Discussion
Started 6th May, 2019
  • St. Petersburg State University of Civil Aviation

Did anyone try to rewrite three Newton laws solely as space-time or multidimensional world curvature (without force notion)?

Dear Sirs,
I think many knows the ideas due to Jules Henri Poincaré that the physics laws can be formally rewriten as a space-time curvature or as new geometry solely without forces. It is because the physics laws and geometry laws only together are verified in the experiment. So we can arbitrary choose the one of them.
Do you know any works, researchers who realized this idea. I understand that it is just fantasy as it is not proved in the experiment for all forces excepting gravitation.
Do you know works where three Newtons laws are rewritten as just space-time curvature or 5D space curvature or the like without FORCES. Kaluzi-Klein theory is only about electricity.

Most recent answer

26th Aug, 2020
Paul Pistea
Well, rewrite the whole theory in the language of distributions. All physics variables are complex functionals.

Popular replies (1)

9th May, 2019
Doug Marman
Lenses of Perception Press
Anatoly, this is not exactly what you are asking for, since it isn't a geometric solution, however, you might be interested in the work done by Richard Feynman with John Archibald Wheeler, who was Feynman's thesis advisor at the time. They jointly worked on developing a different approach to studying electromagnetic (EM) radiation call "absorber theory."
They showed that EM interactions can be viewed as waves sent out by the emitter that move forward in time and waves sent by the absorber that move backwards in time.
This approach was later generalized into a full-blown interpretation of quantum mechanics by John Cramer. It is called the Transactional Interpretation. It says that all of the forces (except gravity) can be treated as transactions of energy and momentum through wave functions that move forward in time from the source and wave functions that move backwards in time from the absorber.
The idea of waves moving backwards in time is hard for many to accept, although Feynman showed that an electron moving forward in time is fully equivalent to a positron (anti-electron) moving backward in time.
However, the whole backwards in time issue was resolved later by Ruth Kastner when she developed a fully relativistic version of the transactional interpretation, which is called RTI (relativistic transactional interpretation.
The original goal of Feynman and Wheeler was to see if they could completely eliminate any need for a field in the description of forces and the transfer of energy. They were almost successful, but ended up concluding that there remained a very small amount of energy that represented the presence of a field that acted as a dampening effect. This is similar to the way the field of space acts as intertia on anything that accelerates. This field effect is very small, such as seen with the Lamb effect. The rest of the EM force is fully described by absorber theory.
Kastner later showed that other research done by Davies could convert this field effect into waves that flow from particles back on themselves. This self-energy can be used to model the small residual field effect that cannot be explained by absorber theory. This means no field is needed.
I discuss this in more detail in my paper published late last year:
See pages 91-96 and 102-103. These sections include references to the papers by Feynman, Wheeler, Cramer, and Kasnter, if you want to follow up.
Hopefully this helps in some way.
3 Recommendations

All replies (53)

Deleted profile
Dear Anatoly A Khripov , you don't need to rewrite the Newtons laws. If you want to have an idea of how the physicists of the future will describe the gravitational field, please, take a look to the second tweet of this Twitter account: @jjrodrip
1 Recommendation
Deleted profile
Anatoly Khripov,
It is 2019 so maybe it is more sensible to focus on QFT. You can describe any reality in a geometrical way so why not QFT. Vector and scalar fields are known for centuries and every field can be transformed into geometrical descriptions. QM, Einstein's theory of relativity and Newton's publications are about phenomenological reality. That's about reduced reality (not only simplified but phenomenological physics envelopes only a small part of the universe).
With kind regards, Sydney
1 Recommendation
6th May, 2019
Anatoly A Khripov
St. Petersburg State University of Civil Aviation
Hello Mr. Sydney Ernest Grimm
Yes I just want to do this ancient thing without QFT. Could you provide the references?
1 Recommendation
Deleted profile
Anatoly Khripov,
Isaac Newton had no idea about the internal changes of matter in relation to velocity. That's a bit strange because I suppose he studied the writings of e.g. the ancient Greek philosophers like Parmenides. The idea was that the phenomena in our universe are created by an underlying structure. They argued that reality isn't what we observe, reality is the underlying structure that creates the observable universe.
If you want to transform Newton's ideas into geometrical concepts the results will not go beyond phenomenological physics. There are publications of scientists that have tried "to do the trick" but others were not convinced/impressed ("crackpot physics"). I don't know references because I am not involved in phenomenological physics. But you can visit my profile, maybe "On the concept of fields" can help you a bit about the simplicity to use geometrical descriptions.
