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

[Write4U]

W4U said,
Add movement or measurement and spacetime patterns become dynamic four dimensional geometric patterns or "fields".

They don't become dynamic in the real world unless they can be transferred into the real world . The physical Universe .

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

 

[river]

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 .

 

[river]

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

Waves and wavelengths are geometrics based on physical energy form .

Neither are just mathematical concepts .

 

[Write4U]

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 .

Neither are just mathematical concepts

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.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
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 .

I agree. And a three dimensional form is a geometric pattern (a thing). Make it a dynamic geometric pattern and over time all existent patterns (all things) were derived from the original spacetime geometric patterns.

What original spacetime geometric patterns ?

 

[Write4U]

What original spacetime geometric patterns ?

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.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
What original spacetime geometric patterns ?

Chaos.

Why , chaos ?

 

[Write4U]

Why , chaos ?

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.)

 

[river]

BB created an initial chaotic state which began to self-order into patterns as the plasma cooled and the first compound patterns (fields) appeared.

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 .

 

[Write4U]

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 .

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.

 

[river]

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 respective mathematical values and their mathematical interactive functions.

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 .

 

[Ans]

But for the first, you've already assumed it with your Minkowski diagram, and during the derivation of the second, you have to assume arbitrary things in order for it to work out. You've simply used SR's postulates to get SR's postulates. Your postulates are thus the moral equivalent.

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.

So... all your complains about me pointing out you using "maximum velocity" were nonsense? Great!

Also, no, the speed of light being a maximum speed is not observed fact, so you are wrong.

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

That's only a limitation of your mathematical abilities. In SR, for example, it's easy to set it to infinity.

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

 

[Ans]

To my understanding you don't have a concrete solid new hypothesis yet, but you might have some interesting ideas in the form of speculations on to how to move forward. In other words, you are thinking out loudly your thoughts.

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.

I think this is very good because somebody out there might find something useful in your thoughts and you might help him build a nice model, that is well formulated and mathematically solid that will generate hypotheses than can be tested.

My concern is, that person can then easily claim that he was not influenced by you whatsoever, and so you will get zero credit out of it (unless his conclusions are EXACTLY identical so in this case you can claim priority, but then again you don't have something solid out yet to defend your claim and win the dispute).

Oh well!! But i guess its fine because getting the credit is not everything

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.

 

[Ans]

You cannot measure the time of time, it does not exist independent of duration or outside of the universe,IMO.

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

You can only measure time as an emergent result (duration) of a physical chronology.
Spacetime is the chronological measurement of the existence and history of universal geometric space.

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.

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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...

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.

 

[globali]

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

You never know!

In my opinion, this is solid new hypothesis, with mathematics and with potential for new predictions.

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?

 

[river]

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.

Observed movement

Continue

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Is time exists on fundamental level or is it emergent phenomena? Is dynamics exists on fundamental level or is it emergent phenomena?

Special and general theories of relativity shows that there is dependency between time, matter and space. If both time and dynamic are not exists on fundamental level, it means also that matter and space, observable by us, are also not fundamental and not exists on fundamental level.

We observe effects of time and dynamics each second. How to build model where time with dynamics, matter and observable by us space absent on fundamental level?

I wrote article with model of nature where both time and dynamics are not exists on fundamental level. In that article I show how to derive curved spacetime with time and dynamics from Euclidean space without time and dynamics. In that article was shown that the model contains both special and general theories of relativity as its consequences. Was shown what is gravitation, was shown that the gravitation is universal and interacts with all other fields, and its speed equal to speed of light.
There is no even one equation in the article, all the consequences are quite simply arise and not requires math to see them. However, the model, in order to derive spacetime from space without time and dynamics, has to use subjective idealism. I think it is one only way how it can be done, usage of realism would require some dynamics on microlevel, like in LQG.

Article can be read here: http://vixra.org/abs/1812.0157

Are any obvious flaws and problems in proposed model?

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

and dynamics

please talk about the dynamics

 

[RainbowSingularity]

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

niel-de-what-who ?

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 ....