Theory of Time

[tip]

Did you not take what I said seriously?

 

I asked politely for the title and author of your textbook.

 

I also offered a simple analogy that you clearly misunderstood.

 

If you stand on 'the dock of the bay' watching a ship roll out to sea, you observe that ship pick up speed and move away.

 

If instead you stood on the ship you might well gain the impresion that it was the dock that was receding. Indeed much poetry and literature has commented upon this phenomenon.

 

Relativity demands that the observer and particle in my example have the same relationship.

 

In the abstract: if A moves away from B at any speed v (including c) then it is exactly equivalent to say that B moves away from A at this speed.

 

Consequently the Earth (and that part of the universe which is moving similarly) appears to my particle to recede at the same speed from the particle as the particle appears to move away from the Earth.

 

It was known, long before Einstein, that there is no such a quantity as 'absolute velocity'.

Today the earlier version of relativity is called Galilean relativity. This is still used at normal speeds. When c>>v Einstein's Special Relativity reduces to this.

 

I did understand but things moving in your analogy that did not take into account their own relativity to the universe, which effects when the mass turns into energy. For example, two object both moving half the speed the light exactually away from each other appear to be moving at the speed of light or close to it. But relative to the universe they are still moving at that half speed of light. Thus they do not turn into prue energy unlike an object that is moving at the speed of light relative to the universe.

 

 

 

The book is called the Fundamentals of Physics by Jearl Walker.

[studiot]

I did understand but things moving in your analogy that did not take into account their own relativity to the universe,

 

Unfortunately you have a basic misconception about frames of reference (the basis of relativity), which leads to this erroneous statement.

 

There is no 'absolute frame of reference' or if you like 'relative to the rest of the universe'.

 

Perhaps the discussion in this thread will help

 

http://www.sciencefo...constant-value/

 

As a matter of interest the book you refer to is normally referred to by its original authors

 

Resnick and Halliday

 

It is very popular, although I have never liked it.

Edited April 28, 2012 by studiot

[michel123456]

(...)It was known, long before Einstein, that there is no such a quantity as 'absolute velocity'.

(...)

 

Yes, yes, yes.

There is no "absolute velocity"

For example:

Speed Of Light is not an "absolute velocity"

 

Speed of Light is constant.

 

Because there is a fundamental difference between the concept "absolute" and the concept "constant".

[swansont]

Well when you call an author of a physics textbook that has 9 editions a crackpot, thats an issue in my opinoin.

 

But I didn't. I gave a conditional statement — you didn't say it was a textbook until later, and I was pointing out that not knowing meant I didn't know if this was crackpot physics or a mis-read/-interpretation. The empirical data is pointing more toward mis-read/-interpretation.

[tip]

Unfortunately you have a basic misconception about frames of reference (the basis of relativity), which leads to this erroneous statement.

 

There is no 'absolute frame of reference' or if you like 'relative to the rest of the universe'.

 

Perhaps the discussion in this thread will help

 

http://www.sciencefo...constant-value/

 

As a matter of interest the book you refer to is normally referred to by its original authors

 

Resnick and Halliday

 

It is very popular, although I have never liked it.

 

 

 

All objects in the universe are moving in that frame of the universe. The universe is constantly expanding out as according to hubble and everything in the universe is moving in that frame since it is in and part of the universe. Where only light is know to move at light speed in relation to the universe meaning that a mass must turn into energy in the form of a light wave, radio, gamma etc. based off its acceleration which is effected by its overall mass. Once again my basis is simple since no mass can exist at light speed in thier relationship to the universe, only light itself, that mass must transform into light.

 

Yes, yes, yes.

There is no "absolute velocity"

For example:

Speed Of Light is not an "absolute velocity"

 

Speed of Light is constant.

 

Because there is a fundamental difference between the concept "absolute" and the concept "constant".

 

Yes the speed of light is a predefined constant velocity, represented by the symbol c, it still doesn't change the fact that is it a velocity.

[studiot]

When you are ready to discuss rather than preach we can take this further.

 

Meanwhile I looked up Resnick et al (6th ed was all they had) in the library this afternoon but was unable to find any statement to the effect that a material body on achieving lightspeed would convert to energy.

 

Nor was I able to find and reference to a 'frame of the universe'.

 

So I would be grateful for some chapter and paragraph references.

 

I did, however find conventional expositions of relativity and frames of reference, including detail about proper time, which I suggest you inquire into.

[tip]

Does not everything in the universe, exist inside the universe thus it is relative to the universe on how it acts. Two objects that exist inside a universe, can be relative to each other, but are always relative to the universe in which they exist. If they weren't then the laws of the universe would not apply to them, since they are not relative to the universe.

 

And I am discussing this by standing up to my point of view of this.

 

Now tell me what laws if any this theory that I orginally posted breaks, all it was is a redefination of time, into something that isn't seconds which is a human based number not a physics based value. A second is something that we used before any of this relativity was known. Now if it is replaced with something like I suggest which causes time to vary based of acceleration and mass, it is more universal since it will change. Basically m/s for velocity would not be m/s but m/decomposition of matter, in which this decomposition is based on mass and acceleration.

