Nature of mass gravitation

[RichardHarris123]

6 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

But Newtonian physics doesn't explain "everything" whereas Quantum physics might explain so much more. Imagine if there actually is a multiverse and there are entanglements between our universe and others. THAT could explain somethings. Other universes with other physics within the same boundaries as ours. How can there be these huge galaxies so far back in time (as have just been discovered by JWST) that shouldn't exist at that point in time?

I've had a theory for years, microscopic worm holes pop into and out of existence. Explains missing objects, particularly watch parts. 

[Nucejoe]

1 hour ago, RichardHarris123 said:

I read that's incorrect but not sure why. 

Because  the laws of physics should apply there regardless of the speed of the observer or his relative position to the field or an observer on earth ... etc.

 

20 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

But Newtonian physics doesn't explain "everything" whereas Quantum physics might explain so much more. Imagine if there actually is a multiverse and there are entanglements between our universe and others. THAT could explain somethings. Other universes with other physics within the same boundaries as ours. How can there be these huge galaxies so far back in time (as have just been discovered by JWST) that shouldn't exist at that point in time?

Quantum physics has led scientists in CERN  to discover many new particles which help confirm theories. 

Adequate funding , dedicated world renowned phsyicist, ...... are producing results there. 

Subscribe to their newsletter if you haven't already. 

[spectre6000]

A few more minutes, and someone making me revisit things deep in the back of my mind that never have opportunities to see the light of day. I found this discussing why the c in e=mc2 is c. Suggests it's the c of Planck and Lorentz (hence the relationship to causality), and goes all the way back to Newton and beyond as celerity/celeritas. More reliable source than my spotty memory, and with better citations to boot. At the end of the day though, relative to what I wrote initially, it's beside the point entirely. Not worth getting hung up on relative to the greater point of the gravitation theory.

[Nucejoe]

 

Space curvature? or magnetic force? 

Check this vid.

 

On 3/3/2023 at 11:27 AM, mikepilk said:

 Matter causes spacetime to curve, which gives the effect of gravity.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5002548

Would this have happened? had the two spheres been non magnetic?

 

 

On 3/3/2023 at 3:51 PM, Klassiker said:

Ask a moderator, but I would suggest the Relax Zone "talk about anything here".

Will do.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Nucejoe

[spectre6000]

53 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5002548

Would this have happened? had the two spheres been non magnetic?

No, because there was insufficient mass relative to momentum, external forces (i.e. friction from the air/table), etc. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces (strong/weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity). Had the two spheres been made of some sort of extremely high mass exotic matter that was non-magnetic, then yes, but the test rig would have been crushed. You'd have to do the math, but the amount of mass required to achieve that same attractive force might be world ending. 

Edited March 4, 2023 by spectre6000

[mikepilk]

1 hour ago, Nucejoe said:

 

Space curvature? or magnetic force? 

Check this vid.

 

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5002548

Would this have happened? had the two spheres been non magnetic?

 

 

Will do.

But how long is a piece of string ?

[RichardHarris123]

Just now, mikepilk said:

But how long is a piece of string ?

Depends on string theory.  Hehe. 

[Nucejoe]

So in this case,  rotation is not due to curvture of spacetime, but  the vid shows rotation is the most efficient path for conservation of angular momentum. 

The question now is: 

Is the path of earth due to curvature of space?  or is it because , rotation is the most efficient path to conserve earths angular momentum. 

 

 

 

[grsnovi]

23 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

rotation is the most efficient path to conserve earths angular momentum

Which one would assume given a stationary star (the sun) however the sun (and indeed the entire local galaxy) is moving away from the locus of the big bang hence the Earth's path (in space) is more than a "simple" rotation - right? 

A YT visual to go along with this.

[RichardHarris123]

13 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

Which one would assume given a stationary star (the sun) however the sun (and indeed the entire local galaxy) is moving away from the locus of the big bang hence the Earth's path (in space) is more than a "simple" rotation - right? 

