Is gravity Time?

a reply to: Bedlam
What would happen if the Earth stopped spinning?
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...

As for other effects, presumably the magnetic field of the Earth is generated by a dynamo effect that involves its rotation. If the Earth stopped rotating, it's magnetic field would no longer be regenerated and it would decay away to some low, residual value due to the very small component which is 'fossilized' in its iron-rich rocks. There would be no more 'northern lights' and the Van Allen radiation belts would probably vanish, as would our protection from cosmic rays and other high-energy particles. This is a significant biohazard.

The 2 go hand in hand. The magnetic feild is directly linked to how fast our planet is spinning.

Things in space do slow down i don't know if you realized that or not. They require a push to sustain velocity. zero friction and zero velocity resistance. Which is impossible.

Things in space do lose their spin if there is not some source of energy forcing it to rotate.

There is substantial evidence out there for the case of magnetism.

Quantum physics would lay in bed with this Theory because literally quatum physics had to be invented just to even try to push something like this out. Since the community is so ridgid on that gravity thing and big bang obsessed.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Bedlam
What would happen if the Earth stopped spinning?

Things would go flying in every direction. It would be festive.

And, once more, you're swapping cause and effect. As I stated, Earth's magnetic field is CREATED BY its rotation. Not the other way.

The 2 go hand in hand. The magnetic feild is directly linked to how fast our planet is spinning.

Yes, and the rotation creates the field. Not the other way. As every link you've posted has pointed out to you. Stop googling for spin, earth, magnetic and actually READ what it's telling you.

Things in space do slow down i don't know if you realized that or not. They require a push to sustain velocity. zero friction and zero velocity resistance. Which is impossible.

No, not much they don't. What friction do you see happening? What is resisting the velocity of an object in space? You've got gravity which is going to exert a force, but not friction. And there's a really hard vacuum with the occasional gas particle. So you're running into a few atoms of crap here and there, but it's going to take the rest of the universe's lifetime for that to have any appreciable effect.

Things in space do lose their spin if there is not some source of energy forcing it to rotate.

No, no they don't. The only way that happens is if they're in some sort of tidal relationship with another body, like you got with the Moon. In that case, the energy of rotation is dissipated in heat caused by crustal deformation and water tides on Earth. But even that took forever. And in that case, you STILL haven't gotten rid of the angular momentum, it's just rearranged into the co-orbit.

Angular momentum is like an IRS agent. It just doesn't go away because you want it to. It has to be transferred somewhere.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Quantum physics would lay in bed with this Theory because literally quatum physics had to be invented just to even try to push something like this out. Since the community is so ridgid on that gravity thing and big bang obsessed.

Actually, quantum physics was invented because there was just a whole pile of observations that weren't making sense. And ever since, it's been confirmed by experimental data. So it's not going away. And it's not because of gravity or the big bang.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Quantum physics would lay in bed with this Theory because literally quatum physics had to be invented just to even try to push something like this out. Since the community is so ridgid on that gravity thing and big bang obsessed.

Actually, quantum physics was invented because there was just a whole pile of observations that weren't making sense. And ever since, it's been confirmed by experimental data. So it's not going away. And it's not because of gravity or the big bang.

The reality is that their is nothing their but our observations, and for those observations to be rendered non chaotic, time has got to exist, as far as the observed Universe is concerned. How can a 3 billion year old photon hit our retina and be interpreted in a meaningful way. Because it was conveniently "time locked" the moment it hit the speed of light, the moment it left its atom it jumped into the same timeless state black holes are in. A state we interpret as suspended time. If from our perspective its a state no time, then its also in a place devoid of the other dimensions as well. So in reality it is impossible for that photon to have travelled three billion light years. So where does that leave our observations of the model of reality?.

