Is gravity Time?

a reply to: lecoder
Was reading about dilation, interesting thing. Apparently if astronauts approached >.999c they will experience large amounts of this dilation. In effect, every 10 years on Earth might be as low as 1 year (or less) for them. The closer they get to C the more this effect occurs. This is why a spaceship travelling near C and experiencing high amounts of dilation could cross the galaxy in ~24 years. The only problem with this technique is it'd require probably impossible amounts of energy. The other downside is people on Earth would age vastly more than the people on the spaceship. So when the people in the spaceship arrive at the other end of the galaxy, it might be ~thousands of years Earth-time.

a reply to: Bedlam

To somebody not versed in popular physics mass is not butt-obviously equivalent to energy, unlike to you and me. Thus, it is necessary to point out that even if dimensions of units sometimes may appear to be different, they may still relate to the same thing.

Why on earth should I want to transform force into duration? Not as long as I believe in physics.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i think sometimes people make up stuff of this sort just to troll people who actually know physics. other times i think they have just had too much weed or psilocybin. at still other times i think like the HHGTTG that when people do this verbally it is because if they stop talking their heads will implode from vacuum pressure or alternately that their jaws will seize up. there really is a lot of crazy mind (erm...) ejecta here but it also happens in more surprising precincts so it is not entirely due to the venue.

People like to think, even fi they don't got it all figured out. I know I love to dabble with it. I look at the formulas though and my head implodes. I still get a kick out of trying. Personally, I think trying to understand and failing terribly is only bad if you can't see your error.

a reply to: AnuTyr

And what Even is gravity? Isn't it obvious that not every element falls to the Earth at the same speed. Even if you Amass huge ammounts of said mass. Some mass will fall slower than other.

www.youtube.com...

The rate at which something falls/moves is defined by the causal force applied, not its mass.

Gravity is what happens when mass tries to "fall into itself" through another dimension. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit into that dimension. It continues to fall though, and ends up stuck in our reality at the event horizon. Like too much water trying to go down a drain.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
OMG. thats something the OP could use to understand that gravity and time are not co-identical.

as an aside i think the Giza illustration was in Hawking's "time travel" video.


the time dilation effect of standing next to the pyramid is far less than the gravitational effect of standing next to the pyramid

The gravitational time dilation factor is approximately given by Delta(phi)/c^2, where phi is the Newtonian gravitational potential. For the numbers you gave, this factor is on the order of 10^-12

Read more: www.physicsforums.com...

Yes but their "is" a time dilation effect when standing next to the Great Pyramid. Their is also a time dilation effect in motion. If that doesn't feel like a field effect then nothing does. The time dilation effect is greater in bigger masses than smaller masses. Its also relative to the Observer, as is the potential kinetic energy in the moving mass.Yes time slows down when energy, is removed from the mass. What is being removed from the mass to do this is energy, ergo time is an energy of some sort. Gravity, varies throughout the Universe, as with the different areas of mass. So to say they haven't the same characteristics, might be a bit hasty at this stage.

To say the energy of motion creates a time field, might not be far from the actuality, and the speed of the motion causes a dilation field. So to cause a dilation, we require a mass to accelerate through the ambient time field.

These are observations of physical reality, as they are presented to us, but they don't even start to address what is the reality of what we are observing, and how the tools we have to observe it with effect6s the observation. but the fact remains if I accelerate my physical body, the observed Universe speeds up. By accelerating my body, I have increased my potential kinetic energy in relationship to the surroundings. This has given my mass more energy, compared to the surroundings. Which is the same as giving myself more time.

originally posted by: Pirvonen
Mass is not energy, not in everyday world and not by dimensional analysis. However, mass multiplied by a dimensioned constant is energy.

If someone proposed that mass and energy had some kind of mathematical relationship, or that gravity and time had some kind of mathematical relationship, neither of which violated dimensional analysis, then both might at least possibly correct. Einstein is credited with both discoveries and they seem to be consistent with observation.

Now if someone wanted to suggest a different mathematical relationship between gravity and time, which was similarly consistent with dimensional analysis, then that might be something which could possibly be correct or make sense, although the fact that we already know of one mathematical relationship between gravity and time puts pretty severe constraints on other possible relationships.

But your "nitpick" seems to be discarding the c^2 in mc^2 and saying therefore energy and mass are the same thing. Nope, they are not the same thing. You've got to have the c^2 in E=mc^2 for it to make any sense, and that's saying that they are related, not that they are the same.

