I was inspired to start this thread because of what I had read posted on MacM's website.

Gravity has an effect on man made devices designed to measure what we perceive or observe to be time.

I would say that there exists no future or past but only transitions or movements of matter and energy.

I know this sounds hard to imagine to be true however it was not so long ago that the Earth was considered to be flat.

This is radical thinking, is my hypothesis true?

energy can not be created or destroyed. The definition of time should be, (Time is the observers attempt to measure the changes that occur to matter and energy.)

When we observe the changing states of matter and call it time, how can time be dynamic when matter and energy are finite?

How can time be considered to be the passage from the past to the future when all matter and energy exists in a finite state?

I would say time is nothing more than the Human experience, what we perceive to be the past is the memory of change and the future is a product of the imagination.

If all things exist contemporaneously there can be no past and no future. Only changes in matter and energy.

But time which is only a thing devolped to know when things happened,and to establish a way to record things in an orginized fashion and if time is changed the way you want it wont it lose its original value in many laws? Like how fast somthing is going? So a car is traveling 70 miles per hour, travels for only one hour. Which means you would use time to find out it went 70 miles. So what your saying makes some sense but why does time need to be completly changed? Because how fast he went in a givin time has nothing to do with the matter. Although it does require energyi cant deny that. There needs to be more information proving this. Somthing to actually make me think this is possible other then the theory without evidence.

and couldn't speed be the passage from past to present? Because of a theory that says traveling at the speed of light can make you go back in time. I'm actually not to up to date on that theory but it does have alot of supporting evidence to it.

and couldn't speed be the passage from past to present? Because of a theory that says traveling at the speed of light can make you go back in time. I'm actually not to up to date on that theory but it does have alot of supporting evidence to it.

People should realize that we each live in a dynamic present. That present is unique to each of us and no two dynamic presents can ever be the same.

A dynamic present means the universal events that simultaneously occur at a given instant to you. Since event information flows from origin to spatial ordinate points every ordinate point records the arrival of events differently.

In comparison to every other ordinate point your dynamic present is comprised of past and future events. Any time you move (relocate your ordinate point in space) you are entering both the past and future.

Conclusion. Time is a property of a dynamic present energy driven 3D space and not a 4th dimension with independant past and future.

People should realize that we each live in a dynamic present. That present is unique to each of us and no two dynamic presents can ever be the same.


I agree MacM.

A few questions if you don't mind. I know this is off topic and I apologize for that. I am trying to connect observation and Time to matter.

In Quantum Physics when electrons, Neutrons, Protons are observed to be popping in and out of existence, is this the result of the vibration of matter and the limitations of the observer to observe?

When particulate matter is considered to be a wave of possibilities and only snaps into existence when viewed by the observer. Reality that we perceive must then be shaped by thought and the brains ability to create what we believe to be reality. Can this be true?

Back to vibration when I put on polarized sunglasses my reality changes. I now see the defects in tinted glass of automobiles that I could not see before.

Have the objects I observe changed? No, the only change is the frequency of vibration that I am able to sense.

Matter must be static and not just a wave of possibilities the only variable must be the observer’s ability to sense matter.

Physics gives us the quantum-gap only to forget about it to go on a wild goose chase after its particles-waves, probability-clouds.

Focus your attention on the quantum-gap and sooner or later you will realize there are no questions because each question/particle is just a BIG BANG.
Focus your attention on the particles and you will only expand the universe just as fast as the thoughts that expand it to create it.

Light by its very definition cannot have time. And yet it travels so fast that it makes everything else “ with time” stationary. It is all impossible: but not if time, light, speed is just thoughts. And that is exactly what E=mc.c tells us they are: they are all the same, just thoughts. (E is not only equal to “m” but also everything else in the equation.)

That is the only way “the observer can determine the observations” because it is all “in” the mind.
Gravity is no better: it collapses stars into neutron-stars and at the same time keeps the universe expanding at or beyond the impossible speed of light. ONE thing “gravity” does two things attract and repel. So we come up with the Big Band to explain the expanding universe. But who needs the Big Bang – electrons and protons are attracted and repelled from each other at the same time otherwise they couldn’t form atoms. So why can’t gravity do the same: attract and expand at the same time?


re: “the real universe”

But time which is only a thing devolped to know when things happened,and to establish a way to record things in an orginized fashion and if time is changed the way you want it wont it lose its original value in many laws? Like how fast somthing is going? So a car is traveling 70 miles per hour, travels for only one hour. Which means you would use time to find out it went 70 miles. So what your saying makes some sense but why does time need to be completly changed? Because how fast he went in a givin time has nothing to do with the matter. Although it does require energyi cant deny that. There needs to be more information proving this. Somthing to actually make me think this is possible other then the theory without evidence.

Time as defined by Webster’s:

1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future c : LEISURE <time for reading>
2 : the point or period when something occurs : OCCASION
3 a : an appointed, fixed, or customary moment or hour for something to happen, begin, or end <arrived ahead of time> b : an opportune or suitable moment <decided it was time to retire> -- often used in the phrase about time <about time for a change>
4 a : an historical period : AGE b : a division of geologic chronology c : conditions at present or at some specified period -- usually used in plural <times are hard> <move with the times> d : the present time <issues of the time>

The definition of time is not all together flawed. It is only slightly flawed.

The flaw is the separation of past present and future. There is no such thing only changes in matter and energy exist. Time is not a 4th dimension because it is only relative to the observation of the change that takes place within energy and matter.

Time has no effect on energy because energy can not be created or destroyed it can only be manipulated.

Matter and Energy are dynamic and related. Relativity says the observer will experience a change in time and matter upon the approach of the speed of light.

