Most objects move much slower than the speed of light and will therefore travel much farther in time than in space.
Consequently they are mainly subject to time curvature.
The Newtonian analysis is fine for such objects.
Light, which moves at speed c, will experience equal amounts of space and time curvature.
That's why light bends twice as far as Newtonian physics would predict.
I am still fascinated by the idea of time as a product of energy dissipation and think it’s much more fundamental than ‘its an illusion’.
Clearly we don’t have a mathematical explanation for gravity yet, but it seems to me that if you accelerate an object you have to have expended energy (by applying a force to the object). I like to think of this as shifting an objects temporal frame reference.
But, the reverse is also true: if an object is exposed to a change in time, it will feel a force. So to my mind, it’s the fact that time is warped around a massive object that imparts an accelerative force on nearby objects - we perceive that as mass.
Now, I suspect the particle guys will call in the Higgs bosun . . .
Clearly we don’t have a mathematical explanation for gravity yet, but it seems to me that if you accelerate an object you have to have expended energy (by applying a force to the object). I like to think of this as shifting an objects temporal frame reference.
But, the reverse is also true: if an object is exposed to a change in time, it will feel a force. So to my mind, it’s the fact that time is warped around a massive object that imparts an accelerative force on nearby objects - we perceive that as mass.
Now, I suspect the particle guys will call in the Higgs bosun . . .
The current thinking is it is possible to move forwards in Time, but not Backwards.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/...ravel-really-possible-heres-what-physics-says
Fear not @geoffkait, we'll make a proper Scientist of you yet, being an inclusive Society. Abandon "The Path of WOO aka Pseudo-Science" and become more Receive than Transmit!
I have the conceit to only interest myself in IMPORTANT problems.
Firstly, fascinating Scientific Black Hole adventures by Astronomer Andy Fabian who worked with X-Ray observations from Rockets and Satellites:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lmdt
What does this mean?
The brightest X-Ray source in the sky is the Perseus Cluster. X-Rays of energy between 3.5 and 6.8 keV. For comparison, as any person who works with LEDs knows, red light is a mere 1.6 eV photon and blue light about 3.2 eV.
A rule of thumb is that the globular centre of a Galaxy is 1000 times bigger than the Black Hole at the core. Seems to work.
As for the nature of Time, well clearly it is different from Space.
I often feel I have to do all the mathematical work round here, but it is my understanding that the rate at which time flows locally is directly related to the gravitational potential. But to complicate the calculation, an orbiting object has it's local time also slowed down by it's orbital velocity.
But I think we can get a good idea with mere Newtonian Mechanics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
I shall ponder this problem. How hard can it be?
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/...ravel-really-possible-heres-what-physics-says
Fear not @geoffkait, we'll make a proper Scientist of you yet, being an inclusive Society. Abandon "The Path of WOO aka Pseudo-Science" and become more Receive than Transmit!
I have the conceit to only interest myself in IMPORTANT problems.
Firstly, fascinating Scientific Black Hole adventures by Astronomer Andy Fabian who worked with X-Ray observations from Rockets and Satellites:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lmdt
What does this mean?
The brightest X-Ray source in the sky is the Perseus Cluster. X-Rays of energy between 3.5 and 6.8 keV. For comparison, as any person who works with LEDs knows, red light is a mere 1.6 eV photon and blue light about 3.2 eV.
A rule of thumb is that the globular centre of a Galaxy is 1000 times bigger than the Black Hole at the core. Seems to work.
As for the nature of Time, well clearly it is different from Space.
I often feel I have to do all the mathematical work round here, but it is my understanding that the rate at which time flows locally is directly related to the gravitational potential. But to complicate the calculation, an orbiting object has it's local time also slowed down by it's orbital velocity.
But I think we can get a good idea with mere Newtonian Mechanics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
I shall ponder this problem. How hard can it be?
I don't see any support for your idea in the above images, Bonsai.
Lee Smolin simply leaves out the maths in his book Time Reborn.
Smolin claims that the reason physicists have come to reject the reality of time is that they have been bewitched by the beauty and success of the mathematical models they use into mistaking those models for reality.
Read about Smolin and his ideas here: https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-incredible-truth-about-time
Lee Smolin simply leaves out the maths in his book Time Reborn.
Smolin claims that the reason physicists have come to reject the reality of time is that they have been bewitched by the beauty and success of the mathematical models they use into mistaking those models for reality.
Read about Smolin and his ideas here: https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-incredible-truth-about-time
Like most others Galu, you see time as a blank canvas, or worse, as an illusion - take your pick. Smolin OTOH thinks it’s intimately interwoven with reality and a manifestation of underlying physical processes. Yet most of science shrugs its shoulders at this concept. Physics is in crises. One can but wonder why.
"Time" as we know it is probably a bit of simplification but it works fairly OK so far for boiling eggs, creating GPS and fly to Mars. Then it gets more unclear what our time really is - perhaps some of the confusion about BB and in cosmology is due to that we use "time" wrongly. There will be an aha breakthrough and it will probably be obvious - why didn't we think about that!!! At 0 Kelvin - does "time" flow? I believe it does not (what ever it is) and that givs me some hints of what time may be all about... at least after a few beers this evening ;-D
//
//
Galu, you don’t seem tolerate anyone that questions your textbook orthodoxy, which is why you never entertain anyone that likes to question things.
See my post #2496. The title of the thread is ‘Does this explain what generates gravity’ but it seems you’re more interested in regurgitating stuff from the web than questioning things which you feel uncomfortable about. You don’t come to a conclusion about stuff unless you question it or challenge it with counter arguments that disprove someone’s hypothesis. You and Steve have done neither on this thread.
The fact remains that time is a highly contentious subject with little agreement on its nature amongst TPs. I’m going to continue exploring the subject and discussing it with anyone who also has an interest in it and an open mind.
If you want to dump on something for being off piste, I’d have thought manifestly crazy claims like the ‘electric universe’, UFO’s, ‘Shakti stones’ or directional speaker cables would have been more your thing, rather than my attempt to more fully understand the nature of time.
