Jump to content

Nature of mass gravitation


Recommended Posts

Haha , enjoy your coffee and have a nice today.

When I speak of gravitation, force, time,,,,,. I am talking the essence/ substance. 

When you talk of them , you are talking their behaviour, effect,       and other physic-o- dynamic parameters.

You gave us the  Ein ee   equation    E=m×c^2. , which clearly shows energy containing time in its belly , that is time as brick/ ingredient  thats gone into construction of energy, ie;   time as a substance/ingredient , not a measure.

Same substance ( time) has gone into making the fabric of spacetime, ie;  in fabricating  spacetime out of two ingredients namely  space and time, here again time is an ingredient/ substance , not a measure. 

Remove time from speed, your left with no change ie; no motion, thats eternality, which means a system  would eternally exist and the world is a system of matter.

If we consider an existance not need time to exist, we are saying its eternal, doesn't get old, lacks entropy. 

I don't know if dark matter or dark energy exists or not, but I can digest such a thing might/ should  exist and expect it would exist according to laws of physics. We might need new laws of physics and eventually find such laws, but no material entity  can defy laws of physics.  If math shows a critical / unaccounted for effect for existance, then I start looking for it, so are scientist most of  whom hope to find dark matter or something with similar effect.

Math shows spacetime curved, thats a long way from proving its curvature of spacetime and not gravity field .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

If we consider an existence not need time to exist, we are saying its eternal, doesn't get old

I've been trying to reconcile all of this to the persistent notion of "heaven" and "hell". I sometimes muse on quantum entanglement between beings in an alternative/parallel/coincident universe and the idea of "angels".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

I've been trying to reconcile all of this to the persistent notion of "heaven" and "hell". I sometimes muse on quantum entanglement between beings in an alternative/parallel/coincident universe and the idea of "angels".

Impossible because one man's heaven is another man's hell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RichardHarris123 said:

Impossible because one man's heaven is another man's hell.

I wasn't suggesting that the notions were universal or that the experience would be anything other than personal. I just wonder if there isn't natural science behind the ideas that humans have wrangled with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't the exact quote I was after, but it gets at the same notion:

“There are wonders enough out there without our inventing any.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

I think I'm talking of both the effects and the substance, it's just that in my paradigm, the substance is spacetime itself. Everything (all of massergy) is just concentrated/wadded up spacetime. As for what spacetime itself is... Turtles. All the way down.

Time as a constituent component of everything... It's obvious in the math, but I'm pausing here as I type this trying to figure out the intuitive side of that... 

Removing time from speed doesn't work, because speed is comprised of change over time, and your numerator disappears. Extending that to other things... (pause to think) If you remove time from matter, I think you're left with matter in a suspended state. The spacetime wad maintains its geometry. Time is certainly not separable from spacetime, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around what it would look like if it were. Still less than caffeinated maybe, only now I've had a full day of banging my head against code that I wrote a long time ago, and subsequently covered it top to bottom with duct tape, bondo, white out, and bubblegum. 

I think spacetime curvature is currently still under debate; at least in terms of specific topologies. That falls under the umbrella of "too esoteric to really figure out easily through observation".

That's a crappy response... I'll do better next time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

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...

Went back to my preveous post and see  I wasn't clear, 

 By the word " entirely"  I meant no part disentegrated/ converted mass go to creating space or time,   it only converts to energy. 

Energy to mass solely happened in big bang,  "expansion " a process of  ( creation of space)  , provided space for energy to go into making mass. 

Conversion of mass to energy naturally happen in nucleonic scale , in nuclear reactions some existing systems disentegrate and other systems may form, in process in which force carriers are at work of carrying force to such subsystems and  many subsystems that can exist, forms ( see footnote), firthurmore ,some energy ( small amount) can convert to energy which normally are  emmitted as  photons or other force carriers. 

At speed of llight or ( reletivistic speeds) mass doesn't reduce to near zero, on the contrary ( in theory )  mass  infinely increases, such phenomenon is inconcievable to actually happen in non nucleonic scale by mankind , as tremendous energy would be required to do so ( see footnote) .

Conversion of energy to mass in large scale is beleived to have taken place  only during the big bang. 