This may not be accurate as explained by Albert Einstein. When the space man has returned to earth and the experience is that time has passed differently for him compared to the people he left on earth.

This is only seems to be the case, the truth is that matter is affected by gravity and matter behaves differently as it is exposed to varying amounts of gravitational forces.

Therefore any perception that time is a constant of any kind can not be true.

Time can only be the measurement of changes in matter and energy by one observer at a specific location in 3D space and not proof of past present and future as we understand it.

The past is something that no longer exists in the present and the future is considered to not yet exist.

This conflicts with the fact that the amount energy in existence is static and unchanging, matter is nothing more than condensed energy.

"...The past is something that no longer exists in the present and the future is considered to not yet exist. "

Without your wisdom mankind would be lost in the dark.

So why can’t gravity do the same: attract and expand at the same time?

Gravity has two basic elements according to our understanding, a macro force and a micro force both are energy waves that make up the condensation of energy into matter and the electromagnetic spectrum. The macro gravitational wave and the electromagnetic spectrum are possibly the residual effect of the micro gravitational energy wave or the gravity A wave.

All vibrations of energy have opposite forces perceived as negative and positive.

I wish to ad that your assumption that gravity may be responsible for the expansion of the universe is all together possible.

Gravity has two basic elements according to our understanding, a macro force and a micro force both are energy waves that make up the condensation of energy into matter and the electromagnetic spectrum. The macro gravitational wave and the electromagnetic spectrum are possibly the residual effect of the micro gravitational energy wave or the gravity A wave.

All vibrations of energy have opposite forces perceived as negative and positive.

I wish to ad that your assumption that gravity may be responsible for the expansion of the universe is all together possible.

Why not go one step further -- in physics everything is possible as long as “the observer determines the observations.”
If this is the case then the universe is just my hallucination.
And if it is then:

YOU are in MY dream.
So I can kick your ass
until you make me laugh
or kill me to Wake me up.
so make me laugh: tell me your awake.

Why not go one step further -- in physics everything is possible as long as “the observer determines the observations.”
If this is the case then the universe is just my hallucination.


I do not subscribe to this view of quantum physics. Matter and energy exist in a finite state of existence.

The mental state of the observer effects only what the observer is able to observe.

If a car traveling at a certain velocity and it attempts to occupy the same location as another substantial massive object. One can not simply avoid a collision with the solid object by simply wishing or thinking it out of the way.

I do not subscribe to this view of quantum physics. Matter and energy exist in a finite state of existence.

The mental state of the observer effects only what the observer is able to observe.


What you are saying is that you disagree with "the observer determines the observations" but you agree that "the observer determines the observations."

And these words make me hilariously insane for trying to tell someone in MY dream to kick my ass to Wake me up.

I agree MacM.

A few questions if you don't mind. I know this is off topic and I apologize for that. I am trying to connect observation and Time to matter.

In Quantum Physics when electrons, Neutrons, Protons are observed to be popping in and out of existence, is this the result of the vibration of matter and the limitations of the observer to observe?

I am by no means qualified to give an authoritative response to this but as I understand it virtual particles coming into and out of existance has to do with the uncertainty principle and the ability to borrow temporarily energy required for the process without violating conservation.

When particulate matter is considered to be a wave of possibilities and only snaps into existence when viewed by the observer. Reality that we perceive must then be shaped by thought and the brains ability to create what we believe to be reality. Can this be true?

I do not adhere to the belief that some do where the existance and what we find true is the consequence of the predominate conclusion of mankind minds.

However, I do believe what we think is true is certainly limited to our ability to understand true nature.

Back to vibration when I put on polarized sunglasses my reality changes. I now see the defects in tinted glass of automobiles that I could not see before.

Have the objects I observe changed? No, the only change is the frequency of vibration that I am able to sense.

Matter must be static and not just a wave of possibilities the only variable must be the observer’s ability to sense matter.

I would agree with this.

Starman:

I was inspired to start this thread because of what I had read posted on MacM's website.

Be careful. MacM's ideas are mostly incorrect, and do not reflect modern physical understandings.

I would say that there exists no future or past but only transitions or movements of matter and energy.

Do you remember yesterday? If so, it seems to me that the past exists.
Do you have any plans for tomorrow? If so, it seems the future exists.

Your idea seems to go against common sense and what we observe about the world.

I would say time is nothing more than the Human experience, what we perceive to be the past is the memory of change and the future is a product of the imagination.

If time doesn't exist, why do I have a memory of yesterday which I did not have the day before yesterday?

...I agree MacM.

You do? Good. Maybe you can explain what MacM is talking about, so I can understand.

In Quantum Physics when electrons, Neutrons, Protons are observed to be popping in and out of existence, is this the result of the vibration of matter and the limitations of the observer to observe?

No. It's due to the intrinsic uncertainty of the energy of the quantum vacuum field.

When particulate matter is considered to be a wave of possibilities and only snaps into existence when viewed by the observer. Reality that we perceive must then be shaped by thought and the brains ability to create what we believe to be reality. Can this be true?

Maybe, but most people think there is a reality independent of what we observe. Particles exist whether or not we look at them.

Back to vibration when I put on polarized sunglasses my reality changes. I now see the defects in tinted glass of automobiles that I could not see before.

Have the objects I observe changed? No, the only change is the frequency of vibration that I am able to sense.

Better to say that at any time you perceive only a small part of a bigger reality. Your sunglasses allow you to perceive something which you didn't perceive before. But they don't change the information which is "out there". They just allow you to access it in a different way.



MacM:

People should realize that we each live in a dynamic present. That present is unique to each of us and no two dynamic presents can ever be the same.

