Suppose if you take the Plank's time as the quanta for time, then how would you quantize gravity? Gravity acts independent of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
It is possible, but only on the basis that time is quantizable. Just like a movie is made up out of separate pictures (26 images a second), our reality may be made up out of quanta's of time (Planck?). Just like we would not notice the separate pictures in the 'motion picture' we would not experience the flow of time pictures either. One can even argue that we cannot ever be certain about this, but then again, gravity was not considered the way we do now several centuries ago either. My suggestion is to use long distance red-shift as indicator/tool, but I am a concept-person, not a scientific-tools-person.
It is easy to get lost inside a movie (especially if the movie is a good one), and only when woken up at the end of the movie do we come back into this reality again (though we never left this reality). I believe this is the hard part to do: realizing we are inside a movie, while also proclaiming this movie is the only reality there is for us (at least until we die, but possibly then still as well).
If I had to give the quanta a direction (since each quanta is build up out of a rod and not a dot), I'd state that the location of the Big Bang is the specific position the quanta use to position themselves, yet at the same time I would also suggest that that position in itself is not singular. We only experience the BB as singular because it is so far away. I could also suggest that the quanta's are in conflict themselves about the specific location of the Big Bang, creating the angularities of our universe' forces.
Suppose if you take the Plank's time as the quanta for time, then how would you quantize gravity? Gravity acts independent of time.
I guess placing information within a concept allows one to investigate that information, but I would then agree with you that it is important to keep in mind that it is a concept. I can tell the same story in a different concept; that of the universe continuously accelerating away from the point where materialization started. As such, we have continued acceleration, and all we need to do is understand how it pertains to the object that is moving away with that accelerated speed.
The premise is that if no additional help is delivered from an external location then mass will sit neatly together and follow the accelerated movement without interruption. The only confusing part is that earth, as the object we are most familiar with, fits in a larger environment of sun and milky way. Earth is an established entity; it should not be confused with materialization itself, but seen as a result from after materialization.
I mentioned this a long time ago, and recently at another thread, but gathering of mass occurs in spots where movement is absent. If you take a bucket, fill it with water in which small particles are contained, and you spin it and then let is follow its course, then you end up with all particles in a nice stack in the middle. The spin of the water moves all particles around (chaos theory), but the location in the center is where the spin is least powerful. If the spin is truly great, nothing with stay in the middle (black hole), but if the spin is reduced, the center becomes a location of absence of strong movement. When particles floating left and right happen to get to this spot, they are captured (by no movement pushing them anymore), and they sink to the bottom.
Of course, the bottom is where they collect due to the earth's gravitational field, but the image can be used to show the gravitational (non)actions of Earth as well. The lack of spin accompanies Earth in a single direction (this is: away from the Big Bang). That location with lack of spin circles around a larger spot with no spin (the sun). And our solar system as a whole fits inside a collective entity (the milky way) that contains a strong spin at its center that prevents any object from remaining there. If an object moves in that location, the mass can stop being a collective mass, and the object can be torn apart and spewed out in all directions. The perpendicular spews will be most visible, Partially, I believe, because light will go unobstructed in that direction.
Now if this is gravity, then we have a time frame as well: outward movement away from the Big Bang. If the entity (such as Earth) in the absent location of the specific movement exists in a materialized state based only on the location of the Big Bang, then each fragment of time in which it is not aligned with that location would demand it to realign itself with that position.
Though a surfer on a wave does not change, the surfer has to reposition him- or herself. If the surfer exists because of the wave, (s)he better realigns in a well-balanced manner, otherwise the surfer is swallowed by the wave. As you know, the wave is not the particles, it is a wave through the watermolecules. And that is materialization, the wave is the only part that materialized. This is according to me the tough part: the wave is the materialization, and in the materialization we find 'another' wave, which I call the surfer. The laws supporting materialization also enables the laws that support our forces. The forces are not based on materialization, but come forth out of materialization.
This is tough, so here's another way: materialization is the family, but the actual members are the forces. Materialization cannot be singular (except as an abstraction), the members of the family are individuals and can be organized in a pyramid of whole in opposition to parts, in male in opposition to female, and in a progressive direction of young in opposition to old. You cannot have family without members, you cannot have members without family.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fredrick For This Useful Post:
In case of a distored geometry gravity, how would we take care of a scenario where a particle just stops before the well. Will the particle not experience any force?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
I guess placing information within a concept allows one to investigate that information, but I would then agree with you that it is important to keep in mind that it is a concept. I can tell the same story in a different concept; that of the universe continuously accelerating away from the point where materialization started. As such, we have continued acceleration, and all we need to do is understand how it pertains to the object that is moving away with that accelerated speed.
