Moderator: Flannel Jesus
surreptitious75 wrote:Gravity is more the effect of spacetime on objects of mass rather than a fundamental force
barbarianhorde wrote:Gravity is just a mathematic of acceleration.
But light can't accelerate, so it is ultra light.
I wonder if in acceleration, time moves in more fps. lol.
Serendipper wrote:Velocity of a charged particle produces an electric field and acceleration of a charged particle produces a magnetic field in addition to the electric field which produces an electromagnetic field or light (heat). All EMF is heat because heat is defined as energy in motion. I wonder if a charged particle in the presence of gravity will give off heat as if it had been accelerated.
Silhouette wrote:Light is affected by gravity, by the way.
Hence black holes: even light cannot escape its gravitational pull up until its event horizon.
Light has no mass, so something else is causing this - i.e. the curvature of spacetime.
I'm suggesting that even gravity itself is just a name for curvature through a second time dimension. There never was "gravity" in the first place, just topology.
My theory for the expansion of the universe is that it's just "uncurving" spacetime. This is why light can't keep up with it all - despite the incredible speed of light it can't keep up with space and time unfolding against it. If it could, then we would only ever see light from all the stars in the universe shining down on us. But as it is, the observable universe has a limit, so only a limited number of star's light reaches us and so we only see dots in the night sky instead of plain whiteness.
barbarianhorde wrote:Even possibly, light has only potential because of gravity.
But it should have a mass, like a Plack-mass or something.
Serendipper wrote:barbarianhorde wrote:Even possibly, light has only potential because of gravity.
But it should have a mass, like a Plack-mass or something.
Hot coffee has more mass than cold coffee because E=mc^2.
E=hf as well, so mc^2=hf and m=hf/c^2. Mass is a function of frequency.
barbarianhorde wrote:Serendipper wrote:barbarianhorde wrote:Even possibly, light has only potential because of gravity.
But it should have a mass, like a Plack-mass or something.
Hot coffee has more mass than cold coffee because E=mc^2.
Not sure, as heat means the atoms are vibrating more and the molecules need more space. So the density actually becomes less which Im sure is more significant than alterations on quantum level. So I mean a cold cup poured to the brim is prolly heavier than a hot cup poured to the brim.
E=hf as well, so mc^2=hf and m=hf/c^2. Mass is a function of frequency.
But something still must have that frequency and every something has mass... no?
Silhouette wrote:I don't know if this is already established science, but I've been trying to conceptualise the notion that gravity is warped spacetime in my own way - as follows:
I started by considering how a 2D graph of space (y axis) against time (x axis) behaves when bent around a sphere - so that the y axis goes up and around the sphere vertically, and the x axis wraps around the middle of the sphere horizontally. If you were to draw a horizontal line anywhere along y axis (y=n) when the graph is in 2D, that line would get curved when bent around a 3D sphere to eventually meet the x axis in just the same way that the y axis does - like a falling motion. This represents the rate of decrease of distance between two points in space (acceleration) relative to one another simply by conceiving of time in an extra dimension.
Of course, this can be represented on a 3D graph just as easily, if not more easily, with a curved line that looks horizontal when viewed straight along the z axis (a second time axis) at the y (spatial) coordinate where it starts. As you rotate the view 90 degrees to look down the y axis, the curve becomes more and more pronounced.
I've since been pondering the famous F=ma equation, and rearranging it to be in terms of time with two dimensions - more specifically rate of change of time: 1/time^2 or t^-2. The "a" in the equation is of course "m/s/s" (metres per second squared i.e. acceleration, "a"), so if you divide both sides of the equation by a product of mass (m) and distance (d), you get t^-2 = F/md
This equation elucidates the description of force (F) as proportional to the rate of change in time i.e. the rate at which time is bent along a second dimension. Interestingly it also shows how the degree to which time is curved is inversely proportional to distance, which is quite intuitive when you consider that when time is curved around a second dimension (something is accelerated due to a force), the vector distance between the start point and the end point is reduced. What is also interesting is how it shows that mass is inversely proportional to time curvature, which to me perhaps suggests that mass is the result of a lack of curvature (in contact with it you don't accelerate), yet the force around mass (gravitational field) that isn't the mass itself is where time is being curved around a second dimension and acceleration does occur. Most interestingly, I think, is that this conception does away with the mystery of inertia (see Newton's laws of motion).
If there are any scientists (or otherwise I suppose) who have any input here, I'm interested in what feedback you have to offer.
lordoflight wrote:Okay, why are we discussing spheres? Gravity is emitted by any shape, including borg cubes.
lordoflight wrote:Okay, why are we discussing spheres? Gravity is emitted by any shape, including borg cubes.
Silhouette wrote:lordoflight wrote:Okay, why are we discussing spheres? Gravity is emitted by any shape, including borg cubes.
Let me know when cubes are more curved than spheres.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: gib