Spectre, you are shooting too many aspects of the subject at me. I don't think I live long enough to respond to them all.  😩   

footnote,      many formed subsystem don't live long enough to be detectable with current technologies. some detection tools are rediculouly large in size/ expensive and underdeveloped, outputs are neither reliable nor cover good portion of the spectrum of matter existance. 

Thanks for sharring your knowledge and  views. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

Removing time from speed doesn't work, because speed is comprised of change over time, and your numerator disappears. Extending that to other things... (pause to think) If you remove time from matter, I think you're left with matter in a suspended state. 

Time removed from matter, leaves matter timeless. such matter if it could exist would have  been  eternal. Universe is not etrnal, neither is any existance in it eternal. 

Change is the very evidence of motion.  No (motion/ change) can take place in zero time. 

Of many types of motion, invisige a flower in your mind, next  invisige a young and pretty girl,  thats a change , taken place in delta time, and a motion has occured.  ( though neither image was real, both were made  in your mind )  yet a change has occured, which took delta time to occur. 

How do you mean, matter in a suspended state , do you mean dormant, inactive?   If it timeless,  its eternal.  

Universe is not eternal, all in it is not eternal, matter in it is not eternal. 

Every matter entitiy has a clock in it, ticking its life away. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean literally removing time from matter so much as isolating these things. This is not a thing that would literally exist, but a state that can be considered. 

But yeah. Far afield from mass gravitation.

Why and wherefrom is gravity? I put forward the causality gradient of a mass-dilated spacetime as the origin of mass gravitation. There are plenty of other theories, but that's mine. So would the same thing happen in the realm of Special Relativity?... Why does it take infinite energy to accelerate matter to the speed of light? Mayhap infinite relativistic gravity arises in its wake in the same manner (velocity-dilated spacetime causality gradient). I can't think of having ever thought about WHY it takes infinite energy, and thus I'm not aware of any better explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 No luck so far searching for a vid of an expirement that show how a torque force developes and why is prependicular to the  plane of rotation, which certainly is not intuative. As I remember  math of it wasn't too complicated but isn't as much fun as seeing it in action. Curious kids, young and old, would enjoy  such a vid. 

The previous vid showed that when an attraction force ( magnetic in this case) came  to affect, the linear momentums of the two balls( in opposit  direction) converted  the system into rotational , to conserve its momentum ( angular momentum  in the new system)  which is the most efficient path to conserve angulare momentum in, likewise a gravitational force  converts two linear momentums in opposit directions( of two massive planet)  to a rotation, which demonstrates how  planetary rotations is likely to have  developed in planetary systems, thus showing  curved spacetime not  neccessarily the cause of rotation of palnets in planetary systems. 

Curved spacetime theory  is only a theory and tenatively accepted  to exist. 

Rgds

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I just had a brainwave...

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/dark-energy/the-expansion-of-the-universe-could-be-a-mirage-new-theoretical-study-suggests

This was published this morning. The content isn't all that important (though interesting), but it got me thinking. There's this theory called VSL (Variable Speed of Light) which holds that the big bang was caused by a sudden decrease in C (the speed of light). All that energy that was tied up in that higher speed precipitated out into matter. 

What if red shift is illusory, and actually C gradually increasing? Leading yet again to another... Big Precipitation? I haven't run through all the various aspects and outcomes that would arise from this, but this is about the only place I know of where such discussion wouldn't result in glazed eyes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

I just had a brainwave...

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/dark-energy/the-expansion-of-the-universe-could-be-a-mirage-new-theoretical-study-suggests

This was published this morning. The content isn't all that important (though interesting), but it got me thinking. There's this theory called VSL (Variable Speed of Light) which holds that the big bang was caused by a sudden decrease in C (the speed of light). All that energy that was tied up in that higher speed precipitated out into matter. 

What if red shift is illusory, and actually C gradually increasing? Leading yet again to another... Big Precipitation? I haven't run through all the various aspects and outcomes that would arise from this, but this is about the only place I know of where such discussion wouldn't result in glazed eyes.

I thoroughly enjoy this kind of stuff.  I saved the link and will read the article when I get home tonight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get to "think" about this sort of stuff with any background that makes sense but indulge me...

So, sperm hits egg = "big bang" and the immediate expansion of life that takes 9 months to bring a being to life on earth... thousands/millions/billions of molecules are created...

