[GoC (OP)]

Mike and timey

   Timey has allot of correct ideas but her format is wrong. her temporal idea of time being the cause of gravity is incorrect. Time is a measure of the ratio between Pe and Ke of a frame. You cannot say the measurement of gravity is the cause of gravity. First you have to consider what is being dilated in GR. That would be energy c as total energy available. While c is a constant (of total energy available) mass creates an affect on the energy state by dilation of energy changing the Pe density state of the spectrum causing gravity from the single atom to the galaxies.

Equivalency is in the photon to electron ratio.
1. GR dilation changes the electron travel distance through space. Mass expands and contracts based on the amount of mass and the position of that mass in relation to the other mass. The dilation is greatest in the center of mass where the electron travel distance is the greatest. When we measure the tick rate in the center of mass using the electron cycle the measurement duration between ticks increase and reaction rate of that frame slows. Mass is attracted to the expanded energy state because dilation of mass creates less friction with energy. So the Pe in the center of mass becomes less due to dilation of energy. If you are in the center of a planet and move towards the surface the Pe increases and the Ke decreases relative to total c energy.
2. SR vector speed the electron is traveling through space and cycling at the same time. Total c divides its energy between cycle time and vector motion. The division is between Ke vector speed and Pe total available motion.

The equivalency between GR and SR is in the temporal measurement of a frames clock. Clocks are only a measurement of Pe available.

The equivalency between SR and GR is in the cycle time of the electron in the form of energy available as c (represented as a Photon for total energy).

Now lets test that statement.

If mass could have a vector speed of the SOL all of the energy for the electron would be in the forward direction and non left for the cycle of the electron. The measurement of time would stop.
Mechanical and light clocks tick the same in every frame.
If the mass of a light clock could have a vector speed at the speed of light the photon would use all of its motion between the clocks and none for the bounce between the clocks. So the measurement of time would stop.
So can we agree clocks only measure the potential energy of a frame?

And timey is on the correct path of temporal relationship with gravity. But it is all in the gamma term of relativity for dilation.

The proof for energy being of the spectrum and not of mass is in the deceleration of mass. Deceleration causes gravity and your clock tick rate increases!!!

The center of a planet is equivalent to the inertial speed of a ship in space after acceleration. That is equivalency and measured by the tick rate in that frame.

BH's only have Ke and no Pe.

Clocks can only measure available Pe.

[zx16]

A good post, but it won't lead to any new physics.  The author of the post is too obsessed with Einstein.

[GoC (OP)]

A good post, but it won't lead to any new physics.  The author of the post is too obsessed with Einstein.

Of course not. There is no new physics, just a lack of understanding in physics.

[zx16]

Yes, I agree with you.  There is no actual, concrete, solid object which we could call "physics".  It's not like calling a spade a spade , because that's what it obviously is.

Physics is (or should be)  really about understanding how things work.  In order to make this clearer,  I think the impressive but misleading Graeco-Latin word "physics" should be replaced by a plain Anglo-Saxon equivalent. 

Would a word such as "Stufflore", or better "Knowstuff", convey the concept more transparently?

[Mike Gale]

I think Timey is proposing that spacetime is intrinsically dilated and that's what determines the location and movement of objects in space and time. It's an anthropic argument (i.e. chicken vs. egg) so it's really a matter of philosophy, not physics. The same could be said of string theory of course, but physics is supposed to be about the observables. It seeks to explain how one observable changes in relation to another. An explanation is worthless if it invokes undefined concepts like photon-to-electron ratio, electron cycle, electron travel distance, and oscillating mass. You might as well be talking about gnomes and fairies (or strings.)
I expect you're eluding to wave-particle duality. If so, you are way off base because the amplitude of a matter wave is a distance in probability space, not conventional space. That is, matter wave power, which is proportional to amplitude squared, equates to a probability of finding a mass at a given location in space and time. GR and SR have nothing to say about any of that.
At the risk of adding to your confusion, I should add that probability space is only one possible interpretation of QM. There is a respectable theory that the waves are actually electromagnetic in nature. It's incomplete and far from mainstream, though.

