Strange

Please learn to use the "Quote" function. It makes it much easier to see what you are responding to. Anything you can say about length being a "measurement" or a "mathematical construct" applies equally to time. Similarly, the only person saying that time flows is YOU. So you are just arguing with yourself, which is kinda pointless. If that publication existed (outside your imagination) you would be able to tell us what it was. As you can't, I am going to assume it doesn't exist. The same is true of length. Or mass. Or electric charge. We have mathematical descriptions of these things. But they are not the same as the things themselves. But any discussion of "the things themselves" is philosophy, not science. Please stop doing that then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event#Economic_considerations

The documentary might still be worth watching as it is very visual

One of my favourite examples is The Don Ellis Orchestra - he had a trumpet made so he could play quarter tones. The sound just makes me smile every time. Check out Electric Bath. And here is a 31 tone guitar Here is a fascinating (and slightly bizarre!) documentary on microtonal music: http://thesonicsky.com/video/sonic-sky-introduction/

Not sure a science forum is the best place to ask a question like this.

To do that requires creating a quantum theory of gravity (that can be tested). That is the hard part. The question was: why is that hard.

You have not referenced any publication. Perhaps you forgot . A clock doesn't measure linear motion. It measures time, which doesn't require motion. The more accurate clocks are, the less motion they have. Where is this published? Please provide a link or a reference. That is not a scientific question. Time exists in our models and that is all science has to say on the matter.

The problem with that is that it sets up a deliberately unrealistic scenario (as it says). So I'm not sure how one can draw any useful conclusions from it. (It is a bit like those physics questions that start "if you were travelling faster than light...")

! Moderator Note Why not follow the rules of the forum and present one of the arguments here so it can be discussed? Moved to Speculations.

Today I learned that (in newer cars, at least) there is a little arrow next to the fuel gauge to let you know which side the tank is:

That is probably more accurate. GR requires it to be continuous. It is thought that in a quantum theory of gravity it would be quantised. But attempts to test if spacetime is spacetime have produced negative results. Yeah, sorry. The forum isn't good with nested quotes. I'll see if I can fix it.

We have two explanations of gravitational pull. One is Newton's model that masses create a force between one another (why? because that is what mass does). The equations he came up with to describe that are still valid in most circumstances. Secondly, we have Einsteins model of curved spacetime. The "pull" then is just an effect of use "moving" along the time dimension in this curved space time. As a rough analogy, imagine two people on the surface of the earth, separated by a few miles and both walking northwards at a steady pace. (In this analogy, lines of longitude are the time dimension and "north" means the future) As they proceed, they will get closer together as they approach the North Pole. There is no force pushing them together, it is just the effects of geometry. It seems simple to say "they both have a singularity" but these are very different (as I say, one is on the future and the other is in the past). I'm not quite sure what that means. Any difference in pressure is caused by gravity. The reason stuff falls into a black hole is exactly the same reason it falls to the ground: gravity. Nothing to do with low pressure. The definition I gave is one that people often use and it is totally incorrect! Good! We are all wrong some of the time! Someone described science as the process of being constructively wrong (or something like that).

I have no idea if that accurately reflects Argo's thoughts, but kudos for trying! I don't like/understand the term "overlay". We are simply going from a model based on three dimensions of space to one based on four dimensions. Time doesn't "overlay" the others, it is just added to them. If you have a 2D square that you then project to form a 3D cube, you wouldn't say that the 3rd dimension "overlays" the others. Would you. The idea of a series of photographic stills (like the frames of a movie) stacked up one behind the other, is a reasonable analogy for the concept of spacetime. Apart from the facts that: - It only works for 2D space, but that's OK for an analogy. - Time is continuous, so there aren't a series of frames, there is a continuous change - It doesn't capture the fact that observers in different frames of references (eg. relative motion or gravitational potential) will see these frame differently. If you think of a cube where 2 dimensions are space and the third dimension, time, is slices space into individual frames, then you have to imagine that different observers slice things up at a different angle. (Really need a picture for that, I guess.) I don't understand that objection. If nothing was moving, then that would true. But anything moving would appear at a different location in each frame.

Why do you think that? And what does "too lucky" mean?

We have two theories of gravity already. What is wrong with those? Also, the question of "what it actually is" sounds more like a philosophical question, than a physics one. Science builds models based on what we can measure. That is not necessarily "reality" (whatever that is). There are lots of reasons to think we are not in a black hole. One I really like is that the singularity in a black hole is in the future (once you pass the event horizon, the radial direction becomes time, rather than space) while in the universe the singularity is in the past. (Note that in both cases, the singularity does not represent anything physical.) I wonder what you mean by "logical"? Too many people use it to mean "it makes sense to me" (which any idea you invent will do, because you have invented it based on your own level of understanding).

If you can't accept it, is there any point discussing it?

Apparently, some people drink it.

The second law defines force in terms of (undefined) mass. Or mass in terms of (undefined) force. (as long as we assume, in both cases, that acceleration has previously been defined.) As force is a fairly intuitive concept ("how hard you push") it may be easiest to consider this as defining inertial mass (resistance to being moved). The third law doesn't define anything new, as far as I can see.

Sorry, but in my opinion any theory that is entirely dependent on the existence of invisible flying unicorns is not worth discussing on a science forum.

This is a straw man argument. The concept that time "flows" is a psychological (or maybe philosophical) one, nothing to do with physics. The definition of time as what clocks measure is in line with other definitions of fundamental properties. Spatial distance is what a ruler measures. Mass is the measured resistance to acceleration. Energy is just a property we measure (and find it is conserved) we can't say what it "is". That is the nature of fundamental properties: they can't be defined in terms of other things. You can say that other things are related to these fundamental properties, like change can be used to measure time or that energy can do work, but this doesn't tell you any more about what these things are. (The fact that change is a measure of time might be what gives rise to the illusion of time "flowing").

What is the mechanism for this expansion? It is not a theory if it is based on magic. What is the mechanism for this expansion? What is the mechanism for this expansion? What is the mechanism for this expansion? Why did the expansion start and stop? Was it (a) magic or (b) magic? It’s magic

I find it is often a good idea to learn about things by studying, rather than just making stuff up based on total ignorance.

I don't know. I am just asking you to calculate the force, to see if the idea is worth pursuing.

I have no idea how one would calculate this (no experience with designing motors, just the circuits to drive them). But I can't imagine there is any direct relationship between mass and the power of the motor. There will be many factors: the number of turns for the coils and thickness of the wire for them to generate sufficient magnetic field but with sufficiently low resistance that it doesn't get too hot; the field strength from the permanent magnet which will depend on the physical size and shape. I expect those factors change depending on things like speed of rotation, how much torque you need to generate (I don't know how torque relates to power ...) etc. Might also change if it is an AC or DC motor. I imagine one would have to do a rough design to find out the size of magnet needed to find out what the mass is (and then adjust the design if necessary). Or you could look at the specs of a 10kw motor and estimate how much of the mass is the magnet. Or buy one and take it apart... It will be interesting to see answers from people who know what they are talking about! ! Moderator Note I have moved this to Engineering (but left a link from the original location) as that seems more appropriate.

Please provide a reference to a scientific paper on the "Earth expanding" And what is the mechanism for this? Unicorns? Made of unicorn intestines? What is the mechanism for this expansion? What is the mechanism for this expansion? So, after all that you still have not explained the mechanism for either expansion or rotation. How much longer do we need to put up with this drivel?