Mordred

Repeating the same thing isn't addressing the answer is it. The question directly relates to can you verify your theory conforms to causality despite not having any limitation to signal delay as taught in the distinction between Galilean and SR. I do not see any vectors being applied with regards to a speed limit of information exchange. Your transformations only apply to the coordinates they do not include any vectors. Without vectors describing constant velocity an inertial frame of reference serves absolutely zero purpose. You may as well just refer to your IFRs as nothing more than different coordinates.

There we go a decent argument +1. Let's work with that. So I ask "is sentient a requirement for evolution or development of emotion and biological systems" ? Why would sentience be a requirement for the above ? For the record physics wouldn't help in this case wrong field of science in regards to how biological systems develop or the origin of life and emotion. However the question remains is sentience a requirement to cause life to come into being ? Why couldn't random chance given enough time do the same with the universe only role to supply the ingredients? I would hate to see the universe having a temper tantrum (sorry couldn't get that visual out of my head )

Anyways I haven't seen any valid science being applied nor any decent logic argument so I'm done with this thread. Mayhap if a more substantial debate is added I may change my mind but I don't have any hope of seeing that happening. Good luck

Yeah I have several sizes I regularly build. The small ones sell faster and help restock supplies. I also don't charge much I typically just double the material price rather than base it on labour hours as it's simply a hobby.

Well truthfully nothing you have added has any practical application. There is no Spirtuality in physics. The universe is not a sentient being with awareness and physics and mathematics is all that is required to describe how the universe evolves from a hot dense state regardless of your opinion. How that is possible involves taking the time to learn the physics before judging it. Physics does not involve religion or spirituality for very practical reasons. That reason being lack of any method of testability. You don't require religion or spirituality to build an airplane as one example.

I regularly make these for sale out of cedar. They sell fairly well.

Let's put it bluntly show how your transformations can be incorporated into the transformation rules of SR. What mathematics would be required to start from your transforms to arrive at the SR transformations. Can you do that? If you cannot then there is no way to confirm your hypothesis does in fact have compatibility compliance with SR. I never believe anything described verbally when it comes to physics. If it's not in the mathematics then it's not proven mathematically. It's that simple I don't take anyone's word regardless if it's from another PH.D in a professional peer review article of any declaration not shown in the math. For example what limit is in your article for speed of information exchange between two states ? You have never answered that question when I asked it on page 1. If you don't think that's important to your article then you must undoubtedly have a different definition of the causality principle from mainstream physics. An inertial frame of reference includes vectors in regards constant velocity that is also missing in your article. So declaring your applying IFRs without applying vectors for velocity is rather pointless

Sounds like according to you only your logic applies regardless of any evidence otherwise. Good luck with that. That isn't what logic or science is about. Myself and others prefer a more rigid approach to a good discussion involving science. So does our forum rules. That last post has literally zero practicality in either philosophy or physics in its argument but amounts to strictly a personal belief. Aristotle on the other hand his philosophy looked at the evidence he had available in his arguments.

Why c is invariant is one of those questions that has no answer. We know that c is invariant. That has been confirmed to extremely high precision but the closest answer afiak is that All massless (uncoupled) particles travel at c and this is reflected in the permittivity and permeability relation of the vacuum. \[c^2=\frac{1}{\mu_0\epsilon_0}\] So one could argue it is due to the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum along with the nature of an observers lightcone. Edit just noticed the person I was replying to is now banned.

A good forum where their members are willing to help those who truly wish to learn can often be underrated. This forum has numerous members with excellent skill levels that when someone wants to learn there is plenty of members willing to help out.

Now there is a pop media coverage I wouldn't dare trust. The article refers to Instability of the Kaluza-Klien vacuum unfortunately it's behind a pay wall.

There is universe from nothing models that are considered valid so it's already a recognized possibility. I understand you wish to keep this as a philosophical argument but a simple philosophy argument is that everything must have a beginning. Even in cyclic universe models the first universe would have arisen from a nothing state which under QM nothing doesn't particularly exist. The closest being zero point energy.

No you need to show how anyone else can employ what you have to incorporate an SR/GR treatment to confirm what you have complies with SR/GR. Not merely state that it does. This whole article mentions examples where different IFR's will disagree on what is being measured. To the point where they cannot even agree on what particle is being measured. How can that possibly comply with Lorentz invariance ? This is a point mentioned numerous times on this thread by others Example here. So that should answer the clarity question on your article. In essence lack of clarity.

