Is gravity Time?

a reply to: joelr
You need to read the thread I linked to my friend, as I think Einstein contradicts your suggestion. Some professors teach what you suggest but if Einstein says that's not a good concept, I'm going with Einstein on that one. I discuss that in the 16th post of that thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also complimented the University of Nottingham professors for actually teaching this topic correctly as Einstein suggested. I'm afraid I can't offer you the same compliment, though you do seem to know a lot and I enjoy reading your posts, which are usually refreshingly informative compared to some of the nonsense that gets posted here.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: joelr
You need to read the thread I linked to my friend, as I think Einstein contradicts your suggestion. Some professors teach what you suggest but if Einstein says that's not a good concept, I'm going with Einstein on that one. I discuss that in the 16th post of that thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also complimented the University of Nottingham professors for actually teaching this topic correctly as Einstein suggested. I'm afraid I can't offer you the same compliment, though you do seem to know a lot and I enjoy reading your posts, which are usually refreshingly informative compared to some of the nonsense that gets posted here.

Wasn't it Einstein that didn't believe in spooky contact at a distance . But now it appears that its the fact of the matter with regards to Quantum entangled particles.This effect being true, on the quantum level, means that our whole basis of physical reality, will need reinterpreting. Which will be great fun. The only way quantum entangled particles can react as if their is no distance between them, is in the fact that their "is no distance between them". Which points to the nature of reality being one of how we interpret the input to make that input reasonable.

a reply to: anonentity
Watch the video by Sean carroll I posted in the opening post of this thread.

It doesn't need re-interpreting, it need interpreting. There's never been any complete consensus on the Copenhagen interpretation, and there still isn't, as explained in that video. That is the interpretation we tend to use in textbooks but it's not confirmed.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: anonentity
Watch the video by Sean carroll I posted in the opening post of this thread.

It doesn't need re-interpreting, it need interpreting. There's never been any complete consensus on the Copenhagen interpretation, and there still isn't, as explained in that video. That is the interpretation we tend to use in textbooks but it's not confirmed.

Of course no one likes to think the unthinkable. But if you have eliminated all the other possibilities and only the unthinkable is left, then a model has to be made around it. Just because you are observing something that you don't understand, does not mean it is not so.

originally posted by: anonentity

But mass/momentum is never at rest, its relative to the observers. Mass/momentum. It has to be a relative measurement. Two masses in close proximity would be valid. A kilogram mass at two hundred miles an hour, has more energy than one travelling in the same direction at a hundred miles an hour. Because its traveling faster its time field is different as well. Is it the change in the time field, that increases its energy?. Because its got more potential energy stored as a kinetic charge. On the surface the momentum/stored kinetic energy of a body travelling through space, dosn't heat up or leach energy out as in heat. But it still has a relative potential charge, of the energy required to accelerate it. Does this energy leach out as a time field.?

You have to use Lorentz transformations for the 2 masses. There are 4 vectors. Any mass could be considered at rest, you just plug the information depending on how you want to observe it. The momentum will be conserved.
The rest mass of each mass will remain constant and the relativistic mass will change. Relativistic mass is the time component so in that way the time does change the energy.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: joelr
You need to read the thread I linked to my friend, as I think Einstein contradicts your suggestion. Some professors teach what you suggest but if Einstein says that's not a good concept, I'm going with Einstein on that one. I discuss that in the 16th post of that thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also complimented the University of Nottingham professors for actually teaching this topic correctly as Einstein suggested. I'm afraid I can't offer you the same compliment, though you do seem to know a lot and I enjoy reading your posts, which are usually refreshingly informative compared to some of the nonsense that gets posted here.

Thank you.
Einstein points out there that relativistic mass can lead to weird problems because rest mass stays constant and relativistic is related to the time part of a 4 vector momentum transformation and only defined in the frame it is measured. I know some fields use it for important reasons, like for working with particle accelerators. Einstein did also refer to mass in the relativistic sense at times in his work. It's not a problem once someone learns what's what.


There are uses for both ways.

In that clip Einstein says there is no clear definition but then there is a clear definition in the clip? So that's weird. But he was just making a point.

originally posted by: joelr
In that clip Einstein says there is no clear definition but then there is a clear definition in the clip? So that's weird. But he was just making a point.

He said there's no clear definition for what some people call "relativistic mass", and that we should just refer to the momentum expression instead. I'm not sure what part of that is hard to understand.

Mass is not really increasing when an object accelerates, it's the momentum that's increasing, so that's why Einstein says not to use the "relativistic mass" concept, and use the momentum expression instead.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Mass is not really increasing when an object accelerates, it's the momentum that's increasing, so that's why Einstein says not to use the "relativistic mass" concept, and use the momentum expression instead.

What's hard to understand is that Einstein says there is no clear definition of relativistic mass but in the quote he gives a clear description - (M = m/√1 - v^2/c^2).

It doesn't matter because that's really old stuff, everything is worked out now. It is known how to work with both.
Particle accelerator people use relative mass.
It depends on which field you are in. In Special Relativity you have rest mass - mo, and when there is acceleration there are 3 axes to calculate and each gets a "gamma factor" that has v and c worked in.

A body moving with speed v and momentum p has a relativistic mass given by m = p/v, so there is your momentum expression. In fact it's the easiest way to define the photons mass - p/v = E/c^2

In the case of E = mc2 for a photon it's really - E = m(relative)c2. The full equation with p would then be using rest mass.

So it just depends on what you are learning, there are many branches of physics.

The problem with time is that everyone thinks its moving forward, but that is only relative to our own life.
It's relative for the rest of the universe it's going backwards. Life is the struggle to exist against the force of a rewinding universe where the B side of the tape is playing because the A side is going back to the beginning to be played again.

a reply to: IblisLucifer

The problem with time is that everyone thinks its moving forward, but that is only relative to our own life.
It's relative for the rest of the universe it's going backwards. Life is the struggle to exist against the force of a rewinding universe where the B side of the tape is playing because the A side is going back to the beginning to be played again.

The first thing I have read in thread that makes any sense