Musings On Time And Gravity

[ThoughtSpace]

let me preface this by fully admitting that I have no background in physics and am a layman at best. I am not making a claim that I have solved anything or have any definitive proof. It is simply a break down of some thoughts I've had and would welcome any and all feedback, no matter how painful that may be to me.

 

It is also difficult to relay in written form what I'm actually thinking as I generally see it as a whole concept and it can be frustrating to break it down in coherent ways that can be followed easily by others. To that end I'll simply write out each step of my thought process as it led me.

 

      It started with pondering about time and specifically, time dilation. Time dilation is a proven phenomena. There is no question that it occurs. The famous experiment where two clocks were synchronized and one of the two was placed on a plane clearly showed that time dilation is a fact. Einstein's calculations account for the dilation and as I understand it SR cannot work without it. Which led to wonder why the dilation works.

 

    So, time dilation is a fact and mathematics support and rely on it . But this led to the question; How do we measure time? After much reading and researching I found time is measured by giving a state of change a constant in relation to other known constant states of change or by calculations using the speed of light. For instance, after breaking down predictable large and easily noticeable changes in state, a fraction of that state became an acceptable measurement. Days to hours to minutes to seconds. Once a measurement was established devices were created that gave regular, countable changes in state that were then interpreted in to accepted measurements. For example; a quartz crystal to which a current is applied vibrates X amount of times in an accepted second therefore count the vibration equal to one second to measure a second. 

 

    This led to an idea that simply explained was; What if time as a fundamental force of the universe doesn't dilate as it would need to do as SR predicted but the processes by which time is measured slow down? This idea would mean that something is actually slowing the vibrations or states of change that are measured to give a unit of time. If an observer was subjected to the same forces at the same time then the observer would themselves have all processes slowed and would conceivable be unaware of any changes. This leads to the next question; What could be slowing down these processes and at what scale is the interaction?

 

  I came upon the hypothesis ( based on thought experiments and zero data to back it up  ) that there is a weak energy that permeates the universe at the sub-atomic or perhaps the quantum level of matter ( I had thought perhaps about strings, strings vibrate and I remembered reading a paper where the frequency of the vibration of the string determined the matter state of particles but this is still a thought experiment in the making ).  I imagined this energy ( for lack of better words) being intertwined with matter at its smallest simplest form. This led to thinking of matter ,approaching higher and higher relativistic velocities , building a pressure wave ahead of it. This pressure wave would be in a condensed state and slow the processes of the matter entangled in it. Much like the difference between a person running in air and running in water.

 

   If this energy can be compressed perhaps it can flow? And because my brain makes weird leaps this naturally made me think about gravity. Since i was a little kid I had always been fascinated that two objects of differing mass will accelerate exactly the same when dropped. I learned A little after that the basic laws of motion. The laws make sense. they're provable and predictable through math and experimentation. But gravity always bothered me. The math works but for some reason it seemed to me the math was made to fit the observed phenomena without knowing why it was happening. As I understand it gravity is predictable, can be measured through applying math to the observation, and is unknown beyond it being a force of attraction.

 

  I started thinking of a thought experiment where the observed affect of gravity was not  based on an attraction of object but rather an object flowing to another object. I thought of two object of differing mass held against a current of a stream. The problem with that is a comparative experiment could not use mass. An object held against the flow of water would need a resistant force based on the volume of the object and not its mass. Volume is not a factor in gravity but we can use it as a substitute in the experiment. The universal energy postulated earlier interacts with all matter in a given object as I postulate it would flow through matter and the greater the amount of matter ( mass ) the greater the resistance. So, if we substitute the volume in the experiment in exchange of mass we would have two objects with differing resistance to the flowing water in the stream. Each of the objects would also require a differing amount of force to remain stationary in relation to the flowing water much in gravity two objects of differing mass require differing amounts of force to suspend stationary in relation to the ground. If the force keeping the object stationary in the stream was removed both objects would be carried by the flowing water accelerating at the same rate mimicking the motions of gravity. For it to be true reproduction of gravity the flow of water in the stream would have to accelerating infinitely but that will be covered shortly.

 

 

     

[ThoughtSpace]

Continued.

