# An equivilance question

1. Aug 12, 2013

### Fieldwaveflow

H.G. Wells thought of time travel before Einstein :)

The m of E=mc². So here we are in an atom again but this time with a mirror like sphere shell keeping wave energy reflecting around the inside perimeter of the shell with, of course, energy concentration to the point of slowing time and causing mass. I'll not get into the why of the shell right now.

Einstein's relativity describes time dilation and he published the equivalence formula E=mc².

If I did the math right and if the subsitution holds and since this came from an equivalence formula then it may mean that it can show the equivilance of the the perceived light speed barrier change to change in time rates.

Where (tr) is time-rate e=mc²--->m=e/c² substitution of e(tr) for m---> e(tr)=e/c² ---> canceling out energy---> tr=1/c²--->tr=1/(300,000,000 m/s)²---> tr=1.1-17 m²/s²

Yeah, yeah. I know. Seems too simple to be true. Anyhow...

If I remember right from a long time ago m²/s² possibly indicates energy without mass and possibly the units of time. (instead of just t, as commonly used in physics with unit s (second), for a single common time rate). m/s² is the SI unit for acceleration of mass. kg· m²/s² is the the units to describe energy or work in Joules. Without the mass unit there is just m²/s². Seems to be indication of acceleration of over a distance without mass. I do not see time-rate itself as having mass. If this equivalence does hold as an invention it could have some applications.

As any good physicist knows light (from lights perspective) travels instantly across the universe but in so doing it also travels forward a year in time for every light year of distance it travels (depending of course on the gravity wave density (which determines the time-rate)).

I'm really rusty on math and physics units. Anyone with sharper math/unit-understanding feel like hopping in on this?

Last edited: Aug 12, 2013
2. Aug 12, 2013

### CompuChip

(1) Einstein didn't "think of" time travel at all (not in the sense that you mean, at least)
(2) I don't know what you mean by "time-rate" but if your notation e(tr) is anything close to what I think it means you cannot cancel out the E any more than you can cancel out the "sin" in "sin x / sin y".
(3) 1/(m/s)² = s²/m², not m²/s².
(4) "As any good physicist knows light (from lights perspective) travels instantly across the universe" - no "good" physicist (or any physicist at all, for that matter) born after 1900 will tell you anything like that, and will point out at least three errors in that statement.

I don't follow the rest, so can't comment on that, sorry.

Last edited: Aug 12, 2013
3. Aug 12, 2013

### Simon Bridge

Where is the SF angle on all this?
Correction - $E=\gamma mc^2$

You propose an SF World where you hope to make plausible some effect of a perfectly reflecting shell around an individual atom?

This would affect the wavefunctions of the electrons.
Do you also suppose that the EM field due to the atom outside the shell is zero?
I don't think a perfect reflector would change the rest-mass energy of the atom just because it keeps all the "wave energy" (whatever that means) inside. If the shell isolates the atom from the outside World, then I'd imagine some energy exchange involved with breaking the binding energy of the atom with the rest of the Universe. But then - how would the SF engineers manipulate it?

That's a lot of "if"s - but this is SF right? Just assert that it is correct and it makes reasonable technobabble.
Apart from that, it is unclear what you mean by "light speed barrier change" and why it should be called "perceived". The speed of light in a vacuum is not a "barrier", it is an invariance.
It is the same to all observers.

define "time rate"
I've corrected your equation to account for the relative speed between the observer and the mass.

this suggests that E(tr) is the same as mass ... so (tr) has the dimensions of [tr]=1/[c^2] = L-2T2.
So the time-rate is measured in units of (s/m)2.
Is that the idea?

But then, that's SF right?

Much of the rest makes no sense without defining "time rate".

Um ... no: any good physicist knows that "the perspective of light" makes no sense.

That would be from the POV of an inertial observer, not light - whose POV, as I've said, makes no sense.

