Gravities Mechanism

[Little Bang]

A lot of the things I am about to explain most of you will already understand but to fully grasp the hypothesis I am about to propose I think it necessary to show the logical progression of my thoughts.

One of the first (time dilation) was the fact that clocks slow as we approach c then one day I suddenly realized that it was not our velocity that was slowing our clocks but the acceleration getting us to that velocity. This shows that all objects, from the size of atoms and anything larger, experience a change in how fast their clocks run when accelerated. A baseball during the collision with a bat has all of it's atoms and molecules experience a slowing of their clock's.

Next while addressing the problem of combining gravity with QM I realized that the time dilation experienced in a gravity well also applies to the atoms and molecules of objects in that well.

Take our baseball lying on the ground. All of it's molecules are vibrating in every direction. If we could get down to the size of one of it's molecules and ride with it as it vibrates toward the center of Earth we would find that it gains velocity because it's clock slows by a very very tiny amount and when it vibrates away from the CG it loses velocity because it's clock speeds up by a very very tiny amount the result shows the total momentum pointing toward the CG. I would bet the difference between when it vibrates down verses up will be 10^-36 which is exactly the difference between the electromotive force and the gravitational force. Therefore I propose this to be the mechanism for gravity.

Now we can show why we can't tell the difference between gravity and inertia. The atoms and molecules of any object being accelerated will experience this time dilation with the momentum pointing toward the force that is accelerating the object.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Welcome to Sciforums, Little Bang. My condolences, in advance.

 

[paddoboy]

I am about to propose I think it necessary to show the logical progression of my thoughts.

One of the first (time dilation) was the fact that clocks slow as we approach c then one day I suddenly realized that it was not our velocity that was slowing our clocks but the acceleration getting us to that velocity. This shows that all objects, from the size of atoms and anything larger, experience a change in how fast their clocks run when accelerated.
Now we can show why we can't tell the difference between gravity and inertia. .

You appear to be posting an alternative proposition. I suggest you post in the appropriate thread.

 

[rpenner]

One of the first (time dilation) was the fact that clocks slow as we approach c

This paraphrase of special relativity is unreliable and frequently a source of error, in some cases leading to Dingle's Fallacy.

A person accelerating does not notice his own clock change. The effect is only in comparison to clocks in a different state of motion. There is also a geometrical effect caused by finite signal speed and the changing separation between clock sources (classical Doppler effect) which can obscure or enhance the content of special relativity (sometime known as the transverse Doppler effect).

then one day I suddenly realized that it was not our velocity that was slowing our clocks but the acceleration getting us to that velocity.

Probably not, since high-energy particles come into existence both at high relative velocity and high relative time dilation.

Also, probably not, because if we are moving at a high speed relative to X and X accelerated to match our state of motion, X's time dilation goes from a high value to nothing.

In the Twin Paradox acceleration is necessary so that the Twins meet up again to compare clocks.

This shows that all objects, from the size of atoms and anything larger, experience a change in how fast their clocks run when accelerated.

Well, true. But you have only established a correlation between state of motion (relative to some clock standard) and time dilation. While acceleration undoubtedly changes state of motion, it does so vectorially while time dilation is a scalar quantity relative to some clock standard.

Next while addressing the problem of combining gravity with QM I realized that the time dilation experienced in a gravity well also applies to the atoms and molecules of objects in that well.

Other than expressing that the whole is the sum of the parts, which dates back at least 2500 years, it is unclear what you realized.

Take our baseball lying on the ground. All of it's molecules are vibrating in every direction. If we could get down to the size of one of it's molecules and ride with it as it vibrates toward the center of Earth we would find that it gains velocity because it's clock slows by a very very tiny amount and when it vibrates away from the CG it loses velocity because it's clock speeds up by a very very tiny amount the result shows the total momentum pointing toward the CG. I would bet the difference between when it vibrates down verses up will be 10^-36 which is exactly the difference between the electromotive force and the gravitational force. Therefore I propose this to be the mechanism for gravity.

