"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...

I've even wondered if it's possible if objects
could be placed stationary in space-time, and then
stuff moving threw time - at the speed of light - hits
these objects and make a big explosion, of course
this is sci-fi, at least right now.



If all massive entities 'move' in the direction of time at an 'equivalent'
velocity of c which is constant, then we would require an additional degree
of freedom which doesn't exist or of which we are unaware. (not saying this
is true, just considering it)

If you can consider a change in spatial speed as a change in direction in
space-time, (acceleration as a rotation), then would an extra macroscopic
dimension be necessary to change space-time speed?

I realize that acceleration is the second derivative of position with
respect to time and an extra dimension isn't implicit in this description.
But when considering space-time, I can't help but wonder if the ability to
accelerate necessitates a fourth dimension, an added degree of freedom in
which we can move. I've considered the possible circularity of my thinking
but I'm unable to come to a definite conclusion.

That all said, what would the implications of being able to change c as it
relates to E=mc^2? or m=E/c^2 for that matter.

What do you think Ken?

"Jim Roberts" wrote in message ...
Hi Jim Roberts, haven't see you post for awhile.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
. com...

I've even wondered if it's possible if objects
could be placed stationary in space-time, and then
stuff moving threw time - at the speed of light - hits
these objects and make a big explosion, of course
this is sci-fi, at least right now.

If all massive entities 'move' in the direction of time at an 'equivalent'
velocity of c which is constant, then we would require an additional degree
of freedom which doesn't exist or of which we are unaware. (not saying this
is true, just considering it)

If you can consider a change in spatial speed as a change in direction in
space-time, (acceleration as a rotation)*, then would an extra macroscopic
dimension be necessary to change space-time speed?

I would say no. In a gravitational field, such as we are in,
the speed of light and the rate of time are less than a
person at rest but not in a g-field. This is governed by
the *time* metric g00. I do recall you did an excellent
essay on GR, but I don't recall if your familiar with
tensors at all.
There's always a danger in being superficial in GR,
so this answer is *off-the-cuff*.

I realize that acceleration is the second derivative of position with
respect to time and an extra dimension isn't implicit in this description.
But when considering space-time, I can't help but wonder if the ability to
accelerate necessitates a fourth dimension, an added degree of freedom in
which we can move. I've considered the possible circularity of my thinking
but I'm unable to come to a definite conclusion.

Well I think what you said up top (*) is fine. I've never
found any fault in that concept, in fact the opposite. The
more I study it the better it seems to get.

That all said, what would the implications of being able to change c as it
relates to E=mc^2? or m=E/c^2 for that matter.
What do you think Ken?

That it's a hard question :-). It's difficult to understand
because c is an invariant. In other words if c where to
instanteously double throughout the universe it shouldn't
be measurable.
However suppose we're looking at the surface of a
neutron star where the speed of light (I'll call this C) is
less than our c, then would E = mC^2 ?
At the edge of a hypothetical Black Hole where
C=0 that becomes very strange. And the reverse
m = E/C^2 also becomes strange, like a tiny bit of
energy makes a huge amount of mass!
Maybe this would be a good question to post.

It's something to ponder...
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Roberts" wrote in message
...
Hi Jim Roberts, haven't see you post for awhile.
[snip]
I realize that acceleration is the second derivative of position with
respect to time and an extra dimension isn't implicit in this
description.
But when considering space-time, I can't help but wonder if the ability
to
accelerate necessitates a fourth dimension, an added degree of freedom in
which we can move. I've considered the possible circularity of my
thinking
but I'm unable to come to a definite conclusion.

Well I think what you said up top (*) is fine. I've never
found any fault in that concept, in fact the opposite. The
more I study it the better it seems to get.

That all said, what would the implications of being able to change c as
it
relates to E=mc^2? or m=E/c^2 for that matter.
What do you think Ken?