A YT visual to go along with this.

Even the rotation/ orbit of the earth is more complex than it seems. 

[Nucejoe]

 Took me a while to find a relevent article in English. 

refer ;  locality arguement paragraph.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-physics/#LocaChal

Didn't and don't want to enter a time consuming arguement with spectre, as his understanding of the subject is respectable for the most parts. 

Hope this article helps.

Rgds 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Nucejoe

[spectre6000]

Is that re: my misstatement about the c in e=mc2 being causality? I won't put up much of an argument there. I sort of got that out of my own head once someone questioned that mote from the dustbin of my memory. It wasn't the focus of my initial post on the subject so much as an aside, and one that seems likely in error.

That article discusses the causality that my prof was (probably not) referring to as being the c in e=mc2, but that link I posted a bit back talking about celerity, and how that term/variable was sort of in vogue in the German physics world at the time due to its historical use and meaning is probably more accurate (the prof probably said it was celerity, but then all the subsequent Lorentz transformation business cemented the causality term in my brain, where celerity never came up again). The speed of causality equals the speed of light, and it's more than possible I confused something at the time (I'd assume that explanation over the prof getting it wrong) or in my memory since given that this is not a subject matter that comes up... ever. 

Honestly, I think it's great to finally have a place to talk about this level of esotericism with people who are interested and can contribute. Glad to straighten out that particular kink in my brain!

I went back and re-read my post, thought I'd see if I could edit the causality aside out, but I guess it's too late.

It did give me a thought though. In my plaid car brain experiment, I said that it would be possible for a plaid car that was completely stationary relative to the fabric of spacetime and adjacent some also stationary massive object to essentially ignore gravity. It occurs to me that the opposite would have an effect as well; if a mass system is moving FASTER relative to the fabric of spacetime, its gravitation would be greater. Spectra again. If we were to look out at various places in space where things are moving at different speeds relative to each other, we might find that their gravitation changes slightly. Mayhap that's dark matter. Maybe dark matter is actually just absolute speed within spacetime. This has the benefit of not requiring exotic matter that doesn't interact with anything and is undetectable (the whole concept bugs me for this reason). I've certainly read about galaxies that seem to have little or no dark matter, and maybe these are pretty stationary... Again, math beyond my ken would be required, as well as digging into some pretty deep astronomy/cosmology texts and papers to dis/prove this... The theory is internally consistent and IS disprovable, so it at least has legs to that degree.

[grsnovi]

2 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

I think it's great to finally have a place to talk about this level of esotericism with people who are interested

I suspect that this discussion is living on borrowed time.

2 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

the whole concept bugs me for this reason

What? You dislike the creation of an invisible, massive thing - that (if ONLY it were understood) could solve numerous problems?

[Nucejoe]

It ultimately is not the question of mass/ matter being IN MOTION , rather mass/ matter being THE MOTION. 

Your view on dark matter is interesting , specially that its a start to alocate a realem in which dark matter can be real,  it  as you put it " absolute speed" or zero or faster that speed of light, or any other, but it can be real in this realem that  mankind has no sense for, thence uncertain we go to the drawing borad.

The story of celerity and the C factor, isn't unfamiliar. Words often come out inexact, specially if they are not the focus of the point we are trying to get across. 

Thanks for sharring your thoughts,  I am all ears to hear more. 

Rgds

 

 

 

 

 

[spectre6000]

9 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

It ultimately is not the question of mass/ matter being IN MOTION , rather mass/ matter being THE MOTION. 

Your view on dark matter is interesting , specially that its a start to alocate a realem in which dark matter can be real,  it  as you put it " absolute speed" or zero or faster that speed of light, or any other, but it can be real in this realem that  mankind has no sense for, thence uncertain we go to the drawing borad.

Elaborate on that first sentence, and I'm having a hard time parsing the second.

