Mordred

Really you might try using Google yourself. Try googling invariant mass, variant mass, electromagnetic mass, rest mass and inertial mass. (The last two were replaced by the first two) No I No I am referring to the nature of your responses.

With that last response to Swansont you have proven to me at least. We are not accomplishing anything here.

I have to ask this. Did you even bother looking at the link provided by Studiot ? There is a very important detail you missed with regards to \(\mu_O\). I won't tell you what it is, not yet anyways. I want to see if you can find that important detail yourself.

So you keep claiming over and over again. Your claims do not change 100 years of experimental research and precision tests. This has been pointed out to you numerous times. However you keep ignoring or denying it. Guess what your opinion won't change the evidence. BS pure and simple You obviously don't understand physics well enough to determine anything regarding the rules of physics.

I think the difficulty you might be having is that All measurements are frame dependent. However the difference is with invariant quantities regardless of the chosen frame or multiple frames every observer will measure the same value. Variant quantities will vary between different observers. It is the latter we often term frame dependent.

Would also be useful to numerous readers to include Snells law.

I can't recall which recent thread in speculation I had posted this. However for precision tests on Lorentz invariance which includes constancy of c. The highest precision test I'm aware of is \(0.707×10^{-11}\) for the upper bound on any deviation for Lorentz invariance. This value is an overall tally of numerous related test methods

Thanks Studiot I like the variation of one of the more common tests for the permittivity and permeability relations. It's handy that the equipment is readily accessible to an average student.

encountered the following paper while doing research on Big Bang nucleosynthesis. I was looking at how the PMNS mixing matrix was developed when I came across the following this article seems to imply that leptogenesis and subsequently Baryogenesis can be explained via the Higgs seesaw via the Right hand neutrino mixing angles. I question the accuracy of this claim so will be examining it further but felt posting here may interest other members as well.

Building the full Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix from six independent Majorana-type phases https://cds.cern.ch/record/1127373/files/GetPDFServlet.pdf further examining the following from the article \(\frac{N_b}{N_\gamma}=(6.1^{+0.3}_{-0.2})*10^{-10}\) hrrm this seems to imply this Cern paper considers right hand neutrinos accounting for leptogenesis.

excuse me a car moving at 70 km/hour certainly delivers a force when it hits a brick wall

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.

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.