for example, does incoming light from the sun accelerate into the earth or does its speed still remain constant?

or should this be explained through warped space? space and time being "denser" around the earth so the light would be measured travel towards us at constant speed, but only if precalculations were done to decide on how much space and time it actually went through?

i know it has been observed that gravity bends light, but does it nearly bend it or would it be able to attract it like in the "black hole" scenarios.

any experiments been done on that?


also, if light exerts gravity, one should be able to levitate a light object with a an ultra strong light beam reflecting against two mirrors or something?

oh yea, i've also read that light shifts to red or blue when leaving or entering gravity fields, but does it change speed or simply frequency?

Speed is constant, gravity effects direction as well as frequency.

sooo.. black holes are not really black as the light would be able to escape at a 90 degree angle to the sphere by that definition.

black holes are not really black regardless of the possibilty to keep light in them. as we would see whats behind them through bending of light that would just manage to escape. so we would not see anything strange except perhaps strong unaccounted for gravitational forces in the area.


i dont think speed is constant. i think it lacks dimensions. it appears everywhere along a straight line in curved spacetime in a single moment. only trouble is there's a time offset from one spot to another spot so we have to wait for us to reach the "absolute" time moment at which light was created to see the light at that spot. absolute would simply be relative to big bang i presume.
altough satisfying accuracy could be obtained by only taking local measurements and taking into account local gravity fields for calculating predictions.

If the speed of light is always constant then... No, earth should actually be slowing down in time in order to keep c constant. I would assume the change in time is negligible. Also, that means that black holes are extremely slow in time due to their huge gravitational pull.

Force of gravity = (M1+M2)/d^2

Take the extreme density of a black hole, and the mass of a photon, divide it by the distance and you get the force of gravity. Now, black holes are thought to be extremely dense and small, so just imagine the force with an extremely small d, and a huge mass. You get an extremely large pull on the speed of light - causing time inside a black hole to pretty much be 0?

actually gravity speeds up time according to GR.

so, at radius r0 from the black hole center, t0=10, at r1, t1=8, at r2, t2=5 etc.
if light is created at r0 at the moment t0. it will be at r1 when t1 reaches 10 and at r2 when t2 reaches 10. something like that i think?
mass of photon is ignored. gravitational pull is independed of mass. photons do not have to have mass, it is irrelevant as the timespace is nevertheless curved by the black hole gravity and light has to find the shortest path of a single moment in time to expand. a single moment in time is relatively different to each position in space.

Speeds up? Yes speeds up things outside your system. But as far as I can tell if I go half the speed of light, time will slow down in order for light to see to go faster.

Asides from that, I'm having trouble seeing where you are getting at.

no, i mean atomic clocks at sea lever run faster than the same clocks in orbit. so, time goes faster where there is more gravity.

im kinda reluctant to accept that light has some predetermined speed at which it travels. light itself lacks dimensions, so even though it takes like 10 mins for light to travel a distance, in the lights frame of reference it is already there immediately, and in every point along the path.
we somehow SEE light travel at 300 000 km/s. why is this so, i am trying to grasp.

possibility #1 - light experiences "depth"/distance/z as time. for some reason its timeline is visible to us as 300 000 km/s. this is not really an acceptable answer, actually it only seeds more questions.

possibility #2 - there is an inherent time offset between every single point in the universe. this allows light to appear immediately along a line in one single moment. but since every point in space has a time offset, we see it appear at each point at a different time. as we have to wait for the time at that spot to "happen". this time offset is somehow also influenced by gravity.

possibility #3 - since matter is "created" from light(electron-pozitron) in special conditions, i would say that gravity/spacetime shaping is somehow in direct connection with the speed of light - being compressed into a 3d point exerting "time and space" around it and also influencing distribution of uncompressed 2d light.

#3 is a bit mind melting, but if you think about it, light is the measurement of both space and time. if a light ray were to be exerted from a single 3d point into every direction the rays would define the density of time and space similar to GR. only somehow the compressed light exerts only this aspect of light into surrounding space, while the electromagnetic aspect is kept compressed to a point.

no, i mean atomic clocks at sea lever run faster than the same clocks in orbit. so, time goes faster where there is more gravity.
According to GR, it's the opposite. A clock at sea level runs slower than a clock in orbit (preferably in a geosynchronous orbit so that the clock does not move relative to the clock at sea level).

for example, does incoming light from the sun accelerate into the earth or does its speed still remain constant?
You are free to think the former, in conjunction with the slowing of clocks. The factor by which the velocity of light increases as it falls is exactly the factor by which the clocks slow down, so everybody observes the same speed for light. (Everybody uses their own clock to determine its speed.) Nobody can detect an acceleration or deceleration.

In the development of GR, first came the assumption that everyone measures the speed of light the same (based on experiments that indicated that), and from that assumption and a deduction that light falls it was deduced that clocks at lower altitudes run slower to perfectly compensate for the acceleration, so that no one can detect it.

About the black holes not really being black...

M-Theory/String Theory has an explanation that is something like this: As a string splits into 2 different strings, before they can rejoin (as they normally do) one is sucked into the black hole. And because strings are super symmetric the other string then accelerates out the other way, thus we get radiating light. (assuming that string was oscillating in the way to produce a photon).

Just sayin... :p I'm pretty sure that's the way they explain it (though in simple terms).

for example, does incoming light from the sun accelerate into the earth or does its speed still remain constant?

or should this be explained through warped space? space and time being "denser" around the earth so the light would be measured travel towards us at constant speed, but only if precalculations were done to decide on how much space and time it actually went through?

i know it has been observed that gravity bends light, but does it nearly bend it or would it be able to attract it like in the "black hole" scenarios.

any experiments been done on that?


also, if light exerts gravity, one should be able to levitate a light object with a an ultra strong light beam reflecting against two mirrors or something?


According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the velocity of light changes in relation to the strength of the gravitational field in which it traverses. This was alledged to be proved in the famous eclipse science experiment and in subsequent interplanetary radar science experiments.

According to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, the velocity of light is an invarying constant.

Confusing?

It has me confused!

That's because you don't know that the velocity you say changes is not a real velocity, but only an apparent velocity, derived on the assumption that spacetime is flat (which it isn't in GR).

That's because you don't know that the velocity you say changes is not a real velocity, but only an apparent velocity, derived on the assumption that spacetime is flat (which it isn't in GR).

As usual, you don't seem to know that Who is on first.

JamesR:

I was tempted to let you drag this thing out with your usual blither and then, as usual, hit a grand slam off of you. However, I have much, much more profitable things to do than to watch you gyre and gimble in your wabe.

In the famous eclipse experiment, whether the Newton prediction or the Einstein prediction eventually proves conclusively to be accurate, the light ray was approaching A PATH GOING BY THE SIDE OF the sun in a straight path. Then, it began to be measureably accelerated toward the sun. It was accelerated sideways from its previous path. It was moving IN A PATH BY THE SIDE OF the sun,then it began moving toward the sun. whereas it had not been doing so. It had previously been moving in a straight line past the sun.

The ray of light at one time HAD NO VELOCITY SIDEWAYS TOWARD THE SUN.

Then, as time went by, THE RAY BECAME ACCELERATED TOWARD THE SUN SO THAT IT GAINED A VELOCITY GREATER THAN ITS PREVIOUS ZERO VELOCITY SIDEWAYS TOWARD THE SUN.

As a result of the light ray being accelerated sideways toward the sun, it hit the photographic plate in a position different than it would have attained if it had not been accelerated sideways by the sun's gravity.

If you cannot understand this as being a very widely publicised proof of the velocity of light being accelerated in a gravity field, you possibly should devote some substantial amount of time to studying, first, what the meaning of the word is is.

The general relativistic explanation of the effect you mention, CANGAS, which you would know if you'd studied general relativity, is that light is not accelerated by the sun, but follows a geodesic in the local spacetime.

You should devote some substantial amount of time to studying, then get back to me once you have an education.

James R,

It is hard for me to read GR as it's mostly tough math.
But the essence as I've seen is that gravity slows down time. How does it influence space? Is space "denser" closer to gravity source or something like that?

Einsteins GR is the key to a good theory of everything. Einstein was IMO correct in thinking he needs to explain electromagnetism in GR and that would be it.

Unlike quantum theory which seems to me very tuned and complicated. If you were given an infinite string of random numbers, I'm sure you could devise a theory that will predict with arbitrary accuracy/uncertainty the next number and so forth. Such a theory would look pretty much like quantum theories.

I think scientists today need to focus on first explaining the relation between gravity, inertia and the speed of light. It should be imperative to explain the creation and annihilation of mass.
Today we do pair production by aiming a gamma photon into a nucleus. It should be imperative to try to achieve pair production without the nucleus - out of "nothing". By aiming carefully tuned gamma photons into each other it should be possible to get the reverse of e-p annihilation.
This would finally prove the connection between speed of light and mass.
It should be explained what happens to the magnetic part of each photon, what happens to the electric part and what happens to the speed of light itself when e-p pair is produced. That is the key IMO.
I'm pretty sure that there only exists a number stable orbit/harmonic oscillations of EM waves that in certain conditions can produce stable particles. This fundamental mechanism could be explained when trying to produce stable particles with tuned gamma rays. Other momentary particles that are observed when slamming nucleuses and heavy particles together are simply unstable "orbits"/oscillations.
I'm sure, once we know the fundamentals of mass creation - it could be incorporated into GR and explain all the phenomena and interaction in the quantum theories domain.
The "tuning"(frequency, energy) of gamma rays required to create stable particles would probably explain the reason for "quanta" while keeping the whole theory analog - unquantised.

It has me confused!
No surprises there.

...Unlike quantum theory which seems to me very tuned and complicated. If you were given an infinite string of random numbers, I'm sure you could devise a theory that will predict with arbitrary accuracy/uncertainty the next number and so forth. Such a theory would look pretty much like quantum theories....This is not in any way true. I just made post for someone asking for good physics book so I will recommend another to you. Look at least at the index of Goldstein's Clasical Mechanics.*

It is, as the name states, all classical, but the intent of the author, very well achieved, is to develop the mathematical approach to classical problems which WITHOUT CHANGE can be applied to quantum mechanics. For example, the principle of least action and the Hamiltonian etc. The simple harmonic oscillator and orbits in a central force field are the main "work horse" problems of that book, which we solved by many different methods. After one particular method, of great importance for quantum mechanics, Goldstein remarked that finding the frequency of a simple pendulum oscillator from its Hamiltonian formulation was “like cracking peanuts with a sledge hammer.”