The premise is that if no additional help is delivered from an external location then mass will sit neatly together and follow the accelerated movement without interruption. The only confusing part is that earth, as the object we are most familiar with, fits in a larger environment of sun and milky way. Earth is an established entity; it should not be confused with materialization itself, but seen as a result from after materialization.
I mentioned this a long time ago, and recently at another thread, but gathering of mass occurs in spots where movement is absent. If you take a bucket, fill it with water in which small particles are contained, and you spin it and then let is follow its course, then you end up with all particles in a nice stack in the middle. The spin of the water moves all particles around (chaos theory), but the location in the center is where the spin is least powerful. If the spin is truly great, nothing with stay in the middle (black hole), but if the spin is reduced, the center becomes a location of absence of strong movement. When particles floating left and right happen to get to this spot, they are captured (by no movement pushing them anymore), and they sink to the bottom.
Of course, the bottom is where they collect due to the earth's gravitational field, but the image can be used to show the gravitational (non)actions of Earth as well. The lack of spin accompanies Earth in a single direction (this is: away from the Big Bang). That location with lack of spin circles around a larger spot with no spin (the sun). And our solar system as a whole fits inside a collective entity (the milky way) that contains a strong spin at its center that prevents any object from remaining there. If an object moves in that location, the mass can stop being a collective mass, and the object can be torn apart and spewed out in all directions. The perpendicular spews will be most visible, Partially, I believe, because light will go unobstructed in that direction.
Now if this is gravity, then we have a time frame as well: outward movement away from the Big Bang. If the entity (such as Earth) in the absent location of the specific movement exists in a materialized state based only on the location of the Big Bang, then each fragment of time in which it is not aligned with that location would demand it to realign itself with that position.
Though a surfer on a wave does not change, the surfer has to reposition him- or herself. If the surfer exists because of the wave, (s)he better realigns in a well-balanced manner, otherwise the surfer is swallowed by the wave. As you know, the wave is not the particles, it is a wave through the watermolecules. And that is materialization, the wave is the only part that materialized. This is according to me the tough part: the wave is the materialization, and in the materialization we find 'another' wave, which I call the surfer. The laws supporting materialization also enables the laws that support our forces. The forces are not based on materialization, but come forth out of materialization.
This is tough, so here's another way: materialization is the family, but the actual members are the forces. Materialization cannot be singular (except as an abstraction), the members of the family are individuals and can be organized in a pyramid of whole in opposition to parts, in male in opposition to female, and in a progressive direction of young in opposition to old. You cannot have family without members, you cannot have members without family.
In case of a distored geometry gravity, how would we take care of a scenario where a particle just stops before the well. Will the particle not experience any force?
Hi Dipayankar,
I do not know what you mean with well. I will respond to your question as if it your reference to the center of the spin in my example of water spinning in a bucket with straight walls?
If so, I would explain it as follows: the results we see are the results of 13 (or 15) billion years of action. We cannot recreate the universe, it has already been established (as the dynamic place we see today). Over that many years, close to no particle will not have fallen into the center of the spin.
The particle you mention as being outside the well is in my opinion either non-existing, or existing in a location of solitude (area with absence of a well). Space dust particles, for instance, can be considered to be so light, there is no well-formation among it, no spin. Naturally, in areas with nova's a local recreation of the universe is taking place, so there you'd find the dynamics somewhat of what I think you are referring to.
In general, our universe is already created, so we should not be looking to explain gravity as occurring from the Big Bang to now, but only as now.
Having said that, if we take that particle that could potentially fall into the well but doesn't, how would that go about? If that particle moves over the threshold then it is captured in the environment of the well and will (sooner or later) be captured in the well. But if it stays clear from the environment of the well then two things can happen: either it moves away from the environment (the environment has no attraction to it) or it finds itself in a spot of equilibrium. The earth finds itself in a spot of active equilibrium within our solar system, for instance. Simply having a spin-well-function within one's own environment means that a larger environmental attraction can be overcome at a spot of balance.