[GoC (OP)]

I think Timey is proposing that spacetime is intrinsically dilated and that's what determines the location and movement of objects in space and time. It's an anthropic argument (i.e. chicken vs. egg) so it's really a matter of philosophy, not physics. The same could be said of string theory of course, but physics is supposed to be about the observables. It seeks to explain how one observable changes in relation to another. An explanation is worthless if it invokes undefined concepts like photon-to-electron ratio, electron cycle, electron travel distance, and oscillating mass. You might as well be talking about gnomes and fairies (or strings.)
I expect you're eluding to wave-particle duality. If so, you are way off base because the amplitude of a matter wave is a distance in probability space, not conventional space. That is, matter wave power, which is proportional to amplitude squared, equates to a probability of finding a mass at a given location in space and time. GR and SR have nothing to say about any of that.
At the risk of adding to your confusion, I should add that probability space is only one possible interpretation of QM. There is a respectable theory that the waves are actually electromagnetic in nature. It's incomplete and far from mainstream, though.

Mechanics do not work with probabilities. There is an actual pattern that is followed and ratio's that are followed. Probabilities are because we cannot measure c when using c to measure. We would need something faster than c to measure electrons or photons. You deem physics to be the observables? c will never be observable. We use indirect measurements for c.

An explanation is worthless if it invokes undefined concepts like photon-to-electron ratio, electron cycle, electron travel distance, and oscillating mass. You might as well be talking about gnomes and fairies (or strings.)

Yes except when the gnomes and fairies can be measured even if only a ratio between each other.

I expect you're eluding to wave-particle duality. If so, you are way off base because the amplitude of a matter wave is a distance in probability space, not conventional space. That is, matter wave power, which is proportional to amplitude squared, equates to a probability of finding a mass at a given location in space and time. GR and SR have nothing to say about any of that.

Not even close. Light is a energy wave on a sea of energy particles as a matrix (Aether type but not the same ). There is no particle traveling through space at c period. Virtual or not. That violates relativity. There is no probability issues only a undefined theory of the mechanical process. GR and SR have everything to say about that from the basic H atom until a BH.

Electro magnetic is a potential and not a perpetual motion issue like a photon or electron. What causes the electron to move?

 

[Mike Gale]

OK, I stand corrected. You are proposing a new twist on the aether theory. I assume you are aware that aether was the prevailing view before Einstein. You should be intimidated by the fact that he was able to sway so many of the greatest minds of the modern era, but even if you are not, you should study his arguments. Chances are he has already debunked your theory. For starters, you need to account for the Michelson-Morley result.

[timey]

OK, I stand corrected. You are proposing a new twist on the aether theory. I assume you are aware that aether was the prevailing view before Einstein. You should be intimidated by the fact that he was able to sway so many of the greatest minds of the modern era, but even if you are not, you should study his arguments. Chances are he has already debunked your theory. For starters, you need to account for the Michelson-Morley result.

I am not posting here on GoC's thread, I am posting on my 'is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle, thread where I have answered your last post here there, and I will now answer this latest post over there as well.

[timey]

There's no "electron cycle" involved in an atomic clock. We are looking for microwave absorption at an energy determined by the spin-spin interactions between electrons and nuclei.

And yet you do not understand the absorption process. Your model determines your understanding. What causes your vibration?

I never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences.

Models are generally useless and often dangerously misleading. You have to describe what actually happens.

Here's where the "electron path " model breaks down. A simple clock consists of a quartz tuning fork. Quartz is anisotropic, which is why we can use its piezoelectric properties to excite and measure its vibrations.

Vibration is a motion its just not clear what is causing motion.

I never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences.

Rotation and spin is definitely possible and the cause of vibration. A spin and rotation is what I believe to be the motion of the electron moving forward.

Your understanding is only limited by your model.

[GoC (OP)]

Timey

Your model does not explain the reason for time measurements while taking away the reason relativity gives.