 

  Now I start thinking what if gravity is not an attractive force on matter by matter but instead is a force of attraction on universal energy BY matter. This would mean that object of lesser mass ( less entanglement in the energy ) would be caught in the flow of energy to the more massive objects. But how to account for the acceleration of mass caught in a gravity well. Thinking of a well gave me an idea. What if there was a giant pool of water and in the middle if the volume of water was a specific point with suction? From a distance the suction would be negligible and the flow toward the source would be minimal. But as the water flows to the point of suction it would accelerate as it got closer. The larger the point of suction the more water would be pulled towards it and the greater the acceleration in proximity.

 

   This hypothetical energy field opens many more questions.

 

  -If it builds a shock wave as velocities increase is there a terminal velocity for all matter in the universe?

  -Is the terminal velocity of light the greatest because it has the least mass.

  -Does the energy have higher and lower density area's and could that account for unexpected higher or lower velocities in             spacecraft using gravity assisted maneuvers?

  -Was this energy created in the Big Bang and does it perhaps account for the need for dark matter?

  -If it was created in the Big Bang did it wash ahead of the visible matter carrying everything along with it?

  -Where does it go or what happens to it once absorbed by matter? Contribute to the Thermal dynamics in stars?                           Compressed in to other particles? Neutrinos?

  -Can the effect of the pressure wave be predicted by observing heating of an object at high velocities relative to its'                       surrounding?

 -As the universe expands does the energy field become less and less dense?

-Would objects at great distances appear to accelerate as the field becomes less dense and the deceleration decreases.

 

Anyway, just some musings.

 

Thanks for reading 

[spartan45]

 Einstein's calculations account for the dilation and as I understand it SR cannot work without it. Which led to wonder why the dilation works.

   

Hi ThoughtSpace,

 

You mention special relativity, but seem to overlook general relativity. Each have an important effect on time, although I find general relativity the more interesting of the two because gravity is a very mysterious force. It is also very controversial, as my ideas on gravity almost brought about an immediate ban on one forum! I’m much more careful now.

Anyway, to summarise:  

 

Special Relativity

Special relativity means moving clocks run slow.

 

General Relativity

General relativity means the stronger a gravity field is, the slower clocks run.

The equations for general relativity are much more complicated than for special relativity. Einstein showed by calculation the effect on the orbit of Mercury due to the gravity field of the Sun.

 

Type into Google ‘How much were the clocks of Apollo craft affected by space travel’ and the top answer listed is mine from Jul 2015 on stargazerslounge. That is if you are interested  seeing both SR formula and GR at work.

[ThoughtSpace]

Hi ThoughtSpace,

 

You mention special relativity, but seem to overlook general relativity. Each have an important effect on time, although I find general relativity the more interesting of the two because gravity is a very mysterious force. It is also very controversial, as my ideas on gravity almost brought about an immediate ban on one forum! I’m much more careful now.

Anyway, to summarise:  

 

Special Relativity

Special relativity means moving clocks run slow.

 

General Relativity

General relativity means the stronger a gravity field is, the slower clocks run.

The equations for general relativity are much more complicated than for special relativity. Einstein showed by calculation the effect on the orbit of Mercury due to the gravity field of the Sun.

 

Type into Google ‘How much were the clocks of Apollo craft affected by space travel’ and the top answer listed is mine from Jul 2015 on stargazerslounge. That is if you are interested  seeing both SR formula and GR at work.

 

You're right. I was aware of time dilation in regards to GR but because of the way I hold ideas in my mind it is difficult to get it all out in writing.

 

For instance, I omitted that the concept of the ( again for lack of better words ) energy field in regards to kinetic motion. 

And at this point it is the most difficult to put into words what I can clearly see as a concept in my mind. 

 

We all know Newton's laws. Object at rest etc. No-one really knows why but it is believed to related to mass. My hypothesis actually accounts for that too.

If all matter is entangled in this force then a specific amount of force would be needed to overcome the entanglement resistance in direct correlation to the objects mass.  As to an object in motion etc. It has been observed in hydrodynamic models that there is a cushion between the object in motion and the medium through which it travels. This cushion could conceivably form around any object in motion through the energy field as well. But not on the actual physical surface of the object but around each individual basic element of the object. Think of it as a friction free bubble that greatly lessens the entanglement resistance.

 

I had also conceived that it is perhaps this energy field that acts as the medium for the transmission of radio waves.    