His book, and my point here, is that there is nothing "Cooked Up" as you imply in the quantum mechanics math. Everything used (with the possible exception of the Dirac delta function**) was know to mathematician for 100 years before QM was discovered and the methodology of QM is all just the same as is developed for classical mechanics, as even a brief review of Goldstien's book will prove to you. Goldstein's book was a prerequisite for taking introductory QM at JHU when I was getting my Ph.D. precisely to make the student understand that the methods, both the physics and the math were at least 50years predating QM - the experimental results are what is new.

If by chance you know how useful Fourier Analysis is in analysis of electrical circuits, it may help you to understand what I am telling you. Fourier analysis predates electrical circuits and like the math and classical analysis tools, especially the Hamiltonian approach, was just a "solution looking for a problem" when some new experimental facts were being learned and need to be fit into a theory.


SUMMARY: You have it all wrong. The analytical system of QM existed before QM. -It was not "fit to QM" after QM was discovered. Look at Goldstein's book.
-------------------------------------------------------------
*The reason why quantum physics analysis is called "Quantum Mechanics" is that to tell you that "mechanics" will be applied to a quantum problem, not applied to a "classical" problem, but the "mechanics" or "grinding the crank" to crank out the answers is the same mechanics for both. I.e. the analysis for both is "cook book" or "mechanical" (without thought required) once the problem is set up. Just grind the mathematical crank, but that gets to be very tough, except for the most simple problems.

**Mathematicians knew about it also, but it is nearly impossible to make rigorous proof that it has the useful features it has. (Peak must go to infinity I think is the difficulty.) Physicists are more willing to accept less than perfect rigor in the math they use.

sooo.. black holes are not really black as the light would be able to escape at a 90 degree angle to the sphere by that definition.

black holes are not really black regardless of the possibilty to keep light in them. as we would see whats behind them through bending of light that would just manage to escape. so we would not see anything strange except perhaps strong unaccounted for gravitational forces in the area.

Do you recall mentioning redshift and Blue-shift?

Now seeing attractive forces are impossible..

We must concede that Black-Holes are areas of the Universe that is being compressed, proof of this is as we look away from the centre of our galaxy bodies should be measured as red-shifting and whats more as our mass is further compressed, and should we observe afar, the further away we measure mass and space, mass and space would be measured and percieved as if expanding in an increasing manner..

Now if we turn the other way and measure towards the centre of our galaxy "Black Hole" we should measure Blue Shifting "Black" where the lowest frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum would be so highly compressed the frequencies would be far to high and the peak to peaks far to small for our instruments to measure. keeping in mind the more we compress mass the harder it is to exert changes of state to its ratios pertaining to E=MC^c

Laidback,
We must concede that Black-Holes are areas of the Universe that is being compressed, proof of this is as we look away from the centre of our galaxy bodies should be measured as red-shifting...
What makes you think all 'bodies' are red-shifted as we look away from the center of our galaxy? Not true, there are even around 100 galaxies that are blue-shifted wrt to us, due to their peculiar velocity. Most are in our local group, such as Andromeda and M31, but not all are.
Also, if you think the universe is being 'compressed', why do we see very distant galaxies as red-shifted? Those galaxies are moving away from us, not towards us.

Laidback,
Now seeing attractive forces are impossible..
No, you have done nothing to prove attractive forces are 'impossible'. I can move a piece of paper opposite the direction of gravity with a simple nylon comb due to the attractive force between oppositely charged particles.

James R,


I think scientists today need to focus on first explaining the relation between gravity, inertia and the speed of light. It should be imperative to explain the creation and annihilation of mass.

All the answers can begot from.. E=MC^2.

And the laws where energy and mass can never be created or destroyed, and that includes what Particle Theorists ignorantly claim as destruction of particles on collision within a Particle Accelerator. :rolleyes:

Mass and or energy are interrelated where if a given mass takes up an area of C^2 that is at rest or near unity and or near vacuum, which BTW we should note when and if near unity and or near vacuum and if it does reach zero is the only way to destroy something to nothing~ BUT Note is simply impossible if one considers the full implications of "c" with respects to relativity.

Now if we want to increase the potential of a given mass, one way is to compress the given area from near vacuum to some sort of particle defined by science as a "Proton" and note if a proton is to exist we need to consider what forces contain it, and the answer is simple - Its the combined potential from its neighboring protons that is percieved as negative force and or charge.

Should a neighboring proton increase in potential it will exert this potential on its neighboring Protons that are with less potential, so on and so on, and one should note at any given time all mass or field anywhere in the universe is either increasing in potential and or exerting its increased potential to areas with less potential propagating experienced changes into colour and Kelvin state to a given area, because Light and or electromagnetic propagation is part of the makeup of all mass in the universe, in fact quantum mechanics has many problems because of the uncertainty of what any given state of an area may be influenced by via complex waves of energy being transferred through a given mass, field and or medium.

Gravity is simply force and NO! it isn't attractive! read that again Attraction simply is a percieved force. and if two plotting points and or masses meet it should be expressed as one with a greater velocity and or speed to the other.

My reasoning has me convinced, Gravity is from the exertion coming from 90~99% of undetermined combined mass and that's a lot of "Cold/Dark Matter" that is NEAR Vacuum and or unity.. or mass so dense with such high velocities of changes it still can be expresed as force so yeah~ its all in the maths.

Laidback,

What makes you think all 'bodies' are red-shifted as we look away from the center of our galaxy? Not true, there are even around 100 galaxies that are blue-shifted wrt to us, due to their peculiar velocity. Most are in our local group, such as Andromeda and M31, but not all are.
Also, if you think the universe is being 'compressed', why do we see very distant galaxies as red-shifted? Those galaxies are moving away from us, not towards us.I didn't say that the whole universe is being compressed! what in the universe would do that!??? But I totally agree Redshift Measurements infers distancing and as for bodies that are Blue shifting they are inbound suggesting an exertion and not some archaic idea of some magical and or miracles attraction..

Please note the whole universe is not expanding nor is it compressing rather areas with greater potential are exerting compression to areas with less potential to it...


Laidback,

No, you have done nothing to prove attractive forces are 'impossible'. I don't need to!
All the forces I depend on rely on any given force needing an opposing force that is equal or greater to it as a footing for it so to speak..

Attraction to me, simply is impossible because it has no footing for it, So really its up to those who take on the notion of such magic and or miracle to explain how attraction is facilitated..I can move a piece of paper opposite the direction of gravity with a simple nylon comb due to the attractive force between oppositely charged particles.

And as the given velocities from your stroking the papers surface slows so will the attraction seem to dwindle.

You see the same occurs when we deal with magnets where if we align two magnetic fields with similar velocities they will seem to be attracting when all what is really happening is one field is with a little more velocity in passing its charge and or force to the next medium and or fields to the other magnet which is passing its charges and or force just that little slower to the same medium and or fields, now if we turned one of them around so the magnets fields are at a velocity exerting on each others charges and or forces via given medium they simply are forced away from each other, and it should be noted all mass does this.

Laidback,
I didn't say that the whole universe is being compressed! what in the universe would do that!???
That's what I asked. Push gravity is an archiac idea relying on some unidentified magical push force arising from nowhere. Exactly what is doing the pushing?
Please note the whole universe is not expanding nor is it compressing rather areas with greater potential are exerting compression to areas with less potential to it...
There are very vast areas of the universe with very little detectable matter in them, great voids. Are these the areas with greater 'potential' or less potential? Are the areas with 'less potential' compressed more than the dense regions of space?
And as the given velocities from your stroking the papers surface slows so will the attraction seem to dwindle.
I do not have to stroke the paper at all to pick it up with the comb. All I have to do is create a net charge in the comb, well away from the location of the paper. This is usually referred to as 'static' electricity.

Billy T, I didn't say the mathematics of quantum theory are the problem. I'm just saying the rules and theories are not fundamental. If they were fundamental there wouldn't be so many of them.
Consider for example zero-point energy and virtual particles, neutrinos that oscillate between 2-3 types.. The fact that we still mostly simply slam big particles or nucleuses into each other and watch what happens.. It is simply somehow missing the fundamentals which makes it complicated, but not incorrect.

As I said, if the theory was more fundamental we would have by now e-p production out of "thin air" - gamma photons which we do not.

LaidBack,

I already asked you to explain how and why would empty-space dark matter "push" two separate, distanced objects together... why wouldnt it push them apart.. why would it move them at all? Obviously pressure doesn't move stuff. It is imossible to achieve gravity effects with a 3rd entity outward force.

Also consider that gravity works lika a force from which one cannot shield himself. It works through everything. There is no antiforce of gravity etc... This is what makes it special to other fundamental "forces"... And it is one of the reasons why it is not even perceived as a force in GR but rather bent spacetime.

Laidback,

That's what I asked. Push gravity is an archaic idea relying on some unidentified magical push force arising from nowhere. Exactly what is doing the pushing?

There are very vast areas of the universe with very little detectable matter in them, great voids. Are these the areas with greater 'potential' or less potential? Are the areas with 'less potential' compressed more than the dense regions of space?

I do not have to stroke the paper at all to pick it up with the comb. All I have to do is create a net charge in the comb, well away from the location of the paper. This is usually referred to as 'static' electricity.

I see~ first things first!

Basic science explains Static as a charge which is basically an increase in potential..

Advanced science explains it this way... via the use MC^2=E

The whole universe is a single mass divided into fields, and where a field is with little outward force as in a vacuum we divide and define the given areas as fields that are the constant "c" long by "c" wide by "c" high or C^2 "c" is the constant equal to the speed of light.. now should we compress this area {think of how small each molecule of air would be in a compressor and think of the force or work we can do with it} any way if we compressed such an area we would have a Proton that is now just like all other Protons and or solids exerting their presence, and when we look at this outwardly force it would be an inwardly force to all other protons "negative charge" as in all protons exert Positive charge whilst their neighboring Protons exert negative charge onto every other, think of a protons outward force pushing against the inbound force coming from all other Protons outward force..

