Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[sjastro]

Except I’m not the one claiming laws of physics never observed in any laboratory only apply outside of our galactic cluster..... while known laws only apply within. Dads argument, you accept but refuse to accept....

That would be you while trying to blame everyone else for your ignoring known physics....

You keep on telling us ad nauseam that relativity applies in the solar system but in the great big Universe which is 99% plasma electromagnetic forces apply……………
How do you know that given you adhere to Dad’s argument with his fishbowl?
Congratulations you have shot Dad’s argument down in flames as I am sure he will do to yours.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, what sounds wrong is your magically expanding nothing that isn’t a medium but is described just like one with the capabilities of movement of ponderable matter.

Which need I remind you is the cause of cosmological redshift in their flawed model, and as they warned you, you were not to confuse the velocity as being a real velocity..... yet you keep arguing for a velocity factor, instead of just accepting it is the medium existing in space which causes all redshift, including Doppler.

Only when you keep treating this frame as an absolute frame while ignoring the ball sees no energy gain....

No, it just affects the light passing through it and causes energy loss which is why the Doppler shift was able to be mathematically derived from the energy conservation laws.

Because I don’t need your magical expanding nothing that moves like a ponderable medium, but isn’t, and is capable of causing objects to accelerate, but doesn’t, that can’t be tested in any laboratory because physics is different way out that away, to explain redshift. Just the same physics we can observe in any laboratory on Earth.

Just all that matter they keep pretending isn’t there, despite the first probe ever sent out falsifying their belief in the matter present right next door..... where we definitely should have been able to observe it, but couldn’t except in-situ.

Because correcting mass estimates would require correcting Dark Matter and so require correcting Dark Energy. More Fairie Dust that can’t be observed in any lab and only occurs way out that away......

I'll let that comprehensive misrepresentation of the physics speak for itself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you mean do I think Relativity is true, then my answer is that the extent of its truth, is only as good as the last best tested Relativity theory.

Not too good then since it’s been found to be around 99.8% accurate here in the solar system applied to planetary systems (non-ionized matter, .1% of the universe). Yet the second they attempt to apply the same theory outside the solar system to a universe 99.9% plasma, they suddenly have to add 96% ad-hoc theory to it.

So it didn’t do too well tested outside the solar system. But it does do wonderfully well inside it when applied to the correct states of matter.

Unfortunately for you, there are other answers to your question which you are obviously blind to .. I just gave you one.

Then why object before so fervently to not saying you said you believe it, since you just agreed you do????? At least to the limit of its test ability which sadly doesn’t work to swell outside the solar system applied to a different state of matter.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll let that comprehensive misrepresentation of the physics speak for itself.

In other words you have no actual science to answer with but more Fairie Dust. Understood...

 

[dad]

You missed it then as they are no arguing that physics is different outside our fishbowl.

You think time is part of physics?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In other words you have no actual science to answer with but more Fairie Dust. Understood...

It's already been posted; you just ignored it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You keep on telling us ad nauseam that relativity applies in the solar system but in the great big Universe which is 99% plasma electromagnetic forces apply……………
How do you know that given you adhere to Dad’s argument with his fishbowl?
Congratulations you have shot Dad’s argument down in flames as I am sure he will do to yours.

Not in the least. Relativity would apply equally well in any part of the universe where a planetary system (non-ionized matter) exists. Just as plasma physics exists anywhere there is plasma.

Your mistake is in trying to imply that I think This planetary system is the only one that exists.

Dad would agree that in another system it would be that local fishbowl.

To which your magical expanding physics defying expansion would still not operate or be testable in any laboratory......

Starting to understand the difference yet?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is this some sort of a joke?
You boasted you could explain to me Doppler shift is an energy exchange with a medium; I called your bluff; you could not provide an answer proving your boast was a lie.
Your quote mining has reached levels of absurdity not only as Selfsim pointed out, but also it bears absolutely no resemblance to your explanation.

Let me provide it for the third time..... with no other argument but what you ask so you can’t pretend again it wasn’t provided....

The Doppler Effect

Coming from two that never provide references to back up their claims, I’m not too concerned with your self deluded stories you tell yourself to support your Fairie Dust...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's already been posted; you just ignored it.

Really, was that the Doppler part while ignoring they told you the velocity wasn’t to be confused as a real velocity to which you continue to do so thinking it’s actually Doppler?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You think time is part of physics?

Absolutely, but physics says time runs differently depending on your velocity or coordinates. In other words where you are at in or outside the fishbowl.

Since their claim is the universe is accelerating, then physics demands time reads differently in every frame not moving in relative velocity to ours. Basically anything beyond our local cluster.... our fishbowl....

What’s even worse for them is time doesn’t run the same rate from pole to equator right here in the fishbowl....

 

[sjastro]

Let me provide it for the third time..... with no other argument but what you ask so you can’t pretend again it wasn’t provided....

The Doppler Effect

Coming from two that never provide references to back up their claims, I’m not too concerned with your self deluded stories you tell yourself to support your Fairie Dust...

All you have confirmed yet again you are out of your depth and completely confused.
What has this got to do with my question involving sound waves and air?

The author of your paper explains Doppler reddening of light in terms of scattering.
Where is the other part of the story where the medium causes a blue shift.
Funny how you conveniently present only one half of the story.

What completely destroys your argument apart from the fact it has absolutely nothing to do with sound waves and air, using the "it can be done in the lab" principle is that Doppler shift of light occurs in a vacuum and only depends on the relative velocity of the observer and the source.