Well let's see. In a nearly-flat gravity well like near the surface of the Earth (space-time curvature radius of on the order of 1 light-year), your claim amounts to:
$$\frac{g \, \Delta h}{c^2} \approx 10^{-36} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Delta h \approx 10^{-36} \frac{10^{17} \, \textrm{m}^2/\textrm{s}^2}{10 \, \textrm{m}/\textrm{s}^2} = 10^{-20} \, \textrm{m} = \frac{1}{100000} \, \textrm{fm}$$
which is unreasonable.
Your claim suggests gravity would be stronger for less massive atoms than more massive atoms since at the same temperature, less massive atoms move more.

Now we can show why we can't tell the difference between gravity and inertia. The atoms and molecules of any object being accelerated will experience this time dilation with the momentum pointing toward the force that is accelerating the object.

Except it doesn't work. Your "vibration gravity" is inversely correlated with mass and has much stronger dependencies on temperature and state of matter than described.

For example, Neon gas is monoatomic, has nothing to vibrate and obeys the same law of gravity as octane which has tons of internal movement.

 

[Kittamaru]

I've moved this to alternative theories - seems a more apt location for it

 

[danshawen]

Very welcome Little Bang. My plan is to sit out this thread and see where it goes for a while.

 

[Little Bang]

This paraphrase of special relativity is unreliable and frequently a source of error, in some cases leading to Dingle's Fallacy.

A person accelerating does not notice his own clock change. The effect is only in comparison to clocks in a different state of motion. There is also a geometrical effect caused by finite signal speed and the changing separation between clock sources (classical Doppler effect) which can obscure or enhance the content of special relativity (sometime known as the transverse Doppler effect).

Probably not, since high-energy particles come into existence both at high relative velocity and high relative time dilation.

Also, probably not, because if we are moving at a high speed relative to X and X accelerated to match our state of motion, X's time dilation goes from a high value to nothing.

In the Twin Paradox acceleration is necessary so that the Twins meet up again to compare clocks.

Well, true. But you have only established a correlation between state of motion (relative to some clock standard) and time dilation. While acceleration undoubtedly changes state of motion, it does so vectorially while time dilation is a scalar quantity relative to some clock standard.

Other than expressing that the whole is the sum of the parts, which dates back at least 2500 years, it is unclear what you realized.


Well let's see. In a nearly-flat gravity well like near the surface of the Earth (space-time curvature radius of on the order of 1 light-year), your claim amounts to:
$$\frac{g \, \Delta h}{c^2} \approx 10^{-36} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Delta h \approx 10^{-36} \frac{10^{17} \, \textrm{m}^2/\textrm{s}^2}{10 \, \textrm{m}/\textrm{s}^2} = 10^{-20} \, \textrm{m} = \frac{1}{100000} \, \textrm{fm}$$
which is unreasonable.
Your claim suggests gravity would be stronger for less massive atoms than more massive atoms since at the same temperature, less massive atoms move more.

Except it doesn't work. Your "vibration gravity" is inversely correlated with mass and has much stronger dependencies on temperature and state of matter than described.

For example, Neon gas is monoatomic, has nothing to vibrate and obeys the same law of gravity as octane which has tons of internal movement.

This paraphrase of special relativity is unreliable and frequently a source of error, in some cases leading to Dingle's Fallacy.

A person accelerating does not notice his own clock change. The effect is only in comparison to clocks in a different state of motion. There is also a geometrical effect caused by finite signal speed and the changing separation between clock sources (classical Doppler effect) which can obscure or enhance the content of special relativity (sometime known as the transverse Doppler effect).

Probably not, since high-energy particles come into existence both at high relative velocity and high relative time dilation.

Also, probably not, because if we are moving at a high speed relative to X and X accelerated to match our state of motion, X's time dilation goes from a high value to nothing.

In the Twin Paradox acceleration is necessary so that the Twins meet up again to compare clocks.

Well, true. But you have only established a correlation between state of motion (relative to some clock standard) and time dilation. While acceleration undoubtedly changes state of motion, it does so vectorially while time dilation is a scalar quantity relative to some clock standard.

Other than expressing that the whole is the sum of the parts, which dates back at least 2500 years, it is unclear what you realized.