That it's a hard question :-). It's difficult to understand
because c is an invariant. In other words if c where to
instanteously double throughout the universe it shouldn't
be measurable.
However suppose we're looking at the surface of a
neutron star where the speed of light (I'll call this C) is
less than our c, then would E = mC^2 ?
At the edge of a hypothetical Black Hole where
C=0 that becomes very strange. And the reverse
m = E/C^2 also becomes strange, like a tiny bit of
energy makes a huge amount of mass!
Maybe this would be a good question to post.

Hello Ken,

Thanks for your response. In regards to what I mentioned earlier:

If all massive entities 'move' in the direction of time at an
'equivalent'
velocity of c which is constant, then we would require an additional
degree
of freedom which doesn't exist or of which we are unaware. (not saying
this
is true, just considering it)

I think saying that the magnitude of the 4-velocity for all massive bodies
is C is probably more appropriate. I might get myself into trouble speaking
of equivalent velocities and motions in time comparable to space. Anyway,
I'm curious how this relates to C in E=mC^2. If we are considering the
equivalent energy of a particular mass, doesn't C represent the 4-Velocity
magnitude of the mass in question rather than the speed of light? Is this
equivalence of mass and energy really related to the speed of light or the
speed of matter, or both? I realize they are the same but why is that? Is
the relationship between space and time what sets this constant C? Will
altering the speed of a photon require some fundamental change in this
relationship between space and time? Will this also affect the speed of
matter? Sorry for so many questions.

The reason I'm asking is because of your original idea:

I've even wondered if it's possible if objects
could be placed stationary in space-time, and then
stuff moving threw time - at the speed of light - hits
these objects and make a big explosion, of course
this is sci-fi, at least right now.

I was considering that the 4-velocity magnitude (C) would need to be altered
to slow or stop an object in the manner you suggest. I was thinking that
changing C in this case would not be the same as changing light speed. I
realize I could be way off base here.

Thanks,

Hi Jim et all...

"Jim Roberts" wrote in message ...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
. com...
"Jim Roberts" wrote in message ...

I realize that acceleration is the second derivative of position with
respect to time and an extra dimension isn't implicit in this description.
But when considering space-time, I can't help but wonder if the ability to
accelerate necessitates a fourth dimension, an added degree of freedom in
which we can move. I've considered the possible circularity of my thinking
but I'm unable to come to a definite conclusion.

Well I think what you said up top (*) is fine. I've never
found any fault in that concept, in fact the opposite. The
more I study it the better it seems to get.

That all said, what would the implications of being able to change c as it
relates to E=mc^2? or m=E/c^2 for that matter.
What do you think Ken?

That it's a hard question :-). It's difficult to understand
because c is an invariant. In other words if c where to
instanteously double throughout the universe it shouldn't
be measurable.
However suppose we're looking at the surface of a
neutron star where the speed of light (I'll call this C) is
less than our c, then would E = mC^2 ?
At the edge of a hypothetical Black Hole where
C=0 that becomes very strange. And the reverse
m = E/C^2 also becomes strange, like a tiny bit of
energy makes a huge amount of mass!
Maybe this would be a good question to post.


Hello Ken,
Thanks for your response. In regards to what I mentioned earlier:

Snip as you wish. My respose isn't worth a thanks,
it's just fluff, mainly to try a breach the topic in ways
I've never thought in before.

If all massive entities 'move' in the direction of time at an 'equivalent'
velocity of c which is constant, then we would require an additional degree
of freedom which doesn't exist or of which we are unaware. (not saying this
is true, just considering it)

I think saying that the magnitude of the 4-velocity for all massive bodies
is C is probably more appropriate. I might get myself into trouble speaking
of equivalent velocities and motions in time comparable to space. Anyway,
I'm curious how this relates to C in E=mC^2. If we are considering the
equivalent energy of a particular mass, doesn't C represent the 4-Velocity
magnitude of the mass in question rather than the speed of light?

An observer O in a free-falling elevator (a.k.a. an inertial frame),
in a powerful g-field, will certainly find E=mc^2 in his
CS.
But when this energy E is transmitted to an observer O'
floating distantly from any masses, this energy E' relative
to O' will be *red-shifted*.
This *red shift* depends on the relative rates of O and
O' clocks.
So O' can decide the speed of matter going threw time
where O is, is going more slowly.

