captcass

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

I got this from a particle physics book. I am at home, not work, so I can't give yo the title at the moment, but I will provide a link when I get to work..

OK.......so.......does it eliminate the twin paradox? It would seem "Strange" if it did? Anyone? Hellooo? Getting to be bed time here..........

OK. I am thinking this deafening silence is not good? Anyone? Hello? As you know, I do not mind being told I am wrong...... Hellllloooooo?

Somehow something seems wrong with that, but I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps does it violate the twin paradox? I'm not used to you guys not jumping on me right away......it is "strange"

And so mass approaches infinity as relative velocity approaches c. I would say this is an internal conservation that is observer dependent? In other words, two observers accelerating away from each other in opposite directions would each see each other's mass increase as their size contracted, but not their own?

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that length and energy are related: l * E = ħ / 2 and using natural units where c = 1= ħ, we can deduce that 2*10-16 m = 1 / GeV. My question is, how is energy conserved when length contracts and time slows? Is it still contained within that smaller space, making the space hotter or is it released in some form? Also, would the slower rate of time have a cooling effect by reducing frequency? Tks

Exactly. And a second would be a second and light would be traveling at c. Einstein said at one point he thought you could drive a car through it. I am now wondering what an observer at the event horizon would see in our direction, as we see compression there. Would they also see us as at the event horizon of a black hole, in compressed space, or as being at the edge of the galaxy, in expanding space, as we perceive it? If expanding, would that present the same as what we see at ~13.9 Gly OMG! I just noticed I went from a -10 to a -9. See, I told you folks, there is a god!

Thank you. This is what I thought. You have really helped me here.

Great. Thanks, Strange, that was driving me nuts at the event horizon. Wouldn't all objects be in free fall unless under propulsion? At the black hole, when the clock rate slows, velocity would appear to go to 0 and the object would then appear to just hover?

There is a direct correlation in SR, right? The Lorentz contractions show us slower clocks and shorter meters that maintain c?

Thanks. That helps a lot. So if the second is longer, then the meter is shorter and so we compression?

Here is one I am sure you folk can help me with. The length of a meter must adjust with the rate of time to maintain c. I take this to mean that if we cut the rate of time by .5, we have to double the length of the meter. If the rate of time appears to approach 0 at the event horizon of a black hole, shouldn't a meter seem to approach infinity in length? If so, why do we perceive a compression of space instead instead of an expansion of space? Do Lorentz contractions explain it? Thanks

the spacetime continuum. The math is in GR in the time elements that Einstein calls his "energy" components (sic). They also scale the stress-energy tensor. That's what I said. You can't see it. I don't know how else to tell you. You either see the energy (dilation/gravitational) field, or you don't. You either see the evolutionary direction of the waveforms or you don't. You either see the fall of an object in a gravitational field as its waveforms evolving forward or you don't. But you folk can't see what I am seeing, so there is no point continuing here. We are just wasting our time. Thanks for the input. BiBi It is all superposition waveforms that collapse into our reality when we observe it. People debate whether it is there when we do not look at it....quarks are virtual particles that pop into and ot of being. At any given moment there are parts of us that are not there.......the earth would behave the same as an electron in a double slit experiment...

I have explained some of this before and you folks cna't seem to see it so I really don't see the point of wasting everyone's time again. But briefly.... I am seeing the continuum of quantum physics as the spacetime continuum. This is an evolving energy field with densities in it. The densities don't move through empty space, they are evolving along with the rest of the continuum. They are part and parcel with it. The evolution, or passing, of time evolves the continuum forward including what we perceive to be "empty space". All densities, all cosmic bodies, are evolving waveforms in the continuum. Einstein's fundamental metric describes the primary evolutionary state of all observers. As time evolves forward, the observer's space appears to evolve forward in a straight line at a steady rate. Adding a dilation gradient introduces another evolutionary force in time, which is down gradient. Events evolve from faster frames to slower frames. This direction is relativistic. In a stellar system, the evolution down gradient is orthogonal to what would be the straight line evolution of the planets. This is why gravity only has 1 direction and overcomes all the other forces. It is the evolution of the continuum by the passage of time, including all its densities and thin areas.

OK. Thanks, guys. You don't see what I am seeing. No point going there again.

No. I get that. I mean does anyone here see GR as also describing two complimentary/competing directions of evolution in the continuum? Lorentz contractions and the constancy of c are responsible for what we see, but are not the dynamics in the evolution of time also there? For instance. When I see light curving around a star, I see the light being evolved down the time dilation gradient as it also evolves forward on its trajectory, not the curvature of a spacetime we cannot visualize.

