The Bible: Energy = "nothing"? or 0?

[beil]

Nope. Doppler and red shift are different things.

but hard to tell apart in the observations. see the 'Humbled by Hubble thread.

 

[James R]

beil:

To my mind, The 'energy situation' is against the shared reality. the cosmos . It has absolutely nothing to do with the observer.

The kinetic energy of an object with mass m, as I mentioned earlier, is calculated using the formula K=(1/2)mv^2, where v is the velocity of the object.

Since velocities are very much observer-dependent, kinetic energy is also observer-dependent.

I gave you a specific example. Did you not understand it?

In a crash the 'stored energy' from the acceleration is delivered, unloaded onto the hapless victim.

If you are travelling at 100 mph behind another car travelling at 99 mph, if you crash into the back of that other car, not much "stored energy" is going to be released, because you're hardly moving with respect to the other car. You just don't have very much kinetic energy, from the point of view of the guy in the other car, as I explained previously.

to repeat, energy is not created by looking at it, It is created (or really used, because the fuel burned already has energy)

Energy isn't stuff that needs to be "created". You still don't understand, do you?

We can test the reliability of these calculations " energy is just a number" "zero" by a test, drive those two cars against an obstacle, a parked concrete mixer, or the overpass support. It would be great to be in the one with the allegedly zero kinetic energy.

The problem in that example is that, from the point of view of the guy in the car, the obstacle has a large amount of kinetic energy. Energy released in the collision (calculated in the reference frame of the car driver) does not come from the car's kinetic energy (which is zero in the driver's frame of reference), but from the obstacle's kinetic energy.

driving by another car does not change it's kinetic energy "content" status.

How could it not? What formula are you going to use instead of K=(1/2)mv^2?

 

[James R]

Luchito:

I disagree with Albert as the greater physicist of all time.

It really doesn't matter, unless you can show that he was wrong and you are correct about the thing you disagree with him about.

My understanding is that his theories are not even scientific.

They make correct, tested, quantitative predictions about experimental results and observations. What could be more scientific than that?

He based his theories on the illusion of time as something physical.

Really? Where does he say anything like that in his published writings? Got a reference?

If the universe is not static but "moving" or "translating from one place to another", a "moving" universe won't necessarily mean that is "expanding".

Correct. Expanding means that different parts of the universe are, on average, moving apart from each other over time. Which is what astronomers have observed.

In order to measure the expansion of the universe one must measure space itself, a certain location of space as point A as original point and expanding to point B.

How would one go about measuring space itself? What method do you propose?

Lets say space is the road built on the road, the street, the pavement. Galaxies and stars are the vehicles. (analogy only)

You measure the vehicle's position from point A traveling or moving to point B, and your observation is made from point Zero, your location.

Yes, you observe the vehicle is further now, but the road still is of the same length and has not moved or traveled, from your point of view. You must use other points of reference in order to claim that the vehicles and yourself are moving, but and again, moving won't mean "expanding".

If, when we look at any single vehicle we see that - other than locally - all other vehicles are moving away from the one we're interested in, and that is true for all vehicles, as far as we can tell, then it would be fair to say that the distance between vehicles is increasing with time, would it not? That's all that "expansion" means.

In order to claim that space expands, you actually must detect or see space motion...

No. You just have to see everything moving further apart over a period of time. That's what "expansion" means.

You need other points of reference to measure the expansion of space, and unfortunately those are points you don't have.

All the objects in space are the "points of reference" you say you require. We can look at the motions of galaxies in space, for instance, and see that they are almost all moving away from our galaxy, except for a small number of galaxies that are in our local neighbourhood.

Lets use the Doppler Effect device.

We will stand at the side of a highway in a flat farm area, long enough to perform a simple experiment.

We are going to aim the device to a vehicle with headlights On coming toward us. The device will detect the wavelengths of the incoming light and will identify them with a blue color.


Later, the vehicle will drive on reverse, with same headlights On going away from us, and using the device, the detected wavelengths will be identify with red color.

As far as I am concerned, I don't think that the "space" between the vehicle and us contracted or expanded when the vehicle moved toward us and away from us.

Then you would be wrong, because to correctly derive the formula for the Doppler shift of the light from the car's headlights and have it match what we measure, we have to assume that spacetime is relativistic. That means length contraction and time dilation both occur, which means that space can "stretch" or "shrink", depending on your frame of reference.

 

[beil]

Energy isn't stuff that needs to be "created". You still don't understand, do you?

You are right, I always maintained that Energy is uncreated, indefinitely old, is just used, transferred*, used to accomplish work, like creating the universe. ( That is quite an accomplishment). Thank you.
* when that car gets bumped from behind, It will have to accept that energy transfer. adjust your headrests

on the Obstacle having a lot of kinetic energy: reminds me of a road sign in the old South:
"Trees here are hitting cars only in self defense."

 

[Luchito]

Luchito:

It really doesn't matter, unless you can show that he was wrong and you are correct about the thing you disagree with him about.

They make correct, tested, quantitative predictions about experimental results and observations. What could be more scientific than that?

Even search assistant explains it better:

A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made before research is done and is tested to see if it might be true. A theory is an explanation that’s supported by evidence and formed to explain things already substantiated by data.

From here I will estate that Einstein's writing weren't theories but hypothesis. This is just the starting point.

Having Albert using his imagination replacing evidence, is when his thought experiments were the justification of his conclusions. And this is what a hypothesis is about: assumptions.

One can claim that "later" his writings have been found correct in base of evidence, that is a different scenario. The original writings still are hypothesis, not theories.

A theory is an explanation, not an assumption. A theory explains the procedure of a phenomenon as consequence of a former phenomenon, but clearly both are to be observed means, not assumed ones.

Really? Where does he say anything like that in his published writings? Got a reference?

When he invented "space-time"- he assumed time as something physically existent. He even claimed that speed in motion of bodies will affect time but the bodies will be unaffected. One of the common examples of this idea is that a traveler in space will age slower than a person "resting" on earth ground zero: the infamous Twin Paradox".

How motion will affect something that doesn't exist? Albert surely implied that event. I will grant him the benefit of doubt when in some translations from German Language to English, in some formulas "T" is described as "temporary". However, and who knows why, "T" finally was taken as time as its general interpretation.

But, at the end, time or temporary are not dilated as effect by speed when a body travels, but surely the body won't dilate and is without doubt the affected one.

