Delta1212

Rest mass is absolute. It's called rest mass to stand in contrast to relativistic mass, but that's considered something of an out-dated concept, I believe.

Special Relativity is entirely based upon the (thoroughly tested) premise of the speed of light being constant in a vacuum. Can I ask what element of relativity you are familiar with if you aren't aware of the connection with light? Or are you asking how the connection works rather than about the connection's existence?

I'm sorry, but holding up a ruler to an object is no more demonstration of space than taking a series of pictures of it is a demonstration of time. Since motion is the only thing that exists, I am willing to grant that it must travel through a dimension when moving. However, it only moves in one direction at a time, so you have only proven the existence of one dimension. Please prove there is also a Y and Z axis.

For one, our cultural memory doesn't extend past a few thousand years in any great detail. The religions we're aware of are not hundreds of thousands of years old. Second, at no point was anyone alive to say "wow, my grandpa was an ape!" Everyone who ever lived was basically the same as everyone who was alive at the same time they were. The differences between generations would have been basically imperceptible. You would have needed someone to hang around watching other people for at least tens to hundreds of thoudreds of thousands of years to even notice a change, and if you wanted them to realize we share a common ancestor with other apes or monkeys, you're talking millions of years. So in summary, we don't have religions that teach evolution as a result of it being past down because oral tradition is essentially a giant game of telephone and we don't retain detail from long enough ago for evolutionary scales, and even if we did, no one has ever been alive long enough to notice evolution acting on humanity because the human lifespan isn't long enough to observe enough human generations.

The answer to your first question is yes. I don't understand what your second question is asking.

Proves that X, Y and Z coordinates have a physical existence to me. You said that you can demonstrate them easily, so it should be no problem.

Assuming gravitons exist, of course. The lack of a quantum theory of gravity is a problem for taking quantum effects into account.

Color is based on frequency. As time slows down, frequency decreases. Red is at the low end of the light spectrum, so decreasing frequency due to relative speed (or time) is called red shift. A corresponding increase in frequency is called blue shift. As objects blue shift, their brightness increases. As they red shift, the brightness decreases. If the light red shifts far enough, the brightness will be effectively zero and you will see only blackness. Since black holes don't emit light and absorb any light that passes through the event horizon, the event horizon appears as a solid black area (hence the name). Any object falling in would red-shift until it appeared solid black... against the black hole. Thus, it would not be detectable by light and you would be unable to see it.

I think you should take some time to learn what relativity actually says. The whole "light always travels at the same speed" thing makes much more sense once you understand the mechanics of how that happens and what it means. It's actually not all that complicated, but it does take some mental adjusting to since speed, time and distance don't actually work the way we generally intuit that they do based on our daily experience with them.

Took me a second to realize that this is actually true.

#6 is the same type of reasoning with probabilities that leads people to conclude that the world is about to end, because if it continues for an appreciably longer time, there will be many more people who live later than now than lived before now, and the probability of them living now instead of later is very small. Thus, it's likely that the world ends soon. To put this another way, I don't know exactly what the odds of someone being born with my DNA are. I know it is greater than zero, because I exist, and less than 1, because I know people who don't have my exact DNA. There have been better than 100 billion people who have ever lived, so let's say that the odds of someone being born with my exact DNA are greater than one in a trillion, to give myself decent odds of being born. The sub-range of all odds between 1 in a trillion and 1 in a billion is very small, even smaller than the sub-range falling between one in a hundred million billion and one in a billion that you describe. Therefore it is likely that the true odds of being born with my exact DNA are greater than 1 in a billion. Therefore it is highly likely that there are at least 7 people alive today with my exact DNA.

When you're proposing mechanisms pioneered by Terry Pratchett, you may wish to review the chain of logic that lead you to seriously consider them.

From any object's perspective, though, it never moves. It can accelerate, but when not accelerating, everything else is moving, not the object. Thus, in the moment, motion isn't real either except for other things.

But you can't define motion without time in the same way you can't define motion without space. Motion involves an object covering a distance interval over the course of a time interval. Without a time interval, the object can't change position. If you remove the spatial dimensions, everything happens in the same place. If you remove the temporal dimension, everything happens at the same time. A dimension is simply a way of separating events. Since events are separated in both space and time, time acts like a dimension.

