It's about time.

[uwot]

Time dilution might be the result of the time spent "waiting" (in absolute standstill)...

I'm a bit confused. The faster you go, the quicker you arrive i.e. the fewer times a clock ticks or energy vibrates, and yet the faster you go, the more time is dilated.

...also resulting in a shorter relative distance travelled.

If we could measure distance travelled just as precisely as we can measure time, we might actually find that the higher the speed the shorter the distance between 2 points.

Well, another feature of Special Relativity is length contraction, and some people will tell you that the observed contraction is due to moving objects literally contracting in the direction of travel, rather than simply so appearing to an observer in another inertial frame. Personally I think they are taking seeing is believing too much to heart.

[AlexW]

another feature of Special Relativity is length contraction, and some people will tell you that the observed contraction is due to moving objects literally contracting in the direction of travel

No... what I was referring to is not the object contracting, but rather "space" contracting when an "object"/energy moves very fast through it (relatively speaking).
It seems to contract as less and less space it traversed "in time" (in relativistic movement) and more "out of time" ... its like a stone skimming across the surface of the water. When it travels fast enough, it will only hit the water occasionally and spend most if its time in the air. The same happens with very fast moving objects - they hit the "time-surface" (thats when the clock ticks) only intermittently.
From the perspective of the water - which is: of time (and as such: from our point of observation) this results in an apparent contraction of distance/time.

If you take it to the extreme - speed up the frequency/speed to infinity - then no time flows at all (no space is traversed) - it is infinite speed, which is the same as absolute rest.

[uwot]

... what I was referring to is not the object contracting, but rather "space" contracting when an "object"/energy moves very fast through it (relatively speaking).

Yup, and there are people who will tell you that space itself contracts. It seems to me that would imply that distant objects are brought closer - all of them. I'd need some pretty strong evidence to accept that actually happens. Still, if you can make it consistent with the observed slowing of clocks with speed, then who's to say you're wrong?

[Paradigmer]

Forumers with such an understanding for the essence of time are very rare.

In fairness, even the professionals can't agree.

Well, for the professionals if you provide them the critical pointers and explained it painstaking as you did, those rational ones could agree.

Whereas most forumers who are hardcore on the mainstream modern physics and advocate the contemporary Einstenian relativity, mostly would not agree no matter how you explain the essence of time to them.

IMO it was the Einsteinians who had made Einstein the figurehead of a relativistic theory that posits time is transformable, which was not really endorsed by Einstein at all.

Okay. So what in your view did Einstein think about time?

On Einstenians, I refer to the advocations of the various propositions of the mainstream endorsed Einstein relativity that posits time as a variant.

IMO, I view Einstein unequivocally posits time as an invariant for his TOR.

There were several propositions of Einstein that mentioned or implied time is invariant, some of these are listed below:

1. 'If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time". We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,'' I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.' - Excerpt from "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein in 1905, at a section in "Definition of Simultaneity".

2. In the address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden, Einstein categorically mentioned "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time".

Remarks: He also categorically mentioned space is his measuring rod (invariant) and time is his measuring clock (invariant). In GR where aether was supposedly swapped with absolute space or absolute time, an ambiguity in circular logic would occur in linguistic manner and when aether was treated as an invariant scalar field therefore Einstein further mentioned "this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristics of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.".

3. “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” - Albert Einstein

4. “You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.” - Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949.

5. “Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live.” - Albert Einstein

I had a few articles that is relevant to your this post, and that include most of the things you had mentioned.

Congratulations. The research and commitment are impressive. I can see why people find it difficult. A good exercise is to imagine explaining it to a twelve year old. Could you do that with your vortex theory?

Thank you.

While I did try to make them easy for the lay person, that was not always possible for me. First of all, am not a good presenter to start with.

What I encountered were, not all twelve-year-old were that bright, but I do have a few abstracts that are simple enough and good for the smarter ones.

To list a few, these are:

1. The structure of the observable universe

This abstract with a light touch, in a nutshell (omit the jargon) explains the structure of the vortex universe in the UVS worldview. Many do not have much difficulty comprehending it after a few re-reads. And despite the difficult terminologies, most could nonetheless get the drift. And those rejected the ideology is another matter not pertaining to it was that difficult to comprehend.