Well let's see. In a nearly-flat gravity well like near the surface of the Earth (space-time curvature radius of on the order of 1 light-year), your claim amounts to:
$$\frac{g \, \Delta h}{c^2} \approx 10^{-36} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Delta h \approx 10^{-36} \frac{10^{17} \, \textrm{m}^2/\textrm{s}^2}{10 \, \textrm{m}/\textrm{s}^2} = 10^{-20} \, \textrm{m} = \frac{1}{100000} \, \textrm{fm}$$
which is unreasonable.
Your claim suggests gravity would be stronger for less massive atoms than more massive atoms since at the same temperature, less massive atoms move more.

Except it doesn't work. Your "vibration gravity" is inversely correlated with mass and has much stronger dependencies on temperature and state of matter than described.

For example, Neon gas is monoatomic, has nothing to vibrate and obeys the same law of gravity as octane which has tons of internal movement.

A simple response

Does a clock on a ship traveling near c appear almost stopped (to external observers)? Yes.
Do the atoms of an object on Earth's surface experience time dilation? Yes.
Do the atoms of an object being accelerated experience time dilation? Yes.
Everything, unless they are at absolute zero vibrate. In the case of a gas they have collisions.
The solution is just to simple for you and I apologize for it's simplicity.

 

[rpenner]

Does a clock on a ship traveling near c appear almost stopped (to external observers)? Yes.

NO. It appears "almost stopped" only if the ship has a relative velocity of close to c with respect to those observers. If the observerers are co-moving, the clock keeps exactly correct time.

Do the atoms of an object on Earth's surface experience time dilation? Yes.

Yes, only with respect to atoms in the same state of motion at a higher elevation.

Do the atoms of an object being accelerated experience time dilation? Yes.

Depends! If the atom starts off in a different state of motion than the reference clock, changing its state of motion to match that of the reference clock (an acceleration) actually reduces the time dilation to nothing.

Everything, unless they are at absolute zero vibrate.

That argument is classical and applies to atoms in a lattice. It neglects zero-point motion where (according to our best-tested theory of thermodynamics of solids) even at absolute zero there would be some lattice vibrations and dilute mono-atomic gasses where there is no lattice of atoms to provide restoring forces and thus no vibration.

In the case of a gas they have collisions.

In a dilute gas, the mean free path, $$\lambda = \frac{R \, T}{\sqrt{2} \pi \, d^2 \, N_A \, P} = \frac{k_B \, T}{\sqrt{2} \pi \, d^2 \, N_A \, P} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} \pi \, d^2 \, N_V} $$ can be macroscopic -- even kilometers. Since a gas masses the same if it is dense or dilute, it follows from your theory of gravitation that the weight of the gas would vary wildly depending if it was dense or dilute because the rate of collisions would vary widely.

The solution is just to simple for you and I apologize for it's simplicity.

Your baseless conjecture is too simple to explain the behavior of reality, and fails at the first quantifiable test. Your delusion that you are adding to human knowledge of the universe should have been rectified when moderation moved your thread to the pile of useless ideas.

 

[danshawen]

All you have said thus far is 100% correct, rpenner, up to the last sentence, which I think was undeserved even of a posting in alternative theories. I'm not certain this one belongs here because time dilation is very much established science, inasmuch as we believe we understand it. Since threads about the basis of time itself always seem to run aground, why should a discussion of time dilation be any different? I have good reason to think this is the missing mathematical piece my former colleagues could not provide in the topic that was my first to Alternative theories.

A translation of this idea is in order. LittleBang has conjectured that "vibration" (of the bound energy component) of matter is different in the direction of the vibrations of the bound energy components in the direction of the center of gravity of the Earth. It works that way because in no manner can even bound energy exceed the speed of light in any direction.

The virtual energy of the vacuum, on the other hand, propagates at the speed of light in every direction, "everywhere", and I use that term loosely, only because the concept of space is so far not talked about here, and derives of time and energy. But the Higgs mechanism, like matter, cannot propagate at c, because that boson has mass, and it must have, in order to be able to interact with other forms of bound energy. Binding energy into matter is what creates inertia. And gravitation, too, it seems. Do you understand this now? Only matter can experience time dilation. Since energy cannot, it is natural for bound energy to coalesce when immersed in a sea of energy foam that must travel faster in every direction. The boson that links the two energy states together is what causes gravitation, and that would be Higgs. Or something with the same general description.

LittleBang's ideas caught my eye on another forum, rpenner, and I wanted to see what some folks here thought of it. Time dilation is an excellent start to a more precise mathematical description of the mechanism of inertia.

