Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Professor Mega-Mind on 19/05/2020 00:23:25
-
》Transferred from thread : Does gravity attract masses in space , or does it curve space between them ?
Link : www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67385.new;
topicseen#new
Ref : Reply 56 - 97 .
*Improved Metaphor .
The standard representation of gravity is a flat surface , subjected to an attractive force from "beneath" , with enjoined objects at the vertex of hyperbolic-cones , pointing towards "downwards" gravity sources . This 3-D imagery does not fully represent the 4-dimensional nature of actual "gravity-wells" . In reality , "Round-Tesseracts" is better as a description of them . This picture engages the travel-in-time aspect of an object's vector , not just the three-dimensional one . It explains why objects in a "gravity-well" deviate from a Newtonian trajectory , particularly when higher gravitational values and velocities are involved . The flip-side of this relativistic distortion is the mass-change; as the engaged object travels faster into the future , travel in any other direction becomes more difficult . This slows the passage of time for that object , while increasing it's kinetic energy content in a relativistic manner .
Interestingly , this effect does apply , even when an object is stationary in a gravity-well . This provides proof positive that gravity moves objects (mass-energy) into the future .
Addendum : These distortions have an effect upon all matter and energy entrained therein , and are likely responsible for the ironically named illusion of "Dark-Matter" .
The aforementioned effects would have predominated in the early universe , but have since reduced , allowing an accelerated dissipation of the present-day universe . The cause of that being a great drop in intergalactic gravity-density , as matter-energy , especially that of the "fabric/matrix" of space , became ever more concentrated in galaxies and their clusters . Relatively , time now passes far more quickly , than in the early universe . As this universe ages , time will pass ever faster . Eventually , it will be infinitely fast , and will end , disappearing from the multiverse entirely !
*Aren't exouniversal physics grand !
*To examine possible composition of space , read Reply # 12 .
P.M.
》Ref : Is there a "force of gravity"? www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40810.new;topicseen#new
》Ref.2 : How do we "know" that the universe is expanding ? Pg.1
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66933.topicseen#new
> Ref.: 2a : How... into nothing? Pg.3
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66480.topicseen#new
》Ref.3 : Can the vacuum be affected by gravity ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74884.topicseen#new
》Ref.4 : Are there different types of gravity ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74736.topicseen#new
》Ref.5 : Why do photons slow in a strong gravitational field?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67580.topicseen#new
*Ref.6 : Daily.Galaxy>Dark.Matter - Is Disappearing Since the Big.Bang
https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/07/dark-matter-of-the-universe-is-disappearing-since-big-bang/
*Ref.7 : Viktor Toth ; Quora Thread:
www.quora.com/In-the-early-universe-electromagnetic-and-weak-forces-were-combined-to-form-electroweak-force-But-as-the-universe-started-to-cool-down-the-force-was-separated-The-universe-still-expands-and-cools-down-so-can-a-similar-happen-in-the-future?
>
www.quora.com/In-the-early-universe-electromagnetic-and-weak-forces-were-combined-to-form-electroweak-force-But-as-the-universe-started-to-cool-down-the-force-was-separated-The-universe-still-expands-and-cools-down-so-can-a?ch=99&share=18812afa&srid=Ck49x
-
*Improved Metaphor .
The standard representation of gravity is a flat surface , subjected to an attractive force from "beneath" , with enjoined objects at the vertex of hyperbolic-cones , pointing towards "downwards" gravity sources . This 3-D imagery does not fully represent the 4-dimensional nature of actual "gravity-wells" . In reality , "Round-Tesseracts" is better as a description of them . This picture engages the travel-in-time aspect of an object's vector , not just the three-dimensional one . It explains why objects in a "gravity-well" deviate from a Newtonian trajectory , particularly when higher gravitational values and velocities are involved . The flip-side of this relativistic distortion is the mass-change; as the engaged object travels faster into the future , travel in any other direction becomes more difficult . This slows the passage of time for that object , while increasing it's kinetic energy content in a relativistic manner .
