View Single Post
Mar6-12, 09:24 AM
P: 1,098
Quote Quote by Chestermiller View Post
As a Senior Research Fellow at DuPont with 35 years of experience in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, atmospheric science, and hydrology (when I retired in 2002), followed by 9 more years of successful independent consulting in these areas, I can confidently say that I have an extensive working knowledge of physics and math modeling. It doesn't matter how many times you say Block Universe is just philosophy. In my judgement, it is much more than that. I know how to recognize a math model when I see one, and that is exactly what Block Universe is. It is a math model of the fundamental geometric structure of space-time, together with kinematics and aging of objects moving through space-time. It is consistent with the Lorentz Transformation, and provides a framework for understanding the Lorentz Transformation predictions (which, after 107 years, in my judgment, no longer require experimental validation). The only question is whether the Block Universe model represents the physical reality of our space-time, or whether, when we attempt to extend its interpretation to more complex situations, it is no longer capable of matching experimental observations. This is the reason I introduced the extended interpretations of Block Universe in second part of my original posting (involving substantial mass flows along world lines, and an enormous mass flow summed over all the world lines, and originating from an ongoing big bang). I was hoping to receive feedback from PF respondents on whether these interpretations made any sense within the framework of the Block Universe model, and also whether any PF respondents were capable of devising experiments that could test these predictions. So far, total silence.
You can measure the path of a photon as either time, length or the two at the same time. I can't see how this could be done in a block universe "reality". It's a continuum. Space is isotropic. Mass is measurable. All sorts of things....

I have almost 12 months of PF "experience" in the field of internet forum layman physics. (raising the point of your experience in the field is moot, unless you are a "leading expert" in the field there is no additional authority due to experience with regard to interpretation )

Lastly just from a conceptual perspective, I cannot envision 4 spatial dimensions, it makes no sense to me. 3 isotropic spatial dimensions with an, invariant limited speed does make sense to me and is more sensical in comparison to eternalism.