From what I figure, the concept E=mC^2 is DOA,
((I introduced this as a spectulative gedanken, but I
have found the transformation from c^2 to C^2, be
quite complicated)), because E'/m' = E/m. IOW's
one can choose c=1, and maintain this. The quantity
C refers to the co-ordinate velocity of c.

Is this equivalence of mass and energy really related
to the speed of light or the speed of matter, or both?

Well to say a quantity of matter moved a
length x4 = c*time really interdefines

length units/time units = c = invariant.
(in an inertial frame).

I realize they are the same but why is that?

I think one of the greatest achievements of theoretical
physics was the unification of the Conservation of
Mass Law and the Conservation of Energy Law.

The potential energy of mass required E=mc^2
to conserve Momentum in SR, specifically under
the Lorentz transformation. I'd recommend you
find someone who can suggest a good book on
SR, because my dingbat explanation of this
compared to professional authors would be a
relative screw-up.

Is the relationship between space and time what sets this constant C?

I think it's the other way around, space and time are
relative, it's c that's invariant.

Will altering the speed of a photon require some fundamental
change in this relationship between space and time?

Yes, in a g-field (like the sun's) the velocity of light
does alter, (deflects and slows down), as a
consequence of a subtle redefinition of spacetime,
sometimes called (ugh) spacetime curvature.

Will this also affect the speed of matter?

Not in inertial frames of course. And as I understand
GR a frame subject to acceleration retains E=mc^2 too.

The reason I'm asking is because of your original idea:

I've even wondered if it's possible if objects
could be placed stationary in space-time, and then
stuff moving threw time - at the speed of light - hits
these objects and make a big explosion, of course
this is sci-fi, at least right now.

Well I posted this in response to the OP's
(rangerwest)'s prolonged essay).

I was considering that the 4-velocity magnitude (C) would need to be altered
to slow or stop an object in the manner you suggest. I was thinking that
changing C in this case would not be the same as changing light speed. I
realize I could be way off base here.
Thanks,

Ok, me too, but sometimes thinking nonsensically
can render insight into why reality is real....

Have you studied the effect of g-fields on the
speed of light?

Regards Ken S. Tucker

........... ...However, a Mathematically anything, whether everything does
deals with a Relativity and deals along a Quantum Mechanics. Strictly and
absolutely, first of all, does deals with any susceptible combination among
any forces.

Therefore, along any interference as along any interaction among any define
as a definite forces. As a finally and a definitely does deals with any
susceptible symetry along the forces and the Nature behaviours.

Otherwise, the universe, generally would not be as could not be the way,
what we do use, that it is, as what we do observe among its behaviours and
we do use to contemplate!!!!!!!!!!!!.............. ...

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Ken S. Tucker" kirjoitti viestissä
om...
Hi Jim et all...

"Jim Roberts" wrote in message
...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
. com...
"Jim Roberts" wrote in message
...

I realize that acceleration is the second derivative of position with
respect to time and an extra dimension isn't implicit in this
description.
But when considering space-time, I can't help but wonder if the
ability to
accelerate necessitates a fourth dimension, an added degree of freedom
in
which we can move. I've considered the possible circularity of my
thinking
but I'm unable to come to a definite conclusion.

Well I think what you said up top (*) is fine. I've never
found any fault in that concept, in fact the opposite. The
more I study it the better it seems to get.

That all said, what would the implications of being able to change c
as it
relates to E=mc^2? or m=E/c^2 for that matter.
What do you think Ken?

That it's a hard question :-). It's difficult to understand
because c is an invariant. In other words if c where to
instanteously double throughout the universe it shouldn't
be measurable.
However suppose we're looking at the surface of a
neutron star where the speed of light (I'll call this C) is
less than our c, then would E = mC^2 ?
At the edge of a hypothetical Black Hole where
C=0 that becomes very strange. And the reverse
m = E/C^2 also becomes strange, like a tiny bit of
energy makes a huge amount of mass!
Maybe this would be a good question to post.


