The victorious truther

So true numerous different misconceptions in relativity or perhaps other areas of physics could be alleviated with sort of thinking. The time it has to travel as well as where and when it was emitted as even in your frame of reference in special relativity it's perfectly possible to imagine being in the cube's frame to emit light equally in all directions at the same time but others will not see it in the same manner you would expect. You know I think you may be rather right in your speculation but i'd have to investigate further mathematically. @md65536 Also. . . Steins Gate. . . NICE!

Please do so but i'm not sure I trust you with deriving the visual results from special relativity on what you would see so when you get there stick to classical physics. . . unless you can show us the mathematical rigor needed. Yes, there is also a classical assumption that would play into this and give rather predictive results as to how it would exactly look. Cut your teeth on this article I found. Hmmmm. . . I found it! There is a difference between length contraction (measured) and what is observed which respectively would be (b) versus (c) as well as what you would expect with naive classical physics (e). (a) A row of dice at rest moving from left to right in a single file at 95% of the speed of light. (b) The moving dice are length contracted, so that one might (wrongly) expect them to look as here. (c) If you actually observe the dice, however, they will appear rotated. (d) But when some perception in depth is provided, you’d see them as sheared rather than rotated. (e) Shown here is the predicted “classical” appearance of the dice, with no length contraction. You can view a short film of part c online here. (Courtesy: U Kraus 2008 Eur. J. Phys. 29 1) You better have read the articles above and looked at the image as well as considered that there is a strong difference between what length you measure an object to have and distorted image you see.

It does only happen in the direction of motion as is or would be derived from the Lorentz transformation. If you have some other mathematical model to propose in which the object doesn't just contract in the direction of motion but in every direction equally or by some function of the velocity be my guest. . . propose it and test it. Further, "time dilation has no direction" why does this have to be a problem. . . why is this a problem for length contraction? Again you can propose some inhomogeneity or anisotropic effects that if a clock went in one direction it would slow more than in another in a round trip. . . be my guest in mathematically realizing this and testing it. You cannot just assume there is this immaterial Newtonian Clock that ticks throughout the universe and some how also minimally interacts with everything in the process assigning a precise time measurement anywhere in the universe. . . you cannot just claim this by fiat. Further, you literally DO NOT HAVE TO LEAVE GALILEAN RELATIVITY or classical physics to have your "multiple realities". Remember the Galilean transformation? Through this transformation you can transform from one INERTIAL frame to another without issue and thusly could show that the laws of physics (conservation of energy/linear and angular momentum) were followed in both frames of reference just as YOU will see the other frame moving away from you with some velocity (they are not identical frames of reference then) according to your frame of reference. . . wait. . . but the velocity was opposite that way in the other inertial frame of reference. . . which is the right velocity? In which the answer to said question is that this is a nonsense question as only a velocity assigned to a particular frame of reference (even the almighty stationary one) is what matters as you can only ask what velocity an object has with RESPECT to a particular frame of reference. In special relativity this idea is merely extended to measurements of lengths as well as clock ticks seen from your frame of reference. Again, you do not need to leave classical physics to see the fault in seeing this as a problem. Imagine you have a spaceship and a lone spaceman out in the middle of space at rest with respect to each other. The spaceship rockets away accelerating up then slows down to speed up in the opposite direction before slowing down again to enter the original frame of reference it resided in at the beginning. You both ask each other who really moved? First Person: I clearly didn't as I saw you speed away and during the whole time I remained at rest with respect to myself. I wasn't moving. Second Person: But I also saw myself as at rest the whole time. When you think about it kinematically and visually they both have some grounds to consider themselves both correct as there space-time diagrams would show similar but oppositely oriented collections of parabolic curves. To alleviate the issue we decide to mount an apprautus to the spaceship that is basically a small ball within a larger ball where the smaller ball is floating freely but the larger ball is attached to the spaceship. If we accelerated forward then the freely floating ball would just slowly float in the air until the now moving outer surface closed the distance and then impacted it. If we were in an inertial frame of reference the whole time then clearly the ball within there would just float as you would expect via our classical understanding of physics and inertial frames of reference (frames without any induced forces). You then both repeat the same experiment and predictably the floating spaceman would never notice any forces (fictitious or real) creep into his frame of reference while those in the spaceship would see their smaller ball begin to move as if some force was exerted on it but (assuming they accounted for all other forces) this cannot be as it clearly must remain inertial as we accounted for all forces. The only real answer is that a force was exerted on the spaceship which gave rise to our fictitious force on the ball. Thus the paradox is solved. . . the spaceship was the one that moved. With two inertial frames of reference (one moving away at constant velocity) you couldn't really do this because the paradox requires the frames come back together and if they both accelerated away then came back together they would still see the fictitious forces arise in their respective frames of reference. Just as in Galilean or classical physics there is NO RELATIVITY OF NON-INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE so is the case in special relativity because. . . you know. . . its first postulate is that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent not ALL NON-INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE ARE EQUIVALENT or ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE ARE EQUIVALENT. Which would be required for the twin paradox in that one of them has to turn around so to speak or both equally turn around but in the process in both situations their are people objectively changing inertial frames of reference. In the later case, however, given they accelerated for the same amount of proper time (slowed then speed up to come back) they would have identical world lines and there wouldn't be any net time difference with respect to each other when they re-enter the original inertial frame of reference because they would be entirely symmetric. . . the people in the original frame of reference however would notice that they were both equally younger assuming they remained inertial (we could as an experiment or mathematically set up a similar ball apparatus as before). This is an issue I see all the time in people trying to grasp relativity. In the theory (with minimal ontological assumptions of Minkowski spacetime) while you have this effect of length contraction that is rather mathematically explicit even by theory or ontology what you would actually observe is something like. . . In fact I'm pretty sure there is even a further different classical perspective of the cube that you would expect which does differ from the visual image seen above that special relativity would, being approximately correct, in the end expect. @swansont How'd I do?

