swansont

deema has been excused, owing to persistent soapboxing and spamming

Especially since they didn’t exist back then, though the idea had been proposed. Zones as offsets from GMT were still a few decades off. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone edit: xpost with Genady

7/8 I missed the music one (the order gets mixed each time)

! Moderator Note Speculations must be backed up with evidence and/or a model. What do you have to offer?

An engine propelling a car isn’t a proposition that’s contrary to accepted science. At SFN there are requirements for such speculation. Another unsupported claim. You made the claim before I called you out on providing support for it. (An application of causality here - the cause must precede the result) “My” claim is that of mainstream physics, and you appear to be familiar with the existence of time dilation. I pointed you to the derivation, because that’s the evidence that supports my claim. So yes, as far as the existing evidence goes, I did answer your question. Your position here is in stark contrast to your other posts where you imply that you know what you’re talking about. But it’s not, because you can arrive at the result without assuming an ether.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not your blog

The phrase “Jack and Jill went up the hill” represents a real physical process, but is not actually a physical process. What you believe is immaterial. In science it’s what you can show. You say (in reference to time dilation) “real physical effects have real physical causes” but then refuse to back this up by explaining anything about this alleged physical process You keep referring to an ether theory, but “don't insist that the ether exists” You say time dilation is an effect on clocks, but then…nothing. We have rules about soapboxing and arguing in good faith. If you can’t comply, then stop making the claims.

Then how could it affect anything, like a clock? Time is a physical thing?

No, we are discussing whether physics, specifically, represents things that exist in reality, or whether these are mathematical conveniences. There is no mainstream physics that says things are “made of” energy. I am asking which is the fundamental entity, in your view, and which is the emergent property. The question was whether forces represent reality. But you’ve admitted here that your view is that none of QM is real.

It’s historical - there is an existing field of (classical) mechanics, which deals with the motion of objects - e.g. translation, rotation, oscillation, circular motion

That’s because kinematic time dilation is not a result of the physical path. It’s incumbent on the ones proposing an ether to do so. Until that happens, it’s provisional at best, and isn’t accepted until that experimental evidence exists. And one must acknowledge the experiments that have tried to detect an ether, and failed to do so.

Either the relative velocity is the pertinent quantity, or some absolute velocity is. It can’t be both. They are mathematically related. One would have to be emergent from the other.

To whichever reference you choose. It won’t matter. You can’t have two realities. I think you are diluting the notion of reality to the point where it’s meaningless. How would they measure different results? The velocity relative to the crystal is what matters. They would only measure different velocities if there was a preferred frame, but there isn’t.

Not for inertial frames. Newton’s first law tells you when the second law works. And we already know you need fictitious forces (which sort of gives away the game) if the first law doesn’t apply. You can’t have personal laws. There is no rest frame of the universe, and we can’t have a discussion about reality if you decide to have your own version of it. Then you have some work to do, understanding physics. We’re talking about reality. If you concede that these are concepts, and not reality, then this particular discussion is over, right? Which is the underlying reality, forces or energy? (or none of the above)

As someone mentioned in another thread, there are formulations of mechanics that do not use forces - Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics.

I urge you to look at the derivation of time dilation. Without that as a common base, there is no discussion. And it just leaves you criticizing a theory you aren’t familiar with. I also note that you haven’t defended your claims at all, but expect me to defend a strawman of your fabrication. Which law of physics requires time to be the same in all frames? I stand on the shoulders of giants, who developed the ideas. Unfortunately they can’t understand them for you. ! Moderator Note We aren’t discussing your diagram here. That discussion is taking place in your thread

No, it’s the behavior of time. There’s nothing in the derivation of time dilation that involves a clock. Yes, something happened to the ticking rate, because e.g. time moved at a slower pace, and clocks measure time. If you are inferring that there is some mechanical effect on the clock, it’s incumbent upon you to provide the details, and the evidence. They are your assertions, not mine. You have not said what you think either of the terms actually means, but the notion of not having a preferred frame is limited to inertial frames, i.e. the conditions under which time dilation is derived and where the symmetry of different frames holds. Causality refers to ordering of events. It does not mean that everything has a mechanistic cause. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect on clocks, so it does not require a mechanistic cause. It’s an effect on time, owing to the invariance of c.

My attitude is that if you show up intending to discuss physics - in a context that you are challenging mainstream physics - you should have sufficient knowledge to do so. I shouldn’t have to explain the basics to someone who is not asking that the basics be explained. It’s interesting that you object to not having a mechanism for time dilation but not to having none for time. You are misusing what is meant by a preferred frame, and apparently, causality.

I believe that was Phi’s point: “fabric” is an amateur or pop-sci description, and if you’re going to have a serious discussion of science, you can’t be invoking amateur descriptions. What “fundamental” principle is that? Special relativity is a fairly straightforward consequence of the invariance of c. No magic involved.

Your diagrams explain far less than you might hope. It makes sense to you because you know all of the connections you have in your mind, but we don’t, because nobody is telepathic. And they don’t allow for specific predictions

! Moderator Note This was put in speculations because it’s not mainstream science, and it wasn’t going to remain in science news, because it’s not science news You’ve been afforded several chances to comply with the rules. Since you choose to not comply, this is closed.

I can go and visit Idaho. Grab a potato. Have bugs plastered all over my car (which is what happened when I drove through the state)

You can look up the model number with a search engine. Screen size is often given as the diagonal measurement

! Moderator Note My take is the standard model. You need to post your take, or this will be closed.

—- Special relativity tells you that it is not describing reality, since it can’t tell you if you are really moving or you are at rest. What you know us there is relative motion - something you can measure. We have discussions about what is time, because there are questions about what it is at a fundamental level. Doesn’t sound like physics has described reality there. Similarly with mass. We have a functional physics definition, but that’s not telling us what it really is. That’s only a problem if you demand that physics be revealing reality. No, not everything, but the acceptance of a model is based on whether it works - i.e. agrees with experiment, which means measurement of observed behavior.