Hello Ken,
Thanks for your response. In regards to what I mentioned earlier:

Snip as you wish. My respose isn't worth a thanks,
it's just fluff, mainly to try a breach the topic in ways
I've never thought in before.

If all massive entities 'move' in the direction of time at an
'equivalent'
velocity of c which is constant, then we would require an additional
degree
of freedom which doesn't exist or of which we are unaware. (not saying
this
is true, just considering it)

I think saying that the magnitude of the 4-velocity for all massive
bodies
is C is probably more appropriate. I might get myself into trouble
speaking
of equivalent velocities and motions in time comparable to space. Anyway,
I'm curious how this relates to C in E=mC^2. If we are considering the
equivalent energy of a particular mass, doesn't C represent the
4-Velocity
magnitude of the mass in question rather than the speed of light?

An observer O in a free-falling elevator (a.k.a. an inertial frame),
in a powerful g-field, will certainly find E=mc^2 in his
CS.
But when this energy E is transmitted to an observer O'
floating distantly from any masses, this energy E' relative
to O' will be *red-shifted*.
This *red shift* depends on the relative rates of O and
O' clocks.
So O' can decide the speed of matter going threw time
where O is, is going more slowly.

From what I figure, the concept E=mC^2 is DOA,
((I introduced this as a spectulative gedanken, but I
have found the transformation from c^2 to C^2, be
quite complicated)), because E'/m' = E/m. IOW's
one can choose c=1, and maintain this. The quantity
C refers to the co-ordinate velocity of c.

Is this equivalence of mass and energy really related
to the speed of light or the speed of matter, or both?

Well to say a quantity of matter moved a
length x4 = c*time really interdefines

length units/time units = c = invariant.
(in an inertial frame).

I realize they are the same but why is that?

I think one of the greatest achievements of theoretical
physics was the unification of the Conservation of
Mass Law and the Conservation of Energy Law.

The potential energy of mass required E=mc^2
to conserve Momentum in SR, specifically under
the Lorentz transformation. I'd recommend you
find someone who can suggest a good book on
SR, because my dingbat explanation of this
compared to professional authors would be a
relative screw-up.

Is the relationship between space and time what sets this constant C?

I think it's the other way around, space and time are
relative, it's c that's invariant.

Will altering the speed of a photon require some fundamental
change in this relationship between space and time?

Yes, in a g-field (like the sun's) the velocity of light
does alter, (deflects and slows down), as a
consequence of a subtle redefinition of spacetime,
sometimes called (ugh) spacetime curvature.

Will this also affect the speed of matter?

Not in inertial frames of course. And as I understand
GR a frame subject to acceleration retains E=mc^2 too.

The reason I'm asking is because of your original idea:

I've even wondered if it's possible if objects
could be placed stationary in space-time, and then
stuff moving threw time - at the speed of light - hits
these objects and make a big explosion, of course
this is sci-fi, at least right now.

Well I posted this in response to the OP's
(rangerwest)'s prolonged essay).

I was considering that the 4-velocity magnitude (C) would need to be
altered
to slow or stop an object in the manner you suggest. I was thinking that
changing C in this case would not be the same as changing light speed. I
realize I could be way off base here.
Thanks,

Ok, me too, but sometimes thinking nonsensically
can render insight into why reality is real....

Have you studied the effect of g-fields on the
speed of light?

Regards Ken S. Tucker

(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
Hi Jim et all...

"Jim Roberts" wrote in message ...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
. com...
"Jim Roberts" wrote in message ...

I realize that acceleration is the second derivative of position with
respect to time and an extra dimension isn't implicit in this description.
But when considering space-time, I can't help but wonder if the ability to
accelerate necessitates a fourth dimension, an added degree of freedom in
which we can move. I've considered the possible circularity of my thinking
but I'm unable to come to a definite conclusion.

Well I think what you said up top (*) is fine. I've never
found any fault in that concept, in fact the opposite. The
more I study it the better it seems to get.

That all said, what would the implications of being able to change c as it
relates to E=mc^2? or m=E/c^2 for that matter.
What do you think Ken?