Depends on what relationship "c" has to do with physics and the ontological entities we familiarize ourselves with as well as the dynamics of spacetime itself. We could go the direction of some philosophers and postulate that the structure of spacetime is different to the dynamical symmetries of physical systems (in this case the Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics and the admittance of a fastest casual speed). All that is required here is Lorentz invariance as far as i'm aware and whether spacetime has a hand in it or not is a different interpretational discussion to the clearly experimental fact of Lorentzian invariance.

Damn you are perceptive, yes i've heard of the GEM approximations and have thought about different approaches to defining the gravitational field. Given gauss law for gravitation, with the analogy to therefore electromagnetic waves, it makes sense that as an approximation or for personal investigation that I would merely use an inhomogeneous wave equation. Guess i'll just jump into it with the Jefimenko's Equations you linked to assuming they are synonymous with a gravito-electromagnetic field. The problem would be then discretizing it and then integrating. If you know how to do that with these equations or have resources that would be appreciated but i'll see what I can do on my own first then get back to you. Eliminating indices? If you are talking about tensors you are going to lose me rather quickly. I've sort'a looked into tenors but not much.

As far as that interpretation goes but this depends on whether you identify spacetime as distinct from matter and its configurations (classical substantivalism), that it cannot exist in the absence of matter with its accompanying configurations (relationism), or that matter is fully identified with a specific spacetime region so an empty spacetime is basically a spacetime devoid of quantum field looking spacetime configurations (super-substantivalism). You can even speculate whether it would mean anything for there to be spacetime without matter in GR without resorting to having to construct a new theory but newly analyze it again. In that arxiv article, while I cannot fully vouch for its veracity, presents the intriguing possibility that even in a universe thinly distributed with matter you could still get back a spacetime that was geometrically Minkowskian. We are assuming that spacetime could take on background inherent geometries independent of the mass distribution (as there isn't any supposed matter) in the empty spacetime.