2. The UVS inductive resolution on the mysterious planetary rings

This is a UVS case study that illustrates how the planetary rings were formed. Some kids had fun watching the animation to intuitively understand it, even the layperson loved it.

3. The UVS inductive resolution on globular cluster

This is a UVS case study that illustrates how a globular cluster was formed. Those kids with a bit of Astro basic could understand it, and it was those well-informed professionals who were dumbfounded by it in awe.

4. Dual-core crater

This UVS case study is for the twelve-year-old like its presentation was done by a twelve-year-old.

5. The axial precession of the Earth.

This UVS case study should be simple enough for anyone with some basic Astro foundation.

6. The paradoxical effect of nature

This is a philosophical abstract of UVS, so far there was a thirteen-year-old managed to grasp it, and he was so intrigued that he had gave me some valid examples I did not previously knew.

7. Significant revolutionary discoveries of the UVS research

This is a list of case studies I believe are good for the brighter ones.

If you think these case studies could be better presented for the twelve-year-old, please feel free to suggest how. Would be much appreciated.

Whereas for most other UVS abstracts and its case studies, they are so very hard to comprehend even for those professionals who are the supporters of UVS.

[uwot]

While I did try to make them easy for the lay person, that was not always possible for me. First of all, am not a good presenter to start with.

Ok. So you walk into a bar; there, tucking into a bag of pork scratchings, is the woman/man of your dreams. You know you've only got a minute or two to capture their imagination with your theory. What do you say?

[Paradigmer]

While I did try to make them easy for the lay person, that was not always possible for me. First of all, am not a good presenter to start with.

Ok. So you walk into a bar; there, tucking into a bag of pork scratchings, is the woman/man of your dreams. You know you've only got a minute or two to capture their imagination with your theory. What do you say?

Should I put it this way:

"Hmmm.... Like to walk with me for an adventure of the scientific revolution of our time? "

Haha.

[uwot]

Hmmm.... Like to walk with me for an adventure of the scientific revolution of our time? Haha.

They say yes. You're walking along, it's time to move in for the kill. Go get 'em Tiger! Whaddya say?

Anyway, with regard to what Einstein believed, few people have been more quoted out of context, misquoted or simply had things attributed to them which he never said. Everybody wants Einstein on their side and it is possible to make a case for Einstein holding practically any position. One of my favourite quotes re time is "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." I used that on a slide show I was doing before lockdown: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

[AlexW]

Well, for the professionals if you provide them the critical pointers and explained it painstaking as you did, those rational ones could agree.

Whereas most forumers who are hardcore on the mainstream modern physics and advocate the contemporary Einstenian relativity, mostly would not agree no matter how you explain the essence of time to them.

Not sure about that... I let my 18y old son read the article - he’s in Y12 high school - and he said: “yes, nothing new... that’s pretty much what we’ve learned at school... I should let my teacher read this ... It’s funny they are talking about this in philosophy forums”...

I think, as the information provided in the article seems to be “commonly understood” (at least by people closely connected to this area of expertise) it would be interesting where to proceed from there... it’s about thinking up new ways of how this all might work... the experimental and mathematical proofs are not the problem of the philosopher, but of the scientist... let philosophers philosophise and scientists do science.

[AlexW]

... what I was referring to is not the object contracting, but rather "space" contracting when an "object"/energy moves very fast through it (relatively speaking).

Yup, and there are people who will tell you that space itself contracts. It seems to me that would imply that distant objects are brought closer - all of them. I'd need some pretty strong evidence to accept that actually happens. Still, if you can make it consistent with the observed slowing of clocks with speed, then who's to say you're wrong?

Well... you accept that the faster objects move the slower time passes by... but time is nothing but movement.
Short, repetitive movements summed up and counted...
Now... what exactly moves? What are we counting? We count vibrations, no matter if it’s a pendulum or a Caesium atom.
What changes when one vibrating “object”/field moves faster into one direction than a second, “same”/similar object?
Answer: the frequency of the faster moving object/field increases (Doppler effect)

This provides a clue as to where we might have to look when describing why time actually seems to slow down... Or rather: why space contracts for fast moving objects.
I think (of course I cant prove it) that this is due to the increase in turnaround points in the energetic wave, resulting in a behaviour similar to a planing boat on water... the faster you go the less contact it has to the water (the less time - or rather: space - the moving object spends in relativistic reality (which is nothing but vibration/movement itself))
The object comes to absolute rest - outside of time/space - and pops back in further ahead in its trajectory than classical physics would expect... it kind of skips over space like the boat over water.