With kind regards, Sydney
1 Recommendation
8th May, 2019
Paul Pistea
in my opinion all laws must be re-writed as functionals
1 Recommendation
9th May, 2019
Doug Marman
Lenses of Perception Press
Anatoly, this is not exactly what you are asking for, since it isn't a geometric solution, however, you might be interested in the work done by Richard Feynman with John Archibald Wheeler, who was Feynman's thesis advisor at the time. They jointly worked on developing a different approach to studying electromagnetic (EM) radiation call "absorber theory."
They showed that EM interactions can be viewed as waves sent out by the emitter that move forward in time and waves sent by the absorber that move backwards in time.
This approach was later generalized into a full-blown interpretation of quantum mechanics by John Cramer. It is called the Transactional Interpretation. It says that all of the forces (except gravity) can be treated as transactions of energy and momentum through wave functions that move forward in time from the source and wave functions that move backwards in time from the absorber.
The idea of waves moving backwards in time is hard for many to accept, although Feynman showed that an electron moving forward in time is fully equivalent to a positron (anti-electron) moving backward in time.
However, the whole backwards in time issue was resolved later by Ruth Kastner when she developed a fully relativistic version of the transactional interpretation, which is called RTI (relativistic transactional interpretation.
The original goal of Feynman and Wheeler was to see if they could completely eliminate any need for a field in the description of forces and the transfer of energy. They were almost successful, but ended up concluding that there remained a very small amount of energy that represented the presence of a field that acted as a dampening effect. This is similar to the way the field of space acts as intertia on anything that accelerates. This field effect is very small, such as seen with the Lamb effect. The rest of the EM force is fully described by absorber theory.
Kastner later showed that other research done by Davies could convert this field effect into waves that flow from particles back on themselves. This self-energy can be used to model the small residual field effect that cannot be explained by absorber theory. This means no field is needed.
I discuss this in more detail in my paper published late last year:
See pages 91-96 and 102-103. These sections include references to the papers by Feynman, Wheeler, Cramer, and Kasnter, if you want to follow up.
Hopefully this helps in some way.
3 Recommendations
10th May, 2019
Wladimir Belayev
Center for Relativity and Astrophysics
Anatoly, the concept of force is used to describe interactions, including gravity. Einstein believed that force was not needed in relativity theory. And there were reasons for that. The analogue of the Newtonian force does not agree with Newton's gravity, see the article Okun in UFN, there are different longitudinal and transverse masses of the particles. If we consider the force according to the Lagrangian mechanics, its expression is non-covariant, the value depends on the choice of coordinates. However, I believe that the consideration of force in curvilinear space still gives some results. In the limit of weak gravity, its values asymptotically converge and give a Newtonian limit that allows us to determine the passive gravitational mass of light-like and material particles https://dxdy.ru/topic131090.html that are consistent with the active mass, which confirms Newton's 3rd law.
Sincerely, Vladimir
2 Recommendations
11th May, 2019
Kurt Wraae
Home research office for gravity studies.
Wladimir Belayev.
I fully agree it is all a matter about energi.
Kurt Wraae
3 Recommendations
11th May, 2019
Jouni Jokela
Hi,
I consider this is the correct approach. I have tried to do it myself, and even got some success, if better explanations to observed anomalies can be considered as a such.
If you leave the "force" away, then you actually leave the mass away, and everything is just 4 dimensions...
My struggle walking in this path is documented here;
1 Recommendation
13th May, 2019
Hamid Rafizadeh
Bluffton University
Hi everyone,
My response to Anatoly’s question is going to come from a different but foundational direction. Everything in human life starts with “observations” that take shape as “mental artifacts.” The mental artifacts are then externalized and made accessible to others primarily through “words.” The words are always deficient representations of the mental artifacts. They are also always a mix of what we know and what we do not know. (For more details please see Hamid Rafizadeh, The Sucker Punch of Sharing, Archway, 2018.) There is a continuous effort to create “high-knowledge-content” words and “word products” we know as models. The question of whether to continue to use “force” or to switch to “space-time” is thus one of which words provide a higher knowledge content view of what we’re observing. Do the words time and space give us a higher knowledge content than “force”? So long as a community is satisfied with the knowledge content of the words it is using, it would rarely consider switching to another set of words.
Best
2 Recommendations
14th May, 2019
Vitaly Borovik
Bioclinicum Research Centre
Space-time interests me from the practical side to increase the efficiency of solving engineering problems. Practical integration of space and time is an extremely important task.