Interestingly , this effect does apply , even when object is stationary in a gravity-well . This provides proof positive that gravity moves objects (mass-energy) into the future .
Addendum : These distortions have an effect upon all matter and energy entrained therein , and are likely responsible for the ironically named illusion of "Dark-Matter" .
The aforementioned effects would have predominated in the early universe , but have since reduced , allowing an accelerated dissipation of the present-day universe . The cause of that being a great drop in intergalactic gravity-density , as matter-energy became ever more concentrated in galaxies and their clusters . Relatively , time now passes far more quickly , than in the early universe . As this universe ages , time will pass ever faster . Eventually , it will be infinitely fast , and will end , disappearing from the multiverse entirely !
*Aren't exo-universal physics grand !
P.M. .🤯
Please keep posts like this confined to "New Theories".
-
Negative , Mr. Critic ...
It is a relavent response to a reply in this thread , ergo... it belongs here , whether you agree with it or not .
Note : You'd be better of addressing some of the wildly divergent blather that often pops up in these threads (calling Opportunity) .
P.M. .🙄
-
It is a relavent response to a reply in this thread , ergo... it belongs here , whether you agree with it or not .
The problem isn't whether or not it is relevant. The problem is that it is not the current view of mainstream physics. We don't need laypeople coming to this forum seeking answers and think that what you just said is the modern scientific stance.
Note : You'd be better of addressing some of the wildly divergent blather that often pops up in these threads (calling Opportunity) .
I'll call it out if and when I find it (I don't look at every thread on the forum).
-
Yeah...
You do target certain people .
Now then , seeing as how MAINSTREAM science allows that the universe was much denser and slower in the deep past , the logical extension of that is the opposite . In other words , the trend I described . As far as the "Vector of time" goes , that springs directly from Relativity , which is mainstream enough for me .
Another thing here ; this is a discussion forum , not a test by some hostile professor . In otherwords , it is here for discussion and debate . It is NOT Encyclopedia Brittanica , or a doctoral thesis , it is a discussion , that's all . Time to stop sabotaging other posters , and let them enjoy their conversations !
P.M. .
-
I see !
Worked around to the big brag now ! Too bad you're totally wrong on EACH count ! I could actually prove the viability of each proposition , but that's not what you're really about here !
Unbelievable , absolutely unbelievable to have this mess hurled at my face !
I'm having a hard time believing you're allowing this petty behavior , Chris !
P.M.
*Matter-o'-fact , I WILL prove each point , with credible scientific sources !
First-up ; Arrow of Time .
Ref : www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/
Second-up ; G-R Gravity .
Ref : www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/time-dilation-why-does-gravity-slow-down-the-flow-of-time.html
Third-up ; Micro-G slowing .
futurism.com/thanks-to-time-dilation-earths-core-is-2-5-years-younger-than-its-surface .
Fourth-up ; The Big-Rip .
Ref : en.m.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Big_Rip
Fifth-up ; Entropic-Gravity .
Ref : en.m.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Entropic_gravity
*Ref.: quora.com/Does-the-expansion-of-space-time-produce-or-require-energy/ .Viktor Toth
**Bone-us : quora.com/Does-gravity-have-mass/ .Viktor Toth
***Also : quora.com/If-space-is-expanding-are-more-units-of-space-being-made-or-are-they-getting-bigger/ .Jonathan Devor
*Alright , as the objective can see , my logic-chain is solidly contiguous , and based on past observation and credible theory .
-
I see !
Worked around to the big brag now ! Too bad you're totally wrong on EACH count ! I could actually prove the viability of each proposition , but that's not what you're really about here !
Unbelievable , absolutely unbelievable to have this mess hurled at my face !
I'm having a hard time believing you're allowing this petty behavior , Chris !
P.M.
*Matter-o'-fact , I WILL prove each point , with credible scientific sources !
First-up ; Arrow of Time .
Ref : www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/
Second-up ; G-R Gravity .
