Explanation Amplified: Time thought of as Relative Motion

[Ohj1n37]

Hello all, I previously attempted to share my idea on time earlier last year. I have decided to have another go. Fair warning I am not well versed in mathematics and would kindly ask from refraining from such terminology. My ideas assume that from what I understand of Einstein’s math is that it is correct, but the interpretation of said math is incorrect. The intent of this forum post is to hopefully find someone or multiple people who are better educated than me that would be able to accurately disseminate the idea.


The idea is that there is no past, no future, there is only now; time is better thought of as relative motion. Relative motion in this instance is motion compared to some other motion. Here is an example. I perceive a moving object at a speed of one. You perceive the same moving object at a speed of ten. The moving object moves at a speed of one. This means that I perceive the object at a one to one ratio. You perceive the object at a ten to one ratio. This means that even if you and I are looking at the same object at the same time you will perceive the object moving ten times slower than I will. This is what creates the experience of the passage of time from a human perspective. When you or I see a moving object we are actually just comparing the motion of our perception to the motion of the object that we are viewing.


There is a term that is called relativistic mass. The idea is that when an object is moving it has an increased simulated mass because energy and mass are more or less equivalent in the realm of physics. I say simulated because relativistic mass is not the same as rest mass, when an object is not moving. Relativistic mass is why the faster an object moves the more energy it requires to increase its motion, the faster it moves the more relativistic mass it has and therefore requires more energy, a built-in diminishing returns in way. Relativistic mass and the ideas that make it up are a known phenomenon and now I will use them to explain the true nature of time dilation.


Time dilation is the known phenomenon that when an object is affected by high inertia or a strong gravitational field that its time becomes dilated or slowed. Well, what is inertia or a gravitational field? Both are forces that move an object in a given direction. This means that these forces increase an object’s relativistic mass. This in turn will increase the required energy the object must exert to further increase its motion. This is what causes time dilation. Here is an example. Let’s say a person is in a spaceship going fifty miles per hour. If the person were to walk around in the spaceship regardless of direction their speed would be that of the spaceship plus the speed at which they walk. Now if the spaceship were to move at half the speed of light and the person were to walk around the spaceship the person would be adding their walking movement to half the speed of light. This would mean that they would be experiencing a lot of relativistic mass and the motion of their walking would happen much more slowly as opposed to when the spaceship was moving fifty miles per hour. This may seem counter intuitive at first, but hopefully someone who is capable of doing math can better explain it.



Finally using this understanding of time and time dilation space time phenomenon can be understood without the need for space time. Einstein was able to properly predict Mercury’s orbit, seeing stars that were behind the Sun during a solar eclipse, and gravitational red shift.


Mercury’s orbit was before Einstein not understood because it happened slower than calculated. Einstein was able to properly predict it because the dip in space time was calculated to greatly bend space and time around the part of Mercury’s orbit that was very close to the Sun. What I believe is actually happening is when Mercury gets closer to the sun it experiences a great deal of relativistic mass and this dynamically slows its motion as it moves through different strengths of the gravitational field. This in turn causes Mercury’s orbit to be slowed.


Next is seeing stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse. The solar eclipse just makes it so the sun’s light doesn’t block the light of the stars that are behind it. The bending of the star's light again can be understood with just time dilation. Think of the sun’s gravitational field as varying densities of water. The water gets ever more dense as you get closer to the sun. Just like water can refract light by slowing it, the sun’s strong gravitational field dynamically slows the light’s trajectory bending it around the sun. Einstein being mathematically minded mistook this bending of light as the bending of space time, but with the understanding of what time actually is, relative motion, all that is needed to understand the bending of the light’s trajectory is the dynamic slowing of the light’s motion as it moves into different strengths of the sun’s gravitational field.


Lastly is gravitational red shift. The idea is that when light is affected by high gravity it becomes more red. Again easily understood with time as relative motion. The gravitational field slows or dilates the light’s movement by increasing its relativistic mass, drawing out its wavelength and this is what causes it to become more red. The color red is the longest wavelength of visible light.


If you made it this far thank you for reading. I would ask people that would like to discuss to please have some understanding of relativity. I have spent a long time researching this and God put it on my heart over four years ago. The puzzle pieces seem to fall into place leading me to really believe that the idea is correct. Again I am not mathematically minded, that’s why I am seeking help. I am sharing on this forum because I have no one else who will listen or who can do anything about it. Thank you all for your time (pun not intended).

 

[SkyWriting]

Hello all, I previously attempted to share my idea on time earlier last year. I have decided to have another go. Fair warning I am not well versed in mathematics and would kindly ask from refraining from such terminology. My ideas assume that from what I understand of Einstein’s math is that it is correct, but the interpretation of said math is incorrect. The intent of this forum post is to hopefully find someone or multiple people who are better educated than me that would be able to accurately disseminate the idea.


The idea is that there is no past, no future, there is only now; time is better thought of as relative motion. Relative motion in this instance is motion compared to some other motion. Here is an example. I perceive a moving object at a speed of one. You perceive the same moving object at a speed of ten. The moving object moves at a speed of one. This means that I perceive the object at a one to one ratio. You perceive the object at a ten to one ratio. This means that even if you and I are looking at the same object at the same time you will perceive the object moving ten times slower than I will. This is what creates the experience of the passage of time from a human perspective. When you or I see a moving object we are actually just comparing the motion of our perception to the motion of the object that we are viewing.


There is a term that is called relativistic mass. The idea is that when an object is moving it has an increased simulated mass because energy and mass are more or less equivalent in the realm of physics. I say simulated because relativistic mass is not the same as rest mass, when an object is not moving. Relativistic mass is why the faster an object moves the more energy it requires to increase its motion, the faster it moves the more relativistic mass it has and therefore requires more energy, a built-in diminishing returns in way. Relativistic mass and the ideas that make it up are a known phenomenon and now I will use them to explain the true nature of time dilation.