If the the speed of light, is "absolute". How can it be converted to a rational speed in any meaningful way, if its time locked, then its out of any time space reference. This photon that has been travelling to my retina for the last three billion years, or three billion years at the speed of light ," from a galaxy far away and long ago" has not only done the vector at the speed of light for all that time , but by the time its supposedly been lurched around by other gravitational forces, its straight line vector, would have so many wobbles at it was pushed and pulled, it would have done a greater distance, than the original point to point distance. But arriving on my retina as if the point to point speed has been maintained. The question is, if its jumped out of space time during the time locked state during its travel to my retina, . Then it couldn't have been affected by gravity, but it might have been affected by time, fields.

originally posted by: anonentity
How can a 3 billion year old photon hit our retina and be interpreted in a meaningful way.

Because it carries energy, and your retina was designed to respond to a photon of that frequency.

If from our perspective its a state no time, then its also in a place devoid of the other dimensions as well. So in reality it is impossible for that photon to have travelled three billion light years. So where does that leave our observations of the model of reality?.

Safe, because you are apparently one of those guys who has to be able to visualize things, or you don't think they're real. It's ok, they get along without your belief. In two sentences, you made a couple of staggeringly non-sequiturian leaps. One, that it has no dimension because it doesn't experience time. It has no dimension because it's a point particle. The wave function associated with it DOES have a dimension, albeit a 2D one. Sort of. Electrons have no dimension either, but travel at less than c. You wouldn't have any problems with an electron being able to travel and have no volume, why a photon?

If the the speed of light, is "absolute". How can it be converted to a rational speed in any meaningful way, if its time locked, then its out of any time space reference.

Easiest of all - it's always the same speed, no matter the reference frame.

This photon that has been travelling to my retina for the last three billion years, or three billion years at the speed of light ," from a galaxy far away and long ago" has not only done the vector at the speed of light for all that time , but by the time its supposedly been lurched around by other gravitational forces, its straight line vector, would have so many wobbles at it was pushed and pulled, it would have done a greater distance, than the original point to point distance. But arriving on my retina as if the point to point speed has been maintained. The question is, if its jumped out of space time during the time locked state during its travel to my retina, . Then it couldn't have been affected by gravity, but it might have been affected by time, fields.

Of course it's affected by gravity. And if it has to traverse a greater distance, then it will take a greater time to do so.

You have problems with the concept that space can be empty, yet still exist, don't you? That a volume with absolutely nothing in it still has a volume?

a reply to: Bedlam

Speed = distance/time theirs no way out of that one. Remove time from the equation. Speed and distance travelled become irrelevant. Because it must be instant, if their is no time involved. Which as far as I can make out is suggesting a holographic Universe. But not spread across any dimension as we know it. The basic mind would say how the f&^%$ can time be removed WTF.! But we know time is removed from the photon as its time locked, we know the same is true for a singularity. We also know that, the closer you get to a singularity or the SOL. the time dilation occurs. In the singularity its caused by Mass, in the photon its caused by its speed. In none of these examples does it say a threshold must be reached for the Dilation to occur . Therefore it must happen in degrees. Hence variations in space time throughout the Universe. (the man said that). So it looks like, that to observe the Universe we have to decode the input to stop it becoming chaotic. Their is only one way to do that, and have control over the input, that's to make it appear as linear time. We think the reality.

So around the edges its not going to make sense, until it gets neatly stacked into a theory, then accepted into the general paradigm, just as reasonable men have worked out that the Earth was flat, and accepted that as a fact in their reasonable take on reality.

So is Gravity time? to my mind it sure is, because without time their would only be chaos, and definitely no concept of gravity. Time really is relative to the observer, in other words "timing is everything". That's where I'm coming from.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Bedlam

Speed = distance/time theirs no way out of that one. Remove time from the equation. Speed and distance travelled become irrelevant. Because it must be instant, if their is no time involved.

Depends on the frame of reference. It's only instant from the photon's pov.

Which as far as I can make out is suggesting a holographic Universe. But not spread across any dimension as we know it.

Well, there's a non sequitur.

(snip)

So is Gravity time? to my mind it sure is, because without time their would only be chaos, and definitely no concept of gravity. Time really is relative to the observer, in other words "timing is everything". That's where I'm coming from.

So from "without time there would only be chaos" you jump to "therefore, gravity"?

Gravity is a force. Time is a duration. They're not even close.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Bedlam

Speed = distance/time theirs no way out of that one. Remove time from the equation. Speed and distance travelled become irrelevant. Because it must be instant, if their is no time involved.

