Mordred

Its not speculation certain particles has no internal structure thats why they are called fundamental particles. An electron isn't made up of any other particle. Though this particular example is extremely stable. There are other fundamental particles that are not stable. Such as the muon or heavy quarks. The muon can decay into an electron without motion being involved. Neither has internal particles to move. A muon is not made out of electrons. A quark can change into a lighter quark but has no internal structure. The point being you can have types of decay without any internal motion. When it comes to elementary particles that are pointlike with no discernable volume and no internal structure. Your statement of internal movement does not apply. Yet those particles can still decay. In all honesty you should study physics instead of asserting its wrong. Not all change requires motion. The other point is time is a property. It isn't something that exists on its own. Much like you can't have color without an object. You require objects/particles to have something to measure rate of change. It really breaks down to a pointless argument. You can't measure time without having some object to measure. Stating time causes motion or motion causes time when both are simultaneous is futile. You can't freeze time as time is a property not an entity unto itself. Much like color is a property. You can't have color without an object. However time does not exert a force upon objects. How can it, there is no such thing as a time particle. So how can time cause motion when time has no energy or particles to perform work? So stating time causes motion makes absolutely no sense. Time simply is a property of objects/systems/states that change. Even if those systems/objects/states don't have motion. Example energy increasing or decreasing of an object. Energy also being a property of an object etc. Doesn't exist on its own. So doesn't move. As Studiot mentioned time can also measure duration of no change. So if you have a hypothetical universe at precisely absolute zero. Time still exists because we can ask the question. How long will that hypothetical universe remain at absolute zero.? There is no internal motion as that would not be absolute zero, but it still has a duration. (assuming you have some godlike view) ie able to view a universe from the outside.

Yes but that has nothing to do with Pull instead of push now does it. What you described is simply moving mass from one location and placing it at another. This will obviously cause a change in mutual attraction. As Studiot mentioned the distribution effects is also easily shown under Newtons laws

Thats a useless argument. Any math definition states the number of independant variables is the number of dimensions. Thats basic math. The number of independant variables =number of graph axis. In Lorentz Ether you have 4 axis to graph Not 3 hence spacetime diagrams. 3 dimensions of space with orthogonal axis+1 of time. Orthogonal simply means at 90 degrees to each other.

t in Newtons law is not independant Recall the transformations between Galilean relativity and Lorentz T is not needed to transform under Galiliean relativity. Thats why its 3d. Galilean Relativity [latex]t=\acute{t}, x=v\acute{x}, y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{z}[/latex] Time is variable between frames. This is the identical transformation SR uses. Lorentz ether [latex]t=\gamma\acute{t}, x=\gamma\acute{x}, y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{z}[/latex] Your way of calling Lorentz ether 3d is flat out false.

you keep calling it 3d when it is not 3d. I don't care if you prefer Lorentz ether over SR. At least call it a 4d model as it is properly called It has 4 coordinates that are independant. by any definition it is a 4d model

still doesn't change the detail you have 4 independant variables. 4 independant variables literally means 4 dimensions. t,x,y,z

Your absolutely right it is a dead end. What part about those calcs on those hyperlinks equate to Lorentz ether. Which is a 4d model not a 3d model Don't you understand? I repeat you compared Galilean relativity to SR. Not Lorentz ether to SR in that link. What is the transformation equation for absolute time Tim.? [latex]\acute{t}-t=0 [/latex]

Absolutely your catching on I didn't see anything out of place in your last post.

If you learned basic physics such as those posted by Studiot you can easily figure out the effect you just described. As Swansont already stated "So" meaning so what.

strong experimental support under rigorous and various tests. Science doesn't seek the truth per se it seeks the best explanation within experimental limits. As our understanding and technology improve any theory can be shown incorrect as new research presents itself.

Really how does a fundamental particle decay with motion internally when it has no other particles within its structure ?

Good question. The secret lies in how the nebula collapses. This is rather complex to explain but essentailly you have the Jean's equation that correlates the rate of infalling matter due to mass etc. This works with the density wave theory as well as the Poynting vectors. Each stage has different but related dynamics that you have to examine each stage separately. For example stage one the collapse itself aided by a cause of collapse. For our solar system. One proposed cause being a supernova nearby. This collapse forms the sun first, however the rotation dynamics induce density waves prior to the Sun going into the fusion stage. A consequence of density waves and rotation is that different mass particles start to distribute differently due to escape velocity orbit relations. Once the Sun enters its fusion stage it causes an outgassing pushing lighter materials away from the sun. The temperature and magnetic field of the sun generates a phenomena due to Poynting vectors in which the different charged particles are driven in different directions. One charge toward the sun, the other away from the Sun. However the Poynting vectors only affect extremely small particles. Smaller than grains of sand. Yet it essentially cleans up the region near the Sun. Through these combinations heavier elements tend to get distributed near the Sun with your lighter elements towards the outer radius. So its not due to one cause but numerous causes.

