Cosmology needs radical transformation

[niebieskieucho]

:hihi: Perfect. I was hoping to elicit this response.

 

It's a logical fallacy, formally known as the fallacy of equivocation.

 

The reason that relativity even exists as a theory today is that we've gone beyond the apple tree.

Apple tree is not less important as any reference frame if you want to apply so-called Relativity.

 

Can you conceive a 'mental image' of clock, rather than thinking of it as a physical body? This is what I meant by "taking it too literally".

 

How could you explain it "not too literally"?

 

Well, that depends upon the "observer". It would be silly to argue that an observer galaxy has no influence upon a clsoely neighboring "gas cloud", or another galaxy. But perhaps it is I this time that is taking it too literally. :doh:

 

Nose to the beehive! In physics everything must be taken literally!

 

I'm certainly no student of QM, but I do believe that the electron's position can be obtained as well (though not concurrently with velocity).

 

Nevertheless, I was talking about velocity.

Of course, you are right. But if we are going to be...ummm...observing anything in Nature, then we logically must be observers. Hence, the term "observer" is ubiquitously used to "metaphor" abstract ideas into tangible meaning.

But we are just physical bodies to nature and undergo the same laws of physics as any other ones. One thing to tell them apart is that the observer of nature can examine and explain laws of physics - proportionally to his knowledge of course.

 

Do you still believe that? I may have not been so eloquent in my approach, but CraigD had an eloquent follow-up that pretty much "hammered the board shut" imho.

 

I'm sure of all my theses.

[niebieskieucho]

Consider 2 spacecraft, A and B, approaching one another on a near-collision course at a speed....

snip

 

The above example has nothing to do with Relativity. I'd like to stress that I am not questioning calculations, but interpretation, which cannot definitively refer to Relativity. I would sooner believe in brownies than in Relativity.

 

The most common form of the latter is to suggest that A nor B will receive the signal at the same time according to their respective clocks, and that the speed of light appears to A to be slower than it does to B. There are 2 sub-versions of this idea: one in which the speed of light depends on the object emitting it (commonly called emission theories) and another in which it depends on some absolute reference frame (commonly called ether theories).

 

All of these theories were popular at some point in history, but were for all intents rendered obsolete by the Michaelson Morley experiment’s results, leaving the field to Special Relativity.

As to so-called ether I've already answered this question. Nobody can exclude it, because we don't have appropriate tools to examine subatomic structure of space.

Niebieskieucho, without spending effort criticizing relativity or other theories, how does your theory address my example?

 

PS: My example is a simplification of the famous “light clock” example.

 

I've already answered it. You are free to believe in Relativity, but would you like to answer the following questions? And in case of “yes answers” to give any proofs or grounds supporting your point of view?

 

1. Is time in a free state?

2. Can time vanish and appear?

3. Can time be identified with clock mechanism?

4. Can time have its velocity?

5. Can time be coupled with space? If so, in what way?

6. Does time have a material shape?

7. Does time have an energy shape?

8. Can time accelerate or slow down its motion?

9. Does time speed up in higher temperature (e.g. in fried meat)?

10. Does time slow down in lower temperature (e.g. in frozen meat)?

11. Does time speed up in lower pressure?

12. Does time slow down in higher pressure?

13. Does time run slower near massive body?

14. Does time run more slowly closer to earth

15. Can we travel in time?

16. Do observers have any influence on time?

17. Does time have any direction?

18. Can time be a dimension?

 

You can only believe in it. There is no proof confirming any of the above items. If you think is, it must definitely be false. Nevertheless I'd like to familiarize myself with your answer.