1 Recommendation
14th May, 2019
John Hodge
Something close.
The basic GR field equation is a math transform. It takes the right hand side (RHS) set of equations transformed into a geometry to reduce the number of variables by 1 on the left hand side (LHS). It is a math identity to solve complex equations.
So, the RHS can be anything - even something physical. So, why not use the Newtonian force concept rather than the energy-stress concept. The LHS turns into a geometry of an ether (Newtonian type ether). So, gravitational forces of the masses create an ether and the divergence (the inverse transform) of the ether directs the masses. If the masses have electromagnetic forces, they too can be included in the RHS tensor. Or, the electric charges may be a property of the ether on the LHS. Then the QSSC source is easily added. As can the sink of STOE.
But then the complexity of the equations islike GR - better to use Newtonian methods (force vector addition). All that is needed is a method to handle the r=0 situation.
1 Recommendation
14th May, 2019
Vitaly Borovik
Bioclinicum Research Centre
In solving the problem of space-time, learn how to solve practical tasks in this system.
Let us turn to dependence:
?Yi=Q(t)ΔTi, (1)
where: ?Y is the increment in volume of works; Q(t) is the productivity; ?T is the period of time in question. The increment in volume of works is equal to the numerical value, created within the specific time interval. However, it is necessary to draw a fundamental conclusion. Taking into account that ?Y is a vector, Q is a scalar, formula (1) should be represented in the form:
?Yi=Q(t)ΔTi, (2)
since for retaining the equality in (1), it is necessary that ?Тi should be a vector (tensor of the 1st rank). Hence follows ?Тi ?Yi, i. e. the vectors of the ?Тi and of an increase in gains of works volume ?Yi, ideally are collinear and are co-directed. Consequently, the time, connected with PP, will be as uneven as the volume of production and productivity etc.
1 Recommendation
16th May, 2019
Norbert Straumann
University of Zurich
Dear Anatoly,
Did you have a look at the Newton-Cartan theory, a formulation of Newtonian gravity that is really close to GR. You find the relevant references for instance in gr-qc/9604054.
3 Recommendations
17th May, 2019
Stam Nicolis
University of Tours
The answer was given by Eisenhart, using the so-called Eisenhart lift-cf.
for instance.
1 Recommendation
17th May, 2019
Hans van Leunen
Eindhoven University of Technology
Newton's approach can be explained by the fact that the Green's function of a field in isotropic conditions equals a pulse response. Any distribution can be approached by a set of pulse responses. If that set is a coherent swarm, then the deformation induced by the swarm is the convolution of the location density distribution of the swarm and the Green's function of the field. Far enough from the gravitational center of the swarm, the deformation gets again the shape of the Green's function. However, in this region, a factor that is proportional to the mass of the swarm maps the two shapes together. So, the actual deformation of the swarm can be described by the gravitation potential g=MG/r, where r is the distance to the gravitational center of the swarm.
For example a normal distribution of pulses will cause a deformation that can be described by MG*ERF(r)/r. Here ERF(r) is the error function. At large values of r it equals MG/r.
The Green's function is a static pulse response. It is the integral over time of a corresponding dynamic pulse response. The dynamic pulse response behaves as a spherical shock front. The amplitude of this front follows the shape of the Green's function and diminishes with increasing radius r. At the instance of the pulse the field gets deformed, but the front quickly spreads this deformation over the field. So the volume of the Green's function stays inside the field and expands the field. However the deformation quickly fades away. This is why to keep the deformation in place, the dynamic pulses must recurrently be regenerated.
With other words, mass is only conserved when the mechanism that produces the pulses keeps doing its work in a constant way.
1 Recommendation
28th May, 2019
Tamirat Abebe
Jimma University
Practical integration of space and time is an extremely important task.
1 Recommendation
18th Jun, 2019
Paul Pistea
vectorial product leads to (at least) 1 more dimension, ergo: if time were not described by using vectors, then space-time would have not more dimensions as space itself.
1 Recommendation
18th Jun, 2019
Vitaly Borovik
Bioclinicum Research Centre
Right thought. I believe that in the way of unification of physics and geometry we can expect serious practical results.
1 Recommendation
18th Jun, 2019
Jouni Jokela
Dear Sirs,
@Hamid Rafizadeh points out how we need to change these constructions called "words" to be able to proceed.