Now if a proton is compressed via an increase in negative charge {a neighboring proton with higher potential and or a little more compressed} so that its potential rises but as it does its increase in outward force is exerted to Protons with less potential and force to them and this is how the electron Err~ negative charge or electron flow works, if each of these fields were out in space where most of their potential towards unity has been expended and each field takes up an area of "C^2" we would have to explain electron flow as Electromagnetic waves and or Light propagation, and because each given field spans vast areas compared to a solid which is compressed to a small area electron flow is nowhere near the speed of propagation to the speed of Light! One more thing I should add is that solids still experience electromagnetic waves and propagate them, and if one is grappling with quantum mechanics they should know exactly what a headache such uncertainty does to ones calculus..

Moving on to gravity...

Our atmosphere when very still can hardly be detected and yet when at great velocities can uplift homes and thrust them great distances...

Now if we go to an area at sea level and measure the area of each gas molecule we should think that if we measure a molecule that is upper most to the atmosphere they would measure the same but they don't!

The molecules at sea level are being compressed by the molecules above and around them just as it does deep within our oceans, but if this is so~

Then what in the universe is containing the molecules that are above our atmosphere? Attraction or Dark Matter?

In fact what on earth contains our Oceans? Attraction or Our Atmosphere?

The further away from earth we measure each molecules area the greater each molecules area is until we get to where each molecule spans great distances "C^2" of an area in fact!..

Our Universe consists of around 90~99% of this mass which has not been compressed hence with very little outward force, Science has defined these areas of space as near vacuum or near unity for good reason, near unity suggests no matter where we go in out universe we can only have the means to move around within such a medium which allows a footing and or interaction via some force.

Be patient all this is important in understanding Gravity...

Lets briefly look at what mass would be if it were allowed to expand to an area so that it is with no potential to it at all...

If an area had no potential to it, No-thing could exert upon its non existent outward force, we therefore must concede we truly have come across No-Thing, This is impossible for the fact that if an area did have No-Thing it would be taken up by all nearby mass that is exerting its outward potential, so we must concede every single mass exerts force, no matter what!

Put simply its something or nothing.

To most this should point their attention to the fringe of our universe where one would expect No-Thing eventually, Unless one takes a hint of our atmosphere where the more outward we go the greater the area a single mass has the luxury to participate in by its weaker exertion... and at this point we really need to understand relativity... where we may be actually attempting to describe where our atmosphere really does end, we don't pressurize passenger aircraft just for the hell of it..

Any way getting back to Gravity not being attraction but rather an exertion lets turn our attention back to the edge of our atmosphere and concede that the outer molecules are being held their via the 90~99% of mass from the rest of the Universe, after all the combined outwardly exertion from all that mass must equal the force of gravity.

The fact that we still mostly simply slam big particles or nucleuses into each other and watch what happens.. .

Lets do one better and ask what forces propell the subject particles into each other, try and explain away the zillions of claimed particle that are the makeup of an electromagnetic fields collisions with subject particle prior to said intended collision if we are to adhere strictly to particle Physics. :D

In fact ask what forces define a Particle? more smaller particles? :rolleyes:
yeah ok lets concede and then ask what defines them?

LaidBack,

I already asked you to explain how and why would empty-space dark matter "push" two separate, distanced objects together... why wouldn't it push them apart.

The prime reasoning behind why gravity can never be via attractive force is because there is no facility for an opposing exertion as a footing whilst an outward force does have a footing!

BTW SPACE and or Near vacuum and or near Unity suggests there is an outward force present albeit of very little potential to a state of complete Unity which equals zero, whats important to note is that each field is still exerting an outward force and if we sum this 90~99% of masses force and or potential we should derive our gravitational push.

Its also a lot to do with surface area contact and if we observe a given time reference with its orbital plane of various masses it should become a little more obvious and or clearer with respects to this push if we consider each body in orbit with its mass ratio to its velocity.

Again, you did not answer.

An outward force can in no way achieve the effects of gravity. It can achieve merely pressure. It can not pull together two separate solid objects.

Again, you did not answer.

An outward force can in no way achieve the effects of gravity. It can achieve merely pressure. It can not pull together two separate solid objects.
My dawg! Have you done any Physics!?????

OK ~ First lets go back to the basics of how force can be exerted..

Lets draw a trajectory with an arrow depicting its direction..

But if we consider what footing is facilitating this force it simply can not be possible! Unless it is exerted on some footing and or on the back of another force so to speak.

Try and jump out in space with no footing and you soon will realize, to jump or gain some momentum or force you need to exert your jump on some opposing force, don't get me wrong! when you jumped the end result was the area you exerted upon was exerted to, the point is if what you jump from and or exert your force to is lighter and or with less mass to it, it simply will gain more momentum than you so therefore your momentum is quite insignificant..

So having established force and or momentum can only be exerted via some opposing footing, I will avail to you the luxury of explaining how attractive forces work, and let me say right here and now, I am confident you will come to a conclusion that magical and or miraculous attraction has had its day, just as when our earth was explained as being flat!

Here's my reasoning why some bodies are and or not "via an orbit" forced together.

First rule is - All mass must have a potential "outward force to Unity" near vacuum and or Space is proof of this.

Moving on... If we consider clues given by our oceans depths crushing forces along with our lower and upper atmospheric pressure we must concede the further away from a mass of fields the greater area each field should be, this can be calculated, depicted and or via both ways, but mathematically this would take many pages and beyond this forum, so here's how we depict gravity....

Let us start by drawing two circles one larger than the other.

Having drawn these circles we now divide them up into fields by using another coloured pen/cil, by first slicing up the circles as if they were mini pizza's {Lets simply divide them into eight equal slices...}

we then draw more circles inside to both circles to represent a true space time grid to each of the circles, we are doing this to represent what each field and or Proton would take at a given distance from the centres..{modeling somewhat oceans depths and or lower/upper atmosphere}

Having done this we now move on to the fun part!

We now proceed with yet another coloured pen/cil to extend our original circles with the space time grid by extending larger and larger fields up to where the two circles {noting Maximum C^2 fields if considering realistic figures} meet and infringe upon each other...

If we stop there with these fields, we would reason that the collection of fields and or mass {depicted as circles} would be exerting away from each other {via outward force/s from every field} and this would be correct if NOTHING more surrounded these fields, but that simply is not so!

And this is where every one is going wrong!

To understand GRAVITY, we must consider ALL of the universes fields outward exertions to which we must acknowledge if a field is NEAR Vacuum it still has potential and or with some outward force and or exertion and when we sum this 90~99% of mass within our universe, the two circles and or masses simply must end up being pushed together or the smaller mass may end up orbiting the larger mass if its velocity is correctly considered.

This subject has been explored extensively in the physics literature for many decades. According to General Relativity, the speed of light is very measureably changed as it traverses a gravitational field.

An excellent book which thoroughly explains the standard model understanding, with enough math to explain itself, but with not too much of the bewildering field equation tensor equations, is:

book: Einstein's Legacy

author: Julian Schwinger

Julian Schwinger is a Nobel Prize winner in Physics and so can be considered a very credible spokesman for the standard model.

LaidBack, I understand EXACTLY what you are talking about, you really dont need to explain as the concept you propose is very simple.

I still ask you why would the dark matter fields push two separate compressed fields (plantes, heavnly bodies, you name it) together?

Do you even understand what you are talking about? If all the fields of the universe, dark matter, compressed matter etc are simply exerting outward force and pushing against each other this would simply create PRESSURE. Pressure is omnidirectional and homogenous, it never moves an object towards another object it simply squeezes, exerts force against its surface, and the same force at every point of the surface. So there is no way it will ever move an object. The reasons why pressure is omnidirectional is exactly the root of your theory - all the "molecules" or fields in your case are pushing against each other in all directions.
By your theory, the pressure in the entire universe should be about the same. As the dark matter around us is actually inderctly pushing itself from the dark matter on the other side of the universe..

You still have not explained why two bodies will approach each other under this pressure. You compare it to oceans etc, but two bodies will not attract each other 100m under the ocean - there is no force whatsoever between two bodies at any depth-pressure - except the regular gravity which is the same at sea level.
This is how you put it: "the two circles and or masses simply must end up being pushed together or the smaller mass may end up orbiting the larger mass if its velocity is correctly considered. "
They "simply must end up being pushed together".. This is so lacking in reasoning and explanation.. How do you calculate the force they are being pushed together with? You measure the mass of the surrounding dark matter or what?

And furthermore, what keeps the pressure on the entire universe? By your definition there should be some kind of borders/a belt surrounding the universe - extending with time allowing the fields to decompress further.. so that part of the theory seems a bit lacking too.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think c^2 part in E=mc^2 is for surface. why on earth would this surface be a square and not a circle??? if it is a circle then something is wrong.. either the speed of light or it should be E=m Pi c^2 - surface of circle.. futhermore, c isnt in units of length but length/time so it can hardly describe a surface.. other than some kind of weird space-time surface in GR. which brings us back to curved space-time and GR...

anyway, you obviusly can not explain gravity and can not even begin to explain inertia and gravity together...

LaidBack, I understand EXACTLY what you are talking about, you really don't need to explain as the concept you propose is very simple.

I still ask you why would the dark matter fields push two separate compressed fields (planets, heavenly bodies, you name it) together?

Do you even understand what you are talking about? If all the fields of the universe, dark matter, compressed matter etc are simply exerting outward force and pushing against each other this would simply create PRESSURE. Pressure is omnidirectional and homogeneous, it never moves an object towards another object it simply squeezes, exerts force against its surface, and the same force at every point of the surface. So there is no way it will ever move an object. The reasons why pressure is omnidirectional is exactly the root of your theory - all the "molecules" or fields in your case are pushing against each other in all directions.You are so close to understanding that the Universe is closed, now lets refer to E=MC^2 and lets say the maximum size of space time is an area MC^2 and where a field is taking up the full area it can with out reaching zero contradicting that it is something, which BTW such a field is only possible at the outer most fringes of our universe, to which we must concede further areas with even less potential still exist so on and so on, now even though these fields are nearer to unity and or nearer to zero force, force is still there with some practical exertion, now lets say we squeezed one of these fields and by doing so we make note we now have an area that is even much closer to zero than surrounding fields and before you know it fields with their higher potential will take over the area, so this is one dynamic you are foregoing
By your theory, the pressure in the entire universe should be about the same. As the dark matter around us is actually indirectly pushing itself from the dark matter on the other side of the universe..

