0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69830.0Did you see this thread (only 4 short posts so far)

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.

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

"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."

Quote from: timey on 16/02/2017 03:18:52But 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.

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.

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?

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.