I noticed this myself whilst trying to leave mass away from physics, as I consider it as a pseudo-thing which does not exist. This leads us very quickly to idea that acceleration is velocity / time. Which it is, buy then, what is accelerating if there is no mass, and everything is light? As then the speed is always constant!
This breaks our existing construction totally!
A new kind of massless acceleration can be created another way; Velocity squared / length. and this works even if the speed is a universal constant.
....to be continued....
1 Recommendation
20th Jun, 2019
Norbert Straumann
University of Zurich
In an earlier reply I have already pointed out that Newtonian gravity has, in perfect analogy to GR, been geometrically reformulated long ago by Cartan (1923, 1924) and Friedrichs (1928). Numerous authors (Havas, Trautman, Ehlers, Künzle) have in recent times elaborated on this. References are easily accessible for instance in gr-qc/9604054. In this approach even the field equations take the same form as Einstein's equations. Basically, in this formulation the Lorentz group is replaced by the Galilei group.
3 Recommendations
20th Jun, 2019
Vitaly Borovik
Bioclinicum Research Centre
Dear Preston Ginn! Please inform the name of the journal and its number where your article "The Thomas Precession is the basis of the structure of matter and space ..." is published. . Sincerely. Vitaly Borovik
20th Jun, 2019
Hans van Leunen
Eindhoven University of Technology
Read the chapter on field equations in "The Mathematics of Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1904.0388
This freely accessible booklet explains the origin of gravitation and the origin of inertia.
4th Jul, 2019
Paul Pistea
since there is gravitation, there is no one and no()thing more free...
14th Jul, 2019
Javad Fardaei
This is the fact, that the building block of universe is a quantum mechanics. But in Newton and Einstein era, they did not know about this remarkable science. If we consider universe is working based on QM phenomenon, then the mechanical gravity of Newton and Einstein must be reviewed. Here is my challenge of rejecting the mechanical gravity https://www.academia.edu/37525574/Quantum_Mechanic_Gravity this article selected to 2019 Quantum Physics seminar in Paris and Osaka japan. Best regard
1 Recommendation
15th Jul, 2019
Soumitra K Mallick
Institute for Advanced Study
Dear Dr. Khripov,
We have experimentally shown that the String Open SO(11) and SO(23) Dimensions of the spacextime of Electronic Bombay Stock Exchange Networks which are globally connected by the internet and geosynchronous satellites and powered by sunlight and electric networks (directly variable with the stock exchange stocks and flows) can be explained by Econophysical differentiable systems classified and systems integrated equations (Mallick (2014, 2015), Mallick, Raychaudhury, Mallick and others (2019), Mallick, Hamburger & Mallick (2016, 2017, 2018)), thus establishing what we have called "Vector Diffeotopy of Embedding Jump Quantum Conductance" which we conjecture is Quantum Mechanically vectorially geometrically isotropic with Higgs Mechanics which we have defined as "Higgs-Mallick mechanics"with photon-phonon duality String Differentiable particle group (Rieman and Lie algebra) at RTP for Riemann Algebra Fundamental Standard Model.The existence of geodesic weights which resolves the information-energy Rikki tensor cylinder reservoirs with normalisation four laws discovered by us Mallick et. al. , establishes the classical-quantum spacetime world curvature (RHMHM Functor Algebra Calculus) at least can identify gravity and photon-phonon string duality curvature of spacetime and spacextime classical factorisation method of Econophysics which we have proved in the above. Using Dielectric Compounds for AGGNNnetwork circuits we have (Sandipan Mallick in particular this was his idea) a mothod of identifying the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces in such natural fundamental string networks perturbation and condensation to the stock exchange systems equilibrium in realtime and spacetime Poincare groups with Yang - Mills mass gap explained in this low dimensional experiment by the computed first of its kind RHMHM Internetwork Fine Structure Constant which establishes the QM interaction picture resolution by Rikki-Tensor also determined to be 4000/C (Mallick (2015), Mallick, Hamburger & Mallick and others (2016, 2017 & 2018), Mallick, Raychaudhury, Mallick and others (2019)) SR and GR in geodesy value (in the solar system). This intrepretes the string path integral also for the string control problem. I hope this has something in answer.