Ref : www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/time-dilation-why-does-gravity-slow-down-the-flow-of-time.html
Okay, so where in your links does it state that time is eventually going to be moving infinitely quickly?
-
Now then , seeing as how MAINSTREAM science allows that the universe was much denser and slower in the deep past , the logical extension of that is the opposite .
I think thats a matter of your piont of view, really its all relative.
-
...I'm lovin' it !
You are , of course , right . The poor unfrozen souls waking up in the distant future , would perceive time as passing in a normal manner . But... if we could somehow observe that future universe from here , it would appear to move exponentially faster , until it rapidly disintegrated . It's just extrapolating the G-R effects we observe here and now , far into the future .
*Sounds like that sci-fi short ; "...At the End" !
P.M.
-
But... if we could somehow observe that future universe from here , it would appear to move exponentially faster , until it rapidly disintegrated . It's just extrapolating the G-R effects we observe here and now , far into the future .
And you base that conclusion on what? Why would time in the future move significantly faster than time already moves in, say, present-day intergalactic space?
-
Because in the early universe , when the mass/energy density throughout space was far higher , time passed much slower. The universe has since thinned,and as a consequence time in it is passing more quickly than when it was very dense . That trend leads very directly to an exponentially quickening passage of time , culminating in a "crisis-moment" , far in the future .
*Simple logic-chain , however , I will back it up with reference to a live and accessible physicist , with similar views .
Ref : Jim Whitescarver
www.quora.com/Is-a-curve-in-space-time-a-difference-in-density-of-space-time? 3/4/16 .
*Apparently, Faraday , Maxwell, Einstein,Green , and he , all hold/held a similar view of the cosmic "ether" . The same one I propound !
P.M.
-
Because in the early universe , when the mass/energy density throughout space was far higher , time passed much slower. The universe has since thinned,and as a consequence time in it is passing more quickly than when it was very dense . That trend leads very directly to an exponentially quickening passage of time , culminating in a "crisis-moment" , far in the future .
*Simple logic-chain .
P.
That's not how that works. The rate of time does not tend towards infinity as the gravitational potential tends towards zero. That is specifically why I used intergalactic space as an example. The gravitational potential is practically zero out there. Yet time does not move much faster there than it does here on Earth. Gravitational time dilation is always a measure between two reference frames. The gravitational time dilation at Earth's surface causes about 0.0219 fewer seconds per year to pass relative to a reference frame where no gravitational field or acceleration is present.
-
That's a quantitative factor , but it cannot account for the "virtual-mass" of space-time . This of course , because we don't really know exactly what space is . Same with matter , same with energy . We only know these on a relatively shallow level . When we truly master them , we will be able to create artificial forms of them .
*For a comprehensive synopsis of leading theories on the composition of space-time :
Ref : www.quora.com/What-is-empty-space-made-of/
NSF : Why is it called dark-matter instead of dark-gravity ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67557.new;topicseen#new
P.M.
》For in-depth debate on these subjects , read NSF thread : If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Reply#417 , on page 21 .
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.new;topicseen#new
-
That's a quantitative factor , but it cannot account for the "virtual-mass" of space-time . This of course , because we don't really know exactly what space is . Same with matter , same with energy . We only know these on a relatively shallow level . When we truly master them , we will be able to create artificial forms of them .
P.
And none of that has any effect on what I said. What I said has been supported by experiment. Einstein's equations have survived every test they have been subjected to. Einstein's equations do not predict that time moves infinitely quickly when the local gravitational field is zero.
-
That is in "normal" space , not what I was describing .
-
That is in "normal" space , not what I was describing .
Then what were you talking about?
-
Thinned space , profoundly altered by Inflation .
Ref.: quora.com/When-a-photon-is-cosmologically-redshifted-where-does-its-energy-go/ .My post#3.
-
Thinned space
And what is "thinned space"?
-
Come-come...! We both speak the King's english here !