Gobbledegook. Your "dynamic present" has no meaning, as far as I can tell.

A dynamic present means the universal events that simultaneously occur at a given instant to you.

This is the usual definition of "present". What's "dynamic" about it?

Since event information flows from origin to spatial ordinate points every ordinate point records the arrival of events differently.

It seems you're not familiar with usual physical language. Events do not travel. An event is a location in spacetime. Information can be carried from one event to another, sometimes.

What's an "ordinate point"?

Any time you move (relocate your ordinate point in space) you are entering both the past and future.

This is pretty vague. In what way I am entering the past when I walk across the room?


genep:

Physics gives us the quantum-gap only to forget about it to go on a wild goose chase after its particles-waves, probability-clouds.

What's "the quantum-gap"?

Light by its very definition cannot have time.

Haven't we been through this before?

Gravity is no better: it collapses stars into neutron-stars and at the same time keeps the universe expanding at or beyond the impossible speed of light. ONE thing “gravity” does two things attract and repel.

So does electromagnetism.

But who eeds the Big Bang – electrons and protons are attracted and repelled from each other at the same time otherwise they couldn’t form atoms.

No. Electrons and protons are only attracted to each other. They never repel each other.

"Ordinate points", etc..

When we invent a new language we create the advantageous possibility that nobody can prove us to be wrong until they finally figure out ( if ever ) what in the hail we are saying.

Starman:

Be careful. MacM's ideas are mostly incorrect, and do not reflect modern physical understandings.

You should actually be a bit more accurate in your reporting. You have assailed me and my thoughts now for years but based on bias and rhetoric.

Perhaps you should look a bit closer into the UniKEF Analysis and UniKEF Balls thread where your prior arguements against UniKEF mathematics have been shown to be completely incorrect. UniKEF stands mathematically valid.


MacM:

Gobbledegook. Your "dynamic present" has no meaning, as far as I can tell.

This is the usual definition of "present". What's "dynamic" about it?

It seems you're not familiar with usual physical language. Events do not travel. An event is a location in spacetime. Information can be carried from one event to another, sometimes.

What's an "ordinate point"?

This is pretty vague. In what way I am entering the past when I walk across the room?

If you cannot follow my presentation it is not because it is unclear, it is because you choose to be obstinate and negative to any thoughts not contained in between covers of your precious conventional physics books.

Be careful. MacM's ideas are mostly incorrect, and do not reflect modern physical understandings.

Do you remember yesterday? If so, it seems to me that the past exists.
Do you have any plans for tomorrow? If so, it seems the future exists.

Your idea seems to go against common sense and what we observe about the world.

If time doesn't exist, why do I have a memory of yesterday which I did not have the day before yesterday?

You do? Good. Maybe you can explain what MacM is talking about, so I can understand.



First of all James R, I would like to thank you for your interest and response to my questions.

Time does exist, however I believe that our understanding of time is flawed.

Time is the measurement of changes in our physical universe.

Because time and matter are not constant both are considered as variable possibilities of influence depending on many different factors.

AE's postulate that energy can not be created or destroyed tells me that the total system remains regardless of mans attempt to measure change.

So the physical past, present and future must exist contemporaneously.

Time is more like a vibration it goes back and forth yet it is stationary. What you remember from yesterday has to do with your ability to store memory of events of change. What you perceive as the future is your attempt to predict change based on your understanding stemming from observing change.

If time is only an oscillation say like a guitar string at rest it stands still when disturbed by an outside force it vibrates. What we observe as time manipulation is nothing more than the change of the energy level in respect to the observer. More energy the faster change happens and time seems to pass, less energy slower changes occur time appears slower to the observer.

I never stated Time dose not exist I only stated that the past and the future do not exist independent of the present.

All that has ever existed still exist and all that will exist, exists now.

What MacM is saying is that there is a GUT and it is right in front of our nose. AE knew this and strived to solve the problem until his death.

Understanding Time and Gravity are the key.

I can not for the life of me understand why we tend to cherish our misconceptions of reality over investigating the mistery.

Sounds a little like going to Church :eek:


Maybe, but most people think there is a reality independent of what we observe. Particles exist whether or not we look at them.

Better to say that at any time you perceive only a small part of a bigger reality. Your sunglasses allow you to perceive something which you didn't perceive before. But they don't change the information which is "out there". They just allow you to access it in a different way..


I agree.


No. Electrons and protons are only attracted to each other. They never repel each other.

Just a little question.
If protons attract each other and neutrons have no charge yet they are held in the nucleus would this not tend to prove that a gravitational field exists within the atom?

If you cannot follow my presentation it is not because it is unclear, it is because you choose to be obstinate and negative to any thoughts not contained in between covers of your precious conventional physics books.MacM, I have news for you. Your presentation is extremely unclear, almost painfully so. Your concepts are not that difficult to understand, but your website rambles on and on with very little organization or direction. I think some of the antagonism you get would be significantly reduced if people reading your site didn't feel like decoding ancient Sanskrit would be easier.

-Dale

>> a gravitational field exists within the atom?

yes of sorts, but you can not use GR warps of Newtonian attractions...

and electrons and protons just love to form clumps on their own.

see Lorentz gas.......

"gravity" is a consequence of interacting magnetic and static electric energy.....

MacM, I have news for you. Your presentationis extremely unclear, almost painfully so. Your concepts are not that difficult to understand, but your website rambles on and on with very little organization or direction. I think some of the antagonism you get would be significantly reduced if people reading your site didn't feel like decoding ancient Sanskrit would be easier.