S.K.Mallick, S.Raychaudhury, S.Mallick and others,
RHMHM School of Mathematical Sciences Thinking,
USA, Japan, Russia, India (British Commonwealth)
17th Jul, 2019
Soumitra K Mallick
Institute for Advanced Study
Prof. Khripov,
We have also constructed a Field Theory out of such Poincare and Abelian Group Homologies and derived the VDEJQC Higgs-Mallick String Duality photon-phonon electromagnetic Maxwell type limits mathematical-statistically by converting transitivity problems into induction problems and solving them to obtain open and closed String Field Theories to derive Externetwork - "Artificial Genetic Gravitational Neural National Network" with sustainable satellite embedding in solar system (Mallick, Raychaudhury, Mallick and others (2019)).
S.K.Mallick, S.Raychaudhury, S.Mallick and others
The RHMHM School of Mathematical Sciences Thinking,
USA, Japan, Russia, India (British Commonwealth).
2nd Aug, 2019
Soumitra K Mallick
Institute for Advanced Study
Prof. Kripov,
I am a Hony. Fellow of European Physical Society for "Integration of Scientific Fields" and a KBE for The Econophysics Field, may I not so humbly state. Integration of scientific fields along with the Econophysics Field experimental proofs establish somewhat what your question asks I believe. My collaborators are also working in these areas,
Earl Soumitra K. Mallick, Somak Raychaudhury, Earl Prince Sandipan Mallick and others,
The RHMHM School of Mathematical Sciences Thinking,
USA, Japan, Russia, India,
and our respective affiliations.
2nd Aug, 2019
Soumitra K Mallick
Institute for Advanced Study
Dear Prof. Khripov,
F=ma =>dF=mdm + ada, by using the Third Law and STR, we have derived the Internetworked Fine Structure Constant with photon-phonon String Duality renormalisation setting da^hat=0, canonically for experimental solution, hence the RHMHM FAC String Matching Field Theory GTR value gets solved by dF=mdm using Plancks Constant in the Heisenberg equation and using the DeBroglie limit, with mass being intrepreted as equilibrium weight from the stock market equilibrium equation derived by us as proof of the Pvs.NP and other millenium problems and the fundamentally resolved by Higgs-Mallick mechanics AGGNNNetworks fundamental (YM) networks. The fundamental length is the RHMHM InFSC at RTP under the systems classified and systems integrated by using dielectric compound of Sandipan Mallick to count valence electrons stock and flow with Vector Diffeotopy of Em,bedding Jump Quantum Conductance from an Econemetric Theory which proves that the Rational Expectations Cybernetic Equilibrium with National Globalised Stock Markets is independant of all "sunspot activities" i.e. String Perturbation and Condensation. This therefore by calculus explains all the fundamental forces in the exsperimental system and is sunstituted by our four laws of Econophysics (Systems) that we have discovered et.al. We particularly thank Prof. Karl Shell, Prof. Mukul Majumdar for the Rational Expectations Econometrics.
Earl Soumitra K. Mallick, Somak Raychaudhury, Earl Prince Sandipan Mallick and others,
The RHMHM School,
USA, Japan, Russia, India
8th Nov, 2019
Abdelaziz OUATIZERGA
University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond has done some thing similar by developing a new approach to special relativity witch consists of an elementary version of general group-theoretical arguments on the structure of space-time.
8th Nov, 2019
Hamid Rafizadeh
Bluffton University
Dear Anatoly,
Being new to Researchgate I am interested in its dynamics. I am noting that there has been 34 replies but I can only see 16 and cannot find a way of seeing the remaining 18. I am curious, are you blocking or deleting the replies you don’t like? Or am I missing a method of seeing them?
Best
9th Nov, 2019
Hamid Rafizadeh
Bluffton University
Wolfgang, thanks for the suggestion. I did try that, expecting to see all, but it still shows only the 16 and not all. Perhaps the problem is in my computer.
Best
9th Nov, 2019
Hans van Leunen
Eindhoven University of Technology
Newton's gravitational potential formula g(r)=MG/r does not need rewriting. It holds perfectly at sufficient distance r of the center of mass of the massive object(s) where the universe is again a fairly flat field. It holds for all massive objects starting from elementary particles to black holes. Everyone who knows anything about Green's functions will see the correspondence between Newton's formula and the Green's function of the dynamic field under isotropic conditions. It is a solution of the Poisson equation for isotropic point-like disturbances. The tails of all gravitation potentials of discrete massive objects will show this shape. It shows how a continuum reacts on an object that disturbs its continuity. This means that a black hole can be considered as an encapsulated region that does not contain a continuum. This region deforms its surrounding continuum. Far from this region this results in the mentioned gravitation potential.
This reveals a very general rule. GRT is not required to comprehend this rule.