That it's a hard question :-). It's difficult to understand
because c is an invariant. In other words if c where to
instanteously double throughout the universe it shouldn't
be measurable.
However suppose we're looking at the surface of a
neutron star where the speed of light (I'll call this C) is
less than our c, then would E = mC^2 ?
At the edge of a hypothetical Black Hole where
C=0 that becomes very strange. And the reverse
m = E/C^2 also becomes strange, like a tiny bit of
energy makes a huge amount of mass!
Maybe this would be a good question to post.


Hello Ken,
Thanks for your response. In regards to what I mentioned earlier:

Snip as you wish. My respose isn't worth a thanks,
it's just fluff, mainly to try a breach the topic in ways
I've never thought in before.

If all massive entities 'move' in the direction of time at an 'equivalent'
velocity of c which is constant, then we would require an additional degree
of freedom which doesn't exist or of which we are unaware. (not saying this
is true, just considering it)

I think saying that the magnitude of the 4-velocity for all massive bodies
is C is probably more appropriate. I might get myself into trouble speaking
of equivalent velocities and motions in time comparable to space. Anyway,
I'm curious how this relates to C in E=mC^2. If we are considering the
equivalent energy of a particular mass, doesn't C represent the 4-Velocity
magnitude of the mass in question rather than the speed of light?

An observer O in a free-falling elevator (a.k.a. an inertial frame),
in a powerful g-field, will certainly find E=mc^2 in his
CS.
But when this energy E is transmitted to an observer O'
floating distantly from any masses, this energy E' relative
to O' will be *red-shifted*.
This *red shift* depends on the relative rates of O and
O' clocks.
So O' can decide the speed of matter going threw time
where O is, is going more slowly.

From what I figure, the concept E=mC^2 is DOA,
((I introduced this as a spectulative gedanken, but I
have found the transformation from c^2 to C^2, be
quite complicated)), because E'/m' = E/m. IOW's
one can choose c=1, and maintain this. The quantity
C refers to the co-ordinate velocity of c.

Is this equivalence of mass and energy really related
to the speed of light or the speed of matter, or both?

Well to say a quantity of matter moved a
length x4 = c*time really interdefines

length units/time units = c = invariant.
(in an inertial frame).

I realize they are the same but why is that?

I think one of the greatest achievements of theoretical
physics was the unification of the Conservation of
Mass Law and the Conservation of Energy Law.

The potential energy of mass required E=mc^2
to conserve Momentum in SR, specifically under
the Lorentz transformation. I'd recommend you
find someone who can suggest a good book on
SR, because my dingbat explanation of this
compared to professional authors would be a
relative screw-up.

Is the relationship between space and time what sets this constant C?

I think it's the other way around, space and time are
relative, it's c that's invariant.

Will altering the speed of a photon require some fundamental
change in this relationship between space and time?

Yes, in a g-field (like the sun's) the velocity of light
does alter, (deflects and slows down), as a
consequence of a subtle redefinition of spacetime,
sometimes called (ugh) spacetime curvature.

Will this also affect the speed of matter?

Not in inertial frames of course. And as I understand
GR a frame subject to acceleration retains E=mc^2 too.

The reason I'm asking is because of your original idea:

I've even wondered if it's possible if objects
could be placed stationary in space-time, and then
stuff moving threw time - at the speed of light - hits
these objects and make a big explosion, of course
this is sci-fi, at least right now.

Well I posted this in response to the OP's
(rangerwest)'s prolonged essay).

I was considering that the 4-velocity magnitude (C) would need to be altered
to slow or stop an object in the manner you suggest. I was thinking that
changing C in this case would not be the same as changing light speed. I
realize I could be way off base here.
Thanks,

Ok, me too, but sometimes thinking nonsensically
can render insight into why reality is real....

Have you studied the effect of g-fields on the
speed of light?

Regards Ken S. Tucker

xxein:
Have you studied the effect of g-fields on the
speed of light?

I have, for many years. They are rather simple but rangerwest could
probably not have gotten that far or else they would surely have been
mentioned. But I did get a hint that he is not a stranger to it.

