[GoC (OP)]

Energy,

What do we think we know about Energy? We think it is part of mass. What if we are incorrect and Energy is part of space. This would suggest mass draws that Energy from space in the form of moving the electrons in mass.

What would be the affects on Relativity?

A photon would be a propagation wave on Energy until it was absorbed back into a uniform distribution. This would be for all types of radiation in our known and unknown spectrum.

GR- Gravity would be dilation of that energy from space. The dilation greatest in the center of mass as a gradient outward. It would be the density of energy that affects time. With dilation of space the electron has a larger space to occupy. This would result in dilation of the mass object.

Relativity says the measurement of light in a vacuum is the same in every frame. Our measuring stick in a vacuum at the center of a planet would be dilated by the amount that space energy is dilated. We know mechanical and light clocks run the same in every frame so the dilated space that light travels through (Light being more red shifted when created in more dilated space vs. less dilated space) also effects the electron travel distance. Resulting in a slower clock with a longer distance traveled. Since the mass dilated with the measuring stick measurements, the speed of light in every frame would be the same while the distance measured would not be the same. Measured time and distance would be confounded in every frame. Time would be Energy c. Distance would relate to the density of the Energy state in GR. Gravity would be an acceleration monopole with no antigravity possibilities. Mass dilates space energy and mass is attracted towards less space energy density. Both dilation and gravity follow the inverse square law. Would gravity be equal to reduced potential space energy?

SR- acceleration would be resistance to the change in electron motion of c. Acceleration in SR would equal slowing the motion of the electron rest cycle by absorbing velocity relative to c. If you consider electrons motion being at c potential always from space energy than velocity would have to affect its rest cycle to a slower cycle. If you take mass to the extreme of c (which is unlikely) the electron would stop all motion but its linear distance motion. This of course is less than possible since motion could only attain motion through the energy of c, not greater than c.

Inertial speed and the center of a planet could have the same tick rate but for different reasons. The common denominator would be c.

This is all hypothetical of course. Time being equal to motion and motion being equal to energy density in space.

[jeffreyH]

1) You are underestimating the problems involved in deriving an adequate description of time dilation. 2) You cannot remove the energy from mass and obtain a consistent theory. What you are saying is that the vacuum energy is of a far higher magnitude than theory suggests. When you progress through the mathematics and start to understand the concepts you will come to appreciate both points.

[GoC (OP)]

1) You are underestimating the problems involved in deriving an adequate description of time dilation.

I gave a rough explanation of a possible physical cause of time dilation. The suggestion that a distance is the issue negates the need for precision at this point. The only problem is c being constant and time rate changing. When the tick rate of a clock slows the distance has to increase in Euclidean space to maintain the same measurement for the speed of light. I understand the curved light path in GR dilation along with the linear visual light (simultaneity of relativity) increasing the appearance of a longer measuring stick in SR. Both of these issues end up with the appearance of a longer measuring stick for a slower clock.

2) You cannot remove the energy from mass and obtain a consistent theory.

Of course not! Mass being in a sea of energy can never be removed. Remember this is a subjective interpretation as to the cause of relativity. I am suggesting energy moves the electrons. Consider E= mc electron motion * c energy of space.

What you are saying is that the vacuum energy is of a far higher magnitude than theory suggests.

Yes, all theories are subjective interpretations for the cause of observations.

When you progress through the mathematics and start to understand the concepts you will come to appreciate both points.

A concept based on a non energy space will be completely different when viewing the mathematics through an energy basis. Both are subjective.

[jeffreyH]

You have to take into account what happens to coordinate velocity in a frame moving at relativistic speed. If time is dilating then to a remote observer velocity should also appear to slow. This is exactly what is thought to happen at the event horizon of a black hole. If these situations are to be considered equivalent then coordinate velocity should appear to slow in both situations. I would have expected that this would have become very apparent at the LHC by now. So in the case of a velocity that is not induced by gravity the situation has to be different. This also begs the question as to whether or not an increase in relativistic mass applies to acceleration due to gravity.

[GoC (OP)]

You have to take into account what happens to coordinate velocity in a frame moving at relativistic speed.

Of course.

If time is dilating then to a remote observer velocity should also appear to slow.

Time is not dilating for the remote observer if you are suggesting the remote observer is at relative rest. It is only dilating for the object at relativistic speeds. With my understanding of space energy being c with SR the time dilation is an increase in the visual length of the measuring stick and not to be confused with GR dilation of expanded space. The visual length using relativity of simultaneity is also the same relativity of simultaneity change in distance increase that causes the clock to slow.

(If you would like I could give examples of the measuring stick visually increased and distances for the clock to slow by euclidean geometry)

This is exactly what is thought to happen at the event horizon of a black hole.

In an energy of space a black hole would be void of energy (no time since time is motion). This is not to say it has no kinetic potential which would be on the macro scale. Gravity attraction being mass with different energy potentials. The lack of space energy within a black hole causes regular mass into a type of fusion where the attraction is above the speed of light and atoms fuse together like a mega element or an electron in a fractal dimension.

If these situations are to be considered equivalent then coordinate velocity should appear to slow in both situations.