Depends on the frame of reference. It's only instant from the photon's pov.

Which as far as I can make out is suggesting a holographic Universe. But not spread across any dimension as we know it.

Well, there's a non sequitur.

(snip)

So is Gravity time? to my mind it sure is, because without time their would only be chaos, and definitely no concept of gravity. Time really is relative to the observer, in other words "timing is everything". That's where I'm coming from.

So from "without time there would only be chaos" you jump to "therefore, gravity"?

Gravity is a force. Time is a duration. They're not even close.

They are mentally held concepts, that need a framework of time to be rational. Who said they needed a physical Universe to exist in.

a reply to: anonentity

They are observed effects on masses. No mass no gravity. Every mass ages in time. Mass needs a physical universe. So your "mentally held concepts" are attempts to explain the obvious. And "time is really relative to the observers speed" is I guess the answer you are looking for.
You can't just let something out of an equation, you can replace it, or assume it approaches 0, but it can't just disappear- so if we assume time approaches 0, your speed approaches infinite.

is you really wanted to get the brain matter churning think of gravity and time as one and the same thing, and solve that seeming paradox.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
is you really wanted to get the brain matter churning think of gravity and time as one and the same thing, and solve that seeming paradox.

I prefer to think of unicorns and cheese as being the same thing.

Hint - the units of gravity are not seconds.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
is you really wanted to get the brain matter churning think of gravity and time as one and the same thing, and solve that seeming paradox.

Theirs a few more paradoxes floating around as well when thinking about this matter. I was thinking about momentum, and the kinetic energy stored within. Since everything is moving, you don't notice it until, you are moving at a different speed. Therefore momentum like time is relative to the Observer. Momentum being stored "energy", would make it like "energy" is relative to the observer. So extrapolating.... is their some sort of connection. Gravity being energy, plus time can be thought of as gravity. So is time energy? mmm, then what sort of energy is this?

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Ok then, Momentum is energy, Momentum like time is relative to the observer. Why? because we all have a different rate of momentum, as everything is moving, at different rates. You can see this clearly in planetary orbits, meteor strikes etc.

Thinking of Gravity and Time being the same thing, Then Gravity is energy, therefore Time is energy. Well then Momentum might be the same energy as gravity, feels like it. So is time an expression of some energy field of momentum? Hard to measure because its seeping into everything.

But how many things are relative to the Observer, this would make it just about everything.

a reply to: anonentity

Where is gravity coming from then?

Is it some kind of phsudo force that is almost indistinguishable from magnetic force?

You do know that every particle on this planet carries a charge. Static electricity comes from excess charges held and released by friction. Dust itself carries a charge. if it didn't the ground wouldn't make a very good base for electricity would it. Only dust's charge is very low. Rock and many other minerals on Earth do not *Conduct* electricty very well because 1. The charge is very low 2. When the charge is exchanged there is little reaction. Because the charge is low and the particles themselves and be super charged without destabelizing allowing the current to flow through it.

That would be a given for electricty. It's pretty well known actually. That low voltage material is perfect for an insulator against electricity. Take ruber for example.

It's hardly magnetic at all, Yet it does hold a tiny charge.

Now take all the mass on the Earth. Every little spec, And you would see that even if the magnetic force being exterted is within 0.00000001 0.000000002 since there is so much individually it would make up a very weak, but over the surface of the area *Powerful* magnetic force. You can for instance increase the *Gravity* of a extremely magnetic mass increasing it's *weight* simply by pumping electricity into it.

Magnets in general are heavy because they are the most attractive thing to the ground. If that doesn't discredit gravity i don't know what will.

Honestly all mass is oriented because of their charge given off. A charge ALWAYS ALWAYS has a magnetic force associated with it.

It's not something you can get around because it's scientific fact. And just because you add scale by adding Tons more of the particles to the size of a planet. Does not mean that exerted force goes away.

Magnetic force can act instantaniously.

