swansont Posted August 24, 2019 Posted August 24, 2019 5 hours ago, DimaMazin said: t has second m has kilogram q has second * kilogram If quantity of counteraction of forses to motion doesn't exist then how Swansont defined different quantities of it for different masses? Where did I define anything? I don’t even know what “quantity of counteraction to forces” is supposed to mean. You have not defined it, and not even described it consistently
DimaMazin Posted September 21, 2019 Author Posted September 21, 2019 On 8/24/2019 at 3:38 PM, swansont said: Where did I define anything? I don’t even know what “quantity of counteraction to forces” is supposed to mean. You have not defined it, and not even described it consistently At all t = Er* dx/(|p| c2) Moved relativistic energy exists in motionless object -1
Ghideon Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 3 hours ago, DimaMazin said: t = Er* dx/(|p| c2) Ok, so the right side of the equation seems to be (energy * distance)/(momentum * momentum * speed * speed). Standard dimensions:* How is that compatible with the left side of the equation that is time? *) Image from WolframAlpha 1
Strange Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 6 hours ago, DimaMazin said: At all t = Er* dx/(|p| c2) Moved relativistic energy exists in motionless object Stop just posting invented equations. Explain how they are derived and what they mean.
swansont Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 8 hours ago, DimaMazin said: At all t = Er* dx/(|p| c2) Moved relativistic energy exists in motionless object This does not seem to address any of the three issues I raised: Where did I define anything? I don’t even know what “quantity of counteraction to forces” is supposed to mean. You have not defined it, and not even described it consistently Why quote me in your response, if you are going to ignore my questions, and just post more unsubstantiated nonsense? You've introduced yet another term, Er, without explaining what it is or where it came from.
polis.aniftos@gmail.com Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 On 8/17/2019 at 9:58 PM, Ghideon said: In addition to what @Strange wrote; your definition looks circular. As far as I know motion, in physics*, is the change in position of an object with respect to its surroundings in a given interval of time. How do you define motion to be able to define time to be dependent on motion? *) paraphrase of wikipedia/Motion indeed, if we assume that time can be surpassed as a finite value ( of not a dimensional essence, or without any restricting boundary as the speed of light is) or it can be reversed in direction of manifestation in nature, or reversed in memory storage or retrieval by human beings, i.e. the way we remember and retrieve our memories, or man-made machines, eg. video reverse play, then it can be quantified and be depended on motion if you use the newtonian motion laws. these may sound physics of insanity but when we will be merging Virtual reality with Natural reality we will have to deal with such issues in medicine, in technology and eventually in everyday life... -2
DimaMazin Posted September 22, 2019 Author Posted September 22, 2019 Er is relativistic energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation Er2 = m2c4+p2c2 Er2= m2c4 +m2v2c4/(c2-v2) Er2=m2c4+m2dx2c4/(c2t2-dx2) Er2c2t2 - Er2dx2=m2c6t2 - m2c4dx2+m2c4dx2 t2=Er2dx2/(Er2c2 - m2c6) t=Erdx/(c(Er2 -m2c4)1/2 t=Erdx/(c(p2c2+m2c4 - m2c4)1/2 t=Erdx/(pc2)
Ghideon Posted September 22, 2019 Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, polis.aniftos@gmail.com said: indeed, if we assume that time can be surpassed as a finite value ( of not a dimensional essence, or without any restricting boundary as the speed of light is) or it can be reversed in direction of manifestation in nature, or reversed in memory storage or retrieval by human beings, i.e. the way we remember and retrieve our memories, or man-made machines, eg. video reverse play, then it can be quantified and be depended on motion if you use the newtonian motion laws. these may sound physics of insanity but when we will be merging Virtual reality with Natural reality we will have to deal with such issues in medicine, in technology and eventually in everyday life... Nothing of the above answer seem to relate the scientific definition of time. I'm not asking about various calculations of time. Given a speed and a distance i can calculate the time it took to travel the distance (in reality or virtual reality). It does not change the definition of time itself. 5 hours ago, DimaMazin said: t=Erdx/(pc2) That looks dimensionally correct. I think I misread the formatting above, the derivation in the follow-up post was easier to follow. You have changed from |p| to p. Why? Does the equation make sense physically? You have moved various terms around, what does the equation describe? You stated: On 9/21/2019 at 4:16 AM, DimaMazin said: Moved relativistic energy exists in motionless object For a motionless object (I guess that means a stationary object in our frame of reference) isn't p=0 and dx=0? So for a stationary object the equation doesn't apply? Edited September 22, 2019 by Ghideon
studiot Posted September 22, 2019 Posted September 22, 2019 5 hours ago, DimaMazin said: Er is relativistic energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation Er2 = m2c4+p2c2 Er2= m2c4 +m2v2c4/(c2-v2) Er2=m2c4+m2dx2c4/(c2t2-dx2) Er2c2t2 - Er2dx2=m2c6t2 - m2c4dx2+m2c4dx2 t2=Er2dx2/(Er2c2 - m2c6) t=Erdx/(c(Er2 -m2c4)1/2 t=Erdx/(c(p2c2+m2c4 - m2c4)1/2 t=Erdx/(pc2) This mathematics is meaningless without definition of your terms. As a matter of interest have you come across Eddington's insight about what he called configuration? as being more fundamental than space or time? This could serve as a time definition in the way you seem to want. Note he used the word 'configuration' in a slightly different manner than we do today.
