Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
DanLanglois
Posts: 142
Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by DanLanglois »

Some basic points, for review, about relativistic mechanical quantities.

Approaching the speed of light, increases relativistic energy, contracts length, dilates time, changes the form of relative velocity.

There is a relativistic law of energy-momentum conservation that combines and generalizes in one relativistically invariant expression the separate conservation laws of prerelativistic physics: the conservation of mass, the conservation of momentum, and the conservation of energy.

One may always find an inertial reference frame with respect to which particles with non-vanishing rest mass whose velocities must always be less than that of light, are at rest, and their energy in that frame equals mc^2.

One or more massive particles cannot decay into a single massless particle, conserving both energy and momentum. They can, however, decay into two or more massless particles.

Einstein suggested that maybe all the laws of physics were the same in all inertial frames.

The central prediction is that since the speed of light follows from the laws of physics (Maxwell’s equations) and some simple electrostatic and magnetostatic experiments, which are clearly frame-independent, the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

Einstein’s elegant insight is right.

This would imply there could be no special “really at rest” frame, even for light propagation, and hence no aether. So far, though, we have not thought much about dynamics. Einstein was so sure that momentum conservation must always hold that he rescued it with a bold hypothesis: the mass of an object must depend on its speed! The first confirmation came in 1908, measuring the mass of fast electrons in a vacuum tube. Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators, electrons, protons and other particles become heavier and heavier as the speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for further acceleration. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands of times greater than their mass measured at rest.

m^2c^4=E^2-p^2c^2 (the rest energy of the object)

This is the relationship between energy and momentum in relativity.

You can, then, compute the rest mass of a particle formed when two particles annihilate into pure energy and then form a new particle.

I have argued that mass is a form of potential energy, and also that I take this position to be compatible with mainstream physics, however odd it sounds.

It is because of this, that mass does not have to be conserved in reactions.

Mass is just another form of potential energy.

If you throw two balls at each other and they stick together (an inelastic collision), when two balls stick together, there must be some attractive force holding the composite system together. The resulting mass is not necessarily the sum of the individual masses of the two balls.

This necessarily implies that even a slow-moving object has a tiny mass increase if it is put in motion.

For a particle of rest mass m0 accelerating along a straight line (from rest) under a constant force F, the total work done from rest—the kinetic energy—when the particle moves a distance dx, the work done on the body, again, its kinetic energy, in the general case, is just equal to its mass increase multiplied by c^2. By definition.

Let's use m0 to denote the “rest mass” of an object, and m to denote its relativistic mass:

m=m0/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2

There is your increase in effective mass with speed. What I'm driving at, is showing m not as a constant, but as a function of speed. A note about this, you have to reach 14% of the speed of light, or about 42 million m/s before you change the mass by 1%.
Wanderer101 wrote:The goal is to produce an equation that can predict the mass of all sub atomic particles. This I do not believe has been done.
No, it's been done. The relativistic energy expression includes both rest mass energy and the kinetic energy of motion. I'm talking about, essentially, defining the kinetic energy of a particle as the excess of the particle energy over its rest mass energy.

Here is something to keep in mind:
Einstein wrote:It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.
The expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion, is what I gave above.

There is no real need for the variable mass concept.

The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object. All mechanical quantities can be defined in terms of mass, length, and time.

length/time=velocity

velocity/time=acceleration

acceleration*mass=force (or actually, net external force if mass is constant)

force*length=work
Wanderer101 wrote: In contaction the density of space increases. This is why light appears to slow down.
I resist this formulation, that 'light appears to slow down'. That is always, precisely what doesn't happen. Comments?

-- Updated August 24th, 2012, 1:36 am to add the following --

I need to dial back, on the matter of predicting the mass of all subatomic particles. The mass of the electron, for example, is a constant of nature. I wouldn't know what to add to that, how to add anything to that.

-- Updated August 24th, 2012, 1:46 am to add the following --

Higgs, they believe, is a particle, or set of particles, that might give others mass. The theory hypothesizes that a sort of lattice, referred to as the Higgs field, fills the universe. What if all particles have no inherent mass, but instead gain mass by passing through a field? This field, known as a Higgs field, could affect different particles in different ways. In fact, assuming the Higgs boson exists, everything that has mass gets it by interacting with the all-powerful Higgs field, which occupies the entire universe.

Some particles have a harder time trudging through the syrupy Higgs field than others, and as a result, they're heavier. Particles trudge through the Higgs field by exchanging virtual Higgs particles with it.
Xris
Posts: 5963
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by Xris »

So once again we end up with particle that is not a particle but a field. A field of what exactly. If they are particles they must have mass so where do they get their mass from?
User avatar
Wanderer101
Posts: 96
Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by Wanderer101 »

For Dan,

Still working on reply.

For Xris,

That is what we are working on.

-- Updated August 27th, 2012, 4:29 pm to add the following --

For Dan,
Approaching the speed of light, increases relativistic energy, contracts length, dilates time, changes the form of relative velocity.
Agreed.
Approaching the speed of light, increases relativistic energy, contracts length, dilates time, changes the form of relative velocity.
This is old style Special Relativity and this is all true unless you apply my new principles. I have an additional theory that extends Special Relativity. It goes beyond Special Relativity.
One may always find an inertial reference frame with respect to which particles with non-vanishing rest mass whose velocities must always be less than that of light, are at rest, and their energy in that frame equals mc^2.
Rest mass, hmm… Consider this if you will, One of the consequences of Einstein's special theory of relativity (1905) is that the mass of an object increases with its velocity relative to the observer. This is a limited point of view. It is a true statement but it is a limited perspective. When an object is at rest (relative to the observer), it has the usual (inertial = tendency to resist an applied force) mass that we are all familiar with. This is called the 'rest mass' of the object. Remember I defined what inertia is earlier in this post. I guess you don’t accept that explanation. In reality I do not believe that what is important about this is that the mass increases relative to a stationary observer. I believe the mass increases whenever an object is accelerated relative to an absolute motionless back ground of space. The increase in mass relative to a stationary observer is not as important as the mass increase due to an acceleration.

Imagine a Universe with only one small object in it. Its motion is only relative to space. Without anything to compare to but space itself we could not tell whether the object let’s say it is a golf ball is in motion or not. As long as the golf ball is moving at a constant rate of speed we cannot tell whether it is moving or not. If we accelerate it in this empty Universe then the golf ball will experience an inertial resistance and space will reveal itself. Now assuming that the rules of Special Relativity still apply this ball will increase its inertial mass.

True rest mass does not exist! If any object were to truly stop all of its motion according to my thinking and theoretical concept that object would then have zero mass. Right now in the Universe there is no sub atomic object that is motionless. You ever notice that? Everything is in motion. Would the electron have mass if it stopped moving all together? I believe if it was possible to stop an electron’s motion not only would it not have mass but the surrounding magnetic field would also ceases to exist. So now referring to your statement above. The motion of an electron has this equation as its true mass conversion factor. M=e/acceleration*v^2 or M=e/acceleration^2. The dimensions of the motion term must represent the rate of motion and the rate of acceleration. I am not sure how to do this. The motion term cannot not just be represent by c^2 or v^2. Hopefully you know what I mean.

No motion of a charge relative to absolute motionless space equals no mass and no magnetic field.
One or more massive particles cannot decay into a single massless particle, conserving both energy and momentum. They can, however, decay into two or more massless particles.
Einstein suggested that maybe all the laws of physics were the same in all inertial frames.
I believe that is true.
The central prediction is that since the speed of light follows from the laws of physics (Maxwell’s equations) and some simple electrostatic and magnetostatic experiments, which are clearly frame-independent, the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.
I have no problem with that. It is explainable with my theoretical concept. So we are good here.
This would imply there could be no special “really at rest” frame, even for light propagation, and hence no aether.
Bong.. no prize for the statement above. This is simply a matter of misinterpretation of the facts. If we believe that this means that there is not really an at rest frame because light moves at the same speed regardless of all other moving frames of reference we have failed to interpret an important property of reality. I believe the fact that light moves at a constant rate should be considered as evidence of a stationary medium. What do think is limiting the speed of light to the rate at which it moves at? Is the photon magically bound to the rate it moves at? Why does the speed of light have a very specific rate of motion? The answer is you don’t know why. I gave an explanation but I guess you don’t accept it. That’s fine.

What is confusing to humanity is that light moves at the same rate to all other moving frames of reference. This is true because all other frames of reference are adhering to the rules of the Lorentz transformations. These transformations that occur within the moving frames essentially cancels their movements relative to the speed of light. Not well said by me. The physical laws described by the Lorentz transformations ensure we always see light as moving at a constant velocity relative to us.
Einstein was so sure that momentum conservation must always hold that he rescued it with a bold hypothesis: the mass of an object must depend on its speed!
I agree fully with that statement.
The first confirmation came in 1908, measuring the mass of fast electrons in a vacuum tube. Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators, electrons, protons and other particles become heavier and heavier as the speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for further acceleration. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands of times greater than their mass measured at rest.
This is evidence for the fact that all mass is due to the motion of the objects through the medium of space. That is the proper interpretation of this data.
m^2c^4=E^2-p^2c^2 (the rest energy of the object) This is the relationship between energy and momentum in relativity.
I can’t say if this is correct or not. I would need to discuss it in more detail. One term at a time.
You can, then, compute the rest mass of a particle formed when two particles annihilate into pure energy and then form a new particle.
I have argued that mass is a form of potential energy, and also that I take this position to be compatible with mainstream physics, however odd it sounds.


It is because of this, that mass does not have to be conserved in reactions.


Mass is just another form of potential energy.
Here’s how I look at this. I believe that mainstream physics does not have any idea mechanically speaking as to what constitutes the actual origin of mass. So therefore the idea that the mass does not have to be conserved is wrong.

Of course both energy and mass are conserved. Since mass and energy are equivalent this must be true. Energy is always conserved so then should mass. What is confusing to some perhaps is this situation you mentioned above.
One or more massive particles cannot decay into a single massless particle, conserving both energy and momentum. They can, however, decay into two or more massless particles.
You can, then, compute the rest mass of a particle formed when two particles annihilate into pure energy and then form a new particle.
Any radioactive decay or any high energy collision does not really cause the annihilation of particles. For example, the result of a collision between two massive antiparticles. This concept is completely incorrect because of one word in the statement. “annihilate” When two anti particles collide they do not annihilate which means literally (to wipe out, destroy, obliterate or eradicate.) This is not what happens the two antiparticles are not destroyed, they are transformed from massive particle geometries to energetic non massive particle geometries. For example how about two anti electrons colliding what really happens there?

According to my theory the electrons which are in fact unbalanced charged particles and therefore by nature travelling through space in and accelerated manner transform when they collide. During the collision the mechanical geometry of the two massive particles are converted to high energy particles such as photons. The collision transfers energy kinetically forcing a structural transformation in the physical geometry of the two charges so that the net result is that they now possess equal amounts of negative and positive charges. The result of this collision is we have 2 anti-photons composed of mirror image clockwise and counter clockwise rotations and they retreat from each other at the speed of light.

Ask yourself what really happened. We started with two mirror imaged geometries colliding. We end up with two mirror imaged objects retreating from the collision. The change in the before and after is in the geometric configuration of the particles. Before the collision they were massive unbalanced charges after the collision they were massless balanced charge particles. Mass was not lost here it was mechanically altered so that the particles are now massless by virtue of the fact the mechanical geometry of the particles were physically altered. Remember my principles:

Mass is created by the accelerated motion of unbalanced charges through the physical medium of space.

Massless particles are balanced charge particles that move through space in linear motion. ( In a straight line with a constant rate of speed.) (photons)

See the pattern… It is so simple. Accelerated motion of charged particles causes a spatial contraction. Non-accelerated motion of balanced charge particles do not cause a contraction and are therefore massless.

I can see at this point you do not accept this explanation. I did my best to get you to see the simplicity of this scheme but I guess it is not to be.

In reality mass is always conserved. In some cases mass is transformed into energy it’s still there it’s just in a different configuration.
Let's use m0 to denote the “rest mass” of an object, and m to denote its relativistic mass:


m=m0/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2
This looks like to me to be the Lorentz transformation for mass increase. This equation correctly describes the increase of mass for a macroscopic object. There is only one problem with it. It uses a starting value for mass as an input into the equation. Where does the starting mass come from? I have already told you the answer. Obviously you don’t accept the explanation.
I said: The goal is to produce an equation that can predict the mass of all sub atomic particles. This I do not believe has been done.
You said:
No, it's been done. The relativistic energy expression includes both rest mass energy and the kinetic energy of motion. I'm talking about, essentially, defining the kinetic energy of a particle as the excess of the particle energy over its rest mass energy.
I say: No, it has not been done. That equation you supplied above does not do it. Where does the input mass come from?
There is no real need for the variable mass concept.
Going to disagree with you here as I believe all mass is variable and is dependent on the rate of accelerated motion of unbalanced charge. In my humble opinion until mankind gets this we shall not progress any further.
The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object. All mechanical quantities can be defined in terms of mass, length, and time.
The first statement is a contemporary physical belief. “The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object.” If this is what you believe you agree with contemporary science. If you agree with contemporary science on this point we cannot progress any further. In my opinion they have got it all wrong.

I have already explained where I believe mass comes from so there is no need to repeat it. It’s all there and you are free to accept my explanation or not. All I can say at this point is mass is definitely not a fundamental property of an object. Mass is a function of motion of charge and its effect on the surrounding space.
DanLanglois
Posts: 142
Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by DanLanglois »

Wanderer101 wrote:What do think is limiting the speed of light to the rate at which it moves at? Is the photon magically bound to the rate it moves at? Why does the speed of light have a very specific rate of motion?
I offer something here, about how nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light with respect to you. Which is right on point, the 'changing mass' perspective. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases and more force must be exerted to produce a given acceleration. Or, better, the relativistic momentum and relativistic energy approach infinity at the speed of light. Since the net applied force is equal to the rate of change of momentum and the work done is equal to the change in energy, it would take an infinite time and an infinite amount of work to accelerate an object to the speed of light. I've given these equations, of course, I think your answer is 'that's not an explanation'. I'm not certain that you've taken the point on board.

We've been through Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, Einstein concluded that different observers must see time differently. That the speed that one progressed through time varied with your frame of reference and relative motion to the object you are observing. I'd like to be able to puzzle out on my own, how you've reconciled w/the idea, that, as Einstein theorized, good clocks will not always agree in what time it is because they move through time at different speeds. I fear, that you take this to in fact not have been proven, as I am given to understand that it has been.

I'm not even certain, that you consider, that if someone is moving at 99% of the speed of light and shines a light in front of them, one would think it would only go 1% faster, and for a stationary observer (whatever that really means) it would look that way. However, from the point of view of the person moving, it looks to them as if the light is moving away at 100% of the speed of light. Tell me again, how can that be? A 'standard' explanation here, as I understand it, is that the fast moving person is moving into the future at a faster rate than the stationary observer, who is aging faster. They are moving into the future 100 times faster. The distortion of time causes the laws of physics to be the same in any frame of reference and all observers agree on the speed of light, but do not agree on time.

Wanderer101 wrote:What is confusing to humanity is that light moves at the same rate to all other moving frames of reference. This is true because all other frames of reference are adhering to the rules of the Lorentz transformations. These transformations that occur within the moving frames essentially cancels their movements relative to the speed of light. Not well said by me. The physical laws described by the Lorentz transformations ensure we always see light as moving at a constant velocity relative to us.

We seem to be talking the same lingo, you say the rules of the Lorentz transformations, and I talk about how, since it takes an infinite amount of energy to be at the speed of light, and we don't have infinite energy, we never actually get there. I talk about how the idea that mass increases is a mathematical trick to make the laws of physics work, and you say the physical laws described by the Lorentz transformations ensure we always see light as moving at a constant velocity relative to us. I say, that when Einstein decided that time wasn't constant, he discovered the conversion ratio between matter and energy and that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of matter. But here, somehow, you manage, it seems, to dismiss the notion that time isn't constant. Which makes me suspect, what else, are you dismissing?

Of course you are familiar w/this kind of thought experiment--if you got in a rocket ship and accelerated, you could go what seems infinitely fast to you. You could travel to a star 100 light years away and get there by lunch, turn around, and get back to Earth the same day. But you will find that everyone else is 200 years (and one day) older than you are. From their perspective, you were traveling very close to the speed of light and it takes 200 years for light to get to that star and back. But to you, it was only a day. Your aging slowed down because you moved forward through time faster.

What you observe as linear acceleration in space that obeys Newton's laws, isn't what really happens. You start out accelerating in space but as you gain speed you start accelerating through time instead. You can only move at the speed of light in space, but can move infinitely fast through time. To be clear, with trepidation, I suspect that when confronted directly with this, you'll dismiss it as unbelievable. You're that far out of sympathy w/Einstein, then. You're asking me not to believe such stories, right?

What it is, that to you, means that absolute speed exists and absolute space exists, doesn't mean that to me. What would mean that, would be if physics turn out, after all, not to have to appear to be the same at all speeds. What would mean that, would be if the laws of physics changed. Then, okay, one could measure those changes and calculate one's absolute speed through absolute space. If this were possible. As I understand it, that's what they were trying to measure 100 years ago with the light experiment that showed they were dead stopped in space. No matter how fast they go and in any direction, it still shows them as dead stopped.

It's not like a really have a right to an opinion here, I just thought, that according to relativity, there is no such thing as absolute space and absolute speed. What does it mean to say, that these things don't exist. It means, that there can never be a way to measure any changes caused by speed. And, there isn't. Again, what does it mean? It means, that it is necessary that the laws of physics appear to be identical to all moving observers so that you can't measure something that doesn't exist. And, they do. And, you can't.

We've gone back and forth, about whether, if you can measure something, then it's real (my opinion).

I think you disagree, this is a big hurdle for me. Look at it from the other side--what is required, for something to not be real? That it can't be measured. And, guess what, in this case.

What would it take, for absolute space and speed to be not real. What would that mean? it would mean, that no measurable changes can occur that would allow you to calculate it. Which is where we're at.

Do you see, how I think I can take the concept of the laws of physics appearing the same, and the lack of absolute space and speed to be linked.

How can it be, that relativity does not depend on the lack of absolute references.

Why then, can there be no change in physical laws that could be measured, that could lead to a calculation indicating absolute results.

Note, that this law not only applies to speed and position in space, but also to the rate of time passage, to the measurement of mass, and to the relative effects of gravity between objects moving at the same speed.


Again, I suspect, that you rather like to think that all good clocks would agree.
Wanderer101 wrote:
Going to disagree with you here as I believe all mass is variable and is dependent on the rate of accelerated motion of unbalanced charge. In my humble opinion until mankind gets this we shall not progress any further.
If this were the case, then as an object increased in speed, then one could measure the increase in gravitational attraction, and calculate one's speed through absolute space. Suppose two objects are moving in parallel. The mass of both objects will increase, and therefore the gravitational attraction between the two objects must also increase. At very high speeds the pull would be so great as to cause them to crash into each other.

