« on: 01/07/2022 15:37:34 »
Can we draw a geometrical representation of gravity?
The following users thanked this post: Alex Dullius Siqueira
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Then again: Can conscious thought act on matter?The clay wasn't necessary. The hands moved. That's enough to illustrate the point. I totally agree. The question was asked in a classical manner, and that's a classical answer.
What do you expected? 😂
My brain thinks.
My brain move my hands.
My hands shape a ball made of Clay.
Even if a highly ultimate technology, would comunicante trough physical means.We usually call them interfaces. They can be biological neurons, implanted electrodes, or non-invasive brain wave sensors.
There a wire or even light it's not different from my hands.
Hmmm, I'll have to take a closer look at this, later.But if the watches are not synchronized, and can tick at different rates depending on their velocity relative to some imaginary fixed point in space, (which might not be a realistic possibility at all), can we just drop a flare there to mark the spot ?
I don't think so!
It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.
It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.
Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.
Its always a bit messy to have to deal with consciousness but quantum gravity, if that's such a thing "seems" to demands to understand clearly what it's, before, being able to mathematically represent it, if tapping into the answer without understanding how time and consciousness are related one would be forbidden to understand the "why" (it would be).Do you seriously think that makes any sense?
Think like this: If I understand everything I need to reach Vega in order to warn them about a supernova I've seen on earth, which they haven't seen yet.If you see the supernova on earth and it doesn't negatively impact the earth, then the would be no need to warn Vega since it would obviously be farther from the supernova than the earth is.
Now what is a paradox for us?Word salad.
Where the math couldn't keep up.
But if that's true, it's a redundant assumption.
You couldn't travel because you didn't knew how at that moment.
You "math" would only be the math for casualty which emerged "specifically" set for "you".
If you knew how to reach Vega the way you wanted, you say that there would be no paradox.
But isn't that equally redundant?
What about the casualty that prevented you to do the way you wanted?
You don't avoided the potential paradox, you avoided the casualty which lead to it.
Not preventing the paradox, simple "there was the paradox and there wasn't all along".
Your "not knowing" created casualty based on your own observation.
Which lead to you explain not the universe embedded within math or geometry, but the causality you yourself caused because your math was still "predictable".
One needs to understand this quantum aspect of "different time" or even "no time", in order to understand how to replicate that in the macro scale.
Once you do, you'll understand "what casualty" was, pretty sure it's time to put the human consious observer as a properly of time, or there'll be a "new way" to describe casualty and "why" you can't do it, because you used casualty on your understanding, "bringing" the impossibility with you.
From that point will be very difficult to return and fix.
For me, intuitively "light" it's our single only misconception for it all.
It seems that the 1/r^2 law for gravity makes perfect sense, as it directly follows from the geometry of a point source.
Why would this contradict the conservation of energy?
Light causes gravityThere is plenty of observational and experimental evidence that shows your idea is not correct.
And it all would start from the assumption that photons recieves their mass one plank distance behind their present frame, and such would be mass is quantified, allocated but since it can't be stored remains null.That makes no sense. I think you need to rephrase that.
When the temporal warp light causes trough out it's whole trajectory of billions of years, start to colide with mater, it than start to "push" the object, and the binding is up to electromagnetic forces.I'm going to have to stop at this point because none of this makes sense. It sounds like a bunch of science terms just randomly thrown together. Sorry.
It doesn't literally pushes or pulls anything, rather the object recieves the whole temporal path of light, and it grants it the ability to move.
Light is the interference that gives mass to everything there is and itself, in time.There is no evidence that I am aware of that would support those conjectures.
The photon is why the electron and everything else vibrates and can exist as a thing in the first time.
Photons not traveling trough space time, photons created space time as the original "universal star" exploded.
Wondering if black hole in fact sucks anything, or if they simple when the star exploded is sometimes able to "delay away from C" and becomes disconnected from the grid and space starts to fall towards it in order to seal the hole.A black hole is more like a very compact gravity source.
Not sure C is indeed a "limit" to anything.The speed of light is invariant and as a consequence, the speed of light is the max speed of the universe.
It seems C it's more a tictac rate, where anything moving at a matching speed would not be able to be recreated in the next frame and would desapears.
But nothing ever proved C is the limit.
A warp should be proporcional, light is a warp.I think you are using the wrong word. 'Warp' means bend.
It's possible that the photon do have mass and happens that due their configuration can't store it or keep it,Probably not, since matter cannot move at the speed of light.
therefore their mass occurs one frame behind the next plankCould expound on this? I don't know what 'one frame behind the next plank' means.
As if the warp was to fast to even quantity their massI don't know what that means, please explain further.
so instead of giving it to the photons as particles, such mass is lost in the previous frame, and once there mass without a geometrical "particle/vibration" becomes "volume/space"?How could a particle become space? That would clearly violate the conservation of mass and energy so it seems highly unlikely.
Could it be that the elusive force expanding the universe is the mass of the photonic light emitted by the stars?Light cannot expand space, light has inertia so it could conceivably have some effect on matter but not space.
Only visible if observing the past.
.If it's not quarks, then what is it that produces
How would curved space/time produce gravity as opposed to mass?
I mean, if not clear:Einstein has taken us to a different world. It is true, it is a big topic, expansion or contraction of universe. In my view, first we must be in a position to say, what exactly is gravity on Earth. Further, we must have a perfect idea on functioning of our solar system. But, here, un-certainity prevails and for all practical purposes we are taking Newtons inverse square law, which, we know, is incorrect.
"WHAT would be the mathematical/geometrical "possibilities" if universal expansion was to reach the impossible edge of the universe, would it be forced to bend itself by splitting and multiplying volume, rules, wherever, so to "turn around"and reach infinity again?