[Farsight]

That doesn't work, yor_on. Dropping an object and timing it tells you the steepness of the local gradient in g_uv, but it doesn't tell you how the g_uv down by a black hole compares to the g_uv up in space. You compare them by looking at the gravitational time dilation, and you can't do it locally. You start with two identical clocks. You leave one up in space. You take the other one down near a black hole, hang around for a while, then go back up to space and compare the clock readings. These clocks clock up motion. If they're mechanical clocks they clock up the motion of gears and sprockets. If they're light clocks they clock up the motion of light. If they're jiggle clocks they clock up internal subatomic motion, things like electron spin. It doesn't matter what type of clock you're using, you'll always see that gravitational time dilation, because things move slower in a gravitational field.

[yor_on]

Well Farsight. Inside that box, being in the same reference frame, you will get different values for gravity. So time and gravity differ to me, which seems to make my idea almost plausible

You see, as I saw your idea there you seemed to say that locally time always will be seen as proceeding as usual, which makes sense to me. But time as a concept is not gravity, with gravity not acting the same way as 'times arrow' does even though it is closely correlated, meaning that it will change with gravity.

===

That last one will only make sense from an observers frame of reference, of course. For you, being inside that box, f.ex moving towards the EV (event horizon) of a BH, time will always be the same, working 'as usual'. At no time will you ever notice time becoming 'slower' just because you're accelerating, or finding yourself placed in a BH

[VernonNemitz]

Tsk, tsk, and Aristotle "knew" that effort always had to be expended to keep something in constant motion. Whoop-te-do.

There isn't any spring Vernon. I raise a brick, and you can wave your hand underneath it. The spring is just not there. And there's no sign of gravitons either.

A worthless analogy.  You can wave your hand between two magnets, also, and there is no sign of a spring or the virtual photons passing between them, that explain the magnetic force between them.  Yet Q.E.D. is the most accurately-measured/verified theory in Physics, despite nobody every directly detecting any virtual photons.

You are wrong, because gravity is an infinite-range phenomenon. And, if Einstein knew so much, why didn't he end up creating the Grand Unified Field Theory that he wanted?  "It's not what you don't know that hurts [your efforts] so much as what you do know that ain't so."  Specifically, Einstein didn't like certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics, such as the Uncertainty Principle, and, in thinking it was flawed, handicapped himself.

Yep, it's infinite in range, but things fall down because the local space they're in isn't uniform. Call it curvature or call it a non-constant g_uv, it doesn't matter. If the space was homogeneous there wouldn't be any detectable gravitational field.  

I certainly agree with that last statement, but the manner of how space can be inhomogenous is what we are arguing about here.  The Casimir effect is proof enough that empty space can be emptier in some regions than others (emptier of virtual particles, that is).  It should be obvious that if QM can describe gravitation, then the presence of a mass, in the vacuum, will mean that the vacuum now has in it virtual gravitons radiating from mass, in addition to the usual background noise of virtual particles.  There will naturally be an intensity gradient with distance from the mass, too, meaning that space will be inhomogenous in that region.  Therefore we can deduce gravitational effects, equivalent to invoking Geometry (but now consistent with the rest of QM).

Einstein ran out of time, and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates re his stance on quantum mechanics. I'd say he disliked the lack of underlying reality more than anything else.

The effect, though, is that he made no significant effort to include Quantum Mechanics in his thinkings about gravity.  Instead, I get the impression he wanted to use Geometry to explain the other forces.

Wrong. No totally different picture needed. Look up the Law of Refraction.  Whenever the medium changes, through which light passes, its speed and its direction is affected. Very simple, very consistent, gravity included. What changes in the "medium" of the vaccum, when gravitational field intensity increases, to cause light to go slower and to curve more? Simple: the concentration of numbers of virtual gravitons (due to inverse square law), relative to the concentration of all other types of virtual particles in the vacuum.

We have no evidence of virtual gravitons. Einstein talked of inhomogeneous space. According to relativity, what changes is the space itself. 

Again, a worthless argument, like saying in 1990 that planets outside the Solar system can't exist because there was no available evidence for them.

Pair-production is possible because of the existence of virtual electrons and virtual positrons in the vacuum, with which an appropriate-energy photon can interact.  The great thing about Quantum Mechanics is that it does allow us to have a consistent picture, such that we don't need to invoke geometry to explain gravitation.