swansont Posted September 22, 2019 Posted September 22, 2019 6 hours ago, DimaMazin said: Er is relativistic energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation Er2 = m2c4+p2c2 Er2= m2c4 +m2v2c4/(c2-v2) Er2=m2c4+m2dx2c4/(c2t2-dx2) Er2c2t2 - Er2dx2=m2c6t2 - m2c4dx2+m2c4dx2 t2=Er2dx2/(Er2c2 - m2c6) t=Erdx/(c(Er2 -m2c4)1/2 t=Erdx/(c(p2c2+m2c4 - m2c4)1/2 t=Erdx/(pc2) t is improper in this derivation. v = dx/dt, not dx/t 1
DimaMazin Posted September 23, 2019 Author Posted September 23, 2019 14 hours ago, studiot said: This mathematics is meaningless without definition of your terms. As a matter of interest have you come across Eddington's insight about what he called configuration? as being more fundamental than space or time? This could serve as a time definition in the way you seem to want. Note he used the word 'configuration' in a slightly different manner than we do today. Today we can lose momentum because p = Er*v/c2
Strange Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 5 hours ago, DimaMazin said: Today we can lose momentum because p = Er*v/c2 How do we “lose momentum”?
studiot Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 7 hours ago, DimaMazin said: Today we can lose momentum because p = Er*v/c2 How does this relate to what I said? Is it something to do with 0/0 see attachment from Susskind ? 20 hours ago, swansont said: t is improper in this derivation. v = dx/dt, not dx/t +1 to swansont for catch.
Ghideon Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 On 9/21/2019 at 4:16 AM, DimaMazin said: t = Er* dx/(|p| c2) 7 hours ago, DimaMazin said: p = Er*v/c2 Again: You have changed from |p| to p. Why? Is it relevant? And isn't the equation above based on the derivation @swansont already found an error in? 7 hours ago, DimaMazin said: Today we can lose momentum because Today we have already lost momentum. Because no definitions are provided this discussion seems to be going nowhere. 1
swansont Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 On 9/22/2019 at 9:20 PM, DimaMazin said: Today we can lose momentum because p = Er*v/c2 It has always been thus. What does this add to the body of knowledge? We already knew that momentum depended on v, so rearranging equations in this way doesn't reveal anything new or novel. In fact I'd argue it's less useful, because Er is speed-dependent as well and you have to calculate that before this equation can be applied.
DimaMazin Posted September 30, 2019 Author Posted September 30, 2019 Well. I am very wrong earlier. Let's consider next idea. Er=gamma*mc2 Er=mc3/(c2-v2)1/2 (mc3/Er)2=c2-v2 v2=c2-m2c6/Er2 v=c(Er2 - m2c4)1/2/Er dt=dx/v dt=Erdx/(c(Er2 - m2c4)1/2 I have made formula of dt definition.
Strange Posted September 30, 2019 Posted September 30, 2019 1 minute ago, DimaMazin said: Well. I am very wrong earlier. You should have just stopped there.
DimaMazin Posted September 30, 2019 Author Posted September 30, 2019 11 minutes ago, Strange said: You should have just stopped there. All humanity is stopped.
swansont Posted September 30, 2019 Posted September 30, 2019 What insight does this provide that we don't already have?
DimaMazin Posted September 30, 2019 Author Posted September 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, swansont said: What insight does this provide that we don't already have? Change of position of relativistic energy with mass and without mass creates change of time. My formula shows it.
swansont Posted September 30, 2019 Posted September 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: Change of position of relativistic energy with mass and without mass creates change of time. My formula shows it. It does not show "creation" of a change in time. It shows that a change in position dx happens in a time dt, i.e. it is not instantaneous. Which I have to say is utterly unsurprising.
DimaMazin Posted October 5, 2019 Author Posted October 5, 2019 (edited) Next idea: Motionless mass has an energy for creation of own time, part of which is kinetic energy in another reference frame. Also mass has an energy for support of gravitation. When mass is falling in gravitation it firstly loses part of energy for creation own time and gets acceleration. When the mass is stopped in gravitation it has less energy for creation of own time and more energy for support of gravitation. Edited October 5, 2019 by DimaMazin
swansont Posted October 5, 2019 Posted October 5, 2019 4 hours ago, DimaMazin said: Next idea: Motionless mass has an energy for creation of own time, part of which is kinetic energy in another reference frame. Also mass has an energy for support of gravitation. Time isn’t a substance. It does not need to be created. 4 hours ago, DimaMazin said: When mass is falling in gravitation it firstly loses part of energy for creation own time and gets acceleration. When the mass is stopped in gravitation it has less energy for creation of own time and more energy for support of gravitation. Do you have a model?
DimaMazin Posted October 8, 2019 Author Posted October 8, 2019 On 10/5/2019 at 3:04 PM, swansont said: Time isn’t a substance. It does not need to be created. Do you have a model? All my ideas are wrong. I think reality is simpler. Orbits of electrons and of particles in atom are increased due to increased space in gravitation. Therefore particles should more travel for a creation and a change of events . Later changes cause later photon radiation in atomic clock of gravitational observer.
Strange Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: All my ideas are wrong. You can stop there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now