Does this explain what generates gravity?

I still prefer phonons.

However, phonons remain theoretical. Here's the background:

The traditional view of sound is that it is a wave motion which transfers energy without transporting mass.

The new theory suggests that sound is a particle motion. The particles of sound are called phonons and they interact with a gravitational field in a way that requires them to transport mass as they move.

For a 1-second-long, 1-watt sound wave in water, the amount of mass would be about 0.1 milligrams. “It’s honest-to-God gravitational mass, the type we experience every day.”


  • Octonion.jpg
    153.4 KB · Views: 12
imaginary time

Yes, another mathematical simplification!

Quantum theory introduces the concept of imaginary time. Think of ordinary time as a horizontal line. On the left is the past, and on the right is the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time! Being perpendicular to real-time, it allows for everything to occur all at once. o_O


Imaginary time is used in several equations across quantum mechanics and general relativity and brings us back round to Wick's rotation.

Author of Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll (aka mathematician Charles Dodgson) did not believe that it was justified to use imaginary numbers in mathematics.

In the Mad Hatter's tea party it was always tea-time, no matter the time, because time had left the room. According to Dodgson, the whole world would eventually turn into a massive Mad Hatter’s tea party if imaginary numbers had their way.

I read it here:
Last edited:
Does time exist? :unsure:

Is time just a figment of our imagination?

I think it's fair to say that physicists are in no doubt that time exists, but are a bit divided on what causes its existence.

When we ask what it means to say that time exists, we may be straying into ontology.
I had a look at the paper on Gravity interacting with photons, and it seems within the area of the well-known. We know gravity bends light. And gravity fields have mass themselves.

Rodney Bartlett seems to be a hobbyist physicist without a college affiliation. He seems to be using a geometrical approach to Physics, which is OK, since Quaternions are another way of doing calculations aside the more commonplace Scalars, Vectors and Tensors.

Totally above my pay grade, mathematically, so hard to know if he has achieved anything. I found another paper of his where he discusses Anyons, which might be a dark matter candidate:

His 2019 paper:


All far too difficult for most of us, I think.

I am trying to refresh my knowledge of Classical Mechanics:

Very interesting discussion of symmetry and Noether's Theorem and a refresher on Vectors and Scalars. I am also reading Susskind's book on Classical Mechanics. The Theoretical Minimum series.

Classical Mechanics is full of surprises on Forces. Centrifugal Force and Coriolis Force for instance.
We "know", at best, "materials" "bend" "light"-)

According to RT, "gravity" would "let" "light" "fall"-)

That also gravity FIELDS (!!!) would have mass, is, as if magnetic field lines had thickness. Pure NONSENSE;-)

This is consequence of missing ontology, more exactly: missing distinction of object and concept: Our "physicists" are mostly "philosophers", and also only unsuitable;-)
As an interested home Physics student, I don't have much problem with Classical Gravity and General Relativity. All seems to work.

Our Quantum friends do have problems with it. It's not Quantum enough for them!

Of course the GR equation is easy enough to write down. But is, AFAIK, a nightmare to solve except for simple symmetrical cases.

If Rodney Bartlett's musings on photons and gravitons are pursued, we must know that Electromagnetism is linear, but Gravity is not.

Hot debate at Researchgate on this, got quite abusive actually:

Gravity Question.png

Ah, what joy. Top Physicist Gerard t Hooft explains it in slightly less than layman's terms. :cool:

Gerard t Hooft on Gravity.png

Some grumbles from the back of the class about "Professionals"!

Gravity Layman Grumbles.png

I suspect he hasn't done his homework!

Hope that clears it up. :)
Last edited:
If we would accept Quantum as nonsense (concept), maybe we would also realize that the increase of nonsense did not make more sense;-)
.. or Quanta? Summation of nonsense-s;-?

The reification of concepts happens unintentionally via nounification in language:
For example: vacuum = emptiness (incorrect word) = nothing; no-thing, no thing; much more exact: not!
(NOT does not exist: has no space. Space has no/not NOT. Not does not fluctuate. And so on;-)
... "Space" is at best a synonym for "not"-)