unifying gravity and electromagnetism

[dafydd]

Flattened out it would still be 1kg in mass

Wouldn't it be reduced to neutrons and absorbed into the mass of the star?

 

[drgsrinivas]

www.homeoscience.com

Well, I didn't really propose that. It was a guy named Einstein.

I know that. But I can see the Einstein incarnated in you, not whole though but one of his neurons!

It is not my fault that you don't read my post.

My statement: When electromagnetic radiation can get affected by gravity, why not the atomic clocks?
Your reply: They are. That is called gravitational time dilation.

I let you hide you ignorance on this occasion!

- Which is essentially the same as you said above. I have met another fellow who made a habit of saying that people were wrong, and then repeated their words, as correction. Interestingly, he was a homoeopath, too.

That's indicates your inabilty to appreciate the small but significant difference between two similar appearing statements.

What do you mean by the last sentence?

No surprise. I have seen how much you can take in.

Let me put this in simpler words —

Time dilation/contraction was proposed to keep the speed of light constant. I doubt if you know this basic fact.

In the real experiment, it was observed that east bound flight experienced time dilation. But for it to measure the speed of light (which is travelling towards west) as constant, time must contract for it.

Similarly, the west bound flight experienced time contraction. But for it to measure the speed of light (travelling towards west) as constant, time must actually dilate for it.

The wonderful thing about this forum is that you can always learn, if you are willing to.

Well, you are only partly true. To learn one needs willingness and the ability to learn. I doubt if you have them enough.

 

[drgsrinivas]

I can see the crowd overwhelmed by their ignorance

I did differentiate between the Mass and Weight. And also I proposed a similar distinction to be made between Time and ‘Timeness’.

Let me repeat that-

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon, we wouldn’t say that the mass is ‘shrunken’ and hence mass is a relative thing. We know that weighing machines (and hence weights) get affected by gravity. It is nothing to do with accuracy of the machine. (Pardon me for the slight addition in the brackets- that’s for your benefit only)

Likewise, if a clock measures 60 seconds on earth, it may measure more seconds on moon for the same duration. It doesn’t mean that the time has actually dilated but it is due the fact the clock gets affected by gravity. Instead of tampering the absolute Time, one may introduce something like ‘timeness’ (analogous to ‘weight’) to account for the measured difference in time in different gravitational fields (and accelerated states).

I was wrong in expecting you to grasp this. So let me put the analogy in a simpler way.

Mass (Absolute thing)----has relation with----Weight (relative thing)---- which is measured by Weighing Machines and affected by Gravity

Time (absolute)--- has relation with---‘Timeness’ (relative)----which is measured by Clocks and affected by Gravity

So I said, Time (like Mass) is absolute and what varies with gravity is ‘Timeness’ (like Weight).

There is no point in digging deeper and getting deviated when you don’t even get the simple things into your brains. That only reveals more of your ignorance.

You may or may not accept the ‘Timeness’ but it is important to get at least what I said before criticizing.

You are discarding a theory without even grasping what was said!

I know you are proving one weird concept in science- A message can apparently reach you even before that is despatched!!!

 

[dafydd]

I can see the crowd overwhelmed by their ignorance

I did differentiate between the Mass and Weight. And also I proposed a similar distinction to be made between Time and ‘Timeness’.

Let me repeat that-

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon, we wouldn’t say that the mass is ‘shrunken’ and hence mass is a relative thing. We know that weighing machines (and hence weights) get affected by gravity. It is nothing to do with accuracy of the machine. (Pardon me for the slight addition in the brackets- that’s for your benefit only)

Likewise, if a clock measures 60 seconds on earth, it may measure more seconds on moon for the same duration. It doesn’t mean that the time has actually dilated but it is due the fact the clock gets affected by gravity. Instead of tampering the absolute Time, one may introduce something like ‘timeness’ (analogous to ‘weight’) to account for the measured difference in time in different gravitational fields (and accelerated states).