Dear scienceforums.net, So i've tried indulging in doing simple python simulations of gravitational phenomenon and have been thinking about simulating a form of gravitation given by an inhomogeneous wave equation version of gauss law of gravity. This is for a personal interest of mine and not because I think such a representation of gravitation would actually be more successful in matching observations. Though i'm fairly curious as to what you would expect in terms of galactic rotation curves with such a simple time retarded potential theory of gravitation. The equation is given below, \[ \nabla^{2} \phi - \frac{1}{ c^{2} } \frac{\partial^{2} \phi }{ \partial t^{2} } = 4 \pi G \rho. \] Basically its a wave equation with a source and thusly I would expect that if I were to simulate this with a finite difference approximation, given no restrictions on the borders, \( f(x) \) initially is that of a single point of density at the origin, you would get something like this (click play on t). However this isn't what I get from simulating a single point at the origin with some finite value for all t, \[ \frac{\partial^{2} \phi }{ \partial x^{2} } - \frac{1}{ c^{2} } \frac{\partial^{2} \phi }{ \partial t^{2} } = f(x,t) . \] Instead it just blows up so I must be thinking about this wrong. The equation for the discretization of the 1 dimensional wave equation with a discretized source is, assuming \( \frac{c \Delta t}{\Delta x} = 1 \), \[ \phi^{t+1}_{i} = \phi^{t}_{i+1} + \phi^{t}_{i-1} - \phi^{t-1}_{i} - g^{t}_{i} \] Sincerely, freshman going on sophomore year

Assuming we got the interpretation right. No, i'm saying that relationally change occurs around it so that even if you were to regard the decay as purely random and before said decay it retained it's properties monadically in the most perfect sense it isn't in the absence of change (relational/monadic). Never said time or change is casually resulting its decay only that it isn't in the absence of change (system wise - greater universe) nor soon to probabilistically under go one. Why thank you.

The universe around it does and eventually the muon as well. Change without time in the Sydney Shoemaker sense doesn't preclude you could have objects that in the presence of change around them retain the same properties (relational/monadic) so that they do not change. Extend your example to a universe without any physical clocks/substantivalist time implied?

IF. . . you can have empty spacetime and our substantialist interpretation of general relativity holds water in the possible absence of quantum fields. Or that it holds at all. Map versus terrain issue here? Yes, it has the properties that you ascribe to a muon then after some allotted time (certain amount of ticks by physical clocks in nature or in the lab) it changes to have there be other particles with unique relational/monadic properties (mass, charge, spin, etc) but so what we regraded as the muon no longer exists. . . change has occurred due to a difference of properties after a certain number of clock ticks from one of our physical clocks/internal clock has gone by. As far as I know we do not happen to know that time is quantized or that there should be a benefit mathematically to experimentally show the improvement of moving from a real number line representation abstractly of change to that of the natural numbers.

When you can empirically show with the correct mathematical results (not hidden) the exact perihelion shift that mercury has or derive on approximate scales an inverse square law of gravitation only then would you hold any water. Though, when you say "they do not mutually accelerate towards each other" are you talking about the minute effect of gravitation that would be overcome with magnets (thusly not show up) or that north pole of a magnet won't accelerate to a south pole and vice versa? It's not that difficult to figure out the force required to keep two magnets apart or have them attract each other, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets. For closer approaches or more elaborate distributions you would perhaps require numerical simulations to do the work for you. In your ferrocell it looks to be the case that at the center point between the two magnets looks rather unstable (field lines wise) and would have the incident light behave in a similar manner to a sink or source, what about this does mainstream science not get? Weird how this comes into contradiction with mainstream scientific models. . . even though for everything we've made strides in technologically we've had to use this knowledge without much issue, 🤨 .

It's entirely undeniable that certain physical processes occur (in relation to set unit clocks) and what was investigated in Sydney Shoemakers thought experiment was whether time progressed without their being physical processes. What if every object remained spatially the same distance from each other and retained the same properties would we say that it still makes sense to say that some temporal change occurs despite no physical process alerting us to it? Distinct universal slices both previous and future oriented that look physically exactly the same being distinguished in some unknown manner (by what ever is defined ontologically as time substantially here)? I should note again that the thought experiment doesn't rule out nor come into complications with spatial or other change.