[Paradigmer]

Well, for the professionals if you provide them the critical pointers and explained it painstaking as you did, those rational ones could agree.

Whereas most forumers who are hardcore on the mainstream modern physics and advocate the contemporary Einstenian relativity, mostly would not agree no matter how you explain the essence of time to them.

Not sure about that... I let my 18y old son read the article - he’s in Y12 high school - and he said: “yes, nothing new... that’s pretty much what we’ve learned at school... I should let my teacher read this ... It’s funny they are talking about this in philosophy forums”...

Hi, thanks for the opportunity for some exchanging of opinions.

The mentioned articles were discussed in philosophy forum because they were based on the philosophy of a non-standard cosmology of a neoclassical platform evaluated with grounded theory methodology.

Other than the standard terminologies, none of the propositions in the articles were taught in any school at all.

In fact, all major propositions in the articles acutely contradict the mainstream doctrines. The teacher of your boy should be able to understand the critical differences of what are being currently taught in schools and what were postulated and proposed in the articles.

Take for example, the mainstream doctrines do not endorse any sort of vortical structure for describing the cosmos, and the Barringer Meteor Crater in Arizona is not officially considered as caused by a dual-core unisonal vortex of liquefied soil at all.

I think, as the information provided in the article seems to be “commonly understood” (at least by people closely connected to this area of expertise) it would be interesting where to proceed from there... it’s about thinking up new ways of how this all might work... the experimental and mathematical proofs are not the problem of the philosopher, but of the scientist... let philosophers philosophise and scientists do science.

I can agree with "let philosophers philosophise and scientists do science".

I ever had a discussion in person with a top professor of the physical science faculty from the top university in Asia on this. He understood science is not about the truths that refer to reality, and in his way he said quite the same thing as you had mentioned as "let philosophers philosophise and scientists do science".

In a nutshell, the main intention of mainstream science is about what could pragmatic work with its postulated subjective reality, and its quantitative predictions merely have to be consistently proven with repeatable experiments.

This is alright within its walls so long its fundamental postulation is not extrapolated as it is a fact that refers to the objective reality; it merely needs to be pragmatic in the objective reality with its subjective reality.

Take for examples, the equatorial mount, celestial sphere, and celestial coordinate system despite are geocentric based, in modern astronomy, they are still very successful, much simpler, and more cost-effective than those modern pieces of equipment that are heliocentric based. We all now know geocentrism is a subjective reality that does not refer to reality, but they are definitely pragmatic for their scientific applications in their subjective reality. But we now do not extrapolate geocentrism to evaluate the cosmos, for we now know geocentrism is a physical paradox.

For all you understood about the contemporary Einsteinian relativity, which could pragmatically work for all the experimentally validated quantitative predictions, you should be able to discern its extrapolation into cosmic inflation is a physical paradox with this article:

The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space

If you can understand the relativistic negations of the time frame negation effect, you would understand the extrapolation of the contemporary Einsteinain relativty with mathematical physics to explain the empirically observed accelerated expansion of space, is nothing more than a physical paradox.

This is probably why Einstein after refuting some of those contemporary Einsteinian propositions, such as the proposition of the twin paradox thought experiment that was fallaciously explained with special relativity, had said: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

BTW, Einstein refuted the Einstenian twin paradox thought experiment by solving the paradox with his general relativity explanation, which was later proven by the muon experiment. In the objective reality, it was the muon in the physical experiment that had gone through the physical transformation that thus had extended its lifetime by 29.33 times the laboratory lifetime; it was not time had slowed for causing the muon to be 29.33 times younger.

And as far as I knew, the professionals who are rational, understood this.