You should read . Feynman says they're virtual. Also read [url=http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0295-5075/76/2/189]Evanescent modes are virtual photons by A. A. Stahlhofen et al, Europhys. Lett. 76 189-195, 2006. The geometry is right back in there now. And let's not forget that nobody has succeeded in quantizing gravity.

And in 1900 nobody had succeeded in building a heavier-than-air flying machine.  Whoop-te-do, another worthless argument.

And gravitational time dilation is just as easily explained by QM, in terms of interactions with gravitons.  The more something is spending time interacting with virtual gravitons, the less it is spending time interacting with anything else --and it is those other interactions that we use to measure the passage of Time. Simple.

We use light. Atomic clocks employ microwaves, look at the definition of the second. 

You are failing to understand.  Every time-measuring device involves interactions between various components, and all those components are also interacting gravitationally with the Earth (or, say, pick some other source, like if the clock was sitting on a neutron star).  However, these interactions cannot be simultaneous; the whole point of a fundamental "quantum of time" is that exactly one interaction would be possible in that interval.  So, regardless of however-many time-quanta exist during "one second", the important thing to ask is, "What percentage of them are being devoted to gravitational interactions?"  Obviously more would be devoted to that if the clock was sitting on the neutron star, instead of Earth.  Which leaves less time-quanta available for other interactions, between components of the clock, and those are the interactions we rely on to tell us the time.  The net effect is that the clock ticks slower on the star than on Earth, even though the same number time-quanta per second occur in both places.  Even without gravitation, this effect can be seen when we think about interactions with the virtual particles in the vacuum; a fast-moving spaceship will encounter more of them per second than a slow-moving spaceship, and therefore the clock ticks slower on the fast ship.

I'm pretty sure the lessened speed of light in a gravity field, relative to empty space, is taught in the advanced classes and other places.  Certainly I found out about it without reading original source material by Einstein.

One sometimes finds mention of a reduced coordinate speed, but I'd say what tends to be taught is in line with http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html. Maybe it would be better to continue this conversation on a thread I started entitled "Is Einstein's general relativity misunderstood?".

Nope.  Because our argument is not about GR so much as is about QM, and the ways that QM can be extended to also explain the things that GR explains, thereby making GR irrelevant.  (Not "wrong", because GR is quite good at what it does, but "irrelevant", as in "unnecessary".)

[yor_on]

Vernon. If you were the observer to a clock falling toward the event horizon. How would you explain the red shift and 'slowing of time' that clock will express, relative you observing? In form of your 'time quanta', that is.

Will they according to you, become 'more' extending 'times arrow' as the clock moves slower relative your frame, or do you see the time quanta as the same 'amount' as it would be if seen from the same perspective (frame) as that clock falling in?

I'm curious to how you see the concept of time quanta, as a 'predefined even if undefined' amount, or as something that comes into 'work' as needed? And I hope I made some sense asking too

[yor_on]

Farsight I'm still of two minds in my thought experiment.

"Einstein concluded in one of his papers that a particle's increase in inertial mass due to motion would result in an increase in its gravitational mass"

And we do know that acceleration is equivalent to gravity, and mass

And:

---Quote--

Does a particle's relativistic mass increase result in a corresponding increase in the gravity field generated by the particle?

Yes, the particle has an increase in energy (kinetic and mass increase) and under general relativity, it is energy that generates a gravity field, not just rest mass.

Dr. Eric Christian.
Nasa

--End of quote-

Take a look here too Fluids and pressure
 
"One might also ask about the answers to this question if one assumed that one were asking about the mass as it is defined in special relativity rather than the Komar mass. If one assumes that the space-time is nearly Minkowskian, the special relativistic mass exists. In this case, the answer to the first question is still yes, but the second question cannot be answered without even more data. Because the system consisting only of the gas is not an isolated system, its mass is not invariant, and thus depends on the choice of observational frame.

A specific choice of observational frame (such as the rest frame of the system) must be specified in order to answer the second question. If the rest frame of the object is chosen, and special relativistic mass rather than Komar mass is assumed, the answer to the second question becomes yes. This problem illustrates some of the difficulties one faces when talking about the mass of non-isolated systems."