[spartan45]

 

 

For instance, I omitted that the concept of the ( again for lack of better words ) energy field in regards to kinetic motion. 

This cushion could conceivably form around any object in motion through the energy field as well. But not on the actual physical surface of the object but around each individual basic element of the object. Think of it as a friction free bubble that greatly lessens the entanglement resistance.

 

I had also conceived that it is perhaps this energy field that acts as the medium for the transmission of radio waves.    

 

It seems you might be referring to the Higgs field, described as an energy field thought to exist everywhere in the universe. I found Google’s top answer from Wikipedia to ‘Higgs field’ made interesting reading. It does say though that the ‘Higgs effect’ of giving a particle mass or energy as it passes through the field would only give light (electromagnetic radiation / radio waves) energy, not mass, because it is a wave.

 

[ThoughtSpace]

 

It seems you might be referring to the Higgs field, described as an energy field thought to exist everywhere in the universe. I found Google’s top answer from Wikipedia to ‘Higgs field’ made interesting reading. It does say though that the ‘Higgs effect’ of giving a particle mass or energy as it passes through the field would only give light (electromagnetic radiation / radio waves) energy, not mass, because it is a wave.

 

I am aware of the Higgs field but my problems with it is that the theory behind it still tries to fit it in to the currently accepted rules. What I have been musing is not that the field gives mass to that which passes through it but rather that the resistance to traveling through it accounts for observed mass. The greater the entanglement, the greater the mass. I have further theorized that particles discovered in accelerators are actually compressed forms of the energy that have extremely short lives due to reacquiring it's natural state in short order.

Again .... no evidence or data... just some thoughts 

[spartan45]

I am aware of the Higgs field but my problems with it is that the theory behind it still tries to fit it in to the currently accepted rules. What I have been musing is not that the field gives mass to that which passes through it but rather that the resistance to traveling through it accounts for observed mass. The greater the entanglement, the greater the mass. I have further theorized that particles discovered in accelerators are actually compressed forms of the energy that have extremely short lives due to reacquiring it's natural state in short order.

Again .... no evidence or data... just some thoughts 

Now this is much clearer and at last I can follow your thinking. The concept is ‘outside of the box’ and very interesting. Perhaps a day will come when computer simulations can to help verify (or otherwise!) the idea. In any case, thanks for the brain food.

 

[ThoughtSpace]

 

Now this is much clearer and at last I can follow your thinking. The concept is ‘outside of the box’ and very interesting. Perhaps a day will come when computer simulations can to help verify (or otherwise!) the idea. In any case, thanks for the brain food.

 

I did say I had difficulties expressing my ideas in writing. lol.

I don't believe my ideas are close to being subjected to simulations as yet. These are many facets of observed behavior that I still need to investigate and apply to my current model.

Just this morning I started thinking about red shift in objects moving away from the observer. I had an idea that could be explained by the pressure wave of the moving object and as time dilates so does the frequency of light slow to the red band. Not fully explored yet.... just an idea in the embryo form.

[A-wal]

I came upon the hypothesis ( based on thought experiments and zero data to back it up  ) that there is a weak energy that permeates the universe at the sub-atomic or perhaps the quantum level of matter ( I had thought perhaps about strings, strings vibrate and I remembered reading a paper where the frequency of the vibration of the string determined the matter state of particles but this is still a thought experiment in the making ).  I imagined this energy ( for lack of better words) being intertwined with matter at its smallest simplest form. This led to thinking of matter ,approaching higher and higher relativistic velocities , building a pressure wave ahead of it. This pressure wave would be in a condensed state and slow the processes of the matter entangled in it. Much like the difference between a person running in air and running in water.

All inertial motion is relative. If an object is moving away from an observer then it's time dilated and length contracted from the 'stationary' object's perspective but from the perspective of the 'moving' object it's the other object that's moving and that's time dilated and length contracted. What you're talking about is some kind of aether, something that special relativity does away with because it isn't needed and simpler is better if it achieves the same results.

 

Since i was a little kid I had always been fascinated that two objects of differing mass will accelerate exactly the same when dropped.

Of course they do. If two objects covered in glue were falling and touched each other so that they stuck together and could then be thought of as a single heavier object would you expect that to increase their acceleration? If one object were falling and was sliced in two as it fell through a blade would you expect that to decrease their acceleration?

Edited February 2, 2017 by A-wal