You still have not explained why two bodies will approach each other under this pressure. You compare it to oceans etc, but two bodies will not attract each other 100m under the ocean - there is no force whatsoever between two bodies at any depth-pressure - except the regular gravity which is the same at sea level.
This is how you put it: "the two circles and or masses simply must end up being pushed together or the smaller mass may end up orbiting the larger mass if its velocity is correctly considered. "
They "simply must end up being pushed together".. This is so lacking in reasoning and explanation.. How do you calculate the force they are being pushed together with? You measure the mass of the surrounding dark matter or what?

And furthermore, what keeps the pressure on the entire universe? By your definition there should be some kind of borders/a belt surrounding the universe - extending with time allowing the fields to decompress further.. so that part of the theory seems a bit lacking too.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think c^2 part in E=mc^2 is for surface. why on earth would this surface be a square and not a circle??? if it is a circle then something is wrong.. either the speed of light or it should be E=m Pi c^2 - surface of circle.. furthermore, c isn't in units of length but length/time so it can hardly describe a surface.. other than some kind of weird space-time surface in GR. which brings us back to curved space-time and GR...

anyway, you obviously can not explain gravity and can not even begin to explain inertia and gravity together...

I agree, I have a long way to go in overcoming my poor grammar, and having said this I must say I have improved to the point where some understanding can be gained...

On reading your response, something suggests to me when you kept adding fields to our model you were not considering their proportions to a true space/time grid.

So lets redraw the fields until they meet to each others outer fields and then calculate from that meeting point the rest of the universes fields, we should note that E=MC^2 is extremely important when we deal with the two dimensions and or variables with respects to the ratios of potential to area, where if E is theoretically near zero the given field takes up a maximum area of C^2 whilst if a field has been compressed as in our Oceans its potential and or its outward force is far greater and no matter where we go the defined area is a near square {space/Time grid} and or field and I would suggest an in-depth read on space time for clarity of this theoretical grid noting how all the dimensions function with in each grid..

As for providing a simple model for gravity, insuch a grid I am at a loss other than suggesting one observes one of those 70's lava lamps after giving it a good shaking or for imediate results no lamp availabel by dropping some oil into water and shaking it...

Observation should be that mass with similar velocities to them will be forced together and you may even observe short living orbits!

One more thing I should add is you need to separate REAL mass from the grids we pertain to space time and or theoretical areas defined as fields... {Although it may be discovered that all mass indeed may really be square areas that are just rising and falling in potential much like a huge 3 dimensional holographic and pixelated plasma screen} And I am not the only one that has this view BTW.

Perhaps a better way would be to depict the universe and its space time grid and then placed the respective distorting masses fields to get a better idea of gravity...

let me explain this then.

while it is true you need footing to "push off" from - if i jump from my twins feet as you suggested, i will push away my twin for the same amount also.

so, the system(me and my twin) has not really moved, our center of mass is still at the starting point, even though me and my twin are moving away from each other.
by moving away from each other - we have created time and space between us. but we have not really separated we - just "distanced" two halves of the mass from the center of the mass - we created an amplitude. gravity/spacetime will merge us again with time, and if we bounce off each other perfectly the wave-motion will be repeated forever.

all energy in space is one. there are no "parts" of energy exerting forces on each other. there is no inward or outward force.

as in my spring example. as the spring streches - there is the same amount of spring material in the string, it simply stretches - this is space. when the spring begins to compress - space gets compressed. as the spring nears the center point - the speed of compression is increased...after its past the center/unity point it starts to extend again, the speed of compression turns into speed of extension and it slows down as the spring extends and so on.. this is how space works with "gravity".
the angular momentum of the spring wave motion is constant - very much like the speed of light in our universe.
the universe is simply a bit more complicated than a spring - spring is 1 dimensional, the universe is 3 dimensional.
you just need to wrap your mind around this and you will see it is the only truth. all other complicated theories that base themselves on forces and fields can not hold a candle to this simple fundamental truth.

let me explain this then.

while it is true you need footing to "push off" from - if i jump from my twins feet as you suggested, i will push away my twin for the same amount also.

so, the system(me and my twin) has not really moved, Note the greater area your mass is now taking, and note what ever force the two of you exerted if you are to return you would need a force to counter it, that's another two of you at the same velocity but towards each of your heads to connect and recoil you, but where did the force come from for your other set of twins? what was their footing? Certainly not attractive gravity was it?

Also take notice as you move away from each other the medium and or near vacuum around you is merely displaced. In fact it could be quite feasible and or possible the energy potentials that makes every Proton of you is merely transferred so on and so on and so on as if your whole mass merely consisted of electromagnetic waves, and in fact the more times I mention this the more I am convinced this may be the case... and as the charges and forces that make you up near the fringe of our universe, the transference's take more and more time via, the closer your mass defines nearer and nearer to zero or nearer to nothing the less energy and or potential your mass would be at...

our center of mass is still at the starting point, even though me and my twin are moving away from each other.
by moving away from each other - we have created time and space between us. but we have not really separated we - just "distanced" two halves of the mass from the center of the mass - we created an amplitude. gravity/space-time will merge us again with time, and if we bounce off each other perfectly the wave-motion will be repeated forever. OK~ Your almost there! But what you are foregoing is what force is keeping your form?
why is there a need for a pressurized suit? let me suggest if you were merely an area that was compressed your whole area would equalize with whatever medium, all mass is doing this at all times, but keep in mind solid metals, liquids and or gases are the same but exert different velocities and or forces due to their different potentials, do you remember how the higher we go in our atmosphere the rarer the atmosphere gets? also keep in mind each molecule now takes up a greater area and is with less potential and or out ward force... now lets go back to your twins and lets fry both of your suits just after your jump has been initiated, immediately the both of you will spread out because your mass is with greater potential than the medium you are in, what the movies don't depict is the true dynamics, you wont explode, you simply wont know you have expanded even if mass was near by to gauge your expansion as your higher potential and or out ward exertion would separate you and the mass via laws of force so it therefore would seem no change in distance when really there was..

Lets go back to your Err~ analogy and see if we can come up with what force is going to facilitate you and your twin from joining up again... what force is going to do this?

all energy in space is one. there are no "parts" of energy exerting forces on each other. there is no inward or outward force.

as in my spring example. as the spring stretches - there is the same amount of spring material in the string, it simply stretches - this is space. when the spring begins to compress - space gets compressed. as the spring nears the center point - the speed of compression is increased...after its past the center/unity point it starts to extend again, the speed of compression turns into speed of extension and it slows down as the spring extends and so on.. this is how space works with "gravity".
the angular momentum of the spring wave motion is constant - very much like the speed of light in our universe.
the universe is simply a bit more complicated than a spring - spring is 1 dimensional, the universe is 3 dimensional.
you just need to wrap your mind around this and you will see it is the only truth. all other complicated theories that base themselves on forces and fields can not hold a candle to this simple fundamental truth.

You have referred to a somewhat closed system without considering all forces.

consider the following forces..

The environmental medium around the Spring.
The mass and or makeup of the spring.
The atoms of the spring.
Muscles of your body.
Cells of your muscles.
Molecules of your cells.
Atoms of your Cells.

All the above and then some are all exerting their respective forces that give them definition to each other, and all forces can only begot from some potential or reserve exerting on another potential and or reserve.

With respects to your springs recoil I totally agree with you that all mass does this recoiling which is due to the speed of lights propagation within all involved mediums, so we should note the recoil is dependant on the mediums involved, to get some idea of such dynamics of recoiling all one needs do is to
wave a hand in the bath tub of liquid and wait for the recoil Err~ wave just as th eelectromagnetic wave behaves in a medium, which in this case is dependent on a lot more other velocities.

NOW~ Lets go back to our models and consider, if the medium was vast and rare as it is near vacuum~ We must concede someone has overlooked a significant amount of data..

you are again imagining things that are not needed.

the energy is the space time. it is the medium. there is no need for extra "near unity fields" to propagate light. energy-mass IS the spacetime curve. there is no need to fill the spacetime with extra energy/darkmatter... spacetime IS energy.
energy IS mass, mass IS its gravity field, its gravity field IS its spacetime. it is all one. all the energy in the space is one energy - one spacetime.
the complexity of angular motion of the vastness of all energy is enormous. through our "design" we, humans, map this complex angular motion(much like polar coordinates) into flat cartesian dimensionality and an extra time dimension - this is because the space-time split is very constant in our human world. in our world - space is mostly space, and time is mostly time. this is why newtonian mechanics mostly work.
we came to be(through evolution of space and nature) in such a world and this is natural to us.

this reasoning should IMO be the fundamentals of physics, on any scale.

you are again imagining things that are not needed.

the energy is the space time. it is the medium. there is no need for extra "near unity fields" to propagate light. energy-mass IS the spacetime curve. there is no need to fill the spacetime with extra energy/darkmatter... spacetime IS energy.
energy IS mass, mass IS its gravity field, its gravity field IS its spacetime. it is all one. all the energy in the space is one energy - one spacetime.
the complexity of angular motion of the vastness of all energy is enormous. through our "design" we, humans, map this complex angular motion(much like polar coordinates) into flat cartesian dimensionality and an extra time dimension - this is because the space-time split is very constant in our human world. in our world - space is mostly space, and time is mostly time. this is why newtonian mechanics mostly work.
we came to be(through evolution of space and nature) in such a world and this is natural to us.

this reasoning should IMO be the fundamentals of physics, on any scale.

Oy! :rolleyes: Just play around with E=MC^2 and or E/M=C^2 or E/C^2 =M and you should understand how we map and plot the universe OK!

Also let me know when you have read up on what force is and how one gains force and try and detail gravity via real force and not via an invented or pseudo force.

I am beginning to reason I am centuries ahead of every one alive today...

MY DAWG! :eek: Why is it so hard for anyone else to grasp the basic constructs of force? What exertion does attraction work by or what facilitates it?

we, humans, map this complex angular motion(much like polar coordinates) into flat cartesian dimensionality and an extra time dimension -Maybe this is why I have many problems communicating my model? And perhaps this is where I excel! Because my model of the Universe is depicted in a spherical manner to which it is gridded up into smaller and smaller distorted square fields towards the core of a given time reference especially if we need to depict mass that is at a velocity of being compressed to a given time reference!

Perhaps this is why you have difficulty with my models because you are treating my grids and or fields only two dimensional whilst my model at all times should be handled as 3 Dimensional models where each theoretical field can be further worked with and or at least a redefined via a spherical portion of our unverse plotting the area so that is also proportional to a given frozen moment in time.

