tylers100

I was looking at my own ordinary time clock. I had a notion about relativity while still (and still am) learning about it then came up with this thread, to see if a R.T.C. make sense or is possible or not. Well, possibly about precise as averaged out. With my assumption that most ordinary local time clocks (and others?) are mechanically constant, lacking a natural connectivity with dominant gravity of local ranging to global.

I was looking at a time clock, then I have had a thought about what if were to add a box or container with some water and floating object underneath it. The line connection between the floating object and the time clock. If gravitational influence affect the floating object at some levels, the floating object would tug or pull the tick pointer to move either speed up or slow down depending, yielding a possible and more accurate local time? The reasoning I follow is if more accurate local time, then less the need to adjust local time multiple of times or something like that. Or is my reasoning wrong or need a bit more learning about GR or SR or both? I have attached an image diagram illustrating what I am talking about.

I have heard of Penrose but not his work on tiling. Escher, no until I visited the link. Tessellation, yes but not explored or delved into it in depth not fully yet (formal-wise). Good morning to you too.

A basic number arrangement and draw, a random and kinda trivial but a bit fun activity I did this morning. See attached image.

The temperature here at 1 c last time I checked. I don't mind some coldness of weather.. just not extremely cold. Speaking of temperature.. I once played around with developing a diagram of temperature, not a serious thing but wondered why a standardization of human specific temperature couldn't be based on from this (perhaps not too precise or something like that): 0 (absolute absence of heat) 1 (cold) 2 (warm) 3 (hot) Then developed into Wizard Temperature Formulation (W.T.F.), a human specified temperature, then polished just on this post: 0 ultra cold 0.5 1 extremely cold 1.5 2 moderately cold 2.5 3 low cold 3.5 4 low heat 4.5 5 moderately heat 5.5 6 extremely heat 6.5 7 ultra hot Oh well, just for fun.

At the time of authoring this, I'm kinda taking a break from learning a bit about physics and diagramming (one of my modes of learning; visualization). I ate a lasagna for breakfast, heh.. maybe a bit unorthodox, but omg it tasted delicious. The weather is becoming a bit more colder lately as kinda expected at this time of season, nearing winter time... "Winter is coming."

An update (see attached image). I'm in some degrees of aware that it might be approximately close to right, wrong, or both. I think this is for time being, at least for me. Thanks to you and other posters for participation in this thread so far. Seems more further physics and mathematics would be a step in understanding gravity and etc more better.

Ok, thanks. I'll look into and think about it a bit more in order to learn a bit if it make sense.

Thanks for the link.

Fruits Freefall Toward Earth - Diagram See attached image. I think I kinda understand what you are saying about freefall paths, but have questions below. Same or Different? What I define to be gravitational attraction to be bidirectional lines.. are these similar or same as freefall paths or different? I said this because both seem comparable same. Additionally, I said bidirectional lines (having two arrows at ends of each line) because on gravity wiki said have infinite range but get weaker as objects get farthest away. I assume that is due to the distance of separation between these bidirectional lines (or freefall paths?) if geometrical shape or form is radial in nature? Edited - Another question: I forgot to factor into gravitational acceleration, assumed to be by-product of static gravity in motion? Reference "Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become weaker as objects get farther away." From link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm just learning about the basics of gravity in visual way, a visual approach to physics specially gravity, and to pass time. I'm aware that learning math in order to understand gravity equations would greatly help, but.. math is not my strongest suit. Hence the layman and visual approach as starting point of approach the gravity in physics, science.

Parallel to Geometrical Shape or Form with Mass On the visual gravity diagram, gravitational attraction in form of bidirectional "lines" are parallel to geometrical shape or form of object with mass. The gapness on it, is absence of these bidirectional lines but gravitational field is still present - as shown. Can still has a tendency to gravitate toward within that gapness area while in its gravitational field, just less strength or effects especially without these gravitational attraction bidirectional lines defined by geometry. Radial on 2-D Circle Shape Gravity points radially while within 2-D for conceptual understanding, would be on 2-D circle as defined by its geometrical shape.

A visual gravity diagram I developed, see attached. Just the gravity aspect. Let me know if my understanding of the gravity layman definition is correct or also wrong.

Ah, I see.

See an attached image I developed in order to attempt understand what you said, is it approximately correct or not?:

I'm not sure, off top of my head is recharging Mars' core kind of like recharging a vehicle's dead battery but maybe that is a bit too simple and naive.. ?

Kinda interesting. Natural transition scenario: If build habitable underground zones then maybe inevitably Mars might will have a magnetic field if possible then can move toward habitable surface in future, see: "The seismic measurements from the InSight lander revealed that the Martian outer core is in a liquid state and larger than expected.[19] In one model, a partially crystallized Martian core explains the current state of Mars (i.e., lack of magnetic field despite liquid outer core), and this model predicts that the magnetic field has the potential to be reactivated in the future." from link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_Mars#Dynamo_mechanisms

Ok, I changed my mind: I'll probably look into info about Newton gravity, general relativity, and quantum theory a bit more - and a bit of mathematics related to these if possible too. Sorry about my bit drama manner.