 

[dad]

Absolutely, but physics says time runs differently depending on your velocity or coordinates. In other words where you are at in or outside the fishbowl.

Since their claim is the universe is accelerating, then physics demands time reads differently in every frame not moving in relative velocity to ours. Basically anything beyond our local cluster.... our fishbowl....

What’s even worse for them is time doesn’t run the same rate from pole to equator right here in the fishbowl....

I am not sure that time is part of physics.

" natural science that studies matter[4] and its motion and behavior through space and time and that studies the related entities of energy and force.."

wiki

While they do mention time, they do not even really know what time is. They are talking about the concept of time as conceived in their models of space and time and relativity etc.

 

[SelfSim]

I am not sure that time is part of physics.
...
While they do mention time, they do not even really know what time is. They are talking about the concept of time as conceived in their models of space and time and relativity etc.

Everything in science ends up as a testable concept ... with no exceptions. Everything even matter, planets, moons, stars, hairs, heads, brains, energy, atoms, electrons, neutrons, light, electromagnetism, radiation, time, etc are all testable concepts ... and nothing more than that.

 

[dad]

Everything in science ends up as a testable concept ... with no exceptions. Everything even matter, planets, moons, stars, hairs, heads, brains, energy, atoms, electrons, neutrons, light, electromagnetism, radiation, time, etc are all testable concepts ... and nothing more than that.

Not really. No one tested time outside the area of the solar system. Only here. Even then, it was not really time being tested, more like observed, and theorized. If I observe that it took, say 8 seconds for light of the sun to reach earth, that would not be testing time. If I observed a dilation in time on a plane, that is not testing time.

 

[SelfSim]

Not really.

Yes ... really.

No one tested time outside the area of the solar system. Only here. Even then, it was not really time being tested, more like observed, and theorized. If I observe that it took, say 8 seconds for light of the sun to reach earth, that would not be testing time. If I observed a dilation in time on a plane, that is not testing time.

Every scientific concept must have an operational definition .. the operational definition can use both direct observations and latent variables.

Time:

An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured.

 

[SelfSim]

Not too good then since it’s been found to be around 99.8% accurate here in the solar system applied to planetary systems (non-ionized matter, .1% of the universe). Yet the second they attempt to apply the same theory outside the solar system to a universe 99.9% plasma, they suddenly have to add 96% ad-hoc theory to it.

So it didn’t do too well tested outside the solar system. But it does do wonderfully well inside it when applied to the correct states of matter.

.. word salad ..

If you mean do I think Relativity is true, then my answer is that the extent of its truth, is only as good as the last best tested Relativity theory.

Then why object before so fervently to not saying you said you believe it, since you just agreed you do?????

A belief is any notion taken as being true .. for any reason.
However, I equated the 'truth' of Relativity as being only as good as the last best tested Relativity theory .. (or objective test results).
Thus there is no need to believe it, (as in an unevidenced assumption is simply believed), when there are consistent objective results produced from the last best test of it.

Both of my two responses are complementary .. and consistent.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Really, was that the Doppler part while ignoring they told you the velocity wasn’t to be confused as a real velocity to which you continue to do so thinking it’s actually Doppler?

No; that was also explained.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am not sure that time is part of physics.

" natural science that studies matter[4] and its motion and behavior through space and time and that studies the related entities of energy and force.."

wiki

While they do mention time, they do not even really know what time is. They are talking about the concept of time as conceived in their models of space and time and relativity etc.

Because their models are flawed and speak of time as a 4th dimension, when time is nothing but the measurement of distance.

Whether that is the distance the Earth travels around the sun to return to its starting point that we call a year, the distance a point on the surface of the Earth travels to return to its starting point we call a day, or the distance a hand on a clock moves to complete one revolution we call an hour, or the distance a hand moves in the 60 subdivisions of the distance we called an hour that we call a minute, or the distance a hand moves in the 60 subdivisions of the distance we called a minute that we call a second. Or the distance between wave crests of electromagnetic waves from the oscillation of a cesium atom.

It is simply a second measurement of distance to confirm our first measurement of distance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

All you have confirmed yet again you are out of your depth and completely confused.
What has this got to do with my question involving sound waves and air?

The author of your paper explains Doppler reddening of light in terms of scattering.
Where is the other part of the story where the medium causes a blue shift.
Funny how you conveniently present only one half of the story.

What completely destroys your argument apart from the fact it has absolutely nothing to do with sound waves and air, using the "it can be done in the lab" principle is that Doppler shift of light occurs in a vacuum and only depends on the relative velocity of the observer and the source.

Because you can’t comprehend the sound wave striking a molecule of air and loosing energy due to that encounter, hence Doppler and the eventual extinction of the sound wave.

So you are confused about what is actually happening when the atom recoils in either the backwards motion or forward motion.

But physics has already explained this, you just don’t understand physics.....

Sound is a vibration of molecules.

Contemplate on that for awhile, maybe you’ll figure it out.....

Except no Doppler has been observed in a lab without molecules being present.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Everything in science ends up as a testable concept ... with no exceptions. Everything even matter, planets, moons, stars, hairs, heads, brains, energy, atoms, electrons, neutrons, light, electromagnetism, radiation, time, etc are all testable concepts ... and nothing more than that.

Except for the magic expansion of space that only happens way out that a way and couldn’t be measured even if you were there because you’d be moving with the expansion.

So we agree, expansion fails the testability required by science and is pseudoscience.