But then against it you might say that we added an potential energy by lifting it, which then is equivalent to an added mass

So it's still a question of from where we define it.

The question seems to me to become if you can translate gravity into energy without using a definition of first 'interacting' with something, as the ground f.ex for the release of 'potential energy'?

==

Then again, if you consider gravity to be the geometric twisting of 'SpaceTime' it shouldn't transfer any 'energy', possibly. But 'potential energy' is created just out of those 'twists'?

Awh

[Farsight]

That's good stuff, yor_on, but IMHO it's simpler than you think. Think about Einstein's 1905 paper. Now start with a container of hot gas up in space and call it your system. It's hot, and it emits infra-red radiation. Wait for the radient energy to dissipate, and once it's cooled down, the gas molecules are moving slower. There's less energy in the system so the system has lost some mass. 

Now start again with another container of hot gas up in space, and instead of letting it cool down, let it fall down. Wait for the kinetic energy to dissipate, and even though the gas is still hot, the gravitational time dilation means the gas molecules are moving slower. There's less energy in the system so the system has lost some mass.

[yor_on]

Would be nice to be sure on that one

I still have some wondering left to do there It seems to come down to how you view gravity and its 'interaction' with matter. and there I am of the view that gravity is a geometry, not a force? But then we have VMO:s ending in singularities like super black holes?

I hasn't considered gravity as a 'force' before so I will gratefully accept all links from those seeing it as such

It's this elusive 'potential energy' irritating me. It's like an itch for the moment

" We seek him here, we seek him there, Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven? — Is he in hell? That damned, elusive Pimpernel "

Ah, potential energy that is... Not Pimpernel..
And not only the Frenchies
 

[VernonNemitz]

Vernon. If you were the observer to a clock falling toward the event horizon. How would you explain the red shift and 'slowing of time' that clock will express, relative you observing? In form of your 'time quanta', that is.

Will they according to you, become 'more' extending 'times arrow' as the clock moves slower relative your frame, or do you see the time quanta as the same 'amount' as it would be if seen from the same perspective (frame) as that clock falling in?

I'm curious to how you see the concept of time quanta, as a 'predefined even if undefined' amount, or as something that comes into 'work' as needed? And I hope I made some sense asking too

I won't claim that my ideas are fully fleshed out, on this topic.  However, if QM truly can explain everything, then some things need to be true everwhere, like the speed of light in a vacuum, far from any mass, is always the same speed.  That's a primary assumption for Relativity, from which much else logically follows.  Here I will assume that time is quantized and that it has a fixed size, which is described here:  http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm?CFID=25253792&CFTOKEN=1591d858dcc3d8ce-89D3AB98-15C5-EE01-B9FC9A191E4C5E40

As I mentioned to Farsight, during one time-quantum only one interaction event should be possible.  It might be a gravitational interaction or an electromagnetic interaction or some other interaction.  The huge number of time-quanta per second allows the appearance of simultaneous interactions (not unlike a computer operating system on a single-core computer that does rapid task-switching, and appears to be doing multiple tasks simultaneously, even though it is actually doing just one thing at a time).  Anyway, it is interactions between components of a clock (any clock!) that we use to determine the passage of time.  Normally there are plenty of "spare" time-quanta for such things as gravitational interactions, such that we don't notice a clock running slower in an ordinary planetary gravitational field.  A very strong field, like that of a neutron star or a black hole (very similar those fields can be! --the escape velocity from a neutron star can easily be 70% of lightspeed) will simply overwhelm the available time-quanta with gravitational interactions, leaving few for interactions between clock-components (or other types of interactions, like those associated with age-ing).  So, the closer you get to the surface of a neutron star, or the event horizon of a black hole, the greater is this effect, and the farther away, the less is this effect.  We can CALL it "time slowing", but perhaps a more accurate way to say it is, "Fewer Universal Clock Cycles are being devoted to the task of running that merely mundane clock."

The red shift of light leaving the vicinity of a black hole doesn't need to have anything special to do with time-quanta.  This is instead straightforward energy conversion from one type (SOME of the photon's content) to another type (potential).  The difference between the blue photon that was created near the black hole, and the red photon we see escaping to outer space, is energy that became potential energy (if the photon was reflected by a mirror back to the black hole, it would gain that energy back, and be exactly as blue when it arrives at its origin, as when it left).

