles. So no, you yourself have indicated that aren't relevant.
Probably. As I said, I have different impression. May be I wrong.
I have no idea what ever gave you that impression. I've read various successful scientific papers, and none of them wait even the slightest moments to throw all relevant equations in your face.
If anything, it's quite bold explicitly not modelling your paper after proven successful writing methods.
No. If something falsifiable, it is possible to make predictions from it - it is physics.
Science, but I get your point. Yes, you are right. The problem is you are making claims that cannot be falsified; you even admit that yourself later. So it's not pure science what you are doing, and thus it cannot be called physics. As I said, it's probably metaphysics, because you include all kinds of philosophical aspects.
They contains parts which canot be directly observed and they contains falsifiable parts too.
That is not actually addressing what I said. Do you ideas contain unfalsifiable parts, yes or no?
Usage of some conception, like world lines, not means that theory, which use it, not original.
And I never made that claim.
I have however made the claim that the main subject of that entire section is a known prior idea. Some of your particulars may be original, but the core idea certainly isn't.
Probably missed something. May you repeat it?
Look at the relevant quote you responded to in post #19. But for your convenience, I'll repeat myself:
"So, in order to warrant your irrelevant bringing-up of SR and GR, you are now irrelevantly bringing up big velocities? At no point have I mentioned or even said anything remotely connected to big velocities, so once again you are the one bringing up irrelevancies. Also, you are wrong: worldlines do not required (a proper description of) big velocities."
Why it should be in model section?
Because right now, apparently the section literally titled "model" does not describe your model completely. That's horribly misleading, and bad writing.
And a perfect reason to reject a scientific paper. You really should fix it.
Entire article is description of the model.
Then why do you have a section named "model" in it? That's horribly misleading, and bad writing.
Model section describe model,
Except you've just admitted, it doesn't do a proper job of that, because important things are missing in that section.
following parts derive consequences of the model.
So you neglect to point out critically important points in your model in the section label "model"? That's horribly misleading, and bad writing.
So if something not clear from model section - read rest of article, it is about deriving consequences from model.
The section was quite clear. Only now it turns out it is incomplete. That's horribly misleading, and bad writing.
Applying your llogic to quantum mechanics:
Where is particle between measurements? Wow, its trajectory between measurements cannot be falsified.
Actually, it can: just measure it between the other two measurements.
Come on, this isn't that difficult! I thought you were asking for MSc-level, not high-school level. This is beneath high-school level!
Quantum mechnics contains unfalsifiable part. Metaphysics at best.
Fail. I suggest you go back and learn about what science is and how it works, because clearly you don't understand it at the moment.
What is important, my theory (and quantum mechanics) contains predictions which are falsifiable. So, it means it is science.
Note that quantum mechanics ONLY contains predictions that are falsifiable. That was my point, which you have (once again) missed.
False. If something cannot be observed, it can be indirectly verified based on other results of theory which predicts it.
False. In science, nothing can be considered verified without observation. This is the very fundament of science. It's interesting that you claim to hold a MSc, yet you seem oblivious to the very notion of what science is and how it works.
You are the one bringing up the ideas of reality being dependent on the reference frame. That's a direct violation of SR. If that's not something your model leads to, then why did you bring up that irrelevancy in the first place?
It compatible with my model.
And there we have it. Explicit confirmation that your model leads to spacetime as we know it.
Thank you for explicitly stating that worldlines hold meaning in your model.
Thank you for thus admitting that your "model"-section is merely a restating of the "block universe" idea, and thus that it is not at all original.
As for differences - they are not observable, but exists.
And thus your model can only be accepted over SR through Occam's Razor.
Tell me, how many postulates does your model have? SR has 2...
Usage of some well known concept not makes theory, which use it, not original.
True, but how does that mean that I said something I didn't say? I think you've (once again) lost track of what you were arguing. Here, let me refresh your failing memory.
Post #16 (you): "I shown that gravity is universal force, it should interact with all other fields, strong equivalence principle was derived, and was shown that gravity should have speed equal to speed of light.
If my model is same as some existing model, may you show where that model derive same?"
Post #17 (me): "I never claimed that part of your text was the same as some existing model?"
Post #19 (you): "If model is same, in such case all consequences also should be same."
Post #21 (me): "Sure, but I don't see how that's addressing what I said?"
Post #23 (you): "Usage of some well known concept not makes theory, which use it, not original."
See that in post #16, you claim that I said that there is some other model out there, showing that gravity is a universal force, etc. I didn't, so I asked you where you got that idea from (post #17). Then you made some irrelevant remark (post #19), I asked you to address what we were talking about (post #21), and you made some other irrelevant remark (post #23).
How about you address what I said, and not just post some irrelevancies?
Ok. I may say what eternalism have even bigger history than the block universe. It have lots in similar, but I think it is not same.
You "don't think it is the same"? How about you find out, before you make statements about it? I thought you said that you knew the "block universe" idea well?