 

In addition, page 1043 paragraph 4 and 5 says that following in my textbook say that the E in E=mc^2 is the energy of the mass, mass energy, or rest energy, which is the energy a mass is equal to. Thus to me this means when an object hits light speed the mass turns into that energy, in the form of a light wave, or series of light waves since matter will not decompose all at once. The total energy of a particle is E=mc^2 + Ke, where I am saying that once that particle hits light speed it produces light waves based of the energy inside it's mass.

 

If you disagree then we will just have to agree to disagree on this then.

Edited April 28, 2012 by tip

[studiot]

In addition, page 1043 paragraph 4 and 5 says that following in my textbook say that the E in E=mc^2 is the energy of the mass, mass energy, or rest energy, which is the energy a mass is equal to. Thus to me this means when an object hits light speed the mass turns into that energy, in the form of a light wave, or series of light waves since matter will not decompose all at once. The total energy of a particle is E=mc^2 + Ke, where I am saying that once that particle hits light speed it produces light waves based of the energy inside it's mass.

 

Well in my version of R & H the page numbers are different, but I expect you are referring to the section in the relativity chapter entitled "A New Look at Energy"

 

This section does indeed discuss the conversion of mass into energy, but in atomic (nuclear) reactions. It describes how to calculate the conversion of some of the mass of the particles involved into the energy that often accompanies nuclear reactions and explains why we do not observe this with ordinary chemical reactions.

 

It also describes the relativistic increase in the kinetic energy of a particle as its speed increases. But nowhere does it say that the particle will 'become energy'.

 

This is not the meaning of the term 'rest mass'.

 

There is no more such a thing as absolute rest in the universe as there is absolute velocity so nothing is ever actually 'at rest'.

What it means is that if we work backwards down the total energy v velocity curve described to the y intercept (zero velocity) we will find that this intercept is not zero on the energy axis. The actual value is known as the rest mass and is the energy equivalent we would recover if we could totally 'implode' that mass to energy. We would, of course, also recover any kinetic energy that accrued due to the motion of the mass. As described this caould be very considerable if the relative speed of the mass to its destruction target was large.

[RichIsnang]

C is a conversion factor in e=mc^2

if you change that to v, that's fine if your object is moving at c, but for all other values of v, the equation no longer holds true as the relation between the mass and energy is false.

[tip]

Here is a redone version of it.

 

Here is a redone version of it.

 

 

The big part of this to me is that the big bang could of been the result of a failing "omega" black hole, something that is larger than any supermassive black hole. This would mean that in this failure due to what the degenerate matter of the core is, both matter and anit-matter could form. In addition, this explains why the big bang itself did not form a black hole.

Theory of Time.pdf

Edited April 30, 2012 by tip

[RichIsnang]

Couple of queries so far. How are these black holes emitting electromagnetic radiation?

Why is 10^30 the limit you place on hz?

How can you measure the mass of subatomic particles, i don't even think it's possible. I assume you mean quarks?

And I don't know why you are going on about degenerate matter, that would just make a neutron star, unless you mean some new form of degenerate matter made of only quarks?

 

And just for the record, you need to be careful when compounding a load of equations together, they may not all be valid in the same situation.

And when you say 'Exn' why are getting the product of the number of mol and the mass of one particle?

Edited May 1, 2012 by RichIsnang

[tip]

Couple of queries so far. How are these black holes emitting electromagnetic radiation?

Why is 10^30 the limit you place on hz?

How can you measure the mass of subatomic particles, i don't even think it's possible. I assume you mean quarks?

And I don't know why you are going on about degenerate matter, that would just make a neutron star, unless you mean some new form of degenerate matter made of only quarks?

 

And just for the record, you need to be careful when compounding a load of equations together, they may not all be valid in the same situation.

And when you say 'Exn' why are getting the product of the number of mol and the mass of one particle?

 

Most black holes emit gamma ray radiation from their poles when they absorb a mass such as a star.

 

10^30 is my limit since it is the highest know gamma ray frequency so far, but in my theory I did state that it could be higher. The frequency just approaches the highest frequency.

 

I was thinking through the use of supercomputer, most of this isnt capable of being done yet there isn't an advanced enough microscope to find its volume. The mass can be determined by the mass of the star's core and the material it absorbs. Once again this will have to be ranged until we have advanced enough technology to truely find that.

 

Yes, it is a new form of degenerate matter, that is the densest matter in the whole universe which would allow black hole cores to have exetremely small volumes and high masses.

[tip]

The sum of the molar mass times mols per each elementin a star core should give a near accurate mass for the star. Basically,because you cannot put it on a scale to weigh I decided to use a simplechemistry method to determine the weight.

 

 

 

As for the sum of the limits to find time, I know it is a intregral of the change of time, frequency and mass but due to their own relationship to each other, I wrote it as a sum of limits.

Edited May 1, 2012 by tip

[tip]

I was wondering what peoples inputs are on this, the second one. In addition, I am going to need help writing a new form of advanced mathematics to do some of these equations.