Gravity and space

[thinking]

[quote=zeroca;2061]No, my friend, I didn’t forget about it. When I analyze space and gravity, I assert that they are parallel processes, i.e. they are events, taking place inside time, i.e. time is meant, considered automatically, only its direct analysis is put off a little.
Space-time is the same as gravity-time, or rather universe-time,

because the universe takes place within time as well.

I disagree

this to me is part of the misunderstanding of time its self. time is a measurement of movement . no movement , no time .

further the Universe is based on energy/matter which gives the existence of time.

to say that the Universe takes place "within time " your implying that time controls ALL interactions/actions of energy/matter . if this is true then "time " alone without the knowledge of the objects themselves will tell you how they will behave.

however not only is this not true but rather impossible.

[gautam]

Hi friends
I am back after a long time. Done lot of work on my mest theory of evertthing, meanwhile.
Completetly doneaway with gravity.
Pl refref my articles on the website ; www.articlesgratuits.com
babu gautam

[austintorn@aol.com]

Just some light humor:

I did away with gravity in my nightdreams—how come I can float and fly? Why is gravity often absent in the dream model of reality, not that it is much different that the waking model of reality?

Then, when I woke up, a super bed gravity made me very heavy and unable to get up. How come?

[thinking]

Just some light humor:

I did away with gravity in my nightdreams—how come I can float and fly? Why is gravity often absent in the dream model of reality, not that it is much different that the waking model of reality?

Then, when I woke up, a super bed gravity made me very heavy and unable to get up. How come?

because of atmosphere , combined with the ordering of space , by the rotation of a physical body in space , in this case Earth. rotational vortex direction, down to Earths' surface.

[Tony Stanton]

north

thats the thing however , is that in order to " describe " space one uses time. but the essence of space is not due to time but due the energy/matter within space.

No, physics, and by that I mean Einstein had no idea what space is. He admitted as much. He thought of time as the mind creating order but the arrow of time has to have a real physical explanation as does the existence of the three dimensions that we move in. Being able to calculate position and the warping of spacetime is not enough. GR breaks down at the extremes of our Universe which tells me that it is not the explanation for the existence of spacetime.
You are correct when you state energy/matter is the essence of spacetime but you must also realise that time cannot be separated from space because they are the same entity and not separate dimensions as physics today thinks it is.
How do I know this?
My view of spacetime as just three dimensions has taken some years to develop and when I started my research into it I had no idea if I was right or wrong. It was only when I managed to model gravity without using Newton’s gravitational constant that I knew I was on the right track. No other theory of gravity developed by any professional or institution, except True Relativity, has ever been able to do without Newton’s constant. The fact that True Relativity does not break down at the extremes of the Universe is also a good indication that I may well be right.
It is radical but mathematically it works and shows that the arrow of time is the rate at which matter/mass generates a spacetime field around itself. It also shows that gravity is not a force that works over an infinite distance but is ‘localised’ which means TR does not require ‘dark matter’ to explain the almost fixed rotation of stars in spiral galaxies.
TR also has a link to the quantum world in the form of an explanation for quantum entanglement which Einstein’s relativity does not have.
The fact that gravitation radiation has never been detected despite vast amounts of money being thrown at LIGO is an indication that I am on the right track because there is no such thing as gravitational radiation according to TR’s concept of spacetime because the spacetime field collapses when under acceleration.
I have been arguing for some time on various forums that velocity is not the cause of time dilation and no proof exists that it is, because every experiment on time dilation involves an element of acceleration.
It is surprising how quite some physicists go when you challenge them on this subject. I have yet to find any real evidence that velocity causes time dilation. Perhaps you may know of an experiment that proves Einstein’s view that velocity is the cause of time dilation because no one else has come up with a definitive experiment that I am aware of.
At the end of the day space is not this single flexible ‘thing’ that warps in the presence of matter. It is made of billions and billions of individual fields emanating from matter and eventually I will prove it.
Did you notice how the results for frame dragging of the Gravity Probe ‘B’ experiment have been delayed until December?
True Relativity predicts a higher rate for frame dragging than General Relativity because spacetime is rotating with the Earth and not being dragged around by the Earth as physicists think. The local spacetime around the Earth is being generated by the Earth so I look forward to the results eventually being published.

Tony


Article on True Relativity

The theory of True Relativity

[RascalPuff]

Dear Mr. Stanton:

I think http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie is in agreement with your contention.

Best regards,
- RP