einstein's clock tower

The mass of a body at rest is not zero. Please Max or Fresco correct me if I'm wrong, but the time change caused by mass is because of the acceleration cause by the gravitational field.

Crickets...

How would you know? What perspective would you use to measure the absolute velocity of the entire universe?

Here is my response to both of the previous question.

The principle is; measurements taken from any Frame of reference are equally valid. But, you need to know what frame of reference you are making the measurement from.

Pick a frame of reference. Make a measurement or make a prediction based on that frame of reference. The results you get are as valid for that frame of reference. If you know the math, you can convert these results and make predictions from other frames of reference.

The gravity question is interesting. General Relativity extends the principal that every frame of reference is equally valid to non-inertial (i.e. accelerating) frames of reference. The math get's complicated (which is why people spend years studying general relativity) but the basic principal is that any frame of reference is equally valid.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm just saying that if all that fancy math can be collapsed into a box that says 'Vtime is relative to the inverse of local mass' then I can go on without worrying about the contents of the box.

That would be nice Leadfoot.

Sorry.

The 'twin paradox' is just one case 'explained' by non-equivalence of reference frames due to acceleration in one of them. As Max has implied, the relativistic mathematical extrapolation from particular cases like that, to general mass-gravity considerations is complicated. Consider too that the concept of 'mass' itself ultimately involves the realm of quantum considerations involving the Higgs-Boson. It may be that macroscopic and microscopic levels of analysis cannot yet be resolved by existing mathematical models, and we must be content with 'predictive success' rather than 'causal explanations' for current peace of mind.

TRUTH doesn't look at NUMBERS - It looks at what IS.

Im open to an explaination as to why it's wrong.

Anytime I'm given the answer - " If only you understood the complex mathematics that I have you would see the error of your logic." It tells me you got nothing or you don't understand it well enough to explain it.

I keep giving you the explanation. You keep ignoring it.

The basic principle of relativity is that every frame of reference is equally valid. In order to talk about time dilation, you need to specify two different frames of reference.

You are ignoring this basic principle in your attempt to fit Physics into a simplistic box. Your use of the term "VTime" for example.... what does that mean considering that all frames of reference are equally valid?

Relativity (I assume you mean Einstein's) is bollux - Doesn't work, never will.
The truth will never be TOLD to you, though, and (popular) physics is at a dead-end due to it.

Like free-energy...... Where's the profit in that?

Jp morgan to Tesla.

I understand that my theory about Vtime (velocity of time) being relative only to local mass is litterally outside the box, and being only a day old and not 'peer reviewed' is likely to be wrong. It also calls for all mass being relative to its 'absolute velocity' which we cannot presently know.

It cannot be viewed from multiple perspectives because it has to be viewed from only one, that of the hypothetical one of outside the known universe from the absolute velocity of zero. In other words, if the entire universe were stopped in 'true space' all mass would be reduced to zero except for the effect of local velocity effects of universe expansion (which I think would be minor) and as a consequence, time would accelerate to ~infinity.

Radical idea I know But the elegance of it and the lack of any obvious proof of fallicy makes me want to look at it more closely.

Yes, Lead - Question EVERYTHING!
Now, go watch 'Einsteins' idiots' on youtube - Then we will have a foundation to build upon.

I keep on pointing out the way that your theory contradicts a core principle of modern physics. You keep ignoring that core principle. When you say "it has to be viewed from only one"... you are directly contradicting the basic principle that all frames of reference are equally valid.

I have explained this as patiently and as clearly as I can. I have told you what the principle is. And I have explained as best I can why you are contradicting it. I have even tried to work with your assumption to see if we can see how it is flawed (neither you or Mark responded to this line of inquiry). I don't know what I else I can do here.

I have no problem with you wanting to "look at it more closely". But, it seems to me you are planning to reject 100 years of established modern physics without taking the time to learn it first. If part of "looking at it more closely" involves taking the time to learn the Physics of relativity to understand the basic principle you keep ignoring and its consequences for science, then I am all for it.

Perhaps you can fix my misunderstanding by going to a simpler scenario.

It is an accepted fact in physics that mass causes a distortion in the fabric of space/time. I conjectured from that fact that on a black hole, time would stop altogether which I believe ros (a pretty sharp guy on physics) agreed with. (Let me know if you don't) Note that this requires no additional points of view, the black hole sits there in virtual isolation and yet the velocity of time has been radically altered.

Add to this the fact that we know that the mass of an object increases with speed such that at the speed of light it's mass approaches infinity. So from that I posed the question: So what gives any body at rest any mass? The answer so far in physics is the mysterious Higgs bosan or as some physicists say is more accurate, the Higgs field. My conjecture is maybe that field and why anything has any mass is an artifact of its velocity.

NOW we can introduce another POV, that of absolute zero velocity. We presume from our observations that there is no point in the known universe where objects have zero mass so that second POV has to be outside the known universe. Therefore, the entire universe must be traveling at some speed X in order to give everything in it mass if velocity/Higgs is the thing that gives matter mass.

