It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: MoshiachIusDei
In general relativity, space-time is curved around a mass.
If your idea is different from that, you need to define "curved time" as I don't know what that means.
You are on to time compression curves, bravo. Yes it will turn gr and physics upside down essentially.
originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
Is curved time with an angle and 'distance' an impossibility? What would happen to our understanding of physics if this were the case?
No a duplicate post isn't a doppelganger.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
I think you may have missed one of the points of the discovery, that energy is quantized, on small scales. It's still quantized on large scales as far as we know but with the same size quanta which are so small that on large scales they are insignificant.
originally posted by: disk4
I don't know about the rest of you but I think that this fits the model of the photo electric affect.
It's complicated. If you can watch videos, here's a good explanation of where your mass comes from (If you can't watch videos, let me know and I'll see if I can find a written explanation):
originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Could mass be a result of purely motion? I just Googled the speed at which the milky way is moving and it turns out to be 1.3 million mph! Wow! So, I was just curious if there is a way to prove this wrong.
No actually Einstein objected to this explanation, but that didn't stop teachers like Richard Feynman from popularizing the idea. You can see Einstein's objection to this explanation here in my other thread.
Especially since Einstein told us mass increases as you go faster.
It's a small fraction of the speed of light so it might seem fast compared to freeway speeds, but not compared to the speed of light. Protons at the LHC travel a significant percentage of the speed of light so Feynman would have said they gain "relativistic mass" over 7000 times greater than their "rest mass", while Einstein would say no they don't gain any mass at all, they gain momentum and thus energy, but the mass is still the same (rest mass was the only kind of mass according to that explanation by Einstein). Part of the reason for the discrepancy is that E=mc² is not the right formula for objects with momentum. The correct formula is shown in the link to the other thread.
1.3 million mph is pretty fast... Or maybe it's a partial increase in mass?
its a done deal mate. ms will wise up to it sooner or later. besides if I want advice about what to post, I will ask for it. verstanden
originally posted by: [post=20097314]Arbitrageur confirmed by experiment or observation, nobody is going to "turn gr and physics upside down".