captcass

That is literally what I found in the book and asked you folks for clarification on. Hello? I will not be responding to any more of these..... I provided the link to the book early on. I haven't the time for this......IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART TO BEGIN WITH!. Geeze! OK. Here it is again: https://books.google.com/books?id=SW3FCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=1.782662×10−36+kg&source=bl&ots=17y_BtXxUY&sig=DCfJ6RQ8drGjYwW8zGOxQsgDjt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV47qBsMnZAhUS9WMKHd0mATwQ6AEIPTAC#v=onepage&q=1.782662×10−36 kg&f=false Here is a link to the book. The applicable section is on page #49 Have fun with it. I now understand it so I am done with it....... BiBi

lol. I did not claim this. I asked you folks for clarification about what I found in the particle physics book, that is all. I am NOT claiming anything! I understand the relationship between energy and wavelength! My question had nothing to do with that aspect. It was based on my own misunderstanding on what I read. This thread is dead and I am moving on. Thanks for your time......

Lol. I have no idea what you are asking for here. I started this thread with a simple question asking for clarification. I did this because, even though it was right in front of me, I missed that it was in natural units. There is no math here. There is no derivation. I am not making any claims here. I just wanted your folks' help in clarifying, which no one really did. Strange came closest when he said, " Note that this refers to wavelength, not length in general. But your question still applies. " So......there are no bones to pick here. Thanks. BiBi

I didn't say that. BiBi

It is relevant because I was asking about the relationship of energy and length when I found the relationship in a particle physics book. The proper answer is that there is no recognized relationship between length and energy. The relationship is only used when doing computations using natural units...... That's it for me here. BiBi

Apparently I have been way overestimating you folk. Natural units are used to simplify calculations by dropping out terms by making them = 1. It eliminates a lot of infinities and Pi factors from the calculations. When the final result is achieved, to find the actual result, you factor those elements back in. In particle physics they make h-bar and c = 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~avery/course/4390/f2015/lectures/natural_units.pdf

This was in my original question. Without re-reading it all, I don't believe anyone noticed (as I didn't when I posted it, duh) that it is in "natural units". To find the answer in the correct units, the c and h-bar elements have to added back in. I think this would have been the correct reply to my question.

not saying it does. Just making a point. That is why the mentioned paper is trying to establish an ontology. You say tomato...... Anyway, not a continuation of this thread...... For anyone interested, here is a link to the arXiv paper. I hven't finished it yet, and do not intend to discus it in this thread when I do, but I am enjoying it so some here might. too. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07531

For instance, this is from a paper on ArXiv, a respectable source, "Event ontology in quantum mechanics and downward causation" "Concrete reality accessible to our senses is constituted by events localized in space-time.That is, by certain entities that occupy a small region of space-time" It concerns perception and downward causation, but I don't think that can be discussed here as it is speculation unsupported by math. It is an attempt to determine a common terminology, but also perception. .

never mind, I found it. I=Try I took a look. As much as I hate to admit it, the folks here have a point about their restrictions. I ran into the same thing you did here, but I, too, am working in conceptualizations of existing data. I am working on the math for my galactic rotation velocities concept on and off, but have been side-tracked recently in another dead end in particle physics. Anyway, these folks want meat to chew on. They are not looking to help establish a new ontology for QM, like we are. I suggest you do what I am now doing, as they know a great deal of the mainstream science, is to ask them to help clarify. What you and I want is a forum where people can bounce ideas off each other and I have not been able to find that. In this thread I got just a single comment that let me move ahead in particle physics. I can now explain why a decrease in length in space also increases energy within the remaining length. Consider any length in space. It contains 1 photon whose single wavelength equals the length of the space. Decreasing the length of the space coincides with an increase in the tick rate, increasing the frequency of the photon. This works regardless of the number of photons within the space. The problem with finding the math here is that quarks are virtual particles. They come and go. There is no such thing as a particle..... I have given up on that for now and am sticking to gravity as causation. I am also going back to the math for the galactic rotation velocities as I have found data on mass distribution that might help. Problem I am facing is that mass distribution is not uniform, but concentrated in the arms. Anyway, I feel your pain, but they got their rules. I do agree about attitude, though. Some folks here rather give you an insulting reply than just ignore you. That is the moderators' fault. If they kicked some butt that would stop. Sign of the times - the "cyber rude" - drives a lot of kids to suicide. Sure miss the good old days when we had duels...

