RE/FE gravity and universe Explanation

What's so bad about using an inertial frame of reference?

Nothing.   

If you would have just posted that we could have saved half a page worth of shit.  I swear your complicated sometimes.

Would you have believed me if you had not read it for yourself?

Anyway I guess I disagree based on what I read.

Disagree about what?

You say light has no mass and a gravitational field.

I say light has mass(based on what I read) so it must have some small amout of gravity to it.

I say light has mass(based on what I read)

What is the mass of a photon?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on July 01, 2008, 06:47:29 AM

I say light has mass(based on what I read)

What is the mass of a photon?

It depends.  How much energy does the photon have?

Photons may not fully be in phase with our dimension, which causes them to have a very,very,very,very small weight. this is on the scale of planck weights, (smallest possible weight that can be explained).

You say light has no mass and a gravitational field.

Right.

I say light has mass(based on what I read) so it must have some small amout of gravity to it.

You say wrong.  Light has an equivalent mass.  It does not actually have mass.

It depends.

Like...?

How much energy does the photon have?

What are you trying to argue?

Photons may not fully be in phase with our dimension, which causes them to have a very,very,very,very small weight. this is on the scale of planck weights, (smallest possible weight that can be explained).

Quote from: markjo on July 01, 2008, 09:00:27 AM

It depends.

Like...?

Are you talking about rest mass or equivalent mass?

Quote from: markjo on July 01, 2008, 09:00:27 AM

How much energy does the photon have?

What are you trying to argue?

I'm not trying to argue anything.  I'm trying to get clarification of your question about the mass of a photon.  Since a photon is never at rest, then asking for its rest mass is pointless.  Therefore I assumed that photon in question has some energy level from which its equivalent mass can be determined.

You say light has no mass and a gravitational field.

I say light has mass(based on what I read) so it must have some small amout of gravity to it.

Light has no mass. Light goes in a straight path. Its path is affected (as if it had mass) by the curvature of spacetime. Black holes are infinitely curved spacetime, so light simply never can travel far enough to get out. Also, the curvature of spacetime extends to the relative changing of time, that is why GR made refined calculations about Mercury that explained everything Newtonian mechanics couldn't.

Also, I see that a ton of people have a deep part of Special Relativity misunderstood. As you accelerate, you feel like you keep on getting faster. Your instruments may say you are going faster than the speed of light... if Newtonian mechanics were right. Instead, the only person that says you're going slower than the speed of light is the person observing you from a different reference frame. The same goes with weight, you always feel the same weight, others just observe a much heavier (and hence, much more gravitational) person. This only applies with positive acceleration.

Also, the curvature of spacetime by matter could be explained if matter itself were merely the concentrated curvature of space and time... Just as light rays are the concentrated fluctuations of the electromagnetic force...

Also, the curvature of spacetime extends to the relative changing of time, that is why GR made refined calculations about Mercury that explained everything Newtonian mechanics couldn't.

I'm pretty sure that is due to the luminal propagation of gravitation...

Also, I see that a ton of people have a deep part of Special Relativity misunderstood. As you accelerate, you feel like you keep on getting faster.

Your instruments may say you are going faster than the speed of light... if Newtonian mechanics were right.

What?

Instead, the only person that says you're going slower than the speed of light is the person observing you from a different reference frame.

The person in the same frame as you says you are going faster than light?

Also, the curvature of spacetime by matter could be explained if matter itself were merely the concentrated curvature of space and time.

So, what about objects without matter?

Quote

Also, the curvature of spacetime by matter could be explained if matter itself were merely the concentrated curvature of space and time.

So, what about objects without matter?

He may be referring to LQG, which is somewhat intriguing to me I admit, but still highly theoretical.


I always feel guilty if I answer relativity or physics questions. Like I'm somehow stealing some small joy of yours...

I'm pretty sure that is due to the luminal propagation of gravitation...

erm... I don't know what you're talking about... other than gravity is not spread by light (e.g. black holes.) Irregularities in the orbit of mercury were solved if time, as well as the three other dimensions, were bent by matter.


About the instruments saying you go faster than the speed of light... We are assuming that the rate of speed is measured perfectly by an accelerometer. You feel like you're going faster and faster because you are going slightly faster, but mostly because your time moves slower than a "stationary" (i.e. not accelerating) observer. That is why inter-galaxy travel is possible in a lifetime... You get so close to the speed of light that you do not age but a few seconds.

So, what about objects without matter?

General relativity says that matter bends spacetime, to make seemingly straight lines not actually straight lines. Therefore, anything that ever travels through that universe must take a straight (seemingly "bent") path through space and time... That is why GR gravity is so elegant: And object acted on by "gravity" is just going in a straight path and retaining its inertia. Kind of similar to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles pushing the ground up in FET, only nothing needs to be strangely accelerating.