I THINK you're saying I'm swapping a mysterious substance for a mysterious... systemic feature (for lack of a better word). I don't think the systemic feature (sticking with it for now) is all that mysterious, so much as we need to go to the data and look to see if it's there or not. It's very well documented that galaxies all over the place have varying amounts of dark matter, from very high to very low. I'm suggesting a heavy computational look at the relative velocities and vectors of these galaxies, with a special focus on the extremes to see if there's any correlation. IFF there is a strong correlation, then my plaid car theory warrants further investigation. If there's no strong correlation, then maybe it's a dead end (probably is, but I don't have the resources to say either way at this point). The difference between my theory, and what I understand to be the current understanding of dark matter, is that mine is falsifiable. I believe the current understanding of dark matter is that it's a variable comprised of the difference between how much visible matter is in a galaxy and how much mass it appears to have based on our understanding of gravity. How does one disprove a mysterious substance with no attributes that doesn't interact with anything save via weak force over galactic scales?

[RichardHarris123]

Yes either dark matter exists and we cannot directly observe it or our understanding of gravity is incorrect.  All models are wrong but some are useful according to  George Box.

[Nucejoe]

Einstein was at first eternalist, I think  change of mind later lead  him to see time as a constituent dimension of energy.   then in his equation he substantially sees/ introduces mass as energy or energy is in a condensed form/state.

E=m×c^2       where C is speed and obviously consists time.

The amount of mass converted to energy in nuclear power plants or bomb can actually be measured, which is equal to the dynamic motion we can observe or harness.

No change from state 1 to state 2 can happen in zero time.  this is the definition of motion, furthuremore , any change is evidence of motion. We see mass converted to energy which in turn can be converted to dynamic motion.  so mass is a condensed form of motion or consists of some motion in condensed state.

It is the motion itself, not that motion is imposed on it or imparted to it. 

Once we digest the above concepts ! we can start seeing that TIME IS THE AMOUNT OF MOTION. 

Rgds 

Joe

 

 

[RichardHarris123]

22 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

Einstein was at first eternalist, I think  change of mind later lead  him to see time as a constituent dimension of energy.   then in his equation he substantially sees/ introduces mass as energy or energy is in a condensed form/state.

E=m×c^2       where C is speed and obviously consists time.

The amount of mass converted to energy in nuclear power plants or bomb can actually be measured, which is equal to the dynamic motion we can observe or harness.

No change from state 1 to state 2 can happen in zero time.  this is the definition of motion, furthuremore , any change is evidence of motion. We see mass converted to energy which in turn can be converted to dynamic motion.  so mass is a condensed form of motion or consists of some motion in condensed state.

It is the motion itself, not that motion is imposed on it or imparted to it. 

Once we digest the above concepts ! we can start seeing that TIME IS THE AMOUNT OF MOTION. 

Rgds 

Joe

 

 

Interesting, so something that exists at 50 Hz, exists in a different time to something that exists at 50 GHz. 

[Nucejoe]

1 hour ago, RichardHarris123 said:

Interesting, so something that exists at 50 Hz, exists in a different time to something that exists at 50 GHz. 

Not clear,

Where in my post did you get this notion. 

Motion is change in state of a system from state 1  to state 2.

Amount of Motion= ( state 2) - ( state 1) 

No motion can take place in zero time, as that would mean 

stage 2= stage 1

which means no change has taken place. 

Nothing mysterious, we are talking common sense here. 

 

[RichardHarris123]

9 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

Not clear,

Where in my post did you get this notion. 

Motion is change in state of a system from state 1  to state 2.

Amount of Motion= ( state 2) - ( state 1) 

No motion can take place in zero time, as that would mean 

stage 2= stage 1

which means no change has taken place. 

Nothing mysterious, we are talking common sense here. 

 

You said that "Time is the amount of motion ' Hz is vibration, therefore motion. 

[spectre6000]

Hz is a measure of "cycles" over time. Time is pretty straightforward, but a cycle can be just about anything: voltage swings, beeps, rotations of a star, an oscillating balance wheel, or your mother in law singing David Bowie's "Space Oddity" album in its entirety while juggling her favorite tea set (an album carefully chosen for its unique status as being the only album in the universe currently playing in my living room, and the tea set is because I'm vibing on a British theme). Hz and vibration is apples and oranges in that they're both fruit, but very different otherwise.