...the resulting being's physical body has an external set of limits that are continuously expanding (sound like a universe yet)?

I have always marveled at the similarities between the intricate patterns of nebula in space and the nerve synapses within.

I have also wondered about infinitely small "living within" infinitely large (call it universes within universes if you will).

With JWST's recent (apparent) discovery of HUGE galaxies in the early days following the "big bang" (where they shouldn't be) and the subsequent wondering if maybe the whole big bang hypothesis is perhaps not quite right...

I wonder if man will "ever know" or if we'll be doomed to forever wonder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grsnovi said:

I wonder if man will "ever know" or if we'll be doomed to forever wonder?

This is a great question, compared to a slug a chimpanzee is very intelligent, but a chimpanzee no matter how hard it tried, or however many generations* of learning could ever master calculus, or even rewire a toaster. So this begs the question... is man smart enough to ever understand how the universe works... are we the metaphorical chimpanzee poking a stick at the universal toaster wondering how it makes toast? It would be the height of hubris to assume that we are smart enough, but this doesn't prove we aren't either.

*I know someone will pick up on this and state that the chimp could evolve to learn... but then it wouldn't be a chimpanzee it would be whatever a toaster fixing chimpanzee evolves into, similarly, do we have to wait for mankind to evolve into the next type of human to be smart enough to understand the universe?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2023 at 12:24 AM, Nucejoe said:

What is the essence of gravitational force? 

I always toyed with the idea that gravity was perhaps a force that bleeds through from another plane/dimension we do not interact directly with, hence the reason it is so weak compared to the other fundamental forces... in a battle over a paperclip between the gravity created by the whole earth and a magnet the size of your fingernail the magnet wins!

Perhaps in my mystery dimension, gravitons are tangible particles you can pickup and play marbles with and have a much stronger force - even stronger than tiny magnets... ha ha... I also think that this could explain the missing mass in the universe, well a better solution than the 'dark matter' explanation, which is little better than 'god did it', but I digress.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

 All that energy that was tied up in that higher speed precipitated out into matter. 

Very plausible.

 

20 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

There's this theory called VSL (Variable Speed of Light) which holds that the big bang was caused by a sudden decrease in C (the speed of light). 

 Does it have to be sudden?     or is it happening as we speak ?    isn't time telling us change is and  has always been underway in our universe. 

Is what we call mathematics not limited by our limited understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joao Magueijo's version of VSL cosmology is the one I'm thinking of. There are books and even a documentary about it. It's been a while since I read anything about VSL, but I recall it was pretty sudden. It would have to be to result in the physical reality we see in the universe (the evidence of the big bang is pretty incontrovertible, it's the interpretation of that evidence that's in question). That it might be happening as we speak is my little brainwave that caused me to resurrect this thread. If the observed redshift is not the universe expanding via dark energy, but C gradually increasing, that aspect at least would be internally consistent. Hubble's constant would still be a constant, but would be the rate of change of C rather than the rate of the expansion of the universe. Again, I've not had time to noodle on various implications on other established observations/laws of nature/etc. That brainwave may crash on the shore of some obvious island the second I get a breath to let it ride...

Noodling while my 3yo is between whining about her pants being too short (they're not) and whatever comes next (didn't even have to wait for the end of that sentence, she managed to get her shirt inside out)... If C suddenly decreases, matter precipitates. If C suddenly increases... Does matter evaporate? (now running, screaming through the hallway and running into a wall). E = MC^2. If C gets smaller, M gets bigger. Do it quickly, you get a big bang-esque precipitation of matter. If C gets bigger, M gets smaller (in this case, slowly over billions of years), but how? Does matter evaporate? (Now something is hard about washing her hands) 

It took me too long to get to this point. I wake up an hour and a half before everyone else to have some quiet time to enjoy my tea and be able to think. Chaos has now erupted, and any hope of the level of thought required to advance this notion further has evaporated in a manner that matter might if C were to increase.... I'll try to keep fleshing the idea out as I find moments throughout the day... No one publish without me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

For a visual: send a bowling ball foward on a trampoline, with tennis balls also on the trampoline. The stretchy nature of the fabric curves the bowling ball around and around, with all the tennis balls falling into the wake and following that same path. Gravitational pull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...