I was wrong in expecting you to grasp this. So let me put the analogy in a simpler way.

Mass (Absolute thing)----has relation with----Weight (relative thing)---- which is measured by Weighing Machines and affected by Gravity

Time (absolute)--- has relation with---‘Timeness’ (relative)----which is measured by Clocks and affected by Gravity

So I said, Time (like Mass) is absolute and what varies with gravity is ‘Timeness’ (like Weight).

There is no point in digging deeper and getting deviated when you don’t even get the simple things into your brains. That only reveals more of your ignorance.

You may or may not accept the ‘Timeness’ but it is important to get at least what I said before criticizing.

You are discarding a theory without even grasping what was said!

I know you are proving one weird concept in science- A message can apparently reach you even before that is despatched!!!

Bollocks. The mass remains the same. You have no grasp of of basic physics and you can use as many insults as you like, that will not help you to understand. You have no theory, just some half baked ideas.

 

[MRC_Hans]

My statement: When electromagnetic radiation can get affected by gravity, why not the atomic clocks?
Your reply: They are. That is called gravitational time dilation.

I let you hide you ignorance on this occasion!

The difference is that it is not the function of the clock, but time itself that changes. The clock keeps measuring time reliably, but time itself has changed.

Let me put this in simpler words —

Time dilation/contraction was proposed to keep the speed of light constant. I doubt if you know this basic fact.

That was too simple words. While time dilation and speed are closely connected, the constant speed of light is not an artefact of time dilation.

In the real experiment, it was observed that east bound flight experienced time dilation. But for it to measure the speed of light (which is travelling towards west) as constant, time must contract for it.

Ahh, that is what you were trying to say. However, it is wrong. Time dilation due to speed is exponential, just like the formula e=mc². However the addition and subtraction of velocities of different moving entities is, of course, linear. For a pertinent example, the velocity of Earth around the galactical centre can amount to up to 10% of the speed of light, but the corresponding time dilation is far lower (about 1%)

You know, if you were to not shroud your statements in condescending remarks and feigned eloquence, you might make your point more easily. Of course, seeing that your point is false, I could be led to suspect that your smoke-screen is deliberate.

Hans

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Oooh! Oooh! Let me do this one!

Likewise, if a clock measures 60 seconds on earth, it may measure more seconds on moon for the same duration. It doesn’t mean that the time has actually dilated but it is due the fact the clock gets affected by gravity. Instead of tampering the absolute Time, one may introduce something like ‘timeness’ (analogous to ‘weight’) to account for the measured difference in time in different gravitational fields (and accelerated states).

...

Time (absolute)--- has relation with---‘Timeness’ (relative)----which is measured by Clocks and affected by Gravity

...

There is no point in digging deeper and getting deviated when you don’t even get the simple things into your brains. That only reveals more of your ignorance.

You may or may not accept the ‘Timeness’ but it is important to get at least what I said before criticizing.

You are discarding a theory without even grasping what was said!

So. You believe in Absolute Time, do you? This requires, of course, that you believe in a privleged rest frame, since this is the only frame of reference in which Timiness equals Time.

This is so obvious from your post that no one needed to state it, but it is at the heart of your position. And, as you say, it is simple.

And, no, that's not how relativity (Special or General) works.

Timiness is simple. And simply wrong.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I can see the crowd overwhelmed by their ignorance

In fact, we are more overwhelmed by your ignorance.

I did differentiate between the Mass and Weight. And also I proposed a similar distinction to be made between Time and ‘Timeness’.

Oh, inventing words, now?

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon, we wouldn’t say that the mass is ‘shrunken’ and hence mass is a relative thing. We know that weighing machines (and hence weights) get affected by gravity. It is nothing to do with accuracy of the machine. (Pardon me for the slight addition in the brackets- that’s for your benefit only)

Now, even after we were nicely corrected by Cuddles, you seem to persist in your error. At least show the same flexibility of mind as mine, and adopt the proper terms.

If the mass is 6kg on Earth, it will also be 6kg on the Moon. It's weight, measured by the force with which it is attracted to the body it is on (Earth/moon), in N, will be different. Weighing machines are different, and there exists two basic concepts: Mass compensated and force compensated. The first exemplified by the simple balance, the latter by a spring scale. On the moon, if you weigh your 6kg mass on a mass compensated scale, you will find it weights the same as on Earth. If you weigh it on a force compensated scale, you will get around 1kg.

Likewise, if a clock measures 60 seconds on earth, it may measure more seconds on moon for the same duration. It doesn’t mean that the time has actually dilated but it is due the fact the clock gets affected by gravity.

No, this is where you are mistaken. It is not the measuring instrument, it is the measured object that changes. The time is changing, but since the clock is not, it will meter out a different duration.

Instead of tampering the absolute Time, one may introduce something like ‘timeness’ (analogous to ‘weight’) to account for the measured difference in time in different gravitational fields (and accelerated states).

One might do that, but it would serve no purpose, because time does indeed change. The difference between time and weight is that with weight, we have mass as reference. In other words, we can compare mass and weight and deduce the strength of the local gravity field (indeed that is how gravimeters work).

Not so with time.

I was wrong in expecting you to grasp this. So let me put the analogy in a simpler way.

Mass (Absolute thing)----has relation with----Weight (relative thing)---- which is measured by Weighing Machines and affected by Gravity

Time (absolute)--- has relation with---‘Timeness’ (relative)----which is measured by Clocks and affected by Gravity

So I said, Time (like Mass) is absolute and what varies with gravity is ‘Timeness’ (like Weight).

No, we long since grasped that this is your claim. And you are mistaken.
Your error in expectation seems to be that you think that if you repeat it often enough, and interspersed with enough derogatory remarks, then it will become true. That is not the case.

There is no point in digging deeper and getting deviated when you don’t even get the simple things into your brains. That only reveals more of your ignorance.

I agree that you should stop digging. You hole is far too deep as it is.

You may or may not accept the ‘Timeness’ but it is important to get at least what I said before criticizing.

You are discarding a theory without even grasping what was said!

Au contraire, we grasp and reject. Like so many who put their fantasy in front of knowledge, you assume that failure to accept is failure to comprehend.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

Wouldn't it be reduced to neutrons and absorbed into the mass of the star?

Unless it was unobtainium

 

[Roboramma]

I've met people who thought that 'weightless' in space meant just that,as if an astronaut could pick up the Space Shuttle and balance it on his finger. drgsrinivas does not quite come in to that category but his misunderstanding of physics is quite spectacular.

The only things I can see wrong with that are:
1. I don't know what "pick up" means when you're weightless. (unless we are talking about something like a pen)
2. Ditto for "balance on his finger"
3. The astronaut doesn't have anything to push against, except the space shuttle itself, so if he tries to move it around, he'll be moved too.

So... on second thought I guess i see your point. But I don't quite see how it relates to weightless not meaning weightless. Of course, weightless doesn't mean "inertia-less". (see highlighted bit, I'm just saying I don't quite understand your choice of words there)

 

[Roboramma]

Altough mass is expressed in kg, we should not forget that this is an inertial figure relative to earth at sea level... In other words, IMO, mass should only be considered as sort of inercial reference.

What do you mean by the highlighted bit? I can't make sense of that.

 

[Roboramma]

I can see the crowd overwhelmed by their ignorance

I did differentiate between the Mass and Weight. And also I proposed a similar distinction to be made between Time and ‘Timeness’.

The difference is that the difference between mass and weight is supported by experiment, and fits with theory, whereas the difference between time and "timeness" does neither.

That is, not only do some clocks record time differently on the earth than the moon, all clocks do.

Of course if you can offer some experiment that can differentiate between the two, that would be... well, nobel prize worthy.

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon,

It doesn't. Nothing "weighs [6 or any other number] kg". A thing has a mass of [x]kg.
It may weigh 6 N on earth and 1 N on the moon.

And you may have a scale that registers in kg, but (because it was designed for use on earth) determines mass by finding weight, which will thus give faulty readings (for mass) on the moon, but that's because you're using the wrong equipment for the task you've set it.

we wouldn’t say that the mass is ‘shrunken’ and hence mass is a relative thing. We know that weighing machines (and hence weights) get affected by gravity. It is nothing to do with accuracy of the machine. (Pardon me for the slight addition in the brackets- that’s for your benefit only)

Yes, weighing machines do, because they try to find weight, which is, by definition, affected by gravity.

On the other hand, it is possible to build apparatus that determine mass. I leave it as an exercise for you to think of how, but here's a hint: inertia.
This will not be different on the earth than the moon.

Likewise, if a clock measures 60 seconds on earth, it may measure more seconds on moon for the same duration. It doesn’t mean that the time has actually dilated but it is due the fact the clock gets affected by gravity. Instead of tampering the absolute Time, one may introduce something like ‘timeness’ (analogous to ‘weight’) to account for the measured difference in time in different gravitational fields (and accelerated states).

If you want to define time as something other than that which is registered by clocks, that's fine, but please offer some way of actually measuring this "time", otherwise it doesn't actually mean anything.

Mass (Absolute thing)----has relation with----Weight (relative thing)---- which is measured by Weighing Machines and affected by Gravity

Time (absolute)--- has relation with---‘Timeness’ (relative)----which is measured by Clocks and affected by Gravity

So I said, Time (like Mass) is absolute and what varies with gravity is ‘Timeness’ (like Weight).

We all understand your analogy. We are simply pointing out that your analogy is wrong: time is not to "timeness" as mass is to weight.

 

[Cuddles]

Time dilation/contraction was proposed to keep the speed of light constant. I doubt if you know this basic fact.

That's because it's not a fact at all. Time dilation was not actually proposed at all. Time dilation is a conclusion which results from assuming the speed of light is constant.

I can see the crowd overwhelmed by their ignorance

I did differentiate between the Mass and Weight.

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon

Look, this is incredibly simple - a mass of 6kg on Earth still has a mass of 6kg on the Moon. Its weight would be 58.8N on the former, and 9.8N on the latter. If you're going to spend all this time crowing about how amazing you are and how stupid everyone else it, you really should try to avoid repeatedly making such basic mistakes, especially when you've just had it explained to you in detail.

There is no point in digging deeper and getting deviated when you don’t even get the simple things into your brains. That only reveals more of your ignorance.

Indeed. You may want to think on that for a bit longer.

You are discarding a theory without even grasping what was said!

There is no theory to discard, just some unsupported rambling. Get back to us once you have an actual theory (warning - this may require you to master high school physics first), and then we can work on discarding it.

 

[drgsrinivas]

Bollocks. The mass remains the same. You have no grasp of of basic physics and you can use as many insults as you like, that will not help you to understand. You have no theory, just some half baked ideas.

<SNIP>

The mass remains the same- that's what I also believe.

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Roboramma]

The mass remains the same- that's what I also believe.

Do you understand that the mass is measurably the same?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The mass remains the same- that's what I also believe.

Then you do an exceedingly poor job of expressing it.

But, I'll take your word for it. The mass is constant. Now what?

Hans

 

[bjornart]

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon, we wouldn’t say that the mass is ‘shrunken’ and hence mass is a relative thing. We know that weighing machines (and hence weights) get affected by gravity. It is nothing to do with accuracy of the machine. (Pardon me for the slight addition in the brackets- that’s for your benefit only)

Let me respond without picking on your misuse of units and concepts. What's appears to be missing in your understanding is that not all weighing machines are affected by gravity. I can find the mass of an object by checking its inertia in a way unaffected by gravity. And use the same machine on earth, in orbit and on the moon with the same result.