-Dale

I'll not debate the clarity issue. I can only say that the UniKEF Gravity site is far more clear and remains more on point than the main UniKEF site. :o

As to the presentation, I was speaking of the issue regarding a dynamic present verses distinct past and futures in this Post.

Perhaps you should look a bit closer into the UniKEF Analysis and UniKEF Balls thread where your prior arguements against UniKEF mathematics have been shown to be completely incorrect. UniKEF stands mathematically valid.

MacM, I don't think your mathematics is what has been looked into in those threads. Mathematics applied to the ideas you have proposed, yes - but it was developed independent of the mathematics your proposed such as pseudo-volumes and whatnot.


MacM, I have news for you. Your presentation is extremely unclear, almost painfully so. Your concepts are not that difficult to understand, but your website rambles on and on with very little organization or direction. I think some of the antagonism you get would be significantly reduced if people reading your site didn't feel like decoding ancient Sanskrit would be easier.

I couldn't get past the multi-page abstract. An abstract should be a paragraph.


I'll not debate the clarity issue. I can only say that the UniKEF Gravity site is far more clear and remains more on point than the main UniKEF site.

There is another one?

Already regret asking...

MacM presentation of MacM theory is, unfortunately, a classic example of a theory that, who knows, might be the best thing since they invented sliced butter, but is so obscure that even a real genius could not garner enough clear information to even begin to put it in exact mathematical terms.

There is a time when bluster and more bluster is not enough.

It is not good on one site. But, over there it is good on that site. Or maybe on that one way over there.

Who's on first. No, Who's on second. What? What's on third.

It was only funny, and hilariously so, when Abbot and Costello did it. Not when MacM Theory does it.

MacM, I don't think your mathematics is what has been looked into in those threads. Mathematics applied to the ideas you have proposed, yes - but it was developed independent of the mathematics your proposed such as pseudo-volumes and whatnot.

I agree but that is why I also hold that an error has been made in the integration. While it is good that they are concluding UniKEF matches Newtonian, they are also making statements which simply cannot be true.

I couldn't get past the multi-page abstract. An abstract should be a paragraph.

Granted abstracts are normally one paragraph. Clearly such an abstract would not give sufficent detail to be able to evaluate anything. Perhaps it is the lable "Abstract" which is incorrect.

It is rather an abbreviated presentation (the original manuscript was 250 pages).

MacM presentation of MacM theory is, unfortunately, a classic example of a theory that, who knows, might be the best thing since they invented sliced butter, but is so obscure that even a real genius could not garner enough clear information to even begin to put it in exact mathematical terms.

There is a time when bluster and more bluster is not enough.

It is not good on one site. But, over there it is good on that site. Or maybe on that one way over there.

Who's on first. No, Who's on second. What? What's on third.

It was only funny, and hilariously so, when Abbot and Costello did it. Not when MacM Theory does it.

Nor is it funny when people decline to actually read the material and use common sense.

Starman:

AE's postulate that energy can not be created or destroyed tells me that the total system remains regardless of mans attempt to measure change.

So the physical past, present and future must exist contemporaneously.

But if matter moves around, or changes to energy, or whatever, there has been change, even if the total energy has remained constant. Would you deny that Earth turns on its axis, even though the length of a day remains constant?

What we observe as time manipulation is nothing more than the change of the energy level in respect to the observer. More energy the faster change happens and time seems to pass, less energy slower changes occur time appears slower to the observer.

Doesn't this conflict with what you said before about energy remaining constant?

I never stated Time dose not exist I only stated that the past and the future do not exist independent of the present.

I agree. The terms "past" and "future" make no sense without "present".

All that has ever existed still exist and all that will exist, exists now.

Depends what you mean by "now" and "exist". You know, you're not that far away from what Einstein said about this.

I can not for the life of me understand why we tend to cherish our misconceptions of reality over investigating the mistery.

What misconceptions are you talking about? If there are obvious misconceptions, science deals with them.

If protons attract each other and neutrons have no charge yet they are held in the nucleus would this not tend to prove that a gravitational field exists within the atom?

No. Protons and neutrons are held in the nucleus by the strong nuclear force. If that force didn't exist, then the nucleus would fly apart due to the electrostatic repulsion between the like charges of the protons. Gravity is insignificant in holding atoms together, since it is such a relatively weak force compared to electromagnetism and nuclear forces.

No. Protons and neutrons are held in the nucleus by the strong nuclear force. If that force didn't exist, then the nucleus would fly apart due to the electrostatic repulsion between the like charges of the protons. Gravity is insignificant in holding atoms together, since it is such a relatively weak force compared to electromagnetism and nuclear forces.

What is the origin of this "strong nuclear force". Or is it just plain magic. After all, it has to overwin the repulsion caused by the charges.

What is the origin of this "strong nuclear force".

A very quick primer:

There are four fundamental forces in nature: The strong force, the Weak force, the Electromagnetic force, and Gravity.

At everyday, familiar temperatures, this forces have very different strengths and behaviours. However, at higher temperatures and under different conditions, they can become indistinguishable. For example, it has been shown that, under certain conditions, the electromagnetic force and the weak force merge to become the "electroweak" force. A Nobel Prize was awarded for the proof of that.

Theories which merge the Strong force and the electroweak force are often called "Grand Unified Theories" or GUTs.

Theories which merge Gravity with the other forces are sometimes called "Theories of Everything" or TOEs.

All four forces originated, along with everything else, in the Big Bang. There are a number of theories which attempt to account for the relative strengths we see for these forces today.

>>> Gravity is insignificant in holding atoms together, since it is such a relatively weak force compared to electromagnetism and nuclear forces. >>


mmmh that is right according to established thought......

but there is evidence that all these forces are harmonics of the same force.

