0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

I still have problems with the concept of size reductions with objects travelling faster with respect to my frame of reference. Time dilation is a fact and has been demonstrated many times and distance or space travelled is time times velocity. So the argument is that as velocity is fixed space must shrink. But why cannot velocity be a combination of internal (within an atom) and external (the atom moving) so that space remains space and its velocity that shrinks. If you consider a childs spinning top. As it spins according to SR the top must reduce in size in respect of an observer. Now if you put that top still spinning on a trolley and push it so the trolley moves then the trolley will shrink with respect to the observer. The top should shrink further but it doesn't. The tangential mean velocity of the top does not change. So you have a composite structure where one part shrinks and the other half does not. As they inhabit the same space how can SR explain this? If the source of relativity is within the atom and the invariance of C as energy travels is a result of that. Then space and time become absolute. Gravitational lensing would need explanation as that is another experimental fact but that is possible. Why is this wrong?

I attach a diagram that explains why I think it is possible (I emphasize possible) that particles spinning with a tangential velocity of C within the atom could cause not only relativity with exactly the same mathematics as Einstein's equation but also if the energy spins off at that rate in the photon, would also cause light to travel at C.

great, electrons must move (orbit) otherwise there would be no centrifugal balance force to hold the atom together but what causes it to move is a good question. It must be some function of energy when introduced to form the atom in the first place. I don't know I'm reaching.

I can't understand this irresistible desire to question relativity. That is not the issue anyway.