How can you experience that time exists? How can you experience that thee ist patterned motion? It is only possible if you can distinguish, thus if you can realise the change.
So the concept that comes very close to the concept “time” is the concept “change”.
Although it is hard to follow (despite being simple math), Dingle pointed out the most basic flaw in SRT. What I find interesting is that GRT actually disproves SRT … yet no one notices.
If the speed of light were adjusted so that it matched closely its region, although not completely, then the experiments would indcate an observer-dependent speed of light. And by the way: that would explain the so-called “stopped clock paradox” as well. The light that incidents in the area of each observer is changed so that it adapts to the speed of this area. If that were true, the stopped clock paradox would not exisst anymore.
Fresnel, Stokes, and Lorentz all had Aether theories. Those were the closest theories to actual reality. And due to the Michelson-Morley experiment began thinking in terms of “aether drag”. Their error was only their lack of understanding of exact what Aether really must be. And thus they presumed many thing about aether and tried to prove or disprove it based upon false presumptions. They didn’t understand that matter and all of the “forces” had to be in fact made of that aether substance rather than merely being mediated by it. And their “aether drag” theory, better defined as “ambient affectance”, resolves the issue raised by the Stopped Clock Paradox.
The beauty of Affectance is that there is no option but for it to exist. It is not a “perhaps it is like this or that” kind of theory. There is a total lack of alternatives. Affectance absolutely must exist if anything exists at all and regardless of what else might exist. Aether was proposed as a possible medium for other things to travel through and by which things could affect other things. That made if different than Newton’s proposition that magically mass reached out, without medium, and affected distant things. Einstein didn’t like that thought, nor did most of the world.
The Fresnel, Stokes, and Lorentz crew were the most accurate and on target of all of them (or of those noted). Einstein and Minkowski proposed a brand new ontological basis for science involving a change in what the definition of space and time actually meant (change the definition to match the presumed observation). An alteration in fundamental definition can allow for a new ontology to be exactly correct while the old id still exactly correct. It is like changing languages, yet saying the same thing.
The problem is that Relativity turned out t be logically incoherent, but useful for specific circumstances. It isn’t that it was ever exactly true, but rather it was easier to get right. And since the earlier aether theory didn’t have aether defined quite properly, the aether theory and experiments could not compete against the media’s preferred authority.
Affectance Ontology completely resolves the entire issue from beginning to end, philosophically and scientifically. It has no match, although Aether theory comes close. The one “field” of Affectance automatically gives rise to all of the laws of physics and formation of matter and energy and their aberrant properties. RM:AO gives foundation to all existence. In RM:AO nothing is presumed. And because of that, as long as its logic has been properly verified, RM:AO will always be 100% true without exception or need to cheat or play mind games such as “bending space” or “dilating time”.
James, in your thread “Forces or Farces” you are asking whether “forces” are “farces” or not, and I think we should not speak of “forces” but of “interactions”. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the “queen of the universe” but merely one of the natural interactions.
I partially agree. But the truth is more that gravity is not even an interaction between two masses, but rather an interaction between a mass and its own immediate ambient surroundings, not the other mass-particle. The behavior of each mass-particle is a reflection of its situation, its surroundings. It is the surroundings, the ambient, that causes the concentrations of mass, the particles, to migrate toward each other. That migration is observed and recorded by Science as “gravitational force”, even though no forcing (no pulling or pushing) ever occurred.
So you are saying that the interaction between the Earth and the Moon is not the interaction between their masses but the “interaction between a mass and its own immediate ambient surroundings”. Is it the mass of the Earth, or the mass of the Moon, or a mass “somewhere between them” (but where?), or even another mass? And if it is only the surrounding which is it? Is it more the surrounding of the Earth or of the Moon?
There is only one existing substance and it has many forms which we name independently as though there was no relation. The substance that makes up “mass” is the exact same substance that makes up “empty” space - chaotic, ultra minuscule EMR, Affectance. When affectance is ultra thin, low in density, we call it “empty space”. When affectance is ultra concentrated, high density, we call it “mass”.
The Earth is surrounded by a very, very low concentration of its own mass substance (affectance). And so is the Moon. If you affect that substance, either “object” (the highly concentrated affectance globs) will move accordingly. Neither object is conscious of the other, only reacting to its immediate surroundings (what human’s should do more of).
What we call the weight or mass of bodies is merely the locations where affectance has become extremely dense. Spreading out from such locations the density of the affectance rapidly diminishes such as to appear as mere vacuum. The gravitation and weight concepts have relevance to us, so we measure those values as if mass bodies were pulling at each other across the relative vacuum between the affectance concentrations (the bodies). So in RM:AO weight exists merely as a value that can be calculated, as does mass, but they are not individual entities or necessary properties. It is like calculating an average value. The average value doesn’t exist as an actual entity or even an actual quantity, but it is still important to calculate such things.
The effect that we call “gravitation” aberrantly exists. But there is no force that is causing it. Rather it is due to the migration of the ever-replenishing concentrations. What we call “weight” is just another term for gravitational pressure.
It is conceivable that one could alter the ambient affectance field between two mass objects in such a way as to cause them to become weightless with respect to each other, no longer migrating toward each other, and neutralize the gravitation. And it is also conceivable that one could alter that field to cause the masses to migrate more strongly, increasing their relative weight. The weight of the masses is entirely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding the masses. And that field can be manipulated, although it takes a lot to get it done. I can explain the principle for causing weightlessness, but making something that can actually do it is a lot trickier.
But in conclusion that would mean that also the weight of each human body “is merely the locations where affectance has become extremely dense” and “is entirely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding the masses” respectively the bodies, so that each body, regardless which one, is merely an affectance concentration and its weight entierely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding it (?).
You are saying that “‘weight’ is just another term for gravitational pressure”. But “pressure” seems to be something like a force and similar to “pushing”. I conclude that you are saying that gravity is a force but not caused by a force, although you told me at an earlier time that gravity was not a force.
We still use the terms “force” and “pressure” in order to express the belligerent migratory behavior of the individual and group concentrations of affectance. My point is merely that what is being called a “force” or “pressure” is not a pushing or pulling down on the lower level, but rather merely an insistence from the mass-particles, the concentrations, to mindlessly, incrementally, and belligerently reconstruct themselves closer together instant by instant. On the macroscopic scale, we perceive it as pushing or pulling even though o the extreme pico-scopic scale, it is merely the migration of MCR events.