As I write this, I am suffering from pneumonia. Please excuse any sloppiness.

LittleBang; please do not be discouraged about your idea being relegated to "Alternative Theories" here. A lot of "mainstream" theories on the same subject are on the verge of hitting the history of science's permanent dust bin. "Spooky action at a distance through the exchange of bosons" is about as viable an idea as Newton's "directed to the object's center of mass by a divine hand", or General Relativity's "free falling through curved Riemann ABSOLUTE space in this much ABSOLUTE time", or Kip Thorne's "Wormholes through space time that have no discernible relationship to either space nor time, nor any predisposition for either end to remain stationary in ABSOLUTE SPACE or ABSOLUTE TIME. Both of these ideas are dead, since 1905, and this is true whether Einstein himself backpedaled on them or not. In fact, he did.

Give it up, rpenner. Your math is likewise based on science that is "alternate" and "disaffected", to say nothing of "no bindings to reality other than the fevered imaginations of mathematicians who don't even realize that counting alone is not cognition". Time is not a dimension because dimensions do not have one way arrows. Energy propagation has one-way arrows. Tacking another Euclidean or pythagorean dimension onto each axis of three dimensions locked to an absolute origin is not a reflection of physical reality or even any mathematical element thereof.

 

[danshawen]

Even though light "curves" in the presence of gravitation, the speed of light "proper" time rate corrected for that proximity does not change. When light curves as it does in the EH of a black hole, that energy becomes bound. When it does, it interacts with Higgs mechanism in the same manner that the energy in ordinary bound matter or particles does. There is only energy, and time, and in the case of bound energy, time dilation, which is the equivalent of a Doppler shift for that bound energy. The only reason there is also length contraction for things made of bound energy is principally the contraction of the "spaces" (filled with vacuum energy) between the atoms and particles.

 

[HarryT]

Just joined this forum today and stumbled on this thread where I recognize myself in you Little Bang from some time ago. So my apologies in advance for hijacking your thread.

… one day I suddenly realized that it was not our velocity that was slowing our clocks but the acceleration getting us to that velocity.

This would certainly explain why only the travelling twin of the famous paradox experiences time dilation and for that reason I came to suspect the same at some point. But one thing was also clear to me that this could not be the whole story to explain observations and experiments because there it becomes clear that speed is also a factor. The next question I asked myself at that point was: But speed is relative, and speed without a reference frame is meaningless. And then I turned that around: For speed to have a time dilation effect it must not be meaningless so there must be a reference frame. Question was now: what is this reference frame. One thing was (and is) obvious to me: it is NOT an ether. (don’t ask me why it was not obvious to me then. I can explain if you like why it is not obvious to me now).

… Now we can show why we can't tell the difference between gravity and inertia. The atoms and molecules of any object being accelerated will experience this time dilation with the momentum pointing toward the force that is accelerating the object.

And precisely there is what I believe to be the clue to my answer what the reference frame is what is giving speed its “meaning” to have the observed dilation effects.
First let me tick of what I believe to be the “simple” part: If we assume acceleration causes time dilation and there is no difference between inertia and gravity then gravity is the same as acceleration and therefore causing time dilation. This would certainly explain why we see higher time dilation in higher gravity fields.
The reference frame is more “difficult” and to explain my reasoning in detail here is premature I think. Or at least I can spare me the trouble if I get burnt here . But to me it seems almost obvious now that the gravity field itself is the reference frame where speed gets its dilation “power” from.
If this is true then this would have an whole host of implications which I have been considering for some time now and I cannot find or see conflicts with any data I have been able to find so far, so I have a good feeling about this.

... Therefore I propose this to be the mechanism for gravity.

I do not follow you on this part.

 

[Billy T]

... If we assume acceleration causes time dilation ...

No that easily shot down nonsense: Consider this "triplet paradox"

A stays at home, B & C travel away from him with identical accelerations and then at same elapsed time on their clocks, turn motor off, to just coast near speed of light C. Both B & C at the end of their first coast period, accelerate exactly the same way, passing down to zero speed wrt to A for an instant, and continue their identical accelerations until they enter their second "coast periods" to come back near A, but a safe distance away still so they can again have identical acceration to come to rest along side A.