But wait! Red flag here. There is no such thing as absolute speed and absolute space. Einstein's relativity depends on the idea that position and speed are relative, therefore there can be no method for which one can measure absolute speed through absolute space. But if the gravity increases with speed, the gravitational increases can be measured.

The only way to prevent someone from being able to measure one's absolute speed in space is if the gravitational attraction between the objects stays constant.

If gravity doesn't change, then speed can't be measured, and that gravity remains constant for all freely moving objects. The laws of gravity appear the same in all frames of reference. Since gravity doesn't change with speed, one can not calculate speed by measuring gravity. Which brings me to..
Wanderer101 wrote:
The first statement is a contemporary physical belief. “The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object.” If this is what you believe you agree with contemporary science. If you agree with contemporary science on this point we cannot progress any further. In my opinion they have got it all wrong.
But, again, you've thought this through? Do you mean to jump all over the notion, that if nature is constant, mass must be constant, in order to keep gravity constant, therefore the accelerated object will not see the increase in mass.

Then, for you, can gravity increase if mass increases, since gravity is proportional to mass, and mass increases as one approaches the speed of light?

Does it appear to you, that Einstein contradicts himself here, because based on E=MC^2, the increase in mass of an object moving near the speed of light, would create a measurable gravitational change that could be used to calculate speed through absolute space? Which does exist? It would appear Einstein created a paradox?

Einstein's solution was to abandoned the idea that time was absolute, and that different free moving observers would measure time differently. Which, you don't seem to be able to buy into?



So as I say, I think I need an answer here, point blank, Einstein predicts that the moving object will move faster into the future through time and will therefore age slower. You disagree?

With all this, that the aging process slows down, the moving object does not see any crossing of the time barrier he can move near infinitely fast at near infinite speeds? From his perspective? You disagree?

It is thus, that his mass is the same, his gravity is the same, and his speed is nearly infinite. From his frame of reference. Suppose, that he calculates his kinetic energy. He multiplies his unchanged mass times his near infinite speed. But a stationary observer would measure his speed as just under the speed of light, but with a much higher mass. The higher mass times the slower speed will come to the same amount of kinetic energy. Thus the energy levels can agree and the laws of science are preserved in both frames of reference based on the idea that etc.

Do you predict, that a particle accelerated to nearly light speed will appear to increase in mass as Einstein predicts and will have an increased gravitational force proportional to the increase on mass as measured by a stationary observer as it passes.

Do you also predict, that a second particle traveling in parallel will not see an increase in gravitational pull, but that the gravity between the objects will remain constant.

Would you care to test this, if you had a particle accelerator that wasn't doing anything. Would you actually, w/confidence, proceed to check this out and get back to me on it.


I realize, w/these musings, that I sort of can answer your question 'what do think is limiting the speed of light to the rate at which it moves at? ' as being that there is an energy equivalence to time. I've already been puzzling about how to put this. But it occurs to me, that I might be okay with putting it this way, that in fact, time may be a form of energy.

The way I picture it is that a fast moving object appears to itself as normal mass but is 10 times thicker in time.

A stationary observer sees 10 times the mass. It causes me to wonder is mass a three dimensional footprint of a four dimensional object that has some thickness in time.

Perhaps matter itself exists as a thickness distortion in the space time continuum.

Thickness in time appears to us as mass.

Wanderer101 wrote:I have already explained where I believe mass comes from so there is no need to repeat it. It’s all there and you are free to accept my explanation or not. All I can say at this point is mass is definitely not a fundamental property of an object. Mass is a function of motion of charge and its effect on the surrounding space.
Then, an easier one, when Einstein talks about the mass of an object increasing as to approaches light speed, where is that extra mass coming from? Perhaps, as we approach light speed, in three dimensions, we look the same, but in four dimensions, we are 10 times as thick and we are moving into the future at ten times the speed.

This leads me to new thoughts.

The greater the mass, the more space is bent. Or something, this is key, what is 'something', in a robust and technical sense? Gravity is said (by those who understand this better than I do) to be caused by a distortion or a warping of space. I don't actually quite cotton to putting it that way, but I'm not a skeptic of Relativism.

Here is my thought--if mass is really a thickness, which is still sort of making sense to me, then the faster an object moves, and the more apparent mass it has because of that motion, the stronger the gravitational field. Hey?

As one becomes thicker in time the bending would increase proportional to the thickness. 10 times the thickness becomes 10 times the gravity.

However, if another object were moving at the same speed in parallel, then they see only an increase in kinetic energy. Both objects have near infinite speed, they neither see any increase in neither mass nor gravity.

The effects of mass and gravity are inversely proportional to one's..time..thickness..?

Observers moving at different speeds will measure mass and gravity differently

Both mass and gravity are relative to time.

There is a time component to both mass and gravity.

Two space ships traveling together, at a speed so fast that their aging process slows by a factor of two. They are moving forward in time twice as fast. One of the space ships turns on a light. To the other ship, it appears to radiate. The bulb is aging half as fast. It is putting out energy at half that rate to a nonmoving observer.

Time dilation. You double time, you cut power in half, power is the rate that energy is dissipated over time.


mass and gravity increase by a factor of two ( to a nonmoving observer). Mass and gravity stay constant to the moving observer. Change the time reference, then you change gravitational attraction. Gravity has a time component.\

The more thrust you have, the faster you go. But, are really moving into the future faster. It appears to them that they are traveling at near infinite speed. They are moving through flat Newtonian space.

It *looks* like they are moving only at near the speed of light.

An accelerating object *seems* to be going faster through space. At first. But as the speed increases the object accelerates through time rather than space.

One can go infinitely fast moving through time. Hmm..

Doing a little inventory here, I've motion through space turning into motion through time. I've got motion through time appearing as an increase in mass.

Then, is mass the same thing as motion through time?

Then, does motion through time, cause a warping of time? Perceived, as..gravity?

I've got time and space being interwoven in such a way, that no one observer ever sees another object moving toward them at greater than c.

I've got the relative velocity of any two objects, never exceeding the velocity of light.

