JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 All such questions are tough...what is heat, what is electricity, etc...My best off the cuff definition of mass would be "that which can carry momentum", or the property of energy that allows the transfer of momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Your idea of compression isn't that crazy if that helps. Let's try this Before we start though let me explain something many don't think of. I'll use an unrelated analogy Person a, "I have this really cool idea for a new game, will you program it for me? Person b writes the program. Now who has ownership of that game? Person a or person b who did all the actual work programming the game? You have to realize how many posters come into the speculations forum trying to convince others to do their math for their model. Or to fill in the blanks and make their model work. Now that we covered that as xyzt posted learn the basics, then increase your understanding till you can be the programmer and perform your own math. Now to provide some helpful direction. Let's look at compression. When you compress something what increases? What key factors are involved in the observer that he has to account for? Hint say he is looking at a distant object while he is in a high gravity well or he is moving at relativistic speed towards. What factor in GR is invariant (same for all observers.) Now what observer influence is the same for the momentum case or the high gravity case? These questions are answerable using the textbooks I posted Hint forget gluons field its unrelated. Relativity does not require it Oh one key question. What is mass? In scientific definition Is it this? From Google definition: "mass definition. In physics, the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration." But once it moves it keeps moving resisting deceleration, so it resists acceleration and deceleration. It takes energy to get it moving so that resistance is the transfer of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 resistance to acceleration, momentum...I was pretty close! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 resistance to acceleration, momentum...I was pretty close! Only problem I could see was that momentum is mass times velocity, so it doesn't define mass for mass is a component of momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Is it this? From Google definition: "mass definition. In physics, the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration." But once it moves it keeps moving resisting deceleration, so it resists acceleration and deceleration. It takes energy to get it moving so that resistance is the transfer of energy. Yes any model developed must follow the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. This is why it's best to learn before trying to invent models. When you compress something it's density increases. Including energy and mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Yes any model developed must follow the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. This is why it's best to learn before trying to invent models. When you compress something it's density increases. Including energy and mass. Would "compressed time" (if there was such a thing) affect energy, or mass or density of matter? Does slowed time have more mass, does a stronger G field have more mass? OK I'm not saying I have anything like a new model yet. Edited January 6, 2015 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 I know of the conservation laws...You kinda don't make it to studying the gluon field without lots of understudy...I do not believe that mass increases as you compress mass. Compressing something adds energy, but in my studies, it does not effect mass. Its does effect gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 In order to observe something you have to see it hence photons. Which is invariant to all inertial observers. This is a key point to understand relativity. The photons wavelength increases when it travels to a higher gravity well. Google gravitational redshift. If aproach an object at relativistic speeds the wavelength also increases. Aka becomes compressed. Now these two observer aspects are the same for the high gravity well observer and the momentum observer. In both cases the wavelength of light is increased. Aka compressed. An increase in wavelength means more energy. Length contraction does the same thing it compresses the length component. Time can be construed as compressed soacetime mathematically. Keep in mind space time is not a substance or material . It is geometric description of volume with the extra vectoral component of time. The above is essential to understand the more advanced Einstein field equations where you get into the stress energy tensor etc. The textbook I posted will teach you the basics only. Redshift is a key aspect of relativity. To understand gravity itself and space time warpage having a good understanding of differential geometry as well as the ideal gas laws is needed. The Einstein field equations incorporate the gas laws. Study the text ask questions on it. Keep model inventing till after you can apply the mathematics. (PS I can post free textbook with all the needed equations. ). It's math is extremely intense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I know of the conservation laws...You kinda don't make it to studying the gluon field without lots of understudy... I do not believe that mass increases as you compress mass. Compressing something adds energy, but in my studies, it does not effect mass. Its does effect gravity. Not its gravitation attraction at a fixed distance from the Center of Mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 Robbity...You cannot effect time without effecting space...this is the space-time continuum...Space and time differ only as much as energy and matter...they are,in effect, 2 different dimensions of the same thing...If you have slowed time, you have also shrunk space...of course, that's my theory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I know of the conservation laws...You kinda don't make it to studying the gluon field without lots of understudy... I do not believe that mass increases as you compress mass. Compressing something adds energy, but in my studies, it does not effect mass. Its does effect gravity. Google Schwartzchild metric for an example. The mass itself doesn't increase but the force of gravity does due to the same mass in a smaller volume. Any object has a Shwartzchild metric. If that mass is compressed beyond it you have a black hole. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Is it this? From Google definition: "mass definition. In physics, the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration." But once it moves it keeps moving resisting deceleration, so it resists acceleration and deceleration. It takes energy to get it moving so that resistance is the transfer of energy. A minor correction: In physics, scientists don't say "deceleration" because "acceleration" is a change in velocity: it expresses both slowing down and speeding up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) In order to observe something you have to see it hence photons. Which is invariant to all inertial observers. This is a key point to understand relativity. The photons wavelength increases when it travels to a higher gravity well. Google gravitational redshift. If aproach an object at relativistic speeds the wavelength also increases. Aka becomes compressed. Now these two observer aspects are the same for the high gravity well observer and the momentum observer. In both cases the wavelength of light is increased. Aka compressed. An increase in wavelength means more energy. Length contraction does the same thing it compresses the length component. Time can be construed as compressed soacetime mathematically. Keep in