I'm glad that you said "mainly to try a breach the topic in ways
I've never thought in before." It is not merely a playful exercise:
It is how physics is done. It is time to stop the upper crust from
dictating the condition of the bread beneath.

I don't have any claim to be math proficient, but I know enough to
understand any math applied to a theoretical physical concept. I
understand the conceptual application of a math. I can see the
limits, restrictions and qualifications along with the infinite
absurdities in such applications for myriad theories. And so I wonder
why math has any meaningful physicallity.

This is not a putdown of math or mathematicians but, rather, a welcome
to those mathematicians to not restrict math to certain (favorite)
physical theories. After all, math just traces the structure of a
theory; it does not and cannot change how a reality operates
(according to a/that theory).

Rangerwest has loosened some of the covers that hibernating concept
has refused to do. I have many issues with rangerwest that I will
deal with in one form of communication or another.

The time is ripe for a thorough examination of what we believe, want
to believe and why in hell we should believe it. It is time for a
pure physics to come into action. It will explain all we observe and
the why and how we observe (and have made decietful laws of physics
wrt our short-sighted subjective measurements).

I know that I sound conceited, but damn it, I've been able to see
through it all (complacent and current mainstream theories). I really
mean "see through it all".

There need be no complicated theoretical math restrictions for a
reality and the less restrictions that need be applied, the closer a
theory is to a reality. In this sense, it is not a math contrived to
prove a subjective theory, but a math that is unrestricted in an
objective theory.

I welcome you to understand this difference. You opened up - I
supplied a path to investigate (it was Rangerwest that got your
attention). Follow up to the best of your ability. Understand
something that is not controlled by a previous belief system. Give
this universe a chance to survive in its own doing and not to the
proclaimers of "math doesn't lie" with some subjective measurements in
mind.

Peace.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
Hi Jim et all...
An observer O in a free-falling elevator (a.k.a. an inertial frame),
in a powerful g-field, will certainly find E=mc^2 in his
CS.
But when this energy E is transmitted to an observer O'
floating distantly from any masses, this energy E' relative
to O' will be *red-shifted*.
This *red shift* depends on the relative rates of O and
O' clocks.
So O' can decide the speed of matter going threw time
where O is, is going more slowly.

Ok, I understand this.

From what I figure, the concept E=mC^2 is DOA,
((I introduced this as a spectulative gedanken, but I
have found the transformation from c^2 to C^2, be
quite complicated)), because E'/m' = E/m. IOW's
one can choose c=1, and maintain this. The quantity
C refers to the co-ordinate velocity of c.

Not sure about transformations from c^2 to C^2. I'll have to study that. I
didn't realize there was a difference in c and C. sorry if I caused
confusion.


Is this equivalence of mass and energy really related
to the speed of light or the speed of matter, or both?

Well to say a quantity of matter moved a
length x4 = c*time really interdefines

length units/time units = c = invariant.
(in an inertial frame).

no problem here.

I realize they are the same but why is that?

I think one of the greatest achievements of theoretical
physics was the unification of the Conservation of
Mass Law and the Conservation of Energy Law.

The potential energy of mass required E=mc^2
to conserve Momentum in SR, specifically under
the Lorentz transformation. I'd recommend you
find someone who can suggest a good book on
SR, because my dingbat explanation of this
compared to professional authors would be a
relative screw-up.

Lol! Your explanations are fine. I just need to buckle down and really learn
it instead of bombarding you with questions.

Is the relationship between space and time what sets this constant C?

I think it's the other way around, space and time are
relative, it's c that's invariant.
I can understand that.

I see that space and time are relative. There really isn't a separate time
dimension and 3 space dimensions. The impression I get is that there are 4
dimensions that are the same and the differences between time and space
really depend on our relative motion. Is that correct?

Will altering the speed of a photon require some fundamental
change in this relationship between space and time?

Yes, in a g-field (like the sun's) the velocity of light
does alter, (deflects and slows down), as a
consequence of a subtle redefinition of spacetime,
sometimes called (ugh) spacetime curvature.