I've got dobbler shift, I've got twin paradox, boring, now something like nuclear binding energy, would be interesting, but how am I doing so far?
Xris
Posts: 5963
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by Xris »

If you both keep insisting on the concept of particles you will be debating for ever. You are not accepting that particles can not be both a particle and a field. They are neither.
User avatar
Wanderer101
Posts: 96
Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by Wanderer101 »

Dan,
I offer something here, about how nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light with respect to you. Which is right on point, the 'changing mass' perspective. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases and more force must be exerted to produce a given acceleration. Or, better, the relativistic momentum and relativistic energy approach infinity at the speed of light. Since the net applied force is equal to the rate of change of momentum and the work done is equal to the change in energy, it would take an infinite time and an infinite amount of work to accelerate an object to the speed of light. I've given these equations, of course, I think your answer is 'that's not an explanation'. I'm not certain that you've taken the point on board.


We've been through Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, Einstein concluded that different observers must see time differently. That the speed that one progressed through time varied with your frame of reference and relative motion to the object you are observing. I'd like to be able to puzzle out on my own, how you've reconciled w/the idea, that, as Einstein theorized, good clocks will not always agree in what time it is because they move through time at different speeds. I fear, that you take this to in fact not have been proven, as I am given to understand that it has been.


I'm not even certain, that you consider, that if someone is moving at 99% of the speed of light and shines a light in front of them, one would think it would only go 1% faster, and for a stationary observer (whatever that really means) it would look that way. However, from the point of view of the person moving, it looks to them as if the light is moving away at 100% of the speed of light. Tell me again, how can that be? A 'standard' explanation here, as I understand it, is that the fast moving person is moving into the future at a faster rate than the stationary observer, who is aging faster. They are moving into the future 100 times faster. The distortion of time causes the laws of physics to be the same in any frame of reference and all observers agree on the speed of light, but do not agree on time.
Your statements above are confirming what I alluded to yesterday in my post. There is nothing wrong with what you say above. The only problem is in your and our ability to assimilate the deeper meaning of Special Relativity, in order to do that we would most definitely have to get into a discussion of time.

It is has been our observation that this set of mathematical descriptions of physical laws (Lorentz Transformations) that exist in Special Relativity determine how we experience physical reality. We as humans are not looking at the big picture. We are not looking at the governing principle behind the laws of physics in this case. Why should time flow differently for different moving frames of reference? What do the 2 frames of references both have in common? They both share one thing in common. They are moving through space at different rates of speed. Space is the common denominator. None of the magic of special relative happens if space does not exist as a physical object to interact with. Both of the frames of reference are interacting with space not each other. All of the transformations affecting the 2 frames of reference are occurring between the moving objects and the space that they are moving within. That is the big picture. We keep looking at the differences relative to the two moving frames and marveling at that without carefully considering the underlying physical cause which is a set of mechanical changes undergoing inside the moving frames of reference.
We seem to be talking the same lingo, you say the rules of the Lorentz transformations, and I talk about how, since it takes an infinite amount of energy to be at the speed of light, and we don't have infinite energy, we never actually get there. I talk about how the idea that mass increases is a mathematical trick to make the laws of physics work, and you say the physical laws described by the Lorentz transformations ensure we always see light as moving at a constant velocity relative to us. I say, that when Einstein decided that time wasn't constant, he discovered the conversion ratio between matter and energy and that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of matter. But here, somehow, you manage, it seems, to dismiss the notion that time isn't constant. Which makes me suspect, what else, are you dismissing?
Good paragraph it states our positions very nicely except for the last statement as I do not dismiss time dilation. Time in my concept is not a physical object so therefore it does not exist except as an experience. The experience of time is affected by various rates of motion through the common denominator which of course is space.

If I could just get you past your educational bias to see things as they really are you would accept my ramblings. If I could just get you to change the way you look at things you would find that the things you look at will change.

Time is an illusion. It does not exist. Our experience of time is not an illusion and it is that which is changed in various moving frames of reference. For instance the objects we use to measure time slow down if they are accelerated through space to a different rate of speed. Why do you think a clock slows down when it is moving faster through space? Something physical something mechanically has to happen to the clock in order for it to slow down. Now your educational bias provided to you by the current educational paradigm will tell you that what is really happening is that time is slowing down. That is an incorrect conclusion. Time does not exist! It can’t be slowed down. It can’t be accelerated.

Then you ask well why are the clocks moving at different rates? The answer is in the Lorentz Transformations. Follow with me now and use your imagination. All macroscopic objects are composed of atoms, the atoms are composed of sub atomic objects. All of these objects are affected by accelerations within space. Each time we accelerate to a new velocity every atom and sub atomic particle is affected by the Lorentz transformation formula for the additions of velocity. The velocity of a fixed motion in space in a particular direction is added to the orbital velocities of the sub atomic particles. At the microscopic level when the objects within their orbits are travelling in the same direction as the direction of macroscopic large scale motion the velocity is added according to the Lorentz addition of velocity equation when the motion is in the opposite direction the same rule holds true. The net result of these additions is that as we approach the speed of light the motions of all the sub atomic particle oscilations are slowing down as we approach the speed of light. This is just one aspect of what is happening of course, mass is increasing etc, etc. I want to focus on the motion because I am explaining why “time slows down”, wink, wink.

So in reality all physical processes at the sub atomic level slow down as we approach the speed of light. The faster we go in the macroscopic realm (the moving frame of reference) in a particular direction in space will have an increasing dramatic affect on the motion of sub atomic realm. Then finally when and if you could achieve the speed of light the motion of all the sub atomic motions would cease to move in their orbital fashion and time would then appear to stop. You would not age because the biological processes would be frozen. Time in the global sense still flows at the same rate because it is not physical. Time in our physical sense of experience is essentially frozen. Literally all of the motion that is occurring at the sub atomic realm is transferred from its orbital motion to a fixed direction in space. This creates enormous drag (inertia) because objects electrons and quarks that travel normally in an accelerated orbital pattern are now being dragged straight through space. The mass increases because of this acceleration, the length of the macroscopic object contracts as does the space around the object. All of this is creating a huge mechanical drag. That is why more and more energy is required to move that object faster. It’s not about relativity between various frames of reference. It’s really about relativity of various frames of references all moving through the common denominator of space.

The fact that you seem to at least clearly understand what I am saying tells me that you are probably not a physicist. The educational back ground of the physicist blocks them from considering this explanation and the theory of an aether as being the central cause for the forces and mechanics of our Universe. I find that typically, the people who will seriously consider my explanations are typically either electronic engineers, technicians or software engineers. I am sure that there is some explanation for why this is so. Most likely the filters to a person’s thinking are not as strongly applied to people who are not physicists.