mind space time is not a substance or material . It is geometric description of volume with the extra vectoral component of time. The above is essential to understand the more advanced Einstein field equations where you get into the stress energy tensor etc. The textbook I posted will teach you the basics only. Redshift is a key aspect of relativity. To understand gravity itself and space time warpage having a good understanding of differential geometry as well as the ideal gas laws is needed. The Einstein field equations incorporate the gas laws. Study the text ask questions on it. Keep model inventing till after you can apply the mathematics. (PS I can post free textbook with all the needed equations. ). It's math is extremely intense. I think you have got some of your physics wrong. Read it again and you'll see what I mean. You seem to be tired. Spacetime warpage seemed to me to be a change in the time dimension(s) only. It seemed that you agreed to part of that? I was getting confused because of your errors. I have highlighted what I find difficult. I thought this statement wrong "An increase in wavelength means more energy." IMO it was increased in frequency. Edited January 6, 2015 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 A minor correction: In physics, scientists don't say "deceleration" because "acceleration" is a change in velocity: it expresses both slowing down and speeding up. Thanks I missed that I think you have got some of your physics wrong. Read it again and you'll see what I mean. You seem to be tired. Spacetime warpage seemed to me to be a change in the time dimension(s) only. It seemed that you agreed to part of that? I was getting confused because of your errors. It's not my errors higher gravity causes a higher density. Matter is no different than a gas.. it's simply a higher density. You can have gravity increases with an increase of energy density as well. Not all particles are considered matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 A minor correction: In physics, scientists don't say "deceleration" because "acceleration" is a change in velocity: it expresses both slowing down and speeding up. I only emphasizing the decrease in velocity as well as increasing velocity. I know what you mean but one you have to add energy and the other remove energy, so they are not entirely the same. Thanks I missed that It's not my errors higher gravity causes a higher density. Matter is no different than a gas.. it's simply a higher density. You can have gravity increases with an increase of energy density as well. Not all particles are considered matter. I thought this statement wrong "An increase in wavelength means more energy." IMO it was increased in frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Ah Kk increase in wavelength is an increase in frequency. No prob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 When you say "The photons wavelength increases when it travels to a higher gravity well" which way are they traveling, toward a mass or away from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Towards It loses energy climbing out of the gravity well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Towards Well then I must check up if you have the changes in the right way, I thought that as the photon moves away from a mass its wavelength increases and its frequency decreases. So the reverse applies to a photon going toward a mass, its frequency will increase and its wavelength will decrease. Edited January 6, 2015 by Robittybob1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 You right I do have that backward should have been decrease in wavelength as it heads into a gravity well for an increase in frequency. Doh 2 am here lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Now I'm lost. Where were we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 We corrected my incorrect statement on increase in wavelength being an increase of energy should have been decrease in wavelength. Ie compressed wavelength Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 So what is the mechanism of time dilation in your opinion (understanding). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 Ya...the math itself is like a different dimension of understanding this stuff...I just know results of tests and experiments and what others have proved...But it does seem that the guys who dream stuff up are not always the ones who also prove that it's true. And even though Einstein had some outrageous math in quantum mechanics that could be explained to others, did anyone know he was right until experimentation proved it? We even had to get the experiments correct to get the results out of the experiment to match the math that was made...we keep getting the experiments closer and closer...but if relativity exists, it surely exists in these experiments we use as proof too...we cant judge spatial events without worry of relativistic error, we cant judge time without worry of relativistic error..Completing equations has never been proof of anything...proof beyond the equations was always sought...or created...I think uncertainty exists all over the place...certainly in my existence and thoughts...so I spit them out...its all we can do yknow...communicate...Ive been dying for someone to explain general relativity in their own words since I was in middle school....Everyone agrees that it describes the effects of a geometric distortion of spacetime...you may say it is nothing, but how does nothing have a name? and how do you warp something that is not anything? You cant warp nothing...You can in math, with theories...But you're gonna be hard pressed to show me the act of warping nothing...It kinda seems like a physical impossibility...but its happening all around us in this physical world? We have this dark matter that we cant detect and we theorize that it is further changing the geometry of spacetime, which IS nothing, because GR does NOT work in humongous galaxy clusters and such...so we have to find something else to make it work...instead of theorizing that spacetime is the corresponding trait to massenergy, and it actually contains energy, which makes it something and not nothing...and can now be bent...even though bending something by definition is compressing parts of it..and we may as well replace warp and bent with compress because that is the impetus of the gravitational geometrical effects called gravity...or, that is my theory...The dark matter, warping nothingness doesn't sit well with me...Which does not mean its wrong...If you can explain it without dark energy and warping nothingness, why not give it a serious look? I knew the gravity increased and the mass did not. I had mentioned it early in my writtings. You made the statement about mass being increased by compression. But since I cant figure out how to quote and respond with those little boxes, youll just have to scroll up to see your error. So you were wrong in your first statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Yeah over tired lol So what is the mechanism of time dilation in your opinion (understanding).Due to gravity this question is trickier to answer. Mathematically the Lorentz transformation is a rotational matrix. So in essence a higher gravity potential implies more space time in a given region. One could use the analogy compressed spacetime however you have to include the rotational influence of the lorentz group rotational coordinates See page 12. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fgr-qc%2F9712019&ei=oJGrVOXeAYu6yQSD1ICgAw&usg=AFQjCNEir7fILQNyr5SGe-kxXg0mVlV5Vw&sig2=0SIbKSnNB35G_05CkQjMsA Due to the Lorentz rotation its probably more accurate to say light has a longer path to follow Keep in mind relativity isn't my strongest subject. Edited January 6, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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