Well as there isn't any equations that use either Galilean or SR transformations in your article. All transforms are specific to your article including those where you separated spacetime into two 2d planes we can only take your word of complying with Lorentz invariance. None of your equations has proper time from what I see but only the coordinate time. The mathematical proofs are not included for Lorentz invariance not from what I see in the article. Verbal declarations are insufficient by themselves. For example I don't see a single covector when you require a minimum of a covector and vector to maintain lorentz invariance once you have any curvature term. That includes the curvature terms that arise from inertial observers. Your more than welcome to show your transformations here to show how I'm incorrect with the above in point of detail I invite you to show how I would be incorrect in my assessment using those transformations that you have in your article. I would also argue that spacetime is simply the metric where time is given dimensionality of length via the ct interval and not fundamental as it's only a volume where the time components involve the SM fields. For example it's not some fabric or eather as many try to make it out to be. So if your trying to find some fundamental aspect to spacetime all I can say is good luck on that.

It gets worse than that as ds^2=0 for null geodesics which is another reason for a photon frame being invalid as a reference frame. Its nonsensical answers such as time stopping or the photon existing everywhere at once that makes it obvious on the photon frames invalidity.

Sounds good I will wait on your next installment and work with the math you post to limit added confusion

I can work with this and tie it into system states. I will have time to work out a format to include Correspondance Principle.

Here is a couple of lists http://www.cmat.uni-halle.de/~hsl/PoM-files/Symbols.pdf https://archive2.iupap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/A4.pdf In the last article it mentions two symbols used in multiplication however when it comes to vectors those same symbols has another usage. \[\vec{a}\cdot \vec{b}\] The dot in this case isn't multiply but is the dot or inner product of two vectors (used for linear relations.) \[\vec{a}\times \vec{b}\] This is the cross product of two vectors (will involve angles and rotations) A simplified link showing the dot and cross product. https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html Of essential importance is that the dot product of two vectors give the magnitude (scalar) while the cross product of two vectors returns a new vector. Magnitude and direction

It's not uncommon 99 percent of posts in Speculations result in efforts to in essence reinventing physics as the OP never understood the physics involved. In your case you weren't attempting to reinvent but simply lacked the knowledge I will see what I can dig up

You will have a number density of virtual particles when mediating a scattering event. You cannot measure a virtual particle directly you can only determine their existence and involvement through indirect evidence via an ensemble of virtual particles that sum up to a quanta of action. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_principles A short time in the quantum regime is far less than 1 second they exist just long enough to mediate a process. The range of a force is determined by the momentum of the mediator boson for that force and it's lifetime. As the real photon is stable with high momentum c. The range of the EM field is infinite. However the Strong force mediator is incredibly short lived so it's range is far more limited 10^{-15} meters

Let's put it this way right from your Opening post what you attempted to describe is already covered in physics treatments and Studiot and I have been trying to teach you how that OP would be formally described in different scenarios.

Rudimentary lead up for the Correspondance Principle ? I've been trying to figure out how to keep that simplified so if so then I may be able to work with your upcoming example. No the event horizon is an observer limit due to spacetime curvature. In essence it shows the point of no return for any infalling outfalling massive and massless particles. You don't require the quantum regime to determine that boundary just GR.

In this case you can do the calculation with an everyday calculator. \[R_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}\] https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/schwarzschild-radius. For zero point energy it's typical to treat that field as the Propogator which I've only detailed the Operator action. There is an expression "The propogator, propogates the Operator and the Operator operates on the Propogator." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagator so from this wiki it mentions virtual particles. Some detail is needed a photon for example can be real or virtual. Real photons have 1 quanta of energy and are individually measurable. However when mediating the EM field they are offshell meaning they can have any energy level required to mediate (off shell) and have less than a quanta of action/energy. So are not measurable in this state hence the term (virtual). They propogate (Mediate the Operators ) on Feymann integrals they are the wavy internal lines. While the operators form the external lines for the real on shell particles as opposed to the virtual mediator or Guage particles. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.04182 See example 6 the link does include the relevant mathematics but shows primarily the essential basic equations in simplified form (though it won't seem that way)

Lol if you recall I essentially asked that same question in regards to first equation it's why I mentioned the decay being acausal. It's also one of the reasons for mentioning the choice of examples in the article. In regards to gauge theories all Gauge theories must have symmetry invariance for both global and local symmetries. This includes Lorentz invariance under SO(3.1) Poincare group. Those details are inclusive in the covariant derivative for each gauge group. Edit forgot to add that you may find other review turn downs as a result of the first equation. I would consider eliminating that example altogether but that's just my advise. As the purpose of the paper also isn't to show a deterministic universe as a fundamental reality that example isn't really needed

All gauge theories are Lorentz invariant so yes they all are in accordance with Observer effects factored in. From what I've seen thus far on your mathematics I don't see how your hypothesis complies under Lorentz invariants from what I've read of your article. Obviously under group theory all gauge theories must meet specific criteria which I don't see included in your article.