So nothing is really wrong with the contemporary Einstenian relativity as far as the pragmatism within its realm is concerned, so long as it is not being extrapolated outside of its subjective reality validated pragmatic applications to further evaluate in the objective reality of the cosmos. Such as for claiming as scientifically validated facts with the unprovable hypotheses in the objective reality with those forward time travel thought experiments that were axiomatically construed in their subjective reality.

In the objective reality, as how Einstein had put it, time indeed is a mode in which we think and not a condition in which we live.

[Paradigmer]

the experimental and mathematical proofs are not the problem of the philosopher, but of the scientist...

One pragmatic application with the mathematical proofs for those hypothesised relativistic time travel, is its great economic value for the film industry. This is where the twelve-year-olds could easily grasp to comprehend its ideals of time, and therefore could get very excited with what they understood with the induced knowledge suggested in the realms of those relativistic subjective realities.

The practices of science is indeed all about being pragmatic.

[Age]

Is it "a fact" that NO one knows the cause of gravity?

Not only is it a fact that no one knows the cause of gravity, it is a fact that no one can know the cause of gravity.

Okay. If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE true, forever more.

It's a rigid sense of 'to know' but if you take it to mean that only one explanation is possible, I do not see how every conceivable alternative could be ruled out. The science part of gravity is careful measurement and the design of mathematical formulae that account for the measurements. You cannot know that future measurements will not find something that current understanding cannot account for.
So to summarise:
You don't know that you know everything about how gravity behaves.
Even if you do, you don't know that your explanation is the only one that adequately accounts for that behaviour.

But you, supposedly, ALREADY KNOW that NO one knows the cause of gravity AND that NO one can, forever more, know the cause of gravity.

Or, is is A FACT that you are NOT YET aware of ANY one who knows the cause of gravity?

Well, taking a looser meaning of 'to know', it could be that I am aware of someone who 'knows' the cause of gravity; it could be that my suspicion that gravity is refraction is correct; yay for me, if so. On the other hand, it could be that whatever you think causes gravity is correct; if so, yay for you. All we 'know' with any confidence is that we can eliminate any hypothesis that doesn't account for the careful measurements of scientists.

BUT, you just said; "It is a fact that NO one can know the cause of gravity". Either this means that NO one can know the cause of gravity, forever more, or, some thing else.

[AlexW]

the experimental and mathematical proofs are not the problem of the philosopher, but of the scientist...

One pragmatic application with the mathematical proofs for those hypothesised relativistic time travel, is its great economic value for the film industry. This is where the twelve-year-olds could easily grasp to comprehend its ideals of time, and therefore could get very excited with what they understood with the induced knowledge suggested in the realms of those relativistic subjective realities.

The practices of science is indeed all about being pragmatic.

Well... aren’t we all well conditioned animals?
They say, humans are a subjective bunch... and we like it that way.

[Paradigmer]

Is it "a fact" that NO one knows the cause of gravity?

Not only is it a fact that no one knows the cause of gravity, it is a fact that no one can know the cause of gravity.

In the Newtonian worldview, it is a fact that no one knows the cause of gravity.

This is what Einstein called it as the "spooky action at a distance".

And it is also a fact that no one can know the cause of gravity with Newton's laws of universal gravitation; the need to know was not necessary in the subjective reality of the Newtonian worldview.

IMO, Lord Kelvin knew the cause of gravity, and what exactly renders the mass effect of matter. However, this knowledge of how gravity actually works in the objective reality, was discarded by the cargo cult science community.

[Paradigmer]

the experimental and mathematical proofs are not the problem of the philosopher, but of the scientist...

One pragmatic application with the mathematical proofs for those hypothesised relativistic time travel, is its great economic value for the film industry. This is where the twelve-year-olds could easily grasp to comprehend its ideals of time, and therefore could get very excited with what they understood with the induced knowledge suggested in the realms of those relativistic subjective realities.

The practices of science is indeed all about being pragmatic.

Well... aren’t we all well conditioned animals?
They say, humans are a subjective bunch... and we like it that way.

Indeed!

This could explain why the cult science beliefs as described by Fenyman, even till now are still so very widespread with much popularity among the mainstream scientific communities. Those experimentally validated cult sciences nonetheless could also be pragmatic for its technological applications, and thus have much economic values.

And human indeed like it that way.