Thus by your non-sense theory, B & C with exactly identical acceleration periods should both be Y years less aged that A but C is about 2Y younger as his two coasting at constant velocity periods were twice as long as B's were. - That duration of constant speed intervals, NOT THEIR IDENTICAL ACCELERATIONS, explains this difference.

 

[HarryT]

I am missing something in your example. There seem to be 2 coasting periods where the one from C is twice as long as from B ?
No matter, I can still explain how I think this works. Remember, we are in the Alternative Theories section here.
First of all, as I said above: acceleration could not be the whole story: speed is also a factor. So I do not refute that the longer travelling twin will be the youngest. What I intend to say is that during acceleration there is extra dilation. When at constant speed there is also dilation. However, I postulate this not only depends on speed but also on experienced gravity field strength along the way. Remember that all experiments with this have only been done “near-Earth” in relatively similar gravity field strengths. Nobody can say for sure that this can be extrapolated to the interstellar voids where there is virtually no gravity.
All I can say is that based on the logic from my previous post I have come to the conclusion that I believe that it is more logical to assume that the speed time dilation effect depends on gravity field strength.
About the host of implications I mentioned: If this is true, then it might just be that the speed of light also depends on gravity field strength and everything we think we know about distances to stars and galaxies based on red shift and such things may need to be reviewed and adjusted and may have catastrophic consequences for the dark matter and dark energy calculations. But now I am talking ahead of my self

 

[origin]

If we assume acceleration causes time dilation and there is no difference between inertia and gravity then gravity is the same as acceleration and therefore causing time dilation. This would certainly explain why we see higher time dilation in higher gravity fields.

That is correct and that is exactly what general relativity tells us.

The reference frame is more “difficult” and to explain my reasoning in detail here is premature I think. Or at least I can spare me the trouble if I get burnt here . But to me it seems almost obvious now that the gravity field itself is the reference frame where speed gets its dilation “power” from.

That does not make much sense.
Time dilation comes from acceleration, whether from gravity or an actual acceleration. Time dilation also occurs from relative velocity. In the twin paradox the reference frame is the nontraveling twin. To help you understand the idea that velocity also has a time dilation component consider the following. If the traveling twin accelerated to 99% the speed of light and the immediately decelerated to the original reference frame would the age disparity between the twins be the same if the traveling twin had traveled at speed for 50 years before decelerating? There is a huge difference which shows that the dilation is also due to relative velocities.

 

[HarryT]

Time dilation also occurs from relative velocity. …. There is a huge difference which shows that the dilation is also due to relative velocities.

Yes, I agree that there will be a difference based on experiments done so far. I am not disputing that, I am only trying to say I have a possible explanation how it is possible that a relative thing like speed can have this dilation effect on the travelling twin and not the other twin. One thing is for sure, we have not done the experiment yet with actual twins so it all still is theory based on extrapolating results from experiments in near-Earth gravity field strength

 

[origin]

Yes, I agree that there will be a difference based on experiments done so far. I am not disputing that, I am only trying to say I have a possible explanation how it is possible that a relative thing like speed can have this dilation effect on the travelling twin and not the other twin.

That is already completely explained by relativity, there is no need to make something up. The time dilation due to relative velocity is experienced by both twins since there is no prefered frame. In other words twin A would say that twin B is time dilated and twin B would also say that twin A is time dilated.

 

[HarryT]

How do you explain then that only the travelling twin is younger?
Or is that also relative, such that the travelling twin wil see his twin that stayed at home as younger also ?

 

[origin]

How do you explain then that only the travelling twin is younger?

Because the traveling twin accelerates to a new inertial frame and later decelerates to the original 'nonmoving twins' inertial reference frame.

 

[HarryT]

In other words, the only thing that is different between the twins is the acceleration and the deceleration. But we agree that the speed also has a dilation effect, and that dilation effect is only(!) on the travelling twin because that is the one that aged less. So if relativity explains that the dilation is caused by relative velocity on both then how can that be correct ?

 

[origin]

In other words, the only thing that is different between the twins is the acceleration and the deceleration. But we agree that the speed also has a dilation effect, and that dilation effect is only(!) on the travelling twin because that is the one that aged less. So if relativity explains that the dilation is caused by relative velocity on both then how can that be correct ?

This should help you to understand:
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm