[Jolly2 (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

No it's fine, your not taking space from"MY" thread the thread is to discuss the idea of emergent gravity as a possibility

So long as you're fine with it.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

You're arguing against einstein's theory of relativity?

[Hayseed]

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.

One hundred years and still waiting.  Many heavily invested careers and reputations are one the line.

Is true knowledge really that important with those stakes? 

Thank you for your tolerance and patience.

And I hope you find something new(or even old) in your studies.

[Kryptid]

But only the clock is different with a altered tic rate.   Not the real time.

If there is a difference between the clock's tick rate and real time, then what experiment would show the difference?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

A relationship between mass and space

[Hayseed]

Take a long vertical axle.  Put locked wheels along the axle.  Put an atomic clock at every wheel elevation.  Spin axle.  Measure wheel RPM with clocks.

What did you see?   What should have you seen?

There is no such thing as a time gradient........only a clock gradient.

Use rotational clocks to prevent this.

[Kryptid]

What did you see?

The wheels will rotate at the same velocity.

What should have you seen?

The wheels rotating at the same velocity. Just because time is dilated more on one wheel than the other doesn't prevent this, but 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.

@Halc Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

[Halc]

There 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.

What did you see?

The wheels will rotate at the same velocity.

That is what any given observer sees, yes. But it doesn't mean that all observers will observer the same angular rate, as you correctly illustrate below.

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.

No need for a motor if it's already spinning. Not like we're worried about friction.

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.

All good. Something will break, or at least the far motor will not be able to spin the local wheel beyond some fairly low angular rate.

Careful, since conclusions drawn from positing perfectly rigid things are often invalid.  But we don't need perfect rigidity to demonstrate this point.  Wheels spinning at relativistic rates are going to break whether there is gravity involved or not.  The relativistic distortions put arbitrarily large strain on the wheel no matter its strength.  So let's just spin it slow and have the one observer note the RPM that's say 10x that seen by the other.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

There 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.

I think his point is that a clock represents Time, yet has necessarily no actual relation to Time. The gradient is In our instruments not in time.


What's your position in the idea that gravity could be emergent Halc?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/425638-a-new-generation-of-experiments-aims-to-answer-the-gravity-quantum-question

So I have been looking at this experiment..."The ultimate goal is to be able to isolate gravity as a coupling force between objects that can be controlled in the quantum regime"
As a coupling force isnt that an expression  of gravity emerging from the strong force?

Halc what do you think?

[Kryptid]

As a coupling force isnt that an expression  of gravity emerging from the strong force?

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

As 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 therefore a force that holds those objects together could be emergent from that same force.

Gravity as a residual effect, weaker as the majority of its power is used holding atoms together.

[Kryptid]

The strong force causes OBJECTS

It doesn't cause electrons, quarks or photons to exist.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The strong force causes OBJECTS

It doesn't cause electrons, quarks or photons to exist.

There never was a suggestion they did.

[Kryptid]

There never was a suggestion they did.

You did when you said this:

The strong force causes OBJECTS

Electrons, quarks and photons are objects.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

There never was a suggestion they did.

You did when you said this:

The strong force causes OBJECTS

Electrons, quarks and photons are objects.

This is all just semantics.

You got my point.

[Kryptid]

This 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

This 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.

[Kryptid]

No, the earth wouldn't exist to have any gravity if you did that.

Then let's say we have a shell around the Earth. Then we inject the heat necessary to turn it into a plasma that is hot enough to dissociate nuclei. We use the necessary magnetic fields to hold the plasma away from the shell so it won't melt. So you still have all of Earth's original mass inside of the shell (plus whatever mass-energy came from the heat you used to vaporize it).