Which really is how Nature seems to work.

one is gravity x/r^2 next is Casimir force x^2/r^4 and then Van Der Waals x^3/r^6..... then I expect nuclear force x^4/r^8

if you remove r ( an artifact ) and replace it with pi^2^n then it all makes 'wave sense'. (n = 1 to ? but n has integer 'quantum' values) [ pi is the curved distance]

just a thought.

A very quick primer:

There are four fundamental forces in nature: The strong force, the Weak force, the Electromagnetic force, and Gravity.

At everyday, familiar temperatures, this forces have very different strengths and behaviours. However, at higher temperatures and under different conditions, they can become indistinguishable. For example, it has been shown that, under certain conditions, the electromagnetic force and the weak force merge to become the "electroweak" force. A Nobel Prize was awarded for the proof of that.

Theories which merge the Strong force and the electroweak force are often called "Grand Unified Theories" or GUTs.

Theories which merge Gravity with the other forces are sometimes called "Theories of Everything" or TOEs.

All four forces originated, along with everything else, in the Big Bang. There are a number of theories which attempt to account for the relative strengths we see for these forces today.

Thank you James R for that reminder. That of the electroweak force, I didn't know.

I wonder: The fact that they are apparently one and the same force, acting on different scales and in different forms, doesn't that imply that we (or better: physicists) started off wrong?
They saw gravity, so they made a "theory" for that. But in fact, in Newtonian physics, gravity is still a magical force - the origin is not known, it's just related to mass. Also in General relativity, the origin is not explained. Only the manifestation of the effect of that force is differently explained. SO, when are all these forces going to be explained for real? Is that something we may expect in these TOE's or will they just remain as unclear about these more fundamental questions?
Lastly: I don't think this is a "why-question" comparable to "why do we live". It is still a how-question: How does mass cause gravitational forces. etc.
It seems to me that many people will insist that these "why's" cannot be answered by physics.

They saw gravity, so they made a "theory" for that. But in fact, in Newtonian physics, gravity is still a magical force - the origin is not known, it's just related to mass. Also in General relativity, the origin is not explained. Only the manifestation of the effect of that force is differently explained. SO, when are all these forces going to be explained for real? Is that something we may expect in these TOE's or will they just remain as unclear about these more fundamental questions?

What would you consider to be a "real" explanation? How deep do you want to go? We know that gravity, for example, is produced by mass, and we know pretty well how it operates (at least on largish scales). I guess you want to know why mass causes gravity, or why this thing we call mass exists at all. I'm not sure that science can answer those questions, or whether they are even scientific.

At some stage, we'll always hit the wall and have to rely on untestable hypotheses. Maybe tiny, undetectable pixies live inside each particle, giving it the property we call "mass". But all we can ever detect are the large-scale effects of the mass, not the small-scale workings of the pixies. In which case, are we wasting our time talking about pixies? Maybe it's small elves instead. How could we tell the difference? And if there's no way to tell the difference, I'd say one explanation is as good as another.

Or as BAD as another.

Yes. I want to know how and why mass makes gravity.

And I don't believe in your elves OR your pixies, though I understand that is the best you can imagine.

What would you consider to be a "real" explanation? How deep do you want to go? We know that gravity, for example, is produced by mass, and we know pretty well how it operates (at least on largish scales).

I don't think it would be religeous or philosophical to want to know more about the "production" of this property.

As I said, it is clearly a HOW question which is the basis for any scientific research.

You can make it into WHY question afterwards, when we know everything. Then it will be religion or philosophy.

I think the way you see it, is something like asking your boy/girlfriend: Why do you love me?
There are a lot of cliché answer to this ("There's something about you") but nobody ever knows why he "loves" someone, why he wants to be with that particular person. This reminds me of the end of Hyperion, a SF book by Dan Simmons, where he makes the remark that these forces are much like love.

>> Yes. I want to know how and why mass makes gravity.

It is all explainable via testable and established physics, no pixies.

Mass does not cause gravity, it is secondary to the manifestation...

Mass does cause/induce a surrounding field.... and this field via interactions with other field flows causes all the manifestations that are observed.

If you look at field flows around static charge/magnetic charge, you will see how these can interlock and create very powerful contracting forces, coalesced forces at very close range.... and gravity is just another harmonic.

The Newtonian concept of point charge must be discarded, it all boils down to spherical volume and spherical surface area in a geometric analysis. An pi*r is the only distance measure.... r of course is relative and can be discarded. The equations can all be expressed in pi.

And I don't believe in your elves OR your pixies, though I understand that is the best you can imagine.

Not at all. I've barely started.

Maybe there's a Higgs boson which gives things mass. Maybe God invidividually breathes His essence into every particle with mass. Maybe mass is just an illusion, and things with mass are just really twisted regions of a multidimensional spacetime thingy. Maybe the apparent connection between mass and gravity is just coincidence, and mass actually has nothing to do with it - maybe particles have a new property called "Fuzz" which causes mass, or gravity, or both. Maybe tiny invisible dragons push things around so that they appear to be acted on by something we call gravity. Maybe the whole universe is just a dream, and you are really just a brain in a vat having the dream.

URI:

Mass does cause/induce a surrounding field.... and this field via interactions with other field flows causes all the manifestations that are observed.

What kind of field are you talking about?

If you look at field flows around static charge/magnetic charge, you will see how these can interlock and create very powerful contracting forces, coalesced forces at very close range.... and gravity is just another harmonic.

Please tell me how I can look at the "field flow" around a static charge. What instruments would I need to detect the field?

The Newtonian concept of point charge must be discarded, it all boils down to spherical volume and spherical surface area in a geometric analysis. An pi*r is the only distance measure.... r of course is relative and can be discarded. The equations can all be expressed in pi.

