• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

DOES GRAVITY REALLY INFLUENCE THE 'FLOW' OF TIME? (ACCORDING TO THE OBSERVED)

Is the unification of physics near ?

  • No , expand if you want to

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • Yes, expand if you wish

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • other, expand if you wish

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Total voters
    12

Thief

Rogue Theologian
seems to me....mass at infinity would be a problem

if light really did possess infinite mass.....
the effect of your flashlight could be devastating
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
the mass of my body here on earth
is the same as it would be anywhere else in the universe

approaching the speed of light would do what?.....to my mass

and if gravity is proportionate (just read that it is)

then my mass approaching the speed of light would be come ....infinite?

equations sure do seem.........like one big

oooops
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
the mass of my body here on earth
is the same as it would be anywhere else in the universe

approaching the speed of light would do what?.....to my mass

and if gravity is proportionate (just read that it is)

then my mass approaching the speed of light would be come ....infinite?

equations sure do seem.........like one big

oooops

In your frame of reference your body mass would never change since in your frame of reference you are not moving. To someone else as your velocity approached c relative to him your mass would continually increase. Since we live in a "non-relativistic world" this may be a hard concept to understand. At the velocities and values of g that you would experience the changes caused by relativity are almost zero. As a result many ideas in relativity seem to be contrary to "common sense".
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Claiming that we are in motion is rather meaningless. One must always say what we are in motion relative too. By the way, the in our frame of reference we are stationary. Also since the Earth is effectively one frame of reference. gravitational and velocity effects on radioactive decay are for all practical purposes zero. We can date how much time has passed on the Earth using radiometric methods. One can't use relativity to argue for a young Earth.
What we are in motion too is irrelevant as to whether clocks slow with changes in velocity.....

You keep arguing the twins argument. The twin also believed he was stationary, yet he wasn’t and his clocks slowed right in front of his eyes from the rate they did before in the other frame (his past)....

The twin couldn’t get a single observation correct, yet you keep using his arguments. He thought his clocks didn’t slow, yet they did. He thought he was stationary, yet he wasn’t. He thought the other twins clocks slowed, yet they didn’t. He thought it was the other twin that was in motion, yet they were stationary.

So basically your argument ignores the fact the twin in motion was wrong about every perception he thought was true..... while arguing the same argument as that twin....
 
Last edited:

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
In your frame of reference your body mass would never change since in your frame of reference you are not moving. To someone else as your velocity approached c relative to him your mass would continually increase. Since we live in a "non-relativistic world" this may be a hard concept to understand. At the velocities and values of g that you would experience the changes caused by relativity are almost zero. As a result many ideas in relativity seem to be contrary to "common sense".
Wrong.....

You are measuring everything with longer ticks of time and different length rulers. If it never changed you would measure a different value than before.

Your zero points also shift proportionally to energy and is why everything always appears the same. The shift of your zero points compensates exactly for your change in velocity.

You simply keep calling longer ticks of time seconds and different length rulers meters and so can not see that change as your zero points shift....

But then that’s why transforms must be used from one frame to another. If things remained the same they would not be needed.... since the values would already be the same.....
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
In your frame of reference your body mass would never change since in your frame of reference you are not moving. To someone else as your velocity approached c relative to him your mass would continually increase. Since we live in a "non-relativistic world" this may be a hard concept to understand. At the velocities and values of g that you would experience the changes caused by relativity are almost zero. As a result many ideas in relativity seem to be contrary to "common sense".
note the title of this thread
also note that gravity and mass are related

approaching the speed of light REQUIRES an increase of mass

or maybe your numbers are a matter of convenient speech
rather than matter
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
note the title of this thread
also note that gravity and mass are related

approaching the speed of light REQUIRES an increase of mass

or maybe your numbers are a matter of convenient speech
rather than matter

No, I am being consistent. Once again, your own mass never increases in your frame of reference. You are always "at rest". What is observed is the increase in mass of objects moving relative to you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wrong.....

You are measuring everything with longer ticks of time and different length rulers. If it never changed you would measure a different value than before.

Your zero points also shift proportionally to energy and is why everything always appears the same. The shift of your zero points compensates exactly for your change in velocity.

You simply keep calling longer ticks of time seconds and different length rulers meters and so can not see that change as your zero points shift....

But then that’s why transforms must be used from one frame to another. If things remained the same they would not be needed.... since the values would already be the same.....
How am I wrong? You appear to be misinterpreting relativity. You like @Thief do not seem to understand the concept of a frame of reference. Try to do so with by applying math to the theory using real world values.

By the way "zero point" is the incorrect phrase to use in this situation.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What we are in motion too is irrelevant as to whether clocks slow with changes in velocity.....

You keep arguing the twins argument. The twin also believed he was stationary, yet he wasn’t and his clocks slowed right in front of his eyes from the rate they did before in the other frame (his past)....

The twin couldn’t get a single observation correct, yet you keep using his arguments. He thought his clocks didn’t slow, yet they did. He thought he was stationary, yet he wasn’t. He thought the other twins clocks slowed, yet they didn’t. He thought it was the other twin that was in motion, yet they were stationary.

So basically your argument ignores the fact the twin in motion was wrong about every perception he thought was true..... while arguing the same argument as that twin....
No. Motion is always relative. In our frame of reference our motion is always zero by definition. The reason that you do not understand the "Twins paradox" is because it appears that you do not understand the concept of frame of reference. If you don't understand that your answers are always all but guaranteed to be wrong when it comes to applying relativity. Each twin's observation was correct since there is no one absolute frame of reference.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
No, I am being consistent. Once again, your own mass never increases in your frame of reference. You are always "at rest". What is observed is the increase in mass of objects moving relative to you.
ooops.....

seems your numbers only work for you.....standing still
and should I be moving quickly.....they don't apply to me

not realistic .....to insist it's all good for you
and doesn't apply to me

there is only one universe
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ooops.....

seems your numbers only work for you.....standing still
and should I be moving quickly.....they don't apply to me

not realistic .....to insist it's all good for you
and doesn't apply to me

there is only one universe
Numbers only work for me because I have a better understanding of what we are discussing.

You need to understand the concept of a frame of reference. When it comes to motion, motion is always relative to the person making the observation. If you measured how fast you are moving away from yourself the rate that you would measure would always be zero.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
relative to the person making the observation.
so measurement is all there is to it...
and you think you have the yard stick

all motion is relative.....agreed

the effect is two sided....
and though you claim to be consistent
you fail to see both sides

that's not consistent

SO.....an object approaching the speed of light
increases in mass......near infinity

and gravity is not in play?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
so measurement is all there is to it...
and you think you have the yard stick

all motion is relative.....agreed

the effect is two sided....
and though you claim to be consistent
you fail to see both sides

that's not consistent

SO.....an object approaching the speed of light
increases in mass......near infinity

and gravity is not in play?
Don't make false accusations.

Try again.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.


I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

If you look at the nature of time, time flows in one direction to the future. Time may slow down or time speed up, based on Relativity and reference, but it always moves in one direction forward to the future (or stops).

That being said, clocks, are used to measure time, yet clocks cycle and repeat, which is not how time propagates. Clocks do not behave in the same manner as the thing they measure; time. This is subtle, but is a conceptual flaw in physics. In a loose sense it is like using a thermometer to measure distance. The thermometer does not behave the same way as distance but is used to measure it.

The cyclic nature of clocks behaves more like energy, instead of time. Energy propagates as waves which have a cyclic nature; repeat. We essentially use an energy analogy tool to measure time. This makes it hard to answer the question. We are mimicking energy and calling this measuring time.

A better physics concept for a clock, uses entropy, instead of energy, as the phenomena to mimic. The entropy of the universe, like time, moves in one direction; increases. Entropy does not cycle like clocks. Entropy also expresses change which is consistent with other definitions of time.

A more conceptually consistent way to measure time would be with an entropy clock. One example is the dead fish clock. We start with a fresh dead fish on the kitchen counter. Time will be measured when entropy causes the fish to stink. Like entropy, the dead fish clocks moves in one direction. We cannot un-stink the fish and make it fresh again, anymore than we can become a baby again.

We can slow or speed up the increment of time expressed by our entropy clock with refrigeration or heating. Heating and cooling of the dead fish clock can create effects similar to what relativity does to energy clock time.

Energy and entropy are related. Entropy can only move forward and increase by absorbing energy. When we cool, the rate of energy absorption deceases causing the rate of change; entropy rate or time slows.

The center of gravity is where energy clock time slows the most. The center of gravity, such as a back hole, is the place where the gravitational force vectors cancel and there is no net gravitational potential energy. Things come to a rest. This suggests when gravitational potential energy approaches a universal zero, there is no energy to increase entropy-time and time stops.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
No, I am being consistent. Once again, your own mass never increases in your frame of reference. You are always "at rest". What is observed is the increase in mass of objects moving relative to you.
And yet if I accelerate and see your mass increase, are you going to believe your mass has increased because I say it has when I am the one that accelerated?

We have already shown your perceptions once in motion can not be trusted....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
No. Motion is always relative. In our frame of reference our motion is always zero by definition. The reason that you do not understand the "Twins paradox" is because it appears that you do not understand the concept of frame of reference. If you don't understand that your answers are always all but guaranteed to be wrong when it comes to applying relativity. Each twin's observation was correct since there is no one absolute frame of reference.
So you basically agree with a flat earther then who believes the earth is stationary because your devices tell you you are not in motion.

Or despite what your devices tell you about being stationary do you realize we are spinning around the earth’s surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph which is itself moving through space?

So, what you going to believe, that you are stationary because your devices tell you that, or that you are really in motion despite what your devices say?????

And I notice you found in convenient to ignore transforms are required precisely because the values are not the same.....
 
Last edited:
Top