[jeffreyH (OP)]

On the microscopic scale gravitational forces are negligible. An elementary particle will have an infinitesimal gravitational effect on the objects around it.

[opportunity]

....and the "family" of elementary particles still has no gravitational effect?

Really?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

@geordief Extremal aging. You need to understand that this means the principle of least action. An interesting discussion of this is here.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/principle-of-extremal-aging.573440/

[jeffreyH (OP)]

....and the "family" of elementary particles still has no gravitational effect?

Really?

Negligible is not synonymous with nonexistent.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

BTW I am simply not interested in reading through "the handbook of elementary particle facts".

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Are you serious? You're drawing a line between negligible and non-existant...

So you don't then? Then you don't care about precision of language. If you cannot define what you mean the others won't understand it. That makes everything you say irrelevant.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

What I have read is David Griffiths' An Introduction to Elementary Particles which goes into detail. Not just a list of tables.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

You should read it. Then you might start to understand what you are trying to talk about.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Elementary-Particles-David-Griffiths/dp/3527406018

[jeffreyH (OP)]

A turn back in what respect exactly? If my input isn't relevant who cares. I started the thread. You can use elementary particles to study gravity but it is not exactly the best way to start. You have to design experiments very carefully to study the effects on those particles. You might have all sorts of other things disturbing the results. It is much easier to observe gravity at work amongst planets and stars. It is a laboratory we don't have to build.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Just to help and in respect to particles we have the following.

If x₀ is the initial position of an object then x = x₀ + vt is the position of an object at time t.

If the velocity were v - ε then its position at time t would be

x₀ + (v - ε)t = x₀ + vt  - εt = x - εt

We can represent a velocity as where P is the momentum matrix. Nowhere is gravity taken into consideration.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Over to you.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I'll just show you an energy equation that I have been studying to illustrate the point.



I had to learn linear algebra before that made sense.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

What exactly is time-space?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Am I wrong in saying if something is going fast enough, "why not" (I'm focussing on the question of the post here, nouns, verbs, and adjectives)?

This is an interesting point. Not because gravity may accumulate at speed but that it has to be affected by time dilation just like all other forces.

It can be "a" source accoring to SR and GR, yet as stand-alone mass, as kinetic energy, and I am thinking that's your question, stationary mass, is that kinetic, right? It may not be visible, but "actual" on an elementary particle level.

The above is wrong.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

kinetic implies motion. A stationary mass is not kinetic.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

It would be instructive to study gauge bosons. Which are not all massless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

[jeffreyH (OP)]

A proviso to the original premise of this thread is shown here.
http://www.sciencebits.com/node/175
This should be taken into account.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The necessary adjustment gives the following equation.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I am not convinced about the veracity of the above equation.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I am placing this link here for reference. WARNING. It contains scary mathematics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254235022_Derivations_of_Relativistic_Force_Transformation_Equations