Correct. Expanding means that different parts of the universe are, on average, moving apart from each other over time. Which is what astronomers have observed.

How would one go about measuring space itself? What method do you propose?

Casually that is the point. How to assume space expands when there is no method to proved it?

If, when we look at any single vehicle we see that - other than locally - all other vehicles are moving away from the one we're interested in, and that is true for all vehicles, as far as we can tell, then it would be fair to say that the distance between vehicles is increasing with time, would it not? That's all that "expansion" means.

Not necessarily. "Going away" is not a synonymous of "expansion".

I can see most of cars are going away from me and one or two of them are coming towards me. I observe the motion of the cars, and this doesn't indicate that the space between those cars and I is expanding.

No. You just have to see everything moving further apart over a period of time. That's what "expansion" means.

All the objects in space are the "points of reference" you say you require. We can look at the motions of galaxies in space, for instance, and see that they are almost all moving away from our galaxy, except for a small number of galaxies that are in our local neighbourhood.

Then you would be wrong, because to correctly derive the formula for the Doppler shift of the light from the car's headlights and have it match what we measure, we have to assume that spacetime is relativistic. That means length contraction and time dilation both occur, which means that space can "stretch" or "shrink", depending on your frame of reference.

From my view, space is practically an open field. a vast and immense field. Cars moving away from me are just traveling on/inside the field.

And, when we observe that all -completely all- the stars are moving away from us, then this is the acceptance that we are the center of the universe, something that concedes to the ancient belief saying so. Hmm.

Apparently we won't reach an agreement in this topic.

About earth hanging on nothing, well, Job suffered so many traumas after bad things happened to him, surely he was babbling a lot.

 

[TheVat]

One of the common examples of this idea is that a traveler in space will age slower than a person "resting" on earth ground zero: the infamous Twin Paradox

Not a real paradox. It's a pseudo paradox that comes from a naive and incorrect interpretation of SR. It's not infamous, it's a teaching tool to clarify how time dilation works when there are multiple inertial frames in the traveler.

 

[James R]

Luchito:

From here I will estate that Einstein's writing weren't theories but hypothesis. This is just the starting point.

Having Albert using his imagination replacing evidence, is when his thought experiments were the justification of his conclusions. And this is what a hypothesis is about: assumptions.

You are correct that Einstein's ideas were hypotheses - right up until they were tested and found to be correct. Once enough confirming evidence had been gathered, they attained the status of a Theory.

One can claim that "later" his writings have been found correct in base of evidence, that is a different scenario. The original writings still are hypothesis, not theories.

Okay. So what? His hypotheses turned out to be correct. So now we have the Theory of Relativity and such.

A theory is an explanation, not an assumption.

I could quote you. "A theory is an explanation that’s supported by evidence and formed to explain things already substantiated by data."

More generally, in science a Theory is conceptual framework that can be used to explain observations and to make useful and verifiable predictions about how physical systems will behave under specified conditions.

When he invented "space-time"- he assumed time as something physically existent.

I don't know what you mean by "physically existent", in this context. I don't think Einstein ever wrote that "Time is physically existent." Did he?

He even claimed that speed in motion of bodies will affect time but the bodies will be unaffected.

He claimed that observers in different states of motion can measure different time intervals between the same pair of events. That claim has been experimentally tested. It works exactly as Einstein said it would. So, Einstein's claim was correct.

One of the common examples of this idea is that a traveler in space will age slower than a person "resting" on earth ground zero: the infamous Twin Paradox".

That's not the Twin Paradox. That's just regular old time dilation, which - by the way - has been verified in all its details by many experimental tests. Also, it turns out that the Twin Paradox is not really a paradox at all. We understand why the apparent problem isn't actually a real problem at all.

How motion will affect something that doesn't exist?

Time exists. It's the thing that stops everything from happening all at once. You've probably noticed it.

Albert surely implied that event. I will grant him the benefit of doubt when in some translations from German Language to English, in some formulas "T" is described as "temporary". However, and who knows why, "T" finally was taken as time as its general interpretation.

You're not just misunderstanding the word "temporal" are you? "Temporal" doesn't mean "temporary".

But, at the end, time or temporary are not dilated as effect by speed when a body travels, but surely the body won't dilate and is without doubt the affected one.

Time dilation has been verified by many different experiments, over the course of the last century.

If you're going to just deny that it occurs, that's just silly. You're just showing that you're unaware of any of the evidence for it - displaying your ignorance.

Before you criticise a thing, don't you think it might be a good idea to first understand the best arguments for the thing you want to argue against?

Casually that is the point. How to assume space expands when there is no method to proved it?

The expansion "of space" is just a scientific model we use to describe what we observe happening in our universe. In general relativistic cosmological models, the equations contain a "scale factor" that tells us how the theory predicts that measured distances are changing over time. The theory's predictions correctly mirror what we observe when we look at, for instance, the motions of distant galaxies. That's one reason why all those scientists think that General Relativity is a successful theory.

What kind of "proof" would you like to see?

Not necessarily. "Going away" is not a synonymous of "expansion".

Please define "expansion" for me, then. And, specifically, tell me what you would want to do to determine whether or not space is expanding. Suggest a measurement or an experiment you would do to tell, one way or the other.

I can see most of cars are going away from me and one or two of them are coming towards me. I observe the motion of the cars, and this doesn't indicate that the space between those cars and I is expanding.

If I'm in a car and another car is moving away from me, I think it's fair to say that the distance between my car and that other car is increasing (or "expanding", if you like).

Space isn't a substance. It's not like a fabric that can stretch. There are only the distances we measure between objects.

It seems like you want more than that. What more do you want?

From my view, space is practically an open field. a vast and immense field. Cars moving away from me are just traveling on/inside the field.

Okay. I have no problem with that.

And, when we observe that all -completely all- the stars are moving away from us, then this is the acceptance that we are the center of the universe, something that concedes to the ancient belief saying so. Hmm.

The problem with that thought is that, if you happened to live in the Andromeda galaxy, you'd still be seeing all the other galaxies moving away from you. In fact, you can pick any galaxy you like. (Pick one outside the Local Group, to be safe.) If you're inside it, then you'll see all the other galaxies moving away from you.

Do you conclude that Andromeda is the centre of the universe, then? Or that the centre is actually a galaxy 20 megaparsecs from us?

Can the universe have two centres? Or a million centres, all in different places?

See the problem with your argument?

Apparently we won't reach an agreement in this topic.

