Is gravity = time?

Your post did not give any answer related to E=MC^2 at the beginning of this thread until I wrote the entire equation.

It is an "add-on" answer after you have seen the equation. You have modified your post and make it like you have been answering it. Your post was not like that nor mention anything about E=MC^2 during the first week of this thread. It was "edited" and I am 100% sure about.
Click to expand...


You are 100% wrong. It is plain for all to see that my post existed a full 4 days before your 'equation'. I am at a complete loss to see what difference it makes anyway....as I was merely stating the blindingly obvious. E=MC^2 ( and it's meaning in relation to time ) is not exactly some esoteric formula known only to the Illuminati.
 
If all motion stopped in the universe, would there be such a thing as time?
(the measurement).



I know alot of people think about planetary bodies singularly when thinking of the effects of a large body, though wouldn't galaxies collectively moving be a more unified factor?
Doesn't cannibalistic galaxies show this?
 
Motion should be irrelevant to the passage of time. All points in time are simultaneous as believed by Einstein the past present and future. Gravity slows the perceived passage of time for objects with mass which is why I believe we experience time. As for a photon which has no mass, its point of departure and arrival from its emitted source are simultaneous to the photons perspective but light is bent by gravity which is an effect on space-time caused by an object with mass. So light and time alike have their paths bent and elongated in the presence of gravity. Also the constant c corresponds to the speed limit of time. If you were to travel at the speed of c, photons around you would float motionless in a fixed position in space and time due to you moving at a constant rate with them, much like if you were to run at the same speed as a bullet fired. You could easily reach over pluck the bullet from the air because it would appear motionless in relation to your velocity.

My point here is that time and space are connected. For motion to stop, time should also stop if you are moving at the speed of c. Also there is a Bose-Einstein Condensate which is so cold that a beam of light can be slowed down almost to a complete stop.

I hope this has helped, I've tried not to ramble too much
 
Are you saying a photon has no mass for creating accurate expressions, or that indeed, no matter how micro the scale in the technological future - it's mass will always reside for what we understand as "zero"? Absolute nothing?
That's interesting, I can understand that for a wave, however doesn't a particle have a theorectical x, y, z sphereical coordinate?
It makes sense that in the sense I may or any massive object may pass through it, though is it not the act of displacement, otherwise it would make sense that something with no mass - the particle should be able to travel through dense mass, which we know light cannot.
Photon-photon collision?

If a photon, or wave of light had no visual quality....what other "massless" particles are floating around which we have no idea?
 
Are you saying a photon has no mass for creating accurate expressions, or that indeed, no matter how micro the scale in the technological future - it's mass will always reside for what we understand as "zero"? Absolute nothing?
That's interesting, I can understand that for a wave, however doesn't a particle have a theorectical x, y, z sphereical coordinate?
Click to expand...


Strictly speaking, the term is 'rest mass'. Which for a photon is zero.

Because photons have no charge ( though some speculate it may exist but be extremely small ) this means the entire energy of a photon is energy of motion.
 
That's interesting, there's definately a few paradoxes here.

Vibration vs. transition of points


So something with zero resting mass could be said to be "non-physical"?
How is something non-physical subject to motion?

Perhaps the answer rests somewhere else?
 
On another thread Walex tells a story--I'm not sure I remember it--about a religious service for elementary particles where they were all waiting for the Higgs Boson to arrive, because without they couldn't have mass!
 
So something with zero resting mass could be said to be "non-physical"?
How is something non-physical subject to motion?
Click to expand...

Photons are certainly physical, they just don't have mass. To put it another way...mass is what happens when you bring a photon to rest, for example if it hits another photon. If there was some way you could slow down a photon.....it would start to gain mass as it slowed. This is the inverse of objects gaining mass as they approach the speed of light......it is the opposite side of the same equation.
 
That almost makes a theorectical thing I've read about another form of human evolution almost make sense...in terms of conscious thought, etc.

On a side note though, that plays into a very larger thing I've 'oft wondered.
Even if this is our first experience of perceived time flow, is it necessarily the same for light, and a few other variables?

Thinking about how light is a carrier of information, at least visually over time and space...

Is it possible that light is the inverse?

If other Netwonian laws vs. Quantum properties of light are the inverse...
'Would explain alot. Including the double slit observation
 
This response is for Angleochaos.

The double-slit observation you mentioned can be looked at in another way besides every possible outcome has happened in an alternate universe or time-line.

Instead think of the light-cone representation of time in special relativity. Where in Minkowski space-time there are two cones of light emanating from two opposite points of one event in space-time like an hourglass. In the immediate vicinity of the event the tips of the cones are small representing a small amount of possible outcomes, and the further in space and time you get from the event the larger the diameter of the cone and the larger amount of possible outcomes.

The further forward or back you are to move in time, the greater amount of possible variance in time and space.

I like this representation better because it doesn't leave me wondering about alternate universes.

An interesting exercise is if a photon does not experience time because it travels at c, but it does travel through space. Then how would it fall into this representation of the light cones and time, because light does travel a distance over a quantity of time, and photons are not in existence from the big bang until the end of the known universe they have a finite lifespan and are created and destroyed, or light bulbs could not turn off and on. Instead, light itself, a photon does not experience time, but its emission source does by taking one form of energy, whether it is electricity or hydrogen and converts it into light which would be the event between the two light cones.
 
Fascinating stuff.

On another note, it seems alot of what I speculate has already been pondered...

I started looking into vortices, how the function can be applied with other sciences etc, etc.
Electromagnetic fields, etc...

Check this out;
Electromagnetic Vortex Enery

So that old post about Nazi UFO's wasn't pure wild paranoid conspiracy?

Those conduit lines are HUGE for such a small structure.
 
Something else that might interest you is the LHC. Before 2010 we will hear about some interesting concepts coming from CERN and some of the work they will be carrying out.
 
Back
Top