The moderator shut down my thread on a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time when I stated that Einstein's field equations did not rely on mass or energy. I misstated. Einstein's TENSOR does not rely on energy or mass, except in that the time dilation is related to mass in gravitational or velocity-induced dilation gradients. And yes, acceleration mimics a gravitational field. I had asked the folk to find a single energy or mass element in the field equations in his 1915 paper I provided a link to. I should have asked them to find them in Einstein's tensor, though he does not describe it as such in his paper. I am starting to think you folk don't know enough to relate to what I am talking about, which blows my mind because you obviously know so much!. "Energy elements", OK. In the paper, he calls the time dilation his "energy elements". (I gave you the link, you can find the reference even if I have it only paraphrased.) The argument was about the necessity of the stress energy-momentum-tensor in his formulations being necessary for a curved evolution. I am saying that in Einstein's tensor, mass or energy do not apply, only differences in the rates of time that are translated into angular deflection. I am trying to argue chicken or egg. As you who love to correct me know, my scientific terminology is not always perfect. I might confuse an hypotheses with a postulate or a simple proposition. You folk like to jump on me for this because you think I am so off the wall, which I agree I am. Some asked why I don't mind the negative points. I am old and learned long ago to be humble because pride precedes a fall. I am here to learn from you, and I don't care if I am wrong. You get used to it at my age......humility comes with age. We know no more than we do at age 18. If I am wrong, as you have shown me before, then I am wrong. At least I keep at it. "Make a fool of myself"? I am not affected by this concept......I still know more than any of you folk in how it REALLY works..... Sorry, I know you hate that...... I can readily understand this as I am taking a very non-mainstram approach. I think you know that I know what relativity is about, (Lorentz contractions, visual phenomena based upon the results of there being a constant speed of light in all inertial frames) which is something that keeps you engaged and so enraged by me. I repeat, I understand SR and GR. All I am is saying that relativity relates to more than the relativistic visual effects due to the constancy of the speed of light. It also is proof positive that events evolve "forward in time" down time dilation gradients in the continuum. I am saying this is an orthogonal evolution to the evolution we each experience in out inertial frames of reference which I compare to Einstein's fundamental metric in GR and a 1 s/s rate of time. GR describes the resultant of these two orthogonal forces of evolution, one dependent on the apparent momentum and one dependent on the apparent differences in rates of time down the time dilation gradient. The reason I asked the folk to look for the energy elements is to show that it is not just effects in light, it is also effects in time. The fact that c is a constant in all frames tells me the rate of time is also the same for all observers in all frames. Hence the universal rate of time I propose. If the rate of time were different for different observers, they could not agree about c. Can anyone here see GR as the resultant of these two evolutionary directions in events due to the two evolutionary directions of time, one "real", as in the fundamental metric in GR, and one relative down the dilation gradients, whether induced by velocity or (apparently) due to mass? . PS: I am NOT talking about how we perceive each other's rate of coordinate time. I am saying that the rate is the same for all observers, regardless of their inertial frame.....as per SR.... a universal invariant rate of time that allows c to be constant for all observers regardless of their frame or velocity..

I don't see it as changing the meaning, as I noted above. Sorry, Strange, I disagree. They include the tensor to accommodate the conservation. The actual field equations do not contain any mass or energy factors other than the difference in the rates of time, which is where I see the "force" of evolution working. Take a quick look at them and try to find a mass or energy term.

I read it differently. To me he is saying the postulate does not call for it. He deduces it to satisfy the conservation of energy. I thought the name calling was banned.

You can read Einstein's original paper here http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf § 16 of his paper, he says, “It must be admitted, that this introduction of the energy-tensor of matter cannot be justified by means of the Relativity Postulate

Damn, I was just going to bed..... As I quote in my paper, Einstein said this is not required under GR. He just includes it as an accommodation to the conservation of energy. I am just saying imagine it the other way around....... I am sorry. I have absolutely no idea what this means. I don't get dhost stories Googling that. The biggest anomaly is that the velocity of time is not additive or subtractive from the velocity of the source. I know you know this and think this a BS question. Without light the effects do not manifest. They are the result of the attributes of light. So what? I am talking about 2. Well, now. Who does not understand GR? The field equations are on the left side of the equation. He equates that with the stress-energy-momentum tensor on the right, but notes it is NOT REQUIRED by GR. He adds it to accommodate energy conservation ONLY and people have been debating it's value ever since just like the cosmological constant on the left. And WHY the hell are you calling me a LIAR? WTF moderator? Helllooooo!!!! And now you are getting political, too? WTF has politics of any sort got to do with any of this? Ahhh. I get it......booze, right? I don't think it is pot. You are too science orientated. Gotta be da booze....right?

It is not a "scene". It is relativistic frames of reference based on differences in the relative rates of time. And....we can throw frame dragging in to make the discussion really spicy. All of a sudden I feel like the lead character in the TV show Lucifeer. Well, no responses for awhile, so I guess you folk are mostly east coasters. Logic lets me figure that out, by golly, by geese, by gum....... Sleep tight...the continuum will keep evolving forward FOR you even though you are asleep... As improbable as it seems, you will, hopefully, be here in the morning. I have no idea why the moderator has not killed this thread long ago unless, somehow, the moderator sees merit here. So, good night all, and to all, a good night. I have no doubt the holy Strange will resurrect us, and give us energy, purpose, and new meaning in the morning.

My museum is the museum of old, outdated theories. Just kidding. Wanna guess? I bet one of you is smart enough to figure it out......Oh noooooooooo! No they don't. They have nothing to do with GR's field equations which rely totally on differences in the rates of time. Einstein says he added the stress energy tensor as an accommodation to the conservation of energy and the GR did not require it. I quote the paragraph of his 1915 paper in my paper. Time dilation creates the effects. Time dilation requires length extension to maintain c. Special and General Relativity are based on the Lorentz contractions, which are visual, not physical, and based on the anomalies of light. (Google the anomalies of light) I think you are wrong. GR describes the scene, just like Newton, and it is certainly not an "actor". What "action" is spacetime taking? Time is the actor, as the change in time evolves space forward, and changes in the rate of time change density (length in 2 dimensions, if you like) in space. I cannot, on the other hand, see space altering time at all, except where it is concentrated in dense materials where the speed of light is slowed and frequency reduced and I agreed somewhere (I don't think in this thread), that once dilation begins to accrete mass, that mass further slows the process of evolution, adding acceleration to what otherwise would be a steady time dilation gradient. This is why I love you folks, (except maybe Strange). Chill, Strange, I put it in parentheses, didn't I? You really help me clarify.