Why does mass slow time?

[gravityblock]

I made a few errors in post number 11.  It does not affect why mass slows time. The errors may negate my idea on why an object does not accelerate when it is in orbit. I will need to rethink if curved spacetime is responsible for the acceleration or no acceleration idea when an object is in orbit. At this moment I am still leaning towards curved time being responsible for objects accelerating relative to the earth when falling vertically downwards, but will need more time to rethink this. Below are the corrections.

In Newtonian gravity:

N1) An object in circular orbit has constant speed but continuously changing velocity, relative to Earth, and is therefore accelerating towards the Earth relative to Earth.

N2) An object falling vertically downwards is also accelerating towards the Earth relative to Earth

In General Relativity:

GR1) An object in circular orbit is moving inertially, its velocity relative to itself (an inertial observer) is always zero, so its acceleration relative to a local inertial observer (itself) is zero.

GR2) An object falling vertically downwards is moving inertially, its velocity relative to itself (an inertial observer) is always zero, so its acceleration relative to a local inertial observer (itself) is zero.

In either case, it is still accelerating relative to Earth, but its "proper acceleration" is zero. All of this is mind boggling, as if my mind isn't boggled enough....lol

I'll be leaving town for a few days and will reply to some of the questions that have already been asked when I get back.

[dean_mcgowan]

Massive objects take a path of greatest proper time or spacetime distance, and light takes a path of least (zero) spacetime distance, provided they are acted on by gravity alone. The reason why light takes a path of least (zero) spacetime distance is because the frequency is very high and the wavelength is very short. If you increase the mass/energy you increase the frequency and the wavelength is shorter. Massive objects takes the path of greatest spacetime distance or proper time because the energy is not as high as light and hence a longer wavelength. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.

Planck's formula: E=hf where:
E is the energy of a single photon,
f is the photon's frequency,
h is Planck's constant,
Einstein's formula: E=mc2 where:
E is energy,
m is mass,
c2 is the speed of light squared,
hence, hf=mc2

thus showing that the energy/mass of a photon is directly proportional to the frequency of the photon.
E=hf and E=mc2 so hf=mc2

1)mass/energy
2)wave/particle
3)space/time
4)frequency/wavelength
5)electricity/magnetism

frequency = energy/mass
wavelength = time

In order to understand this, you need to change your thinking of time. It has nothing to do with how fast the earth is orbiting the sun or how long it takes to make a revolution. 1 second of earth time is 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition makes the caesium oscillator (often called an atomic clock) the primary standard for time and frequency measurements. If you know the frequency, then you know the wavelength, and you also know the energy/mass, they are all related.

Wavelength is only another means of quantifying time but it still does not make time if there is no time (frame of reference) does your oscillation occur ?

[gravityblock]

Wavelength is only another means of quantifying time but it still does not make time if there is no time (frame of reference) does your oscillation occur ?

Yes the oscillations occur.  At 300 million meters per second (approximate speed of light) , a frequency of 300 million cycles per second (300 megahertz) draws a line in space with peaks one metre apart. Let's say if you're looking at a star that is 100 light years away from you, then you are seeing that star as it appeared 100 light years ago. If a star exploded right at this moment and it is 100 light years away, then in will take us 100 years before we see this explosion. Let's say we leave the earth traveling at the speed of light(this is a hypothetical) the instant we see the star explode. From our frame of reference traveling at the speed of light toward that star we will still see the explosion in all frames of reference, and it will appear as if time is standing still for us. When we get close to the star but still traveling at the speed of light, we will still see the explosion in our frame of reference, but on earth the explosion will have long past. As soon as we drop to no speed, then we will be in the vicinity of the star 100 after the explosion, but the people on earth will not see you for another 100 years. If you could travel 2 times the speed of light, then you will see the star as it was before the explosion in your frame of reference, but when you get to the star at twice the speed of light you will see the star as it was 100 years before it exploded in your frame of reference, then as soon as you drop to no speed, then you will see the explosion and be blown up also with the star and the people on earth will be see the star and yourself blown up at the same moment. You will have traveled back in time to the very instance the star exploded in the frame of reference for earth and yourself. You would have moved your position 100 light years within the universe instantanioulsy to an outside observer, and of course it took you 100 years to move your position instantaniously within the universe and you would have already died before actually being blown up with the star. If you travel more than 2 times speed of light then you will be traveling back in time from your reference point and from the reference point of an outside observer you will no longer be visible and will also be traveling back in time. Hope you can make sense of this.

[gravityblock]

I'm attaching a pdf file that I am drawing my ideas from.  This idea that mass slows time is not my idea, so I can't take credit for this. The idea that mass slows time makes some sense to me, but it is a difficult thing to grasp. The title of this thread should probably be "Does mass slow time?" instead of "Why does mass slow time?"  We know that according to general relativity that spacetime is curved due to a large mass.  I believe the reason why spacetime is curved due to a large mass is because that large mass is leaking energy into space in the form of heat, light, radiation, and other forms of energy that we may or may not know about, thus losing its mass/energy.  It is this energy that is leaked into space from a large mass that is causing spacetime to be curved since that energy is being dispersed around the large mass, thus there will be more energy in the vicinity of the large mass as opposed to further away, and it is the difference in the energy levels that causes mass/energy to follow where the energy is the greatest or possibly where time is least, since the more energy you have, the wavelength is shorter.  If this assumption is correct, then it may be natures way of counterbalancing the loss of leaked energy by attracting or causing other objects to gravitate towards one another to regain the energy/mass that was lost, and this is known to us as gravity. This may be correct and it may also be wrong, but I think it is in line with Einstein's theories. I do think this is interesting if correct.

I'll try to answer some of the questions previously asked tommorow, cause im not feeling good. I do not have all the answers, and the answers that I give is what I think or believe to be correct and could always be wrong.

[erickdt]

I think you have it a bit backwards. Fluctuations between space and time cause the phenomena of gravity. It is a symptom of a process not a cause. Matter simply exists just like energy. It is when that energy acts on that matter, propelling it through space and time that the phenomena of gravity occurs. As an object accelerates it creates a sort of "dip" in space and time. It makes sense when you think about it: Imagine two parallel lines. One is space one is time. As an object accelerates it takes less time to traverse the same ammount of space. So now one of our lines (time) remains straight while the line that represents space dips down. This is because in the same ammount of time you're travelling a larger expanse of space. This dip in space represents the phenomena of gravity as well as a different time frame all together. This is called special relativity which has recently been proven: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605