Don't be so hasty! We've barely started educating you on modern cosmology. Give yourself time to learn. Who knows? You might change your mind about some things and come to agree with me after we discuss things more.

About earth hanging on nothing, well, Job suffered so many traumas after bad things happened to him, surely he was babbling a lot.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Do you think the Earth is sitting on the back of a giant tortoise, or something like that? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

 

[beil]

The bible nowhere "touches on physics questions".

None of the scientific insights of these people came from reading the Old Testament. They came from making observations of nature.

I am talking about the mindset of them all, Including A. Einstein who believed that he was in a mind game with "Der Alte" and the common belief, that there was logic and order behind the Universe. Of course This has nothing to do with their religious affliction ( not a spelling error) to the contrary most of them were persecuted.
Many physics question are touched in the Scriptures, including in Gen !:1 which wrongly claims that the Earth was created in the Beginning, 14, not 4.5 billion years ago. or
The temptation, where Jesus is supposed to have been shown all the kingdoms of the Earth from a high mountain in the Middle east. Flat earthers all.

 

[Pinball1970]

Many physics question are touched in the Scriptures

I disagree with exchemist to an extent here. Obviously the Bible authors were not asking physics questions, there was no physics, there was no philosophy either (early doors)
The authors were not just poets however, they were trying to make sense of the world around them and their place within it.

 

[exchemist]

I disagree with exchemist to an extent here. Obviously the Bible authors were not asking physics questions, there was no physics, there was no philosophy either (early doors)
The authors were not just poets however, they were trying to make sense of the world around them and their place within it.

Quite so. They were not doing physics. To suggest they were would be anachronistic, given that physics only emerged several thousand years later, around 1500AD.

 

[Luchito]

Luchito:

You are correct that Einstein's ideas were hypotheses - right up until they were tested and found to be correct. Once enough confirming evidence had been gathered, they attained the status of a Theory.

Okay. So what? His hypotheses turned out to be correct. So now we have the Theory of Relativity and such.

You have a house where a basement wall always gets wet and water runs over the floor after rain outside. Several contractors come and estimate the cost of the repair, which is dig outside and paint with a protecting paint the outside of the basement walls.

Such is the certainty of the theories of Relativity. In paper its formulas and equations fit and predict even the amount of water depending of the rain outside.

Truth is that even when the walls were under the treatment against filtration of water, it happens that the water was coming from cracks in the floor.

This new "discovery" changes the whole game.

Relativity calculations can fit whatever its author wants, but the cause of the phenomenon is other than the one he implies in his theories. This is why I find them obsolete after new findings make more clear the reason of the behavior and results of bodies in motion and more.

I could quote you. "A theory is an explanation that’s supported by evidence and formed to explain things already substantiated by data."

More generally, in science a Theory is conceptual framework that can be used to explain observations and to make useful and verifiable predictions about how physical systems will behave under specified conditions.

I don't know what you mean by "physically existent", in this context. I don't think Einstein ever wrote that "Time is physically existent." Did he?

When he says time is affected because speed of bodies, what do you understand about it?

Claims of Relativity say speed won't affect the body but will affect time, well, he even says that time is part of the fabric of the universe. If not something physically existent, then how can be part of the fabric of the physical universe?

He claimed that observers in different states of motion can measure different time intervals between the same pair of events. That claim has been experimentally tested. It works exactly as Einstein said it would. So, Einstein's claim was correct.

I have no idea of what you just wrote, it sounds scientific and terrific, but understanding it is too much for a guy like me coming from public schools.

That's not the Twin Paradox. That's just regular old time dilation, which - by the way - has been verified in all its details by many experimental tests. Also, it turns out that the Twin Paradox is not really a paradox at all. We understand why the apparent problem isn't actually a real problem at all.

Please, can you speak in layman language? A paradox that is not a paradox, an apparent problem that is not a real problem after all. By the way, is the earth hung on nothing or not? A paradox or an apparent problem that is not real after all?

Time exists. It's the thing that stops everything from happening all at once. You've probably noticed it.

When my new boss was giving us reshape classes between repairs, I remember he asked me was is a receptacle. It took me by surprise. I looked at the receptacle he was holding in his hand showing it to us, and I started saying, "well, is the thing that..."

He stop me right there. He told us that we are not plumbers (sorry plumbers) and that we are to speak using the proper words. Then he said, "the receptacle is a device that....such and such..."

At this time, more than one hundred years after Relativity theories were released, time must enjoy a proper definition given where its description must be explained with details. I can't trust a theory that leans on time and can't even define time with proper words.

That's is me. Please don't expect better from me, remember, public school, a receptacle is a thing, and similar. My acquired knowledge is very limited, but I have been very careful that whatever I learned is not an assumption but the sure thing (here I go again).

You're not just misunderstanding the word "temporal" are you? "Temporal" doesn't mean "temporary".

Time dilation has been verified by many different experiments, over the course of the last century.

If you're going to just deny that it occurs, that's just silly. You're just showing that you're unaware of any of the evidence for it - displaying your ignorance.

Before you criticise a thing, don't you think it might be a good idea to first understand the best arguments for the thing you want to argue against?

That is exactly all my teachers used to tell me.

The expansion "of space" is just a scientific model we use to describe what we observe happening in our universe. In general relativistic cosmological models, the equations contain a "scale factor" that tells us how the theory predicts that measured distances are changing over time. The theory's predictions correctly mirror what we observe when we look at, for instance, the motions of distant galaxies. That's one reason why all those scientists think that General Relativity is a successful theory.

Do you know that when Relativity was formally recognized as correct after the 1919 solar eclipse expeditions, the total number of scientists were against such a recognition and solely one of them supported it? Only one of the many scientists who were there measuring the plaques from the telescopes. The recognition for Relativity was a great thing but a bad starting when you know the situation happening over there.

You said it well, the expansion of space is a model used for certain purposes. Question is, having that space is not expanding, how good the calculations for galaxies can be trusted? I myself won't bet on it. I prefer to bet on the wrong horse, I can lose money not my mind.

What kind of "proof" would you like to see?

Please define "expansion" for me, then. And, specifically, tell me what you would want to do to determine whether or not space is expanding. Suggest a measurement or an experiment you would do to tell, one way or the other.

The assumed expansion based on the Big Bang theory claims doing it in all directions. If no point of reference is obtained as a starting point, then no measurement can be made.

