We've seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional complex
spatial space, with time as a parameter for path length.

We've further seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional
complex temporal space, with distance as a parameter.

All the observed results of GR are compatible with this model. At
least, nobody has presented an observation which conflicts with this
model.

The model has three previously identified advantages.

Firstly, it resolves certain temporal paradoxes (e.g. Godel's)
associated with conventional spacetime.

Secondly, it can clearly be seen that Bell's quantum connections do not
violate causality. Such connections having been observed, it is
certain that conventional spacetime was "incomplete".

Thirdly, Hawking and Penrose had shown that conventional spacetime was
incomplete over 30 years ago. And this model makes spacetime complete.

All the above is history.

We can go on to consider a fusion of the two Worlds.

A three dimensional complex space and an orthogonal three dimensional
complex time.

But there is one restriction that we're faced with - In such a World,
space and time do not commute.

We are free to choose which (semi-)World to view, the spatial
(semi-)World or the temporal (semi-)World.

But we cannot view both Worlds "simultaneously".

We can begin to see how the quantum World emerges from a "complete"
spacetime.

Barry

"Barry" wrote in message
oups.com...
We've seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional complex
spatial space, with time as a parameter for path length.

Reference please.


We've further seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional
complex temporal space, with distance as a parameter.

Reference please.

Rest snipped.

Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:

Barry wrote:

... space and time do not commute.

Reference please.

Are you suggesting that I'm wrong?

Be brave.

Barry

"Barry" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:

Barry wrote:

... space and time do not commute.

Reference please.

Are you suggesting that I'm wrong?

Be brave.

I am suggesting reasonable scholarship requires being able to beck up your
statements. The fact you don't strongly suggests who is a coward.

Bill


Barry

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Barry" wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote:

Reference please.

Are you suggesting that I'm wrong?

Be brave.

I am suggesting reasonable scholarship requires being able to beck up your
statements. The fact you don't strongly suggests who is a coward.





This forum is hardly the place for scholarship. You'll have to look
elsewhere for that.

This is supposed to be a discussion group. Although most posters do
seem to like to avoid discussion whenever possible. You're more likely
to find pedantry than scholarship.

In the "Symmetry" thread you also asked for references and context.
When they were given, you were still unwilling to carry on a
discussion.

Have you found your pencil yet?

Barry

Barry wrote:
We've seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional complex
spatial space, with time as a parameter for path length.

We've further seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional
complex temporal space, with distance as a parameter.

No we have not seen anythinh of the sort.

All the observed results of GR are compatible with this model. At
least, nobody has presented an observation which conflicts with this
model.

You have not presented a single observation that IS compatible
with your model. Come to think of it, you have not derived a
single quantity.

wrote:

Barry wrote:

We've seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional complex
spatial space, with time as a parameter for path length.

We've further seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional
complex temporal space, with distance as a parameter.

No we have not seen anythinh of the sort.

I was writing about us, not you.


All the observed results of GR are compatible with this model. At
least, nobody has presented an observation which conflicts with this
model.

You have not presented a single observation that IS compatible
with your model. Come to think of it, you have not derived a
single quantity.

Still no observation that conflicts with the model, I take it ?

As for an obervation that is compatible, every obervation that is
compatible with GR is also compatible with this model.

In addition, we have quantum connections, obervations which are - to
say the least - problematical in conventional spacetime.

Now, how about presenting us with an observation that is incompatible
with my model of spacetime?

Be brave. Test it.

Barry

Barry wrote:

Now, how about presenting us with an observation that is incompatible
with my model of spacetime?

Present a model that predicts something.

Be brave. Test it.

I have a theory tha you can jump off the Golden Gate bridge and
glide safely to shore. Be brave. Test it.

Barry wrote:
We've seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional complex
spatial space, with time as a parameter for path length.

No... We haven't seen that.

Note that space-time cannot be regarded as a straightforward
generalization of Euclidian 3-space to four dimensions, with time
as the fourth dimension. The distribution of signs in the metric
ensures that the time coordinate x4 is not on the same footing as
the three space coordinates.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

Sue...

[...]


Barry

Sue... wrote:

Barry wrote:

We've seen that the World can be considered as a 3-Dimensional complex
spatial space, with time as a parameter for path length.

No... We haven't seen that.

Bill Hobba has already said that. As I told him, I meant "us", not
"you".


Note that space-time cannot be regarded as a straightforward
generalization of Euclidian 3-space to four dimensions, with time
as the fourth dimension. The distribution of signs in the metric
ensures that the time coordinate x4 is not on the same footing as
the three space coordinates.

Note that I wrote "complex".

Barry