A. You say pictures and words are interpreted differently by different people, meaning some might understand my words & pictures whereas some might not due to not on universal level - perhaps. B. Then you proceed to say my pictures aren't conveying the information I intend, then called it gibberish, then drawing non-nonsensical solutions from them. ...? A contradiction between both A and B. The B is like you absolutely decided my pictures are absolutely not understood by all people. Get it? Anyway, I understand what you meant; I should stfu and move on to learning math and talk math mechanically or else get gtfo of this science forums as it apparently talks math only. /exits

Cross-hatched ("inwardly") intersecting gravity in geometry structure or design may be a key to a realization of alternative artificial gravity option. 3D Screenshot Picture - Gravity Intersection Concept See attached screenshot picture modified by myself with edits: Three objects all same just arranged in different ways resulting in possible conceptually different gravitationally attraction behaviours; uniform intersecting gravity, cross-hatched intersecting gravity, and loosely lines intersecting gravity. The second one should be of interest important in a possible realization of accelerating or amplified gravity thus a possible different artificial gravity option (e.g. a plating ground). Why Because of the way directions are oriented by object's geometrical structure / design; in case of cross-hatched intersecting gravity, more directions are intersected thus a possible of extra accelerated or amplified when spinning. Osmium If we can try use osmium metal (densest material) and turn it into "inward" cubic or other geometrical objects with inward design with cross-hatched intersecting gravity, then have it spin to create a centripetal force. Maybe. Reference 3D Normal (geometry) link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_(geometry)

Why Goal 1: "Improve understanding about gravity physics possibilities and impossibilities associated with it." Goal 2: "To see whether if there is gravity; graviton in quantum mechanics or not?" Goal 3: "And see whether if an alternative option(s) for artificial gravity is/are possible or not (e.g. for spaceflight exploration)." Attached scanned picture of diagrams See attached picture of scanned diagram visualization by myself. It consists of two distinct diagrams, each with following gravity-wise termed words and also symbol icons I made up to ease with identifying these in visual way: ----- "gravity equation" 1. Directionality 2. Geometry 3. Mass ----- "result" 4. Gravity 5. Weight These diagrams are my current understanding in regards to gravity; circle diagram as smooth analog-alike and "classical gravity physics?" whereas diamond diagram as jump-alike and "quantum gravity physics" if there is? Reference 1. Directionality 2. Geometry "Geometry (from Ancient Greek γεωμετρία (geōmetría) 'land measurement'; from γῆ (gê) 'earth, land', and μέτρον (métron) 'a measure')[1] is a branch of mathematics concerned with properties of space such as the distance, shape, size, and relative position of figures." From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry 3. Mass - "Mass is an intrinsic property of a body." - "The object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies." From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass 4. Gravity "In physics, gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight'[1]) is a fundamental interaction which causes mutual attraction between all things that have mass." From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity 5. Weight "In science and engineering, the weight of an object, is the force acting on the object due to acceleration of gravity." From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Standard Model of Particle Physics: "The Standard Model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions – excluding gravity) in the universe and classifying all known elementary particles." link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model An analogy: Atm I try to think of standard model of particle physics as bubble or bobble fishing balls "floating" with their spin side(s) respective or relative to their interaction, if there is maybe a tug or two onto / into these then maybe find out if there is gravition or not. Quantum gravity quote: "it is not known how spin of elementary particles sources gravity," link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity Gravition wiki quote 1 of 2: "In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction." Gravition wiki quote 2 of 2: "If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless because the gravitational force has a very long range, and appears to propagate at the speed of light." link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton Maybe go for fishing. Fishing rod as ... (I dunno tbh, a scientific instrument or something like that) and bubble / bobble balls as particles, analogically. Then tile rod at varying strength, speed rate, and range distance levels. Plus possibly reel in or out at varying strength, speed rate, and range distance levels. If there is a tug or two.. or three... ... maybe a bass fish (gravition) ... or not. 😛 ----- If found, then can start studying it along with other particles then maybe can design / develop a ground plating with artificial gravity for more practical spaceflight exploration - it would mimic these particles and their interaction structure and function along with gravition to produce artificial gravity if evidently found, that is. And maybe artifical anti-gravity (by understanding a possible "reverse-engineering" of gravity if possible) for launching spacecrafts (there is no actual anti-gravity, I know but what I'm talking about is potentially a work-around theoretically speaking.) I know what I'm saying is a bit far-fetched and too ahead of myself, I know, but still...

Quote: "General relativity models gravity as curvature of spacetime: in the slogan of John Archibald Wheeler, "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity Does this 4-Dimension (spatial dimension) make a somewhat good analogy to the quoted above? link: From link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

Perhaps I was jumping a bit too much without really knowing in detail or depth about QM, but it just occurs to me that QM tunnelling (you said no motion) seems to involve 1st travel distance as in "jump or instantaneous" QM tunnelling ("no motion"). If so, that would seem to enable a "pathway" for spaceship have a warp drive capability to travel in it. I think gotta have to know or understand spacetime stuff better first in order to as precede QM tunnelling and warp drive, if that make sense. I just want to interject myself into this discussion due to fact that I like Star Trek stuff and this may open up a possibility about warp drive for spaceflight exploration, but I'm aware that I may be a bit far-fetched with what I said.. but still, if there is a chance that it could be possible.

Maybe can suggest interdisciplinary discussion between these threads and this one: link: Other comment: Also maybe factor into understanding spacetime related thread(s) in other physics categories. It occurs to me that trying to understanding spacetime thread(s) between and this one and warp thread might help.