Reference Frames: "space AND time" and "spacetime"

Discussion in 'Physics' started by socratus, Sep 21, 2014.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Reference Frames: "space AND time" and "spacetime"
    =.
    a)
    The "space AND time" is gravity reference frame where space
    is constant but time for inhabitants can "flow".
    b)
    The " spacetime" is reference frame without gravity.
    There isn't gravity in " spacetime".
    This reference frame was called " Minkowski absolute negative
    pseudo-Euclidean 2D continuum ". In this reference frame "space"
    and "time" are frozen, constant , doesn't "flow".
    It is an eternal state of vacuum continuum as for "space" and as well
    for habitants so called "negative virtual particles".
    =.
     
    • c=1.jpg
      c=1.jpg
      File size:
      6.4 KB
      Views:
      32
  2. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    One problem with your arguments. You can not have mass without some gravity present, period. Therefore we carry our slice of space time (which are interchangeable to a degree) with us at all times.

    The act of measuring changes the measurement. What do you suggest measuring with?
     
  3. sirch2

    Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2013
    1,008
    351
    My understanding is that you do have mass without gravity, you cannot have weight without gravity but you do have mass. Otherwise a body outside a gravitational field would not have inertia.
     
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    It is incredibly small, but you have a gravitational field. You pull on earth just like it pulls on you. The moment you have mass, you have gravity (though too small to measure).
     
  5. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    I just double checked that last statement, try goggling photon. They do indeed have mass, though it is a special case. How do you explain a mirror array able to be used to generate thrust otherwise? They also respond to gravitational fields as if they have mass. The reason it is a special case is a photon can not go any other speed but that of light, which makes the concept of zero rest mass meaningless, since they can never be at any other velocity other that C. C is not an absolute, it varies according to the medium it is traveling in, but it is a constant for a vacuum.

    To misquote Mark Twain,
    Tain't what folks know that get them into trouble, but what they know that ain't so!

    Double check assumptions before laying out far reaching statements (and predictions) where they may not apply.

    The edges of the universe are where the initial wavefront of the big bang are traveling (assuming this theory holds water). It is possible they are generating their space time with them, and behind them, since where they pass the photons from the evolving universe will also be.
     
  6. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Only the masses can have the force of inertia, a photon has no mass. ( ? ! ? ! )
    =
     
  7. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    Again, that assumption is not based on fact.

    Since you are deleting posts that I am rebutting, I may start quoting them. Being a moderator does have special privileges.

     
  8. sirch2

    Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2013
    1,008
    351
    Sorry, I misread your earlier post, I know that mass conveys gravity on any body. This http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
    seems to deal with photon mass fairly well.
     
  9. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    Funny, that was the first article I read too. I do not claim to be expert in any field except a few (and this isn't one of them), but it seems to me people are ignoring the past science, including practical experiments of things that actually exist.
     
  10. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,118
    3,042
    Says who? No offense, but you don't get to define the term. It's already been well established without your input.
     
  11. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,986
    388
    Gravity does not come from mass. It comes from neutralized charge. There is no mass. Only charge. All energy, all force and all fundamental properties come from charge. When charge is confined, it displays the properties of inertia and angular momentum, which is mis-taken for mass. Photons have no mass. When they are absorbed...they transfer angular momentum...not mass.
     
  12. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    a)
    Gravity is result of mass and energy / charge action.
    Not vice versa.
    There isn't gravity without masses and these
    masses can change the geometry of space.
    b)
    What is the mass of a photon?
    Does the photon have mass?
    After all, it has energy and energy is equivalent to mass.
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
    ====…..
     
  13. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Many years ago i read in internet this article and made copy:
    A New Limit on Photon Mass.
    http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html

    A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19 electron volts,
    has been established by an experiment in which light is aimed at a sensitive
    torsion balance; if light had mass, the rotating balance would suffer an
    additional tiny torque. This represents a 20-fold improvement over previous
    limits on photon mass.
    Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an
    assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass
    would make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for
    Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.
    The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong
    University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China
    junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn
    86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out a measurement
    of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al., Physical Review D,
    15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the force of gravity
    at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from Newton's inverse-square
    law might suggest the existence of extra spatial dimensions) and are
    studying the Casimir force, a quantum effect in which nearby parallel
    plates are drawn together.
    =========================...
    Today it is impossible to find this article in internet.
    Nothing is eternal under Sun and the Sun also has limits
    ==..
     
  14. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,908
    2,168
    Albert Einstein
    [​IMG]
     
    wayneh likes this.
  15. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,908
    2,168
    Gravity in GR is not the result of "mass". If two light beams/EM waves are parallel they don't attract each other but if they are anti-parallel they do because of the flow of energy/momentum. In GR the prime components of gravity are energy density, momentum density, and pressure (parts of a stress-energy tensor, the electromagnetic field has a stress energy tensor). The problem with using mass as the source of gravity is that mass can be converted to energy and would destroy gravity in the process if mass was the cause so gravity must be the result of the total energy instead of mass density.
     
  16. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    =.
    In so-called effect "quantum gravitation" must take part
    two different substances: mass and energy.
    The mass has energy E=kT.
    The definition of energy is written by formula E=h*f.
    The process is going by scheme:
    a) E=h*f > E=kT
    b) E=h*f = E=kT
    c) E=h*f < E=kT ( E=kT> E= h*f )
    The process of "quantum gravitation" in other words
    is called "star formation". (my opinion)
    ===...
     
  17. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,908
    2,168
    shortbus likes this.
  18. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    " I think the main reason why we don’t yet know which theory describes
    gravity in the quantum regime is that we haven’t paid enough attention
    to the phenomenology. "
    Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder
    http://backreaction.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/phenomenological-quantum-gravity.html
    ====
    I think the main reason why we don’t yet know which theory describes
    gravity in the quantum regime is that we haven’t paid enough attention
    to the Zero Vacuum: T=OK and to the Helium II (He II) - --- >
    ---- > Helium I (He I) - - . . . ( as the nearest elements to zero vacuum)
    ==..
    Helium II (He II ) -- -> Helium I(He I) -----> - - - - are strange
    / astonishing elements . . . .
    ==..
     
  19. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,986
    388
    Space. The environment required for a cosmos. We need to understand it before anything else. For those who are curious, space is a void. It is a volume that has absolutely nothing in it. It has no particles, fields, radiation, temp, energy, media or either. Nothing virtual....it is complete nothingness. Because this fact is so elementary and so simple, many people can not conceive of, and/or believe this concept. You see, real science has to start out with nothing, if you start out with anything else........it’s religion.

    This volume of void has dimension and can be mapped. We can reckon that map to a sphere or cube. We will need a scale and a reference point for the map, or should I say Frame. The scale or length will have to be arbitrary, because there is nothing in nothingness to compare to. We will use a meter. Ideally, the reference point should be the origin or center of volume, but we don’t know exactly where that is and some don’t believe there is one. So we will use our location as the origin and save that argument for later.

    So now with a scale, volume(orthogonal dimension) and point of origin, we can label every point or location in the nothingness. These locations can not change and the relation with all other locations can not change.........Because there is nothing there to change. Duh. A location is eternal. This is why the fundamental frame of the universe is stable, constant and square. Length does not change anywhere.

    When you introduce charge into space, two things happen. Electric field lines radiate, filling space at the speed of light. Field lines have force and tensile strength. They will bend, but don’t like it and it takes energy to do it. Also the charge will accelerate and spin, it always accelerates and spins and has no limits. It so happens that when charge reaches the speed of light.....the distortion of the field lines is so great that it turns the charge in a tight curve back on itself. This causes the charge to form a small ring of charge that rotates at the speed of light. This is what all particles are made of. The ring is not moving anywhere.....it’s just sitting there.....rotating at the speed of light. And the charge is in constant acceleration! This rotating charge constitutes current flow, which creates a magnetic moment in the center and at right angles to the ring. This is how magnetism occurs.

    If you take some charge and form it in a ring, it will fly apart because of the electrostatic repulsive force. One side on the ring will repel its opposite side. But if you rotate the ring, a magnetic force comes out of the center, wraps around the ring and back in at the bottom of the ring. At the speed of light........the magnetic field will have the power to hold the charge in place. This is matter. There is no mass.......only charge. You can say that the speed of light is where charge turns into matter. So you can sorta say that everything is always moving at the speed of light, but not going very far.

    This stationary elementary piece of matter has a static electric and magnetic field, charge, angular momentum, inertia and spin. It has and makes no gravity and might not be effected by gravity. Gravity is not a truly fundamental force. It is only a multi-particle force. Gravity is a very weak force, the only reason it has power and majesty is because it is one way and has no apparent opposition.

    When a ring combines with another ring of opposite and equal charge, it forms a neutral dipole charge. These neutral dipoles generate a distant cousin of the electric field. This field is very weak and only attractive to other neutral dipoles. It also causes a spiral trajectory. And like other secondary electric fields.......you can not shield against it.

    If a ring is sitting there minding it‘s own business and gets hit hard enough and quick enough with a magnetic or electric field.......the ring will respond by physically changing its orientation and possibly it location. This quick re-orientation causes a phase shift in the fields and the charge of the particle. The feedback effect of this, from the electric and magnetic fields(inertia of particle) drives the particle back to it original position... but now the fields are out of phase and a quick direction reversal cuts and emits the out of phase wave. This is light. Light has no mass. It is a strait traveling, static out of phase wave front. It is not self propagating. It was emitted. It is not oscillating. It’s cocked and locked.

    Light is not effected by gravity. If you go to the nasa site and search long and hard enough, you will see that the experiments confirming gravitational lensing, had to be revised. They make this information hard to find and even deny it. That light was not bent......it was absorbed and re-emitted by plasma. That part was not in any headlines.

    Time is a measure of movement in space, not the movement of space. Space does not move. Nothing can not move. It is not related to space in any way, except that it takes place in space because movement takes place in space. The rate of time is constant.

    There is no longer a square hole. It was a round hole after all.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2014
Loading...