Further more just like most others lacking a clear understanding of what force really is, you still haven't gone back to the basics and woken up to the fact that an attractive force is impossible no ifs and no buts!

BTW we get a given distance when we multiply Space by Time having said this, we can go over some of your last posts and well yeah I will say no more, as maybe I have cleared things up... ;)

well point is, you are having difficulties grasping the concept of curved space-time. the dimensions we take for granted 3d + time are not really that clearly separated, they mix together.
this is what is difficult to understand for a human. you clearly dont want to understand it, you have invented a model that you CAN understand.

E=MC^2 is an equasion brought on by relativity. relativity does not accept gravity as a force but rather explains it through curved timespace. so you're basing your theory on an equasion that is a consequence/derivation of relativity but you do not accept the entire relativity theory itself. that is simply wrong.

i, on the other hand, am trying to explain the fundamental reasons for relativistic behaviour - proved in countless experiments. einstein never did explain this on a fundamental level. he did do the math and constructed a solid theory based on mathematical and logical proof, but the theory lacks a more fundamental explanation.
it is not wrong however in any way - just incomplete.

if you really think your theory is right, work out some formulae and compare your results to relativity experiments results. there have been many experiments - see if your theory gets the same correct answers. test the fundamentals at least.
my bet is, you will never get correct answers/predictions until your theory accepts relativity and curved timespace.

gravity is dark matter.

...I'm just saying the rules and theories are not fundamental. If they were fundamental there wouldn't be so many of them.
...The fact that we still mostly simply slam big particles or nucleuses into each other and watch what happens.. It is simply somehow missing the fundamentals which makes it complicated, but not incorrect.
As I said, if the theory was more fundamental we would have by now e-p production out of "thin air" - gamma photons which we do not.The tendency of physic has been for at least 250 years towards greater unity. For example, Maxwell unified many different laws of magnetics with many of electric laws. Chemistry was an incredible mess of various combinations of elements, but now quantum mechanics has unified the periodic table of elements - I.e. explained its structure. etc. Three of the four known forces are now unified into one theory. Yes if mankind finally get the GUT (General Universal Theory) it will be complicated as it will encompass billions of empirical observations which on the surface do not seem to be related*. Why does that necessary complexity make it "not fundamental"?

Perhaps you left out a "not" in your last sentence? I can not understand it. vacuum pair production is not only well predicted by has been experimentally observed. An e & p can combine to produce two gamma rays with total energy of 1MeV - what are you trying to say?
---------------------------------------------
*For example, the blue sky, and statistics and Maxell's equations do not on the surface seem to be related but are, now that mankind has used math to unify much of physics.

I'm trying to say e-p PRODUCTION not ANNIHILATION, has not yet been performed. We can annihilate e-p into two gamma photons. But we can not recreate e-p FROM two gamma photons.

Fundamental rules and principles of the universe allow formation of more complex "particles" whos behaviour can be explained by another - more complicated set of rules. They then form atoms which behave by another even more complicated set of rules etc.
I'm sure everyone is working on unifying the rules. The unification can and should produce a simpler fundamental physics theory - which ALLOWS forming of complex stable or less stable objects/particles/fields which have complex behaviour. The base should by all logic be simple but ALLOWING for complexity as the scale gets larger.

this an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
it's a game of "life" a mathematician came up with a long time ago. its rules are simple. place "life" in arbitrary 2d grid squares. there are rules how it will behave - as generations pass. for example, an empty square will develop life if it has 3 neighbours or something. life will die out in a square if its too crowded with life around it.
you set up the grid and let it iterate.
the complex and intriguing behaviour you can achieve with these simple few rules is amazing.

...We can annihilate e-p into two gamma photons. But we can not recreate e-p FROM two gamma photons.Not strange. We can not make two half MeV gamma rays, much less fire them at each other. Even if we could, they, like all other electromagnetic radiations would just pass thru each other, as two flash light beams do, at least in most cases. (I am not sure this is always true. There may be some high order effects that can produce the inverse effect you are asking about, but I bet it is only very slightly probable and may even need a charge near by.)
...The base should by all logic be simple but ALLOWING for complexity as the scale gets larger. ...Why "should"? -please explain your "logic" that requires this. True as in your example "game of life" some every complex patterns can develop fro a simple set of rules. A better example would be one of the single equations that yield fascinatingly complex fractal designs repeated at all scales. But the opposite is also true. - out of the complexity of life and death - millions of entirely different individual cases, insurance companies have highly-accurate relatively-simple models and make profits with them.

You not only have no basis for demanding that nature / physics follow from some simple rule, or small set of rules, you do not even have a way to define what is "simple" and what is "complex." Simple and complex really related more to how familiar you are with the system or procedure than with any intrinsic property of the system or procedure. Although true, this is not obvious or easy to demonstrate, so I will not argue with you on this point. - Only mention a few examples:
For example: Walking might seem simple, until you try to instruct a robot how to do it. etc. Making money in the stock market is "simple": buy low sell high but that is complex. etc. Analyzing the responses characteristics of a linear analogue electric circuit is simple; if you are familiar with Fourier transforms and impossibly complex if, you are not. Playing the piano -simple - hit the keys etc.

if you had to build a physics simulator program that simulates behaviour of a limited amount of energy in a closed "universe", with accuracy limited only by computing power - not by approximated physics laws - how simple would the task be. how simple would the processing engine be.

currently we are not even near to having the fundamental rules required to make such a simulator. our theories that deal with world fundamentals(GR and quantum theorie(s)) can hardly be put to work together. so our simulator could never allow or predict all small-scale and big-scale and any-scale events and energy forms.

btw. your post is pure demagogy. you relativise the terms "simple" and "complex" by flawed logic(mixing scales) into useless words that do not mean anything. you can do that with any words you feel like.. i will not debate in this way.

well point is, you are having difficulties grasping the concept of curved space-time. the dimensions we take for granted 3d + time are not really that clearly separated, they mix together.
this is what is difficult to understand for a human. you clearly don't want to understand it, you have invented a model that you CAN understand.

E=MC^2 is an equation brought on by relativity. relativity does not accept gravity as a force but rather explains it through curved time-space. so you're basing your theory on an equation that is a consequence/derivation of relativity but you do not accept the entire relativity theory itself. that is simply wrong.

i, on the other hand, am trying to explain the fundamental reasons for relativistic behaviour - proved in countless experiments. Einstein never did explain this on a fundamental level. he did do the math and constructed a solid theory based on mathematical and logical proof, but the theory lacks a more fundamental explanation.
it is not wrong however in any way - just incomplete.

if you really think your theory is right, work out some formulae and compare your results to relativity experiments results. there have been many experiments - see if your theory gets the same correct answers. test the fundamentals at least.
my bet is, you will never get correct answers/predictions until your theory accepts relativity and curved time-space.

Something tells me your in for an eye opener...

You see Time, Mass and "c" are at all times naturally considered with my modeling, in fact you should note its the very reason why I depict a model of our universe by griding it out to areas of C^2 and if you refer to the speed of light to an area that has a high potential and or a solid to an area with very low potential and or near vacuum one should have an idea how close they are all interlinked..

If you go back to when I was attempting to explain how two bodies are pushed together you would have noted each circle was gridded out to areas of C^2 now remember me referring to as we add more fields the larger they are until we reached a point to where for a given mass its potential reached near zero?

Now if we correlate this maximum area we are still referencing to a time reference of a given area but if we as observers were in another field we need to consider The speed of light and or "c"

Now in a solid "c" suggests our smaller reference area will need much more time to travel from A to B and if we are to exceed the speed of light in a solid our mass simply needs to be much greater and this quite possible if we are in the right medium, an electron when emitted travels at the speed of light in a solid but whats amazing is if this electron leaves the solid medium and is transferred to medium that is near vacuum as in Protons with very little potential so they span huge areas we have it traveling around 300000 Km a second!

And if we consider the proven time differences experienced by astronauts via space travel we see the maths backs up why time rates change with given mass to a given velocity.. its the reason why I always reference each defined field as C squared because C is defined by time for a given velocity and time is defined by changes with in space and or an area to a given amount of time to a given distance, and the reason why we use Newton-meters and or Nm for force!

Relativity can be calculated as per..
Oa = Oa x T-ref/La x Lt-ref

Oa = Observed area
T-ref Observed Time rate
La = Local area
Lt-ref Local Time rate.

If T-ref and Lt-ref are equal we are said to be relative..
If T-ref and Lt-ref are different we are un~relative..
If Oa is an area near the same potentail as La the areas are deemed relative.
If Oa is an area overly different to La the areas are deemed as unrelative.

Note un~relative is my definition.

Heres an article I wrote some time ago that will one day be released... Note that I have modified it to clarify subject matters that are hard to grasp for some individulas, in fact you are actually helping me to this end...

Theory Of Everything.

Abstracts


Force can only be possible if an equal or greater opposing force can be exerted to.

Attractive force/s are impossible therefore are null and void.

Perceived attractive forces such as North and South poles and or Positive and Negative charge/s are the result of differing velocities and or speed.

Gravity is the result of an exertion and not via attraction.

The whole universe consists of the same mass throughout it.

The universe consists of differing areas.

Differing areas are defined as fields and or plotted to theoretical grids to a maximum area of C^2 to allow considerations for relative time references.

“C” equals the constant pertaining to the speed of light.

Compressed areas with a high outward potential in our Universe are defined as solid mass and or Amassed.

Cold and or Dark Matter is considered mass that has gained a near unity state and hence treated as fields or theoretical grids of area of our Universe.

If mass and or a field are allowed a state of complete rest and or zero potential it becomes No-Thing and the universes constants must change, hence the universe is a closed system.

Amassed is a collection of fields and or solids, which are near a given potential close to each other within given “amassed medium”

All given and or defined mass/Amassed has a maximum area it can occupy when it is near rest or near Unity.

All Mass including, near unity Mass exerts an outward force; else it is No-thing or theoretically zero.

When a defined given Mass occupies its maximum area, its potential to do work is near depleted hence it is considered as Near Unity.

When Mass is compressed its increase in potential “energy” towards unity is considered as an increasing outward force or as an increasing positive charge.

When force is exerted upon a proton compressing it, it increases its potential, the compressing force is considered as inward and or as Negative charge, so for theoretical purposes and or for extremely basic physics such as quantum mechanics and or Particle Physics this is treated as Electron and or electron flow if more than one proton is involved.

