Time and mass (split from Time...)

[Leinad45]

what if we are looking at this all wrong, what if time is not a fragment broken into pieces.

Time is not absolute and we all know that, but the real question is how it changes and why.                                                                                                                                                                      imagine two identical balls with different masses but of the same shape and size. one is having a mass of 5kg and the other with 20kg, they are rolled on the ground to reach a distance of 5 meters  using the same force, note that they all may reach the distance  but not at the same time which changes their velocities because time is a function of velocity.                                   Now imagine the two balls this time having the same mass rolled with the same force the reach the distance at the same time.                                                                                                     If we quite remember Einstein, he said something about mass of a substances increasing with velocity.if he is right( which i believe he is) or wrong, from this scenario or example,                 Mass has an effect on velocity. To actually get to the point Mass has an effect on time  itself.

     MASS  OF SUBSTANCE DETERMINES THE SUBSTANCE'S TIME AND SPACE,THE MORE YOU CHANGE THE MASS, THE MORE YOU ARE CHANGING ITS TIME AND SPACE.

AND WE EXPERIENCE TIME NOT BECAUSE WE ARE IN IT BUT BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE AROUND US IS MADE UP OF MATTER(MASS) AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MASSES IS WHAT CAUSES TIME TO BE EXPERIENCED.

have more on this and an equation that links time to mass direct but no one takes me seriously they think am mad to say this. what do you think as a reader.

 

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, Leinad45 said:

have more on this and an equation that links time to mass direct but no one takes me seriously they think am mad to say this. what do you think as a reader.

 

 

If you have an equation, then post it for discussion.

But start your own thread - I suspect the mods would rule it off topic here.

The first thing I would look for would be the situation where the balls you describe were at rest and how you think mass affects their time and space.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Leinad45 said:

To actually get to the point Mass has an effect on time  itself.

We know that. It is quantified by general relativity. Is that what you are talking about?

[Leinad45]

yes it is quantified by general relativity, but what if we look at it from this angle, that time cannot exist without mass and mass is like a container for it.

like the huge your mass is the longer you last(time)

 

 

not as in a physical container but the link between time and mass is so strong and we could study more about it.

because i believe if we can understand time much more, the transfer of this knowledge to the quantum world could help in the discovery of much bigger things.

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Leinad45 said:

but what if we look at it from this angle, that time cannot exist without mass

Then you would be wrong.

 

[Leinad45]

am not, the definition of time permits me to say so.

Time is the measure of event (past, present and future) and very things that carries out the events contains mass.

even a photon which considered as a massless  particle has mass that is so small that is considered irrelevant

 

[Mordred]

Yet time must pass in order for the photon to come into existence. So must mass for that matter. As mass is simply resistance to inertia change by physics definition it is a property of a state not an object or substance.

the formula that equates mass should be the clue f=ma... this applies in all physics theories GR, string theory QFT etc etc...The definition never changes. It is a garden path to nowhere to think of time as anything other than a measure of rate of change or duration. It is also a property. The property that corresponds to rate of change

Edited January 23, 2019 by Mordred

[Leinad45]

yes but time passes for only the observer not the photon

 

[Mordred]

The photon is an invalid frame of reference to begin with. The separation distance will correspond to no time passing [latex] ds^2=0[/latex] we know this is incorrect as it must take time to travel from A to B. So we call this a null geodesic. The photon can never be set as the observer due to this null result of the separation distance between event and observer. The null term specifies that the particle has no valid observer frame and only observers with mass can determine its spacetime path. A massless object's observer point of view would correspond to being everywhere at once. That is obviously invalid as a reference frame.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Mordred

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Leinad45 said:

Time is the measure of event (past, present and future) and very things that carries out the events contains mass.

As always in such considerations it is the null or zero case that provides the twist in the tail.

Consider one ball, of mass M, and colour C₁, just sitting there.

At some point the colour changes to C₂, , due to some suitable external event, such that there is no change of mass.

We can indeed compare measures of the event by using time.

How mathematically is the change of time related to the mass M?

 

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Leinad45 said:

Time is the measure of event (past, present and future) and very things that carries out the events contains mass.

even a photon which considered as a massless  particle has mass that is so small that is considered irrelevant

Time is defined mathematically and does not require the presence of mass. For example, we can study theoretical universes that have no mass or energy but still have space-time coordinates.

And a photon has zero mass. That is what massless means.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Leinad45 said:

 AND WE EXPERIENCE TIME NOT BECAUSE WE ARE IN IT BUT BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE AROUND US IS MADE UP OF MATTER(MASS) AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MASSES IS WHAT CAUSES TIME TO BE EXPERIENCED.

No, there's nothing to indicate that mass causes time. Differences in mass can lead to differences in gravitational potential which affects time dilation. And that goes away with the absence of mass, but that's a deviation in time, not time itself.

Further, special relativity tells us that there is a four-velocity in spacetime, and time passes at its fastest when the spatial components are zero. The presence of mass modifies this, but it starts at its maximum, not at zero.