koti

Thanks Mordred. What got me confused is this excerpt: "Therefore the stress-energy tensor for a highly relativistic particle does not look like the tensor for a stationary particle with a rest mass equivalent to the relativistic energy of the highly relativistic particle. In addition when you are considering the case of a massive highly relativistic particle with an energy, E, travelling past a stationary particle (or star or black hole) with a rest-mass comparable to E, then the non-linear equations of general relativity are too complicated to solve analytically so not much can be said about the "force" of gravity in this case" from here: https://www.quora.com/Relativity-physics-Does-relativistic-mass-have-gravity

I know Im using hammer and nails for a heart transplant but please bear with me Mordred. Say we have an empty universe with earth in it and a 1kg steel ball accelerating away from it. Lets leave out QM and assume GR and SR to describe whats happening. Lets accelerate the ball to enough velocity that it will curve spacetime with exactly the same gravity as our earth - 1G. Will the inertial mass of the ball at that stage be equal to the rest mass of the earth?

Gosh Mordred...one of these days I promise you I will get my act together and study the math of relativity (and math in general) as it gets very annoying for me to have a gap which prevents me from engaging in a proper dialog with you...again (remember that other long thread on spacetime where I begged you to describe something without math and you weren't all that happy about it) However... today is not the day I'm afraid I just wanted to understand the principle of how rest mass and relativistic mass contribute to curvature of spacetime. What are the differences? Why are there differences if there are any?

So the momentum is the difference but gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass? Thats a contradiction. I'm sure your post is great like Studiot says but Im just too dense and I don't get it.

There is a stament here: https://www.quora.com/Relativity-physics-Does-relativistic-mass-have-gravity that got me thinking: "Therefore the stress-energy tensor for a highly relativistic particle does not look like the tensor for a stationary particle with a rest mass equivalent to the relativistic energy of the highly relativistic particle" If the stress tensors are different, would it be accurate to say that the gravity of a star would have a different value than that of say 1kg accelerated to adequate velocity required for that 1kg to obtain a relativistic mass of that star ? Edit: in simple lame words: is gravity different for rest mass and for relativistic mass? And if yes, why? I find this absolutely fascinating.

Why is the math used to describe relativistic mass different from the math used to describe rest mass? As far as I know, the stress tensors look differently in those two cases? Is it the case that gravity behaves differently for relativistic mass and rest mass? I suspect that it cannot be the case but why are the stress tensors different? I find it absolutely stunning that there might be a discrepancy between how gravity behaves for relativistic and rest mass but that's just not possible right ?

Or you can start to mind what you click on

Curtesy of swansont I have learned a colloquialism today which I will definitely use myself in the future: "argument by rectal retrieval"

Not necessarily...I'd just need John to tape himself over a greenbox while beating air to death with a rubber chicken. +1 for: For that to make sense you would have to produce a GIF of the neurons in your brain failing to understand physics."

Good to know studiot.

Try reading my last post again Stephen. Maybe someone else will be able to explain to you that the autonomic system and reflexes cannot be used to refute my argument. I tried and failed. I'm withdrawing from this debate because the crux of our disagreement is ethical and not really resolvable. Sensation has clearly different meaning to me and you. You are obviously inteligent and Im sure you are more knowledgeable on neuroscience than I am so the fact that you are incapable of parsing my argument: "sensation within their own perception capabilities" has to have some moral and/or religious ground - and I choose to not talk religion.

Substitute "sensation" with "reason" - better ? Obviously we disagree on a fundamental level and were only a thread or so away from a full on flame war on ethics and religion so I will leave it here.

That would be a bounded infinity (insert proper mathematical name) like the infinite fractions present between the numbers 1 and 2 right? Not like an infinity of whole numbers between 0 and infinity? So is your bounded weed infinity within your garden same size as an infinity in a bigger garden or is it smaller? I hope Im making sense.

I think I understand, at least partially. Would it be right to state that what you wrote would not be valid when dealing with singularities ?

I still don't understand what problem you are having with my reasoning. Is it the word "sensation" ? I assume you agree that organisms do things for evolutionary reasons ? You can plugin as many stimuli to your thought experiments as you like and still the only problem I see that you might be having is the word "sensation" which I addressed in my original post with "within its own level of perception" As for what you said about me playing dumb, I genuinely don't know what your stance is hence I asked. You are refuting my post #18 based on the word "sensation" which we can't seem to agree might mean different things for different species. I don't think that insults are of any help here. More respect would be advisable.

You got me there. Remind me not to post on friday nights

And its a great thing we can do that for the purposes of thought experiments. I just assumed that our toy universe cares about quantum mechanics too.

Rest in Peace Mr Huskey. Decimal 5 = 0101 in binary btw...not 101.

Start with catching on how friction, gravity, pressure and temperature works. Here's a very easy to understand 5 minute youtube film that will get you going on why there's "no free lunch" :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGeYR9ZFgVI I love the lyrics, here are the first 3 verses: We live in a strange world Wanna bite it but hard as nails A world i pretend love And concepts we can't think over That doesn't mean we make our Tooth-fairytales So wake up and get into It might just be good for you I'm a man Who has freedom to believe And i choose reality No deamon that sues me But i know it can be hard To hide from a tyranosaurus Speak as your tiny mind That swallows the universal And I Live in fear no more I want you to Live in fear no more And I I'm built like a hurricane I want you to be In control again Edit: Could some native confirm that "sues" should be "soothes" ?

I assumed that our "toy universe" doesn't care what tools we use to describe it. Just like our real universe

Great post Delta. +1

If "inner experience" is equivalent to "consciousness" then indeed that is what we are discussing. I certainly don't know if that is the case. I used the term "sensation" as a subjective term specific to the capability of a given organism, it seems obvious to me that both a human and a bee have "sensation" when perceiving color. I think its pointless to explain that bee's "sensation" of color is a lot more crude that that of a human but thats, like I said before - irrelevant. You seem to be using human consciousness as a reference point for judging the perception of other animals, for me this stance is just wrong. In your post #38 you attempt to prove (please tell me what you are actually trying to prove) that because humans have no ability to sense oxygen levels in their blood that somehow correlates to this discussion about color perception. I'm not sure what you want me to concede, please enlighten me.

I believe you

Right. Thanks for the explanation Mordred.