Romeo22

Yes. All guesswork and im wrong.

1 hour ago, koti said:

Romeo, you're either a troll or you have serious issues with understanding basic Newtonian physics. Which is it ?

Let me leave it there then.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

So no comment about the fact your claim about time dilation on the moon appears to be incorrect? Not even to show that I have made a mistake?

I said "slow motion" strange remember the Niel Armstrong videos? Simply that time is different on the moon then on Earth. I was not being technical. But I do appreciate the technical clarity.

Wherever the value of g is different the value of time will be different

Extreme cases g=0 and g=infinity.

20 hours ago, studiot said:

 

You are misusing both these formulae.

The first one is incomplete at best.
 

The second one contradicts what you said about the Moon.

Since m is constant and c is constant mc² is constant. If it is constant it is not different from place to place.

You are right I am misusing these formulae I guess you have no idea how E=nhf came about from blackbody radiation or you are not aware of statistical mechanics. Anyway as for your moon apperent contradiction we are talking about the gravitational potential which is NOT constant.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Mass/energy warp/curve spacetime, that we recognise as gravity.

Gravity does not cause time. 

What causes time then?

Since the only two things that can affect time are kinetic energy (SR) and gravity(GR)

21 hours ago, Strange said:

I think that is the wrong way round. I make the time dilation on the Earth's surface about 22 ms per year (for a distant observer) but less than 1 ms per year for the Moon. So the observer on the Earth would see clocks on the Moon running faster.

Edit:

If anyone wants to check, this is based on the time dilation, relative to a distant observer) at the surface of the Moon being 0.9999999999686 and at the surface of the Earth being 0.9999999993047.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt(1+-+(2+G+(mass+of+moon))+%2F+((radius+of+moon)+(speed+of+light)^2))

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt(1+-+(2+G+(mass+of+earth))+%2F+((radius+of+earth)+(c^2)))

The time dilation at the event horizon is independent of the mass (energy) of the black hole.

 

Citation needed. Or is this another guess?

Wrong way round. In GR, gravity is the curvature of spacetime (mainly the time dimension). 

 

I would like to see you derive that. I haven't tried yet, but it looks wrong.

Already have Strange. Watch the space.

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or, to put it another way, if you think gravity causes time, how would one go about demonstrating this in an unambiguous fashion? i.e. what experiment could we do? 

 

Not only does gravity/energy cause time but time cannot be measured at random but only in discrete values. 

I have 3 experiments in my paper.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

This has been split. Now it is time to back up your claim: Time is energy. 

 

 

 

So, how does that work? Energy keeps increasing as time progresses?

Consider an inertial observer A on the surface of the earth, he sees observer B on the moon as if he is in "slow motion". This is due to the fact that the energy E=mcc of the moon is different from that of the earth (different energy causes different times) this is the essence of how gravity affects time. Extreme cases such as the vicinity of a black hole (extreme energy).

A particle in volume V, subjected to temperature T moves faster due to the added kinetic energy but an alternate view is that the increase in energy or temperature causes "slow or fast motion" on the particle a variable time.

To answer your question an absence of Energy is an absence of time. And there exists a linear relationship between time and energy. A classical analogue of Heisenberg's time energy uncertainty.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

If you have such a model, why don't you present it in the Speculations forum. Or, better still, publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

Working progress. Not yet fully developed.

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

This has been split. Now it is time to back up your claim: Time is energy. 

 

 

 

So, how does that work? Energy keeps increasing as time progresses?

The major difference between Einstein's view of gravity besides speed of gravity is that gravity affects time, the precession of mercury and the deflection of light are due to this.

So the lesson of GR is that the origins of time are gravitational. Even in Special Relativity we can view the time dilation (which is caused by the speed v) t'=gamma t. From a gravitational point of view. By saying the speed of an object as it approaches c, causes a self induced increase in gravity, which then affects time. So gravitational time dilation is the same thing as velocity time dilation.

Time is caused by gravity. Gravity is caused by energy.

Do you know what guesswork is? Time is a form of energy when gravitational time dilation is treated in flat space. I can easily prove that. Possibly even you if you apply the correct mathematical framework.

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

Is there such a model?

The other reasonable contradiction is that you have no model and no evidence to support this bizarre claim.

Exactly Strange this is why I was resistant to delve too deep on how time is a form of energy in the first place.

Because my assumption is only valid in a gravitational time dilation that assumes a fixed background. A fully fledged QT of gravity in Euclidean space.

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Even though it is observationally verified and continues to make successful predictions? In that case I say you are wrong.

 

I was going to wait till you have read and understood what I said before I respond you. But...

I am talking about its view on SPACE and nothing else. How long did Newton's action at a distance make successful predictions?

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Minkowski space and GR do not contradict, other then we don't feel gravity in flat spacetime. 