If I'm in a car and another car is moving away from me, I think it's fair to say that the distance between my car and that other car is increasing (or "expanding", if you like).

Space isn't a substance. It's not like a fabric that can stretch. There are only the distances we measure between objects.

It seems like you want more than that. What more do you want?

Then, space is not a substance, but together with time form the fabric of the universe. Interesting.

Okay. I have no problem with that.

The problem with that thought is that, if you happened to live in the Andromeda galaxy, you'd still be seeing all the other galaxies moving away from you. In fact, you can pick any galaxy you like. (Pick one outside the Local Group, to be safe.) If you're inside it, then you'll see all the other galaxies moving away from you.

Do you conclude that Andromeda is the centre of the universe, then? Or that the centre is actually a galaxy 20 megaparsecs from us?

Can the universe have two centres? Or a million centres, all in different places?

See the problem with your argument?

We have a sphere that is continually expanding. Several particles are floating inside. The source of its expansion have disappeared already. Only the inertia keeps causing the expansion. Each particle inside will see other particles going away and also other particles coming on their direction or better to say, coming behind you, even particles traveling in parallel. Don't you think?

Don't be so hasty! We've barely started educating you on modern cosmology. Give yourself time to learn. Who knows? You might change your mind about some things and come to agree with me after we discuss things more.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Do you think the Earth is sitting on the back of a giant tortoise, or something like that? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

What I think now, because you just reminded me something very important, is that Job wasn't able to describe better the status of earth. Job knew that sun, moon and other cosmic bodies move. For him, like you, space has no substance. For him, our planet traveling or kept standing was on nothing (no substance).

 

[beil]

Not a real paradox. It's a pseudo paradox that comes from a naive and incorrect interpretation of SR. It's not infamous, it's a teaching tool to clarify how time dilation works when there are multiple inertial frames in the traveler.

is it not really about the difference in velocities, but rather
the acceleration / deceleration required to get them back together in the same place?

 

[James R]

Luchito:

You have a house where a basement wall always gets wet and water runs over the floor after rain outside. Several contractors come and estimate the cost of the repair, which is dig outside and paint with a protecting paint the outside of the basement walls.

Such is the certainty of the theories of Relativity. In paper its formulas and equations fit and predict even the amount of water depending of the rain outside.

I don't think you understand the theory of relativity sufficiently to be able to identify any flaws in it.

It seems very likely to me that you have made no attempt to study even the basics of the theory. Maybe your mathematical knowledge isn't up to the task. If that's the case, you're far from alone. But most people defer to experts when they don't know something, rather than assuming they know it even when they have never studied it.

Relativity calculations can fit whatever its author wants...

No. The results from the theory of relativity make very specific, falsifiable predictions, just like all good scientific theories do. Scientists accept that relativity is correct because of all the predictions that the theory makes which have been checked against actual evidence from the real world.

... but the cause of the phenomenon is other than the one he implies in his theories.

To which phenomena are you referring? Be specific, and please tell me what the alternative explanation is.

This is why I find them obsolete after new findings make more clear the reason of the behavior and results of bodies in motion and more.

What are these new findings? Please tell me about them and explain me how they show the reason for the behaviour and results of bodies in motion.

Thanks, Luchito.

When he says time is affected because speed of bodies, what do you understand about it?

I told you. "He claimed that observers in different states of motion can measure different time intervals between the same pair of events."

That claim has been experimentally tested. It works exactly as Einstein said it would. So, Einstein's claim was correct.

Claims of Relativity say speed won't affect the body but will affect time, well, he even says that time is part of the fabric of the universe.

The term "fabric of the universe" is a bit of poetic language. Time is part of the universe, certainly. Most people don't dispute that.

If not something physically existent, then how can be part of the fabric of the physical universe?

You still haven't told me what you mean by "physically existent". I can't address your question until you tell me what that term means to you.

I have no idea of what you just wrote, it sounds scientific and terrific, but understanding it is too much for a guy like me coming from public schools.

I'll give you an example, so you can understand it.

Suppose you and I synchronise our watches, which are identical. Then, while I relax in an armchair, you jump on a plane and fly around the world several times.

Time dilation predicts a few things about what our watches will do. For one, it says that while you are flying around in your plane, your watch will run a little more slowly than mine, according to me. It also says that when you get back from your trip and we compare the times on our two watches, your watch will have measured less total elapsed time than mine.

Does that help you to understand the concept of time dilation?

Please, can you speak in layman language?

I'm already writing about it in words, rather than in equations. With all due respect, there's only so much that I can dumb it down for you.

A paradox that is not a paradox, an apparent problem that is not a real problem after all.

The "twin paradox" was a label given to a particular scenario that people in the early days of relativity theory thought produced an actual paradox. It seemed possible that you could use the scenario to predict that one twin would end up older than another when they travelled relative to one another, and that you could use the same argument to predict that the same twin would end up younger than the other. The problem was that the relevant argument appeared to be symmetrical, and that symmetry produced a paradox.

However, it turns out the problem is not symmetrical, even though it appears naively to be so. The paradox is dissolved when we recognise the relevant asymmetry in the scenario. That is, the scenario turns out not to make a paradoxical prediction, after all.

This is all well understood these days by physicists.

By the way, is the earth hung on nothing or not?

What do you mean "hung on"? Do you think the Earth is hung on something? If so, what do you think it's hung on?

I notice that you didn't answer the question I asked you previously about the giant tortoise.

At this time, more than one hundred years after Relativity theories were released, time must enjoy a proper definition given where its description must be explained with details. I can't trust a theory that leans on time and can't even define time with proper words.

It's probably just fine to define time as whatever it is that clocks measure. For example, the time interval between when my watch reads 2 pm and when it reads 3 pm is 1 hour.

What other definition would you like?

We have formal definitions of units of time. For instance, 1 second is defined as the time taken for cesium atoms to vibrate 9 billions times or so. We can watch them vibrate, so to speak, and count the vibrations. When we reach a count of 9 billion-ish, 1 second of time will have passed.

That is exactly all my teachers used to tell me.

Maybe you should have listened to them.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Do you know that when Relativity was formally recognized as correct after the 1919 solar eclipse expeditions, the total number of scientists were against such a recognition and solely one of them supported it?

I don't think that's correct. Where did you get that information from? Can you please provide your source, so I can take a look for myself?

Einstein gained a whole next level of fame after the eclipse thing confirmed his predictions. A lot of scientists very rapidly came to agree that the theory of general relativity was correct, as far as I am aware.