Had the earth been heavier or lighter, we would have moved into a different spot in relation to the sun to be in balance with that larger spin-well. This should be considered an active adjustment, but the differences of space matter falling towards earth changing our overall weight are so slight, we'd not experience this in our daily lives.
And this is were there is an interesting potential for space travelling. If stationed at a specific spot, a space shuttle could be lifted out of 'our well' and move on the other plane of movement in our dynamic universe. It needs to move to the edge of our spin-well in that location where the sun's spin-well is then also at an equilibrium due to cancelling out of gravitational forces.
I would start out with small robots with transmitters on board so we could track it/them, before putting people in such location. That would be a safer way to learn the circumstances of dynamics of our environment without the influence of our solar system. The fun part is that those locations would not be in deep space, but already near earth (but not too near). When flying over those spots with speed nothing happens; one needs to be stationed in place in such location and slowly shift away from our spin-wells. I do not know if that would change travelling to Mars into a trip of a single day, but it would definitively speed things up quite a bit.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Okay let me give you a scenario. We know the dent in space time caused by a massive object like the Sun causes gravity. But if any particle stops just short of the start of the dent, then would that particle not feel any force at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
Hi Dipayankar,
I do not know what you mean with well. I will respond to your question as if it your reference to the center of the spin in my example of water spinning in a bucket with straight walls?
If so, I would explain it as follows: the results we see are the results of 13 (or 15) billion years of action. We cannot recreate the universe, it has already been established (as the dynamic place we see today). Over that many years, close to no particle will not have fallen into the center of the spin.
The particle you mention as being outside the well is in my opinion either non-existing, or existing in a location of solitude (area with absence of a well). Space dust particles, for instance, can be considered to be so light, there is no well-formation among it, no spin. Naturally, in areas with nova's a local recreation of the universe is taking place, so there you'd find the dynamics somewhat of what I think you are referring to.
In general, our universe is already created, so we should not be looking to explain gravity as occurring from the Big Bang to now, but only as now.
Having said that, if we take that particle that could potentially fall into the well but doesn't, how would that go about? If that particle moves over the threshold then it is captured in the environment of the well and will (sooner or later) be captured in the well. But if it stays clear from the environment of the well then two things can happen: either it moves away from the environment (the environment has no attraction to it) or it finds itself in a spot of equilibrium. The earth finds itself in a spot of active equilibrium within our solar system, for instance. Simply having a spin-well-function within one's own environment means that a larger environmental attraction can be overcome at a spot of balance.
Had the earth been heavier or lighter, we would have moved into a different spot in relation to the sun to be in balance with that larger spin-well. This should be considered an active adjustment, but the differences of space matter falling towards earth changing our overall weight are so slight, we'd not experience this in our daily lives.
And this is were there is an interesting potential for space travelling. If stationed at a specific spot, a space shuttle could be lifted out of 'our well' and move on the other plane of movement in our dynamic universe. It needs to move to the edge of our spin-well in that location where the sun's spin-well is then also at an equilibrium due to cancelling out of gravitational forces.
I would start out with small robots with transmitters on board so we could track it/them, before putting people in such location. That would be a safer way to learn the circumstances of dynamics of our environment without the influence of our solar system. The fun part is that those locations would not be in deep space, but already near earth (but not too near). When flying over those spots with speed nothing happens; one needs to be stationed in place in such location and slowly shift away from our spin-wells. I do not know if that would change travelling to Mars into a trip of a single day, but it would definitively speed things up quite a bit.
Okay let me give you a scenario. We know the dent in space time caused by a massive object like the Sun causes gravity. But if any particle stops just short of the start of the dent, then would that particle not feel any force at all?
Einstein already answered that question with his General Relativity. Gravity is location specific. We do not experience the pull from galaxies at the opposite side of the universe. Yet it is dynamics that would answer your specific question.
First of all, we experience the gravity of the earth.
Secondly, we then experience the gravities of the sun and the moon, and to some extent of the solar system as a whole and planets in specifics. The sun in the middle as our largest close by gravitational object makes everything in our solar system circle it (though all circle also themselves, though if they are moons then they circle their planet, and in some cases possibly themselves as well). Many 'solar systems' are double star systems with neither of the two objects perfectly in the middle.