4. Aug 13, 2013

### Fieldwaveflow

Duality

Thanks for taking a look.
(1) H.G. Wells may not have thought of time in the same sense that he used it in fiction. That guy was pretty heavy into real science and made some phenomenal predictions. Of course some science had to be altered to make a good fiction read. Most good sci-fi fiction writers have a pretty good handle on real science come to think of it.
Einstein is famous for relativity among other things like the field equation Rμν - 1/2 gμνR +gμνΛ = 8πG/c^4 · Tμν
where Rμν, is the Ricci curvature tensor, R, the scalar curvature, gμν, the metric tensor, Lambda Λ, is the cosmological constant, G, is Newton's gravitational constant, c, the speed of light in vacuum, and Tμν, the stress–energy tensor.
Relativity is very much about time-rate or time dilation of space-time. It is easier for me to think in terms of "rates of time" and ignore looking at gravity attractions for better understanding. "Time dilation" is a term that muddies the water a bit for me. What the heck is a "dilation"?

(2) I do not see how you can divide sin into 2 different parts to make it equivalent for a substitution of itself (however I'm not a math expert so I wouldn't rule it out). I'm not describing sin. I'm describing components of mass. Energy has momentum right? Mass is not a mathematical construct (nor is energy or the EM velocity limit c) but a part of the physical world. Like it takes fission of uranium to create Krypton and barium. I see mass as something that is made of (primarily) two components but what I describe is not fission and fission is not part of the standard equivalence. Fission is the result of the break down of atomic stability so that energy is released from the nucleus. That is E=mc². It says the energy of the m is renormalizing to the time-rate outside of the nucleus. Why do you think I describe energy in a slower rate of time e(tr). I am not considering the "how" of it being contained for the new equivalence just as it is not considered in the old (or hardly anything else for that matter). So I do see energy as canceling energy. kg·m²/s² over kg·m²/s² cancels. e/e(tr)=1/(tr) I'm trying to make the "rate of time" usable. I mean really...How do you cram that much energy into matter? Where does it all come from when a nuke goes off? Who says you can not invent new terms? Maybe this equivalence will not work but if it does (or if someone else can invent new math with better rate of time substitutions) we're talking a new world of physics understanding opening up. A monster of a paradigm shift.

(3) Thanks for setting me straight on the units. It is the primary reason I posted. I couldn't remember if the units also flipped with inversion. I like the looks of s²/m² much better. Have you ever seen s²/m²? Seconds squared divided by meters squared with no mass unit. Rate of time by itself does not seem to have mass. Rate of time changes with strength of gravity( and it bugs me that people are not making rate of time separate from gravity in space-time even though they are a linear correlation) (or you could possibly say "the total gravity wave amplitude of an area (from all sources)"). s²/m² = s/m · s/m right? seconds per meter? I'm kind of losing it here...what is a second per meter? Doesn't that start to look like a time velocity instead of distance velocity? Oh,... so s/m is just time over a distance and s²/m² is time energy. So the unit value of the "rate of time" is time "energy" measured in s²/m².

(4) You'll love this :) because I should have said "As any AWESOME physicist knows..." Look up George Gamow, My World Line, 1970. That writing has made it clearer (where before it was more a general sense that something around that time happened) that around 1935 something in physics changed that made it so physicists were no longer looking for deeper understanding. Somehow they just kind of stopped looking at the consequences of time dilation. Maybe it was the complexity of Einstein's field equation that did it or maybe it was Bohr possibly setting off a race to quantize particles. Or a combination of those ideas and other ideas. I don't know what it was exactly. A good physicist will tow the line. An awesome physicist will make a new line.

What I meant by possible applications of a "rate of time" to light speed equivalence is this. And because I got the units mixed up or still don't know how the units apply does not change my fundamental understanding of "rate of time differences" and how it applies to what I'm seeing happening; Like in the experiment with light ray "slowed" when passing through BEC. or cosmologically with the missing(dark) matter, missing(dark) energy (to explain differences in Newtonian star orbit/galactic acceleration predictions to observed) and "time dilation lensing" (which others call gravitational lensing (and it is easily confused because gravity value is linear to time dilation value). I guess you could say g≠(tr) but without g there is no (tr) and vice versa. ...Possible applications...sorry, I sometimes invent while I write and have temporarily forgot some of the applications (guess I'm tired).