It's not that it's trivially true only that it conceptually possible whether it really is the case that all physical processes could halt and there still be a sense of time tick along without recourse to any physical thing thats a part of the universe. I wouldn't describe as correlation but rather as an abstract relation between two different but similar (perhaps the same) concepts of time which seems to be abstraction of imperfect physical change and the change of objects themselves which can be rather chaotic but also predictable. Change and time should be purely descriptions of what physical objects/relations/fields do but not what is (ontologically).

If I recall it was Kant who, through his transcendental idealism, attempted towards interpreting space/time as such by supposing that it was required for our cognitive understanding of the greater reality but that it did not exist separate from our cognitive faculties. Though, substantivalist time is similar in nature to a form of physical change that isn't entirely impeded by arbitrary physical relations. Think of the Sydney Shoemaker thought experiment of time without change in which despite the fact that no physical change is occurring there still seems to be an un-impeded (immaterial) external clock that ticks along at the same interval of years as measured by physical clocks in a non-frozen universe but not effected by this law-like freezing. The thing here is that in any of these situations we are not ignoring the fact that it's physical objects and the changes in their properties/relations which give rise to the rather abstract models of time or spacetime structure that were entertained by Einstein and Newton. I'd be more concerned with trying to strip the abstractions of time away but not loose site of the fundamental change inherent here. What i'm concerned with then is a more general perspective on physical objects than special relativity itself gives. Special relativity goes in a relatively good direction with it, under certain interpretations, champing the fact that there is no known physical mechanism that allows for universal simultaneity let alone the specification of an immutable universal clock across the universe (ignore global time slices in GR here). Not only that, there is a strong dependency of the change of objects relative to others perhaps making such a theory more amenable to those of a relationist guise. I've linked a Jstor paper on this which gets the gist of what my perspective is. 20533187.pdf

Okay, what do you mean by "physical" and "dimension". For the first term are you making reference to our everyday intuitions about the permanent existence of matter around us (such as chairs, the floor, air) and what particle physics has to say on what exists or constitutes objects. By the latter term are you making use of a mathematical definition of the concept of "dimensions" or is this something other than that. "where all aspects", so is this the equivalent of taking in the greater environment of the universe and from that happening to find a consistent rate of change upon which other processes can be compared to? I think every science has periods of reflection on their basic concepts. But the need for that should normally come from, in this case, the physicists themselves. If they get stuck in the progress of understanding of nature, if they are confronted with anomalies or inconsistencies in (or better between) their theories, or get stuck in trying to encompass more phenomena in one single theory, it is time to reflect on what they are doing, which includes reflecting on fundamental concepts they use, like time. Some might feel the urge earlier than others (justified or not). Compare with two different 'cultures' in physics concerning QM: there is the camp of 'shut up and calculate', and look at what technology was developed on that basis! On the other side there is the camp that asks fundamental questions, e.g. the Bell theorem and experiments that are based on it. For the shut-up-and-calculators such experiments seem to be at most interesting, but of no use. But look what happened afterwards: from there we have now quantum cryptography, maybe one day we will have useful quantum computers. So I would say: just give physicists time (pun intended). I believe they are called instrumentalists or operationalists, those you would call the "shut up and calculate" crowd of physicists. Much of the literature i've read on the subject of the concept of "mass" in physics has also been seen with a large changes due to the fact that special relativity with it's rest mass/relativistic mass come into interpretational conflict with inertial mass in classical physics as you may wonder if either of those masses themselves are the same as the inertial concept newton initially gave. How about if space and time are simply methods of the mind to structure information? Essentially, the mind takes certain raw data and uses this to continuously construct a model of reality, which we then become aware of as an object of consciousness. It is difficult to imagine what such a mental model could look like without some method to introduce spatial relationships and causal structure between its constituent parts. In that view, spacetime is quite real, just not necessarily as an attribute of the ‘world an sich’ (to paraphrase Kant, not that I necessarily agree with all his ideas), but rather as a function of the mind - which, interestingly, is itself part of the created model. Ahhh Kant, wonderful that somebody else has heard of his anti-realism strategy towards spacetime philosophy. Though, in reality it's intriguing to wonder how far you can strip reality of these properties of either space or time such that reality remains rather coherent. Perhaps at the base there is a sense of whether one object coincides with another or whether they overlap but that the metrical components of spacetime are more or less emergent. Think of an affine geometry in which there is no fundamental metrical notion aside from acknowledging that one thing is larger than another and the possibility of assigning metrical notions given a presumed base length being arbitrarily specified.