It's a temporal dimension, which is similar to a spatial dimension in certain aspects and different in others. In a coordinate system, events can be defined as happening at x,y,z,t. When editing the boundaries of an object, you have length, width, depth and duration. When measuring speed, everything moves at c through spacetime. When an object is at rest in the spatial dimensions, it is traveling at maximum speed through the time dimension, and when it moves through space, its speed through time slows accordingly. That doesn't mean that you can travel back in time, or that universes split off to accommodate time paradoxes. But we know that time exists in the same way we know that the x, y and z axes exist: They separate events. It's very easy to take any of the dimensions for granted because we're so used to dealing with them, but while questioning time, you should also stop and question what distance actually is. Especially since, like time, how far away things are in space is malleable depending on how fast you are moving relative to them. My phone doesn't occupy the same space as my head because it's a foot in front of me, and my finger isn't hitting the 't' and 'i' keys simultaneously because the events are separated by a second. All dimensions do is mark separation. Time does this as well, and so I think qualifies as a real dimension, even if it doesn't have exactly the same behavior as the other three (hence marking it as a temporal rather than spacial dimension).

He's saying that the meteoroid is traveling at 1,000 mph, while we're traveling at 52,000 mph. Thus it appears to move at 53,000 mph. Which ignores that it's still traveling at 53,000 mph relative to Earth and that there's no "astronomical perspective" for it to have a speed of 1,000 mph unless you arbitrarily choose a frame in which it's moving 1,000 mph. But that doesn't really mean anything.

I think you are confusing the concept of time existing with the idea that time travel is possible.

Well, in that case, motion can't be directly observed either. I can certainly remember where something was, and I can see where it is now. My brain will interpret two sequential images that are similar but not identical in their positioning a as movement, but you can't actually see movement. Can you provide me with proof that movement actually occurs? It must exist instantaneously since time is not a component.

The more specific a prediction is, the more credence it will be given when it bears out. Imagine I have a deck of cards and ask you to pick one. If I accurately predict the color of your card, that's not super impressive because I had a 50/50 shot at getting it right just by luck. If I predict the suit, that's a bit cooler, but I still had a one in four shot at getting it right just by chance. If I can accurately predict the number (or face) on the card, that's getting to be interesting because there's a better than 90% chance of getting it wrong if I'm just guessing. If I can accurately predict all three, that's notable because there's less than a 2% chance of me being able to correctly predict that just randomly (Aside: I have a friend who used to do a joke card trick where he'd offer strangers the deck and then randomly and incorrectly guess their card as an ice breaker. The one time he actually got it right he nearly fell off his chair.) Anyway, the point is that the more specific you can be, the less likely you are to get lucky, and the more seriously people will take you if your prediction bears out.

I eliminated time from the equation since you insist it hasn't been proven to exist. Unfortunately, nothing moved once I hit the pause button.

One might even say that the scientific method is purposely structured as it is for the explicit purpose of making such cross checking as easy as it can possibly be made.

Out of curiosity, how do you prove motion exists without time existing?

It's called "peer-review." It's a requirement for being published in any reputable scientific journal. And I think you mean "cross-examining" as "cross-referencing" means something else.

I think you were right the first time. If 1 < 3U then U > 1/3. If U < 1/3, then 1>3U.

The doctor doesn't say "Don't know the language: tough" and expect patients to take years of courses to understand what was said. However, a person who says they are a doctor, too, and has no idea what that means because they haven't taken years of courses would be suspect. At best such a person is interested in medicine or anatomy, but you wouldn't put them in charge of a large medical trial because they don't have the proper training to conduct it, they lack the knowledge to interpret the results in a meaningful fashion and they don't have the technical vocabulary to communicate the results. If I tell a doctor that I've discovered a cute for cancer because when I cut open my patient's tummy and removed the yellow round thing on the left they got better, that doctor is going to have no idea what I'm talking about. It leaves open too many questions to be useful: Where did I cut exactly? What did I remove? The tumor? Some gland or organ? What does 'got better' mean? Did the tumor shrink? Disappear? Did it just relieve the symptoms? How long did the patient remain cancer-free assuming that's even what happened? Were there any side effects? How risky was the surgery? How can we be sure the surgery actually did anything and the patient 'getting better' wasn't caused by something else or a temporary result of the placebo effect? There are similar issues with amateur science, although it is slightly easier to practice than amateur medicine since you won't get arrested. Scientists predict, record and communicate results in a specific way because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered in order to judge the quality of the information and to allow others to formulate ways to further test that information. I have a keen interest in science, an above average grasp of mathematics and the ability to conduct experiments if I so choose. I do not consider myself a scientist, although if I decided to work at it I suppose I could be considered an amateur scientist. That said, I have absolutely no expectation that I will ever publish anything, and certainly not anything on the cutting edge of theoretical physics. My knowledge of the field and of the process is not where it would need to be for that to be realistic. That said, let's say I make some grand discovery that will revolutionize science somehow. My very first step is going to be to find someone working in the field who is willing to help me either by directly reformulating the experiment and the necessary math so that it will be scientifically meaningful, and then with preparing the paper to publish, or at least by pointing me in the direction of resources that will let me learn how to do it myself. It's good to try to communicate with the public on a level that is generally understandable, but if you try to communicate that way within the field, you wind up spewing useless gobbledygook.