This is another area I need to study. I am aware of gravitational redshifts
but don't really have a clue about the speed of light slowing down in
G-fields.

Is the whole idea of space-time curvature more analogy than actual physics?

Will this also affect the speed of matter?

Not in inertial frames of course. And as I understand
GR a frame subject to acceleration retains E=mc^2 too.

The reason I'm asking is because of your original idea:

I've even wondered if it's possible if objects
could be placed stationary in space-time, and then
stuff moving threw time - at the speed of light - hits
these objects and make a big explosion, of course
this is sci-fi, at least right now.

Well I posted this in response to the OP's
(rangerwest)'s prolonged essay).

I was considering that the 4-velocity magnitude (C) would need to be
altered to slow or stop an object in the manner you suggest. I was
thinking that changing C in this case would not be the same as changing
light speed. I realize I could be way off base here. Thanks,

Ok, me too, but sometimes thinking nonsensically
can render insight into why reality is real....

Have you studied the effect of g-fields on the
speed of light?

Not really. As I stated above, I thought light was only redshifted by
g-fields but recently I was made aware of effects on the speed of light as
well.


Regards Ken S. Tucker

Thanks again...

"Jim Roberts" wrote in message ...

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
. com...
An observer O in a free-falling elevator (a.k.a. an inertial frame),
in a powerful g-field, will certainly find E=mc^2 in his
CS.
But when this energy E is transmitted to an observer O'
floating distantly from any masses, this energy E' relative
to O' will be *red-shifted*.
This *red shift* depends on the relative rates of O and
O' clocks.
So O' can decide the speed of matter going threw time
where O is, is going more slowly.
Ok, I understand this.

From what I figure, the concept E=mC^2 is DOA,
((I introduced this as a spectulative gedanken, but I
have found the transformation from c^2 to C^2, be
quite complicated)), because E'/m' = E/m. IOW's
one can choose c=1, and maintain this. The quantity
C refers to the co-ordinate velocity of c.
Not sure about transformations from c^2 to C^2. I'll have to study that. I
didn't realize there was a difference in c and C.

These are given in GR by,
C(radial) = g_00*c
C(transverse) = sqrt(g_00)*c
g_00 = 1 - 2GM/rc^2 in usual notaton.

Is this equivalence of mass and energy really related
to the speed of light or the speed of matter, or both?
Well to say a quantity of matter moved a
length x4 = c*time really interdefines
length units/time units = c = invariant.
(in an inertial frame).
no problem here.

I realize they are the same but why is that?
I think one of the greatest achievements of theoretical
physics was the unification of the Conservation of
Mass Law and the Conservation of Energy Law.
The potential energy of mass required E=mc^2
to conserve Momentum in SR, specifically under
the Lorentz transformation. I'd recommend you
find someone who can suggest a good book on
SR, because my dingbat explanation of this
compared to professional authors would be a
relative screw-up.

Lol! Your explanations are fine. I just need to buckle down and really learn
it instead of bombarding you with questions.

Converstion is GREAT!!!, what's that Tiger's name,
((Example, Cherios is the breakfast of Champions,
thus Frosted Flakes is the breafast of ..........
Cold, Corny Pussies)).

Is the relationship between space and time what sets this constant C?
I think it's the other way around, space and time are
relative, it's c that's invariant.
I can understand that.
I see that space and time are relative. There really isn't a separate time
dimension and 3 space dimensions. The impression I get is that there are 4
dimensions that are the same and the differences between time and space
really depend on our relative motion. Is that correct?

To quote Minkowski, (Dover's P of R pg.75),
"Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality".

I think you agree with the founder of Space Time
and so do I.

Will altering the speed of a photon require some fundamental
change in this relationship between space and time?

Yes, in a g-field (like the sun's) the velocity of light
does alter, (deflects and slows down), as a
consequence of a subtle redefinition of spacetime,
sometimes called (ugh) spacetime curvature.

This is another area I need to study. I am aware of gravitational redshifts
but don't really have a clue about the speed of light slowing down in
G-fields.
(above)

Is the whole idea of space-time curvature more analogy than actual physics?