Which equations? Please provide them for us.

I will answer the requests out of courtesy.

A static charge can be in motion.

Fields: a good place to start.
Visualising magnetic fields
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/index.htm

A magnetic field has a finite dipole, an electric field has an infinite dipole.

Both conform to similar rules, however their field flows are orthogonal to each other.

>> Please provide them for us.

an example

The derived gravity wave power equation of the Solar System clearly shows that each planet resides at a quantum number.

Mercury n= 9, Neptune n=17, the asteroid belt fits in at n=13
N varies between 1 and 2pi, usually N= pi for most planets including earth.
the formula is N / (pi^2n)

I can see where this answer may lead, especially in a forum where 'peer reviewed' theory is absolute, so I will leave this thread.... make of it what you will.

I don't think it would be religeous or philosophical to want to know more about the "production" of this property.

As I said, it is clearly a HOW question which is the basis for any scientific research.

True. But let me remind you of something that Feynman said about quantum physics:

Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

lol, why would gravity affect time ahahahhahaha!!!

I can see where this answer may lead,

me too, it leads to nothing. the universe is created in the presence.

In Quantum Physics when electrons, Neutrons, Protons are observed to be popping in and out of existence, is this the result of the vibration of matter and the limitations of the observer to observe?

of course it's only a limitation. in reality, particles have real speed and positions and such, but it may be impossible to observe it, it can only be realized when confronted with metaphysical tools.

When particulate matter is considered to be a wave of possibilities and only snaps into existence when viewed by the observer.

the wave effect is due to negative and positive poles of particles which rotate.

Reality that we perceive must then be shaped by thought and the brains ability to create what we believe to be reality. Can this be true?

what created the brain then?

One can not simply avoid a collision with the solid object by simply wishing or thinking it out of the way.

no, because the particles which our body is made of also have an independent "will", and they reject our will. no scientist can explain what creates magnetic polarity.

Be careful. MacM's ideas are mostly incorrect, and do not reflect modern physical understandings.

just because they don't agree with modern physics doesn't mean they're not correct.

Do you remember yesterday? If so, it seems to me that the past exists.

Yes, but then past is only a memory, a thing in our mind, not something "real".

Do you have any plans for tomorrow? If so, it seems the future exists.

Time exists only in the thoughts and only our mind can affect it. there is just movement of matter in the presence, and since presence by definition has no duration, it has no existence, so only nothingness exists in reality, and everything else are just memories and expectations...

it can be likened to music. music in the very present does not exist, it is not even one note. music is music because of memory of past notes and expectation of future notes.

Maybe, but most people think there is a reality independent of what we observe.

how unscientific, no one can ever know if such a world exists? Consciousness is the only way to know the world, so why would we think that there is a world "outside" our consciousness. It is impossible to be conscious of something outside your consciousness.

Particles exist whether or not we look at them.

it's not like things are dependent on HUman observation.

No. Electrons and protons are only attracted to each other. They never repel each other.

rofl. why don't they fall on the nucleus then?

just because they don't agree with modern physics doesn't mean they're not correct.

True. But just because they don't agree with modern physics doesn't mean they're correct.

c7ityi_:

lol, why would gravity affect time ahahahhahaha!!!

Because gravity is a distortion of spacetime.

just because they don't agree with modern physics doesn't mean they're not correct.

Of course. That's why I said MacM's ideas are mostly incorrect AND do not reflect modern physical understandings.

how unscientific, no one can ever know if such a world exists? Consciousness is the only way to know the world, so why would we think that there is a world "outside" our consciousness.

Because other people agree on certain features of the world. For example, you may never have been to London, but if two different people tell you about it, they will agree.

No. Electrons and protons are only attracted to each other. They never repel each other.

rofl. why don't they fall on the nucleus then

Because electrons have energy and speed. Thus, for a particular electron energy, there is a certain minimum distance from the nucleus that it can orbit. Any closer and it would have to lose energy. However, it can't do that, since there are no available energy levels lower than the ground state.

Because gravity is a distortion of spacetime.

I have never seen any proof that it could affect time. Gravity can affect things like clocks (matter) but not time.

Because other people agree on certain features of the world. For example, you may never have been to London, but if two different people tell you about it, they will agree.

Of course, but you misunderstand me because you believe in several minds. I think there is only one mind, so there is nothing strange if two people see the same thing. The outer world is my unconscious mind.

I can only be sure of matter when I touch it, the wall in front of me is only a vision. I think that if I touch it, I will feel it hard and solid, but I'm not sure. The idea that the world would be real, made of "matter", is only a hypothesis, a habit, based on past experiences.

Because electrons have energy and speed. Thus, for a particular electron energy, there is a certain minimum distance from the nucleus that it can orbit. Any closer and it would have to lose energy. However, it can't do that, since there are no available energy levels lower than the ground state.

In reality, as opposed to in equations, it would be impossible to maintain such an equilibrium. Electrons are supposed to be negatively charged, and protons positively. If so, they attract each other. If they do not, "positive" and "negative" do not mean anything. If you bring a magnet toward an object, it should be disturbed by the magnetic field, the smallest variation would destroy it.

How can the number of electrons and protons always balance each other's charges. How can every proton, neutron, electron, have the same mass and electric charge when no two things are ever exactly the same in the universe?

IOf course, but you misunderstand me because you believe in several minds. I think there is only one mind, so there is nothing strange if two people see the same thing. The outer world is my unconscious mind.Solipsism is empirically and philosophically unassailable. It is also a very boring philosophy.

