0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Calculating particle mass in relation to longer or shorter seconds for a continuum in quantum may well be a more complicated method than the already established method of probability.

If seconds do get longer out in space,

where peoples of all creed and religion were tolerant of each other in the face of market commerce, and as a result of such tolerance and trade - the advancement of knowledge, science, and technology blossomed.

Do you recognise the possibility of the logic I propose?

rate of time

I can't even remember why I started the thread.

Quote from: timey on 03/06/2016 20:05:11 rate of timethis is an awkward phrase, since "rate" means "number of occurences per unit time" so the rate of time, if it has any meaning, is always 1, by definition. What we know is that a stationary clock at a higher gravitational potential runs faster than one at a lower potential, so potential energy distorts time, and increasing the kinetic energy of a photon, since it can't travel any faster, increases its frequency. Same phenomenon, same effect. Nothing funky or illogical.

he light can't travel any faster, so it's KE remains constant.

It's energy is observed to increase in the lower gravity potential!

A standard second is 1.

I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential? And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...?

If we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock...

Edit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second. I understand what defines a standard second.

Quote from: timey on 03/06/2016 23:28:12I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential? And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...? not if m_{0} = 0, obviously: E = hf, and it's all kinetic.QuoteIf we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock... KE of what? theclock. Ok, so the notional deBroglie frequency of the clock's mass increases, but that isn't what we observe. And no, it isn't observed to experience anything - there is no difference between uniform motion and rest (Newton!) but an observer with a relative speed to the clock will observe its SR time dilation. Nothing to do with kinetic energy. QuoteEdit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second. I understand what defines a standard second. There is no other second. It is defined universally. It just happens that the second on a high or moving clock looks shorter or longer to an observer on the ground. There is nothing special about the surface of the earth: it just happens to be where most of the observers are, for the time being. The orbiting astronaut sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (SR is reciprocal) and the GPS satellite also sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (the gravitational field is not symmetrical).

Now we could introduce other variables into this model that can in some way modify the way the wave behaves.

Ok - if gravity potential does not affect the relativistic mass of the photon then the only means that kinetic energy can be calculated to increase for an 'incoming' photon, is if KE is calculated accumulatively. We are saying that light has no mass but because it is moving at c we can attribute it KE, which we can then state as relativistic mass, and then because we have added mass, this then accumulates more KE? I don't get it!

And if KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE, I don't get why a clock that is in motion relative to the stationary clock does not have an increase KE relative to the stationary clock and I don't get this notion why the clock does not experience its own time dilation when astronauts who are with the clock in motion are reputed to 'actually' experience time dilation effects...

Timey. Once you understand the simpler aspects of relativity mathematically all the confusion disappears.