On Jul 19, 7:11 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote: > Huang wrote: > > On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: > > >> > No Sam time is the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with > >> > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to > >> > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower > >> > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen. > > >> Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS. > > > Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our > > perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are > > the same thing. > > > We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we > > can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two > > approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can > > derive many things. > > [1] Relativity > > [2] HUP > > [3] WP-Duality > > [4] A correct understanding of causality > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > Length > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics > > > So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the > > balls to hold my feet to the fire. > > How do you define mass? How do you measure it with a ruler? > > /BAH- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
The same way that Einstein did in GR. Mass is a measure of gravitational attraction which is caused by the bending of space, i.e. the bending of dimensions of time and length.
I would define mass in terms of probability distributions, unlike GR which uses Lorentz Transform. Defining mass using probability distributions makes GR compatible with QM - a completely accidental consequence but not really an unpleasant surprise - so merry early Christmas that's your present.
