Juan
To give you fair warning. My reply reflects your combative demeaner
Your comments and counter arguments are representative of your personal opinion, and do not carry the weight of scientific consensus or even general community opinion, which it seams by your tone, this is what you would have us believe.
I am going to take the time to counter this series of comments, however don't form a series of new ones please. You and I are remote of opinion, and I don't see that effort to close the gap as likely to succeed anything.
You state
"The whole of universe is made of particles, not "mater fields of force"
The Gluon field and EM field are matter fields. They are also force fields, or force carrier fields. There is wave particle duality, which gives an interpretation inclusive of particle behaviour, but it is in association with waves or field theory. Not exclusive of it. It is not a scientific consensus that only particles are real and that fields are not. What you are doing here, is speaking with authority towards your own opinion, which excludes existence of electromagnatism.
You state
"How and why are routiney questions asked in science, and it is task of science (not of metaphysics) to provide objective answers to such questions.
Big Bang is a physical theory; there is nothing metaphysical on it."
You seek to distance yourself and conventional science and theory from being or being associated with (metaphysics). I guess then, that you and science have no use for any of these.......
wiki
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to one another.
I said
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are currently our frontier fundamental understandings of the world.
you countered
"What happened to the known extensions of Quantum Mechanics and General relativity?"
I spoke towards and acknowledged limits of our theoretical understanding, and I take your comment as an objection. But in effect all you did was point to what is known, as if that somehow excuses or counters the subject of what is unknown. You might be pretending that unknowns are unimportant or don't exist.
You say
"Our current scientific theories are satisfactory in identifying causes and effects for thousands of thousands of processes that happen in real world. Moreover, neither general relativity identifies time as cause, nor Quantum mechanics does for "forces". It is more, one can build quantum mechanical models without even mention forces at all."
Again you point to the processes that are believed to be understood, as if that denies importance or relevance of the conversation for what is not understood of these and other processes. Then you suggest that GR doesn't identify time as being a cause, but general relativity is the theory of spacetime. You're arguing with me that a fundamental theory whereby the principle ingredient isn't associated with cause? But you cant back this up with explanation, because that would entail telling me fundamentals of spacetimes operation, which clearly you cant. You also suggest that quantum mechanical models can be built without even mention of forces at all. I would judge such a theory about as useful as toilet without toilet paper. (What type of interaction could ever occur in the world that was something other than a forceful interaction?) How does something interact with another something, without issuing of forceful influence. A large part of the predictability of quantum mechanics is due to the principle of equal and opposite reaction. Equal and opposite reaction of forceful interactions. How might you get your bum cleaned in the absence of interactive forces! Have fun testing that theory.
You say
"Precisely time is one of the reasons why QM and GR are incompatible. Time is QM is a parameter that describes the implicit time evolution of states and observables. Time is a dimension in GR. Clocks in quantum mechanics cannot be quantum mechanical systems, if they were quantum then a proper definition of evolution time would be impossible; it is the same reason why time in QM is a parameter, not an observable with associated Hermitian operator. Also QM is not the study of matter but the study of (quantum) motion and GR cannot be 're-framed' as the study of QM matter, because GR is a classical theory."
What you are basically doing here is telling me that conventional theory, or your interpretation of it, cannot be re-framed. You back this up with interpretations and arguments, one of which is "QM is not the study of matter". I think it a basic deduction that it is, and don't feel a need to argue these points.
I said
If force drives clocks, then do clocks serve as a measure of force? Surely this logic is self-evident.
You countered
"Not only this is not self-evident, but it is incorrect. Clocks measure a scalar. Forces are given by vectors, so we cannot measure the latter from the former. At best we can obtain the magnitude of a force from reading a clock."
What you have failed to understand is, the front of the clock measures a scaler quantity, parameter of time. That is to say "physical quantity that only has magnitude and no other characteristics". But the front of the clock is but a puppet dictated to by the spring, and the spring does so dynamically and quantifiably in terms of expressions of force. You want some vector?
Please answer this question in terms that sound scientific? The answer must include forces, because forces drive clocks!
Forces drive clocks, clocks measure time. How do clocks measure time?
I said
to a larger value of expressions of force, defined as newtons, force summed by travel/distance.
To which you countered
"This is confounding a physical property with an unit of measurement. Also the proper unit is "newton" (without plural). And what unit is "travel"?
Quantifying a physical property in terms of units is not confounding! And thanks for the gramma lesson. I do wonder if I could have lived without it. Travel is equivalent to distance, and it emphasises that a clock springs capacity for force corresponds to an unwinding or "travel span", a distance. Its not promising that I have to explain such things. I judge that you are just generally disagreeable and it doesn't really serve a purpose to answer such questions.
You said
"Dark matter doesn't exist. It is the modern relativistic reincarnation of the old Vulcan planet invented by astronomers to explain discrepancies between Newtonian theory and observations. MOND is correct, but only has limited empirical validity."
Here we have another of your personal opinions which you cast off with the customary authority.
you state
"There is no definition of what concept of relativistic force is being used here; moreover, time dilation in GR is a consequence of gravitational potentials, but those gravitational potentials don't generate gravitational forces (gravitational-guided motion in GR is "free"). All of this and the remarks above simply state there is not such principle of nature named "force dilation"."
I did point to the springs of two clocks that had spent time apart from each other within diverse gravitational environments, subjected to time dilation effects. Bringing together for comparative we do observe that their measures of time had diverged. We pealed the faces from both clocks and observe that the springs positions had also diverged, and we quantified the springs divergence in terms of expressions of force/newton(s). So in summary, "we took an observable, quantified it in terms of parameter and measure, labelled it with a term "force dilation" so that from then on after we might have some simple reference term. But of course, you disagree, because that's what you will do even in the face of observation, measure. That is your superpower.
You argue that
"Force Dilation = Variable Mass". Introducing a concept of variable mass here has the same validity (i.e., none) than the older concept of speed-variable mass introduced in the early years of special relativity. The author doesn't give any relevant detail of his 'model', but it seems likely that the same physical effect is being counted twice here: one as time variable and another as mass variable."
I did attempt to draw a line between the dots for you. I pointed to observations and measures, then delivered an argument for the principle I termed "force dilation". I argued that force dilation applies to Gluon activity, and Gluons give mass. I then ask the reader to consider variable mass based on variable Gluon activity/force. Then I suggested to the reader that if we move on from circumstantial justifications, and just apply the principle to see what happens. Does it deliver anything of prospective use? As it turns out, all we have to do is suppose that Baryon mass scales dependent upon gravities square law proximity to matter, and the newly supposed distributions of mass fall in line, as if to predict galaxy rotation velocities. Geometric arguments being mathematical arguments serving as evidence. But of course none of this counts as valid, because you relate it to some old theory. Delivering a devastating blow!
You say
"The five 'Darwinian' principles aren't principles at all, but only vague descriptions of phenomena is not fundamental as "trees reaching out to gather sun's rays." In fact it is not true that "structures spread out across area and volume of space". There are structures that reduce its size, because the optimal (equilibrium) state is one of smaller size; a gas into a volume higher than correspond to its temperature, will evolve spontaneously towards a smaller volume final state, when piston is released."
Again you are generally argumentative and arguing nul points. I referred to the five principles as being "basic Darwinian principles". And you argue with me on the basis of whether of not they are principles in any respect. When infact "A principle is a concept or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation." And my use of the term principle is certainly encapsulated by that.
I judge you will rate my essay as poorly as is within your power, so please go ahead and issue it. I expect you will have issued a splattering of 1's about the place already, and I would feel left out if I wasn't to receive mine.