I believe that it is the advanced education of the physicist that blocks them from considering this particular alternative explanation. They have been taught that the aether does not exist. This is most unfortunate because if I am correct in my belief then it may be a very long time before someone in that discipline of science stumbles across this solution. If I am incorrect well that is no big deal.
Of course you are familiar w/this kind of thought experiment--if you got in a rocket ship and accelerated, you could go what seems infinitely fast to you. You could travel to a star 100 light years away and get there by lunch, turn around, and get back to Earth the same day. But you will find that everyone else is 200 years (and one day) older than you are. From their perspective, you were travelling very close to the speed of light and it takes 200 years for light to get to that star and back. But to you, it was only a day. Your aging slowed down because you moved forward through time faster.
I already gave my explanation above. You will have to decide for yourself which is true. You either believe that time magically slows down or that physical processes are altered by motion through space to make it appear that time has slowed down.
What you observe as linear acceleration in space that obeys Newton's laws, isn't what really happens. You start out accelerating in space but as you gain speed you start accelerating through time instead. You can only move at the speed of light in space, but can move infinitely fast through time. To be clear, with trepidation, I suspect that when confronted directly with this, you'll dismiss it as unbelievable. You're that far out of sympathy w/Einstein, then. You're asking me not to believe such stories, right?
This is the first time that I recall that you have made a wrong assumption from my explanations. No, its not unbelievable it is easily accounted for by my theory. I already explained it above.
What it is, that to you, means that absolute speed exists and absolute space exists, doesn't mean that to me. What would mean that, would be if physics turn out, after all, not to have to appear to be the same at all speeds. What would mean that, would be if the laws of physics changed. Then, okay, one could measure those changes and calculate one's absolute speed through absolute space. If this were possible. As I understand it, that's what they were trying to measure 100 years ago with the light experiment that showed they were dead stopped in space. No matter how fast they go and in any direction, it still shows them as dead stopped.
I have already given you an abundance of explanation you either can accept or reject my explanations. We already discussed what I think the M&M experiment really means. At this point I would ask you to review that.
It's not like a really have a right to an opinion here, I just thought, that according to relativity, there is no such thing as absolute space and absolute speed. What does it mean to say, that these things don't exist. It means, that there can never be a way to measure any changes caused by speed. And, there isn't. Again, what does it mean? It means, that it is necessary that the laws of physics appear to be identical to all moving observers so that you can't measure something that doesn't exist. And, they do. And, you can't.
Here is the point that people do not get because of their educational bias. “I just thought, that according to relativity, there is no such thing as absolute space and absolute speed.” That is a major issue of this discussion. You have been taught that is what Special Relativity really means. I clearly stated many times over that to me that is not what Special Relativity means. To me Special Relativity and the M&M experiment simply proved that objects moving at constant velocities cannot detect an absolute space. In the case of the M&M experiment they used the photon. This experiment was doomed from the start. There is an absolute type of motion. The absolute motion can be used to detect absolute space. That absolute motion that can be used is in the form of acceleration. The acceleration through space causes the detection of absolute space via the manifestation of inertia and gravity. I cannot say it any simpler than that. You can either choose to accept that explanation or not. I can tell you mainstream science does not see it this way. They have chosen another path.
I think you disagree, this is a big hurdle for me. Look at it from the other side--what is required, for something to not be real? That it can't be measured. And, guess what, in this case.

Absolute space can already be detected and measured. It’s all a matter of belief and interpretation. You can measure gravity and detect inertia. There is your proof. It’s up to you whether accept that as evidence or not.
If this were the case, then as an object increased in speed, then one could measure the increase in gravitational attraction, and calculate one's speed through absolute space. Suppose two objects are moving in parallel. The mass of both objects will increase, and therefore the gravitational attraction between the two objects must also increase. At very high speeds the pull would be so great as to cause them to crash into each other.
In my opinion that is exactly what would happen.
If gravity doesn't change, then speed can't be measured, and that gravity remains constant for all freely moving objects. The laws of gravity appear the same in all frames of reference. Since gravity doesn't change with speed, one cannot calculate speed by measuring gravity. Which brings me to..
Bong… Your beginning to tie your shoe laces together then attempting to run. Slow down and think this through. If I accelerate a golf ball toward the speed of light the mass of the golf ball will increase. We know this is true, it a proven fact. Mass increases with velocity. Review the formula for mass increase in special relativity. That is a proven fact. Now think if the mass increases and we know with an increase mass there will be a corresponding increase in gravity. Right? Of course it’s right. Mass is directly associated to a gravitational field. Right? Of course it’s right. Mass causes gravity. Gravity pulls on mass. I am not introducing anything new here. The real test would be to do this experiment if in fact the two objects moving along side of each other would not be attracted to each other then I would be wrong I guess. But remember for some looking at these objects there masses would be increasing . Both situations cannot be true. Either their mass would be increasing or not. The idea you have come up with is a good idea I would like to see that experiment done.

Now do you see that this statement you made is completely wrong? You said, “Since gravity doesn't change with speed, one cannot calculate speed by measuring gravity.”

In order to get this, in order for anyone to get this they will have to learn to do this. When you change the way you look at things the things you look at change.
But, again, you've thought this through? Do you mean to jump all over the notion, that if nature is constant, mass must be constant, in order to keep gravity constant, therefore the accelerated object will not see the increase in mass.

Then, for you, can gravity increase if mass increases, since gravity is proportional to mass, and mass increases as one approaches the speed of light?