Thirdly, we then experience the gravitational forces of all other stars and systems in our milky way, yet none of the objects is large nor strong enough to become the center object in our galaxy. In other words, the group gravity is not centered around a single largest object, rather it is a groups gravity — a gravitational collective — that we are part of.
Fourthly, we only experience the gravitational forces of those objects (like galaxies) that occur in our neighborhood of the universe. Our universe did not come into being because the forces between all matter were so strong, but because they were too weak to maintain the original potential universe. Just because the process of materialization was 'finished' doesn't mean the original forces of attraction of the potential universe would be restored all of a sudden.
Conclusion: gravity is a circumstantial force that exists within a variety of situations with predictable outcomes.
If an object is on a course away from the Big Bang and parallel to our earth/solar system/galaxy in time/space it will ultimately converge with us, but if there is just a single one-millionth of a degree of separation away from us over say a thousand light years (which in time/space is quite easily achieved) then we'll keep moving apart. If you understand this as classical physics, that'd be fine with me. I believe there is nothing special about gravity, and last time I looked the evidence for a black hole was maybe a lot, but also each and every piece of evidence was circumstantial. I believe galaxies do not have objects in the middle, and if there are any, then they would be weak gravitational object — just like a small pebble can get stuck in a whirlpool in a river (leaving evidence of carving out the rocks around it before it's completely grind down itself as well).
The black hole theory is a theory. My theory does not require any additional information, and is complete in itself already. I acknowledge that ash could be created from matter stuck (or torn apart) at the center of galaxies, and as such I should call my theory the Ash Hole Theory, but as you can understand that is kind of funny. Suggestions?
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Since this is still called the three tread, I will try to place three within the phenomenon of gravity. As one part I would take the universal direction: outwardly. Translated to a local situation, this means 'all' matter in our universe is moving in a single overall direction, away from Point X (the Big Bang).
As two and three, I propose the relative movements of attraction of matter towards each other. These actions can be seen as oppositional.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Sorry for the disapperance. I was reading a book called The Biography of The Universe. There it is suggested that Gravitrons cause gravity. Why and how would gravitron from sun travel for 8 minutes and bind us to the sun??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
Einstein already answered that question with his General Relativity. Gravity is location specific. We do not experience the pull from galaxies at the opposite side of the universe. Yet it is dynamics that would answer your specific question.
First of all, we experience the gravity of the earth.
Secondly, we then experience the gravities of the sun and the moon, and to some extent of the solar system as a whole and planets in specifics. The sun in the middle as our largest close by gravitational object makes everything in our solar system circle it (though all circle also themselves, though if they are moons then they circle their planet, and in some cases possibly themselves as well). Many 'solar systems' are double star systems with neither of the two objects perfectly in the middle.
Thirdly, we then experience the gravitational forces of all other stars and systems in our milky way, yet none of the objects is large nor strong enough to become the center object in our galaxy. In other words, the group gravity is not centered around a single largest object, rather it is a groups gravity — a gravitational collective — that we are part of.
Fourthly, we only experience the gravitational forces of those objects (like galaxies) that occur in our neighborhood of the universe. Our universe did not come into being because the forces between all matter were so strong, but because they were too weak to maintain the original potential universe. Just because the process of materialization was 'finished' doesn't mean the original forces of attraction of the potential universe would be restored all of a sudden.
Conclusion: gravity is a circumstantial force that exists within a variety of situations with predictable outcomes.
If an object is on a course away from the Big Bang and parallel to our earth/solar system/galaxy in time/space it will ultimately converge with us, but if there is just a single one-millionth of a degree of separation away from us over say a thousand light years (which in time/space is quite easily achieved) then we'll keep moving apart. If you understand this as classical physics, that'd be fine with me. I believe there is nothing special about gravity, and last time I looked the evidence for a black hole was maybe a lot, but also each and every piece of evidence was circumstantial. I believe galaxies do not have objects in the middle, and if there are any, then they would be weak gravitational object — just like a small pebble can get stuck in a whirlpool in a river (leaving evidence of carving out the rocks around it before it's completely grind down itself as well).
The black hole theory is a theory. My theory does not require any additional information, and is complete in itself already. I acknowledge that ash could be created from matter stuck (or torn apart) at the center of galaxies, and as such I should call my theory the Ash Hole Theory, but as you can understand that is kind of funny. Suggestions?
Linear Mode
