0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Please pardon me. I thought I was conversing with Jolly2, I didn't realize that I was interfering with his thread. I thought it was a conversation. I didn't know I was taking his space. And time.I shall retire.
No it's fine, your not taking space from"MY" thread the thread is to discuss the idea of emergent gravity as a possibility
I do not believe in space-time......... not because I don't understand it............the reason I do not believe in space-time..........is because I do understand it. I understood it decades ago, when I was taught it. They tried. I refused.And it's nonsense. This is why they can't measure the relative velocity of light.The period of ANY oscillation changes with a gravity gradient. And with acceleration.When they learn to use a rotational period, instead of an oscillatory period, then one can measure the proper universal constant rate of time.Connect a 10,000 ft rod to a spinning gyroscope. Affix another scope at the top. A oscillatory clock will measure different speeds. But they are the same speed.Remove rod. They are still spinning at the same speeds.
But only the clock is different with a altered tic rate. Not the real time.
Thank you. I was just trying to show you how easy it is to disprove space-time. Two locked wheels on an axle and two clocks is all it takes. Most lab clocks should be able to detect 3-4 ft of axle elevation. But the mathematics of space-time tells you the the speeds are different. Because the "time" is different. But only the clock is different with a altered tic rate. Not the real time.If you have access to a lab, give it a try.The "constant velocity of light" can be disproved also, with a simple experiment. But RF experience is needed for that one.To be able to determine if gravity is emergent, we need to find out what it actually is.
What did you see?
What should have you seen?
There is no such thing as a time gradient........only a clock gradient.
Quote from: Hayseed on 31/01/2021 01:10:40What did you see?The wheels will rotate at the same velocity.
let's consider an extreme example in order to illustrate this. You have one wheel located right above a black hole's event horizon and the other is so far away from the black hole that it is practically in zero gravity.In scenario one, we will put the motor on the wheel that is near the horizon.
To an observer at the distant wheel, both wheels will appear to spin slowly because the motor looks to be highly time dilated (and the speed of that distant wheel depends upon that time dilated motor).In scenario two, we will place the motor at the distant wheel and make it so powerful that it spins the distant wheel at 99% the speed of light. That would make the wheel near the horizon look like it is spinning beyond the speed of light (according to the speed of light near the horizon, that is). If the rod connecting the wheels was perfectly rigid. And that's the big "if" here. Special relativity forbids any material from being perfectly rigid. So actually, if the motor was spinning the wheel fast enough, the rod would experience shear forces and break before it could spin the near-horizon wheel beyond the speed of light.
Quote from: Hayseed on 31/01/2021 01:10:40There is no such thing as a time gradient........only a clock gradient.Not sure what you think either terms means, so unclear what point you're trying to make.
As a coupling force isnt that an expression of gravity emerging from the strong force?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 01/02/2021 21:30:21As a coupling force isnt that an expression of gravity emerging from the strong force?I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
The strong force causes OBJECTS
Quote from: Jolly2 on 01/02/2021 21:45:29The strong force causes OBJECTSIt doesn't cause electrons, quarks or photons to exist.
There never was a suggestion they did.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 02/02/2021 01:21:31There never was a suggestion they did.You did when you said this:Quote from: Jolly2 on 01/02/2021 21:45:29The strong force causes OBJECTSElectrons, quarks and photons are objects.
This is all just semantics.You got my point.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 02/02/2021 01:46:11This is all just semantics.You got my point.I'm not sure that I do. The Earth would still have just as much gravity even if you broke all of its atoms and atomic nuclei apart.
No, the earth wouldn't exist to have any gravity if you did that.