[Farsight]

I still have some wondering left to do there It seems to come down to how you view gravity and its 'interaction' with matter. and there I am of the view that gravity is a geometry, not a force? But then we have VMO:s ending in singularities like super black holes?

It's a bit like Chinatown, yor-on:

Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter.
[Gittes slaps Evelyn]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister...
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter...
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: My sister, my daughter.
[More slaps]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister AND my daughter!

It's "a geometry", and it's "a force". But it isn't like when you push something. It isn't a force that adds energy to an object. The thing is, electromagnetism is like this too.

[VernonNemitz]

Farsight, it occurs to me that another reason you are wrong about the plate acquiring significant potential-energy-as-mass relates to the photon I described at the end of my last message here.  The photon would come away from the black hole almost as blue as when it was created, if you were right about where the potential energy goes!  Therefore it is I that am correct; most of the energy that becomes potential, as a small body or photon escapes the gravitational field of a larger body, goes to increasing the mass-energy of the larger body, not the smaller body or photon.  Do remember that the most important thing about General Relativity is that it is about "mass-energy" regardless of form.  You can't have a double-standard, treating the plate one way and the photon another.

[yor_on]

Vernon, you seem to seek a time like geometry.

"The escape velocity from a neutron star can easily be 70% of lightspeed) will simply overwhelm the available time-quanta with gravitational interactions, leaving few for interactions between clock-components"

One might say that looking at a 'time quanta'  your way, translated into geometry, that time might have different 'depths'. As I find it more understandable that way than if thinking of that 'quanta' as a equal 'distance' of time, that then somehow would become 'split up' depending on gravitational influences.

If you instead allow it to have a 'depth' to it, you introduce a concept where 'time' if so would have one apparent property that we define as it's arrow moving us along, and then another, more or less 'hidden' property to us, describing the relation between gravity, acceleration, uniform motion, mass, energy and time.

The problem here would then be how to to define that hidden property? As a new 'dimension' perhaps? I'm sort of allergic to 'dimensions' for the moment as I find them poorly proofed experimentally.

Mathematically you will have a plethora of ideas, building on each other, creating one 'manifold' after another. But I still wish we could proof that dimensions are a singular property experimentally, before deciding that our mathematical treatment is the only one existing.

So if not another 'dimension' then what?
That's a really good question I think and to me it seems as an 'emergence'. As such you don't need to treat it as a object with several 'singular properties' which releases a lot of mine inability to understand things

As an 'emergence' it will contain a 'whole', just as SpaceTime seems to do when looking at its 'plasticity'. Which still leaves us the reason why we can't 'see' it, but to me that says more about how we view the world than any inability of times arrow (or time) to express itself. It gives us clear indications to how it works but in our need to 'split it down' into its smallest constituents we forget that what we define as 'existing' is limited to what we believe. And our 'beliefs' change constantly nowadays

As I see it of course, you might have another view that I missed totally.

[VernonNemitz]

"The escape velocity from a neutron star can easily be 70% of lightspeed) will simply overwhelm the available time-quanta with gravitational interactions, leaving few for interactions between clock-components"

You quoted out of context. 
"A very strong field, like that of a neutron star or a black hole (very similar those fields can be! --the escape velocity from a neutron star can easily be 70% of lightspeed) will simply overwhelm the available time-quanta with gravitational interactions"
The proper extraction from that is:
"A very strong field, like that of a neutron star or a black hole will simply overwhelm the available time-quanta with gravitational interactions"
The parenthesized part was there merely to explain the similarity between the gravity fields of neutron stars and black holes.

It is sometimes said that "Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once."  Time is about CHANGE.  Ordinary geometry is purely static, not dynamic.  As long as this fundamental distinction exists, I won't be trying to equate Time with another geometric dimension.

[yor_on]

Sorry if you felt mis quoted there. But now you're losing me Vernon. How do you mean when you write "Time is about CHANGE.  Ordinary geometry is purely static, not dynamic.  As long as this fundamental distinction exists, I won't be trying to equate Time with another geometric dimension."

SpaceTime is no static geometry, not according to me at least?
As for that times arrow is about 'change' or as some say 'events' there is no doubt.
But the question I asked was how you thought about 'changes' taking shorter or longer 'time' to happen depending on your frame of observation.

