Yes. This is the 6D reference frame required near light speed to avoid transformation from space like to time like coordinates.

In other threads I showed how this 6D coordinate system can be constructed of 3 velocity vectors with a separate identical clock attached to each velocity vector.

A concept of three separate time dimensions is a bit complicated until it is expressed in a velocity coordinate system.

In a 5D system like Kaluza Klein or others the Maxwell Equations emerge. By analogy a second dimension of time may enable electromagnetic fields to exist in space during the absence of mass. Then by difference the third dimension of time may enable mass to occupy space and move at less than light speed. These ideas might be tested at high speed in deep space.

I will summarize what I know about a "no" answer to get the discussion started, and treat a "yes" answer in a separate post.   I actually can argue either way, but to me one side seems more scientific and the other more mystical.

An answer of "no" just invariably leads to the idea that time is just a descriptor of spatial motion, or state change, and is not a "real" coordinate and not space-like at all. To reverse time would be to reverse all motion in the universe, which would require an agent capable of reversing all motion in the universe, which is quite illogical (e.g. reversing motion, by Newton's law, requires an equal and opposite momentum reaction, which couldn't be contained "within" the same universe by definition). The very laws of Minkowski Space also make this impossible because in the reversal, clocks get all out of synchronization. However, macroscopic clocks not bound in a quantum way do not automatically change their synchronization, which could be evidence for the non-reality of Minkowski space.

There was a recent argument in another thread about a clock problem, and the root of the argument is whether acceleration affects clocks. About half the respondents said "no." In that case they do not "enter" another "real" space-time, and Minkowski space is not physical, just some mathematical formula that you have to know "when" to apply.

"No" is the boring answer, but wearing my scientific hat, the one I feel most likely.

An answer of "yes" just as invariably leads to speculation about time travel, reversal of time, and other "science fiction" concepts. While Einstein's relativity is often cited as the justification for a yes answer, it is actually the mathematical concepts added by Minkowski that are responsible. Eventually through more convoluted reasoning this leads to speculation about wormholes and other "shortcuts" to the hard problem of getting anywhere in the universe.

The other half the respondents to the recent argument I mentioned above said "yes" and "automatically" applied the Minkowski formula. There seemed to be similar numbers of highly qualified physicists and educated amateurs on both sides of the question.

"Yes" is the interesting answer, which I can justify when wearing my "mystical" hat, citing Deja vu dreams of the future and other experiences that are not scientifically provable (I cannot "repeat" such an experiment, and statistically computing its significance is fraught with investigator bias).  It is an area of fiction I'm deeply attracted too, especially the "time travel romance" genre.  But it seems I'm "forbidden" to set up a lab experiment to demonstrate that time is a physical dimension, anything other than the local motion of clocks, by the lack of an effect of acceleration on clocks.

In iSpace (integer Space) theory, there is the concept of a so called "iSpace Base Time" or itB, consisting of a small prime number, a very large decadic scaling factor and an exact SI to iSpace units time conversion factor. If this de-facto integer time is a "Block" time in the sense of this question I am not sure. However - this key theoretical concept of time allows to derive the exact theoretical value (arbitrary precision) of over 50 constants of nature like e, h (and with this alpha), R-infinity and most surprisingly G (and hence all Planck constants except kB) using exact symbolic equations and the rarely seen mathematical concept of using a changed distance definition. Maybe changing distance definition in the way done in iSpace theory implies discretization of time (by geometric enforcement).

Christian, as I understand it, block time implies the universe is a sort of 4-dimensional pre-existing coordinate block.  There is "sort of" an implication of time being a space-like coordinate in which one can, under limited circumstances, move about in any direction.  Even Kip Thorne has advanced theories of "time travel," which though unrealistic in requirements for negative energy, or possibly producing explosions which would end the apparatus as soon as it is turned on, are not theoretically forbidden by general relativity.  I may not have stated this well, and I invite anyone who can state the position "for" (or against) and explanation "of" the block universe and implications for time better to do so.

There is also an intriguing possibility: time could be just a gauge field superimposed to an otherwise 3D Universe.  It would help to solve long-standing mysteries, such, for example, the observation that time does not exist for an observer outside the universe.  For further details: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282809387_TIME_AS_A_GAUGE_FIELD

Preprint TIME AS A GAUGE FIELD

Arturo, I read your paper, though beyond the introduction I admit little comprehension.  However, the intro is pretty clear, and it is pretty clear you do not subscribe to the block universe and I will log yours as a "no" vote.  Most time as entropy arguments I think will result in a definite "no" because to be able to move about in time as if it were spatial would violate entropy principles.

I had to look up the term "virtual displacement" to even follow the intro.  Imagine my surprise to find it is similar to (perhaps identical) to a concept I used in a 2013 paper on gravity (Quasi-measurement dynamics).  

For casual readers who may read the above remarks and jump to the conclusion that I favor an entropic explanation of gravity, I do not.  A planet tracing an orbit may be stable for the life of the universe and exhibits no particular entropy change, but lots of gravity.  But the mechanism using virtual displacement, which might be considered similar to perturbation theory, and for which in my case I used the uncertainty principle with position and momentum - all these have the potential to be employed in support of entropy - or not, as in the case of gravity.

As I state in my time contraction model, I think that these types of philosophical problems arise because it's been forgotten that our numerical representations of 'time' has it's roots in Pythagoras' discovery that the ratios between whole numbers corresponds to the harmonies of a stretched string. So a good argument could be made that it is *here* where we find the very idea that lengths of time can be represented by lengths in space i.e. that period is proportional to wavelength. In other words, here is the genesis of the idea that time represents a 4th dimension in space. Now, when I applied the condition of relativity to wave theory, the *only* way I could conserve the scalar quantity of the number of cycles was to *redefine* the Lorentz TE's as spherical standing waves. The underlying error in the 'world line' model was that it did not apply the condition that frequency must be measured at a rest point in space, complimenting the usual condition that moving lengths must be measured at the same instant in time. Therefore, since time and space are now equivalent to the class of wave phenomena and not some empty Kantian 'category' then it is a feature of objective periodic wave motions that they are the same backwards as forwards i.e. the period T maps a Congruent Mod onto the time line. On the other hand, if the waves bare an irrational ratio then no such period exists and the wave never repeats. In other words, our view that 'time' is strictly unidirectional and yet is represented by clocks that do not contain this feature most likely comes from the post hoc fallacy; we put clocks into the world and used them to synchronise events *after the fact*. But the objective reality is wave phenomena, which is the meaning of science. 

Rick, your mention of Pythagoras reminds me that while the Minkowski metric is loosely based on Pythagoras, er, um, not really.  Because of the negative sign.

To keep it simple and visual, just use one spatial dimension.  So a 2D Minkowski-like line element might be:

ds²=-c²dτ²+dx²

Compare this to a purely spatial Pythagorean metric:

ds²=dy²+dx²

Set ds=1 and plot both relations:

cdτ=√-(1-dx²)

dy=√(1-dx²)

See chart below. Excel just doesn't do imaginary numbers, so I annoted the c*d(tau) axis with "i" and imagine that axis sticking up out of the page or maybe going down into the page or something.  in trigonometric analysis, due to its use in exponentials, "i" is a rotation through 90 degrees.

Just log the fact that time is only "imaginary" as the first difficulty in understanding, and pay attention to the magnitude.

BTW, the "modern" way of doing metrics is to always use the squared form and never take the square root, which is sort of running and hiding from the problem.

As dx increases from 0 to 1, dy decreases from 1 to 0 in a typical trig relationship.  I have scaled the axes for you to see the "circle" forming.  So either we have an x distance or a y distance or a little of both, but not a lot of both at the same time.

But this Pythagorean intuition conflicts with our time-distance intuition.  As distance is getting longer, time is getting smaller?  Really?  Well, of course this doesn't mean what you think it does.  What does it mean?  I have never figured it out and prefer to work with the Lorentz transformation, which is perfectly clear to me.  This block space-time thing started by Minkowski is not.

BTW Rick, you need to work on your spiel.  It is confusing.  I do think there is a relation between wave harmonics and the spatial coordinate - this is basically sort of obvious.  If things look normal locally, then in coordinate times and distances, the Schrodinger waves that determine atomic lattice dimensions have to work in coordinate space as well as local space.  The question is whether this is a cause, in which case you have constructive relativity, or an effect, in which case you have space-time as the root cause and the waves are just "in" it.  (The latter is the orthodox way of saying it at the moment.)