By the way does anyone "really" know what a neutron is? How does knocking around alpha particles create a "neutron" that can replace a proton with a new unstable proton? Isn't that about like saying a type of proton replaced the original proton so that it's not really neutral except in the sense that it can penetrate the shell? The mass of the atom is mostly in the proton isn't it? ) or electron are? (how was it determined "if at all" that an electron is a particle?)

(warning: highly speculative) I can possibly see the reason for light being dual wave-particle (depending on the cycle of the frequency) with the higher amplitude hitting the c value of a (tr). Which is why the light speed limit is what it is. The slowest time rate value possible within a gravity wave field density such that the light does become a particle (as all particles are a slower time rate) then because of opposite (tr) attraction returns to wave and back again. Duality.

5. Aug 13, 2013

### Fieldwaveflow

Mr. Bridge. I had a long day at the amusement park today. I must sleep so I can take a closer look at your reply.

6. Aug 13, 2013

### Simon Bridge

@Fieldwaveflow:

Are your numbered section in post #4 supposed to match with the numbered sections to post #2?
You have yet to explain what you mean by "rate of time" ... how can time have a rate?
You mean something like a moving clock counting off $\small \gamma$ seconds for each second a stationary clock counts - and the equivalent with gravity? That's usually called "time dilation".

It sounds like you may be confusing concepts then - you will need to revise basic special relativity.
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html

You can't and he didn't. He's illustrating why you cannot do what you did with e(tr) - but may have misunderstood because you have not said what "ate of time" means to you or what the notation refers to. Please be more clear about this.

An body at rest has energy but no momentum - so "no", not always. It is more accurate to think of objects as possessing or carrying both energy and momentum.

Energy and what?

This is a meaningless statement.

But (a) m ≠ e(tr) and (b) the notation e(tr) means that e is a function of tr ... so if you do e/e(tr) then you do not get 1/(tr). So, again, we need to know what you mean the notation to stand for.
From your description here, it is not a standard notation.

To do that you first have to define it.
You have to say what you are talking about.

Nobody - especially in SF, but you have to define your new terms if you want other people to understand them.

I'm thinking "no".
But that needn't stop it from being used in a fantasy/SF World - you are still thinking in terms of SF right?
It sounds like you are trying to get past the restrictions on discussing pet theories of physics.

No worries.

Yes.

Are you talking about gravitational time dilation here?

No - energy has SI units kg.m2s-2 and, thus, dimensions ML2T-2. s2/m2 are not units of energy.

What has this got to do with the objections in point #4?

Then you run off topic:

In the same way we "really" know anything.

What are you talking about? Alphas come with two neutrons each.

No.

No

The same way anything is determined to be a particle.

"wave particle duality does not depend on frequency. What do you mean by "the cycle of the frequency".

Makes no sense unless you define (tr) and "c value".

Light speed is not a "limit".

Light has particle properties at any gravity.

I think you are very confused and need to go back to basics.
But you should be able to write a great SF fringe scientist off this.
Have fun.

Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
7. Aug 13, 2013

### Fieldwaveflow

Hello again Mr. Bridge

It will take me quite a while to look over the questions you pose and the information you've sent. For now I will try to address your question of what I mean as "rate of time"

Is γ is the Lorentz factor where m is realatavistic? I think I am mixing concepts which makes a difficult concept even harder to follow. I guess I shouldn't have done that but I'll probably do it again since it's hard not to.

"time rate" or "rate of time" It is probably usually called time dilation but as before I would rather it be called differently for sake of better understanding. It seems you are familiar with special relativity and the twin paradox thought experiment and probably know that it has been experimentally proven long ago with measured differences in atomic clocks at different altitudes.