Yes inside a black hole there would be no time because of no motion but again only inside of the black hole. Remember this is subjective reasoning using an energy grid not to be confused with main streams space as a void.

I would have expected that this would have become very apparent at the LHC by now.

The LCH works as fission not fusion. They are distinctly different mechanics.

So in the case of a velocity that is not induced by gravity the situation has to be different.

Of course!

This also begs the question as to whether or not an increase in relativistic mass applies to acceleration due to gravity.

The increase in mass by mathematics is actually relative dilation positions of mass. The more dilated positions closer to the center of mass has the greatest attraction do to a less dense energy position. This attraction increase due to position is mislabeled as an increase in mass

[krash661]

1) You are underestimating the problems involved in deriving an adequate description of time dilation. 2) You cannot remove the energy from mass and obtain a consistent theory. What you are saying is that the vacuum energy is of a far higher magnitude than theory suggests. When you progress through the mathematics and start to understand the concepts you will come to appreciate both points.

it is best to say that vacuum is only a description[used to give an idea of energy's travel rate without barriers] and not an actual element. in reality a vacuum is actually ,basically, non existent. of course it depends on distance and location of any magnitude of mass, and any effect of non-mass[energy, fields, etc.], which does occur in large spaces of the cosmos.
one must understand and keep in mind that book sshit is only an approximate to anything. reality will show more.

edit-
all this code nonsense on this site is massively tiresome. i seriously do not want to post because of such nonsense.
shakes head.

[GoC (OP)]

The equivalency between GR and SR is in how each measures the speed of light to be the same. The reasons in SR and GR measurements are different causes but both are constant and equivalent with geometry.

[Phractality]

I believe both special and general relativity are "caused" by the way we define space and time in our mathematical representation of the physical universe. There is indisputable mathematical proof of relativity, as it applies to our mathematical representation of the physical universe. This does not prove that the physical universe obeys relativity.

The fact that the physical universe appears to obey relativity is evidence that our limited understanding of it is correct. I don't believe we yet have an adequate conceptual model of the physical universe to explain why the physical universe is so close to our mathematical model of it.

There seems to be a pervasive attitude among mainstream scientists that conceptual models are frivolous pursuits, whereas mathematical models are God.

There are other (not necessarily better) ways to define space and time, in which the speed of light is variable, and in which the path of light is not a straight line in space-time. To avoid contradicting relativity, new names would have to be assigned and defined for the alternative distance-like and time-like units. In the absence of a gravitational field, where space-time is flat, anyway, the alternative units could be equal to meters and seconds; but where Einstein's space time is warped, you could define the space (in the alternative units) to be flat.

I don't know that such an alternative space-time would have practical uses, but it might provide some insights that are not obvious in Einstein space-time.

[jeffreyH]

You cannot flatten spacetime without effects on energy, momentum and other properties. It may however be a way of relating black hole entropy to a quantum of energy.

[Phractality]

You cannot flatten spacetime without effects on energy, momentum and other properties. It may however be a way of relating black hole entropy to a quantum of energy.

It is true that those parameters would have different values and obey different laws when expressed in the kind of units that I am postulating. There would have to be different energy-like and momentum-like units, which could be derived from distance-like and time-like units.

There should be a set of transformation formulas to convert flat-space parameters to warped-space parameters and vice versa. This would be analogous to plotting points on rectangular graph paper v. log-log paper. The shape of the graph paper affects the shape of the reality that is illustrated on it.

Some physical realities are best illustrated on log-log paper. I would be surprised if the postulated flat space-time did not yield some insights about cosmology, and perhaps also quantum physics. Or it might turn out to be a useless curiosity.

[jeffreyH]

Still a very interesting way of looking at the issue.

[GoC (OP)]

. The shape of the graph paper affects the shape of the reality that is illustrated on it.

just like graph paper with different size squares largest in the center of mass. The size of the squares would be a gradient from the center of mass to smaller squares outward. There is no flat spacetime just different size squares in 2d and cubes in 3d. Gravity is the mass attraction to larger squares (dilation).

[dhjdhj]

If the cause of relativity is the invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum. How does that stack up with other wave formations? Does the speed of sound at NTP for instance vary according to the velocity of the observer? If the source is moving relative to the observer then frequency varies as per Doppler, but if I  measured the speed of sound using the same kind of reflection technique as for measuring light would I find the speed of sound to be constant in any direction as long as I was in the medium transmitting the sound. The medium air determining the velocity. Could it therefore be the medium space that determines C and could it be that whereas there isn't a structure that we can see or measure it may be some other form of medium and that that may also be the way entanglement works?

[jeffreyH]

In a local frame of reference c will be constant in vacuum. If your local frame happens to be very close to an event horizon your measurement of c will not aree with a far observer. The medium is the gravitational field and the limiiting factor is the field energy density. It is amazing just how focussed you can be while confined to a hospital bed.

[Phractality]

In a local frame of reference c will be constant in vacuum. If your local frame happens to be very close to an event horizon your measurement of c will not aree with a far observer.

