Nature of mass gravitation

[Nucejoe]

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 .

[grsnovi]

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".

[RichardHarris123]

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. 

[grsnovi]

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.

[spectre6000]

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...

[Nucejoe]

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. 

 

 

 

 

[Nucejoe]

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. 

 

[spectre6000]

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.

[Nucejoe]

 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