It's like when your hair "thins" out , only Inflation stretches out the field-matrix/substrate of space . Not that we know exactly what space is , or how to manipulate it very much .
*Recently , astro-physicists have determined that the Fine-Structure Constant is slowly increasing , in a manner consistent with the putative time-contraction mentioned earlier .
P.M.
*Ref : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fine-structure_constant
>Paragraph#6 : Is the Fine structure Constant actually constant ?
*Ref.2 : "New distance meas.s bolster challenge to basic model of universe ."
>www.nanowerk.com/news2/space/newsid=55372.php?
-
Come-come...! We both speak the King's english !
It's like when your hair "thins" out , only Inflation stretches out the field-matrix/substrate of space . Not that we know exactly what space is , or how to manipulate it very much .
If you are implying that space becomes different as it is stretched, then that is something that belongs in "New Theories". Stretched space in contemporary physics is the same as "more space". Its properties don't change. For this reason (and due to other things that have been said in this thread), I'm splitting this into another topic.
-
*The referred thread is titled : How does the expansion of space work ?
_______________________
Petty-petty-petty as usual !
Relativistic time-contraction , Emergent-Gravity , and the Big-Rip , are NOT new theories , nor are they my creations . This thread , as with most threads , is full of projections , extensions , and guesses . It's also full of personal crap , IF you haven't noticed .
The problem here is NOT me participating in this thread , it's you attacking my participation , based on some ridiculous standard of : ...it must be an exact quote from an encyclopedia , or what I find acceptable , not you . I mean , cut me a break with the pathetic excuses , it's because you can't actually hang with me at this analytical level , let alone create , so you spout orthodoxy , irrelevant formulas , and your misbegotten position . To bad for NSF , definitely a black-eye . Also , this thread died years ago , and I-I-I brought it back to life , not a poor sport knocking the chess pieces off of the board !
Uggh , unbelievable !
-
Petty-petty-petty as usual !
Relativistic time-contraction , Emergent-Gravity , and the Big-Rip , are NOT new theories , nor are they my creations . This thread , as with most threads , is full of projections , extensions , and guesses . It's also full of personal crap , IF you haven't noticed .
The problem here is NOT me participating in this thread , it's you attacking my participation , based on some ridiculous standard of : ...it must be an exact quote from an encyclopedia , or what I find acceptable , not you . I mean , cut me a break with the pathetic excuses , it's because you can't actually hang with me at this analytical level , let alone create , so you spout orthodoxy , irrelevant formulas , and your misbegotten position . To bad for NSF , definitely a black-eye . Also , this thread died years ago , and I-I-I brought it back to life , not a poor sport knocking the chess pieces off of the board !
Uggh , unbelievable !
You're free to challenge my decision. Send a message to another moderator or administrator if you want to complain. If they side with you, I'll revert the changes that I've made.
-
To answer the topic question one needs to first look any time.
Time moves in one direction; to the future. Time can slow or time can speed up, as demonstrate by relativity. However, time only moves in one direction. Yet, time is measured throughout science and culture using clocks that cycle and repeat like waves. The tool; clock, used to measure and define time does not behave like time. This creates a huge conceptual problem that is woven throughout science, including our understanding of space.
I have pointed this out on many occasions, but nobody is addressing the problem. A good place to begin is for all science, that uses wave time, needs to be demoted to alternate theory, since it has been proven that time moves in one direction and does not cycle. Perpetuation of that cycle time myth makes science look bad. The religious concept of reincarnation, used the same type of clock two thousand yeas before science.
Since it is easer to destroy than create, after peeing on the parade, I will show a better alternative for modeling time and space, that is consistent with the unidirectional nature of time. Entropy is a better way to model time, compared to waves, which cycle. Entropy, like time, moves in one direction, which is the direction of increasing entropy; 2nd law. The universe gets more complex with time, as the entropy of the universe increases via the second law. The vector of entropy does not allow time to cycle, since the beginning had less entropy than the end.