Where two opposing charges and or forces meet, the respective charge or force where they enmesh and or meet is neutralized and or again is considered as a neutron for theoretical purposes and or for extremely basic physics such as quantum mechanics and or Particle Physics.

All Electromotive forces must be converted to Newton-meters and the electron and neutrons are to be disbanded and only used for basic theoretical purposes.



Constructs

E=MC^2
Where E equals the potential towards unity.
Where M equals the mass and or Amassed.
Where C^2 is the maximum area a mass treated as a single field or space time grid can occupy realistically and theoretically

Gravity
90~99% of the universe is amassed that is near unity and this amassed force exerts upon solid mass and or Amassed solids as Gravity.

If we treat the whole universe as above the only thing we need really do is to acknowledge gravity is not via attraction and the model of the Atom is overly complicated, so before one proceeds into the basics of how and why Gravitational and Electromotive forces have been reconfigured let me refer to the basis of my reasoning and necessary calculus so that one may also be enlightened by ones very own calculus.

Previously, one had worked with five functional equations, which dealt with 11 variables with respects to the gamma function, now to those that have and are still playing around with such calculus, may have instantly recognized what one has referred to, and had one mentioned 5 representations and or flavours leading to M Theory; which involves those
11 dimensions, Most String Theorists would now be hooked with keen interest with out considering why one has termed Variables over Dimensions.

Read one’s previous statement again noting the switches made as obviously the way one has expressed it was for a very good reason as one may find it difficult to comprehend such a concept possible, Err~ Let’s hope one has clarified some concerns without confusing anyone by ones constructs thus far.

Before proceeding any further we need to get the rest of the scientific community up to speed with what one may have been grappling with, and in doing so perhaps shed some electromagnetic waves Err~ Light on what is yet another problem to most if not correctly addressed as to how and why “c” the constant that refers to the maximum speed of electromagnetic propagation, commonly referred to as the speed of Light and note one has deliberately preceded with ones wording for good reason here as well, as there are individuals out there that are still dealing with Light in an extremely basic construct via massless photons with a high velocity to them.

And no! It’s not because of the current contradiction to some ever increasing expansion of our universe, although if one considers how “c” is derived, the obvious should be that our universe is not expanding at an ever-increasing rate, and in fact is NOT expanding at all! And this will be Err~ expanded on and clarified by further reading or perhaps via familiarity with theories entailing Basic Electromagnetic Transmissions.

FORWARD.

Let us draw two large circles and define to them a set quantum.
We also should state the circles drawn represent spheres that are the same "field" in dimension to each other.
Further more let us state these spheres are equal in quanta to our universe or should we choose to, to a given portion or percentage of the Universe. Noting the Universe may not be currently pertaining to a spherical shape let alone a flattened one, although messing around with these spherical dimensions based on Physical laws gives for some really interesting results in where a flattened sphere just may be the case!

Moving on let us state that the first quantum or sphere defines moment one. Imagine one has the power to encapsulate and freeze Area/time {commonly still referred to as space-time} and being able to apply means of calculus to it by divvying or dividing it to areas and or fields{C^2 Theoretical grids represented in three dimensions for time frame references and or considerations}.

Let us state that the second sphere and or quantum defines moment two. Noting if this sphere and or quanta is a partial component "field" or portion of the universe, Time reference or data is a little more involved and therefore the snapshot of Area/time may not be relative to our observation point of time “unrelative” pronounced “un-re-late-ive” that’s if the Time rates are different, to which this second sphere should then reflect what data was availed to a given time reference and hence should be defined accordingly and proportionally smaller noting those extra considerations and or calculus to the basic E=MC^2 , via taking also into careful consideration the rate of data availed to time at our observing locality which is also governed by the same rules with respects to time frames and or references via each relative area is confined to C^2. {See chapter with respects to Space-time curvature for more details.}

So for simplicities sake, for now this exercise will conform to current constructs of time used in current calculus used in every day science, so it will remain the same quanta as the first moments data availed to time because we have remained relative to the sphere or to the whole Universes time reference or moments. Whew what a mouth full! And if not fully understood one may need re reading it!

So lets proceed to encapsulating and freezing Area/time dimension without considering Times accruing data and its rate of data being availed back to the universe.

Let us now proceed to portion or define each of the two snap shots and or time references into some components “fields”, portions and or dimensions of whatever variables one wishes to work with, keeping in mind we are dealing with more than just two dimensions if we treat the Circles as Spheres and or as real time.

For those individuals that have dealt with String Theory and or the Gamma function one may wish to Portion Variables to ones spheres or Universe accordingly to proceed ones calculus using your favoured equation to both moments by giving some indication of change or momentum to the plotting points that define ones current string/s and or a peak to peak of an electromagnetic wave.

Having allowed String theorist the luxury of partial first glory, the rest of the scientific community may also define portions and or variables to each snapshot of our universe pertaining to changes of state from area to area, via the use of E=MC^2 and if we are to express changes, the portions "fields" from the first instance must then be different to the second moment of our universe. In doing so we must do two things and note that these changes suggest movement and or momentum or shifting of force with some unity to all momentum, and hence a set amount of time frames or references may need to be considered “more spheres or snap shots!” just in order to express this movement and or propagation of Light via calculus more accurately, It is my hope this brings some insight gained from ones earlier inference of time being variable via given velocity to given mass.

But what has all this to do with the THEORY OF EVERYTHING?
The new dimension or rigid quanta introduced via the aforementioned into String theory is part of the key. But not the whole key of what we are dealing with, it only gives rise to a finite and an unchanging dimension for our Universe.
That along with depicting the universe at the very least in two moments as to why and how everything works, importantly we now can do calculus that gives rise to momentum representing change which is about to lead us to question if we are truly adhering to a rigid rule that concerns Time? Re-read ones earlier statements with respect to relativity and how important this is when one reasons what the speed of Light and or better expressed as charge and or force transference infers.

So far we have implied the universe is finite and what’s more, influences beyond it cannot change it, besides there is nothing left or beyond as its zero and or No-Thing - Because everything has been assumed as part of the Universe, including time via electromagnetic propagation! Should we discover more to the universe all we need do is add yet more dimensions and or divisions to our current Model.

Hence we exist in a closed system and what’s more no matter how many variables and or dimensions we work with we can still precisely predict and apply calculus to it all, as long as we apply a rigid rule in that,

If time is to accrue Data in order the Universe may exist by some record, All dimensions or “variables” that we define on what truly does exist, all must avail a portion “%” “or small image of its changing states” to the time reference and this suggests, as the Time reference accrues this Data “or images” of changes, The time references “image” involved must also avail or communicate back to the universe an image, and it is this reason why a Klein Bottle plotting is used to express these changes to our universe in order to simplify all the dynamics!

Read the previous paragraph in bold a few times keeping in mind “E” and or a given fields potential is what stores time and or change, and this takes some getting use to, and if it is not fully understood when we are to work with the fringes of our universe we may never understand why unity and or zero is impossible, one also highly recommends one study Klein Bottle plotting if one really needs to understand the universes full dynamics and forces that pertains to "fields" that define Time, Mass and or force/s and even why gravity is really the result of mass that is almost undetectable.

Getting back to our circles or Spheres that represent our universe with the respective portions that we have defined via known physical laws, Has any one noticed the implications with respects to times portion and the various possible implications if we apply the rule that all variables or dimensions MUST avail information to time, including time itself must avail data of its accruing changes back to the universe? Some serious shrinking or compression is implied.

In the real world, time goes by and as changes occur, times quanta or data accrues and hence must increase times quanta or record taking up a greater and greater portion of the Universe, but this implies every portion or dimension must concede to times increasing quanta or portion “Amassed”, but if we are to truly deal with a finite quantum or quanta to the Universe as a closed system, this would be problematic if we don’t concede that time must portion itself back or avail its information or data back to the Universe so that equilibrium is maintained, so if we apply the same rigid Rule to Time but rather Time avails its data back to the universe we complete and now adhere in the end to the strict rule where energy is not gained nor lost but rather is exchanged via momentum from area to area and or fields leading to our perception of Mass, Force, Gravity, Charge, Time Ect.


Perhaps some insight may be gained if we are to concede that our local area is availing to time due to data being dependant on change and hence local rate of data availed to Time being of a differing ratio to where we may be observing, and to prove this we need to observe beyond our local area and the further away from our Black Hole as our given time reference the more dramatic the ratio should be, to where a result of an increasing rate of expansion seems to be occurring the further we observe from our area, when in fact our local area has availed much more data “increase in Potential” to the time reference "Black hole” and or in real terms our galaxies centre than what the observed area other than in our galaxy has, hence it is proportionally with less momentum and or velocity to our time reference because of its exertion as gravity {I.e. as exertion to our area hence red shifting} now let us apply some plots to our Klein Bottle model to better understand this involving reasoning before we make fools out of our selves, or we may simply envision to be situated as such in real time to such a momentum or velocity where it seems we are indeed being stuffed and compressed into a neck of a Klein Bottle or to some inward momentum of our galaxy, which interestingly so happens we do have a Black Hole conforming perfectly to ones plotting points of a Klein Bottle neck, Err~ to which you may have to resort to calculus anyway if curious of its functional form pertaining to a Black Holes dynamics as being our current time reference where a C^2 theoretical grid Err~ sphere is far to small to depict.

I'm trying to say e-p PRODUCTION not ANNIHILATION, has not yet been performed. We can annihilate e-p into two gamma photons. But we can not recreate e-p FROM two gamma photons.

That's because the photon is merely theoretical!

If you refer to other occupations of science you should discover why particle theory just doesn't cut it!

When one is dealing with REAL dynamics, by challenging constructs down to the absolute basics one must concede, it all comes down to what force and what direction, and what force was the cause?

I mean lets face it! A Particle has to exert force for it to be defined.

And when push comes to shove how are we going to explain an area without such defining force {mass-less photon} exerting its mass-less force onto mass? :rolleyes:

I am totally convinced, that crackpots that shine to pesudoscience and or Particle theory are holding science back by Centuries!

if you had to build a physics simulator program that simulates behaviour of a limited amount of energy in a closed "universe", with accuracy limited only by computing power - not by approximated physics laws - how simple would the task be. how simple would the processing engine be.

currently we are not even near to having the fundamental rules required to make such a simulator. our theories that deal with world fundamentals(GR and quantum theorie(s)) can hardly be put to work together. so our simulator could never allow or predict all small-scale and big-scale and any-scale events and energy forms.

btw. your post is pure demagogy. you relativise the terms "simple" and "complex" by flawed logic(mixing scales) into useless words that do not mean anything. you can do that with any words you feel like.. i will not debate in this way.