Does it appear to you, that Einstein contradicts himself here, because based on E=MC^2, the increase in mass of an object moving near the speed of light, would create a measurable gravitational change that could be used to calculate speed through absolute space? Which does exist? It would appear Einstein created a paradox?
No, Einstein does not contradict himself. E=MC^2 is a special case. There are instances in which this formula does not work. This only applies for mass conversion to photons. Mass to energy conversion. We already discussed the problems with this formula.
Einstein's solution was to abandoned the idea that time was absolute, and that different free moving observers would measure time differently. Which, you don't seem to be able to buy into?
Not true. I already explained above.
So as I say, I think I need an answer here, point blank, Einstein predicts that the moving object will move faster into the future through time and will therefore age slower. You disagree?
I agree and disagree at the same time. I bet you did not expect that answer. Allow me to explain. When someone accelerates their speed relative to someone else they really do not move into the future. They suspend their physical processes including aging. The clocks and processes in the slower moving frame of reference all move faster relative to the faster moving frame of reference. So in reality when the faster moving frame of reference slows back down I believe that time and events are essentially stored in space in between the 2 frames of reference. So if you were looking back at earth from a rocket you would see their clock moving faster than yours as you slow down. When you finish slowing down and are moving at the same speed relative to one another their clock will be ahead of yours and you both will be in the future. The only difference will be that your clock will have not have moved as fast during your acceleration and during the time you were moving faster than the earth reference frame and all of your physical processes will not have progressed as they were slowed when you were accelerated in space. It’s all a matter of proper interpretation. I believe that I have the proper explanation and interpretation. Only time will tell if I am right. Time my friend is an illusion. it is not real.
With all this, that the aging process slows down, the moving object does not see any crossing of the time barrier he can move near infinitely fast at near infinite speeds? From his perspective? You disagree?
No, Nobody sees an infinite speed here.
Do you predict, that a particle accelerated to nearly light speed will appear to increase in mass as Einstein predicts and will have an increased gravitational force proportional to the increase on mass as measured by a stationary observer as it passes.
Yes
Do you also predict, that a second particle traveling in parallel will not see an increase in gravitational pull, but that the gravity between the objects will remain constant.
At slow speeds relative to the actual speed o f light yes I agree but at high speeds relative to the speed of light No. They will notice an increase in mass and gravitational pull between each other. They will know that they are moving very fast relative to a constant unmoving spatial background because all of the other objects in the universe will either be red shifted or blue shifted when the two particles look at them. It’s a good mind experiment you have come up with. I would love to see this tried somewhere.
Would you care to test this, if you had a particle accelerator that wasn't doing anything. Would you actually, w/confidence, proceed to check this out and get back to me on it.
I don’t believe you could test this in a particle accelerated but you are free to try if you like.
The greater the mass, the more space is bent. Or something, this is key, what is 'something', in a robust and technical sense? Gravity is said (by those who understand this better than I do) to be caused by a distortion or a warping of space. I don't actually quite cotton to putting it that way, but I'm not a skeptic of Relativism.
I agree with this concept the greater the mass the more space is bent around the massive object.
There is a time component to both mass and gravity.
Yes, the flow of time is also dependent to the amount of space in a given area as you would call it its thickness. I believe the stronger the gravitational filed the thicker (denser) and more bent space becomes. Space is literally contracting and condensing. So naturally when objects enter a region of space that has a strong gravitational field time slows and so does light. The speed of light is in reality constant but it appears to slow down because in reality light is now physically traversing a larger portion of space for a given area. That’s my idea for what it is worth.
One can go infinitely fast moving through time. Hmm..
You cannot go infinitely fast using conventional means of propulsion. But I believe there is another way.
Then, is mass the same thing as motion through time?
There is no time. Gravity changes the rate of particle motion so time appears to slow down. Remember Gravity is equivalent to acceleration. That is Einstein’s equivalency principle. See the pattern, it’s there right in front of you. It’s all about motion through space. I’ve already pointed out that acceleration causes time to slow and so does gravity and Einstein pointed out acceleration is equivalent to gravity. You just need to change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.
I've got time and space being interwoven in such a way, that no one observer ever sees another object moving toward them at greater than c.
In a way yes. We do seem to have some similar ideas but I am not sure where we go from here.
DanLanglois
Posts: 142
Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by DanLanglois »

This is just a few breezy comments..
Wanderer101 wrote:I find that typically, the people who will seriously consider my explanations are typically either electronic engineers, technicians or software engineers. I am sure that there is some explanation for why this is so. Most likely the filters to a person’s thinking are not as strongly applied to people who are not physicists.
I am a software engineer.

--

You need, I think, to lose this point: 'They will notice an increase in mass and gravitational pull between each other.'

--


I'm not buying into the relevance of these red and blue shifts, in this context. I mean, what is your measuring stick? Of course time dilation is measurable. Sure, spacetime looks weird from oblique angles. The point being, that you think 'they' will notice an increase in mass and gravitational pull between each other. But this, this is what is not measurable. That's not my understanding of relativity.

So, yes, maybe this is a good thought experiment, thanks, but it may be 'too good'--I think you appear to actually have encountered difficulties, here. Unless you're right, that 'relativity is wrong'. I'm not sure you're copping to this as your position, but there's a limit to 'proper interpretation', you're throwing the math out. Do you observe that you are doing this? I think, we stick w/this one. The Lorentz contraction depends only on the relative motion of objects, right?

Consider whether you have the option, here, of reversing yourself, because this one can get sticky (you're tossing the math). You need, I think, to lose this point: 'They will notice an increase in mass and gravitational pull between each other.'

I could go back to your point about the aberration of light. What does a ship see, as it goes very fast, relativistic speeds, Einstein is driving? Looking out the viewscreen ahead, only objects directly astern still appear to be behind you. Extreme distortion of objects behind you becomes apparent. Even objects five degrees from your stern now enter the field of view looking in the direction of travel.

The way I'm picturing this, as you approach the speed of light, you're increasingly looking at the four-dimensional fabric of space and time "edge-on", causing space and time to mix. Are you, looking at a three-dimensional object from an oblique four-dimensional viewpoint...?
User avatar
Wanderer101
Posts: 96
Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by Wanderer101 »

For Dan,
You need, I think, to lose this point: 'They will notice an increase in mass and gravitational pull between each other.
To me now at this stage of my life it is not so much a matter of winning or losing points or discussions as it is getting to the truth of things. Your mind experiment is a good one and it is making rethink my stance on this particular concept. The conflict in my mind is that somehow the state of objects is completely relative to each others motion through space and not to as a result of motion through space individually being compared to the spatial background. So I am beginning now to agree with you and relativity on this point. Now the idea is how to get a better understanding of this relativity of things and see if can fit into my scheme. I think it can be made to work.

This is why I really like these discussions as it mforces me to work out all of the details.
DanLanglois
Posts: 142
Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by DanLanglois »

Hi,

You will find some redundancy here, if you are plowing through this, I just want to preserve some notes on my current musings.



"Mass" is the stuff an object is made of, and never changes.

In the theory of relativity, the quantity invariant mass, which in concept is close to the classical idea of mass, does not vary between single observers in different reference frames.

Definitions of mass often seem circular because it is such a fundamental quantity that it is hard to define in terms of something else.

Mass produces negative curvature in space.

Time slows in negatively curved space.

I was suggesting that I might describe 'time' as 'energy', what I mean is, it's the presence of motion and forces. Which seems to bear a relationship, at least, to what you want to say about time.

Time also slows in moving objects.


If mass produces negative curvature in space, then of course, one might retort, 'but what produces negative curvature in space?' As in, is it something radiating from matter, or what? Under the influence of what? Interacting with what? To do what?

