Extreme Opposites Apparently Produce Same Result: is there more to this?

[RascalPuff]

Motion Spectrum Enigma: opposite extremes = the same result.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Timelessness is said to result with absence of all motion - such as in a (so far unobserved, unachieved) condition of 'Absolute Zero' (-273o C. -459o F.)

Timelessness is also said to result if and when any physical entity moves at the speed of light (C = 186,282 mps).

In this consideration it seems that two opposites - the absence of motion (at microcosmic infinity), and ultimate motion at the speed of light (macrocosmic infinity) - equal timelessness.

It is also noteworthy, until further notice, that neither of these two extreme conditions have been attained in experimental physics. That is to say, cyclotron/accelerator speeds approach but do not equal that of light, and cryogenic experiments (Bose-Einstein condensations; etc) approach but do not equal that of Absolute Zero.

Opposite ends of the motion spectrum apparently establish 'timelessness' (cessation of all motion): established by maximum motion and zero motion...

That these two antithetical considerations of maximum and minimum motion should both result in timelessness, draws attention to itself - a 'motion spectrum enigma', there may be unrecognized solutions here - solutions which might evoke more advanced questions and answers.
May the Reader please draw and express their own conclusions.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I would agree, that no changes equals no time, and that the speed of light has no time left for time.

Would the forward arrow of time be due to the irreversible quantum collapses or just of the Planck instants clicking away?

(Answers are easy, being 'yes', 'no', and 'maybe'; it's just the questions that may be hard)

[Graybeard]

Hmmmm ..... I think your opening post is in contradiction to your theory of gravity is 4D ... and spells nothing but doom and gloom for it.

First I will try to explain Gravity as I see it.

According to Newton, the gravitational attraction between two objects depends on two things, the distance between the two objects and their combined mass. According to Newton an object's mass was 'particulate in quantity'. Meaning that the gravitational attraction of an apple is equal to the sum total of the individual gravitational attractions of each atom making up the apple. The total gravitational attraction of a planet equals the sum total of the individual gravitational attractions of each atom making up the planet.

The planet does not attract the apple because its 'gravity' is stronger than the apple's gravity, but just because it has more atoms of the same 'gravity'. More atoms means more of the same gravity, not stronger gravity.

Listen to this old fart, "Hitherto we have explained the phaenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but we have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always in the duplicate proportions of the distances.

Gravitation towards the sun is made up of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the sun is composed ... " from Newton's Principia, 1726 edition.

So gravity depends on two things, mass and distance of separation.

So if we have a block of iron composed of 1,000,000 iron atoms (10^6 atoms) then its total mass would equal 1,000,000 times the mass of one iron atom and it would weigh 1,000,000 times the weight of one iron atom. According to Newton !

But not according to Einstein. E = mc^2. If you add kinetic energy to the block of iron lets say by heating it, then you are increasing 'E' which translates into more 'm'. So this is a different definition of mass. If you heat a block of iron composed of 10^6 atoms it will weigh (mass will increase) more than it did when it was cold but it still only has the same number (10^6) of atoms. Newton would not have believed this.

To keep this in perspective, if the iron weighed 1/2 kilogram and you heated it by 10-20 degrees centigrade you would only increase its 'weight' by a millionth of a billionth of a kilogram. Not much, otherwise Newton would have found it .. lol.

So now the total gravitational force within a region depends on the total mass and the total energy within that region. Energy adds to the total gravitational field.

But thats not all, pressure does the same, but this is harder to explain because it does it in two ways.

a .. The easiest way to explain it is with a spring. Take a coil spring from the front strut of your car (left or right .. I don't care .. lol) and weigh it and record the weight. Now compress it down and tie it with a few cable ties. Subtract the weight of the cable ties and the spring will still be found to weigh more. Because you have increased the potential kinetic energy of the spring as evidenced by the strain on the cable ties (perhaps you call them zip ties or something). So the spring has more gravitational attraction when its compressed than when it is uncompressed.

But this is not the only secret of pressure and its ties to gravity

b .. . The 'presence' of pressure creates its own gravitational force which adds to total gravity within a region. I don't mean that pressure, by exerting its force increases the gravitational field (as described above in 'a') but just the presence of pressure adds to the gravitational force. In 'a' above the energy was added by pressure differences, the compressed and uncompressed spring, which equates to energy.

Pressure differences exert forces, but the gravitational force contributed by pressure in 'b' does not change by differing pressure values within the region, but by the pressure in the region, and its constant according to that pressure, regardless of that pressure's fluctuating values within the region. It's a pure gravitational force and does not exert a pressure differential force.

So now the total gravitational force within a region depends on the total mass within that region, total energy within that region as well as the total pressure within that region. Energy adds to the total gravitational field. Pressure adds to the total gravitational field via its energy, as well as via its presence.

Why am I trying to ineptly explain all this ?

Because our universe is old. If you go by a tick tock clock then the universe is very young. But if you cumulatively increment time by the number of events occurring (Event driven time) then most of the universe's events, presuming the number is finite, have already occurred in the first few minutes. What we take to be the 'norm' is at the very remote skewed end of the scale.

The reason pressure and energy contribute such a little insignificant amount to gravity's total value is because we are living in a very very old, very very cold, dispersed universe. Our universe has run down. The temp outside in space is 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.

But back when the universe was young, (Event driven time) it was hot, squillions of degrees, and compressed, a teaspoon of matter would have weighed squillions of tonnes. In fact the universe would have fitted into a full stop. And temperature, and pressure, and especially pressure, not only contributed large amounts to the gravitational field but were by far the bigger contributors.

And this is the secret that drove inflation, no outside forces will be required (such as collisions ... lol) because Pressure like Matter and Energy can have a positive value, but unlike Matter and Energy, Pressure can have a negative value ... ???


Our view of gravity is a local perception, a perception of this time and place in the cosmos. It was never the 'norm'.

Are you still with me, or have I lost everyone ... lol

cool bananas ...greg

[RascalPuff]

Dear Greg:
Obviously you gave a lot of thought to your above deposition. Sincere thanks for that. Still, I have to tell you that the Newtonian reflection eludes my well rounded understanding - and, the closing portions of your own thoughts seem to be alluding to a past compressed universe other than *steady state, which is the setting for the *reinstated Cosmological Constant according to my interpretation - playing the universal expansion movie backwards doesn't result in any intersection and restriction on time and space in a pie slice chart < representing a segment of the expansion...
(Please excuse the large font, I retrieved it from my text and there's no way to reduce it's size in the existing format...)

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.

In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...

It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1041 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.

The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1041 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...

Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).

The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.

When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...

Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...

Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).

The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.

When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.

There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.

Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.

Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.

The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.

The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.

This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.

It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.