I-try - Do you have a link?

Thank you. I see that and the extremely small difference in apparent tick rate, especially since the velocity differences between the planets seem so large when viewed as being elliptical orbits around the sun. So I stepped back and looked at the differences in the velocities when viewed as spirals as the solar system moves forward relative to the CMB. From that perspective the differences in the velocities are in the .01 - .001 range and as we move out from the sun the velocities slow and approach the base velocity of the sun itself. What got me thinking along these lines is that Einstein translates the differences in the clock rates into angular deflection and velocity. He calls these his "energy" components. So even though GR is based on the EP and the constancy of c, the apparent effects in time should also appear to manifest as a flow in the forward direction of time. That forward direction in a gravitational field is in the direction of the slower frames. This would account for the fact that gravity only has one direction and that it overpowers the other forces so much. I am not saying GR is wrong. I am saying there is also a virtual flow in the direction of time that fits with the results of GR. So that is why I asked if you thought there could be a relationship there. Thanks everyone for the feedback, clarifications and links. I Don't know what else to ask at the moment.

Very clear, thank you. And as it descends, its clock ticks slower. So the outside observer at rest in relation to the gravity field sees the rocket's clock continue to tick slower at an accelerating rate as it also appears to accelerate in velocity, right? Does that relate to what we see in stellar systems where planets that are closer to the star and deeper in the gradient also have slower tick rates and higher velocities? This is exactly what I have been researching, trying to gather a perspective that makes the relationships clear. I was researching one of the constants when I got side tracked into particle physics and had the question I started this thread with.

lol. It is just one avenue. But you folks do help me a lot. For instance, this is a whole new perspective for me. Up until this moment everything I've studied says all bodies are accelerating in gravitational fields. Can you suggest some further source for study for me so I can understand how they are not?

I don't understand this. Are not bodies in free fall in a gravitational field accelerating? Is there not acceleration due to gravity? You folk are the pro's. Something occurs to me and I want to know your perspective. This helps me learn.....

I agree completely about knowing who is accelerating due to the application of an external force and the resultant drag, but the drag would not be there if the two observers were being accelerated away from each other in two different gravitational fields. They would both be experiencing free fall. Would you gree with that?

Is the visual effect reciprocal?

I don't know what time zone you are in, but I am in a late one, so I suggest you get some sleep. like I am going to do.... The acceleration is still a reciprocal effect. I accelerate away from you, you accelerate away from me..... I am just noting that relativistic effects are reciprocal between any 2 observers. Only a third observer can determine who he determines to be moving, accelerating, etc, in which directions relative to his own inertial frame. 'night, Strange.

Beautiful moon tonight! Round. Spherical. Curved. Can you see that space is curved in the "forward direction of time"? How the passage of time is evolving space (and the densities within it) "forward" with it into the dilation focus at the center of the spherical moon? How things seem to be "falling" towards the center of the sphere? Not just falling, but accelerating? I am calling that "evolving", because that is the evolution of events as in QM as I see them in my world. A high velocity = a high rate of evolution of events.....hence relative velocity relates to relative rate of time that relates to relative motion, ((Cartesian direction and momentum (which relates to the rate of evolution/time)), which is altered into our "reality" of GR due to the "invariant truisms" of the equivalence principle and the subsequent constant value of c. This is why I spoke of relative and true motion in a previous thread. First, the constant value of c in all frames, and the equivalence principle, itself, stipulates that there is a universal, invariant, rate of time shared by all observers regardless of their apparent position in a time dilation gradient. Space, throughout the continuum, evolves forward at this rate of time. GR confirming the precession of Mercury's orbit is one of the great proofs of GR, showing that SPACE evolves forward due to the passage of time. When we do a relative motion plot, I used a radar screen plot earlier in another thread, we consider our own motion relative to the X axis (north/south) as "true". This is the inertial frame of the observer. A target's trajectory relative to this is its relative motion. The relationship between our "true" motion and the target's relative motion gives the resultant of the target's "true" motion relative to the shared reference of the X axis (north/south) As we stipulate the equivalence principle is true in SR, then even though the relativistic effects constitute "our reality", they do not represent the "true motion" or properties of events outside our inertial frame. We are stuck in Einsteins's illusion until we figure out how to plot the "true motion" of external events. This is, of course, maddeningly relativistic. I am therefore considering if we can use the relative motion of the Earth to the CMB as motion relative to "true north" and our velocity relative to a stationary CMB, as determined by Doppler effects, as our "true" velocity, to construct a vector basis to determine the "true motion" of other objects. Ooops....... -7? or am I now back to -10? The twin paradox enters the conversation because it assumes 1 observer is stationary while the other is traveling at high velocity. This is not possible. Relative velocity is relative, not just to each other, but a third, forth, etc. observer. Between any 2 observers, however, the effect is reciprocal. Both twins experience a universal rate of time and both see the the other having equal Lorentz contractions and increases in (mass, energy, relativistic mass), whatever each of you sticklers prefer, and time dilation. Turning to reverse direction of motion does not alter this reciprocal aspect as the turn is also relativistically reciprocal, though in opposite directions in Minkowski (and Cartesian) space. This means one does not age faster or slower than the other, to each other, but third, fourth, fifth, etc., outside observers will each perceive it differently, not just between the twins, but between themselves and the twins. I think.

