Robittybob1

Thanks.

I think I need to go and see if I know what a geodesic really is.

So relating that to what I said that initial position is no different to any other position in space, but OK it where a mass is at a certain time, but that mass could be going in any direction, but you are right the path it takes can be calculated. So what convinces you there are geodesics?

What I find hard to understand about these geodesics is that there is not just one geodesic but an infinite number going through every point in space. If Commander was in motion his geodesic would be different. but since he is lying there still it happens to be straight down to the center of the Earth, but he could have been in motion. So there is not just "the (one and only) geodesic" is there ?

I've heard it has more dimensions than just 4. 11 is a number often quoted.

Why is the boundary impassable?

Was there any more discussion on Energy -Mass equivalence?

I started doing something like "evolution" some years back but I was using Windows Basic (like the language of Excel macros). I thought of an Excel workbook as an organism well at least a protein and I would get a macro to write the RNA and DNA code to get the organism to live and reproduce. That was as far as I got but I was then going to try and make it evolve but gave up for some reason.

I thought it could be a process of evolution. Have random additions etc and see if there is any logic in the new bit that improves or adds to the previous bits.

After posting that I remembered about the light second. Oh well a Robitty and a light second are much the same!

@David or anyone else prove that to me please. What are these units where the speed of light is 1? 1 what? Then shall we think if science could have ever got off the ground had we used these standards? Just off the top of my head I think that would be like measuring things in Planck Lengths to get rid of other SI units I read something a couple of days ago that one country's weight standard was based on Carob seeds! For length arm lengths (cubits) are better than Planck Lengths in many respects as we can relate to them. We could call 299,792,458 m a "Robitty" so the speed of light becomes 1 Robitty/sec but why stick with the second as that too is some sort of human invention? (A Robitty is now defined as the distance light travels in 1 second.) So now Energy becomes Mass times 1 Robitty^2/sec^2 and what is a Robitty squared? Note: now 1 Robitty/sec becomes equivalent to c or 1 Robitty^2/sec^2 = 1 c^2

That must be a first: That you agree with me, did I read it right?

I see what you are saying but even if C=1 it still has units, so E doesn't become M unless it is multiplied by that factor. Doesn't that make a difference, for mass is not energy but modified energy?

You say mass and energy is interchangeable but between the two is the C^2 factor with unit of m^2/sec^2 which nearly fits with the concept of density kg/m^3 E=mC^2 m = E/C^2 With kinetic energy = 0.5 * m* V^2 , do you know why Einstein was able to drop the factor of 1/2 out of the energy equation? Done some searching and found E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0c^2)^2, which

So photons are bosons as well, and photons can have energy values over a very large range. Every increment in frequency represents a higher energy content. I'm quite new at understanding the subatomic families. I'm wondering if it is really worth the effort. I was just trying to understand the relationship with mass and matter and energy, and whether it is matter, mass or its energy content that warps spacetime.

But when it re-exits they say it regains its original speed. Did it have a higher frequency while in the denser medium?

Previous post said "mass describes the amount of matter in an object" OK can you find the other statements of yours in articles? "Energy is a property of particles" "The influence is carried particle to particle by the force carrying boson." Which boson was that? A photon must come pretty close to being energy ("energy on its own").

Mass reflects the amount of matter, and matter is composed of group of subatomic particles which ultimately behave as waves, well at least the electrons do. Can all subatomic particles be converted to energy waves?

How does that relate to the OP question? Do all subatomic particles gravitate to mass?

Well I'm much the same. In some calculations done some years back it appeared to me that gravity works at a super-luminal speed, well so I thought then, and I've been looking for a way that could happen. It seemed that if gravity was an emergent property it could influence matter at virtually any speed (like entanglement, that has no speed limit). But like you, and for me too, it is back to study to see if the idea can be substantiated further.

I have an idea, I think we can do better than that. Have you ever experienced faith? Like what Jesus spoke of, a little faith can move a mountain! That sort of faith.

Energy = Mass * C^2 so mass and energy are related somehow. Does that mean matter (is that the same as mass??) is constructed of energy? So whether it is the mass or the energy that dilates time (warps spacetime) which then results in gravity the result is much the same. In the above quoted article (http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/emc2) they used the words equivalent, "Mass and Energy are equivalent" (via the formula) but I always wonder what a speed (velocity) squared does? Yet it comes up in a similar relationship for Kinetic Energy, KE = 1/2 M * V^2. I think of an area when I think of something "squared", (m/sec)^2, an area of space divided by areas of time??

You could have an strong laser beam go to one side of suspended electrons (static electricity) and see if you can alter the charge distribution. Would that do it? What about two parallel lasers and see it the spots illuminated differ when the lasers are shone at the same time as opposed to individually at different times? I'm expecting you might be right, but has it been proven? I see I was struggling to say this precisely. I had been trying to propose that mass accumulates because the more mass that is in the one place maximizes the amount of time dilation at that place. So what we call gravity is the net result of all the particles moving toward regions of time dilation. Time dilation being the warping of spacetime (proposing the space dimensions are not changed but the time dimension is, so spacetime is still warped by mass).

What evidence do you have? I know light is deviated by mass but is light deviated by light? You would need more light to go around just one side of mass and see the mass move. That seems just too problematic to measure in reality. But what evidence do you propose?

If we try to relate it too the usual coordinates with "X" being left to right and "Y" being up and down, then The Z axis the one that comes toward or away from the observer, means that the axis change (-X direction) occurs if the light is shone at the mirror. When the light curves, does it curve through the air or while it is in the glass?