A Digital animation or movie on your computer screen can depict all the laws and even the dynamics of mass, Hell! It can even be frozen and reversed and or sped up so it even can depict various Time rates!:D

That text is so hard to read. I'm not a native english speaker and neither are you..

Anyway, I'm using the word particle because e-p annihilation is explained and observed mostly through quantum theories which uses the word particle, even though they too realize they are not particles.

Anyway, I'm using the word particle because e-p annihilation is explained and observed mostly through quantum theories which uses the word particle, even though they too realize they are not particles.

Observed!????

You see~ Here is another huge problem with current mis/conceptions

When we deal with REAL Physics, the best REAL images via the very best electron Microscope, which we should note uses reflected light which is then computer enhanced and generated, and even though the observed Protons are rising and falling in response to charge and or light propagation nowhere in the image electrons are depicted, claims made is that the electron is at a velocity around said atoms are to fast :rolleyes: , and I say what a lot of crap! Because I say if we can see the friggin protons expanding and compressing in response to transference of charge and or light propagation we should also see the exchanges from the electron to Proton and so and so on in a wave like momentum.

Lets get back to the best images attained and note that all the proton peaks are there and whats more on a given second frame and or photo, no proton moves but rather some of them that were with less potential and or more compressed they are now larger and or higher waves and or peaks as if observing an oceans wave, whilst other areas are now much smaller, which explains why in quantum Physics of our uncertainty problems where we have to resort to at best some probability, to which if I interject should one use my model of just observed Protons we have the means to remove as much uncertainty we need to by considering all resonating environmental influences.

Moving back to the Electron Microscopes images, another observation is that when we super impose a grid to the image each proton seems to be taking up an area that is a contracting and expanding within a given square or grid!, which doesn't even fit to a round particle!

So it seems all matter is the same medium and at best there really isn't even a proton but rather it seems as mentioned every area no matter where is at the mercy of resonances from the whole greater environment, so on and so on, just like any water to air surfaces that depicts resonant waves via wind, tidal influences etc, in fact with respects to large masses such as the moon the very same exertions of potential should be considered.

Lets get back to an important consideration where quantum Theory and or mechanics is based on measurements and calculations begot from claimed smashed particles, and as a realist we must consider how electronic sensors and computer enhancements operate, and this is where I have an advantage over the users ;)

My field of knowledge is responsible for designing the very tools they depend on and along with the optical and electronic hardware we must include the computers used with their respective enhancing instruction sets , and well I have to say as much as the end users think they know about their tools they really know squat! :p and I bet after almost 20 years of retirement I bet most users are still somewaht in the dark!

Not strange. We can not make two half MeV gamma rays, much less fire them at each other. Even if we could, they, like all other electromagnetic radiations would just pass thru each other, as two flash light beams do, at least in most cases.

Not strange?

Yes strange.

If the process is NOT time symmetric, it is very strange.

Not strange?

Yes strange.

If the process is NOT time symmetric, it is very strange.

Exactly.

I realise it is probably a bit difficult to create 0.5MeV+ gamma rays, but I think they should focus on that a bit more rather than just slamming nucleuses into each other.
If we could achieve pair production of each stable "particle"/"antiparticle", starting from electron-pozitron and if we could do that with just 2 or more gamma rays - no nucleuses involved, I'm sure that would be the pinnacle of quantum research achievements and would finally prove what the fundamental energy/forces are.

Time symmetry of annihilation-production is an extremely logical and probable proposition IMO.
Even if we fail to produce e-p pairs out of gamma rays, until it is experimentaly proven, doubt remains that perhaps something invisible we're still missing is allowing EM waves to take the form of mass. This invisible "thing" perhaps escapes our "scanners" during e-p annihilation and we only see 2 gamma rays. And that invisible "thing" might be missing when we try to recreate an e-p pair out of such gamma rays.
Or it might just mean that the process is simply NOT time symmetrical which would be the last option remaining - after all experiments fail.

Having not priorily contemplated this issue, it has caught me flat footed. The proposition that examination of this issue may be ( very ) fruitful seems like a good idea to me. We can make photons kind of react with each other in interference processes which produce bands of high and low intensity, but we have not discovered the interference to produce massive particles. Yet, if the old hat pair production is time symmetric we should have a much easier time of it to make beams of light interfere and find atoms popping up out of nowhere.

Deep examination of this failure of time symmetry may lead to breakthroughs of understanding of how the universe really works.

As some might have already guessed, I am not a blind worshiper of established theory. I believe in performing and examining experiments and let's see what the theory is that is the last theory standing.

The time reversed pair anihilation will show us two identical photons meeting exactly head on and vanishing to reveal a pair, which have no momentum relative to each other. Their Coulomb attraction will cause them to approach each other whereupon they will anihilate to produce two or more photons which take paths ( velocity vectors ) which conserve momentum ( go in opposite directions ).

So, this may all be going on but we may never have a way of observing it.

Ironically, pair anihilation may be time symmetrical but not amenable to our knowledge of it.

why would e-p have zero relative momentum at the point of production?
if e-p are able to annihilate, obviously having some momentum at the moment of annihilation, this momentum must be carried away by the two(or more) resulting photons.

if the process is time symmetrical then we should, providing we could create such energetic photons, be able to produce an e-p pair with relative momentum large enough for them not to annihilate instantly.

there is no way to get around this. if it is not possible then we have a fundamental problem. if it is possible... well, that would bring us very close to solving all our problems.

implications would be great. it would be theoretically possible to materialize stuff by correctly aligning and timing EM waves.

Their Coulomb attraction will cause them to approach each other whereupon they will anihilate to produce two or more photons which take paths ( velocity vectors ) which conserve momentum ( go in opposite directions ).


Hi CANGAS,

One very simple question that will give no end of problems if REAL possible force/s is not fully understood, so here goes~

"Coulomb Attraction"
How is such attraction possible?

Before you answer the question let me insist you refer to the basics of REAL possible force/s.

I am aware Theoretically Attraction can easily be relied upon without considering given source/s of exertion facilitating it, So in the REAL world how is attraction facilitated in the above situation?

implications would be great. it would be theoretically possible to materialize stuff by correctly aligning and timing EM waves.


Exactly! In nature all solids are the result of resonant waves as such, And we should note what is really occurring, is a given area is originally already occupied but with mass with very little potential to it, but as negative exertions compress the areas, other areas surrounding it, will take over via their higher outward exertions and or potential, so on and so on, a good example would be two oceanic waves meeting, considering if the wave was compressed into a confined area with a small opening such as a blow hole!

If the Blow Hole were not there, the water would solidify to a cooler state some what, much like to a pressure of a deep oceanic area.. and we should note if we compressed and or cooled any given area enough, regardless of what medium we are dealing with, the area in question has to solidify..

And what better example do we have than when we compress gas, first to a near solid as in liquid, and with even more cooling and or compression right down to a solid, just like H2O, CO2 and or like the solid rocket fuels etc.

why would e-p have zero relative momentum at the point of production?
if e-p are able to annihilate, obviously having some momentum at the moment of annihilation, this momentum must be carried away by the two(or more) resulting photons.

if the process is time symmetrical then we should, providing we could create such energetic photons, be able to produce an e-p pair with relative momentum large enough for them not to annihilate instantly.

there is no way to get around this. if it is not possible then we have a fundamental problem. if it is possible... well, that would bring us very close to solving all our problems.

implications would be great. it would be theoretically possible to materialize stuff by correctly aligning and timing EM waves.


In my previous post I enjoyed a serious mental lapse which is perhaps the most serious blunder of my career. While I expressed the conservation of momentum, I totally neglected the conservatrion of kinetic energy. While momentum is very directly mathematically dependant upon the direction of the velocity vector, kinetic energy is defined by the square of the velocity and so is more subtle to analyze.

Conservation of momentum demands that the result of an event must have a sum of momentums equal to the sum prior to the event. This can happen by the prior sum being +1 plus -1 =0, and the resulting sum being the same; two opposing velocity vectors can collide and momentum can be conserved by either the resulting momentums rebounding in opposite directions, or, by the resulting momentums, in a perfectly inelastic collision, being zero. If two soggy pieces of wet laundry hit head on and do not bounce at all momentum is conserved because the prior opposing equal momentums sum to zero, and the motionless resulting lump of laundry has momentum summing to zero ( it is motionless, it has no momentum ).

However, since kinetic energy is defined by the square of the velocity, the direction of the velocity vector is obscured ( -1 x -1=+1 ). And if we wish to honor traditional basic physics, we must honor both conservation of momentum and of kinetic energy.

Two identical photons in an exactly opposing path could interfere and produce mass; both their momentum and their kinetic energy must be conserved. Momentum could be conserved by the resulting mass having either a +1 part and a -1 part, or, by the resulting mass having a 0 + another 0 part.

However, kinetic energy can only be conserved if the resulting parts are non zero. The velocity vectors prior to the event may be defined in a coordinate system as + and -, but the mathematical squaring to produce the defined kinetic energy gives only positive(+) numbers. So the resulting sum of kinetic energies must sum to a positive number and cannot be a zero.

My original post was totally in error: combination of two photons must result correctly in two particles of mass which move so as to be equal in both momentum and kinetic energy, and to exactly equal the combined momentum and kinetic energy of the photons.

The electron and positron pair produced must have a significant equal and opposite velocity vector.

I have not personally ever calculated the relationship between the Coulomb attraction force of a produced pair compared to their initial momentum.

"The electron and positron pair produced must have a significant equal and opposite velocity vector."

Pretty much the time symmetrical opposite of annihilation, not much to say about that really.
If it is time symmetrical and IMO by all logic it should be, there's no reason why we couldn't do it, except the fact that we have trouble generating high energy gamma photons on demand.
If we do manage to generate and tune the gamma photons correctly and fail to produce e-p pairs that can mean either two things - the process is somehow not time symmetrical OR "something"(gravitons or whatever) escapes undetected during annihilation and since we did not provide the "missing stuff" during production so it failed.

