Sabine Hossenfelder: "The most important part of Einstein's theories is that they combine space and time to one common entity, space-time." https://youtu.be/ZdrZf4lQTSg?t=50

But:

"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce." https://www.sciencenews.org/article/its-likely-times-are-changing

Whispering in 2008, then there was a period of shouting, but in the end complete silence was established (only Nima Arkani-Hamed keeps on repeating "Spacetime is doomed" but he doesn't know what he's talking about). Divorce of space and time would draw the attention to the fact that the speed of light is variable, and there is nothing more dangerous for modern physics:

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/physics-professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity.html

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, pva...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sabine Hossenfelder: "The most important part of Einstein's theories is that they combine space and time to one common entity, space-time." https://youtu.be/ZdrZf4lQTSg?t=50
>
> But:
>
> "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce." https://www.sciencenews.org/article/its-likely-times-are-changing
>
> Whispering in 2008, then there was a period of shouting, but in the end complete silence was established (only Nima Arkani-Hamed keeps on repeating "Spacetime is doomed" but he doesn't know what he's talking about). Divorce of space and time would draw the attention to the fact that the speed of light is variable, and there is nothing more dangerous for modern physics:
>
> "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/physics-professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity.html
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

The most fundamental move that I see is my own: yet the move only really comes about in hindsight of a generalization in mathematics that has been overlooked by all the greats as far as I can tell. I cannot even include myself in their group as my own mathematical abilities are limited. It seems more a matter of structured thought and obeying that principal; something the programmer's compiler has brought to us. The mathematics which precedes us was lacking in this rigor. We need only present a few examples to expose the haze, such as the square root of three, or merely the value three fifths; each containing an operator and so denying their fundamental status as pure values; yet fundamental is what was professed to us of the real number. Nextly that binary sign at the front of the value; a symbol completely lacking in congruency to the rest; surely this is a part of a data structure, no? That it's modulo-two behavior under product could undergo full generalization still a myth to the masses. To ponder how such a concept could not catch fire from this medium actually poses a deep statement on the human race. We are highly programmable and upon programming we are exceedingly habituated. Now it must be exposed as well that decades of training under threat of failure; some of those years at a cost greater than the salary of those graduated through it; it is not so astonishing then that the curriculum has sealed off possibilities is it? Lay upon there as well the concept of symmetry: to what degree do you see this as a yin/yan sort of thing? Always binary? Where and why did the trinary form never come to be? Ahh, and then too the jewel that caused me to post this rant here: the unary form of the one-signed number. Clearly the unidirectional form and its correspondence to time positioning real valued time a misnomer. Lo and behold upon generalizing sign and obeying its principles we see that this one-signed unidirectional form is in fact zero dimensional. It does not help that the word dimension is already tied up in the two-signed real value, yet the geometry of this one-signed form does suggest that the preceding math didn't do too badly. It is merely that they locked down a bit early, and overlooked the n-ary option. So the corrective yields the real numbers as P2; time as P1; the complex numbers as P3, though they are in a new suit; P4 and on to boot. Wonder of wonders emergent spacetime is found just there with quite a fancy breakpoint, and yet the progression goes on; all algebraically behaved; just P4+ lacking in magnitude behavior; dimensional collapse; zero products from non-zero sources; funny stuff like that up in the higher signs. Without these ill behaviors we could not express the glee. And yet it is as if humanity is tripping over its own two feet in this moment. Should I apply for censorship? I don't think so. No. That we are caught in a progression, and that the two-eyed mathematician refuses to wipe away the crud for fear of a germ that could bud him a third eye and relax the troubles merely of the complex value; this alone is enough cause yet none will register it. Could it be that the practice of self sufficiency allows me to go places that you don't go to? I can readily deny all three forms of economy under that guise, though sadly I cannot claim to be fully self-sufficient. Still, as a guiding principle there is some truth there which tells all. Carry on, it says, because whether the world is about to end or not it is the correct practice. So I can encourage you to set forth from naught; almost as if I never wrote here, and pursue the generalization of sign on your own terms. I guarantee most will land in a sensible place but for some notational inconveniences which will then push on this operator versus value problem a bit more. It is only by chance that they got the mnenomonic reuse of existing sign correct. So I've gone that route in the choice of @,-,+,*,#, but then I am out of signs. Still that is enough and the ordered series can come about quickly thereafter, but along the way what of the Cartesian product? This is quite some relevant detail actually, and then you'll have to review that ordered series form as well, and I haven't even gotten to it yet. Just an inkling really, but if you think that pulling RxRxR out of a hat is a coherent theoretical form; well; we'll have to review this a bit more I suppose. thence onward to RxRxRxR for your perfected spacetime format? And which is which and did it matter under the tensor form? Isotropic, are we? Oh yes, by the first principal of cosmology... all is well, right? Really?

Divorce of space and time means restoring the truth - variable speed of light as posited by Newton's theory:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Theoretical physicists do move in that direction but continue to teach relativity (doublethink):

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It is the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

"You want to go back to a notion of space-time that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about space-time that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveau-Newtonian." At 53:31 here: http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/images-profile-flow/400/images-medium-large/split-personality-computer-artwork-david-mack.jpg

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 6:31:24 AM UTC-8, pva...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sabine Hossenfelder: "The most important part of Einstein's theories is that they combine space and time to one common entity, space-time." https://youtu.be/ZdrZf4lQTSg?t=50

Time is secondary to space. Through gravity Gamma slows time.

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> But:
>
> "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce." https://www.sciencenews.org/article/its-likely-times-are-changing
>
> Whispering in 2008, then there was a period of shouting, but in the end complete silence was established (only Nima Arkani-Hamed keeps on repeating "Spacetime is doomed" but he doesn't know what he's talking about). Divorce of space and time would draw the attention to the fact that the speed of light is variable, and there is nothing more dangerous for modern physics:
>
> "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/physics-professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity.html
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev