Simple, in the one dimensional case it manifests itself as force experienced towards (and away from) the center of the objects in question. For more accuracy, three dimensional calculations might employ partial differential equations expressed in terms of quaternions. (Matrices can result in singularities and otherwise "gimbal lock"-type of situations.)

I was (good-naturedly) poking fun -- no matter how hard we look, we'll never find a tensor (or vector, matrix, etc.) in the physical world.

 

Almost. Take the first derivative and you get an acceleration. That's equivalent to gravity. In fact, they are effectively identical. Accelerate a body fast enough and it's gravitational "pull" on things increases.

Sorry. Saying one word is identical to another word is just a circular argument. An argument which, in its entirety, makes no sense at all.

 

Agree on the math part. But there also seems to be a consensus (or is this just pop science?) that a singularity of infinite mass density and zero size exists at the center of a black hole. This is impossible from a frame-of-reference outside the event horizon, and I think if one were to survive a fall past the event horizon, he'd find there is no there there.

A singularity is a mathematical signal that the physical theory has broken down. I don't think that any cosmologists/astrophysicists actually believe that the laws of physics stop working at the center of a black hole (and infinite mass is certainly unphysical). Instead, the idea is that GR -- like Newtonian mechanics -- is an effective theory, rather than a fundamental theory, one which is incapable of describing what happens inside the event horizon.

 

Sorry. Saying one word is identical to another word is just a circular argument. An argument which, in its entirety, makes no sense at all.

Dude...it's an acceleration. Which means non-inertial. Duh!

 

Dude...it's an acceleration. Which means non-inertial. Duh!

Dude... saying one word is not identical to another word is also not an argument.

 

Dude... saying one word is not identical to another word is also not an argument.

I thought you were talking about inertial/gravitational reference frames. My mistake.

 

I can think of a constant that is much more stable, reliable and physical than the velocity of light.

e

No matter what happens or where it happens.....e.... always has the same number of electric field lines. You may vary the area...but not the number. Count them....you'll see.

An unloaded charge has the same number of magnetic lines to confine the electric lines. When we or nature induces energy into the charge...we physically add magnetic field lines.........the M lines....it compresses those electric field E lines. By adding M lines....we compress the E lines. The amount of E lines never changes......only the area of the E lines changes. The number of M lines does change.

A charge can convert the force of acceleration into M lines.(this is done with inertia) The absolute amount of M lines can be varied......but E lines remains constant. Only the AREA of E lines changes, not the amount.

Unlike gravity...Inertia is fundamental. Most confuse it with momentum....it's not. It's like impedance. It has two components. It resists a linear force(change in speed) and it resists an angle or rotational force.(change in direction) It resists any change. When we accelerate a charge, depending on the rate, instead of the charge moving in the accelerated direction.....it will spin perpendicular to that acceleration. This spin...if fast enough....can physically roll another turn on the charge. Accelerated spin can change charge structure. This physical roll/fold gives the structure more M lines.....that compresses the E lines into a smaller area. E density is the "mass" of the particle. Notice also that the size of the charge...decreased....it now has less area to react with. It's a smaller physical target for any force. This is how charge resists acceleration.....it gains mass(thru spin) and shrinks. The charge now requires more energy to accelerate it. It will absorb the accelerating energy instead of moving with it. When it absorbs, it gets smaller.

What if the V of light is only apparent? When we measure the V of light.....we give it an arbitrary stationary reference. Whether it's the light source or even a mirror.

But what if the photon doesn't use the light source as a reference of velocity? Maybe it uses what will become the other side of the emission. Sorta like a self reference. In other words...a photon is only a half of a photon or a split photon. They are emitted in opposite direction pairs. Maybe this is why the source V makes no difference to the light V. It's real reference is moving in the opposite direction at c2. To us it would seem constant......but to the photon.....it it be forever accelerating. A bi-directional acceleration causing a constant V.

What if we adjust that angle, but keep the c2?

Does that "entangle" anyone?

 

Electric field lines? Count them. Not sure what you really mean here.

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Electricfield.html

An electric field can be visualized on paper by drawing lines of force, which give an indication of both the size and the strength of the field. Lines of force are also called field lines. Field lines start on positive charges and end on negative charges, and the direction of the field line at a point tells you what direction the force experienced by a charge will be if the charge is placed at that point. If the charge is positive, it will experience a force in the same direction as the field; if it is negative the force will be opposite to the field.

The forces do exist and are real.
The lines are IMAGINARY.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/Lesson-4/Electric-Field-Lines

 

The lines are IMAGINARY.

Which is why they are counted with imaginary numbers. What did you think they were for?

 

That is a failed attempt of humor with you nsaspook. Ain't you ever been around hill people?

 

That is a failed attempt of humor with you nsaspook. Ain't you ever been around hill people?

No, they look too hungry be around near Suppertime.

 

They are easy to identify.....one leg shorter than the other.

 

That one leg is shorter....because they only live on one side of the hill. It's the cause of leggedness.

 

That one leg is shorter....because they only live on one side of the hill. It's the cause of leggedness.

That's what they tell the city folk.

 

Hi,

Another interesting question to maybe liven up this thread again:
What is the maximum frequency of light in space?

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/planck.html

 

I do not know what the maximum frequency is......but there should be one.

It will not be because of a math equation. Nor a theory. Nor an experiment.

It will be because of area. A necessary area is required for configuration. One should be able to compress a charge to that area......and no farther.

There is a possibility that when you compress a charge that far........one might be able to exceed c. This would happen if the particle could not increase it's spin V. Then all energy would go toward linear acceleration.

If one could load all the spin first.....faster than c might be. It's the spin....that takes the exponential energy.

 

If we have a marble going along at c.......and then add a continuous perpendicular force at c.

What will be the diameter of the circular marble path? The circumference will be the wavelength.

And I forgot to mention. When a marble travels that fast......it can not turn in a x-y plain. It has to travel into z.

So pi for this rotation = 4........not 3.14. The circumference is 4 times the diameter. This is because of the 3D movement.

 

Hi,

That is the kind of reasoning i was looking for, but i did not make that clear...the analytic geometry approach.
That is, the perpendicular activity as compared to the forward travel. If the forward travel is limited, will that limit the perpendicular activity.
So in other words, the limit on the 'spin'. I think the spin is fictitious, so maybe it can exceed the speed of light.
A simpler 2d view is the distance between two zero crossings of a sine wave compared to the arc length. If the arc length is not physical htough, then maybe there is nothing limiting it except whatever we attribute to where the supposed "arc length" comes from. If it is from the energy, then the limiting factor is the energy available at the time of creation.
Since we'd have to have a lot of energy to make a very high frequency, that would mean we'd need to localize a lot of energy which would mean gathering a lot of energy into one particular place. The question then is how much energy can be gathered, into one small region because it always takes energy to do this. So maybe this means that the Big Bang singularity had the highest frequency ever possible.

 

RE:""What is the maximum frequency of light in space?""
Theoretically, may take the whole universe`s energy minus those energy we know sure existing in material form, so now we have a unknown energy at the hands with what may speculate, that is kinda of dark energy or whatsocall, but fictiously we can attach all that energy to one ultrafrequency quantum, let label it photon, with enormously big energy. As the dark energy takes about 68,3% of whole Universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy) then now we can speculate that what frequency will it produce, as the Plank`s constant is well known.
But anyway it is senseless, as we know dark energy is dissipated quazi-randomly, so such monster-photon must be indeed `very big` in size, whole Universe.