Only one of the many scientists who were there measuring the plaques from the telescopes. The recognition for Relativity was a great thing but a bad starting when you know the situation happening over there.

Even if what you say is true (and I doubt it is), it really doesn't matter, because since 1919, we've had more than 100 years to thoroughly test the theory of relativity. It has passed every test with flying colours. So, if the 1919 eclipse results weren't conclusive, then the 100+ years of other results certainly have been.

You said it well, the expansion of space is a model used for certain purposes. Question is, having that space is not expanding, how good the calculations for galaxies can be trusted?

We don't need to use relativity to deduce that the universe is expanding. We can measure the expansion by observing things like red shift of the light from the receding galaxies.

Relativity just gives us a theory to describe the expansion and to account quantitatively for how it is expanding.

I myself won't bet on it. I prefer to bet on the wrong horse, I can lose money not my mind.

You certainly have the freedom to be wrong and to remain ignorant if that's what you want to do.

I do wonder though: what is it about the idea of relativity that bothers you so much? Is it because you feel that relativity is in conflict with some other view of the universe that you hold dear?

Are you also bothered that science says the Earth is a globe? Some people are, apparently, very bothered by that. For example, some people think the globe Earth threatens the flatness of the Earth that they believe their holy book requires them to believe in. So, for them, it comes down to a showdown between a bunch of nerdy guys with pencils and the Almighty Creator of the Cosmos. In that contest, the flat earthers feel that the Big Guy in the Sky just has to win, and that for some reason He needs their help to fight the evil Science that says something different to the Big Guy's holy book.

The assumed expansion based on the Big Bang theory claims doing it in all directions. If no point of reference is obtained as a starting point, then no measurement can be made.

We can just measure the distances between pairs of galaxies and check whether those distances are increasing over time. No "starting" point is needed for that.

Then, space is not a substance, but together with time form the fabric of the universe. Interesting.

Again, be careful of reading too much into the flowery expression "fabric of the universe". All that means is that any event takes place at a specific point in space and at a specific time. Space and time therefore form a kind of "backdrop" or "fabric" or "arena" in which stuff happens.

We have a sphere that is continually expanding.

The universe is not necessarily a sphere. It might not even have a finite volume. Also, it has no centre, as far as we can tell.

Several particles are floating inside. The source of its expansion have disappeared already. Only the inertia keeps causing the expansion.

That's a good starting point for understanding the expansion of the universe.

Each particle inside will see other particles going away and also other particles coming on their direction or better to say, coming behind you, even particles traveling in parallel. Don't you think?

If everything was expanding outwards from a single point, that might be true. But the fact of the matter is that, other than in our local vicinity, we don't see any other galaxies "coming up from behind" towards us. Instead, we see essentially all the galaxies moving away from us.

A better picture to have in your head is that the universe is a bit like a loaf of raisin bread that is baking in an oven. As the bread heats up, all of the bread expands, and every pair of raisins in the bread will move further away from one another. In this analogy, the bread represents the universe and the raisins represent galaxies. The analogy breaks down a bit because the loaf of bread has an actual centre, whereas our universe doesn't seem to have such a thing. You could imagine an infinitely-large loaf of raisin bread, which makes the analogy work a bit better.

What I think now, because you just reminded me something very important, is that Job wasn't able to describe better the status of earth. Job knew that sun, moon and other cosmic bodies move. For him, like you, space has no substance. For him, our planet traveling or kept standing was on nothing (no substance).

It's more accurate to say that the Sun stands still and the Earth moves around it (once a year), but I think we can forgive Job for being a fictional character in a 3000 year old book.

The Earth, in case you're still wondering about what it's hung on, is constantly falling through space, quite literally. It falls around the Sun, making one complete orbit every year. Nothing pushes it along its path and nothing stops it from falling. So, it's not hung on anything.

Does that help you?

 

[Luchito]

Luchito:

I don't think you understand the theory of relativity sufficiently to be able to identify any flaws in it.

What I found is that relativity theory is full of flaws. I think the attempts of Albert are to be taken as elementary school, while now we are at high school level. These are my thoughts, of course not popular not shared by anyone.

It seems very likely to me that you have made no attempt to study even the basics of the theory. Maybe your mathematical knowledge isn't up to the task. If that's the case, you're far from alone. But most people defer to experts when they don't know something, rather than assuming they know it even when they have never studied it.

I do differ from your point of view. To me mathematics is not a language but solely an excellent method useful for backing up all kind of presentations with amounts. In simple say, mathematics is just about amounts, that's all. But even if I research deeper the mathematical aspect in relativity theories, that is not useful at all. In my case I don't review a theory based on its doctrines but based on its evidence.

No. The results from the theory of relativity make very specific, falsifiable predictions, just like all good scientific theories do. Scientists accept that relativity is correct because of all the predictions that the theory makes which have been checked against actual evidence from the real world.

To which phenomena are you referring? Be specific, and please tell me what the alternative explanation is.

I have lots of them. I will give you one only explanation.

What are these new findings? Please tell me about them and explain me how they show the reason for the behaviour and results of bodies in motion.

Suppose you and I synchronise our watches, which are identical. Then, while I relax in an armchair, you jump on a plane and fly around the world several times.

Time dilation predicts a few things about what our watches will do. For one, it says that while you are flying around in your plane, your watch will run a little more slowly than mine, according to me. It also says that when you get back from your trip and we compare the times on our two watches, your watch will have measured less total elapsed time than mine.

Does that help you to understand the concept of time dilation?

Here is the promised only explanation.

The first flaw in your example is believing that I'm resting while you are moving. You surely noticed that.
The second flaw is the dualism found in the frames of reference. Your point of reference, my point of reference.

I will add a third frame of reference to play with your example.

Mike Johnson (Sheees! I can't find a better guy, hmm hmm hmm) is in outer space at a distance between earth and Venus. From there, our Mike is observing planet earth. What Mike sees is you and I traveling together at 67,000 miles per hour. He sees both of us traveling at the same speed.

You, in physical existing reality, are not resting. You are traveling like me at 67,000 miles per hour around the sun.

But wait, the sun is traveling at higher speed inside the galaxy, and our galaxy is traveling even t a higher speed in the universe.

As you can see, and as the example given to you with the water getting inside the basement, no matter how good the numbers fit with the prediction, the real cause of the leaking water inside the basement of that house is by a different cause.

Here is when I found the cause. But that is food for a different topic.