 

Did I say they contradict?

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

I agree with studiot. Temperature is simply a measure of heat or energy..

 

Wow.

Energy= kT.  E= mc.c

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Wrong. Mass/energy affect flat spacetime, causing it to curve/warp, the effect that we recognise as gravity. 

 

 

mass/energy causing spacetime curvature or warping resulting in gravity. Time in a great gravity potential will simply appeared to be slowed as we have longer [curved spacetime] paths to travel.

Did you actually read where I said a model of gravity that assumes a fixed flat background? Cause u r confusing that with GR

LET ME RECAP

energy causes gravity causes and gravity causes time (all this is conversion of one form of energy to another). The only reasonable contradiction is the one posed by @strange which I already answered.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Gravitational time dilation is caused by gravity and curved spacetime: it is not a form of energy.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

As the space and time dimensions have the same status in GR, presumably you think that distance is also a form of energy.

@strange I thought about this at length, if energy affects time it will also affect length as the two are entertwined. +1 for that (instead of your usual its nonsense attitude)

If you have been following my disscussions of space and as @MigL has pointed out I do not favor the GR view of space-time. So in a flat Minkowski space gravity or a form of quantum gravity based on flat space. This is why I added the implied and why I did not want to discuss it in the first place cause it assumes a model of gravity that assumes a flat Euclidean space.

Under this assumption, mass or energy will affect time but not distance and hence the two will be interchangeable. Mass distorts gravity (time) but not space

I thought the whole idea of this forum is to discuss phyics -- or better yet the possibilities of physics. I have an MsC physics and have been published. I have no interest in reciting the standard model just to look right and I use a language here that allthe can understand cause of our different disciplines.

@studiot I believe you have read widely I see this in many of your responses but some of your posts are wrong like saying temperature is not a form of energy. 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Gravitational time dilation is caused by gravity and curved spacetime: it is not a form of energy.

Gravity is space-time curvature.

Beece what causes gravity, can't you see a bit further than that, and see that this is energy converting from one form to another

10 hours ago, MigL said:

I couldn't let this go unchallenged...

Romeo22 said
"Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, especially about space. Thus it is an inevitable truth that the other is wrong."

I'm sure Romeo22 is familiar with wave/particle duality in our models of light.
Both work well in their INTENDED applications, but Romeo says we must discard one of the models as only one can be right.
So what is light, a particle or a wave ?

( or is it both, or maybe, it is actually neither )

@migl do you believe that hopefully in the near future a consistent GUT will exist and that in this theory either space will be deformable as in GR or non-deformable as in QT?

Although they work well now in their INTENDED disciplines one of them (and many researchers believe this will be GR -- myself included). Will eventually be superseded by a more all encompassing theory, that postulates that space is flat or curved but not both.

Where we will understand semi-quantum effects such as Hawking and Unruh radiation.

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

No it isn't. Stop making stuff up.

Mass/a form of energy affects the flow of time (gravitational time dilation). In simple terms.

Hence implied.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Exactly.

Case proved.

 

@studiot return to what I said concerning your comment

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Energy is a property not a thing.

The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago.

 

Exactly so.

Space on its own is a general term for the stage where stuff happens.

We need to tie it down with qualifiers to properly identify which stage we are talking about.
 

This is why, for instance, my comment used the term free space.

But 'Space' could be limited to area or even a linear measurement, rather than volume.

Which brings in measure.

Many useful spaces (including all geometric spaces) possess a measure or distance property as mathematically defined and called a metric.

Unfortunately Physics has (once again) a different definition of the word metric, but it is equally important, especially when considering Relativity questions.

Back to the mathematical definiton leads us to consider those spaces without a metric.

These are topological spaces and non metric topological spaces lead us directly to wormholes with the 'gluing' rules of topology.

Computer programmers use another such space with packman type games on screen.

 

To understand Space and its qualifiers we need to look into set theory, functions, mappings and containers.

A good simple example of this would be to explore this view of 'vectors'; this readily shows how you need a 'container' filled with several different sets to develop useful a useful theory - that of vector spaces.

 

 

 

@studiot you are misunderstanding me. I only reffered to your first comment

"Energy is a property not a thing.The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago."

Which is what I quoted I said absolutely nothing about what followed.

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Without wishing to be rude, I think you have some serious catching up to do on basic Physics.

 

Did you understand my comment about vector spaces?

That was meant to be helpful.

 

I hope u realize I did not comment on that. But on what was quoted.

26 minutes ago, koti said:

There is no model I know of in which time is a form of energy, please share your insights on this. 

It is implied by gravitational time dilation... but we should not get caught up on that, a topic for another day.

On 1/1/2019 at 6:05 AM, studiot said:

Energy is a property not a thing.

