Mordred

An object at constant velocity can also deliver a force so your assumption isn't valid. F=ma is the amount of force needed to change the velocity aka acceleration

This doesn't make any sense. You are correct on one detail. I will always describe any physics related topic with the proper physics terminology, subsequently that terminology further applies to the mathematics. The mathematics is essential in any physics topic

Have you ever considered that this is where the importance of invariant quantities comes into play. In particular all observers regardless of measurement devices used will get the same resultant on a given measurement on an invariant quantity. It is these quantities that are of primary importance with time it's the "proper time". Of course physics follows Occams razor. However Occams Razor does not state as simple as possible while at the same time become less accurate. In point of detail Occams Razor will favor the easier to calculate theory that provides the same degree of accuracy. This is precisely where factors such as dimensional reduction, to good approximation comes into play. I recall you arguing exactness with f=ma yet that would unnecessarily complicate everyday calculations hence we have the Newtonian approximation to simplify the calculations without losing accuracy by any significant amount. Higher order calculations will certainly give more accurate answers however often are unnecessary to get the needed accuracy. It is so common that physics has a very specific terminology for this. First, second, third etc order's of approximation. Truthfully I lost count on the number of times I've seen people try to rewrite physics so it makes sense to them much like what you are doing. It literally amounts to a waste of time. Time that could have instead been used to study those physics theories so that they can come to correctly understand it.

Format is just one stage of the review process. The link provided if you read through it look beyond simply the format. It also states a process to follow, as well as the factors directly related to content. Note at no point point does it state the theory needs to be correct. It describes its process to follow as well as its standards.

Your goal is to write a paper that would be acceptable to arxiv am I not correct on that ? They care to meet their standards. You cannot argue equivalence if your applying the wrong quantity involved in a math statement

You really need to work on that, force equals mass times acceleration. Acceleration isn't the speed of an object. the speed of an object is just a scalar quantity of distance divided by time. Where as an objects velocity which directly relates to the laws of inertia is a vector quantity. has magnitude and direction. It is this quantity that the Newton laws of inertia directly applies to. The acceleration is any change in that velocity vector that can be a change in the magnitude or the direction. It is this quantity that directly applies to the force and mass relation. mass is resistance to inertia change or acceleration Inertia under the laws is defined as the resistance of any physical object to a change in its velocity. well that's likely part of the problem, for arxiv you really do need to apply the correct terminology. As defined by physics for any physics related paper. your far better off stating the correct definition for each term then addressing the relation you wish to discuss. Trying to argue the logic behind a math statement without using the correct terminology simply tells the reader you do not correctly understand the relations of a given formula correctly. In simple terms if you use incorrect terminology the assumption is you do not properly understand the terms in the equation so how can you accurately state its logic is wrong ?

No divergences has very strict mathematical meaning that often directly relate to conservation laws and invariance. The one article I linked specifically mentions that detail.

Without actually seeing your paper I can't accurately answer that. I can only go by what you have posted on this thread. Based on what I have observed I would think the main reason is insubstantial and unsupported claims. However that's just a guess based on what I have read throughout this thread. Applying accurate definitions would certainly apply to that. A reader should never have to guess what the meaning of a term being used is. If they are unfamiliar with a term they should be able to look at any reference source and get the correct meaning and that meaning must match the usage in your paper. The same goes for relevant mathematics, You must accurately be able describe how those formulas apply with the correct terminology. Prior to any counter arguments against their accuracy. If modifying existing equations exist in your article, then you would also have to apply a mathematical proof as to the application and address the reason for the modification via the mathematical proof. Simple substitution without adequate justification is a no no

Sigh

Not in any dictionary I own. However thanks for clarifying what you believe it is. So measuring the rate of a natural occurring process isn't measuring time where time is defined as a measure of rate of change or duration. sounds to me your making loopholes where none exist as they run counter to your opinion of what's logical

In actuality I'm curious as to what your definition of artificial actually is ? Atomic clocks measure a naturally occurring process so I really do not see how you can describe a natural process as artificial

You have a very strange form of logic you refuse to accept both math as well as observational evidence. Atomic clocks are not the only method used to measure time dilation. So quite frankly your argument is largely meaningless. Time dilation and GR is one most rigidly tested theories we have. It's proven to be highly accurate regardless of your personal logic arguments. Thankfully the universe couldn't care less about logic arguments nor how we interpret the Observational evidence. As for myself if the math matches the observational evidence that's more than sufficient for me.

What is artificial behind measured radioactive decay rates used in an atomic clock? Are you stating any measurement is artificial ?

Simply adding the graviton won't renormalize gravity. It takes more than simply having a mediator particle. It is the couplings with other fields that lead to further divergences. Unfortunately without the math it's near impossible to show. Not too surprised, it's very common to see ppl try to rewrite physics because they disagree or don't understand it. Unfortunately that never works. There is nothing artificial about time dilation but from your statement above you seem to have missed the meaning behind the interval ct. There is nothing artificial about using ct as a measurement. That makes little sense, you obviously didn't understand the statement "fundamental reality". That is not the same thing as logic.