I'm already writing about it in words, rather than in equations. With all due respect, there's only so much that I can dumb it down for you.

The "twin paradox" was a label given to a particular scenario that people in the early days of relativity theory thought produced an actual paradox. It seemed possible that you could use the scenario to predict that one twin would end up older than another when they travelled relative to one another, and that you could use the same argument to predict that the same twin would end up younger than the other. The problem was that the relevant argument appeared to be symmetrical, and that symmetry produced a paradox.

However, it turns out the problem is not symmetrical, even though it appears naively to be so. The paradox is dissolved when we recognise the relevant asymmetry in the scenario. That is, the scenario turns out not to make a paradoxical prediction, after all.

This is all well understood these days by physicists.

I still think relativity has been proved totally erroneous by modern technology. I read in 2001, in a magazine, the effects of space traveling. Wow! Being an astronaut is something serious, one puts at risk his health. A 40 years old astronaut returns back to earth with osteoporosis of a 70 years old man. There is a TV series, Bones, where this phenomenon is mentioned. It was found the body of a young woman but internally she was older, way older. She was an astronaut.

Not only the bones are affected, it has been discovered the heart becomes spherical, the DNA is changed (and no, outer space is not COVID vaccine changing DNA), the body suffers deformations, and several (not few but several) other harmful effects happen over there. In Albert's era such effects were unknown, Today, no matter the speed of the spaceship, the human body will suffer decay making it older, not younger. The cause, it is said is different gravity.

In paper, Albert wrote his theories as if space traveling is like traveling in a train from New York to Washington DC.

What do you mean "hung on"? Do you think the Earth is hung on something? If so, what do you think it's hung on?

I notice that you didn't answer the question I asked you previously about the giant tortoise.

Because such is the topic here. That is what Job said.

It's probably just fine to define time as whatever it is that clocks measure. For example, the time interval between when my watch reads 2 pm and when it reads 3 pm is 1 hour.

What other definition would you like?

That definition was given by Albert. And as I said before, that is the typical answer of a child in elementary school.

I will give you the definition of time I have concluded after reviewing lots of writings about it.

Time is the measurement made when comparing the motion or decay of a body against the regular motion of another body.

Very simple.

It can be proved, tested, whatever. This definition survives any criticism. No flaws, only defining what time is.

You see, you compare all your doings with the regular motion translated in numbers by your clock. If you go deeper, time is comparing your traveling motion from Canada to Maine against the regular motion of the rotation of earth.

A clock is any means showing a regular motion.

All the rest said about time is just ornaments, decorations. But the full machinery is comparing a body (energy and whatever) with the regular motion of other body)

We have formal definitions of units of time. For instance, 1 second is defined as the time taken for cesium atoms to vibrate 9 billions times or so. We can watch them vibrate, so to speak, and count the vibrations. When we reach a count of 9 billion-ish, 1 second of time will have passed.

I find the "old way" more easier, not much accurate but way more easier. Observing the period from day noon to day noon, divide it into 24 parts, each part into 60 parts, and each new part divided again into 60 parts again, result: a second.

Maybe you should have listened to them.

Yeah, I should. Today discussing these topics causes me lots of confrontations, I feel myself like Velikovsky. (Between you and I, I think is worthy, don't tell anyone)

 

[Pinball1970]

What I found is that relativity theory is full of flaws

We can go through one of them?

 

[James R]

Luchito:

What I found is that relativity theory is full of flaws.

Please list three of them. Dot points will do, for starters, unless you want to describe them in more detail.

Also, you can't count the things you pointed out in the post I'm replying to, because there you haven't identified any actual flaws, as I will show you.

I think the attempts of Albert are to be taken as elementary school, while now we are at high school level. These are my thoughts, of course not popular not shared by anyone.

I don't really care what you think about Einstein or about relativity, unless you can show that something is actually wrong with it. Your vibes don't interest me.

I do differ from your point of view.

Oh? Was I wrong when I surmised that you haven't studied even the basics of the theory of relativity (including the mathematical formulation of, say, special relativity, at a minimum)? Or was I correct?

To me mathematics is not a language but solely an excellent method useful for backing up all kind of presentations with amounts.

I don't really care what you think mathematics is, since you have not demonstrated that you have any significant knowledge of mathematics, so far.

In simple say, mathematics is just about amounts, that's all.

That is incorrect.

But even if I research deeper the mathematical aspect in relativity theories, that is not useful at all.

How deep have you "researched" so far? Have you read even a basic mathematical introduction to the theory? I get the impression that you haven't. Seems like your "research" has been minimal so far.

In my case I don't review a theory based on its doctrines but based on its evidence.

How can you know if the evidence is any good if you don't understand the predictions of the theory or how it was used to make them? How can you even start to identify whether something is evidence for or against the theory, when you don't understand what the theory is about?

Here is the promised only explanation. The first flaw in your example ...

I thought you said you were going to tell me about "new findings" that disprove the theory of relativity.

How could any error in my example possibly be relevant to your evidence that the theory is flawed? Just present the evidence you said you have and stop worrying about my evidence.

The first flaw in your example is believing that I'm resting while you are moving. You surely noticed that.

I can't see any problem in that. Please explain in more detail. Moreover, it's not a "belief". It's an observation. When you drive away from me in your car, I observe that you are moving while I'm at rest. More accurately, I observe that you are moving relative to me. Same thing if I drive away from you in my car.

The second flaw is the dualism found in the frames of reference. Your point of reference, my point of reference.

You haven't actually pointed to any flaw. What's the problem with the "dualism" you mention? Please explain.

I will add a third frame of reference to play with your example.

Mike Johnson (Sheees! I can't find a better guy, hmm hmm hmm) is in outer space at a distance between earth and Venus. From there, our Mike is observing planet earth. What Mike sees is you and I traveling together at 67,000 miles per hour. He sees both of us traveling at the same speed.

Not if you and I are moving relative to one another, he doesn't.

If you and I are both sitting in the same room in armchairs, then maybe he does.

Is there a problem with that?

You, in physical existing reality, are not resting. You are traveling like me at 67,000 miles per hour around the sun.

Please explain to me how you propose to measure the speeds of things in "physical existing reality".

How fast are you going right now, in "physical existing reality"? Please tell me the number.

But wait, the sun is traveling at higher speed inside the galaxy, and our galaxy is traveling even t a higher speed in the universe.

What are their speeds, in "physical existing reality"?