Einstein's mass as a dimension of energy is the jumping off point for the plaid car theory. I'm taking it a step further, and saying both are a dimension of spacetime; inseparable. Energy (and thereby mass) is wadded up spacetime. The act of wadding/state of being wadded stretches spacetime, and that stretching of spacetime creates a localized gradient in c from whence arises gravity a la the wheels of the plaid car.

[Nucejoe]

4 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

I THINK you're saying I'm swapping a mysterious substance for a mysterious... systemic feature .

No thats not what I meant to say.

I think your view at its developed state, considers a region in spectrum of existance  in which dark matter can exist ,  where our sense or intel has yet not discovered , furthure you choose and alocates such region at either  end of the spectrum we have so far discovered.  

Your model satisfies most or all  of what math shows should exist.

Alocating such region can be argueable, but if dark matter does exist, it needs a field to exist in, though such field is nearly moitionless which possibly is why it  has so far remained undetecable to mankind. 

Undetctable beacuse of its low entropy, so low that renders the field motionless to us, therefor undetected .

 

[spectre6000]

In my model/view, dark matter does not exist at all. It's a misattribution. The phenomenon known as "dark matter" is an attempt to explain gravity in excess of that which should be associated with the observed quantity of matter. The amount of dark matter in a galaxy is calculated by comparing the gravitational effects of a galaxy on surrounding galaxies, light distortion, and whatever other gravitational effects to the amount that the math says the observed matter in that galaxy should be able to exert.

In my model, gravity that arises from absolute vector/velocity within a stationary spacetime. It's more difficult in that it's a bit of a challenge to figure out what "stationary" is, but comparing the velocities and vectors of galaxies relative to each other, and comparing that to the "dark matter factor" in the hands of people better than I should be able to tease that out pretty readily. The beauty of it, is that once that is known, dark matter disappears and gravity becomes a much simpler and more elegant phenomenon to discern. I believe that simplicity resolves, or at least goes a long way toward resolving, a number of other issues in the physics world.

Dark energy is another thing entirely, and I don't know how that jives or doesn't with the plaid car. Haven't given that side much thought.

[Nucejoe]

I view time, energy and space as the elements/ substance/ dimensions  that material existance is made of, interrelated and interdependent such that one can not exist without the other two, interrelated that one can   get stretched  in favour of another or entirely  get converted to another.  This doesn't disallow dark matter to exist as a form of energy.

I see nothing wrong with a stationary system, its like a parked car.

but In my view the car itself is motion.I am  not talking that it can move or can be put to motion, but its very existance is  motion. if that motion doesn't exist there never was a car, neither did mass/energy  or space existed .

This allows mass moving at speed of light to entirely  transform into energy, we will  then have a massless material entity, which itself is substancially motion.

Einstein only calculated a limit of speed  for mass to exist in the form of mass, mass transforms when its speed reaches that limit. calculation and observance prooves him right, because thats where he got his theory from, and recently there is this talk that space can transform into time.

Substantialy time only exists if there is motion, past, present and future are only our interpretation of what we see from our relative  point of observance, but something must be moving so we can sense passage of time and concieve past, present and future. Eienstein then borrows the terms fabric from taylors of cloths , to taylor and weave together space and time into fabric of spacetime, ... etc. 

You can keep infinately  deviding any real number by two, you will never get to  a absolute zero, but  tangentially approach a limit colse to zero. Now lets devide a material entity to two parts, there is a limit here beyond  which that entity siezes to exist as the same metrial and gets converted to a different state of existance. Thats what happens when mass get converted into dynmaic energy, because mass can not exist beyond that limit in fabric of spacetime, but dynamic energy can. So math models show us points at or beyond which a transformation must happen. We the humans are to interpret and discover these  transformations. Math doesn't show us what that new state of existance  is, it just alerts us, a change in state of the system  must  occure at such a point. 