Measuring c is like measuring the number 1; its value is fixed by definition in meters per second. A distant observer will see that your meters have shrunk and your seconds have dilated relative to his, but light still travels the same number of your meters in one of your seconds.

The medium is the gravitational field and the limiiting factor is the field energy density. It is amazing just how focussed you can be while confined to a hospital bed.

Today my hat blew off of my head in a strong wind. You could say that my hat followed the lines of the force field of the weather pattern; or you could say that the air pushed my hat off of my head. The force field is not the wind, but a mathematical description of an effect that the wind has upon hats. A field is merely a mathematical description of an effect upon a hypothetical object which is dependent upon the object's location in the field.

You could simplify the game of football to a set of equations describing how the ball is attracted to the goal posts; or you could describe how the ball is carried by the players. If your force field equations are accurate, they might win you more money; but they won't help you to understand how the game was won.

Gravity is a force of attraction between masses, and it can be represented by a field; but the field is not the gravity.

Get well soon.

[jeffreyH]

It would take x amount of energy to create the field. This in practice is infiite in magnitude since the field extends to infinity. If we then take spherical slices through the field with the origin at the COG then we can granularize the energy density. It is best to neglect rotation initially so the Kerr metric should be excluded. Then an energy vector space can be described that can undergo magnification so that orders of magnitude become less of an issue. It is how the vector space is explored that is important.

[GoC (OP)]

Measuring c is like measuring the number 1; its value is fixed by definition in meters per second. A distant observer will see that your meters have shrunk and your seconds have dilated relative to his, but light still travels the same number of your meters in one of your seconds.

This makes no sense to me. Dilation and velocity increase distance for the electrons in GR and the visual length in SR due to simultaneity of relativity. So mass increases in visual length in SR and decreases in density with dilation in GR so that mass increases in size. If you understand simultaneity of relativity in SR you understand length appears longer. The distance through space is also longer with speed in SR and dilation in GR.

What we are experiencing is the different distances in space the electron and the photon have to travel. With speed the clock and the measuring distance have the same increase in distance of space. This is why we measure the same speed of light in every frame.

If light is constant in space how can you have a slower clock with a shrinking mass? The measuring stick lengthens to measure a longer distance for a mile in the frame with a faster speed. The light clock expands with dilation (GR) so the light travels further to slow the clocks tick rate. The measuring stick expands to measure a longer distance. That is the crossover where you think you contracted in Relativity.

The ratio is fixed not the actual time or distance.

It would take x amount of energy to create the field. This in practice is infiite in magnitude since the field extends to infinity. If we then take spherical slices through the field with the origin at the COG then we can granularize the energy density. It is best to neglect rotation initially so the Kerr metric should be excluded. Then an energy vector space can be described that can undergo magnification so that orders of magnitude become less of an issue. It is how the vector space is explored that is important.

While the field material might extend to the limits of our detection it is the manipulation of that material (energy) that we describe as a field. Like the dilation of space by mass.

[jeffreyH]

Well I'm going to use vector spaces. We can always compare notes.

[Phractality]

The ratio is fixed not the actual time or distance.

That is the one thing in the post that makes sense.

I think you should watch some video illustrations of SR. The fast train is shorter when measured in the "stationary" observer's meters, so meters etched on the side of the train would be shorter than the "stationary" observer's meter sticks. Time on the train is dilated, meaning the train's clocks run slow compared to clocks that are synchronized in the "stationary" observer's coordinates. An observer on the train would see the stationary clocks along the tracks running slow, and stationary observers along the tracks would see the train's clock running slow (after the arrival times at each point along the track are recorded and telegraphed to an observer at the origin).

[GoC (OP)]

That is the one thing in the post that makes sense. I think you should watch some video illustrations of SR. The fast train is shorter when measured in the "stationary" observer's meters, so meters etched on the side of the train would be shorter than the "stationary" observer's meter sticks. Time on the train is dilated, meaning the train's clocks run slow compared to clocks that are synchronized in the "stationary" observer's coordinates. An observer on the train would see the stationary clocks along the tracks running slow, and stationary observers along the tracks would see the train's clock running slow (after the arrival times at each point along the track are recorded and telegraphed to an observer at the origin).

Simultaneity of relativity is the contraction. Your stuck in the non relativistic mentality of observation. You do not view an object at relativistic speeds as a unit. Most scientists don't even understand this distinction. you view the front of the train and follow the image towards the back. Light is finite in vector speed so while the reflection is following the train towards the rear as the rear is moving forward and not being reflected yet as the image that you view. So by simultaneity of relativity the image is contracted. But the distance forward increases the distance electrons and photons have to move through space. With energy being a constant motion forward reduces that available energy we recognize as a slower clock.

   

Well I'm going to use vector spaces. We can always compare notes

Vector space is flexible in GR and causes a Doppler effect in SR. So in GR there is a size increase for the atoms to move. This increases the electron distance we measure mechanical clocks to equal light clock distance through dilated space. That dilation is the mechanism of attraction of mass to a more dilated space. Gravity is self perpetuating.

The SR equivalent is vector motion in space increasing photon and electron distances to the constant energy c.