If you think of time 'changes' and watch that clock (observing it) hang at the event horizon, there are going to be an awful lot of changes happening to you before that clock ever moves a inch you will have died long before that. And that was the crux of it to me. How you saw those 'time quanta' as differing between different observations from different 'frames of reference'. The clock tick as usual from its own perspective, but you, the earth and the universe is accelerated and blueshifted, changing at a ever increasing pace as it falls in.

So how do you equate those two observations with your 'time quanta'?
Consider A here as the the minute hand ticking one minute as seen from the frame of the in-falling clock.
Here is 'time quanta A' as seen from the frame of the clock, with its time 'as usual' so to speak
<-A->

Here it is from the perspective of you observing the clock.

<-------------------A------------------->

That 'time quanta', lifted from the perspective of the clock, will now contain a infinite amount of 'changes/events' from your perspective observing. You can travel home to Earth and come back without that clock hand ever moved according to you.

Hope this clarified my question.

[VernonNemitz]

SpaceTime is no static geometry, not according to me at least?  As for that times arrow is about 'change' or as some say 'events' there is no doubt.  But the question I asked was how you thought about 'changes' taking shorter or longer 'time' to happen depending on your frame of observation.

I said that my ideas on this topic were not fully fleshed out.  But certainly time is the thing that allows one geometrical arrangement to become a different geometrical arrangement.  One particle can at most have one interaction during one time quantum.  This is not the same thing as saying that one time quantum only allows one interaction in the Universe to take place.  The time quantum affects the entire universe at once; different interactions happen in different locations during that quantum of time.  The type of interaction that each particle engages in, during that quantum of time, depends on the particle's neighbors, not on the time quantum.

If you think of time 'changes' and watch that clock (observing it) hang at the event horizon, there are going to be an awful lot of changes happening to you before that clock ever moves a inch you will have died long before that. And that was the crux of it to me. How you saw those 'time quanta' as differing between different observations from different 'frames of reference'. The clock tick as usual from its own perspective, but you, the earth and the universe is accelerated and blueshifted, changing at a ever increasing pace as it falls in.

I don't see any time quantum as being different from any other time quantum.  Each one is the same, Universe-wide.  The interactions that occur, at different places in the universe, depend only on what neighbors each particle is interacting with.
A clock that has no other neighbors will have all its parts interacting only with each other during each time quantum.  A clock with lots of neighbors will have at least some of its parts interacting with those neigbhors, during each time quantum.  The net effect is that the isolated clock runs faster, because it takes more time-quanta for the crowded clock to do the same purely internal interactions as the isolated clock.

So how do you equate those two observations with your 'time quanta'?  Consider A here as the the minute hand ticking one minute as seen from the frame of the in-falling clock.  Here is 'time quanta A' as seen from the frame of the clock, with its time 'as usual' so to speak
<-A->

Here it is from the perspective of you observing the clock.

<-------------------A------------------->

That 'time quanta', lifted from the perspective of the clock, will now contain a infinite amount of 'changes/events' from your perspective observing. You can travel home to Earth and come back without that clock hand ever moved according to you.

No infinity; the available evidence strongly suggests the Universe is finite.  (Example, an infinite universe would be associated with infinite gravitation, and we'd all be in a black hole as a result.)  The reference frames you describe are ignoring the available neighbors, for interacting.  Remember that even a vacuum is full of virtual particles with which interactions can occur, and a speeding reference frame can encounter more of those virtual particles than a stationary reference frame, in any specified number of time quanta (the speeding frame has more neighbors).

[Farsight]

Farsight, it occurs to me that another reason you are wrong about the plate acquiring significant potential-energy-as-mass relates to the photon I described at the end of my last message here.  The photon would come away from the black hole almost as blue as when it was created, if you were right about where the potential energy goes!  Therefore it is I that am correct; most of the energy that becomes potential, as a small body or photon escapes the gravitational field of a larger body, goes to increasing the mass-energy of the larger body, not the smaller body or photon.  Do remember that the most important thing about General Relativity is that it is about "mass-energy" regardless of form.  You can't have a double-standard, treating the plate one way and the photon another.