If someone wants to argue that gravity and time are related, Einstein's already done that and I have seen enough evidence to believe the relationship he proposed is very likely correct. But that doesn't mean they are the same.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Bedlam

Mass itself is oritented in magnetic forces, The known forces are Positive Negative and Neutral.

We catagorize these particles by their force, Meaning all positive acting particles are magnetic charged to positive and are called protons. And Negative are labeled electrons. Neutral are labeled neutrons. All of these particles attract and repell based on magnetic force.

Gravity is not what hold this mass together.

Gravity is theoretical particle falling the chasm of nothingness raining upon the surface of our planet drawn by our shiny particles.

But somehow, Exerts such a phenomenon as orbital procession. Something seen on a molecular-atomic scale as the orbiting of sub-atomic particles. Following along a magnetic path caught in a spiraling motion to generate the image that is all the matter we see around us. The moon is massive, The Earth is defenantly pumping a strong enough feild for the moon to be caught in it's orbit.

Gravity isn't a particle. The current theory describes it as geometry. It's the shape of space-time. There is no quantized or particle theory.
That is what General Relativity is. GR can predict the exact amount time will speed up for satellites in space and corrections are made when they beam the current time to us, so it's precise to millionths of a second. You cannot use magnetism to describe any of those specific phenomena.

Gravity is related to time in the fact that it's directly related to space and both are wound up in space-time. But saying gravity is time is like saying acceleration is time. When you accelerate you cancel out gravity but you still have time.
Photons experience zero time when in a stronger gravitational field or out in deep space.

Gravity, acceleration and velocity have an effect on time but do not cause it. They are closer related to the "space" part of space-time.

Particles are categorized first by spin and there are different reasons why different particles attract or repel. The one you mention where protons repel protons is not magnetism but electrostatic force. A magnetic field is produced when the charges move. Of course both are combined in electromagnetism so they are just manifestations of the same force.

No one is saying that gravity is how particles orbit each other.

Given time is attributed to movement and gravity certainly promotes movement, one can see how the two may be inseparable from one another

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If E=MC2 then mass and energy, are the same things. Just held in different states. If a mass is accelerated to the speed of light, the energy seemingly is released, from its usually stable state, from when it was in the ambient time field. It could also mean that the time field of the mass has been sped up to the point where to its time frame, (point of view if it had one) the Universe has accelerated to a point where it has reached the speed of light and has ended. From our point of view the mass has disappeared in a flash of energy.

The whole concept at this point suggests that we might not be dealing with a physical Universe. Just the interpretation of one.

But we have to play the game with what we have. At the moment gravity and time, "Space-time" seems to be the local time field. That's generated, by the ambient masses, kinetic potential.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If E=MC2 then mass and energy, are the same things. J

There is mass-energy equivalence but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If E=MC2 then mass and energy, are the same things. Just held in different states. If a mass is accelerated to the speed of light, the energy seemingly is released, from its usually stable state, from when it was in the ambient time field.

Realize E=mc^2 is not even the correct equation, it's a popular simplification of the correct equation, which applies only to masses which have no momentum.

Since you are talking about masses with momentum, you can't use E=mc^2 for that, you have to use the correct equation, explained in my thread here, and as you will see, the correct equation which includes momentum is even more complex and does even more to distinguish the difference between mass and energy, reinforcing that they are NOT the same thing:

Is E=mc² right or wrong?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If E=MC2 then mass and energy, are the same things. Just held in different states. If a mass is accelerated to the speed of light, the energy seemingly is released, from its usually stable state, from when it was in the ambient time field.

Realize E=mc^2 is not even the correct equation, it's a popular simplification of the correct equation, which applies only to masses which have no momentum.

Since you are talking about masses with momentum, you can't use E=mc^2 for that, you have to use the correct equation, explained in my thread here, and as you will see, the correct equation which includes momentum is even more complex and does even more to distinguish the difference between mass and energy, reinforcing that they are NOT the same thing:

Is E=mc² right or wrong?

They are good enough for a creative discussion. Because energy comes from mass. Therefore all potential energy is held in mass.

As far as energy of momentum is concerned, if a mass is accelerated up to the speed of light. Then the kinetic energy is also relative to the observers, speed.

originally posted by: anonentity
They are good enough for a creative discussion.