Let's try a little example on the difficulty of fundamental reality. I pick up a ball and we want to describe its fundamental reality. Here is what I know isn't fundamental reality. Mass=resistance to inertia change ie a property. Energy=ability to perform work ie a property. Color=how one interprets the frequencies of light. Weight=how much influence gravity has on the ball. Solid=illusion created by our senses to interpret the electromagnetic force. Field a collection of values under a geometry treatment. Particles equals field excitations. Time equals rate of change of events Have I hit anything one can define as a fundamental reality of that ball yet ?

When we have measured both it certainly does reflect reality. You seem to have a very personal definition of logic. It's far different than what I would consider logical. However that only makes sense. Logic is always an opinion. What may be logical to me may sound like absolute nonsense to you. Why do think physics requires testability. That never has opinion as a factor.

Ah I see so the meaning of effective range of applicability of a theory isn't something you relate to. Well you might be surprised but even GR still applies that equation through the Principle of General covariance for very practical reasons. Of course the primary reason is that it works extremely well for everyday situations (Euclidean space) it isn't until you get changes in geometry via the Gamma factor that the equation is no longer as accurate. However its perfectly accurate when you have no time dilation or length contraction due to spacetime curvature. I believe I did mention "to good approximation" that directly relates to range of applicability lol you can certainly apply the gamma factor when you want to calculate how much force is needed to move your car from A to B but why bother when it won't change the numbers to any significant amount. There is an example of range of applicability. Its not practical to apply the gamma correction

They are once you apply the correct definition of mass and apply the correct units. There is no deviation between the LHS and RHS. Why would you believe otherwise if your doing the math correctly ? (with the correct terminology Newtons laws of inertia and units ?)

perhaps you can provide an example where you feel this is the case. Causality has very strict mathematical implications in physics. With causality this also directly relates to local and global symmetries (you would be surprised to learn there are specific math expressions defining each ) particularly in any gauge theory

There is also plenty of formulas used in physics where the equal sign denotes a precise match of the LHS and RHS of an equation. Many times though the author of a given paper will get lazy and use the equal sign instead of the approx sign in papers. Particularly when the relation is to good approximation. ( meaning any difference wouldn't have any relevant or measurable effects)

Added detail this is also applied to superposition of wavefunctions in QM and QFT. The superimposed wavefunction is the sum of all wavefunctions. The collapse occurs when you examine one of the component wavefunctions in a nutshell. (using similar grammar as Genady). Though in QM and QFT these would be probability wavefunctions. Not to be confused with physical waveforms.

In this case if your already familiar with both they are equally logical. How many times have you asked yourself "where is the logic behind this " then once you learn the topic you understand the logic. A curl is much like a vector except its directly related to the angular momentum terms where the vector is the linear momentum terms. Now that you understand which each represent are they not equally logical ?

As mentioned in my earlier comment its tricky to describe using zero mathematics. However just so you know its not just my personal theory on the matter. Here is the relevant research paper on the topic. https://cds.cern.ch/record/261104/files/CM-P00049196.pdf This particular paper is one of the most well known and well quoted papers on the topic. Most research papers on the divergences will refer directly back to this paper. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where words are insufficient to properly explain the issue. example being the following paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02622.pdf You really have to understand the mathematics to make sense of the paper. Don't worry very few forum members are at this level of understanding. You literally must be very keen on the related gauge groups and well versed in Calculus a very basic level on divergences and convergence is found here https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Calculus/Calculus_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Vector_Calculus/16.05%3A_Divergence_and_Curl this is a general field level that can be applied to any field.

No I will always disagree with you on that. We have plenty of physics that one would have difficulty applying logic to. In point of detail logic prevented the physics understanding in many cases. I'm positive you can think of several cases where that is true. Especially when it comes to quantum physics. Apply classical logic to quantum tunneling treating particles as corpuscular (materialistic bullets). Apply logic to an Bose Einstein condensate where all particles lose any identity (they cannot be distinguished by one another ). There is two examples. Time dilation without the mathematics is near impossible for ppl to understand . Here is the problem with logic. In order to apply logic you must apply that which a person understands. Take a student for example that has been taught the Bohr model of the atom in school that has been taught particles as little bullet like objects. Would that student understand particle wave duality ? To answer that look at all the misconceptions of the two slit experiment.

So you claim, yet the mathematics is the same regardless of nationality. Still doesn't change the fact that any physics theory MUST have accurate mathematics. Otherwise it's useless as a theory. It results in divergences that we haven't figured out how to keep renormalized. A renormalized theory is divergent free. Unfortunately without using the mathematics itself that's about as accurate a description I can give. Even if I give the mathematics there are only a handful of forum members that would have a chance of understanding it. As one must be familiar with one loop integrals. Aka Feymann diagrams, Or at the very least be familiar with the term divergence and convergence in a vector field.