Romeo22

Yes. All guesswork and im wrong.

Let me leave it there then.

I said "slow motion" strange remember the Niel Armstrong videos? Simply that time is different on the moon then on Earth. I was not being technical. But I do appreciate the technical clarity. Wherever the value of g is different the value of time will be different Extreme cases g=0 and g=infinity.

You are right I am misusing these formulae I guess you have no idea how E=nhf came about from blackbody radiation or you are not aware of statistical mechanics. Anyway as for your moon apperent contradiction we are talking about the gravitational potential which is NOT constant. What causes time then? Since the only two things that can affect time are kinetic energy (SR) and gravity(GR) Already have Strange. Watch the space. Not only does gravity/energy cause time but time cannot be measured at random but only in discrete values. I have 3 experiments in my paper.

Consider an inertial observer A on the surface of the earth, he sees observer B on the moon as if he is in "slow motion". This is due to the fact that the energy E=mcc of the moon is different from that of the earth (different energy causes different times) this is the essence of how gravity affects time. Extreme cases such as the vicinity of a black hole (extreme energy). A particle in volume V, subjected to temperature T moves faster due to the added kinetic energy but an alternate view is that the increase in energy or temperature causes "slow or fast motion" on the particle a variable time. To answer your question an absence of Energy is an absence of time. And there exists a linear relationship between time and energy. A classical analogue of Heisenberg's time energy uncertainty. Working progress. Not yet fully developed. The major difference between Einstein's view of gravity besides speed of gravity is that gravity affects time, the precession of mercury and the deflection of light are due to this. So the lesson of GR is that the origins of time are gravitational. Even in Special Relativity we can view the time dilation (which is caused by the speed v) t'=gamma t. From a gravitational point of view. By saying the speed of an object as it approaches c, causes a self induced increase in gravity, which then affects time. So gravitational time dilation is the same thing as velocity time dilation. Time is caused by gravity. Gravity is caused by energy.

Do you know what guesswork is? Time is a form of energy when gravitational time dilation is treated in flat space. I can easily prove that. Possibly even you if you apply the correct mathematical framework.

Exactly Strange this is why I was resistant to delve too deep on how time is a form of energy in the first place. Because my assumption is only valid in a gravitational time dilation that assumes a fixed background. A fully fledged QT of gravity in Euclidean space.

I was going to wait till you have read and understood what I said before I respond you. But... I am talking about its view on SPACE and nothing else. How long did Newton's action at a distance make successful predictions? Did I say they contradict? Wow. Energy= kT. E= mc.c Did you actually read where I said a model of gravity that assumes a fixed flat background? Cause u r confusing that with GR LET ME RECAP energy causes gravity causes and gravity causes time (all this is conversion of one form of energy to another). The only reasonable contradiction is the one posed by @strange which I already answered.

@strange I thought about this at length, if energy affects time it will also affect length as the two are entertwined. +1 for that (instead of your usual its nonsense attitude) If you have been following my disscussions of space and as @MigL has pointed out I do not favor the GR view of space-time. So in a flat Minkowski space gravity or a form of quantum gravity based on flat space. This is why I added the implied and why I did not want to discuss it in the first place cause it assumes a model of gravity that assumes a flat Euclidean space. Under this assumption, mass or energy will affect time but not distance and hence the two will be interchangeable. Mass distorts gravity (time) but not space I thought the whole idea of this forum is to discuss phyics -- or better yet the possibilities of physics. I have an MsC physics and have been published. I have no interest in reciting the standard model just to look right and I use a language here that allthe can understand cause of our different disciplines. @studiot I believe you have read widely I see this in many of your responses but some of your posts are wrong like saying temperature is not a form of energy. Gravity is space-time curvature. Beece what causes gravity, can't you see a bit further than that, and see that this is energy converting from one form to another @migl do you believe that hopefully in the near future a consistent GUT will exist and that in this theory either space will be deformable as in GR or non-deformable as in QT? Although they work well now in their INTENDED disciplines one of them (and many researchers believe this will be GR -- myself included). Will eventually be superseded by a more all encompassing theory, that postulates that space is flat or curved but not both. Where we will understand semi-quantum effects such as Hawking and Unruh radiation.

Mass/a form of energy affects the flow of time (gravitational time dilation). In simple terms. Hence implied.

@studiot return to what I said concerning your comment

@studiot you are misunderstanding me. I only reffered to your first comment "Energy is a property not a thing.The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago." Which is what I quoted I said absolutely nothing about what followed.

I hope u realize I did not comment on that. But on what was quoted. It is implied by gravitational time dilation... but we should not get caught up on that, a topic for another day.

I hope you realize that time is a form of energy. Matter is a form of energy. Momentum is a form of energy. Temperature is a form of energy. In fact everything you can ever think off besides space is just another form of energy.

Thanks for recapping what I have already said... About your comment "He is confusing the models we use, and which have specific areas of applicability, with the reality." Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, especially about space. Thus it is an inevitable truth that the other is wrong.

It does in fixed background view And they both cant be correct. So you cannot have an inclusive definition if either GR or QTs view is wrong

I have already talked about the difference between GR and QT and I said I favor the view of Newtonian Gravity, Maxwell dynamics and Quantum theory. By what cause... do not put me in a box good Sir.

+1 Furthermore that particular volume does indeed interact with energy (in the form of EM waves since there is no such thing as 'pure energy') as evidenced by the easily measurable complex impedance of free space, usually denoted by the symbol Zo. -- Maxwell theory is background independent. Its only in GRs view where space can slow down objects or cause any visible manifestations on objects or bodies With that said, Energy is temperature/matter/waves/etc. Is there any other theory in standard physics besides Einstein's GR that predicts that space can affect energy? The answer is none. Makes you wonder. A predetermined stage. A stage that had all the properties to allow manifestations such as the big bang

Finally we agree, but you named one property. Space is volume. Neglected the rest. But I was drawing you to the most important property whether it interacts with energy/matter or not.

You are talking about properties of space and not what space is. I personally favor the view of Newton and Quantum theory so from my point of view: SPACE is an entity that cannot interact with ALL forms of energy. In relativity forum? While your very answers where based on QT. Again its always amusing strange.

The OP did not specify which according to my knowledge. And as I said before either GR space or QT/Newtonian Space is WRONG they cannot both be correct. This is the fundamental reason why GR cannot be quantized.

@stringjunky I have already made this clear that in GR space is different than Newtonian and Quantum physics. Thus I said you need to make a choice.

So you agree? Ur reasoning is always amusing to me. An electron has spin... do u agree that an electron is spin? Basically that is all u have said Space being infinite is another property of space, so is its dimensions another property.

I know what you just said sounds correct based on Machian thinking etc. But DO NOT say "empty space does not exist as distinct entity" What are the postulates of quantum mechanics? What are the postulates of Newtonian Gravity? Volume is a property of space and matter but it is neither space nor matter. And as for the vacuum energy that is not a property of space (if u followed my earlier thoughts, I raised a question. Can space interact with matter/energy? ) Your answer already assumes this is true but you are using vacuum energy of QT which is a paradox. Vacuum energy based on E >= mc squared . Is still a property of energy and not of space. Check the calculations in QT.

Space is not volume. Matter has volume so does space, whether that volume in R*3 is infinite or not is what u nd I should be discussing