0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The acceleration of gravity is a dimension.
1 meter times speed of light = 299 792 458 meters
On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths. It's that I've 'never' done any at-all, as I did not get schooled beyond primary school education - not only are you being incredibly unfair in that you are demanding that I know dimensional analysis in relation to algebraic mathematics, (and I am trying) especially in relation to the fact that it is because of I 'don't' know these things that I have asked for HELP! If I knew them I wouldn't need any.It is indeed blatantly bloody obvious what I'm trying to do, and 'confusingly' your input is slanted towards the critique of the attempts of a completely qualification-less person, when you could be employing the advantage of your degree to the purpose of assistance. Bit disappointing really!Dimensional analysis of above calculation:L is equal to 299 792 458 metersM is equal to gravitational accelerationT is equal to L+M/cAm I on the right track?L1 = T1L2=T2
On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.
There was a time when I wasn't proficient in aviation, but out of courtesy to other users of the sky, I took the trouble to learn the basics before charging into Heathrow's airspace and telling everyone else that they didn't understand.
Every time someone tries to actually help you you brush them off and tell them that they don't understand what you are saying. That is because what you are saying isn't expressed in clear terms. When you have been shown how to better express your ideas you ignore that too. Do you think it is satisying to people trying to help to not only have it thrown back in their face but then to be accused of some type of public ridicule to boost their forum reputation. How long do you think they would remain members of this forum if that was what they were doing? I studied mathematics properly 26 years ago. So when I decided to get into it again a few years back I started by buying an algebra book. I read it through and attempted the problems. Until I had finished that I was not confident in my ability to proceed with restarting my interest in physics. When I first studied mathematics I got distinctions. It didn't matter a jot because I had forgotten most of it in the intervening years. I had to jog my memory by re-reading all the subjects again. Members of the forum will correct me when I am wrong. I won't argue with them. I will go back and check what I have done or read up on the subject I have misconceived. I am afraid their is no shortcut. No matter how many books you read that are non technical in nature. Geometry is a good place to start but it is only a starting point. Do you understand polar and spherical coordinates for instance. If not then your geometry is lacking. There is an awful lot to learn and it is not possible to take it all in. Most of all put your listening ears on.
If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.
Quote from: alancalverd on 26/06/2016 12:22:45If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?
Quote from: timey on 26/06/2016 14:30:49Quote from: alancalverd on 26/06/2016 12:22:45If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?Both. It is not an either or choice.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 25/05/2016 11:02:11Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies. So - presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles? ...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/photoelectric.pdf
Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.
.......energy and mass are held as the same thing in relativity,