Time dilation is the known phenomenon that when an object is affected by high inertia or a strong gravitational field that its time becomes dilated or slowed. Well, what is inertia or a gravitational field? Both are forces that move an object in a given direction. This means that these forces increase an object’s relativistic mass. This in turn will increase the required energy the object must exert to further increase its motion. This is what causes time dilation. Here is an example. Let’s say a person is in a spaceship going fifty miles per hour. If the person were to walk around in the spaceship regardless of direction their speed would be that of the spaceship plus the speed at which they walk. Now if the spaceship were to move at half the speed of light and the person were to walk around the spaceship the person would be adding their walking movement to half the speed of light. This would mean that they would be experiencing a lot of relativistic mass and the motion of their walking would happen much more slowly as opposed to when the spaceship was moving fifty miles per hour. This may seem counter intuitive at first, but hopefully someone who is capable of doing math can better explain it.



Finally using this understanding of time and time dilation space time phenomenon can be understood without the need for space time. Einstein was able to properly predict Mercury’s orbit, seeing stars that were behind the Sun during a solar eclipse, and gravitational red shift.


Mercury’s orbit was before Einstein not understood because it happened slower than calculated. Einstein was able to properly predict it because the dip in space time was calculated to greatly bend space and time around the part of Mercury’s orbit that was very close to the Sun. What I believe is actually happening is when Mercury gets closer to the sun it experiences a great deal of relativistic mass and this dynamically slows its motion as it moves through different strengths of the gravitational field. This in turn causes Mercury’s orbit to be slowed.


Next is seeing stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse. The solar eclipse just makes it so the sun’s light doesn’t block the light of the stars that are behind it. The bending of the star's light again can be understood with just time dilation. Think of the sun’s gravitational field as varying densities of water. The water gets ever more dense as you get closer to the sun. Just like water can refract light by slowing it, the sun’s strong gravitational field dynamically slows the light’s trajectory bending it around the sun. Einstein being mathematically minded mistook this bending of light as the bending of space time, but with the understanding of what time actually is, relative motion, all that is needed to understand the bending of the light’s trajectory is the dynamic slowing of the light’s motion as it moves into different strengths of the sun’s gravitational field.


Lastly is gravitational red shift. The idea is that when light is affected by high gravity it becomes more red. Again easily understood with time as relative motion. The gravitational field slows or dilates the light’s movement by increasing its relativistic mass, drawing out its wavelength and this is what causes it to become more red. The color red is the longest wavelength of visible light.


If you made it this far thank you for reading. I would ask people that would like to discuss to please have some understanding of relativity. I have spent a long time researching this and God put it on my heart over four years ago. The puzzle pieces seem to fall into place leading me to really believe that the idea is correct. Again I am not mathematically minded, that’s why I am seeking help. I am sharing on this forum because I have no one else who will listen or who can do anything about it. Thank you all for your time (pun not intended).

Nothing is "standing still", even when you might think so.
Higher speeds to not require more energy to accelerate.

Those are the only problems that stood out as I skimmed.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Nothing is "standing still", even when you might think so.

I agree with this.

I say simulated because relativistic mass is not the same as rest mass, when an object is not moving.

Rest mass is a term used to describe the mass of an object if it were not moving relative to a viewer. It is a term to make sense of things, don't take it too literal.

Higher speeds to not require more energy to accelerate.

Those are the only problems that stood out as I skimmed.

I may have used incorrect terminology. From what I have researched higher speeds do require increasingly more energy to accelerate and I believe I have accurately explained why this is so in the original post. Matter of fact I am pretty sure it is a known phenomenon, but the effect is inconsequential at the speeds we are use to in everyday life. I am not sure what your background is, but if you do not believe me do a quick google search and you will see that I am correct.

Thank you for your input I appreciate it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hello all, I previously attempted to share my idea on time earlier last year. I have decided to have another go. Fair warning I am not well versed in mathematics and would kindly ask from refraining from such terminology. My ideas assume that from what I understand of Einstein’s math is that it is correct, but the interpretation of said math is incorrect. The intent of this forum post is to hopefully find someone or multiple people who are better educated than me that would be able to accurately disseminate the idea.

There are two fatal flaws with this:
1. You are seeking to question the mathematical consequences of a theory described and defined in mathematics without using mathematics. There are many words that could be used to describe such an intent: brave, radical, singular, provocative. Unfortunately the vast majority of appropriate words are no so positive and many of them would be quite out of place on CF, or in any polite company.
2. Anyone better educated than you in the matter is likely to recognise how foolish it is. Anyone better educated than you in the matter is unlikely to invest time doing your work for you. That said, I fear there will be some who mistakenly think they are better educated than you who will give it a go.

I do applaud you for original thinking. I offer thunderous applause for your persistence with the idea. Those qualities are to be admired. I merely recommend you apply those strengths of character to something more worthy.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Next is seeing stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse. The solar eclipse just makes it so the sun’s light doesn’t block the light of the stars that are behind it. The bending of the star's light again can be understood with just time dilation.

Just because it can be explained by time dilation only does not mean that is what is happening. Your idea needs to be supported with evidence.

Think of the sun’s gravitational field as varying densities of water.

Why? That is not what it is.

The water gets ever more dense as you get closer to the sun. Just like water can refract light by slowing it, the sun’s strong gravitational field dynamically slows the light’s trajectory bending it around the sun. Einstein being mathematically minded mistook this bending of light as the bending of space time, but with the understanding of what time actually is, relative motion, all that is needed to understand the bending of the light’s trajectory is the dynamic slowing of the light’s motion as it moves into different strengths of the sun’s gravitational field.

