41
New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?
« on: 15/06/2022 04:00:23 »
Make sense
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.
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.
Im deliberately suggesting that light occurrence created/still does, the void known as space, a temporal allocation for would be photonic mass, that when in the absence of atomic structure becomes "space/time and gravity".... I was thinking about "everything is the light" and the geometrical relation PI could have with everything, which lead to a visualization of a typon like structure we call photon.
Not real as a particle but merely "a probably" created by the electron, or where the electron should exist "in the past and future" given the present frame probabilities.
When it's no longer necessary it's discarded "still" it can't be lost, and started to create warps and along site this attempt it started gradually to create space/gravity and all that in time, so time as well.
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.
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.
It is here that i am struggling hard. As per my knowledge goes, if we place any mass, anywhere in the universe it will curve the space time around it. As long as the mass is not placed, it is a 2d space and when the mass is placed, it is converted to 3d space. How it is possible?.
What this space fabric consists of.
One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.
When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.
"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move". Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move.
In general relativity, gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface. With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.
If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet. If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.
This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry.
Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides. Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,
Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other. This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.
This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.
Yours
Psreddy
What this space fabric consists of.
One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.
When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.
"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move". Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move.
In general relativity, gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface. With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.
If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet. If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.
This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry.
Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides. Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,
Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other. This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.
This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.
Yours
Psreddy
"matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells matter how move"
01 It is true that there is Gravity inside the elevator and Mr.'X's weight is 75 kgs.This "inside"/ "outside" restrictions is what do not match the picture here...
well, right or wrong, since we do not completely understand gravity, the only thing that is left to say:
The structure of his text was pretty easy to visualize...
Since we are all emotive beings despise the effort, if we accept that we don't know to state we are right about the "not knowing", even that could, and most certainly is wrong... Still, easy to mind picture that scenario that he described.
Mr Alex,
As rightly accepted by Newton, there is a medium, giving or causing weight on Earth, known as Gravity. It is true that Einstein carried out number of experiments to find out "What exactly this medium is". But, in my opinion, whenever I go by his theory or thought experiments, i feel that it is incomplete and an unfinished agenda.
I am just trying to find out the truth, exploring the different possibilities. I am moving with confidence, but i am not sure, whether i could present it in better way or convince others "what exactly is gravity".
Thank you
Psreddy