Sorry, it's late, but it seems to me that no one has really answered my original question. It seems to me it is being avoided through semantics......the responses also seem to be what is to me "tainted" with the prospect that invariant mass is somehow a separate reality from GR. I empathize with this as we consider c to be invariant in a vacuum, too, and mass is related to c. But none of this answers my original question. How is the energy conserved? I am considering if it could be through release, for instance? Assuming Einstien's fundamental metric as a base, if the rate of time was universally slowed, would that fill the spacetime continuum with released, free, energy - a Big Bang? The cooling of space through the slowing of time (and frequency) that creates a relativistic energy field? Like I say, I am just thinking about this and this is why I posited the original question. I don't want the moderator to slam me again, so I cannot pursue this here yet. If the quantum particles are virtual, then mass is also virtual. I am considering that time dilation creates densities in space (masses) that accelerate the dilation; an asymptotic relationship.....I know this is backwards, as everyone who has tried to set me straight in other threads knows. That is why I am now trying to keep things to simple questions so I can resolve issues in my mind with the mainstream view here. I would like to do that without getting shut down, so, I cannot even speculate on that here....

Though I am not conceding that mass is anything other than a relativistic phenomenon, which is why I am studying particle physics and the why I got to the book..... . Sorry, I did not see the immediately preceding post by Janus. Energy has no "properties". It cannot be defined. I am looking at the evolution of time being the primary universal energy, which has me in particle physics and on to the book, yadda, yadda, yadda... You seem to want to disassociate mass and energy......that the energy increases or decreases asymptotically makes no difference to me as I am looking at causative "events" (within what I am considering) that do the same thing. I cannot talk about that here, as it is speculation at this point and just something I am playing with (do I get to go to a -8 for that? ). So, I will not debate the properties of mass and energy here, I merely posited a question. To me the term "invariant mass" has no real meaning, it is n accommodation to avoid confusion. I read somewhere once that Einstein said he was sorry he put his equation into the E = Mc^2 form because the mass aspect was so often misunderstood.... "Invariant" mass changes with relativistic speeds, meaning it is not truly invariant...... Ooops......

OK, I do understand that modern differentiation. So to avoid confusion, let's then just change it to "relativistic mass". Would they also see each other's relativistic mass increase?

I am fiddling around with concepts, so prefer the relativistic approach. I am not just trying to solve a problem and looking to use the easiest solution.

My understanding is that it is just simpler to use the Newtonian formulations, and since relativistic effects only appear at velocities near c, that it just doesn't make a difference in the vast majority of instances. The underlying foundations of Relativity, however, are the basis of our reality. So, is this an accurate statement, then?

I was researching after vsiting this Wiki page on natural units when I found the book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units I was looking at Planck units when I saw this section at the end and moved on from there..... "Natural units" (particle physics and cosmology) In particle physics and cosmology, the phrase "natural units" generally means:[9][10] ħ = c = kB = 1. where ħ is the reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light, and kB is the Boltzmann constant. Both Planck units and QCD units are this type of Natural units.