The instinct of reality is distorted by current physics

[wei guo]

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

What is artificial behind measured radioactive decay rates used in an atomic clock?

Are you stating any measurement is artificial ?

 

Radioactive decay, in nature, is the phenomenon of electron jumping off between two states. The artificial assumption behind measuring time by atomic clock is to artificially assume an equivalence between this phenomenon with the flow of time. 

Only those measurements that are ultimately expressed by mathematical numbers have underlying artificial assumptions.

10 hours ago, Genady said:

OK, compare with logic.

What does it mean in logic?

what we care about is the role played by the mathematical equal sign in expressing the law of nature but not 

 

10 hours ago, Genady said:

11 hours ago, wei guo said:

12 hours ago, Genady said:

Here is a mathematical statement:

It has a profound meaning in math.

What does it mean in English or Chinese?

Why compare everyday language with math. What we discuss in above is to compare math with logic. 

Expand  

OK, compare with logic.

What does it mean in logic?

This is a pure mathematical equation. What we care about is the limited application when putting the mathematical sign between different physical properties. This is why the name of the paper is named as 

Quote

Uncovering the rigorous application range of any mathematical equivalence between different physical properties to avoid adding extra unverifiable things into reality for explaining inherent discrepancy in phenomena measure

Although this title is long and many journals reject this due to such similar format reason, I do not want to short it. Because this name can sufficiently express what I really want express.

[Mordred]

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.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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.

Ok, The feeling of "quite frankly" maybe due to that what we talk about is the underlying principle behind how we express the law of nature. I just quote the paragraph from the paper in the below. Just jump the smaller fonts to read from 'for example' that can more clearly explain the artificial assumption in the time measure method by comparing different sorts of clocks which have the same measuring principle.

Quote

According to part 2.2.1, all measure methods for time in history follow the equivalence in (9) and the application range restricted by the constant assumption is { constant C1∩constant C2∩ constant R1} , all Ci,Rj∊ causality Ⅱ(a). Hence, any time measure method can only apply to those phenomena that meet constant C1∩constant C2∩ constant R1. In other words, if any of these three properties do not keep a constant degree, we cannot assume an equivalence between time and timer. In particular, if C1 in Ⅱ(a) is dominated by gravity and does not keep a constant, insisting on measuring the time flow by the reading on the timer would be not accurate. For example, what influences the fall of sand in a sand clock is not only how fast the time flows but also gravity. Obviously, the stronger the gravity is, the more quickly the sands flow down. If the sand clock is viewed as the most accurate time measure method, by comparing two sand clocks in a higher and a lower gravity field, we would be misled that time could be affected by gravity. But in fact, gravity only affects the falling speed of sand. Similarly, although the transition cycle of the cesium-133 atom is much more precise than a sand clock, its measure principle also follows (9). In nature, no matter for a sand clock or an atom clock, both of them are nothing but some sort of reference phenomenon that can be affected by some factors other than how fast the time flows. Different speed or gravity would provide different kinetic or potential energy for the electrons in a cesium-133 atom to jump off between different states, which would influence the frequency of its transition. Hence, if the atomic clock is viewed as the most accurate time measure method, we would be misled that time is affected by gravity or speed. Undoubtedly, ‘timer is affected’ does not mean ‘time is affected’. For another classical instance that a traveling-back spaceman is younger than the person on the earth, timer here is actually the metabolism rate of the human body. In fact, the time flowing rate is no different for either spacemen or the man on earth, but the spaceman’s metabolism rate is affected by the spaceship’s faster speed than the man on earth, which makes their ages different. 

     Therefore, the time dilation effect proposed in special relativity actually confuses the change of the reference phenomena for indirectly measuring time with the change of time itself. What is really dilation is not time but timer. If we insist on measuring time by some phenomena in dilation served as a timer, time flow would be counterintuitively affected. Strictly speaking, the time dilation effect should be called the timer Dilation Effect. 

 

[Mordred]

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 

[wei guo]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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 

‘Artificial’ means some relationship is abstractly built or conceived of by observers for cognizing the nature. Time is a physical property. If measuring the degree of a physical property by assuming an equivalence between it and the degree of another physical property or another phenomenon, this relationship is artificially built. 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

This is a pure mathematical equation. What we care about is the limited application when putting the mathematical sign between different physical properties.

How do you know that this mathematical equation does not represent physical properties?

[Mordred]

7 minutes ago, wei guo said:

‘Artificial’ means some relationship is abstractly built or conceived of by observers for cognizing the nature. Time is a physical property. If measuring the degree of a physical property by assuming an equivalence between it and the degree of another physical property or another phenomenon, this relationship is artificially built. 

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 

[wei guo]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

How do you know that this mathematical equation does not represent physical properties?

It indeed has such the potential to represent so because there is an underlying equivalence between the law of mathematics and the law of nature, but this equivalence is not unconditional. 

[Mordred]

1 minute ago, wei guo said:

It indeed has such the potential to represent so because there is an underlying equivalence between the law of mathematics and the law of nature, but this equivalence is not unconditional. 

Sigh 

[wei guo]

5 minutes 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 

Thank you as well.  I also want to find the exact point why this paper cannot be accepted by the mainstream, even very hard to put on a preprint platform. Because arxiv very quickly reject, I cannot figure out it is rejected by volunteer editors or because I do not focus on the format, layout, graph size or expression method that make a paper not look like a layout-qualified published paper. So I have no choice to put on vixra

[StringJunky]

Here you are @wei guo

https://info.arxiv.org/help/submit/index.html

[Mordred]

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

Edited June 21, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

14 hours ago, Mordred said:

It is the couplings with other fields that lead to further divergences. Unfortunately without the math it's near impossible to show.