Not even close. You were talking about objects traveling near the speed of light. That's common at CERN's LHC, yet only a fraction of the energy of the protons in the LHC traveling at that speed is in their mass. Mass is not the same as energy.

Creativity is good if it leads to things that make sense, and maybe not so bad when it leads to ideas that contradict observation, as long as you reject those creative, but wrong, ideas. Creativity by itself doesn't make an idea good.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: anonentity
They are good enough for a creative discussion.

Not even close. You were talking about objects traveling near the speed of light. That's common at CERN's LHC, yet only a fraction of the energy of the protons in the LHC traveling at that speed is in their mass. Mass is not the same as energy.

Creativity is good if it leads to things that make sense, and maybe not so bad when it leads to ideas that contradict observation, as long as you reject those creative, but wrong, ideas. Creativity by itself doesn't make an idea good.

Ideally their is a balance between the creative mind, and the accountants. But it hardly ever works that way. By the time you've studied and learnt all the dogma to earn a nice middle class living. The Minds too full to wonder down the creative ways. Plus the pecking order is well established and towing the line is the least energy option. kicking up and starting over can be traumatic, and expensive in alimony. But sometimes its good to throw some paint around, and play with some ideas, if you don't make mistakes you don't make anything.

If someone was to ask me what I thought gravity and time was, I would tell them in my opinion I think it is the rate of flow of time. The rate of flow of time is constant over the entire surface of a sphere, such as the earth, and therefore it is gravity.

the rate of dimples on the surface of an orange are constant therefore dimples are vitamin c.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Since you are talking about masses with momentum, you can't use E=mc^2 for that, you have to use the correct equation, explained in my thread here, and as you will see, the correct equation which includes momentum is even more complex and does even more to distinguish the difference between mass and energy, reinforcing that they are NOT the same thing:

Is E=mc² right or wrong?

I don't know if they cover this in the video but since it's not usually possible to separate the total mc^2 energy into rest energy, kinetic energy, and potential energy, you use the total energy of the particle.
Add a constant - moc^2 to everything so it's either the mass in motion times c^2 or at rest times c^2.

So with velocity (v) and momentum (P):

E^2 - P^2 c^2 = mo(rest mass)^2 c^4


another way to fix Einstein's formula is m has the value:

m = mo/√1-v^2/c^2

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
the rate of dimples on the surface of an orange are constant therefore dimples are vitamin c.

OJ=N(d)f^2

where N(d) is the Density of dimples and F is the compression force acting on the dimples.

V(C)=N(d)/Volume

Where V(c) is vitamin C and N(d) is the number of dimples

this leads to the theory of special dimplicity (SDT) and the generalized form; General Dimplicity (GDT.)

in an accelerated Kerr rotating reference frame (also called blender metrics) such that the time dilation effect greatly decreases the Delta T to prduce O(j) compared to a less accelerated frame such as the minkowsky flat spacetime of an orange on a plane surface toward which a hammer is approaching in a recursive loop.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Since you are talking about masses with momentum, you can't use E=mc^2 for that, you have to use the correct equation, explained in my thread here, and as you will see, the correct equation which includes momentum is even more complex and does even more to distinguish the difference between mass and energy, reinforcing that they are NOT the same thing:

Is E=mc² right or wrong?

I don't know if they cover this in the video but since it's not usually possible to separate the total mc^2 energy into rest energy, kinetic energy, and potential energy, you use the total energy of the particle.
Add a constant - moc^2 to everything so it's either the mass in motion times c^2 or at rest times c^2.

So with velocity (v) and momentum (P):

E^2 - P^2 c^2 = mo(rest mass)^2 c^4


another way to fix Einstein's formula is m has the value:

m = mo/√1-v^2/c^2

But mass/momentum is never at rest, its relative to the observers. Mass/momentum. It has to be a relative measurement. Two masses in close proximity would be valid. A kilogram mass at two hundred miles an hour, has more energy than one travelling in the same direction at a hundred miles an hour. Because its traveling faster its time field is different as well. Is it the change in the time field, that increases its energy?. Because its got more potential energy stored as a kinetic charge. On the surface the momentum/stored kinetic energy of a body travelling through space, dosn't heat up or leach energy out as in heat. But it still has a relative potential charge, of the energy required to accelerate it. Does this energy leach out as a time field.?