'Space and Time' by Sergey Shevchenko et al.
1. The Contest
I. Original Statement: "The rest of the comment seems questionable. Possibly due to a lack of education in physics."
=> My Response:
This is an incorrect statement regarding the research paper titled "Relativistic effects on phase shift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II." The paper scientifically establishes that "Relative time emerges from relative frequencies. It is the phase shift in relative frequencies due to infinitesimal loss in wave energy and the corresponding enlargement in the wavelengths of oscillations, which occur in any clock between relative locations due to the relativistic effects or differences in gravitational potential. This results in errors in the reading of clock time, which is wrongly presented as time dilation." Through experiments and calculations, it shows that for a 1455.50003025° phase shift of a 9192631770 Hz wave, time shifts (time delays) 𝛥𝑡 = 0.0000004398148148148148 ms (approx.) or 38 microseconds per day.
Therefore, the questioning mainstream philosophical comment is based on preconception from the very beginning and clear ignorance of the content of the paper. So you have rather shown your lack of education in physics and ignorance of the valid submissions in the research paper.
II. Original Statement: "Time is a physical problem because it is a variable/observable in physical equations. Time exists absolutely objectively."
=> My Response:
Time appears physical when considering 'clock time,' as clocks are subject to distortion due to external effects, resulting in erroneous time. However, the concept of time arises from changes in events, and time progresses independently. Without events, the concept of time would be meaningless. Cosmic time is universal, unaffected, un-interactable, independent, conceptually uniformed, and fourth-dimensional, while clock time is a local representation, subject to external effects, modifiable, dependent, designed for uniform succession, and mathematically (hence abstractly) representable.
However, time is not physical; the concept of time arises from changes in events, progressing independently.
Time is not variable either; varying time would violate the scale of time, as the progress of time requires a constant change in unit durations. So, time has a standard unit with respect to a certain frequency. Cosmic time is not observable with events; only events are observable, not time - as time arises from the events. Clock time is a physical representation of cosmic time, which is subject to distortion due to external effects.
'Time exists absolutely objectively' refers to clock time, not cosmic time. Clocks are subject to external effects, so clock time is subject to distortion. Clock time is a physical representation of cosmic time, which purely emerges from cosmic events and progresses independently of the events. Cosmic time is universal, unaffected, un-interactable, independent, conceptually uniformed, and fourth-dimensional, while clock time is a local representation, subject to external effects, modifiable, dependent, designed for uniform succession, and mathematically (hence abstractly) representable.
III. Original Statement: "You can't validly prove time dilation; rather, it is an error in the clock. Clocks don’t measure time intervals erroneously; good clocks tick with stable frequency. The problem arises from human interpretation based on concepts or theories."
=> My Response:
All good clocks tick with stable frequency, but all clocks are also subject to external effects, including speed and gravity. This is an undeniable fact. Clocks measure time intervals erroneously when affected by external effects. So, the objection is baseless.
When human interpretation of mathematical concepts or theories is well-practiced, introducing forceful problems of human interpretation on concepts or theories is undesirable and unintended. The statement, "The problem arises from human interpretation based on concepts or theories" it was introduced by you to forcefully establish time as a "variable/observable" so that you can escape from the valid statement that time is an abstract concept and not observable. What we see in the clock are representations of cosmic time that universally relate to events.
(**) Rest of your Statements:
=> My Response:
My valid counter to all the rest of the questions would be based on the same interpretations as above.
2. Considerations:
Objective Claims. Your statement makes broad claims about the nature of time, asserting it is an absolute, objective phenomenon used in physical equations. However, it lacks detailed empirical evidence to support this assertion.
=> My Response:
Evidence from Research. I referenced a specific research paper titled "Relativistic effects on phase shift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II," which provides experimental and calculative evidence for my claims. This adds substantial weight to the argument by grounding it in scientific research. Clarity in Definitions. I clearly distinguished between "cosmic time" and "clock time," explaining how each concept is understood and measured. This differentiation helps clarify potential misunderstandings about the nature of time.
Your Action:
Dismissal of Alternative Views. You have dismissed alternative interpretations as stemming from a lack of education in physics without providing substantial counter-evidence to the research paper mentioned. This approach weakens your argument as it appears dismissive rather than constructively critical.
=> My Response:
Addressing Misinterpretations. I pointed out how the interpretation of time dilation might be based on misconceptions and provided a detailed explanation of how external effects can distort clock readings. This directly addresses the core of the debate on time dilation.
Your Action of Authority. The statement relies on the authority of established physics theories without engaging deeply with the specific evidence and calculations presented in the research paper. This reliance on authority can be seen as less robust compared to arguments supported by direct empirical evidence.
=> Scientific Concepts:
My response involved detailed explanations of phase shifts, wave frequencies, and how they relate to time measurement. This use of scientific terminology and concepts demonstrates a deeper engagement with the subject matter.
3. Decision:
=> My Response:
My response is stronger scientifically because it is based on specific, cited research and provides a clear, coherent explanation of complex concepts. It also directly addresses potential misconceptions and offers detailed evidence supporting my claims.
Your Action:
On the other hand, your response lacks detailed empirical evidence and relies more on dismissing alternative views without thoroughly engaging with the specific content of the research paper. While it asserts the objectivity of time, it does not provide the same level of detailed explanation or evidence.
4. My Conclusion:
A scientifically strong argument, like mine, is well-supported by empirical evidence, clearly explained, and open to addressing and countering alternative views with specific data and reasoning.
End.
Best regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