-Dale

c7ityi_:

I have never seen any proof that it could affect time. Gravity can affect things like clocks (matter) but not time.

Whatever. I'm really not interested in going down that track, since I've already been there with MacM.

If clocks don't measure time, what do they do?

Of course, but you misunderstand me because you believe in several minds. I think there is only one mind, so there is nothing strange if two people see the same thing. The outer world is my unconscious mind.

Then I see little point in continuing this discussion. After all, everything I would tell you is already in your mind, right? I'm just a figment of your imagination.

You don't really believe that, do you?

In reality, as opposed to in equations, it would be impossible to maintain such an equilibrium.

In reality, atoms are observed to exist. What's YOUR explanation for that?

Electrons are supposed to be negatively charged, and protons positively. If so, they attract each other. If they do not, "positive" and "negative" do not mean anything.

The Earth attracts the moon, too, but the moon doesn't fall to Earth. Why do you think that is?

How can the number of electrons and protons always balance each other's charges.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

How can every proton, neutron, electron, have the same mass and electric charge when no two things are ever exactly the same in the universe?

Looks like you're wrong about no two things being exactly the same.

>> lol, why would gravity affect time ahahahhahaha!!!

get off the GR(ass)

Time to us is a measure derived from either planet rotation (orbital time)...or talking of leap seconds, planet revolution.....

Now our orbit reflects the Sun's gravity, so gravity can affect orbital time (year)
The size of our planet can also affect time... increase leads to leap seconds.
And if the size of our planet increases, our measure of gravity will decrease..

so in many ways gravity defines our relative time scale.

Of course all time is cyclic, so there is no start and no end.... it is an illusion.

c7ityi_:

Whatever. I'm really not interested in going down that track, since I've already been there with MacM.

If clocks don't measure time, what do they do?

They mark it at a specific frequency. If you claim otherwise please support your claim with hard evidence.

If clocks don't measure time, what do they do?

What I mean is that time doesn't exist as a physical reality, it exists only in the consciousness. Without consciousness there is no understanding of time. Time is memory and expectation. In reality, only the presence exists. Presence is not just something in our mind, it's an absolute reality.

Everything is created in the presence. The past does not exist (except in illusion). Time can't start somewhere in "time", neither can the universe. Everything past is an effect and an effect is the creation of the cause. When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. In the present moment, there is nothing, the only reality.

After all, everything I would tell you is already in your mind, right? I'm just a figment of your imagination.


No, you're not an imagination, I'm not talking about my personal mind, but about the real self. We're the same self in two different bodies. The same self speaks through James R as it speaks through c7ityi_. The only difference is the body. The body limits how much the self can express itself.

In reality, atoms are observed to exist. What's YOUR explanation for that?

Of course atoms exist. When did I deny the existence of atoms? I meant that mere speed and attraction couldn't hold electrons and other satellites on their orbits, the slightest disturbance would destroy the matter.

The reason why matter is not destroyed when you for example bring a magnet towards an object is that all particles have two poles, able to repel (defend) and attract. Particles behave just like planets. Polar synchronized rotations, in association with the gyroscopic effect of rotations, are the two most important stabilization factors.

The Earth attracts the moon, too, but the moon doesn't fall to Earth. Why do you think that is?

We've already had these discussions before, don't you remember? I believe there is only one energy in the universe: the magnetic energy. Attraction and repulsion holds satellites and planets on their orbits. Those two aspects also make planets rotate, which generates gravity.

Looks like you're wrong about no two things being exactly the same.

Such miracles only exist in the equations of physicists.

>> Attraction and repulsion holds satellites and planets on their orbits

"attraction" is forbidden in physics.... force can only be imparted by a "push".... repulsion.

So what hold planets and satellites ?

"attraction" is forbidden in physics.... force can only be imparted by a "push".... repulsion.

So what hold planets and satellites ?

Attraction and repulsion. I'm curious, how does gravity "push" things according to physics?

>> I'm curious, how does gravity "push" things according to physics?

Gravity is a reaction to the two orthogonal primary forces (power vector)... one axial, one tangential
gravity is the orthogonal (to the plane) resultant, it is a radial force, it pushes in or out depending on the power vector.

Uh, power is a scalar quantity, not a vector.

-Dale

>> I'm curious, how does gravity "push" things according to physics?

Gravity is a reaction to the two orthogonal primary forces (power vector)... one axial, one tangential
gravity is the orthogonal (to the plane) resultant, it is a radial force, it pushes in or out depending on the power vector.

Makes no sense to me, or any 7 year old. But physicists must complicate their theories and equations because of the mistakes they have done.

URI isn't speaking of anything rational. His physics seems to be completely different to "standard" physics, just like MacM's.

>> Uh, power is a scalar quantity, not a vector.

great... could you explain why they call the Poynting energy vector a 'vector'

This 'vector' represents power and it has a direction component.

Always willing to learn protocol....

could you explain why they call the Poynting energy vector a 'vector'

This 'vector' represents power and it has a direction component.Certainly, your confusion is not really your fault in this case. This is what I call a "common usage error". Many people say it, but it is wrong. (Another example is "escape velocity" it should be "escape speed")

The fact is that there is no such thing as the "Poynting energy vector". In physics books and even on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector) you will always find it correctly refered to simply as the "Poynting vector". In any case, the units of the Poynting vector are not just power, but power per area. The directional component of the Poynting vector stems from the area which is a vector, not the power which is a scalar.

I cannot overemphasize how important it is, in physics, to keep track of your units and the type (scalar, vector, tensor) of all quantities you deal with.

-Dale

Thanks Dale
the jargon has to be agreed with, if communication is to succeed.

Physics jargon is not my area.... but logic is.....

While you may be still reviewing this thread
maybe you could enlighten me re squares
ie mv = momentum
mv^2 = energy
what is the difference here ?

(v^2)^2 = power

Is there a logic ?

URI:

The Poynting vector is an energy flux, which is quite different from power, which is just the rate of energy transfer.

(v^2)^2 has the dimensions of velocity to the fourth power.

Power has dimensions of energy over time.

Therefore, (v^2)^2 cannot possibly be a power.

Hope this clears up your confusion.

URI, as Dale said, it is very important to keep track of units and type:

mv is a vector with units of momentum.
mv^2 is a scalar with units of energy.

Velocity is a vector, so how is v^2 a scalar? The answer is that the dot product of two vectors is a scalar, and the dot product of a vector with itself is the square of the magnitude of the vector. Thus v^2 is shorthand for dot(v, v).

URI, D_H is exactly correct. In fact, the types of quantities depend not only on the units, but also on the exact operations used to define the quantity. For example, both energy and torque are defined as a force, F, times a distance, r, and both can be expressed in units of Nm. So how can you tell them apart? One is a vector quantity and one is a scalar quantity. That can seem strange considering that they have the same units and the same quantities as their definition.

The key lies in the fact that there is more than one way to multiply two vectors. One is called the "dot product" and the other is called the "cross product". The dot product was already mentioned by D_H. It takes two vectors and gives a scalar. The cross product takes two vectors and gives a 3rd vector which is perpendicular to both. So:
&tau; = cross(r,F)
E = dot(r,F)

Torque is a vector with the same units as energy which is a scalar.

-Dale

Thanks for all the kind thoughts

>> So how can you tell them apart?

when you have multiple definitions for the same thing... a confusion...

I would have thought the units defined the quantity.
so v^2 = m^2 sec^-2
or area/ sec^2
or an acceleration of area....

and the Poynting vector is an acceleration of area ??
I also clearly have acceleration of volume m^3 / sec^2

I am dealing with areas and volumes.... the dot and cross product seems not to work...
I use ( a * b )^.5 = c, this works ! where a b, and c are in what you call "a cross product" relation...a, b and c are all orthogonal,.. c being the 3rd resultant vector of a and b.
Here I think I am dealing with energy... ? magnetic and electric energy.
what is acceleration^2 ?... force^2

Maybe just leave me in my confusion, where I am happy :)

S=1/u x ( E x B )

"The magnitude of the Poynting vector represents the rate at which energy flows through a unit surface area perpendicular to the flow."

"These are the units S must have since it represents the power per unit area, where the unit area is orientated at right angles to the direction of wave propagation."

Same Poynting vector as you good ol' boys are talking about?

>> Same Poynting vector

not sure if it is the same, but I expect is is, but in spherical 3-space.

I have ascertained that E, B and 'the resultant flow' are all quasi equal
such that E*B = constant, a harmonic equilibrium
and therefore the (constant)^.5 = constant.

But E and B can harmonically oscillate with each other.

So in this case the 'cross product' process is invalid.

when you have multiple definitions for the same thing... a confusion...

I would have thought the units defined the quantity.I'm sorry, I guess I was not clear enough in my point previously. My point was that you need to keep track of units and type of all quantities. In other words, torque and energy are very different things. Their difference lies not in their units (both are Nm) but in their type (one is a scalar the other is a vector).

and the Poynting vector is an acceleration of area ??
I also clearly have acceleration of volume m^3 / sec^2I don't know how you got that. The Poynting vector is in units of power per area. In SI units that is W/m&sup2;. I would just leave it in W/m&sup2;, since those are the units that make the most physical sense, but if you really want to reduce it to base units you get kg/s&sup3;.

I have no idea what you mean by acceleration of volume.

Maybe just leave me in my confusion, where I am happy :)Is that what you really want? I personally have found understanding much more satisfying than ignorance.

-Dale

S=1/u x ( E x B )

"The magnitude of the Poynting vector represents the rate at which energy flows through a unit surface area perpendicular to the flow."

"These are the units S must have since it represents the power per unit area, where the unit area is orientated at right angles to the direction of wave propagation."

Same Poynting vector as you good ol' boys are talking about?Yes, but URI was just confused about the units a little.

I see you also use Serway :)

-Dale

>> Is that what you really want?

no, of course not, I really want what I have written to make sense to others, not just me, LOL.

But usually my work is trashed... so I did not want to cause anyone pain....

I am wondering though, since the established math is wrong for this, is my conception wrong, or am I dealing in "out there" physics.

I am interested in cosmic conditions, where harmonic relations rule, and fields are spherical, and everything is in balance.

I am interested in cosmic conditions, where harmonic relations rule, and fields are spherical, and everything is in balance.I am not exactly sure what you mean, but you will need to look into spherical harmonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics and http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonic.html) for your math. I don't know what physical processes they might describe, but they would be the basis functions that you would be constrained to use for something like that. There is also a vector version of spherical harmonics.

-Dale

I am wondering though, since the established math is wrong for this...

Wrong for what?

>> Wrong for what?

well the cross product

>> The magnitude of the cross product is given by
|uxv| = |u||v|sintheta,

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/CrossProduct_1000.gif
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CrossProduct.html

the accepted math above

now if orthogonal sintheta =1

but in my equation, with all vectors quasi equal
I get u*v = c where c is actually equal to the square root of u*v, and not the product.

so what is wrong... is the experience on cross product on Earth only 1-space ? (planar)

my logic should be 3-space

I have not enough experience in higher math to explain

Dale: So you noticed it.

I admit it, I look in my Serway once a month, whether I need to or not. Just to check for typos. ;)