I note, at this point, that you have failed to identify any flaw in the theory of relativity, with your example. Got anything better?

Let's move on.

I still think relativity has been proved totally erroneous by modern technology.

Please give at least one example of how "modern technology" proved relativity "totally erroneous". You have failed to give any useful examples so far.

I read in 2001, in a magazine, the effects of space traveling. Wow! Being an astronaut is something serious, one puts at risk his health.

There are radiation problems and problems related to weightlessness, sure.

What has any of that got to do with the theory of relativity? Please try to concentrate on your goal here, which is to show me why relativity is wrong.

Today, no matter the speed of the spaceship, the human body will suffer decay making it older, not younger.

Relativity doesn't say that human bodies get younger, so this appears to be an irrelevant sidetrack. Please focus on your end goal here. Don't get distracted by irrelevancies.

In paper, Albert wrote his theories as if space traveling is like traveling in a train from New York to Washington DC.

Not to my knowledge.

I note that, previously, when I asked you for a reference from Einstein's actual writings, you didn't provide one.

I don't suppose you have a reference for this lastest claim of yours about what Einstein wrote, either. Do you?

You shouldn't just make shit up, Luchito.

I will give you the definition of time I have concluded after reviewing lots of writings about it.

Time is the measurement made when comparing the motion or decay of a body against the regular motion of another body.

Tell me how your watch compares the motion or decay of a body against the regular motion of another body.

Do watches measure time?

It can be proved, tested, whatever.

Please tell me about one specific test and how it proves the definition.

This definition survives any criticism.

We'll see once you have presented your proof.

You see, you compare all your doings with the regular motion translated in numbers by your clock. If you go deeper, time is comparing your traveling motion from Canada to Maine against the regular motion of the rotation of earth.

The rotation of the Earth, while regular to some degree, is not that regular. I'm guessing you're unaware of this.

A clock is any means showing a regular motion.

"Regular" being a word that refers to time. Okay.

All the rest said about time is just ornaments, decorations.

So we can agree that time is something that clocks measure. Good.

But the full machinery is comparing a body (energy and whatever) with the regular motion of other body)

Please give a brief description of the full machinery. I can't tell what you're referring to.

I find the "old way" more easier, not much accurate but way more easier. Observing the period from day noon to day noon, divide it into 24 parts, each part into 60 parts, and each new part divided again into 60 parts again, result: a second.

Okay. So you agree that we can use the observed regular motion of the Sun to define time, then?

For example, we could use a sundial as a clock to measure time? Making time something that clocks measure?

---
Don't forget to provide descriptions and evidence of 3 flaws in the theory of relativity in your next post, Luchito.

 

[Luchito]

Luchito:

Please list three of them. Dot points will do, for starters, unless you want to describe them in more detail.

I think I told you that I was to mention only one. The selected one was the example you posted about the assumed dilation of time. As this is the topic of Job words about earth in space, I just have the courtesy of not taking the conversation far away from the topic in question.

Also, you can't count the things you pointed out in the post I'm replying to, because there you haven't identified any actual flaws, as I will show you.

I don't really care what you think about Einstein or about relativity, unless you can show that something is actually wrong with it. Your vibes don't interest me.

I think the flaw of the infamous Twin Paradox lean on assumptions, like the ones mentioned above. No one in this universe is "resting". The third frame of reference (Mike Johnson located between earth and Venus) is showing that no matter if an airplane, a satellite or anything is surrounding earth a faster speed that a person resting on the sand drinking his Corona in the beach. From Mike's frame of reference, the guy in the beach and the satellite are both traveling at 67,000 miles per hour. And, the guy and the satellite orbiting our planet are traveling together with the sun at 514,000 miles per hour. And, the guy in the beach, the satellite, the sun, and the Milky way, are all of them traveling at 1.34 million miles per hour.

I don't see how time will do to dilate in such circumstances.

Can you believe it? We are actually traveling at 1.34 million miles per hour. If we do so, then the guy resting on the sand of the beach is not resting at all, he is traveling with us as well.

Of course, the comparison of the guy resting on the beach with the guy traveling in spaceship is good to satisfy numbers written in a piece of paper in order to fit a hypothesis. But, as I said before, I don't review a theory based on its doctrines, I review it based on evidence.

Allow me please to explain. If a person tells me God exists and he shows me the Bible, if I want to investigate his claims, I will use his bible as a reference of his claims only, but the doctrines are out. From here, I will look for a different source that is against the existence of God. After doing so, I use the weight scale and obtain my conclusion based on the source with more evidence.

In my opinion, we don't need a better theory of the same class to replace a current theory. We can obtain new theories to explain each phenomenon in particular. Like I said before, this is food for a different topic.

Oh? Was I wrong when I surmised that you haven't studied even the basics of the theory of relativity (including the mathematical formulation of, say, special relativity, at a minimum)? Or was I correct?

Of course you are correct. No doubt. Bible says one knows another person by its fruits, and the fruits of Relativity are way away from reality.

I don't really care what you think mathematics is, since you have not demonstrated that you have any significant knowledge of mathematics, so far.

It's true, I can just subtract natural numbers.

How deep have you "researched" so far? Have you read even a basic mathematical introduction to the theory? I get the impression that you haven't. Seems like your "research" has been minimal so far.

The reason for not giving importance to the mathematical side of the theories of Relativity, is because I found them to be abstract mathematics.

In many cases, like with Relativity theories, the mathematics based in assumptions turns the whole scenario to a kind of entertainment. Let's say, no doubt that the best chess player in the world is a genius.

However, he is a genius moving the knight L shape motion, the rook vertical horizontal, the bishop diagonally, the pawn forward one space, and so forth.

However, no army in the world hires a genius chess player to be the head of the strategy of war against an enemy. Reality is totally different than a chess game.

One doesn't need to be a genius to understand mathematically the Relativity theories, one only need to love mathematics to feel attractive to those theories and play all day long with their formulas and equations.

This is my opinion so far, an opinion not shared by the rest, but my opinion at last.

How can you know if the evidence is any good if you don't understand the predictions of the theory or how it was used to make them? How can you even start to identify whether something is evidence for or against the theory, when you don't understand what the theory is about?

Well, dilation of time dies when reality shows that nothing is at rest and we are traveling at 1.34 million miles per hour. That prediction is invalid. No need to make new calculations but just take a piece of paper, making drawings of earth, of the solar system, of the Milky Way and observe them while checking their speeds.