Rob, with all due respect you need to actually read my paper and not overlay the usual 'particle-like' interpretation which is very well-known to me and which the paper most certainly takes to task. No, the idea of the Minkowski Metric is based upon a fundamental idea of differential calculus which no longer applies in the way that geometers describe. For eg, given a simple wave function in space, say f = Cos[2*pi*k*x], and seeing that the quantity in brackets represents the number of cycles n, we have x = nY, where Y = lambda = wavelength = 2*pi/k. By the chain rule it follows that: df/dx = df/dn*dn/dx. But since df/dn = 2*pi and dn/dx is the very *definition* of 1/Y, we obtain df/dx = k*Sin[2*pi*k*x], which is the expected result. But if we write 1/Y = s (sigma), then we get the differential operator

d/dx = d/dn*s,

and for higher derivatives,

dN/dxN = dN/dnN sN. 

Taking the standard equation for a travelling wave and applying instead partial derivatives we obtain precisely the same form for time. And since wave theory is our primary concern here, then there is no a priori reason to assume that this fundamental form would not apply to any metric xi or xi whatsoever. But even more to the point, the values n here are scalar fields that *by definition* exist *prior to* the very representation of 'space and time' by geometrical lines. When we say x = nY, we are in fact forming the *ratio* between two lengths, x and Y. That is, x/Y = n = ratio. When we take 1 meter as our unit of spatial measurement, we are simply creating a manmade and arbitrary unit of 1 meter and the numbers 'x' are nothing more than x = nY with Y = 1 meter. But the invariant physical quantity here is neither the arbitrary x or Y but the number of cycles n as a change of basis will easily confirm (x -> xi, Y -> Yi and xi*Yi = x*Y = n). Hence, these differential operators are not only possible but necessary. It is wavelengths and frequencies that are observable physical quantities given to us by nature, not the arbitrary meter and second represented by manmade rods and clocks.

Now, applying this principle to the mathematical structure of SR, we find that the usual 'world line' interpretation of a clock attached to a well defined particle moving particle cannot possibly be correct for wave theory. While Einstein applies the correct condition that the measurement of moving lengths/wavelengths must be taken at the *same instant in time* relative to each inertial observer, he fails to take into account the complimentary condition that the frequency must be measured at *the same (rest) location in space*. Applying this condition we find that the LTE for time has been inverted. That is, the 'proper' time is now attached to the frame that is doing the measuring, while the 'event' being measured is the continuum of synchronised clocks in the other frame. The physical interpretation of these clocks is that of equal-opposite standing waves. The proof for this is that the LTE's for 'space and time' can be directly *deduced* from the equations for the Doppler Effect. When this is done, it becomes apparent that the usual interpretation of wave motions are somewhat naive. The De broglie wavelength for eg appears from the fact that the clocks that appear synchronous in one frame no longer appear so in another thereby giving rise to a wavelength when measured at an instant in that frame. 

Finally, the Minkowski Metric then takes on a very simple but correct form for wave theory. 'Timelike' intervals are pure time measurements (partial derivatives in time), 'spacelike intervals' are pure space measurements (partial derivatives in space), and 'lightlike intervals' are the equations for the wave fronts. And in hyperbolic space, the separate spatial measurements still obeyPythagoras' theorem as the inner product.

Rick, on reading your comment above, I don't see where there is any conflict with my own comments (directly above that).  I didn't mention anything about a particle.  And if I do not understand, then my comment about needing an improved explanation applies.  Just trying to give friendly tips, not start an argument with you.  Your two comments together are already the length of a short paper, and if I'm not getting it, then I'm not encouraged to read further.  : )  I didn't, by the way, necessarily disagree with your claim.  But if you think I don't understand it, then I don't know, maybe I do???

When quickly reading it, it has certain similarities to some of my ideas on constructive relativity (which is not a new field, I just hope to expand it a little).  It is a very difficult field to get published in, or even get people to read papers in.  The bias is toward space-time.