Time here (on the face of this planet) travels at the same rate of time for everyone else here on the face of the planet as far as day to day observations. The idea of time moving at a faster or slower rate is counter intuitive and very difficult to understand. At the moment I can't think of the equation that would allow someone to understand that the rate of time on the floor is faster than the rate of time on the ceiling because of the very slight difference in gravity because of the distance from the center of mass of the earth. From what I hear the Global Positioning System must be constantly monitored and adjusted to take into account such things as flying over a mountain range or the positioning will be inaccurate.

I'm a 43 year old handy man. I run electric wires, repair HVAC, plumbing, engine repair, designing wood furnaces, small usable circuits, computer drafting for 3d modeling of small commercial building structures etc. etc. I guess that means I'm a fixer/problem solver/illustrator to an extent. I have some understanding of math and physics from high school but that was a long time ago. I did look further into STR and GTR a long time ago. So now I am rusty with my math and with a lot of physics. I believe the important ideas I took away from my understanding of GTR did stick and since dark matter and dark energy were publicized it struck me as wrong that such an idea as some imaginary unobservable particle was responsible for the observed. I looked closer at why I had the feeling it was wrong and came to the conclusion that a LOT (if not almost ALL)of people were not taking into account is time dilation. The funny thing is that time itself isn't generally observable or viewed as being a particle. So I guess a person could say dark matter (or missing matter) is a real effect but I'm also saying the words "dark matter" and "dark energy" are ridiculous because the reasons for the observed should have been spotted for what they are much sooner. O = N + Tr ---> Observed = Newtonian orbit + (time dilation adjustment) Don't ask me for details or for me to create something like Einstein's field theory or to modify it to better fit because I can't. I'm not good with math. You'll probably not be seeing me doing advanced geometry or matrices or differentials in descriptive equations anytime soon. I'm trying to point the way for someone else that can since apparently it needs to be done.

The good news is that (since looking for better understanding of relativity and time dilation) I have been reacquainting myself with physics again and can now see possibilities that I hadn't before. Like how the universe could be something like a drop of slow time rate in the middle of the depths of a hyper velocity time rate. I do not know what caused the original instance of a slower time rate. A wrinkle of some type maybe. I see a lot of balance happening. Now the slower time rate is scattered in the faster time rate. Space-time could be called space-time for such a reason.

Well, I guess it's a lot to absorb. In 3 posts I've covered just about everything. Relativity, fields, time dilation. time dilation to speed equivalence, dark matter, dark energy (not so much explained), cosmological time rate lensing, big "wrinkle" bang, structure and reason of atoms (not so much), wave-particle duality, and "perspective" of light vs perspective of others in faster rate of time, the instantaneous travel of light and how at that velocity hits the lower time rate limit (not really explained).
There are a few things I haven't covered (idea of atomic structure in regards to nucleus and shell (the electro shell is not a perfectly reflective mirror but energy reflects better at higher angles and some EM frequencies within pass to some shells). That is a possible explanation of why light can pass through Bose Einstein condensate (maybe energy can pass through the nucleus if it doesn't hit that low angle needed to trap it on the inside of the shell). The shells being of different time rates and attracted to center but held off to a range by the force of energy. Opposites attract after all. Like with magnetic poles different time rates attract. Imagine a slow-time-rate nucleus with the shells being faster-time-rate (or anti-matter) (which is what antimatter is "a faster time rate") It is why antimatter to matter contact does not nullify energy but releases it to this time rate)) so that the shells are held off by the force of energy.

And yes my explanations are not in depth (shallow you could say). It is hard for them to be otherwise since my math is rusty (never was great to begin with (due to a more instinctive and less detail productive memory and slight dyslexia) and I can find very little information or support from others in regards to what I am trying to describe with time rate and time rate difference effects.
As you can probably see. What I try to describe can be related to many things. For that alone it should provoke some interest.
I'm ill equipped to fight the established lack of theories but I'm sure the battle needs to be fought.

I am confused but I am focusing on things that others do not. The fundamental why and how.