When having one fundamental field that undergoes changes and deformations at close range to exhibit properties of other fields...the divergences diminishes once those changes and deformations that leads to other fields infinitely reduces at a distance.

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

Ok, The feeling of "quite frankly" maybe due to that what we talk about is the underlying principle behind how we express the law of nature. I just quote the paragraph from the paper in the below. Just jump the smaller fonts to read from 'for example' that can more clearly explain the artificial assumption in the time measure method by comparing different sorts of clocks which have the same measuring principle.

 

 

[wei guo]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Here you are @wei guo

https://info.arxiv.org/help/submit/index.html

Noted with thanks

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

Obviously, the stronger the gravity is, the more quickly the sands flow down. If the sand clock is viewed as the most accurate time measure method, by comparing two sand clocks in a higher and a lower gravity field, we would be misled that time could be affected by gravity.

Sand flow quickly because near source of gravity length is dilated..if the sand is free falling towards gravity at a constant time...what you will be perceiving is increase of speed.

Remember definition of speed=distance (length)÷time...increase distance while keeping time constant speed increases

In this case gravity is affecting length (distance).

[Mordred]

1 minute ago, MJ kihara said:

When having one fundamental field that undergoes changes and deformations at close range to exhibit properties of other fields...the divergences diminishes once those changes and deformations that leads to other fields infinitely reduces at a distance.

 

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. 

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

Ok, The feeling of "quite frankly" maybe due to that what we talk about is the underlying principle behind how we express the law of nature. I just quote the paragraph from the paper in the below. Just jump the smaller fonts to read from 'for example' that can more clearly explain the artificial assumption in the time measure method by comparing different sorts of clocks which have the same measuring principle.

 

Comparing speed with time directly and linking that to gravity can lead to misconceptions about gravity...speed should be viewed as a ratio of length and time....then look at how gravity affects length..and..then look at how gravity affects time( in this case 'and' is very important.) After that use the ratio to conclude about speed or if you like velocity.

though I also think there should be much more fundamental explanations about time..to make it's arguments on issues like time dilation more logical.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

It indeed has such the potential to represent so because there is an underlying equivalence between the law of mathematics and the law of nature, but this equivalence is not unconditional. 

Potential? It is used in engineering all the time!

What conditions?

[wei guo]

24 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Comparing speed with time directly and linking that to gravity can lead to misconceptions about gravity...speed should be viewed as a ratio of length and time....then look at how gravity affects length..and..then look at how gravity affects time( in this case 'and' is very important.) After that use the ratio to conclude about speed or if you like velocity.

though I also think there should be much more fundamental explanations about time..to make it's arguments on issues like time dilation more logical.

'speed viewed as a ratio of length and time' is nothing special but merely one method for measuring speed. In nature, it also relies on an artificially-defined equivalence between speed and other different physical properties, which also has the limited application range, just like the equivalence in Newton inertia law of 'F=ma' cannot apply to all phenomena. 

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Sand flow quickly because near source of gravity length is dilated..if the sand is free falling towards gravity at a constant time...what you will be perceiving is increase of speed.

Remember definition of speed=distance (length)÷time...increase distance while keeping time constant speed increases

In this case gravity is affecting length (distance).

Sand clock is just a vey rough and slow timer. you can ignore any dilated effect. The equivalence in either 'F=ma' or 'speed=distance (length)÷time' or any other similar equivalence is just one sort of measure method, which has no difference in nature. Treating which of them as definition or not definition does not matter but just a decision in a group of species. What we need to focus on is the common nature behind all of these equivalences.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

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

In fact, in the paper I try to use the most basic words that can be understood even by the people who can read general newspaper and avoid to create any new terms, which is consistent with the purpose of this paper that aims to avoid adding extra things into reality for explanation.

[Mordred]

35 minutes ago, wei guo said:

'speed viewed as a ratio of length and time' is nothing special but merely one method for measuring speed. In nature, it also relies on an artificially-defined equivalence between speed and other different physical properties, which also has the limited application range, just like the equivalence in Newton inertia law of 'F=ma' cannot apply to all phenomena. 

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.

 

35 minutes ago, wei guo said:

 

In fact, in the paper I try to use the most basic words that can be understood even by the people who can read general newspaper and avoid to create any new terms, which is consistent with the purpose of this paper that aims to avoid adding extra things into reality for explanation.

 

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 ?

Edited June 21, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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.

 

Here I just take some examples to talk about the nature of equivalence but do not care about the difference between the vector and scalar. If you think this is a problem, then we just discuss this issue always fixed at the same direction. In this way, it is enough to just discuss scalar.

[Mordred]

7 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Here I just take some examples to talk about the nature of equivalence but do not care about the difference between the vector and scalar. If you think this is a problem, then we just discuss this issue always fixed at the same direction. In this way, it is enough to just discuss scalar.

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

Edited June 21, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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 ?

Totally, I apply for arxiv twice. The first time quickly rejected and the second time, I adjust the format to make it look better, then arxiv accept and email me it will announce in the next week. But afterwards, someone from arxiv email me that this paper is rejected because of the reject in the first time and repeating the second submission without making an appeal for the first one. So, I doubt arxiv only check the format of paper but do not judge the content of paper.

[Mordred]

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.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

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.

For the scientific paper, the most important thing is how to use the simple words to illustrate the operating mechanism of reality rather than focusing on how to make the format of you paper beautiful. After all, this is not art.

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Here you are @wei guo

https://info.arxiv.org/help/submit/index.html

Other journal is more kind than arxiv and accept preprint before long-term Double-Blind Peer Review. I just give up on arxiv.