One other remark: In reality no point-like static masses exist. Instead spherical pulse responses exist that act like spherical shock fronts and that integrate over time into the Green's function of the affected field. This means that in most cases gravitation is a dynamic phenomenon. Apart from black holes all massive objects in the universe are recurrently regenerated. This occurs at a very high regeneration rate. I agree that this is a revolutionary conclusion. It follows from the field equations that describe the dynamic behavior of fields.
12th Nov, 2019
Paul Pistea
Newton`s gravitational formula- that`s well known- is sufficient merely for 2 orbs., not for more!
13th Nov, 2019
Norbert Straumann
University of Zurich
Such a formulation has been given in the "Newton-Cartan Theory". For references see e.g.: gr-qc/9604054. The relation to GR is striking.
2 Recommendations
13th Nov, 2019
Hans van Leunen
Eindhoven University of Technology
Convolute a normal distribution with the Green's function and you get an example gravitation potential in the form of a ERF(r)/r function. This function has no singularity like the Green's function, but the tails of this example and 1/r closely match. In fact this works for most coherent location density distributions. Thus, for all massive objects, far from the center, the gravitation potential behaves as 1/r. Newton's formula runs MG/r, where M is the mass of the object.
This effect is due to the fact that the Green's function is the response to a Dirac pulse. Any coherent distribution can be thought to be constructed of Dirac pulses. Far from the center of the distribution this acts as a single Dirac pulse. Far from a massive object the object acts like a point-mass. This also holds for a coherent collection of massive objects.
13th Nov, 2019
Paul Pistea
dear Hans, You are right, but I am talking about big-bang, black holes as singularities
1 Recommendation
13th Nov, 2019
Hans van Leunen
Eindhoven University of Technology
Big Bang is an improper model. The universe is a dynamic field. In the beginning it was flat. It is described by a quaternionic function. Its parameter space is a static flat field. See
Presentation Base model
1 Recommendation
14th Nov, 2019
Paul Pistea
in my opinion- according to my researches- big-bang theory is false. even the so-called universum does not exist as a closed system.
1 Recommendation
14th Nov, 2019
Norbert Straumann
University of Zurich
Paul Pistea,
I gave the answer. If you do not care about it you should not repeat your question.
2 Recommendations
29th Jun, 2020
Nancy Ann Watanabe
University of Oklahoma-Norman
??Preston Guynn. added a reply on June 19, 2019:
Force, mass, and energy are a parallel set of descriptions of the effects of special relativistic Thomas Precession. All matter and space, and their interactions are described with distance in three dimensions, time, and their derivatives.
Newton's first law of motion is , "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."
Yet the concept of motion requires at least two objects, and if there are two objects, then there is always an external force, which is gravitation.
So the idea of rewriting Newton's laws without force (or mass or energy) is good, but it should be extended to incorporate the most basic non-linear effects of motion in space time, which are special relativity and Thomas Precession.
See my article describing the recent discovery of the effects of Thomas Precession the particle and galactic scales.
Article Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space
Recommended / Share
  • 3 Recommendations
3 Recommendations
29th Jun, 2020
Nancy Ann Watanabe
University of Oklahoma-Norman
Your statement, as follows, expresses an idea that is new to me. I am wondering your reason for stating the "In the beginning [the universe] was flat." It seems doubtful that any contemporary research article states this view. Nevertheless, it does appear to be as credible as the so-called 'big bang theory' even though most scientists express the view that cosmological theorizing about the beginning of the universe will lead nowhere because it is beyond the parameters of the scientific method. Best regards.
Hans van Leunen. added a reply on November 13, 2019:
Big Bang is an improper model. The universe is a dynamic field. In the beginning it was flat. It is described by a quaternionic function. Its parameter space is a static flat field. See Presentation Base model…
Recommended / Share
  • 1 Recommendation
1 Recommendation
30th Jun, 2020
Javad Fardaei
All the mechanical theories of Gravity from Galileo, Newton and Einstein is myth.
Gravity is Internal NOT Eternal. sorry!
3rd Jul, 2020
Hans van Leunen
Eindhoven University of Technology
The idea about the beginning of the universe bases on two starting points. The first is the representation of our universe by a dynamic field that on its turn can be described by a quaternionic function. This is possible when this field is the eigenspace of a dedicated normal operator in a quaternionic non-separable Hilbert space. That field embeds the eigenspaces of the footprint operators in the separable Hilbert spaces that represent the elementary particles in the Hilbert repository.