Further related wool gathering:
If as some physicists conjecture, that we are but just one bubble in a vast sea of universes, each one could be traveling at a different speed which would alter the mass of all particles thus creating completely different laws of physics.

Maybe our misunderstanding is because you are hesitant to look at things in any other way but the physics we presently understand.

Please feel free to poke holes in this theory, but just saying 'every frame of reference is equally valid' just doesn't show me where the holes are.

Scientific ideas, and the terms behind them, are based on experiments you can do to measure them. Scientific terms are defined by experiments... by measurements you can take to quantify the term, or to distinguish it from other ideas.

Your problem is that you are introducing ideas that directly contradict what 100 years of science has shown by experiment.

Let's start with the most egregious error you are making...

You are talking about the idea of "absolute zero velocity". The principle I keep repeating (and you keep ignoring) is that every frame of reference is equally valid. This means that there is no "absolute zero velocity" because what has zero velocity in one frame of reference will have a non-zero velocity in another. Labeling one as "absolute zero" means that the other frame of reference is not "absolute" meaning less valid. This breaks the basic scientific principle that has been established by 100 years of modern physics and confirmed by every experiment.

The second problem you have is that you are using the term "distortion in space/time" without showing any understanding in what that means. Scientific terms all have real meanings that can be measured by experiment and generally have a mathematical model behind them.

You can understand the term to a certain level if you understand the experiments behind the the term the detect, test and illustrate the idea the term is describing.

You can understand a certain amount of modern Physics by understanding the experiments... I was trying patiently to do this exactly with the spaceship examples (and often trains are used). If you don't wrestle with the ideas until you grasp the basic concepts... then you can't expand on the ideas and terms like "distortion in space/time" won't make any sense in what you are saying.

Finally, I hate the idea that ignorance is an advantage in Science. It isn't. Modern science is based on 100 years of research, experiment and advancements. And there were thousands of years before that that our best and brightest were thinking about and testing ideas before that.

Modern science has reached this point over many centuries of thinking, and talking, and writing and arguing and developing theories and testing them with thousands of people over several continents and time periods.

By ignoring all of this, you aren't advancing science... you are regressing. By rejecting the progress you are starting back where science was 1000 years ago.

Any one has access to the knowledge of science. But you don't get it by finding a couple of phrases you don't understand and making your own conjectures without caring about whether your idea has already been tested (whether it was either confirmed or rejected).

Your idea about absolute zero velocity time was rejected... and for good reason. Read about the Michelson-Morley experiment... and take the time to wrestle with the ideas until you understand them.

That one experiment makes your idea impossible. Physicists in the 19th century already had this idea, they tested it and they realized through experiment why it wasn't true.

Right.

How did they establish that absolute velocity did not exist in the 1800s?

Do you put any effort into learning anything about this stuff.

Galilean relativity was known by.... wait for it.... Galileo. He lived in the 1500s. The idea that there was no absolute velocity was fully expanded in Isaac Newton's Principia. This was published in 1687. I am sure you have heard of Galileo and Isaac Newton. You should take the time to understand Galilean relativity before you try to understand Einstein.

The Michelson Morley experiment (which is what I was referring to) was published in 1887. This showed the contradiction of absolute time. And Lorentz wrote about time dilation in 1899 (OK I am cutting in close).

So yes. These ideas were flushed out in the 1800s. Einstein didn't publish his ideas until 1906. But by that time Physicists already knew full well the problem with the earlier model and were actively discussing how to solve them.

But here is the point... each advancement in science came from people who took the time to understand the earlier work.

Isaac Newton was well aware of Galileo. He was educated in math and science and worked with other scientists of the day. Lorentz, Michelson, Morely, Maxwell all of the people working on the nature of light were educated in math, knew the science of their day very well and worked with other scientists of the day.

Einstein was aware of the work of all these people. He was educated in math, knew the science of the day and worked with other scientists to develop his new theories.

Do you see the pattern here? Modern Physics was developed over hundreds of years... each generation studied the work of the great scientists before them to advance the science.

Einstein had to study Newton to become Einstein. Newton had to study Galileo to become Newton. Galileo studied the math and science of his day.

Science is an open field in the sense that anyone can study hard to develop the mathematical skills and fully understand the ideas of people before them.

But you have to do the work. You can't be ignorant of hundreds of years of scientific advancement and expect to make any real progress.

The center of the universe needs to be the point of reference. If we can find the center the center is pivoting and not moving. If we are at the center it might be hard to detect that. If the Earth is near the center of the universe it is near the reference point. Unfortunately knowing the reference point doesn't change relativity special or general it just gives you perspective.

After a quick review of the Michelson Morley experiment it looks to me that in the context of 'my theory', that experiment was the equivalent of trying to measure the wind speed with an anemometer while drifting in a balloon.

Do you get my drift?