[Mike Gale]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69830.0

Did you see this thread (only 4 short posts so far)

I did not. Thanks for pointing that out. They seem to be struggling with the relativistic version of KE. Not sure what they're after.

[Mike Gale]

Einstein himself said his logic was incomplete, and illogical.

I will watch you and your metric with interest.  And if you get a bit bored at-all while reconciling length contraction to the percentage of the coordinate speed of light your mass or light is travelling at in relation to distance travelled - just for laughs try setting time set at stopped in a 0 gravity field, and then re-calculate a prediction for the cosmological constant...

With regards to my own model, I've given it a great deal of incredibly deep thought for many years now, having read a lot of books that have told me all of the matters that need addressing in order to produce a theory of everything, of which my model addresses them all.

However - to understand my model, it would take the same type of paradigm shift in thinking that a person conditioned to think in terms of the geocentric model would have had to employ to start thinking in terms of the heliocentric model.

I'm not going to argue about relativity here, I find doing so incredibly boring.  It's all anyone ever does, back and forth, back and forth.
Many theoretical physicists are looking at the possibility of current physics being wrong, trying new ideas, new metric, MOND, MOG, etc, and if I can't find a progressive discussion that isn't going to result in the words 'incorrect because relativity says so', I'd rather put my energy into learning the maths that need to be employed to describe what I am describing in my model.

I've never read anything that suggests Einstein was in doubt. He was certainly aware of purported paradoxes like the tale of two twins and Bell's spaceship, but those have since been solved as far as I know.
I don't know what MOG is, but I've read about MOND. It's is an interesting twist on gravity that involves variable G. I haven't looked at it since I noticed that the SC metric permits a variable light speed interpretation. It may be the same theory as mine, but it's hard to tell because they confuse the bejeebers out of G.
It is not relativity that makes you incorrect about energy, or at least it's not SR or GR. Energy is observer dependent in Galilean relativity, too. Viascience gives a good example involving a ping-pong ball and a bat. From the ball's perspective, the bat is moving. From the bat's perspective, the ball is moving. The energy associated with each depends on your point of view.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - but both bat and ball are moving with respect to space - and who cares about the bat or the ball's point of view?

If there are no spatially variable spaces, then one can know where both the bat and the ball are with respect to space, and not bother with what the bat or the ball is perceiving.

I really recommend you reading Lee Smolin's 'The Trouble with Physics'.  It takes you to all the places in current physics that do not correlate with each other, and makes great description in brief of all kinds of recognised, Wikapedia documented, alternatives that people have been working on.

[Mike Gale]

The weird thing about the bat and ball scenario is that momentum is not conserved unless they are of equal mass. Einstein solved that problem by making mass depend on velocity. There's a similar thought experiment involving a mass that emits light. Conserving momentum in that scenario is tricky.

[timey (OP)]

But in the case of free fall velocity is not mass dependent, so how can mass be velocity dependent?

[Mike Gale]

I just noticed another common misconception in your last response. It's pointless to talk about things moving with respect to space unless you specify whose space you're talking about. There is no absolute reference frame. If you find a reference frame in which you are standing still, I can find another in which you are moving. It's all relative.

[Mike Gale]

But in the case of free fall velocity is not mass dependent, so how can mass be velocity dependent?

Velocity is not mass dependent, but mass is velocity dependent. It increases with velocity. The classical equation of motion (mv=mat) neglects this effect. The relativistically correct version is:
mv*gamma=mat

[timey (OP)]

Post 85:

So what?  It's quite clear that nothing in the universe is at rest.

Post 86:

"Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."

So if we are talking about the time component of a 4 vector that is a geometric property of space time itself?

[Mike Gale]

Lots of things are at rest. It depends on your on your own state of motion.
I don't know where you got that quote, but it's a non-sequitur. GR theorists certainly prefer 4-momentum over relativistic mass, but it's just a bookkeeping trick. They are one and the same phenomenon. As I said before, mass is a measure of distance and distance is an observer-dependent quantity.

[timey (OP)]

Mass is a measure of distance?

Under what premise can you say that?

Time is a measure of distance, and if the speed of light is to be held variable to variable distances, then the speed of light can also be held variable to variable seconds where distance then remains constant, and frequency is then the observer dependent phenomenon.

Edit: What exactly is at rest?

[Mike Gale]

rs = 2GM/c²
If you set 2G/c²=1 then M=rs.
i.e. 1 kg = c²/2G meters.
That's the old metric of course. For the new one:
1 kg = c²/G meters.

[timey (OP)]

Ok

rs = 2GM/c2
If you set 2G/c2=1 then M=rs

r*s
r is radius
s is the the Swartzchild radius?

Why does one set 2G/c^2 = 1 ?

[Mike Gale]

No. rs is r_s. I'm just a lazy typer. You can set G and c to whatever you want. All that changes is the units of measure for mass and distance. In fact, setting c=1 is a common practice because E=m instead of E=mc². It saves you a lot of typing, but it's easy to lose track of the relationship between G and c for example.

[timey (OP)]

But what is rs?

And what is 1?

This is where I got the quote btw:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

[Mike Gale]

Sorry. r_s is the Schwarzschild scaling distance. It's the radius of a black hole.

[timey (OP)]

Good, good.  I'm learning!

And what is the relevance of 1?

[Mike Gale]

An arbitrary choice for illustrative purposes. Like I said, you can set G and c to any values you like. The only thing that changes is the units of measure for mass and distance.

[puppypower]

But if one were to place oneself on the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket's atomic clock would be ticking normally, and you would observe the rocket in relative motion's clock as ticking slow.

That's a common mistake with SR. Your interpretation of GR is correct. An observer at lower elevation sees the clock running faster whereas an observer at higher elevation sees the clock running slower. If you climb up or down, you will find that the clock has gained or lost time respectively. In SR, each observer perceives the other's clock to run slower. If you accelerate into the other reference frame, you will find that the clock has lost time. If the clock decelerates into your reference frame, you will find that you have lost time. It seems nonsensical, but that's the nature of the beast and you have to get your head around the concept before you delve into GR. The Twins Paradox is very instructive in that regard and Viascience (on YouTube) does a good job on it.

With GR, reference is energy dependent based on gravitational potential; up and down the space-time well. With SR there are two affects going on. One affect is a reference mirage, while the other affect is also energy dependent. In the twin paradox, only one twin will age slower, even though, when in motion, both references see each other moving via the principle of equivalency. One reference sees reality, while the other reference sees a mirage. In SR, Einstein added a relativistic mass term, which works as an energy balance, analogous to mass and gravity. It provides the energy balance which separates the mirage from the real affect.  However, it not easy to measure relativistic mass.

A mirage is not a hallucination. A mirage, like a lake in the desert can be photographed, because it is based on the bending of light. There is physical basis for a mirage, It is not just the imagination.  However, even though it may look and photograph, like water, it is still an illusion. This is why we need to be careful about bold claims the universe, by mistaking mirages for the real thing. That would be the basis for a magic trick, since you can show hard data that appears to make the mirage, real. Mirages can photograph well.

[GoC]

Mass is a measure of distance?

Under what premise can you say that?

Time is a measure of distance, and if the speed of light is to be held variable to variable distances, then the speed of light can also be held variable to variable seconds where distance then remains constant, and frequency is then the observer dependent phenomenon.

Edit: What exactly is at rest?

Yes you could but then the reaction time as a rate would suffer between frames. Remember your measuring stick also changes distances. This is what equivalence is all about. Not just time as you understand it but distance for reaction rates measured by a frames clock. Your position puts reaction rates and all physics different between frames. What a mess. Curvature of space and lensing of galaxies show dilation. Gravity follows dilation and Pe to the center of mass. We can measure the dilation and Pe differences as reaction rates but the reaction rates always follow the frames tick rate. So the physics are the same in every frame.

You want to change the speed of light? The speed is the same as a constant where energy dilation increases the distance light has to travel at a constant. This is the easiest way to follow physics. Your way causes more confusion and is inaccurate because dilation is viewable in space. Light is constant!!

[Mike Gale]

With GR, reference is energy dependent based on gravitational potential; up and down the space-time well. With SR there are two affects going on. One affect is a reference mirage, while the other affect is also energy dependent. In the twin paradox, only one twin will age slower, even though, when in motion, both references see each other moving via the principle of equivalency. One reference sees reality, while the other reference sees a mirage. In SR, Einstein added a relativistic mass term, which works as an energy balance, analogous to mass and gravity. It provides the energy balance which separates the mirage from the real affect.  However, it not easy to measure relativistic mass.

Ah yes. Einstein called that a stubbornly persistent illusion. In other words, what you see is literally what you get. The point he was trying to make is that it doesn't matter if the effect is real or not. What matters is the observables. Relativistic mass is a case in point. It is not an add-on. It emerges from SR when you apply conservation of momentum and it is borne out by observation.