The second starting point is the separation of the Hilbert Book Model in a creation episode in which stochastic processes fill the content of the footprint operators in the separable Hilbert spaces that act as the platforms for the elementary particles and a running episode in which the embedding of the separable Hilbert spaces into the non-separable Hilbert space that forms the background of the Hilbert repository takes place and mimics the activity of the stochastic processes in the creation episode.
The ongoing embedding mimics the ongoing creation of the hopping path of the elementary particle. The running episode applies a range of time that corresponds to the sequenced timestamps that were archived with the hop landing locations. This range has a beginning. In the beginning, the universe field was flat and undisturbed.
15th Aug, 2020
Soumitra K Mallick
Institute for Advanced Study
Dear Prof. Khripov and other String members,
We have by our String Perturbation and Strong Condensation result of (1) Vector Diffeotopy of Embeddibg Jump Quantum Conductance "VDEJQC" Higgs_Mallick Mechanics and (2) P particle of Nature Higgs_Mallick particle in AGGNN Nwtwork Interaction-Picture M(1) Theory Graphical Structure after resolution of SpacexTime Internetwork Higgs-Mallick M(1) Science resolved not only the Fundamental Mathematics (solution to Milkenium Probkrms in this field) but also the Fundamental Physics of Higgs_Mallick Science which computes the INFSC to be C/4.000..This is RHMHM School Functor Algebra Calculus Dynamics of Econophysics Arrow of Fime and Generic Quality assumptions.
Sir S.K.Mallick, Cosmologist S.Raychaudhury, Pharma Engr Earl Orince of York S.Mallick and others
15th Aug, 2020
John Hodge
Newton suggested 3 types of "mass" - weight, inertial mass, and gravitational mass. These represented 3 different physical mechanisms influencing a body's motion. The distinction of the physical processes has been lost with the change to the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian where the term "mass" appears as the same symbol in both the kinetic and potential terms - each term representing different types of physical process. Yes, I understand the Equivalence Assumption. But the elevator in the gravity field will have tidal forces and the rocket field will NOT have tidal forces. Hence, it is an Assumption. After this rewrite, physics has created many increasingly weird/outlandish speculations to account for the deviant observations rather than proceeding from the Newtonian perspective.
So, physicists did rewrite Newton's laws over a century ago.
16th Aug, 2020
Vitaly Borovik
Bioclinicum Research Centre
Полезно воспользоваться засечанием Эйнштейна.
A very important conclusion can be drawn from this. In system (1) c - the speed of light in vacuum - constant. To solve an applied problem, it can be replaced by a constant that best meets the requirements of the process being analyzed. A. Einstein came to the conclusion that the principle of relativity is universal. On the basis of the postulate that “all laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames of reference”, he established that not only mechanical, but all physical laws are the same in all inertial frames [16]. For example, you can take the maximum possible established (or calculated) crystallization rate, labor productivity, geographic conditions with established characteristics, etc.
Can you contribute to the discussion?

Similar questions and discussions

Is the non-locality of the gravitational energy a serious problem for General Relativity ?
Question
7505 answers
  • Stefano QuattriniStefano Quattrini
ROGER PENROSE IN THE ROAD TO REALITY chap 19?WROTE:
-------------
"Although there is no room for such a thing in the energy–
momentum tensor T, it is clear that there are situations where a ‘disembodied’
gravitational energy is actually playing a physical role.
Imagine? two massive bodies (planets, say). If they are close together (and we can
suppose that they are instantaneously at rest relative to each other), then
there will be a (negative) gravitational potential energy contribution which
makes the total energy, and therefore the total mass, smaller than it would
be if they are far apart.? Ignoring much tinier energy effects,
such as distortions of each body’s shape due to the gravitational tidal field
of the other, we see that the total contributions from the actual energy–
momentum tensor T will be the same whether the two bodies are close
together or far apart. Yet, the total mass/energy will differ in the two cases,
and this difference would be attributed to the energy in the gravitational
field itself (in fact a negative contribution, that is more sizeable when the
bodies are close than when they are far apart)."?
--------------
The same problem was also raised by Thirring, Kalman and Feynman in the FGT theory, they inserted the gravitational energy in the tensor equations...
It is a problem of paramount importance which prevents the General relativity theory?from?describing with very good accuracy, any motion in which the hamiltonian is time dependent or rather in case of non?isolated systems, or in case of non gravitational interactions between different bodies.
The attempt to model properly a free falling body in a gravitational field for GRT?seems impossible, only approximations to a certain extent can be found.