I think all words are anologies without a specific
mathematical definition (in physics). The problem
with the word "curvature" is that it can imply something
to someone unfamiliar with the math definition than
it does as defined by mathematicians.
(rather like saying Mona-Lisa to someone who
hasn't seen the painting).

Will this also affect the speed of matter?
Not in inertial frames of course. And as I understand
GR a frame subject to acceleration retains E=mc^2 too.

The reason I'm asking is because of your original idea:
I've even wondered if it's possible if objects
could be placed stationary in space-time, and then
stuff moving threw time - at the speed of light - hits
these objects and make a big explosion, of course
this is sci-fi, at least right now.
Well I posted this in response to the OP's
(rangerwest)'s prolonged essay).

I was considering that the 4-velocity magnitude (C) would need to be
altered to slow or stop an object in the manner you suggest. I was
thinking that changing C in this case would not be the same as changing
light speed. I realize I could be way off base here. Thanks,
Ok, me too, but sometimes thinking nonsensically
can render insight into why reality is real....

Have you studied the effect of g-fields on the
speed of light?

Not really. As I stated above, I thought light was only redshifted by
g-fields but recently I was made aware of effects on the speed of light as
well.

The red-shift is by far (IMO) the most important effect
of gravitation. This is where GR meets Quantum Theory
in the Pound-Rebka experiment.
Regards Ken S. Tucker

(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
"Jim Roberts" wrote in message ...

snipped, but for a single point

Have you studied the effect of g-fields on the
speed of light?

Not really. As I stated above, I thought light was only redshifted by
g-fields but recently I was made aware of effects on the speed of light as
well.

The red-shift is by far (IMO) the most important effect
of gravitation. This is where GR meets Quantum Theory
in the Pound-Rebka experiment.
Regards Ken S. Tucker

xxein: Let's have you expound on that. Let's see where it goes.

(xxein) wrote in message . com...
Hi xxein,
From your first post....

xxein said,
[...]
I welcome you to understand this difference. You opened up - I
supplied a path to investigate (it was Rangerwest that got your
attention). Follow up to the best of your ability. Understand
something that is not controlled by a previous belief system. Give
this universe a chance to survive in its own doing and not to the
proclaimers of "math doesn't lie" with some subjective measurements in
mind.
Peace.

I think most people who solve physics problems
try to understand each math step. Sometimes the
the need for sqrt(-1) screws that up, which is why
no one understands Quantum Mechanics.

The red-shift is by far (IMO) the most important effect
of gravitation. This is where GR meets Quantum Theory
in the Pound-Rebka experiment.
Regards Ken S. Tucker

xxein: Let's have you expound on that. Let's see where it goes.

Ok. I'll leave the Pound-Rebka alone, it's described
well on the net.

It's the relation between energy and time that
really has my interest, and xxein I'll minimize the
math for you ;-).

Suppose I'm holding two identical clocks C1 and C2.

I throw away C2 (with my good arm) at a speed of 0.8 c.
Now C2 ticks 6 times for every 10 ticks on my C1 clock.

((from Time C2 = Time C1*sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2), sorry xxein))

But clock C2 got heavier as I was throwing it, and
when I finally released C2 it was 4 Pounds heavier
than C1 which weighs 6 Pounds. C2 weighed 10
Pounds when I released it.

I'm using Pounds respecting the Pound-Rebka
experiment, cute aye...

((Mass C2 = Mass C1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), sorry xxein)).

I borrowed xxeins abacus, wiped off the cob webs
and found that

Time C1 * Mass C1 = Time C2 * Mass C2.

Then I threw a whole bunch of clocks at different
speeds, all named C2 - at xxein - and the relation
above was always the same!

To conclude,
1) I discovered an invariant
2) xxein's abacus needs lubrication.
3) both

Would anyone volunteer to lubricate xxein's abacus.

Regards Ken S. Tucker

PS: This post is not meant too make fun of
xxeins ideas, butt only his funny abacus :-).

If you're comfortable with this we could
see other things.