Observer amounts to interferance sufficient to cause decoherence. Decoherence causing a loss of superposition. I would recommend first learning Schrodingers equation. Then look at decoherence equations. The values will depend on your system state but the formulas to run the calcs can be found here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence Yes various environment factors can cause decoherence even temperature/gravity/fields etc. Yet the influence must cause sufficient interferance. The questions your asking are not obtuse they are very good questions. Unfortunately also difficult to answer lol (particularly since QM is one of my weaker subjects)

Well for that you would have to understand how constructive and destructive interferance works with intensity. You most likely would have extreme difficulty finding interferance values on an electron for gravity. This is because the Coulomb constant is roughly 10^20 times greater than the gravitational constant. So its literally swamped out by electrostatic charge. There are some very complex experiments for superposition of heavier mass items in freefall to simulate zero g but I don't know the results. An observer has to generate a measurable interferance pattern is about the only answer I can provide on that.

well for one thing gravity on Earth simply has negligible effect on an electron. Gravity is simply too weak to affect individual particles. We can't even measure interferance due to gravity for an electron or any individual particle. Gravity is literally swamped out by electrostatic charge. In case of detail gravity has very little influence at the quantum scale. Try it take the mass of an electron at 9.1×10^-31 and multiply it by 9.8 m/s^2 using f=ma. You should get [latex] 8.9*10^{-30}[/latex] Newtons of force roughly

yes the number of slits affects the probabilities. However wave particle duality and the Heisenburg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with how clever we are in measurement. They are both fundamental aspects of particles in our universe. Here is as close to basic as I can find on bullets (particles) vs waves. http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys201/LectureNotes/TwoSlitExpt.pdf It doesnt detail constructive vs destructive interferance but we can get into that later.

Might help if you understand the term Superposition. Sean Carroll has a decent coverage (make sure you click the underlined hyperlinks on the key terminologies) http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_superposition.html Put simply superposition is your probabilities once you make a measurement you know the state so its no longer probalistic but determined.

my wifes fav color is pink. I would never wear pink no way no how lol. I prefer dragon t shirts from that series lol

Sorry obviously you can't show the difference mathematically otherwise you would. It is empirically impossible to seperate Lorentz ether and SR using the same transformation rules. Yet you yourself know this fact as you yourself mentioned this detail. Yet you claim to be able to show a difference. I'm done with your claims without substance, you can't even get the mathematical dimensions correct. I'm tired of pointing these key details to you just so you can claim "thats a physics argument not a metaphysics argument" If the metaphysics arguments don't demonstrate the physics or math then it is utterly useless. You can't even agree on isotropy of light when presented with a professional peer reviewed test. Your only counter argument is utterly useless Yet according to you all metaphysics papers were wrong on presentism. I can quote that section for you if you don't recall it. Which flat out tells me you don't even adhere to metaphysics definitions. by the way synchronization is lost with seperation. That is why you use Einstein synchronization to account for loss of synchronization. You probably won't agree with that statement either lol The worse part is I even gave you the math to make Lorentz ether work in keeping c constant. Which was the entire purpose to Lorentz ether. I know precisely what you were after and I am flat out telling you "Your wrong" Reasons why your wrong have been repeated too many times to count. Thats funny Tim I haven't seen a single calculation from you in any of your threads in the philosophy forum. I already pointed out you can't call Lorentz ether theory 3d as it DOES NOT have absolute time. So your rinky dink car example does not apply to Lorentz ether under 3d but under 4d. As a matter of fact I am the only poster that even covered the math involved. I fully agree with this please define real or physical. While your at it define what you mean by "true one way speed of light" Unfortunately Voigt's work never got recognition which Lorentz based most of his work from. Yet he even stated c is invarient and isotropic. The only model where that is not the case is Galilean relativity. Also in Galilean relativity there is no speed limit. Maybe you should actually study the difference between Galilean 3d and 4d spacetime models such as Lorentz ether/Minkowskii/SR. Perhaps start with how a dimension is mathematically defined.

My wifes favourite shirt.

Looks like I was right, somewhere someone would be testing superposition in as close to zero G as feasible. Thanks for the article above

Yeah I forgot the PC version is actually trickier in this instance than the mobile version. OK lets stick to PC version where you won't see the quote tags. Do a single quote then edit the section in the grey box. Type your reply outside that grey area. Then post and do another quote, follow the same procedure and edit the unneeded lines. The second quote should place at the end of your previous reply reply just to demonstrate the above procedure works, just had to test on PC version lol I usually use my phone

when you use the quote function you will notice two quote commands enclosed by [...] copy those two quote commands one at the beginning and one at the end of the quoted section. Copy them and place them where you want your seperations. Keep your replies outside the enclosed quote commands.

This is probably one of better explanations I've seen on any forum. Well thought out and concise.+1

This is pointless. I'm not wasting my time on someone who has no interest in learning. Yet doesn't even understand the subject he is arguing against. It was good enough to predict the wavefunctions of a gravity wave long before we detected one. I'll stick to those lies as they make accurate predictions. As well as used in many everyday real life applications.