That would explain many of quantum mechanics *quarks* and other problems being able to explain their experiments.
Gravity really puts a knotch in everything because it clogs up formulas with it's paradox's.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Ok then, Momentum is energy,

Momentum is momentum. Things with a positive momentum have kinetic energy, but momentum is not a measure of energy.

Thinking of Gravity and Time being the same thing, Then Gravity is energy, therefore Time is energy.

Neither gravity nor time is energy, and they are not equivalent to each other, either.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: anonentity

Where is gravity coming from then?

A deformation of space.

Is it some kind of phsudo force that is almost indistinguishable from magnetic force?

Gravity and magnetic force are quite different from each other.

You do know that every particle on this planet carries a charge.

Not at all.

Static electricity comes from excess charges held and released by friction. Dust itself carries a charge. if it didn't the ground wouldn't make a very good base for electricity would it. Only dust's charge is very low. Rock and many other minerals on Earth do not *Conduct* electricty very well because 1. The charge is very low 2. When the charge is exchanged there is little reaction. Because the charge is low and the particles themselves and be super charged without destabelizing allowing the current to flow through it.

Charge and conductivity aren't that much related. Although the electrons will behave a bit differently if the charged surface is conductive. And electric charge isn't magnetism. Soil is generally somewhat conductive. Conductive material distributes charge as evenly as possible.

That would be a given for electricty. It's pretty well known actually. That low voltage material is perfect for an insulator against electricity. Take ruber for example.

It's hardly magnetic at all, Yet it does hold a tiny charge.

Rubber isn't conductive. It isn't magnetic, either. You can lay a dandy static charge on it. It's not a "low voltage material" because that doesn't make sense as a term.

You can for instance increase the *Gravity* of a extremely magnetic mass increasing it's *weight* simply by pumping electricity into it.

Citation, please.

Magnets in general are heavy because they are the most attractive thing to the ground. If that doesn't discredit gravity i don't know what will.

*snort* That is the best sentence I've seen all day. So much fail in one line.

Weren't you the one that was saying things fell at different speeds depending on their weight?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Ok then, Momentum is energy,

Momentum is momentum. Things with a positive momentum have kinetic energy, but momentum is not a measure of energy.

Thinking of Gravity and Time being the same thing, Then Gravity is energy, therefore Time is energy.

Neither gravity nor time is energy, and they are not equivalent to each other, either.

Well how can you say that gravity or time is not energy, when you don't know what they are. If you don't know what they are, Stand in front of a moving car, and you will find out how much energy it has during the impact.

And on a more serious note. If their was a big bang, then most of the energy of the Universe would be held as kinetic energy in its momentum. I don't think for a second that the momentum of the Universe, just equates to the potential kinetic energy, held in it and due to the speed of its expansion , because it would be a waste of energy. Somehow the speed of it is related to time.

originally posted by: anonentity
Well how can you say that gravity or time is not energy, when you don't know what they are. If you don't know what they are, Stand in front of a moving car, and you will find out how much energy it has during the impact.

Moving cars don't have anything to do with time or gravity.

eta: Stand behind a unicorn that has eaten Taco Bell, and you will find out how much flatus it can generate during the flatulation.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: anonentity
Well how can you say that gravity or time is not energy, when you don't know what they are. If you don't know what they are, Stand in front of a moving car, and you will find out how much energy it has during the impact.

Moving cars don't have anything to do with time or gravity.

eta: Stand behind a unicorn that has eaten Taco Bell, and you will find out how much flatus it can generate during the flatulation.

I'm assuming that you have personally tried this experiment. If you continue to feed Unicorns Taco Bell, I'll have to inform your employer ,to do a stock check.

a reply to: Bedlam

Neither gravity or time are one and the same phenomenon is a bold statement to make since no one knows what time or gravity is. You can present a text book or your own theories but the fact is know one knows with concrete certainty. Science when its boiled down is the science of being dead certain, presenting irrefutable data so no one can prove or demonstrate contrary.

The fact is you don't have it, and you wont get a correct definition of what the true nature of gravity or time is, from a text book because science is not there yet and may not be for a long time to come yet. The OPs creative mind, and it will be a creative mind who solves this at the end of the day not someone filled with text book biases.