I don't treat them differently Vernon. The important  thing is that a photon doesn't actually change energy when it enters a gravitational field. There's no evidence of any energy transfer into the photon via unseen particles, the photon is the only particle there, and we must abide by conservation of energy. Yes, the photon appears to gain energy, for example it's measurably blue-shifted. But the frequency hasn't actually changed. Your measuring devices have, because they're subject to gravitational time dilation. Your clocks run slower, so you see the frequency as increased. It's a little like the way something feels warmer if you're cold.

[VernonNemitz]

Farsight, it occurs to me that another reason you are wrong about the plate acquiring significant potential-energy-as-mass relates to the photon I described at the end of my last message here.  The photon would come away from the black hole almost as blue as when it was created, if you were right about where the potential energy goes!  Therefore it is I that am correct; most of the energy that becomes potential, as a small body or photon escapes the gravitational field of a larger body, goes to increasing the mass-energy of the larger body, not the smaller body or photon.  Do remember that the most important thing about General Relativity is that it is about "mass-energy" regardless of form.  You can't have a double-standard, treating the plate one way and the photon another.

I don't treat them differently Vernon. The important  thing is that a photon doesn't actually change energy when it enters a gravitational field. There's no evidence of any energy transfer into the photon via unseen particles, the photon is the only particle there, and we must abide by conservation of energy. Yes, the photon appears to gain energy, for example it's measurably blue-shifted. But the frequency hasn't actually changed. Your measuring devices have, because they're subject to gravitational time dilation. Your clocks run slower, so you see the frequency as increased. It's a little like the way something feels warmer if you're cold.

You do indeed treat them differently, because for the plate you continue to say it gains mass when it is forced out of a gravitational field.  Dude, mass-energy is mass-energy, and G.R. makes NO distinction about the FORM in which it appears; all forms interact gravitationally, equally-in-manner (differently depending only on magnitude).  This means you are employing a double-standard, between your description of the plate and your description of the photon.  Just imagine an extremely energetic photon having the same magnitude of mass-energy as the just-accelerated plate, at the surface of a neutron star.  When both exit the star they must still have mass-energy equal to each other.  So, if you want to claim the mass of the plate has increased, in acquiring potential energy, then you must also claim the photon has become equivalently more energetic, also.  Since you don't, it means you are violating the basic principles of General Relativity; it means you don't know what you are talking about.

[yor_on]

Okay Vernon, I'm still not sure how you see it, but you're at the start of it as I understood. Virtual particles are defined as being outside Planck time and GR says that there is no measurable 'energy' to space as I understands it. Let's put it like this, if space had an measurable energy then it would have to be a 'medium' too as I see it. Doesn't mean you can't have 'virtual particles' and 'vacuum energy', as long as they don't make any measurable 'dent' of their own at SpaceTime. That we see indirect evidence seems to be allowable by GR though?

I'm looking forward to see you 'flesh your ideas out' Vernon. I'm also wondering about 'times arrow'

[Geezer]

Hi!

We seem to be drifting off topic just a tad here.

Anyone is welcome to propose a new theory under that heading, but it might be best if we try to answer the topic question in terms of well accepted science.

Or should we simply lock the thread?

Geezer (Mod)

[yor_on]

Well Geezer, you're right

Thinking of my idea of if the plate would 'jiggle' less if lifted up on that table instead of being left at the ground made me reevaluate how I understand gravity. As I said I believe it to be a 'geometry'. And as such it's not a 'force', but it still doesn't explain how it can be in all points (matter and space) and also work from each one of those points as if that would be the definite 'center'. If you look at Earth we say that in the middle of it, gravity will be 'nulled' as the 'mass' around that specific point will take out all gravitational forces (as I understand it). So gravity act both as each point would be its center as well as being able to add those points together to create an additive 'force'. And yes, suddenly I'm back to call it a force. ain't I

The thing here is, how can a bare geometry be additive?
What allows it that?

[Geezer]

Thanks Yoron  []

There are several posts on this topic and I'm reasonably confident I'm not going to trawl through the lot, so could someone perhaps try to summarize for a poor old geezer where we are?

Something along the lines of:

According to classical mechanics, mass is not added because of  - insert formula here
According to GR, mass is added because of - insert formula here
According to so-and-so's theory, mass turns into a white rabbit because of - insert formula here

Something along those lines might help someone less "skilled-in-the-art" to understand what we're on about here.