Hi Rob, yes I think that you mistook my mentioning of Pythagoras with his theorem when I was talking about the Music of the Spheres, which grew out of the discovery of what we would now call standing waves. (*This* is where number and nature were combined to give birth to what today we'd call science). I also don't think of my theory as merely an 'idea' but proven; there is only one way to reconcile the mathematical structure of wave theory with special relativity and this is it. What a terrible bias to insist that the principles of mechanics remain invariant under a change of coordinates and yet not conserve the principle of wave superposition. How on earth can a periodic wave composed of sine wave components in one reference frame to form a GCD frequency (it's components bare a rational relation) become aperiodic to all other reference frames? It's absurd. That "the transformation of the sum of superpositions equal the sum of transformations", which have been conveniently termed "non-dispersive", is not an afterthought but a statement of the principle of relativity for wave theory itself. So-called "dispersive waves" do not make up some special class of waves but are simply combination tones, created by the sum and difference to produce a carrier and modulation frequency. These correspond to the phase and group velocities, respectively. And the so-called "dispersion relation" upon which the Klein-Gordon, Dirac equation etc are based correspond to these carrier and modulation frequencies as well. (In fact, SR creates *two* hyperbolic differential wave equations, one corresponding to frequency and the other to inverse wavelength. The usual version is just the frequency version. But that's another story).

I mentioned the 'particle' model because that's what is debunked here. The space-time axes *themselves* represent phase and group velocities of standing waves (space is x = c^2/v and time is x = vt) and do not represent the course of a 'world line' of a discrete material particle. OTOH we can form a wave packet which, for a limited time. roughly corresponds to a particle of velocity x = vt. But we cannot assume that a synchronised clock is attached to this wave packet because it violates both uncertainty and the fact that these clocks were synchronised via standing waves (Michelson-Morley) which are composed of these features to begin with.

So the reason it's almost impossible to get this and other similar work published is quite simply because it challenges the fictional narrative of particle physicists. I've only tried twice, one in Annalen where I got a polite "we've got too many submissions at this stage" and another in PhiSci which said "it's outside the range of our journal"??? I might try a few more times when I get the time. But I'm seriously thinking of creating my own journal because the true history of science, which began in wave theory, has been pushed under the rug and needs to be reinstated.

Hi Rick, the name "Pythagoras" just jogged my recall of something I consider important to block space-time, not for the topic you referenced necessarily.

I cannot comment on the dispersions, the Dirac equation, etc.  It is over my head at present.  The Lorentz transform, and also gravitational transforms (metrics) all have the property that they obtain consistent laws of physics.  One can apply the transform before or after applying the law, e.g. superposition, at a point (or small region) in spacetime. 

If we add to that the idea that acceleration does not affect clocks (which provokes endless discussion on RG for some reason), but that a universal potential energy difference does (but not a selective one such as the EM force), then we get all the time and length effects in both GR and SR.

But we do not get block space-time automatically from that.  It requires an additional supposition for which there is no experimental test.  In fact, the principle we already accepted that acceleration does not affect clocks prevents one from "automatically" obtaining block space-time, because discrete clocks do not accrue a time difference relative to an inertial frame when identically accelerated. (Swann 1960).  Most of my regular discussion partners come unglued at that statement and are not able to make a rational response.  There is an erroneous paper we were recently discussing on another thread, which in part prompted this question.

Yes. I believe in the block universe.

I'm very interested in this question "What is space and time?" Rob and believe that I have found a strong lead in answering it. But to do so requires reexamining the entire groundwork upon which mechanics is based (including relativity). According to this theory, the question itself arises because it's been tacitly assumed from the outset that the representation of 'time' on a number line corresponds to our subjective experiences of change, memory, hope etc... But that is not how enumerated 'time' *behaves*. Instead, how it behaves is as a *class* of frequencies. "1 second" for example is just an arbitrarily chosen rate (frequency) that we have decided to call "1". If we apply a seemingly trivial change of basis so that (say) 1/2 second is now called "1" then what was 1 second now is called "t ' = 2". And a frequency of say f = 6 Hz  now becomes f ' = 3 in our new units. But what remains invariant under this change is not the numbers representing t or those representing frequency f but their product f*t = f '* t' = n, which in this case is 6. Now, n here is both the number of cycles and the ratio between two times or frequencies. That is, the ratio of 1/2 was assumed in order to change the basis from 1 to 1/2 second, it was assumed to define frequency as the number of cycles per unit time, and it was assumed to assign a number to the variable t and t '.

Looking at a sine wave, we then have F(t) = Sin[2*Pi*f*t] = Sin[2*Pi*n]. In our different units, F(t ') = Sin[2*Pi*f '*t '] = Sin[2*Pi*n]. In other words, this feature of the invariance of ratio has been written into the 'time' line from the very beginning. It is not a "separate variable" at all. And if it were otherwise, then we could not have represented waves to begin with, in which case all Fourier analysis, quantum mechanics, optics etc would be impossible. To reiterate a point that I made earlier

dF/dt = dF/dn*dn/dt = dF/dn*f

since dn/dt = f. So we see that the variable t has disappeared and replaced by the objectively observable quantities of frequency and number of cycles (ratio). Applying the same relations between 'space' and wavelength and it becomes apparent that any differential wave equation giving sine wave solutions can and must be rewritten in this form. My next task is to apply these diff operators to the tangent/cotangent geometry of GR which would automatically give wave solutions.

Sometimes it just pays to keep one's mouth shut and be silently amused...

I hope your'e not referring to me Marshall because I most definitely did not mention Pythagoras' Theorem and Rob unwittingly straw manned me. What I DID say was that the differential operators *already* contain the so-called eigenvalues that are then presented back to front as a "solution" to the differential wave equations, no doubt to give the impression that wave theory can be deduced from the principles of mechanics rather than vice-versa. But if one studies the true history of science, not the fictional narrative created after Newton, then one see's that science was born when Pythagoras discovered that the integers corresponded to the harmonies of music. I then went on to say that, ironically, these ratios *still* must remain invariant under any change of basis whatsoever. They are the scalar field inversion of the modern vector inner product. It was just an interesting side point.

I don't see anything that I find amusing.  Please be more specific.  Marshall, you are the only poster who clearly states support for the block universe, but you also specifically decline to comment. 

So, no one is willing to support the block universe?

I know at least one active poster I would expect to support it, but he has not been active for the past two weeks and is probably busy and will comment later.

The most ardent defender of Minkowski Space I know, founder of the Minkowski Institute, is Vesselin Petkov https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vesselin_Petkov but I have never known him to participate in an RG Q&A thread.

Rick, you seem unhappy with my short summaries of what i interpreted from your ideas (that they are similar to constructive relativity, the opposite of the block universe), but you are just the opposite of Marshall.  You don't give any short statement.  How about answering the question yes or no.

According to Google the definition of "straw man," second meaning, is "a sham argument set up to be defeated."  I neither engaged in this strategy nor noticed it.

I was perfectly serious in my comments about how the negative sign conflicts with any intuitive notion of the meaning of Pythagoras other big idea, the hypotenuse one, relative to Minkowski space.  No one has responded with any clarification.  I conclude it is not possible.

I thought I did answer the question. Space and time are identified with the class of observable spherical standing waves, which is kind of like the block notion of length, breadth and depth but actually has "stuff" in it. I did say unwitting straw man so don't straw man my straw man quote (yes that was an attempt at humour :)

:D  Rick, I only understand "waves" as existing "in" space-time.  And secondly, I have no idea how to map your comment to the question of the block universe.

Robert:

I decline to comment further because I don't have time to get involved with pointless discussions over people's blind grasping for understanding. And yes Rick, I was exactly referring to you, since you have to know. So let's just leave it at that and not get into some long harang or I promise you'll be done like a dog's dinner...

Lee Smolin and others have launched a major attack on what I'm here calling "block time."  Lee explains it as naturalism version 1 and 2 in the video linked below.

Some of Lee's arguments don't seem to me to hold up and I do not consider it physically rigorous.  But he makes a very strong emotional case that the view of block time may be contaminating our expectations and limiting what we attempt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi4VbERDyI

Marshall, ignorance is not a defence and faux superiority will not help you here. Einstein's definition of time dilation most certainly contradicts the fundamental tenets of time as it must be applied to wave theory. It therefore violates Einstein's very own principle of relativity. This is proved and is no longer an opinion. The question now remains "what IS (space and) time?". Intuitively we tend to think of space and time as Kant described, that is, as a kind of metaphysical stage *into* which other things happen. This is the "particle" view which we inherited from classical mechanics and it is extremely naive. In reality, waves map a congruent modulo T onto the "time" line and, for periodic waves, these have no time direction. Only for pseudo or aperiodic waves does this mapping no longer apply and time acquires a direction. The entire nexus of Fourier analysis requires this to be in place a priori and, with it, Quantum mechanics. For example, try to synchronise Einstein's "array" of clocks using a Gaussian wavepacket which spreads in uncertainty as time increases. How then can we use the emission and arrival times of a photon to achieve this? We can't, not even "in principle". But this same uncertainty does not apply to the waves that make up the photons themselves or else we could not mathematically describe a wavepacket to begin with. Einstein's "array" of synchronised clocks becomes mathematically equivalent to a class of standing waves. And applying a Fourier transform to these produces said wave packet, not vice-versa. Since this wavepacket represents (say) a photon or some other "particle", it follows that these can only be approximately time dilated for a very short period of time.

Dear Robert, in SRT, spites the fact that 100 observers see an event in 100 different ways, the event itself remains unaltered. This is valid reciprocally, so, in the context of SRT, any event is real and unaltered, and all the observations are in fact figments, due to the alteration of the lightbeams between event and observer.

Hence, space and time can only exist as coordinate systems, agreed upon, as in pre-1905 science, and not in its observed deformed appearance.

Relativity is unable to describe the event itself, only the observation of it at a distance, by light.

Hence, the modifications of events, independent from the observer, as with fast muons, accelerating charges in CERN, Kaufman's experiment and so on, must be seen in the context of Maxwell's electromagnetism itself, including the effects of the retarded fields, as was analysed by Liénard and Wiechert at the end of the 19th century, and which give equations, similar to Lorentz' transformations, but in the context of electromagnetism, and caused by a velocity-dependent anisotropy of the electric field that surrounds the charge.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Thierry, thank you but the definition of SRT is widely agreed and not in question. It sounds like you do not believe philosophically in the block universe, the co-existence of all time points, etc. You reference pre-1905 coordinates, but post-Minkowsky "time" became in many people's view just another coordinate. So you cannot dodge the question that way. Move the question to wormholes and answer. Keep in mind Kipp Thorne & associates papers regarding a wormhole with a moveable end as being able to be converted into a time machine.

Dear Robert,

to accept the concept of the block universe you should accept the space-time as an ontology. SR is widely accepted, and is a useful tool for making calculations well behaving in particle accelerators.

Time measured by Atomic clocks is not reversible, this does not appear anywhere in SR, already this feature poses a serious limitation on the block theory.

Dear Robert, if the event itself remains unaltered, it means that a variable time doesn't exist. Neither in SRT, nor in gravity. Fabricating 'coordinates' by using light is another idiocy in order to pretend variable time, and to pretend variable space.

Gravitomagnetism without a variable time, without Lorentz invariance has been proven right by a long-lasting experiment in satellites, with gyroscopes. It is called the Gravity Probe B experiment, and it proved that the spinning earth and the orbiting earth were deviating the gyroscopes' axes by a velocity-dependent, magnetic-like, second gravity field. Many events, such as a stable disc galaxy without "dark matter" follows straightforwardly from it.

So, saying that the Gravity Probe B experiment is a success of GRT is a downright lie. Schiff's paper exhibits gravitomagnetism, not GRT.

So, it is not a matter of 'belief', it is a fact: variable time and inversion of time are nonsense.

Kipp Thorne: his theory, based upon gravitomagnetism, was rejected until he pretended that it was derived from GRT. His interpretation of wormhole is just another fallacy due to GRT's failure, nothing more.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

which one?

Thierry, on this matter you are preaching to the choir. See Article A family of metric gravities: With a new exact Schwarzschild...

Hi Stefano,

Schiff's paper is "Proposed gyroscope experiment to test general relativity theory".

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Robert,

Does "A family of metric gravities" solve the stability of disc galaxies without 'dark matter', as gravitomagnetism does?

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

It is just a conceptual aide to reduce GR(global) into the simpler SR (local)

I cannot think of anything wrong with this.

Thierry, why would you not read the abstract? It's one paragraph. Then you will know what it is and what it isn't. Obviously it is something related to your previous comment (which had nothing to do with rotation curves).

Yes. This is the 6D reference frame required near light speed to avoid transformation from space like to time like coordinates.

In other threads I showed how this 6D coordinate system can be constructed of 3 velocity vectors with a separate identical clock attached to each velocity vector.

A concept of three separate time dimensions is a bit complicated until it is expressed in a velocity coordinate system.