Physicists should care whether their exists time without change as this would seem to influence what sorts of quantum gravity/spacetime they are desiring to investigate (background independent vs. dependent). Though, it's not as simple as declaring it's 'real' or not as a mirage is certainly a rather 'real' experience to those who experience it and only an eliminative materialist would deny that you were having said experiences. Nobody would or does deny this but it's the conclusions we would make from such an observation that would play into deciding the truly important physical background that gave rise to it. In this case there aren't palm trees and a lake out there in the distance but this is merely a perceptual effect that tricked your brain which has been devoid of proper hydration to short cut even rather distant imagery to something familiar. I would think that to develop newer models and relay such ideas to the greater public they would make sure to choose their words rather carefully. If it's possible to move this to that section please feel free to do so. Yes. It is also as though some think it has an autonomous existence. I think much of this thought comes straight from pop-science authors and possibly even mainstream textbook interpretations of special relativity which exclaim the separate existence of this Minkowski spacetime from matter that bends or warps depending on your particular frame of reference. Because physicist don't bother, as long a they have perfect operational definitions of time. The question 'What is time?' is, as already remarked, a philosophical question. Not a question about physics. I think even you have no problem to understand what the traffic sign '50 km/h' means. Really, physicists have no problem with their 'dx/dt', or whatever changes according to t. And there are already several threads about time, and I think most of them in the philosophy-forum, where it belongs. Certainly some physicists do not. Such as Mach who tried to give an operationalist but failed abandonment of mass in classical physics by using the time integrated newtonian third law. Though, I find it rather strange we would shove such discussion far away from physics as in terms of certain theories (such as special relativity) its the pet philosophical interpretation popular with news organizations or well known physicists that got me interested in researching the philosophy here behind it. It's the philosophical interpretations that books, media, or even introductory material on the subject don't (pardon my language) shut up about that concerns me and yet were going to discuss it far away from physics?

Dear scienceforum.net, I once tried to include myself in a discussion topic that went under the label of "what is time?" in which many individuals entered with various perspectives either championing the non-existence of time with respect to change (including me) and others who took rather standard interpretations of relativity (special or general) to describe what they mean. I felt that given some of the resources or knowledge i've attained perhaps the discussion could actually go somewhere or be somewhat more productive. Over the course of those four years I had realized that philosophy had already been discussing this with already predefined terminology which greatly simplified the discussion so it was easier to see the distinctions being made. Those who were proponents of material/physical change being above time/space (perhaps even making it non-existent or its structures mere abstractions) go under the label of spacetime relationism. Those who are proponents of the distinction of change to time or the existence of time without change (check out the original Sydney Shoemaker thought experiment) went under the label of substantivalists. A good resource for this discussion can be found here and I also thought the John Earman book "world enough and space-time" outlines the discussion surrounding the philosophical interpretational difficulty of general relativity. I'll also note that in the context of special relativity while there is an interpretation of the theory popularized by Minkowski (I believe) and a Lorentz-ether perspective these are both substantivalist interpretations. Ignoring the vagueness surrounding the concept of the ether, the Minkowski interpretations basically amounts to saying that the symmetries we see dynamically come from our one-way interaction with a real existent spacetime that contains said symmetries inherently. The other perspective basically distinguishes between the symmetries inherent in the spacetime itself (in this case i've seen people go with Galilean or Newtonian spacetime) while the transformations dynamically of forces/fields follows special relativistic equations. Basically Loretz-ether theory here could be that newton was only partially wrong about spacetime but especially incorrect about his dynamics. I'm mentioning this because when people try to emphasize change over time they seem to either be under the impression or think they are required to assert that there is some unique simultaneity relation when in reality while you could build one up (a global time in certain solutions of general relativity) it's not required to hold relationism. Further, I know this includes philosophy (didn't know exactly where to put it), however, this discussion is fairly close in line with modern forms of physics investigations. Including forms of quantum gravity such as LQG, string theory, or other recent perspectives on quantum mechanics such as relational quantum mechanics. So. . . what is time then? What are thoughts given this context? Sincerely, college freshman going on sophomore year