 

 

 

 

[spectre6000]

8 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

I view time, energy and space as the elements/ substance/ dimensions  that material existance is made of, interrelated and interdependent such that one can not exist without the other two, interrelated that one can   get stretched  in favour of another or entirely  get converted to another.  This doesn't disallow dark matter to exist as a form of energy.

I see nothing wrong with a stationary system, its like a parked car.

but In my view the car itself is motion.I am  not talking that it can move or can be put to motion, but its very existance is  motion. if that motion doesn't exist there never was a car, neither did mass/energy  or space existed .

This allows mass moving at speed of light to entirely  transform into energy, we will  then have a massless material entity, which itself is substancially motion.

Einstein only calculated a limit of speed  for mass to exist in the form of mass, mass transforms when its speed reaches that limit. calculation and observance prooves him right, because thats where he got his theory from, and recently there is this talk that space can transform into time.

Substantialy time only exists if there is motion, past, present and future are only our interpretation of what we see from our relative  point of observance, but something must be moving so we can sense passage of time and concieve past, present and future. Eienstein then borrows the terms fabric from taylors of cloths , to taylor and weave together space and time into fabric of spacetime, ... etc. 

You can keep infinately  deviding any real number by two, you will never get to  a absolute zero, but  tangentially approach a limit colse to zero. Now lets devide a material entity to two parts, there is a limit here beyond  which that entity siezes to exist as the same metrial and gets converted to a different state of existance. Thats what happens when mass get converted into dynmaic energy, because mass can not exist beyond that limit in fabric of spacetime, but dynamic energy can. So math models show us points at or beyond which a transformation must happen. We the humans are to interpret and discover these  transformations. Math doesn't show us what that new state of existance  is, it just alerts us, a change in state of the system  must  occure at such a point. 

I'm going to go through paragraph by paragraph to respond. I'm out of a major constituent of my morning tea blend until tomorrow or Saturday, so I'm less than 100% conscious at the moment, so cut me a break if I say something stupid.

First paragraph. Touch on dark matter as a form of energy. This may be intended from the perspective of energy/mass spectrum energy, but I think it's important to be aware that "dark matter" is not the most literal. It's the name of a theory just like my "plaid car" is morphing into the name of my theory for the purposes of this thread. Dark matter is a name ascribed to an unknown effect, and there's nothing at all to suggest it might be a particle or anything so concrete. Might just be a force, kind of like dark energy, only that suffers from the exact same name association problem. I point this out to update potential other readers on that particularity of that particular particle.

I'm tying the next two together. Yes, the plaid car in park is in motion locally, but the collective spacetime wad comprising the car has no velocity or vector with respect to the stationary spacetime fabric.

I don't recall anything in special relativity saying that mass at the speed of light IS energy, though I guess if E is large enough, M reduces to 0, so there's that...

Einstein did a lot more than calculate the speed of light. There's a whole framework, and it's called Relativity, split into Special and General flavors. His speed of light calculations were subsequently confirmed via a transit of a star or something during a total eclipse, if memory serves.

Time is a function of change. That gets even more esoteric than the rest of it. I posted an article on here a few months back on the subject of "what is time", and it was pretty good. My takeaway was that time is a measurement of causality locally. I believe that to mean this does not necessarily require motion for time to exist, as the former is subject to the latter, but not vice versa. Our current technologies require motion to measure time (the latest-greatest being Ytterbium atoms suspended in a laser lattice), but that doesn't mean motion is required for time to exist.

That last paragraph sounds like Zeno's dichotomy paradox. But yeah, the Planck length is the limit. The spacetime dilation upon which the plaid car generates its turning/braking force is subject to that length in/decreasing. I guess there's also a particle physics side to that wherein we keep splitting atoms into various subatomic particles, but at some point all you seem to get is energy, implying there's a limit here as well (which there would seem to be in an intuitive sense).