We have actually measured gravitational waves from colliding neutron stars. We can calculate microlensing and back up those calculations by experimentation that all depend on space and time being linked. Why should we throw out experimental results to go with your hypothesis?

Have you discussed this idea with actual physicists?

 

[Ohj1n37]

You are seeking to question the mathematical consequences of a theory described and defined in mathematics without using mathematics.

Yes, I am aware of this.

Just because it can be explained by time dilation only does not mean that is what is happening. Your idea needs to be supported with evidence.

My ideas are self evident. Research what I have said and you will find them to be true. I am simply saying, look Einstein was mostly right, but you don't need this part. This would mean that the burden of proof is on those who say space time actually exists. How can I give proof for something that I am showing doesn't need to exist other than showing it doesn't need to exist?

Why? That is not what it is.

It's an analogy. A gravitational field can be thought of as water refracting light. There is no need for the warping of space time. All that is needed is the slowing of the light through time dilation similar to how water slows light.

We have actually measured gravitational waves from colliding neutron stars.

I am familiar with LIGO and I have separate ideas on that matter, but first time related phenomenon need to be explained without the need of space time.

We can calculate microlensing and back up those calculations by experimentation that all depend on space and time being linked.

To my understanding I have explained this in the original post. All that is needed to understand that is time dilation and relativistic mass.

Have you discussed this idea with actual physicists?

I have been unable to have a discussion with a physicist who is well verse in relativity. I have had discussions with a family friend who has a doctorate in electrical engineering, but he was unable to understand what I was saying.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, I am aware of this.

I know you are. I was trying to say in my post, being as diplomatic, positive and respectful as possible that it is a monstrously dumb idea and that you would be better served by applying your energy and imagination in a more productive manner. I note you have zero interest in such advice and so leave you to your . . . whatever.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

My ideas are self evident. Research what I have said and you will find them to be true. I am simply saying, look Einstein was mostly right, but you don't need this part. This would mean that the burden of proof is on those who say space time actually exists. How can I give proof for something that I am showing doesn't need to exist other than showing it doesn't need to exist?

So what if it doe snot need to exist. I don't need natural gas to boil water. We have evidence that space is warped and light curves based on this. You just have an alternate explanation that may work but has no evidence to support it.

It's an analogy. A gravitational field can be thought of as water refracting light. There is no need for the warping of space time. All that is needed is the slowing of the light through time dilation similar to how water slows light.

Again, so what if it is not needed. Where is the evidence for your claim?

I have been unable to have a discussion with a physicist who is well verse in relativity. I have had discussions with a family friend who has a doctorate in electrical engineering, but he was unable to understand what I was saying.

Keep trying, convincing people on the internet that are laypeople in relativity will not get you very far in verifying your hypothesis.

When I was studying evolution I emailed a couple biologists to clear up some of my questions about the evidence. About 1/3 of them emailed back with answers. It was very helpful to me. I would be interested in what a physicist would say.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Look I will prefix this by saying I am not here to debate things that are known truths. If you have an issue with anything I have said I would ask you kindly to research it on your own.

We have evidence that space is warped and light curves based on this.

If you go look up how space time bends light you will read that how I described the bending of light through just time dilation is exactly the same. The only difference is that I have shown that time dilation only requires relativistic mass. It is currently misunderstood that the bending of space time causes time dilation, but in actuality time dilation is just caused by relativistic mass without the need of space time. This means space time is an unnecessary middle man, nothing more than a mathematical model.

Again, so what if it is not needed. Where is the evidence for your claim?

My explanations are sufficient and are built upon known and observed phenomenon. Research what I have said if you do not believe me.

Keep trying, convincing people on the internet that are laypeople in relativity will not get you very far in verifying your hypothesis.

I have tried many methods to attempt to find someone who will understand, this is just one of many.

When I was studying evolution I emailed a couple biologists to clear up some of my questions about the evidence. About 1/3 of them emailed back with answers. It was very helpful to me.

I too have attempted this and most do not reply or either say it is not their area of expertise.

I would be interested in what a physicist would say.

As do I. Honestly I would really enjoy talking with a physicist who understands relativity as I believe I am able to better explain what I have to say by talking.

 

[sjastro]

Hello all, I previously attempted to share my idea on time earlier last year. I have decided to have another go. Fair warning I am not well versed in mathematics and would kindly ask from refraining from such terminology. My ideas assume that from what I understand of Einstein’s math is that it is correct, but the interpretation of said math is incorrect. The intent of this forum post is to hopefully find someone or multiple people who are better educated than me that would be able to accurately disseminate the idea.

I’m afraid this is somewhat contradictory; if you are not well versed on the maths you are in no position to claim the interpretation of the maths is incorrect.

There is a term that is called relativistic mass. The idea is that when an object is moving it has an increased simulated mass because energy and mass are more or less equivalent in the realm of physics. I say simulated because relativistic mass is not the same as rest mass, when an object is not moving. Relativistic mass is why the faster an object moves the more energy it requires to increase its motion, the faster it moves the more relativistic mass it has and therefore requires more energy, a built-in diminishing returns in way. Relativistic mass and the ideas that make it up are a known phenomenon and now I will use them to explain the true nature of time dilation.


Time dilation is the known phenomenon that when an object is affected by high inertia or a strong gravitational field that its time becomes dilated or slowed. Well, what is inertia or a gravitational field? Both are forces that move an object in a given direction. This means that these forces increase an object’s relativistic mass. This in turn will increase the required energy the object must exert to further increase its motion. This is what causes time dilation. Here is an example. Let’s say a person is in a spaceship going fifty miles per hour. If the person were to walk around in the spaceship regardless of direction their speed would be that of the spaceship plus the speed at which they walk. Now if the spaceship were to move at half the speed of light and the person were to walk around the spaceship the person would be adding their walking movement to half the speed of light. This would mean that they would be experiencing a lot of relativistic mass and the motion of their walking would happen much more slowly as opposed to when the spaceship was moving fifty miles per hour. This may seem counter intuitive at first, but hopefully someone who is capable of doing math can better explain it.

Relativistic mass is observer dependant.
The rest mass in this case is constant; its relativistic mass will depend on the velocity of the observer. Two observers at different velocities will measure a different relativistic mass.
Furthermore relativistic mass is independent of time dilation.
This is explained by considering the momentum of the object in its rest frame
p = mv = m(dx/dτ) where τ is the proper time.
In the observer’s frame dτ = dt√(1-(v/c)² and momentum p' in this frame becomes;
p' = mdx/( dt√(1-(v/c)²)) = m(1/√(1-(v/c)²))dx/dt = mγ(dx/dt)
Hence the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-(v/c)² for time dilation applies to the velocity dx/dt not the mass.

In fact relativistic mass is an archaic definition, the modern day definition is to consider momentum not mass and apply the Lorentz transformation to the momentum.

Finally using this understanding of time and time dilation space time phenomenon can be understood without the need for space time. Einstein was able to properly predict Mercury’s orbit, seeing stars that were behind the Sun during a solar eclipse, and gravitational red shift.


Mercury’s orbit was before Einstein not understood because it happened slower than calculated. Einstein was able to properly predict it because the dip in space time was calculated to greatly bend space and time around the part of Mercury’s orbit that was very close to the Sun. What I believe is actually happening is when Mercury gets closer to the sun it experiences a great deal of relativistic mass and this dynamically slows its motion as it moves through different strengths of the gravitational field. This in turn causes Mercury’s orbit to be slowed.

If you’re referring to the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit it has nothing to do with slowing down but a rotation of the orbital plane which causes the perihelion to advance.

Next is seeing stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse. The solar eclipse just makes it so the sun’s light doesn’t block the light of the stars that are behind it. The bending of the star's light again can be understood with just time dilation. Think of the sun’s gravitational field as varying densities of water. The water gets ever more dense as you get closer to the sun. Just like water can refract light by slowing it, the sun’s strong gravitational field dynamically slows the light’s trajectory bending it around the sun. Einstein being mathematically minded mistook this bending of light as the bending of space time, but with the understanding of what time actually is, relative motion, all that is needed to understand the bending of the light’s trajectory is the dynamic slowing of the light’s motion as it moves into different strengths of the sun’s gravitational field.

The analogy of using refraction to explain the bending of light is wrong as the degree of refraction depends on the wavelength of light.
This is not observed for the gravitational bending of light.
The time dilation or time delay is based on geometry; in the absence of mass light travels in a straight line which covers a shorter distance when compared to a curve which is the photon’s trajectory in the presence of mass.
This forms the basis of the Shapiro time delay.

Lastly is gravitational red shift. The idea is that when light is affected by high gravity it becomes more red. Again easily understood with time as relative motion. The gravitational field slows or dilates the light’s movement by increasing its relativistic mass, drawing out its wavelength and this is what causes it to become more red. The color red is the longest wavelength of visible light.

What about gravitational blueshift?
Gravitational redshift occurs when a photon travels from a low to high gravitational potential i.e. it goes deeper into the gravitational well; the opposite occurs with gravitational blueshift.

Here is the mathematics behind gravitational redshift which shows it bears absolutely no relevance to your interpretation.
Gravitational redshift can be derived for the Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein vacuum equation Rₐₑ = 0.
The solution is ds² = c²(1- 2GM/c²r) dt² - dr²/(1- 2GM/ c²r) - r²(dθ² +sinθdφ²)

This equation can be used to describe orbits between objects where the mass difference is considerable such as the orbit of a planet around our Sun.
It took scientists about thirty years to realise the Schwarzschild solution also applied to non rotating black holes as well but this is beside the point.

Consider a free particle momentarily at rest where dr = dθ = dφ = 0 and the equation reduces to:
ds² = c²(1- 2GM/c²r) dt²
If the free particle is a clock such as an atom or molecule which emits radiation at a given frequency which is unaffected by gravitational forces ds = cdτ or dτ = ds/c.
Substituting this into the reduced Schwarzschild equation gives;
dτ = √(1- 2GM/c²r)dt

The ratio of the clock time intervals between a given pair of events is defined as;
dτ₁/dτ₂ = √[(1- 2GM/c²r₁)/(1- 2GM/c²r₂)] measured by observers at radii r₁ and r₂.
If 2MG << c²r then √(1- 2GM/c²r) ≈ 1-GM/ c²r using the binomial theorem approximation and then dividing the equation gives;
dτ₂ = dτ₁[1-G/c²(M/r₂-M/r₁)]
dτ₂ can be the period of light waves emitted from a star of radius rₛ and mass mₛ and received on Earth of radius rₑ and mass mₑ in a period dτ₁.

The equation now becomes the familiar wavelength shift equation.
Δλ/λ = G/c²(Mₛ/rₛ-Mₑ/rₑ)] where gravitational redshift occurs if Mₛ/rₛ > Mₑ/rₑ or gravitational blueshift if Mₛ/rₛ < Mₑ/rₑ.

 

[Ohj1n37]

I’m afraid this is somewhat contradictory; if you are not well versed on the maths you are in no position to claim the interpretation of the maths is incorrect.

Sadly in today's world intelligence is determined by how well one can take in and retain knowledge. This is what the majority of school teaches and tests. I greatly lack these skills, my short term memory and reading fluency intelligence quotients are in the seventies with one hundred being average and seventy being what is consider borderline. I do seem to have some type of intelligence though, but sadly it is something school does not teach nor value. I am not attempting to make excuses, but explain more of my background as to dissolve any possible thought that I may have an entitled attitude. I am genuinely seeking guidance and help with this idea not for someone to do all the work for me.

Relativistic mass is observer dependant.

I aware that is why it is called relativistic.

The rest mass in this case is constant; its relativistic mass will depend on the velocity of the observer.

To an outside viewer who is not moving the person on the spaceship will have more relativistic mass when moving at fifty miles per hour and when moving at half the speed of light will have significantly more relativistic mass. But to the person on the spaceship their mass will be the same to them as if they were not moving... as you said it is observer dependent.

This increase in relativistic mass means to the outside viewer if the person in the spaceship were to move it would take a significant amount of energy, but for the person on the spaceship it would take the same amount of energy as it always did. The result is that to the outside viewer the person on the spaceship would appear to move slowly, or be time dilated, but the person on the spaceship would view themselves as they normally would.

In fact relativistic mass is an archaic definition, the modern day definition is to consider momentum not mass and apply the Lorentz transformation to the momentum.

I am fond of the term relativistic mass.

If you’re referring to the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit it has nothing to do with slowing down but a rotation of the orbital plane which causes the perihelion to advance.

Yes I am and I have seen it explained in other ways in videos, but they appear to have been simplifications. I thank you for pointing that out, but it does not change the validity of the argument.

Here is quote from wikipedia,

"In general relativity, this remaining precession, or change of orientation of the orbital ellipse within its orbital plane, is explained by gravitation being mediated by the curvature of spacetime."

When Mercury's relativistic mass is being actively altered as it moves through different strengths of the Sun's gravitational field the trajectory of Mercury's orbit is also altered as opposed to if it's relativistic mass is not taken into account.

What about gravitational blueshift?
Gravitational redshift occurs when a photon travels from a low to high gravitational potential i.e. it goes deeper into the gravitational well; the opposite occurs with gravitational blueshift.

As red is the longest wavelength blue is the shortest. When a photon enters low to high it's wavelength is drawn out due to the increase in relativistic mass meaning it is not able to do as much work causing the light to appear more red. Blue shift is just the opposite of that. When a photon enters lower gravity it can do more work allowing for a higher frequency and a tighter wavelength making the light appear more blue.

This is explained by considering the momentum of the object in its rest frame
p = mv = m(dx/dτ) where τ is the proper time.
In the observer’s frame dτ = dt√(1-(v/c)² and momentum p' in this frame becomes;
p' = mdx/( dt√(1-(v/c)²)) = m(1/√(1-(v/c)²))dx/dt = mγ(dx/dt)
Hence the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-(v/c)² for time dilation applies to the velocity dx/dt not the mass.

Here is the mathematics behind gravitational redshift which shows it bears absolutely no relevance to your interpretation.
Gravitational redshift can be derived for the Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein vacuum equation Rₐₑ = 0.
The solution is ds² = c²(1- 2GM/c²r) dt² - dr²/(1- 2GM/ c²r) - r²(dθ² +sinθdφ²)

This equation can be used to describe orbits between objects where the mass difference is considerable such as the orbit of a planet around our Sun.
It took scientists about thirty years to realise the Schwarzschild solution also applied to non rotating black holes as well but this is beside the point.

Consider a free particle momentarily at rest where dr = dθ = dφ = 0 and the equation reduces to:
ds² = c²(1- 2GM/c²r) dt²
If the free particle is a clock such as an atom or molecule which emits radiation at a given frequency which is unaffected by gravitational forces ds = cdτ or dτ = ds/c.
Substituting this into the reduced Schwarzschild equation gives;
dτ = √(1- 2GM/c²r)dt

The ratio of the clock time intervals between a given pair of events is defined as;
dτ₁/dτ₂ = √[(1- 2GM/c²r₁)/(1- 2GM/c²r₂)] measured by observers at radii r₁ and r₂.
If 2MG << c²r then √(1- 2GM/c²r) ≈ 1-GM/ c²r using the binomial theorem approximation and then dividing the equation gives;
dτ₂ = dτ₁[1-G/c²(M/r₂-M/r₁)]
dτ₂ can be the period of light waves emitted from a star of radius rₛ and mass mₛ and received on Earth of radius rₑ and mass mₑ in a period dτ₁.

The equation now becomes the familiar wavelength shift equation.
Δλ/λ = G/c²(Mₛ/rₛ-Mₑ/rₑ)] where gravitational redshift occurs if Mₛ/rₛ > Mₑ/rₑ or gravitational blueshift if Mₛ/rₛ < Mₑ/rₑ.

All of the above is math which I have stated in the original post I do not understand. I have been told by a highly educated family friend that there is a language barrier between my ideas and how physics is normally done. He had informed me that I should learn math, but I do not believe I have that capability.

If you are capable of doing so could you example the math interpretation in plain English? If you are not able to do so I would kindly ask you to not continue the conversation as I am unable to understand what you are saying and it appears that you may not be able to understand what I am saying and that just may end up causing us a bunch of unnecessary frustration.

 

[sjastro]

Sadly in today's world intelligence is determined by how well one can take in and retain knowledge. This is what the majority of school teaches and tests. I greatly lack these skills, my short term memory and reading fluency intelligence quotients are in the seventies with one hundred being average and seventy being what is consider borderline. I do seem to have some type of intelligence though, but sadly it is something school does not teach nor value. I am not attempting to make excuses, but explain more of my background as to dissolve any possible thought that I may have an entitled attitude. I am genuinely seeking guidance and help with this idea not for someone to do all the work for me.




I aware that is why it is called relativistic.



To an outside viewer who is not moving the person on the spaceship will have more relativistic mass when moving at fifty miles per hour and when moving at half the speed of light will have significantly more relativistic mass. But to the person on the spaceship their mass will be the same to them as if they were not moving... as you said it is observer dependent.

This increase in relativistic mass means to the outside viewer if the person in the spaceship were to move it would take a significant amount of energy, but for the person on the spaceship it would take the same amount of energy as it always did. The result is that to the outside viewer the person on the spaceship would appear to move slowly, or be time dilated, but the person on the spaceship would view themselves as they normally would.



I am fond of the term relativistic mass.



Yes I am and I have seen it explained in other ways in videos, but they appear to have been simplifications. I thank you for pointing that out, but it does not change the validity of the argument.

Here is quote from wikipedia,

"In general relativity, this remaining precession, or change of orientation of the orbital ellipse within its orbital plane, is explained by gravitation being mediated by the curvature of spacetime."

When Mercury's relativistic mass is being actively altered as it moves through different strengths of the Sun's gravitational field the trajectory of Mercury's orbit is also altered as opposed to if it's relativistic mass is not taken into account.



As red is the longest wavelength blue is the shortest. When a photon enters low to high it's wavelength is drawn out due to the increase in relativistic mass meaning it is not able to do as much work causing the light to appear more red. Blue shift is just the opposite of that. When a photon enters lower gravity it can do more work allowing for a higher frequency and a tighter wavelength making the light appear more blue.





All of the above is math which I have stated in the original post I do not understand. I have been told by a highly educated family friend that there is a language barrier between my ideas and how physics is normally done. He had informed me that I should learn math, but I do not believe I have that capability.

If you are capable of doing so could you example the math interpretation in plain English? If you are not able to do so I would kindly ask you to not continue the conversation as I am unable to understand what you are saying and it appears that you may not be able to understand what I am saying and that just may end up causing us a bunch of unnecessary frustration.

The harsh reality is if you don’t understand the maths you don’t understand the physics.
It’s like claiming to be able to do critique the works of William Shakespeare in its native English but not understand the language.
Despite what the layperson thinks maths is a language which is designed to simplify the physics!!
Without maths it is impossible to convey any deep understanding of the subject.

For example you claim Mercury’s relativistic mass needs to be taken into account to explain the perihelion advance.
Well apart from this not making any sense, the maths alone shows that the relativistic mass of Mercury is basically no different from its rest mass.
Suppose Mercury is an inertial frame which though technically not true can be used as an approximation in this case.
The formula for the relativistic mass m is given by the formula;
m = mₒ/√(1-(v/c)² where mₒ is the rest mass, c the speed of light.
As the equation clearly shows the m is a function of the motion of the observer or the source.
Plugging in the values mₒ = 3.29 X 10²³ kg Mercury’s mass, v = 48 km/s its average orbital speed and c = 300000 km/s reveals the increase in relativistic mass over its rest mass is a paltry 0.00000128%.
So it plays absolutely no role.

The other point is in order for your pet theory to have any validity it requires a mathematical framework to show it makes similar predictions for say the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit and the gravitational bending of light.
Simply stating it’s a case of reinterpreting the existing maths doesn’t cut it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As red is the longest wavelength blue is the shortest. When a photon enters low to high it's wavelength is drawn out due to the increase in relativistic mass meaning it is not able to do as much work causing the light to appear more red. Blue shift is just the opposite of that. When a photon enters lower gravity it can do more work allowing for a higher frequency and a tighter wavelength making the light appear more blue.

Red/blue are only the longest/shortest wavelength *visible* light; infrared/ultraviolet (and more) exist at even longer/shorter wavelengths.

Photons don't have mass, relativistic or otherwise. They do have momentum, and this is why the momentum view of relativistic motion is more useful.

There are things about many things in physics you can come to understand without math, but if you want to challenge ideas or develop new ones, a solid understanding of what you are challenging, both conceptually and mathematically, is truly necessary.

 

[Ohj1n37]

It’s like claiming to be able to do critique the works of William Shakespeare in its native English but not understand the language.

Or being completely deaf yet being able to compose a symphony.

For example you claim Mercury’s relativistic mass needs to be taken into account to explain the perihelion advance.
Well apart from this not making any sense,

The idea is that something with more mass takes more energy to move, this is true, is it not? This in turn can cause the altering of object's motion and trajectory.

Plugging in the values mₒ = 3.29 X 10²³ kg Mercury’s mass, v = 48 km/s its average orbital speed and c = 300000 km/s reveals the increase in relativistic mass over its rest mass is a paltry 0.00000128%.
So it plays absolutely no role.

Does your math take into account the varying degrees of relativistic mass gained as Mercury enters different strengths of the Sun's gravitational field. Or is it just calculating the relativistic mass gained by Mercury's orbital velocity. I would imagine that as Mercury enters the part of its orbit that is closest to the Sun it would experience a great deal of relativistic mass due to the strength of the Sun's gravity at that proximity. This is one of the main points of the original post. Gravity increases relativistic mass because it too is a force that moves an object in a given direction.

Red/blue are only the longest/shortest wavelength *visible* light; infrared/ultraviolet (and more) exist at even longer/shorter wavelengths.

I am aware of this and I would suppose that if the math works out that under very high amounts of gravity some visible light may be shifted to infrared.

Photons don't have mass, relativistic or otherwise. They do have momentum, and this is why the momentum view of relativistic motion is more useful.

And as sjastro has so nicely put it,

In fact relativistic mass is an archaic definition, the modern day definition is to consider momentum not mass and apply the Lorentz transformation to the momentum.

It may not be the standard now, but I am simply using "archaic/older" terminology. Mass is more less a property of energy and relativistic mass is not actual mass as I have stated in the original post. If you do enough reading you will see there are contrary points of view on the subject. I enjoy the use of relativistic mass because I believe it pairs well with my understanding of physics.

There are things about many things in physics you can come to understand without math, but if you want to challenge ideas or develop new ones, a solid understanding of what you are challenging, both conceptually and mathematically, is truly necessary.

And what better way to understand than to be cut down by the nice people on this forum? Although in all honesty every time I enter a place of public discussion whether it be virtual or real I experience a great deal of stress due to having Asperger's/Autism. On top of that it doesn't help that the scientific community tends to be extremely hostile most of time, like some trying to hide insults inside of backhanded compliments.

Any who, I understand that most people who claim to have come up with some grand idea have no idea what they are talking about because more than likely they have put no effort into it or are crazy... I have done my fair share of glancing over these post on the internet. But this does not necessarily mean that every idea or person is like this and there appears to be validity in what I have to say.

Hopefully sjastro here will be able to explain the math to a point I can understand and either dispel this idea from my head or possible show there maybe some semblance of true to it. As I have said I am genuinely seeking help in this matter. Thinking of it this way. If you were to have a crush on woman is it a good idea to ruminate or to ask her out? I believe it's not good to ruminate on the idea, you could end up wasting your life. This is why I am trying to find out now is there any truth in the matter, but unlike asking a woman out it's not so obvious when your idea is wrong. Perhaps it's more like asking a woman out who doesn't speak the same language. Hopefully I have made some sense.

Believe me I am not trying to be rude, entitled, arrogant or what have you. I have an idea and the logic leads me to believe that it is correct. Using the woman analogy, she has been flirting with me. I have yet to hear an argument that has convinced me that it is incorrect. And saying you don't understand is not a convincing argument. Explaining the reason why it is incorrect is what I would consider a convincing argument. Please keep you're rudeness to yourself, not talking to anyone in particular. I am searching for answers I have yet to find elsewhere.

 

[sjastro]

The idea is that something with more mass takes more energy to move, this is true, is it not? This in turn can cause the altering of object's motion and trajectory.

Except as has been stated on a number of occasions the increase in relativistic mass is negligible.
For a Keplerian (2-body) orbit to exist and be stable the total energy which is the sum of the KE (kinetic energy) and PE (potential energy) is the same at every point in the orbit.
The perihelion advance is explained where gravity acts as an external force such as the gravitational influence from other planets plus the effects of space-time curvature.

As you can see the predicted value agrees with the observed value so there is no need to reinvent the wheel particularly with ideas that violate basic physics.

Does your math take into account the varying degrees of relativistic mass gained as Mercury enters different strengths of the Sun's gravitational field. Or is it just calculating the relativistic mass gained by Mercury's orbital velocity. I would imagine that as Mercury enters the part of its orbit that is closest to the Sun it would experience a great deal of relativistic mass due to the strength of the Sun's gravity at that proximity. This is one of the main points of the original post. Gravity increases relativistic mass because it too is a force that moves an object in a given direction.

Gravity does not increase relativistic mass and you wouldn’t be making such statements if you were familiar with the maths and physics.
Relativistic mass is a product of inertial frames in motion which by definition are not accelerated frames hence are gravity free.
This is the another way of expressing the equivalence principle which states that an accelerated frame is equivalent to the stationary frame in the gravitational field.

When Mercury gets closer to the Sun due to its elliptical orbit it goes faster; it gains KE but loses PE in the process since KE+PE is constant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Believe me I am not trying to be rude, entitled, arrogant or what have you. I have an idea and the logic leads me to believe that it is correct. Using the woman analogy, she has been flirting with me. I have yet to hear an argument that has convinced me that it is incorrect. And saying you don't understand is not a convincing argument. Explaining the reason why it is incorrect is what I would consider a convincing argument. Please keep you're rudeness to yourself, not talking to anyone in particular. I am searching for answers I have yet to find elsewhere.

I can appreciate this.

I don't have time for full, drawn out explanations (thanks sjastro for including all those details) and frankly this site has a horrible editing interface. (I only log in to post.) I'd so much rather be using vi and LaTeX.

But let me leave you with the most important thing I learned in "Science School": When you have a cleaver idea that you really like, it's probably wrong. As a scientist it's my responsibility to test my own ideas thoroughly before subjecting anyone else to them. (well, except for my unfortunate close associates )

Cheers!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I perceive a moving object at a speed of one. You perceive the same moving object at a speed of ten. The moving object moves at a speed of one. This means that I perceive the object at a one to one ratio. You perceive the object at a ten to one ratio. This means that even if you and I are looking at the same object at the same time you will perceive the object moving ten times slower than I will.

This is confused. You seem to be trying to mix Newtonian mechanics with Einsteinian relativity. Newtonian mechanics is the classical limit of relativity - but in the real world, space, time, and motion are not absolute. The object in your example can only have speed relative to some observer, so if it moves at a speed of one m/s, it is moving at a speed of one m/s relative to some observer (who themselves can only be said to be moving or stationary with respect to some other observer).

 

[Ohj1n37]

It's been a while. Trying to take a break because being on these forums stresses me out greatly. I had a disagreement with my parents whether I should I go back on, but I am going to try another post. I guess it's frustrating when I have found no one that understands what I am trying to say. Like I said hopefully someone will understand and either show me why it's wrong in way I understand or I can know I am not alone.


Anyway,

As you can see the predicted value agrees with the observed value so there is no need to reinvent the wheel particularly with ideas that violate basic physics.

It's what I said below in the original post.

My ideas assume that from what I understand of Einstein’s math is that it is correct, but the interpretation of said math is incorrect.

So if the math is correct the values will come out correctly. Being interpreted correctly is important because if my idea is correct general relativity's space time will not be a problem with other theories.

Gravity does not increase relativistic mass and you wouldn’t be making such statements if you were familiar with the maths and physics.
Relativistic mass is a product of inertial frames in motion which by definition are not accelerated frames hence are gravity free.
This is the another way of expressing the equivalence principle which states that an accelerated frame is equivalent to the stationary frame in the gravitational field.

So here's an example with my point of view. I am going to attempt to use correct terminology to close a possible 'language barrier'. Please don't judge, I am trying my best here. Also thanks for the picture.

A person is in a car going sixty miles per hour. Their inertial frame is the inside of the car. If they were to tap something in the car it would be the speed at which they tapped something plus the car, but since whatever they touched is in the car is also going the speed of the car it doesn't matter.

But if the person were to tap a stationary object outside the car it would be the speed at which the person tapped it plus the speed of the car because the stationary object experiences the car as an accelerated frame of reference.

Now gravity can be thought of as a force that is constantly accelerating us to Earth's center and keeping us from floating away. So to us the Earth is not only our inertial frame from the movement of of celestial bodies, but also in respect to gravity. Anything effected by more or less gravity than we are is in a different frame. For instance an object could be at a higher altitude than us and be affected by less gravity and therefore be accelerated by gravity less than us. Or it could be at a lower altitude and be affected by more gravity and be accelerated greater than we are.

The idea is that the greater the gravitational force the greater the accelerative force, meaning more overall momentum/relativistic mass than something affected by less gravity.

That leads to the main point of my original post time dilation is due to energy not being worth as much at greater speeds (whether that be caused by inertia or gravity), meaning movement is carried out more slowly.

 

[sjastro]

It's been a while. Trying to take a break because being on these forums stresses me out greatly. I had a disagreement with my parents whether I should I go back on, but I am going to try another post. I guess it's frustrating when I have found no one that understands what I am trying to say. Like I said hopefully someone will understand and either show me why it's wrong in way I understand or I can know I am not alone.


Anyway,



It's what I said below in the original post.



So if the math is correct the values will come out correctly. Being interpreted correctly is important because if my idea is correct general relativity's space time will not be a problem with other theories.




So here's an example with my point of view. I am going to attempt to use correct terminology to close a possible 'language barrier'. Please don't judge, I am trying my best here. Also thanks for the picture.

A person is in a car going sixty miles per hour. Their inertial frame is the inside of the car. If they were to tap something in the car it would be the speed at which they tapped something plus the car, but since whatever they touched is in the car is also going the speed of the car it doesn't matter.

But if the person were to tap a stationary object outside the car it would be the speed at which the person tapped it plus the speed of the car because the stationary object experiences the car as an accelerated frame of reference.

Now gravity can be thought of as a force that is constantly accelerating us to Earth's center and keeping us from floating away. So to us the Earth is not only our inertial frame from the movement of of celestial bodies, but also in respect to gravity. Anything effected by more or less gravity than we are is in a different frame. For instance an object could be at a higher altitude than us and be affected by less gravity and therefore be accelerated by gravity less than us. Or it could be at a lower altitude and be affected by more gravity and be accelerated greater than we are.

The idea is that the greater the gravitational force the greater the accelerative force, meaning more overall momentum/relativistic mass than something affected by less gravity.

That leads to the main point of my original post time dilation is due to energy not being worth as much at greater speeds (whether that be caused by inertia or gravity), meaning movement is carried out more slowly.

Posters here do understand what you are trying to say by pointing out the faults in your argument.
For example it’s becoming increasingly evident you don’t understand the difference between mass and weight.
A 1 kg mass will remain 1 kg irrespective if the gravitational acceleration is the Earth’s, Moon, Sun or any other object whereas its weight will change.
This is high school physics.

For the umpteenth time in the object’s frame of reference its mass does not increase.
Here is an example why this is the case.
Can you go fast enough to get enough mass to become a black hole?

 

[Ohj1n37]

For example it’s becoming increasingly evident you don’t understand the difference between mass and weight.
A 1 kg mass will remain 1 kg irrespective if the gravitational acceleration is the Earth’s, Moon, Sun or any other object whereas its weight will change.

Yes I understand that. Remember relativistic mass is just a term used to refer to what is now called momentum as you said with the following,

In fact relativistic mass is an archaic definition, the modern day definition is to consider momentum not mass and apply the Lorentz transformation to the momentum.

For the umpteenth time in the object’s frame of reference its mass does not increase.

So here's an example with my point of view. I am going to attempt to use correct terminology to close a possible 'language barrier'. Please don't judge, I am trying my best here. Also thanks for the picture.

A person is in a car going sixty miles per hour. Their inertial frame is the inside of the car. If they were to tap something in the car it would be the speed at which they tapped something plus the car, but since whatever they touched is in the car is also going the speed of the car it doesn't matter.

But if the person were to tap a stationary object outside the car it would be the speed at which the person tapped it plus the speed of the car because the stationary object experiences the car as an accelerated frame of reference.

Now gravity can be thought of as a force that is constantly accelerating us to Earth's center and keeping us from floating away. So to us the Earth is not only our inertial frame from the movement of of celestial bodies, but also in respect to gravity. Anything effected by more or less gravity than we are is in a different frame. For instance an object could be at a higher altitude than us and be affected by less gravity and therefore be accelerated by gravity less than us. Or it could be at a lower altitude and be affected by more gravity and be accelerated greater than we are.

The idea is that the greater the gravitational force the greater the accelerative force, meaning more overall momentum/relativistic mass than something affected by less gravity.

That leads to the main point of my original post time dilation is due to energy not being worth as much at greater speeds (whether that be caused by inertia or gravity), meaning movement is carried out more slowly.

The main point of the above is that if gravity can be considered an accelerative force why can't being in a gravitational field be like being in the car in the example?