Dear scienceforums.net, This would be my second posting and thought this would be the proper section to put this in. I've been trying to construct a generalized python simulation for any arbitrary n-bodies with predefined randomly assigned momentum and velocity. So far it was going well and even the initial run through went smoothly without many errors to be fixed but when graphing the data it seemed to me to be incomplete. Either I was shifting through the data wrongly, the initial conditions were off enough to not allow for a smooth nearly closed n-body system, or i've been wrong about the whole program apparatus to begin with. I should note that I use something called Jupyter Notebook to perform this. First was the introductory modules needed and after that the number "n" of bodies included. Then I randomly selected a random number from a triangular distribution which picked a number between 0 and 1 to then multiply the max mass to be included with this set being denoted "m". Then in another cell created a cell "s" where I which would be a single set that would include the x,y, and z positions followed by the momentum in those respective directions then the positions of second object with its accompanying momentum until we've gone through all the way to "n". It take the form of, [ x_1, y_1, z_1, p_x1, p_y1, p_z1, x_2, y_2, z_2, p_x2, p_y2, p_z2, ..., x_n, y_n, z_n, p_xn, p_yn, p_zn ]. The last nth bodies position and momentum are different because I wanted to set the center of mass and momentum at the origin so the momentum of the final object as to equal the combined negative momentum of the rest of the objects considered as is the position except we divide that value by the nth mass. The cell after this is the meat of the program which cycles on through "N" number of years at an hour a time as the units of the t's are seconds so this should explain the numbers used. I added up the number of gravitational forces "i" acting on the "jth" object not including itself without repetition then recalculated the momentum followed by the positions in the x,y, or z directions then append it to set "s" with the same order as before Rince and Repeat. Hopefully you can make sense of my program and check my work. Did I do this right? What are your opinions on my work? Sincerely, The victorious truther Multi-body Gravitational Simulation.pdf

@String Junky, then what did you think of my incomplete paper? I had done that in my free time for fun. Critiques are highly desired. It's so welcoming to see someone that is throughly peaked, interest wise, in all of the known sciences.

Okay. @String Junky, what have you spent the most time studying over the years in physics?

Yes, some people mean quantized vs. continuous when they say something is classical.

I always used classical physics to mean physics before Einstein's special/general theories of relativity. Classical is the same as obeying Newtonian laws of physics together with a galilean or similar spacetime structure.

@studiot, yes, it should be worded to mean that's constant but not dimensionless. I'll fix this, thank you for clarifying this.

Dear scienceforum.net, As of late i've been trying to investigate the non-mainstream claim i've heard around on certain "crank" youtube channels or in comment sections in relation to relativistic acceleration (constant proper acceleration). Some of these layman or non-mainstream critics of special relativity have claimed that because the electromagnetic interaction is finite in speed (rather than being instantaneous) that the slow drop off to a constant velocity in the long run (never reaching the speed of the interaction "c") can be fully explained or expected under a classical model of the interaction. What this model is or how it explains nor mathematically realizes exactly or approximately the special relativistic solution is a mystery because it's usually vague in how this is stated. This concept, however, had peaked my interest and I decided to investigate on my own by constructing a classical mathematical model to describe the interaction to then see what would come out of it. Below is an incomplete paper i've written on it for fun and would love for any of you here to critically analyze it as well as double check my work because it was getting rather insane towards the end. I hope this was the correct area to put this as it's speculation. Thank you for your close consideration. Sincerely, a freshmen going on sophomore year Non-Mainstream Solution to a Relativistic Problem.pdf

Yes, I have seen this site and this is where I did get the book idea from but was just wondering what other avenues I may go through. The list isn't necessarily isn't extensive to the nth degree I would assume but does contain a lot of valuable information.