Here's what I said. Matter (objects with mass... not everything has mass) may be the concentrated curvature of spacetime, therefore gravity is expected (mass="gravity".) So, to answer your question, objects without matter would lawfully go straight, without causing a curve of its own.

Photons should exhibit gravitation.

erm... I don't know what you're talking about... other than gravity is not spread by light (e.g. black holes.)

My fault.  I left out the word velocity.  Gravitation propagates at luminal velocities.  That accounts for Mercury's orbit.

General relativity says that matter bends spacetime, to make seemingly straight lines not actually straight lines.

Not quite.

Kind of similar to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles pushing the ground up in FET, only nothing needs to be strangely accelerating.

Except that in the RE, when I am in contact with the ground, directly or otherwise, I am accelerating.

Here's what I said. Matter (objects with mass... not everything has mass) may be the concentrated curvature of spacetime, therefore gravity is expected (mass="gravity".) So, to answer your question, objects without matter would lawfully go straight, without causing a curve of its own.

But objects without mass can distort spacetime.

Are you talking about rest mass or equivalent mass?

...What about them?

Quote from: markjo on July 01, 2008, 06:49:35 PM

Are you talking about rest mass or equivalent mass?

...What about them?

You tell me, it's your question.

I'm asking for your point. 

I'm asking for your point. 

You asked about the mass of a photon.  I'm just trying to get enough information out of you to be able to answer your question. 

It's really quite simple.  Either provide enough information in your question so that someone can give you a proper answer, or don't ask the question if you really don't want an answer.

You asked about the mass of a photon.

Right. 

I'm just trying to get enough information out of you to be able to answer your question. 

E = pc

It's really quite simple.  Either provide enough information in your question so that someone can give you a proper answer, or don't ask the question if you really don't want an answer.

Uh, I wanted an answer, that's why I asked a question. 

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2008, 12:45:47 PM

You asked about the mass of a photon.

Right. 

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2008, 12:45:47 PM

I'm just trying to get enough information out of you to be able to answer your question. 

E = pc

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2008, 12:45:47 PM

It's really quite simple.  Either provide enough information in your question so that someone can give you a proper answer, or don't ask the question if you really don't want an answer.

Uh, I wanted an answer, that's why I asked a question. 

E=pc is for particles at rest.  Since a photon is never at rest (it is always traveling at c), it will have always have an equivalent mass that varies with its energy level.

E=pc is for particles at rest.

What is the definition of momentum?

Since a photon is never at rest (it is always traveling at c), it will have always have an equivalent mass that varies with its energy level.

Please enlighten me on this so-called "equivalent mass".

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2008, 09:15:41 AM

Since a photon is never at rest (it is always traveling at c), it will have always have an equivalent mass that varies with its energy level.

Please enlighten me on this so-called "equivalent mass".

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I figure it this way.  The rest mass of a particle is determined with that particle at its lowest energy state.  Zero rest mass means zero energy state.  Since a photon is never at rest, it must have energy.  Therefore, according to E=mc², the energy of that photon is equivalent to a certain amount of mass.

I do have to confess that I don't really get too much into GR or QM.  Thinking that small makes my head hurt.   

I've been gone for days, and this ahs 116 posts! to bad, most of it is worthless squabbling

The rest mass of a particle is determined with that particle at its lowest energy state.  Zero rest mass means zero energy state. 

What about a photon traveling at c in a vacuum? Does it have zero energy despite the fact that it is moving and has zero rest mass?

Since a photon is never at rest, it must have energy.

Right.

  Therefore, according to E=mc², the energy of that photon is equivalent to a certain amount of mass.

Photons have an equivalent mass due to energy, according to the EP; however, that doesn't mean they have mass in general.

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2008, 04:00:24 PM

The rest mass of a particle is determined with that particle at its lowest energy state.  Zero rest mass means zero energy state. 

What about a photon traveling at c in a vacuum?

What about it?

Does it have zero energy despite the fact that it is moving and has zero rest mass?

Does a photon with zero energy move?  I'm asking because I honestly don't know.  I thought that rest mass was considered to be mass of a particle at rest (that is, not moving). 

it is physically impossible for something to have 0 energy, it must have some potential energy or the object will collape into itself and form a black hole due to not having any energy at all. Anyway, photons only rarely go to lower than c Speeds, this only occurs when scientists preform experiments where the photons are chilled to near-absolute zero. They may also be slowed or reflected by planets and nebulae where they lose neglible amouts of speed. (0.000001 kps)

No.  To all of it.

Does a photon with zero energy move?  I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

Well, you posted that zero rest mass means zero energy state. However, to move at c in a vacuum, a particle must have zero rest mass.

I thought that rest mass was considered to be mass of a particle at rest (that is, not moving). 

Uh, yeah...