What is perceived as slower time in gravity, is that motion is slower and forces are weaker.

Then, is the total amount of motion and forces, somehow *imparted* to a mass, by something?

I note, that mc^2 is a constant, and also a total amount of motion and forces. Even, a total amount of motion and forces, imparted to a mass.

When velocity of an object is increased, the motion at the atomic level reduces, as you say. And, forces weaken in proportion. Which, is the observered slowing of time in moving bodies.

Does energy 'come from' what time 'comes from'? Is energy, would this be another way to put it, another aspect of time? Energy is *the quantitative measure* of motion and forces.

Energy measurement, takes into account, both motion, and forces, within an object.

Velocity, is the qualitative measure of motion. Or, speed.

'Qualitative'? Velocity measures how fast, or slow, a motion is, compared to another, more basic, motion, like the speed of light.

While 'energy', takes into account motion, as well as forces within a mass.

Can we say that 'time' arises, secondary to the presence of motion and forces.

Motion and forces are, then, due to what?

Whatever they are due to, is slower around large masses, like earth and sun. Which, could be considered as the cause of slower time. Linking, time to what?

Can gravity be explained, on the basis of tendency of matter to move from faster to slower time, when placed in a time differential. Matter, composed of what?

I think one thing you've been looking to emphasise, is that not only gravity of large masses, but motion of objects also, can curve space.

Does this have something to do, with why time slows with motion, and, in gravity.

I think your impression, that slowing of time is related to acceleration, may be incorrect. How to 'cause' time dilation, is it acceleration? Gravitational or otherwise? I may have misinterpreted 'your impression', here.

Objects set into motion produce a curvature in space while objects at rest do not.

Around large masses, something creates time differential, which then produces gravitation acceleration. Which seems to have come out backwards, but that's deliberate. The time differential, which we call gravity, produces the acceleration, and not vice versa.

Gravity produces slower time which is at the center of the large masses, then what else does gravity produce..?

Gravity is mediated not by direct interaction of the particles.

Is the total amount of motion and forces, somehow *imparted* to a mass, by something that gravity produces? No that's not what I mean, I mean is the total amount of motion and forces, somehow *imparted* to a mass, by something gravity produces acceleration TOWARDS?!

What is it, that imparts motion and forces, that is *equal to* the total energy in a given mass.

I see what happens when an object is accelerated. You have to apply force, to increase the velocity. The force, changes the way space acts on that object--the object interacts with space, and something slows in front, and becomes faster behind, the object. What then, sets up a time differential, with slower time in front of the object and faster time behind. Perpetuating the motion. 'Time' is related to what? Which sets this up, a time differential.

What, that time is related to, is causing this mass to move linearly as well?

The total amount of motion, imparted by--what, to an object, is a constant. Therefore, as the linear motion, or external motion, increases, the internal motion of atoms decreases, and the forces decrease proportionally.

The reduced internal motion is the observed slowing of time.

The force applied, to accelerate the object, only increases its mass.

Precisely mathematically correct. --?

There is negative curvature in front of the moving object with slower time and positive curvature behind with faster time. Changes in the curvature of space happen only in the direction of motion. Time differential is setup in this curved space. The moving object rides this curvature following the time differential moving from faster to slower time.

This can happen only in what? Where, can time differential be produced? Where, can length contraction occur? (both are necessary to produce motion?)

Once an object is set in motion the expansion of space in front of the object slows, producing slowing of time. While behind the moving object the expansion of space increases, producing a faster time. The time differential then perpetuates the motion.

The space itself, resists motion, and then perpetuates motion.

What is the cause of time and motion?

Near the center of a very massive object, time will be slower, as--what? is slow.

As --what? generates forces, and allows motion, and time, therefore with no --what?, there is no further increase in the gravitational force. Gravity being time differential.

Objects fall in gravity. Moving objects move in a time differential.

Gravity is a weak but long distance force which is mediated through time diffrential. It is produced by minute time differences in space caused by what? Different rates? Of what?

The internal atomic motion of the atoms is converted, into external linear motion, when placed in a time differential.

Initially, space resists motion. Force used to overcome this resistance, increases the mass of the body which is set into motion. Time differential is set up, when a body starts moving, which then, perpetuates the motion.

This explains the initial resistance, and later perpetual motion.

Moving objects curve space. This explains length contraction, perpetual motion and inertia, as well as slowing of time.



Time is slower where what, is slower?

There are multiple components, of gravity. (not a force)
Xris
Posts: 5963
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by Xris »

You have not got very far. You still can not answer my simple questions. Just continue ignore me but the fact remains you have no idea how to reply. Light is not a particle or a field. Gravity is not a attractive force it is a tension.
DanLanglois
Posts: 142
Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by DanLanglois »

Give me something to ignore, at least.
Xris
Posts: 5963
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by Xris »

DanLanglois wrote:Give me something to ignore, at least.
I have asked on numerous occassions why a particle such as a photon should be assumed to exist? Why you would assume that gravity is an attractive force? Please do not assume that I do not admire your intelligence or your knowledge. I just get this awful gut feeling that you have assumed much too much.
DanLanglois
Posts: 142
Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by DanLanglois »

If you want the floor, I don't see what's stopping you--you have an opinion? I assume, that you should admire my intelligence, my knowledge, and my effing patience.
Xris
Posts: 5963
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by Xris »

DanLanglois wrote:If you want the floor, I don't see what's stopping you--you have an opinion? I assume, that you should admire my intelligence, my knowledge, and my effing patience.
Now,now that's not the way to proceed. You have made many claims that if debate is allowed should be questioned or are you above such questions? I see once again the simple questions are to be ignored but don't let me stop your game of impressing.
DanLanglois
Posts: 142
Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am

Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

Post by DanLanglois »

My game? I want respect from you, that's my game? Too bad for me, I suppose. Also, I don't recall making any claims that 'if debate is allowed should be questioned'. As to whether I am above such questions, I don't think of myself, as a particular snob about stupid questions, and I ask a number of them, there is much of this, in my comportment towards math. I don't however, know how to break this to you, that your questions here, don't provide much to work with. Feel free to lay it all out, be a full-fledged crackpot among crackpots, you don't offer much. There's lots going on w/you and physics? The frequent kvetch that you don't buy the last 100 years of physics, QM, the big bang, black holes, too much math, your point is made. Why do you follow this thread?
Last edited by DanLanglois on August 29th, 2012, 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021