GRT has been tested? only for static or stationary systems where there is not a net exchange of energy (if we exclude?gravitational radiation).
Don't we need another GRAVITATIONAL THEORY, complying to?the tests?passed by GRT , in order to explain, with a better?accuracy, the apparently simple phenomenon of?a free falling body in a gravitational field?
By Yurij Baryshev
by Stefano Quattrini
by Gary Nash
by Yurj Baryshev
Is the modern approach to cosmology fundamentally flawed?
Question
4156 answers
  • Michael PeckMichael Peck
With the substantial amount of anomalies, paradoxes and unexplained phenomenon in mainstream cosmology, one must question whether the modern approach in this field is sufficient. In most fields of science, development proceeds according to the scientific method: A phenomenon is observed, a hypothesis is made, scientific test(s) are conducted and the simplest answer is sought after. However, this does not appear to be the path that modern cosmology is following (as demonstrated by the attached figure).
Subjects such as naturalness and fine-tuning have been highly debated in the areas of quantum field theory and cosmology. The argument is that if a theory must be fine-tuned, then there should be an underlying physical reason for such values. However, the vast majority of fine-tuned theories lack explanation and only seem to exist for the purpose of reproducing reality in terms of ad-hoc mathematical formulations. Thus my question is really three parts.
  • Do you believe the modern approach to cosmology is fundamentally flawed?
  • Is a fine-tuned theory that is fundamentally wrong, but can still produce correct predictions useful?
  • Was Richard Feynman correct when he stated “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”?
Examples in cosmology:
  • Redshift versus Luminosity Distance: Requires accelerated expansion via dark energy
  • The Faint Blue Galaxy Problem: Requires disappearing galaxies
  • Dark Matter Cusp Problem: Requires unnatural arrangements of dark matter in galaxies
  • Local Galaxy Counts: Requires a local "hole" that extends beyond 0.05z
  • Horizon Problem: Inflation theorized
  • Size of Distant Objects: Unexplained or significant evolution
  • Planck Sigma_8 Problem: Hypothetical sterile neutrinos proposed
  • Hemispherical Power Asymmetry: ?
  • Directional Dependence of Cosmological Constants: ?
  • The Dark Flow: Theorized interaction with another universe
  • CMB Cold Spots: Massive voids proposed
Who says that cauzation backwards in time is impossible? Classical mechanics? The relativity theory? Is there a proof?
Discussion
276 replies
  • Sofia D. WechslerSofia D. Wechsler
The 2nd law of the thermodynamics says that the entropy only increases. From this law we derived a time-axis that has only one direction - forward. Similarly, from our life-experience we know that we only grow older (fact which seems to be a consequence of the thermodynamics 2nd law), and from that we also derived a unidirectional time-axis.
The time-axis seems to be a concept emerging from irreversible processes.
However, not every process in the world has to do with an increase of entropy. The movement of the electrons in the ground state of an atom does not have to do with an increase of entropy, s.t. the atoms, at least in their stable state, are identical today with thouse that existed billions of years ago. There is an internal dynamics in these atoms, but it doesn't need a time-axis, because this dynamics is reversible.
What I am asking is which proof do we have that the macroscopic world does not admit an influence backwards in time?
My question is motivated by the fact that in the quantum mechanics, the results of measurements produced by entangled systems tested at different times, show a clear interdependence between present and future. None of the systems produces its response independently. The response of each system depends on the type of experiment done on the other systems, and their responses, even if other systems are tested later.
NOTE: I am not asking why the time flows only in forward direction. It is we, the human beings that choose this direction because we grow only older, not younger, because our experience of life increases, etc. I am asking if we have any evidence that a future event influences a past process.

Related Publications

Article
Full-text available
Some mathematical aspects of using the translation group as an internal symmetry group in a gauge field theory are presented and discussed. The traditional manner in which gravitation can be accounted for by the introduction of a global frame field on a parallelizable spacetime is reviewed. It is then discussed in the more general context of a glob...
Article
There is a recent proposal for effective gauge theories that does not involve a background metric which makes it attractive for quantum gravity. The basic building blocks are new spaces of effective connections and the coarse graining maps which relate them. One space of effective connections can be coarse grained to another one assigned to a ''mor...
Article
Sponsored by the China Association for Science and Technology and the Chinese Society of Gravitation and Relativistic Astrophysics in collaboration with the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste (Italy) the University of Rome, Faculty of Science (Italy) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Incluy...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.