Anyway, if time symmetry in this case would be experimentaly proven, that would finaly prove the fundamentals of matter and even gravity being EM waves. All fundamental particles seem to annihilate to EM waves. So if we can prove time symmetry on at least the lowest energy e-p pair it would begin to prove everything is somehow made out of EM wave interferences - not quarks. The frequencies/energies at which stable particles are produced out of EM waves have probably some kind of an harmonic order.. something like that anyway.

As time goes by, we must remember this; the significance of pair production based upon a gamma photon is the result of the electron being the lightest proven particle. Particles even lighter, such as perhaps neutrinos or any kind of virtual particle, would be able to be birthed by weaker photons. A visible light photon should be able to sire very short lived virtual particles. Or neutrinos, if they do have mass and if they are light enough.

And, if Special Relativity is not illigitimate, the velocity of the observer would make a huge difference in whether or not a photon were relatively energetic enough to spawn a certain particle. One observer could determine a photon to be too weak to make an electron-positron pair, whereas another observer with a different velocity could determine the same photon to be strong enough to make a proton-antiproton pair.

Say, that sounds like another Special Relativity paradox.

As time goes by, we must remember this; the significance of pair production based upon a gamma photon is the result of the electron being the lightest proven particle. Particles even lighter, such as perhaps neutrinos or any kind of virtual particle, would be able to be birthed by weaker photons. A visible light photon should be able to sire very short lived virtual particles. Or neutrinos, if they do have mass and if they are light enough.

And, if Special Relativity is not illigitimate, the velocity of the observer would make a huge difference in whether or not a photon were relatively energetic enough to spawn a certain particle. One observer could determine a photon to be too weak to make an electron-positron pair, whereas another observer with a different velocity could determine the same photon to be strong enough to make a proton-antiproton pair.

Say, that sounds like another Special Relativity paradox.

Yes, but this paradox may perhaps quite nicely explain the non-determinism of quantum interactions.
If it is actually possible for an observer to observe a collision of two particles in its frame and for the same collision not to occur in any or each particles frame - this will yield seemingly random or simply non-deterministic behaviour.

Anyway, I think the fundamental physics are non-relativistic in an appropriate dimensional system but are manifested in our 3d+time dimensions "weird" like that -relativisic.
As I explained somewhere, if you map an angles sine and cosine to dimensions of motion and distance you get 2 dimensions out of 1. The 1 dimension - the angle is linear, but the 2 mapped ones are not. We can replace the motion dimension with time by dividing it with distance and get our common distance + time dimensionality.
The sine an cosine mapping to our dimension is responsible for the relativistic phenomenon that is observed in the 2 mapped dimensions.
When the angle is very low(newton mechanics), the distance and motion(or time) dimensions seem separate and constant.
Something like that anyway.. heh.. wish I was smart and educated enough to take things further with this way of thinking, but alas, being so stupid I can only debate the idea on this forum and that's about it, heh..

Yes, but this paradox may perhaps quite nicely explain the non-determinism of quantum interactions.
If it is actually possible for an observer to observe a collision of two particles in its frame and for the same collision not to occur in any or each particles frame - this will yield seemingly random or simply non-deterministic behaviour.

Anyway, I think the fundamental physics are non-relativistic in an appropriate dimensional system but are manifested in our 3d+time dimensions "weird" like that -relativisic.
As I explained somewhere, if you map an angles sine and cosine to dimensions of motion and distance you get 2 dimensions out of 1. The 1 dimension - the angle is linear, but the 2 mapped ones are not. We can replace the motion dimension with time by dividing it with distance and get our common distance + time dimensionality.
The sine an cosine mapping to our dimension is responsible for the relativistic phenomenon that is observed in the 2 mapped dimensions.
When the angle is very low(newton mechanics), the distance and motion(or time) dimensions seem separate and constant.
Something like that anyway.. heh.. wish I was smart and educated enough to take things further with this way of thinking, but alas, being so stupid I can only debate the idea on this forum and that's about it, heh..


You do realize that you are halucinating again?

As time goes by, we must remember this; the significance of pair production based upon a gamma photon is the result of the electron being the lightest proven particle. Particles even lighter, such as perhaps neutrinos or any kind of virtual particle, would be able to be birthed by weaker photons. A visible light photon should be able to sire very short lived virtual particles. Or neutrinos, if they do have mass and if they are light enough.

And, if Special Relativity is not illigitimate, the velocity of the observer would make a huge difference in whether or not a photon were relatively energetic enough to spawn a certain particle. One observer could determine a photon to be too weak to make an electron-positron pair, whereas another observer with a different velocity could determine the same photon to be strong enough to make a proton-antiproton pair.

Say, that sounds like another Special Relativity paradox.

Has anyone ever pondered with respects to an electron and when it is transmitted from a transmitter and where and what moment you should begin to treat an electron as a Photon?

Let me strongly suggest and highly recommend everyone considers the mediums where the negative exertions are being transferred from area to area such as from a solid{antenna} medium to a gaseous and or near vacuum medium and then back to another antenna {solid}..

Has anyone tried some calculations with respects of the electromagnetic waves speed of propagation in a Solid as in the antenna where the negative exertion is treated as an electron, to where in a Gas and or such as our atmosphere, and if we were working with satellite transmissions orbiting our earth in a near vacuum medium where each C^2 of mass occupies massive areas because of their expended potential and therefore the propagation seems to be a damn sight faster in a near vacuum..

I would suggest one would Scrutinize the time, a pulse or a single wave will take and compare the relative speed of light in a solid, gas and Near vacuum, and take note the C^2 areas transferring the electron charge is not at some velocity! But rather what is shifted is the higher potential treated as a theoretical electron or theoretical Photon!

Let me make it absolutely clear that the Electrons and Photons are theoretical! They are NOT REAL! If you don't believe me ask your Lecturers to clarify what force/s gives reason to their definitions, and then ask why are they treated as if they are REAL then.

Scientists are losing the Plot by glazing over what REAL forces are possible..

The only reality is, No matter where in our universe we have C^2 areas that so happen to be more compressed {Proton} to other C^2 Areas and hence are with a higher potential, therefore it exerts this potential to where their is less opposition of force, hence it is simply passed on and or exerted to where ever Potential or force is weaker..

BTW with regards to a Anti Proton, if a Proton exists via a REAL positive outwardly exertion what force/s defines the anti proton? INWARD? :rolleyes:

Seems to me if a Proton is with Positive charge and a positive exertion then an anti proton must have the opposite charge and exertions just like an electron, the only problem is the electron is theoretical and or gained theoretically via from surrounding protons outwardly exertions experienced as negative charge to a given Proton..

So this means the Anti Proton is also a theoretical defined force because we all should know a force can only exert via the premise of some footing via another opposing force, such as outward is the only REAL possible force and the only way an inward force is possible is if we have enough Protons surrounding a Proton with a weaker potential to which it would be experienced as inward and or negative, this is why the electrons are REALLY only theoretical. {As is the neutron, where two outwardly forces meet each other..}

Now if we keep REAL force in mind, no matter where in our universe we have must have relative C^2 areas being either Solid - Highly compressed smaller areas with higher potential, liquid, gas, and near vacuum and or cold/dark matter, where the areas here have been allowed to expend just about all potential, so the areas occupy vast areas..

BTW - we can prove and predict extremly acurately many things by the use of the below calculus, noting the above C^2 areas in question don't move but rather shifts or transfers exerted force {Err~ rising and falling charge defined as electromagnetic waves} exerted towards the areas with less potential, so on and so on and so on...

E=MC^C

M=E/C^2

C^2=E/M

Give it a go!? See if it clarifies SR, GR, Time and "c"... including where, if Einstein was aware that Gravity is not attractive<--{Note - Attractive force is impossible!} by gridding out an area say such as a solar system and or galaxy, to which we already would have acknowledged that we already have a unified formula and whats more Gravity is gained from potential force from the rest of our universes theoretical C^2 grids and or areas..

To which we should note Einstein already had the means of a unified formula for everything via explaining everything via the use of electromotive forces and the above calculus..

does light accelerate into gravity?

No, Definitely no! See
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0512614
But relativists say yes.

for example, does incoming light from the sun accelerate into the earth or does its speed still remain constant?

or should this be explained through warped space? space and time being "denser" around the earth so the light would be measured travel towards us at constant speed, but only if precalculations were done to decide on how much space and time it actually went through?

i know it has been observed that gravity bends light, but does it nearly bend it or would it be able to attract it like in the "black hole" scenarios.

any experiments been done on that?


also, if light exerts gravity, one should be able to levitate a light object with a an ultra strong light beam reflecting against two mirrors or something?
<P>According to any <I>local</I> observer the vacuum speed of the light is the same value c, but the light slows down on approach according to a remote observer's frame. Taking the spacetime around the earth to be approximately Schwarzschild</P>
<P>ds<SUP>2</SUP> = (1 - 2GM/rc<SUP>2</SUP>)dct<SUP>2</SUP> - dr<SUP>2</SUP>/(1 - 2GM/rc<SUP>2</SUP>) - r<SUP>2</SUP>d<FONT FACE="Symbol">W</FONT><SUP>2</P>
</SUP><P>the path of the light is described by </P>
<P>ds = 0</P>
<P>and if its only radial motion then</P>
<P>d<FONT FACE="Symbol">W</FONT> = 0</P>
<P>so</P>
<P>(1 - 2GM/rc<SUP>2</SUP>)dct<SUP>2</SUP> - dr<SUP>2</SUP>/(1 - 2GM/rc<SUP>2</SUP>) = 0</P>
<P>dr<SUP>2</SUP>/(1 - 2GM/rc<SUP>2</SUP>) = (1 - 2GM/rc<SUP>2</SUP>)dct<SUP>2</P>
</SUP><P>(dr/dt)<SUP>2</SUP> = (1 - 2GM/rc<SUP>2</SUP>)<SUP>2</SUP>c<SUP>2</P>
</SUP><P>dr/dt = -(1 - 2GM/rc<SUP>2</SUP>)c</P>
<P>This gravitational slowing of light predicted by general relativity in contradiction with Newtonian physics has been experimentally verified by timed signals sent between earth and an inner planet probe again proving relativity over Newtonian physics.</P>

So light doesnt really slow down or accelerate, but it seems so in a remote observers frame because the remote observer doesnt experience the warped space the light went through? If the remote observer considers all space-time to be flat he w