Time is often viewed as a change between states. Even the second hand on the wave clock ticks between states. However, the linear and mono-directional nature of time implies that the change cannot occur between just any states.
Entropy is a state variable based on specific conditions such as pressure, temperature, etc.This means for any give state of matter, each state has a fixed value of entropy. Since entropy is driven by the second law, movement between states; as expressed by what we call time, needs to occur between two states of net increasing entropy. This limits the direction of time to the future, since previous states, from the past, would imply lower entropy. Entropy precludes cycling time.
If time slows, the rate of change in the entropy between two states is slower, and therefore the rate of entropy increase is less. Entropy drives what we perceive as time, with time speeding up or slowing based on the rate of entropy increase. Cyclic clocks create a conceptual problem since and entropy and time do not cycle.
In terms of space, more space allows more room for more states of increasing complexity. Or entropy can increase easier, if we have more space for more possible states. Less space will alter the possible phase characteristics; states of matter, thereby excluding entropy options. Entropy can account for our perception of what we call time and space since all three are related by the second law.
An entropy increase, will absorb free energy. Since the entropy of the universe has to increase, the net affect is energy, after being absorbed into entropy, is made net unavailable to the universe. If entropy is net increasing; 2nd law, energy is being net absorbed and is being made unavailable of future work. This prevents time from cycling as a wave, since although the energy is conserved in entropy, it is made unavailable, for going backwards toward lowered entropy states. Energy get tied up in the facade of matter, as complexity, that needs space to increase, to create even more states consistent with the direction of the second law.
A better clock would be the dead fish clock. We buy a dead fish and place it on the kitchen counter on a fancy clock base. When the dead fish starts to stink, that is our unit of time. With this clock one tell time with you nose, and not even have to be in the same room. Although time will appear to be slightly faster if we get closer to the clock.
Like time, which does not cycle, each dead fish clock will reflect a slightly different time increment. Also, we cannot un-stink the sed and decaying fish and reuse it, which is consistent with time moving in one direction. If we heat or cool the dead fish clock, it will measure time faster or slower similar to relativity. Both are based on how fast entropy can absorb energy and make it unavailable as an entropy increase.
If we take one dead fish clock, and compare this to a bushel of dead fish clocks, all pressed together; gravity analogy, the single dead fish clock can rot faster, due to more available exposed surface area per dead fish. Time speeds up, if we allow more space between dead fish clocks, which is what is observed, with gravity.
-
Yet, time is measured throughout science and culture using clocks that cycle and repeat like waves. The tool; clock, used to measure and define time does not behave like time.
If the hands on your clock go backwards, get a new one.
proven that time moves in one direction and does not cycle.
Nobody said it did.
We don't have to rewrite science just because you won't understand it.
A better clock would be the dead fish clock. We buy a dead fish and place it on the kitchen counter on a fancy clock base. When the dead fish starts to stink, that is our unit of time.
Well, if you like...
Another less stupid idea would be the time it takes the world to spin on its axis.
But that's not the point.
What if I want to boil an egg?
Your fish clock and my transit telescope both have the same problem.
They are both fine for measuring something like building a house which takes about 70 days or 70 stinky dead fish (I'm assuming that the fish stink after a day or so, just to make the arithmetic easy.
But how do you measure something that takes less than 1 day?
The answer is to divide up your dead fish day or solar transit day into slices.
By convention we use hours minutes and seconds, but that's pretty arbitrary.
My egg take about 1/500 of a day (by either definition) to boil.
But, in order to measure that I need a shorter time interval.
And the practical way of dividing a day into equal slices is to have something that "ticks" regularly and then count how often it clicks in a day.
I guess you could use something else- like chirps of crickets or even heartbeats (as Galileo did).
But, whatever it is that you use, if you want to chop your hour into equal intervals, you need to compare it against something that ticks regularly.
Your idea of dispensing with clocks, because they tick regularly, makes no sense.
How else are you going to boil an egg?Both are based on how fast entropy can absorb energy and make it unavailable as an entropy increase.
Not even wrong.