Of course there could still be effects due to varying amounts of friction within the machine, but scientists aren't unaware of such issues. Such effects may be predictable and accounted for that way, or when working in unknown territory at the edge of current knowledge one can compare measuring devices working by different means and work out what the effects are and how large they are.

The scientists who have built up our current knowledge know such things and have taken them into account while doing the experiments that have verified relativity and quantum mechanics. If there were errors caused by using inaccurate measuring devices influenced unpredictably by gravity in their function (rather than by gravitational time dilation) it would have been discovered by the people doing the work. It's not a real issue unmentioned until now only to be discovered by someone thinking differently. It's a basic difficulty in experiment design and construction and use of measuring devices.

 

[Roboramma]

Then you do an exceedingly poor job of expressing it.

But, I'll take your word for it. The mass is constant. Now what?

Hans

He's saying this:

Mass is constant, but when you use a scale to measure the mass of an object on the earth, and it tells you: "the mass of that object is 60 kg", if you then took both the object and the scale to the moon, and made the same measurement, the scale would read "10 kg". Of course, that's because what the scale really measures is the weight.

Similarly, if you take a clock on the earth, and an identical clock on the moon, and sync them, you'll find that they don't run at the same rate. But in the former case we still say, "mass is constant", whereas we are saying that in the latter case this shows that time is not constant.

As I said, the difference is that we can make a measurement of mass that will be unaffected by gravity. But there is no conceivable clock for which that is the case.

(there may be other differences as well which break the analogy, but that will suffice.)

 

[Hellbound]

Just to add a thought of my own:

Think about how you can make a clock. Not just the battery and gears kind, but any concievable clock (Einstein used the idea of a photon bouncing between two perfect mirrors).

Basically, all that makes a clock is some regularly repeating physical action that can be counted. This can be pulses froma quartz crystal, mechanical gears turning at a constant rate, vibrations of an atom, or any other regular physical process.

Since any and every physical process is affected when used as a clock, it is therefore logical to assume that these same physical processes are affected when they aren't used to make a clock. Which means that the people, spaceships, physical processes, speeds, electrical interactions, brain activity, and everything else slow down as well.

It's not just a matter of clocks running slow...everything runs slow, because clocks are simply an arbitrarily defined subset of physical processes. There's nothing special about turning a physical process into a clock that makes the physical process act differently.

 

[bjornart]

Since any and every physical process is affected when used as a clock, it is therefore logical to assume that these same physical processes are affected when they aren't used to make a clock. Which means that the people, spaceships, physical processes, speeds, electrical interactions, brain activity, and everything else slow down as well.

It's not just a matter of clocks running slow...everything runs slow, because clocks are simply an arbitrarily defined subset of physical processes. There's nothing special about turning a physical process into a clock that makes the physical process act differently.

I could make a clock that ran slower in higher gravity. Gravity would influence the running of the clock directly, rather than by altering time.

drgsrinivas' mistakes appears to me to be to think that this possibility is
a) something scientists have been unaware of and haven't accounted for during the last 400 years of scientific progress

and/or

b) able to account for the effects in the experiments supporting relativity

Neither of which are remotely close to reality.

 

[Hellbound]

I could make a clock that ran slower in higher gravity. Gravity would influence the running of the clock directly, rather than by altering time.

Well, yes, but the point I was getting to is that even clocks using physical processes that aren't affected directly by gravity are affected by time dilation. And even gravity-affected clocks can be affected by accelerated motion and/or speed.

My thought was that he seemed to think that clocks would slow down but that didn't mean anythig else did. My point was that you can base a clock on almost any physical pehnomena, including the same types of physical reactions that (for example) occur in our bodies, and they still show the time dialtion effect. If there's no physical process that isn't affected, then that means all physical processes are affected. And since the only meaningful way to determine time is to measure something physical, this means time slows.

We're on the same track, just targetting different mis-conceptions I think