The problem is always the space-time...

Stefano Quattrini ,

And how can you get rid of time? It's just that one thing is absolute time as a parameter of the evolution of a dynamic system, and another thing is a dynamic system in evolution. A dynamic system in evolution is "space-time".

Igor Bayak ,

space-time is an artifact based on having reinstated at the beginning of 1900 thanks ot Einstein and Poincarè the equivalence of inertial frames.

That was in the face of several GIANTS of physics which nowadays are almost ignored. A dynamical system is a change of a system described with the help of what we perceive as time and we learned to quantify and measure with time keepers...time is just a creation of human mind to make understandable models of reality described in math, to provide that with an ontology is like saying that stones talk.

Mind that GR or Birkhoff or Feynman field gravity are all based on something which miss a degree of freedom. It is like having a 3D stationary section of something...it is not wrong but it is limited and not unifiable with the other interactions.

I think you know the epicycles of Ptolemy...Copernicus provided two degrees of freedom to Earth (REVOLUTIO) and everything got dramatically simplified.

Stefano Quattrini ,

Try to describe a dynamical system on an infinite cylinder, provided that the vector field is characterized by a constant product of rotational and translational velocities, and for the observer on the helical line of the cylinder you will immediately get a 1-dimensional spacetime with a pseudo-Euclidean metric.

nobody say that you do not have to use it, but Physically it is an artifact.

Stefano Quattrini ,

Are you sure that this is a product of human creative activity and not of nature?

Igor Bayak ,

I am adamant...not only sure. Space-time is an artifact which is able to account to relate several phenomena, but there is no ontology behind it.

The Lorentz Transformations fail in a "non rectilinear motion" they are the base of the space time.

One of the first applications of such transformations in Einstein's version is Einstein's light clock where he compels light to tilt in order to follow the equivalence of inertial frames.. that is science fiction...light does not behave like that.

Everyone is free to persist in their delusions. However, I seem to have supporters. Let's find out @Joachim Domsta's point of view.

for sure you have supporters...all "relativists" are your supporters... mostly mathematicians...

I wonder if you ever asked yourself serious questions about Physics and how Nature really works..

If you are a local observer, you will inevitably become a relativist. However, as a global observer of a Dynamical system, I am an absolute evolutionist.

a local observer does not decide the physics...although can agree on many aspects of physics with other local observers.

as a global observer one can notice the simplistic physical world which a local observer is able to describe.

@Igor Bayak

Let me propose a kind of antidotum against 'szkodliwe plewy': None of the sentences written above by your Esteemed Opponent possesses an appropriate rigorous scientific meaning. Therefore there is no need to reply to them.

Scientific discussion requires much more time and currently I can state only that the issue of your paper is very interesting and written with well balanced rigorousness v. readability. Congratulations!

However, it is impossible to conduct a scientific discussion on this site. But our conversation with Stefano Quattrini clarifies each other's positions.

Igor Bayak, I wish you fruitful dispute. The issues touched till now are totally off my interests.

Best regards, Joachim Domsta

Everything Joachim Domsta , is not able to understand for him is not scientific...

Stefano Quattrini , please start to distinguish between in your public posts at least the following two notions:

opinion about something to be scientific

opinion about something understood by somebody.

Joachim Domsta ,

please start to grasp that some concepts cannot be explained in a so simple way so that they can be "understood" by a computer.

By the way you are in good company here, since Birkhoff was one of the few who tried, with a certain success, to include gravitation in flat space-time...

Igor Bayak ,

the approach of Birkhoff to gravitation was followed by a friend of mine Yurij Baryshev who unfortunately passed away.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yurij-Baryshev

according to what he told me gravitation had to have a fix background to work (that actually breaks Lorentz invariance).

Article Einstein’s Geometrical versus Feynman’s Quantum-Field Approa...

If we turn to the already mentioned simplification of space in the form of a helix of a cylinder, then gravity is the force generated by the limit cycle, which tightens the pitch of the helix to zero at the point where the helix degenerates into a circle. As for quantized fields, these are limit cycles in dual space, so they are not responsible for gravity.

Energy is needed to make things evolve... maybe you are putting geometry in your fuel tank..

Stefano Quattrini ,

Geometry is just a consequence of a Dynamical system. The energy is enclosed in a singularity of the vector field (in the limit cycle), which changes the geometry of space (the helix of the vacuum vector field).

Igor Bayak ,

it is just a mathematical model...To think that a mathematical model can drive things is just a subverted way to understand reality about which we know very very little....the map is not the territory...

I proceed from the fact that in this case the Dynamical system is not just mathematics, but a vector field of velocities of moving matter. By the way, this Dynamical System has all the properties of reality. It is both deterministic and random. For example, the classical constancy of the relativistic mass of an elementary particle in a dynamical system means that the average rotational velocity of a vector field feature is constant. In turn, quantum violations of the law of conservation of energy are associated with instantaneous jumps in the angular velocity of rotation.