The instinct of reality is distorted by current physics

[StringJunky]

It should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler - Einstein.

[wei guo]

9 hours ago, Mordred said:

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 

I think you still do not really understand what I say. This is not natural because you make an artificial hypothesis to equal the flow of time with another phenomenon as the timer (no matter the set and rise of the sun, the swing of the pendulum, the fall of sands or electron's transition) . The decision to choose which phenomenon as the timer is determined by observers. For example, there are two groups of species. A group of one species A can observe a phenomenon and they choose this phenomenon as the timer but the group of another species B cannot observe this phenomenon, so they have to choose another phenomenon that can be perceived by them as the timer. So, species A and B use different sort of timer to measure time. This is the artificial decision which has the subjective characteristic. 'artificial' is not limited to the species of human beings but involves all forms of 'observers' who want to understand the instinct of reality. So now, I think I explain this quite clearly and you can understand what I mean in "artificial". 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler - Einstein.

This is what science should be. But the development of physics does not follow the rule of Occam's razor. Reality has been added too many things that does not belong to it.

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, wei guo said:

I think I explain this quite clearly and you can understand what I mean in "artificial". 

I understand that you in fact mean "arbitrary."

[Eise]

21 minutes ago, wei guo said:

This is what science should be. But the development of physics does not follow the rule of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor doesn't say 'make it as simple that wei guo understands it'. Sorry.

[Mordred]

58 minutes ago, wei guo said:

I think you still do not really understand what I say. This is not natural because you make an artificial hypothesis to equal the flow of time with another phenomenon as the timer (no matter the set and rise of the sun, the swing of the pendulum, the fall of sands or electron's transition) . The decision to choose which phenomenon as the timer is determined by observers. For example, there are two groups of species. A group of one species A can observe a phenomenon and they choose this phenomenon as the timer but the group of another species B cannot observe this phenomenon, so they have to choose another phenomenon that can be perceived by them as the timer. So, species A and B use different sort of timer to measure time. This is the artificial decision which has the subjective characteristic. 'artificial' is not limited to the species of human beings but involves all forms of 'observers' who want to understand the instinct of reality. So now, I think I explain this quite clearly and you can understand what I mean in "artificial". 

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".

 

58 minutes ago, wei guo said:

 

This is what science should be. But the development of physics does not follow the rule of Occam's razor. Reality has been added too many things that does not belong to it.

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.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

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".

I know you learn physics for many years. That is why you are getting into that abstract frame too much. 'invariant quantities' is the explanation for the explanation, which is a derived product after several logic chaos and have to be put on a mathematical coat. Anything, if only put on a mathematical coat can be explained, must have some logical chaos inside. Otherwise, you just can explain it by using the everyday language which can be easily understood by the people who are generally educated.  Reality is just around us in daily life. Do not put on any extra abstract coat on it. 

[Genady]

26 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Reality is just around us in daily life.

Only a very small slice of reality is around us in daily life. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Genady

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Reality is just around us in daily life. Do not put on any extra abstract coat on it. 

!

Moderator Note

This approach to your subject isn't working. Our Speculations section is for listening to your explanation of your idea, and you reject too much of mainstream physics for any discussion about this to be meaningful. You can't explain it in a way that anyone else can understand, and you reject the explanations others have studied and find very useful.

We're on page 6 now, so either come up with something that helps us understand your concepts or I'll have to close the thread, and you won't be able to mention it again, since you couldn't support it. More rigor, please.

 

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, wei guo said:

I know you learn physics for many years. That is why you are getting into that abstract frame too much. 'invariant quantities' is the explanation for the explanation, which is a derived product after several logic chaos and have to be put on a mathematical coat. Anything, if only put on a mathematical coat can be explained, must have some logical chaos inside. Otherwise, you just can explain it by using the everyday language which can be easily understood by the people who are generally educated.  Reality is just around us in daily life. Do not put on any extra abstract coat on it. 

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 

[wei guo]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This approach to your subject isn't working. Our Speculations section is for listening to your explanation of your idea, and you reject too much of mainstream physics for any discussion about this to be meaningful. You can't explain it in a way that anyone else can understand, and you reject the explanations others have studied and find very useful.

We're on page 6 now, so either come up with something that helps us understand your concepts or I'll have to close the thread, and you won't be able to mention it again, since you couldn't support it. More rigor, please.

 

I gave the detail in the thread in page 5. Ok. We just go back that specific question. Have you read the paragraph I quoted in page 5 about the time dilation by comparing two kinds of clock? If not, then you read it now and after that, you tell me that you still support the dilation occurs on time or merely on timer? Just answer this simple question. This question is something quite specific and we can focus on it more and more deeply.  I think this question is a good outlet to breakthrough.

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

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 

I think it is better to focus on the specific question. The general discussion cannot wake you up. Just go back that specific question. Have you read the paragraph I quoted in page 5 about the time dilation by comparing two kinds of clock? If not, then you read it now and after that, you tell me that you still support the dilation occurs on time or merely on timer? Just answer this simple question. Very simple. The first one or the second one ?

9 hours ago, Genady said:

Only a very small slice of reality is around us in daily life. 

But the operating mechanism behind all phenomena is consistent because all phenomena, either perceived or non-perceived, has the same prototype of reality.

11 hours ago, Genady said:

I understand that you in fact mean "arbitrary."

Yes. This word "arbitrary" can enhance to express what I mean. 

[Mordred]

Yes I have read it, and I am telling you time dilation does not have any dependency on what type of clock or measurement device is used. 

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, wei guo said:

But the operating mechanism behind all phenomena is consistent because all phenomena, either perceived or non-perceived, has the same prototype of reality.

But by observing only a small subset of all phenomena you can understand only a small part of the "operating mechanism."

[wei guo]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yes I have read it, and I am telling you time dilation does not have any dependency on what type of clock or measurement device is used. 

Ok. So right now you still support dilation happens on time not timer, Yes? Then let us talk about this in detail step by step. Suppose If you only have a sand clock in your hand and regard this is the most accurate timer to measure time, then you put this timer at different positions where the gravity is different, then all the sands in the sand clock at the position which has the higher gravity would fall faster than the other one(or spend less time to go down from the top to the bottom of the inside space of the sand clock than the other one), you admit this is the truth ? Please just simply answer yes or no.

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Ok. So right now you still support dilation happens on time not timer, Yes? Then let us talk about this in detail step by step. Suppose If you only have a sand clock in your hand and regard this is the most accurate timer to measure time, then you put this timer at different positions where the gravity is different, then all the sands in the sand clock at the position which has the higher gravity would fall faster than the other one(or spend less time to go down from the top to the bottom of the inside space of the sand clock than the other one), you admit this is the truth ? Please just simply answer yes or no.

!

Moderator Note

This is enough to tell me you are unserious about discussing physics. Either you don’t understand relativity well enough to know that this is a flawed test and thus is irrelevant, or you do, and this is an argument in bad faith.

Either way, we’re finished here.

You’re free to ask questions to fill in the significant gaps in your knowledge, but no more preaching.