How can an observation, an empirical measurement be considered to be none mainstream theory? [duplicate]

Question

I desire to contribute for the community. I want to work within the community guidelines while contributing original perspectives. Please note that "original perspective" does not automatically equate as "non-mainstream". I'm attempting to walk this fine line, and the challenge for your moderators is to distinguish between unfamiliar but valid content.

Could theory of Relativity be overlooking a relationship between time and force?

The question title does not question the validity of Einstein's work. It only asks if something was overlooked.

I then identify an observation that is strictly defined by empirical measurement. I then describe the circumstance of the observation and measurement within terms of "what is actually occurring within a given system, and within strict literal terms". In effect, there is nothing within this post that constitutes as being "theoretical".

If I am not venturing theory, but rather just describing the world as it does occur in front of our very eyes, then how can it be said to contradict mainstream? This is my attempt.

May I please have my post assesses to judge if I do in fact achieve these criteria? Original and valid content might be an asset for the community, and I'm not motivated to contribute generic work.

It shouldn't be considered as remarkable that accelerated rates of a force-driven system extend implication to that systems operational forces. Accelerated rates empirically define as a modulated value of force. That is simply how the world works.

Time dilation effect is defined by modulated rates of force-force driven systems. Time dilation looks like acceleration and defines as acceleration. Time dilation is entirely indistinguishable from acceleration caused by force. Thats interesting and deserves inquiry, an example of an equivalence that demonstrates a real relationship between values of force and values of time.

General Relativity can be thought of as possessing two personalities, gravitational force, and spacetime. How exactly Spacetime relates to the generation of gravitational force is a little ambiguous, you have to admit? "bodies following straight lines in curved space?". At some point we need to develop this conversation, and that's going to necessitate inquiry relating properties of time and force. If we can have that conversation within terms of an empirically based observation and measurement, then all the better. Do we outlaw the inquiry because it sounds unfamiliar? Do we only allow questions that have sanctioned answers?

Please look past the unfamiliarity of this observation and validate that it is empirically verifiable. Observational and not theoretical. How could content that fits these criteria be considered as inappropriate?

Identification of natural relationships is an ultimate goal for science

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope my unique brand of contribution can be of use here. I'm willing to take advice on how to modify my approach so that it suits your preferences

Steve

Answer 1

Part of the problem is that your linked question uses non-standard terminology, or at least, standard terminology in non-standard ways. That makes the question "smell" non-mainstream on first glance. And those readers who don't immediately categorize your post as non-mainstream have to invest extra effort trying to read it, and risk misinterpreting what you're trying to say.

If you can edit your question, that may help matters. Even changing the title so that it doesn't read like an attack on mainstream relativity would be an improvement.

If you must use non-standard jargon you need to clearly and carefully define it, to avoid misleading or confusing your readers.

Answer 2

The “What topics can I ask about here?” page says

Some kinds of questions should not be asked here: ... Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories. We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.

I do not believe that any reputable journal would publish your observation. If you disagree, then you should first get it published in such a journal.

If I can be frank, your post struck me as mostly gibberish. I feel that you need to learn much more about physics, and how physicists talk about it, before expecting to be able to make original contributions to the field.

One thing I suggest studying is how forces transform under Lorentz transformations.

Answer 3

The original question is unclear AND non-mainstream.

“Modulated force” is not defined and not mainstream terminology.

The statements “An ideal and simplest of clocks might be a rotating inertial disk, free of all other effects. The sole property associated with its system being inertial mass, inertial force” are contradictory since, if the disk is free of all other effects, there would be no force (inertial or otherwise) acting on it. (BTW inertial mass is not the same as inertial force).

Nothing has been clearly identified as “an observation that is strictly defined by empirical measurement”. Einstein (and those who followed) used mirrors and (massless) light pulses to set up clocks, not force-driven systems. The core assumption of SR is that the speed of light is an invariant quantity, and time dilation along with other effects follow from this. How exactly introducing a mysterious moduluated force would lead to the same experimental verification of all these effects is not clear at all.

There is no evidence of this modulated force and it does not seem to solve any outstanding problem. Indeed to me it seems to complicate matters - at least until the OP points to some experimental fact accounted this modulated force and not accounted currently - since ignoring this (on purpose or by oversight) causes no harm to our current understanding of space time.

The rest of the question is just an editorial: it is not clear what connection Einstein has missed or what “deeper associated truth of the worlds mode of operation“ means in practice.

Answer 4

I am not a professional physicist. What I remember from college though, is that when we create theory, we usually start with some observation, and then use mathematics to make some predictions about real world. About coordinates, velocities, and forces. Sort of what happened with quantum physics.

When we want to adjust existing theory, we again take observations, write some new equations, and establish the parameter space where new equations work better than the old ones (transition from Newtonian mechanics to relativity)

I don't think your problem is being "non mainstream". My problem with your original and Meta questions is that there is nothing that can be discussed in terms of mathematics or physics. I see that you would like to have a discussion, perhaps a conversation. This website is not designed to help you with discussions. Maybe you need to talk in person to a physics professor. She might be willing to have a discussion with you.

To improve, perhaps write some predictions. Something like:

Hey, I think [...skipped..]. It follows that we should see X and Y, but existing theory doesn't predict that. Where did I go wrong?

The answer might be "nowhere" and then you invent new physics. Congratulations!