In a 5D system like Kaluza Klein or others the Maxwell Equations emerge. By analogy a second dimension of time may enable electromagnetic fields to exist in space during the absence of mass. Then by difference the third dimension of time may enable mass to occupy space and move at less than light speed. These ideas might be tested at high speed in deep space.

Gravitomagnetism is not deducable from any Schwarzschild metric, Robert.

It is total nonsense.

Gravitomagnetism is not a space-time metric, not a curved metric, not a weak approximation.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Thierry, I never said one word about gravitomagnetism. You are on some kind of hallucinogen. This question is about block-space time, not gravitomagnetism. Cease or I will complain.

Oh, you will complain, Robert? To whom?

Or will you first modify you text "... of course if you prefer to write a treatise that's fine. I've used tags that invite philosophers, physicists, science fiction authors and fans, or anyone to comment."

You never answered scientifically to any of my replies, but gravitomagnetism, as proven by the Gravity Probe B experiment, with gyroscopes in satellites, seems to be inconvenient to you... , because they precisely deny any variable time or space, hence, gravitomagnetism denies "a "block" of space-time where time is much like space", by experimental proof.

I am not here to answer your questions, Thierry. This is a common misconception of people on RG. I am now working in cooperation theory, with the link I sent you being my capstone work after ten years in gravity. I was just interested to see who was commenting in my old thread on block space-time and what the views were, but I can't get anything relevant to the topic out of you. I do not plan to reply to you any further. Good day.

Dear Thierry,

I am not sure that Robert is in so strong agreement, as I understood you are claiming, with the block universe...

At the same time I have to say that he does not discard the current accepted theories...

Dear Robert, if you are not willing to reply any more, that's good news! It's an excellent example of "cooperation theory". You merit the Nobel Prize! Good work!

Stefano, I thought I made it clear by asking the question that started this thread that I was questioning the block universe, which is the mainstream default view. Some might not use the phrase, but if they accept Minkowski space they are to some degree accepting the block universe, and turning the crank on the mechanics as if they were in a block universe.

The difference is evident in two classic cases. One is the Twin Paradox (so-called). In the Minkowski view, the traveling twin is older until he turns around and during that turnaround the stay-at-home twin ages rapidly (in the traveling twin's accelerating or gravitating reference frame). This is the basic solution using Minkowski space. However, the equations of SRT can be interpreted and solved in a variety of other ways. For example, as the traveler passes clocks which are synchronized with the stay-at-home twin, they represent the current time in his twin's frame were he to stop and re-enter that frame. It is like flying east in a jet and crossing time zones. Time in the Earth frame appears to advance rapidly, so the stay-at-home twin ages evenly throughout the traveler's trip. Nothing is special about the turnaround or about acceleration.

By adopting the Minkowski view and thus block space-time as the basis for GRT, Einstein introduced the mathematical possibility of time travel, which is the second classic case in which the philosophy of block space-time is evident. As someone, I think you, pointed out, atomic clocks cannot tick backward. This violates entropy, not to mention causality, etc. But the adoption of a flawed philosophical interpretation of SRT has corrupted GRT. Most likely all the imaginary solutions to the field equations should be thrown out, and black holes have no interiors at all, as in Schwarzschild's original notation (no longer used, we use Hilbert's rewrite of Schwarzschild).

Thierry seems to have no interest in discussing block space-time. I have no idea why he is on this thread. He also has no notion of reciprocity and cooperation, that you have to give something to get something. He wants to just dictate the terms of the discussion. This is non-cooperative, and the only resolution is to withdraw. People like that will just suck you dry and give nothing back.

Dear Robert,

RS:

the twin effect in the Miknowski ST is represented as you say with a "discontinuity" in the aging, at the turnaround and this is a bit unconvincing.

In fact, the first order approximation of the offset between the stay at home and the travelling twin which departed at constant squared speed v2 to cover a distance H and back is vH/c2 . It descends from the proper time calculation considering that 1/2vH/c2 is the offset for a transport of H of a clock at speed v, in the stay at home IRF. Being the back and forth path equal in the final result -v*-H=vH, their contributions sum up to vH/c2 . In this we do not have discontinuities it is closer to reality with same final result.

RS:

Infact nothing is special about the turnaround, except the fact that the clock approaches and continues to maintain the same squared speed in the same IRF.