The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago.

 

 

I hope you realize that time is a form of energy. Matter is a form of energy. Momentum is a form of energy. Temperature is a form of energy.

In fact everything you can ever think off besides space is just another form of energy.

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Space is simply space.
It does not need to make a choice.
WE need to make the choice as to which model we use, as the models used by GR and QT are currently incompatible.

Perhaps I wasn't clear with my previous explanation...

In QT, we can assign a co-ordinate system to a certain volume.
That co-ordinate system is absolute and immutable.
Quantum events happen on the stage of that co-ordinate system.

In GR we can also assign a co-ordinate system to a volume ( more specifically volume with an orthogonal time dimension ).
Yet that co-ordinate system is affected ( curved ) by mass-energy distributions within it.
It is not absolute, and in effect, becomes part of, and modifies events.

Romeo22 implies that space can only be one of the choices, the other must be wrong.
He is confusing the models we use, and which have specific areas of applicability, with the reality.
But he is correct in stating that the models of GR and QT use a different paradigm.
( and so we wait for  Quantum  Gravity to unify the two )

 

Thanks for recapping what I have already said...

About your comment "He is confusing the models we use, and which have specific areas of applicability, with the reality."

Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, especially about space. Thus it is an inevitable truth that the other is wrong.

It does in fixed background view

And they both cant be correct. So you cannot have an inclusive definition if either GR or QTs view is wrong

47 minutes ago, Strange said:

As all forms of energy cause spacetime curvature, this appears to incorrect.

Which forms of energy does it not interact with?

I have already talked about the difference between GR and QT and I said I favor the view of Newtonian Gravity, Maxwell dynamics and Quantum theory.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

by whom?

By what cause... do not put me in a box good Sir.

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think that simply saying space is volume merely replaces one word with another.

You could equally ask "What is volume?"

In fact space is not just any old volume, it is a particular sort of volume.

So to say something more useful than "space is volume you" have to detail its particulars.

 

+1

Furthermore that particular volume does indeed interact with energy (in the form of EM waves since there is no such thing as 'pure energy') as evidenced by the easily measurable complex impedance of free space, usually denoted by the symbol Z_o.

-- Maxwell theory is background independent. Its only in GRs view where space can slow down objects or cause any visible manifestations on objects or bodies

With that said, Energy is temperature/matter/waves/etc. Is there any other theory in standard physics besides Einstein's GR that predicts that space can affect energy? The answer is none. Makes you wonder.

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

energy/matter has to have somewhere to happen.

A predetermined stage. A stage that had all the properties to allow manifestations such as the big bang

Finally we agree, but you named one property. Space is volume. Neglected the rest. But I was drawing you to the most important property whether it interacts with energy/matter or not.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

What?

 

You are talking about properties of space and not what space is.

I personally favor the view of Newton and Quantum theory so from my point of view:

SPACE is an entity that cannot interact with ALL forms of energy.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Which part of "IT IS IN THE RELATIVITY FORUM" is hard for you to understand?

In relativity forum? While your very answers where based on QT. Again its always amusing strange.

Just now, Strange said:

And, for the purposes of this thread, that choice is "relativity".

The OP did not specify which according to my knowledge.

And as I said before either GR space or QT/Newtonian Space is WRONG they cannot both be correct.

This is the fundamental reason why GR cannot be quantized.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 

Note this is in the Relativity forum.

@stringjunky I have already made this clear that in GR space is different than Newtonian and Quantum physics.

Thus I said you need to make a choice.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

So you agree that space is volume?

Whether space is infinite or not is not the subject of the thread. Note that this makes no difference to any theories and so we can’t know. 

So you agree? Ur reasoning is always amusing to me. An electron has spin... do u agree that an electron is spin? Basically that is all u have said

Space being infinite is another property of space, so is its dimensions another property.

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Space is volume and volume is a property of things. Empty space does not exist as a distinct entity, just like 'length' doesn't. Vacuum energy is the lowest energy state a volume can have ( filled with virtual particles) but it's not zero i.e it is not 'nothing' or empty.

I know what you just said sounds correct based on Machian thinking etc.

But DO NOT say "empty space does not exist as distinct entity"

What are the postulates of quantum mechanics?

What are the postulates of Newtonian Gravity?

Volume is a property of space and matter but it is neither space nor matter.

And as for the vacuum energy that is not a property of space (if u followed my earlier thoughts, I raised a question. Can space interact with matter/energy? )

Your answer already assumes this is true but you are using vacuum energy of QT which is a paradox.

Vacuum energy based on E >= mc squared . Is still a property of energy and not of space. Check the calculations in QT.

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Space is volume.

Space is volume.

Space is not volume.

Matter has volume so does space, whether that volume in R*3 is infinite or not is what u nd I should be discussing