By the way, I discovered that science the simpler the better.

I thought you said you were going to tell me about "new findings" that disprove the theory of relativity.

The new findings have been published throughout the years, and the related to the topic are many. Like the one I told you about astronauts body reactions in space. You see, when you relate to the claims of relativity about traveling at such and such speed and the person will age slower than a person resting on ground zero, well, there are several factors in reality that at the end differ or contradict the claims of Relativity. And this is just one small detail.

How could any error in my example possibly be relevant to your evidence that the theory is flawed? Just present the evidence you said you have and stop worrying about my evidence.

I can't see any problem in that. Please explain in more detail. Moreover, it's not a "belief". It's an observation. When you drive away from me in your car, I observe that you are moving while I'm at rest. More accurately, I observe that you are moving relative to me. Same thing if I drive away from you in my car.

And that is the point. You move away from me or, I move away from you. Well, that's all, nothing magical must have to happen. Just motion of one body away from another body. No matter if walking or traveling in a spaceship, is just one body moving away from another body. If Relativity says that something extra happens, other than motion of bodies, and claims that time will dilate, here is when the relativist must come clear and precise and provide a definition of time including such particularity of dilating by causes of motion or gravity. The definition must be testable, because science demands it.

You haven't actually pointed to any flaw. What's the problem with the "dualism" you mention? Please explain.

The example of the Twin Paradox lean on two frames of reference only, and appears to fit "perfectly" with the theory in question. But, adding a third frame of reference immediately invalidates the claims of Relativity.

Please explain to me how you propose to measure the speeds of things in "physical existing reality".

I push hard the mention of those words together because I want to make clear that I'm not talking based on imaginations. Just remember that Albert says that imaginations are more important than knowledge. Well, to me, when is about science, surely knowledge is more important than imaginations.

 

[Luchito]

How fast are you going right now, in "physical existing reality"? Please tell me the number.

One can't measure time data based on imaginary time dilation.

Having that time is itself solely a measure, a measure obtained by comparing my motion against the motion of earth in reference to the sun (rotation of earth), the time data provided by a clock will tell me the duration of my traveling from North Caroline to Georgia. This is having a clock as an instrument giving time data based on the rotation of earth.

Please give at least one example of how "modern technology" proved relativity "totally erroneous". You have failed to give any useful examples so far.

Again, I told you I was to give solely one example.

What about the following?

Clear up the controversial Twin Paradox, and after that I might give you another example . I say this because so far, I have not read an answer from you certifying the certainty of those claims that cried for time dilation. Time dilation in the Twin Paradox doesn't claim that one of the bodies must be rested in order to happen, it only uses the assumed body at rest in order to compare assumed results when comparing ages, the guy at rest and the guy in motion.

Very well, everybody here is traveling at 1.34 million years per hour. Oh my, I guess time must be right now stretched bigger than the universe itself. Worst thing is that me traveling at 1.34 million years per hour doesn't make me feel that I'm not aging. Perhaps I need to buy me a better mirror, I don't know.

I guess Job didn't feel we are moving that fast around the universe. You know, the protecting atmosphere avoids the sensation of traveling at 67,000 miles per hour around the sun. I also guess that if Job knew the speed we are traveling right now in space, that he will use the word "moving" instead of "hanging".

Job ignore our physical existent reality, we are continually moving. I don't know, but I think Albert also ignored the same.

There are radiation problems and problems related to weightlessness, sure.

I note that, previously, when I asked you for a reference from Einstein's actual writings, you didn't provide one.

I don't suppose you have a reference for this lastest claim of yours about what Einstein wrote, either. Do you?

"Let us now (In German language "imagine that) a second clock which is permanently situated at the origin (x^1=0) of k^1. t^1=0 and t^1=I are two successiveticks for this clock. The first and fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation give of these two ticks:

Formula

As judged from K, the clock is moving with velocity v; as judged from this reference body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second but

Formula

seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest...
The Behavior of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion, Relativity, The Especial and General Relativity.
And in chapter Behavior of Clocks and Measuring-Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference, you have the imaginary experiment given by Albert. Please try it. Make the disc (according to his instructions, if any) install the mechanical clocks (in his years there weren't electric clocks, battery clocks, atomic clocks) and check if the clocks behave as he assumed. He assured the clocks will behave as stated in the previous chapter (given right above) based on Lorentz transformations.
Good luck with that.

You shouldn't just make shit up, Luchito.

Tell me how your watch compares the motion or decay of a body against the regular motion of another body.

You play domino with your friends. You started the game after breakfast. The game lasted until the sun started to disappear from the horizon. You check your clock, all day time playing the game. When using your clock giving you time data, you are comparing the period playing the game in based of the regular motion of the rotation of earth.

Now well, when you claim that the rotation of earth in reference to the sun is not "perfectly regular", well, what do you expect? When God created heavens and earth God said that he created was good, he never mention that was perfect.

To me, seconds more seconds less, the rotation of earth is regular to me, and fits with the definition of time given before.

Do watches measure time?

Time is the measure, The clock provides time data, but you can say that measures time, same when weight is the measure, the weight scale provides weight data, but you can say that measures weight.

Please tell me about one specific test and how it proves the definition.

Use the regular dropping of water from a fountain as a clock. Somebody counts the drops and compare them with you cleaning the house. The given data is time.

Compare the orbit of earth around the sun. Used it with you yourself. Each complete orbit is a year. You use such data for many uses. For the warranty of your car, for the days you were sick, for remember your birthday, etc.

Okay. So you agree that we can use the observed regular motion of the Sun to define time, then?

Not to define time, but to obtain time data. Of course you must use special instruments, I won't recommend you to observe the motion of the sun with your naked eyes. But yes, in general, any regular motion or decay can be used to obtain time data. If you use your heart bits as regular motion, then each heart bit can be called -as example- beete. From here, you can check how many beetes takes your dog to finish his food.

For example, we could use a sundial as a clock to measure time? Making time something that clocks measure?

Very well. You define time as something that clocks measure.

What exactly is "something" in your definition?

I'm very curious.

 

[Pinball1970]

assumed dilation of time

You can derive this directly from Einstein's two postulates, mathematically. It is sound and the equation was around and studied as Einstein developed Relativity.

The Lorentz transform, Poincaré was impressed with it.

Twin Paradox

It is not a paradox, you just need to understand a little bit about paths through space-time. A Minkowski diagram can illustrate this.