jajrussel

Now that I have read the whole thread and enjoyed the reading. I'm still puzzled why you seem to keep singling out the time unit second when the expression is meters per second, per second. Or meters per second squared. With standard Earth gravity the rate of acceleration is 9.8 m/s or is stated as 9.8 meters per second. 9 seconds later at that rate of acceleration the things velocity will be 88.2 meters per second which is 9.8 times the nine seconds of time. When you square the time and multiply it times the acceleration rate you end up with the distance traveled in 9 seconds by the thing, which is simply stated as 793.8 meters. At this point you can forget m/s/s. The s^2 confusion is probably brought about by thinking how does squaring time give you distance? By itself it doesn't. You need the meters per second times the seconds squared because it is an acceleration rate. If it was simply a velocity of 9.8 meters per second you could just add 9.8, nine times. Then the distance in nine seconds would be 88.2 meters. Also, I am completely lost by the stament of unity said to be given by (s/s). What exactly does that mean? I hope I managed to explain this correctly. Oh well, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

I'm way out of my league here, which is probably why I don't understand this question, but doesn't a second of time represent a portion of space? As a portion of space isn't it okay to think of squaring it? I haven't actually read this whole thread yet so if the questions are out of line I apologize.

There was actually a question I was going to ask with this post, but by the time I figured out how to get rid of the orange high lite that was attached to my cursor I figured out that I was misinterpreting the statement. Then I realized that once again I managed to mess up the post because it shows up as an edit. Time for a nap... Thanks!

Okay, i finally remembered what made me ask the question in the first place. It was a video about photons. Now, to see if I can explain in a non confusing way. In the video the photon starts somewhat near the center and works it's way out. The energy of the photon is like tiny. I'm told to think of it as a tiny packet of energy. In my head I am following it back to the source where I am presented with a large amount of energy. Considering the source of energy I may have shot from the hip when I asked myself is it okay to apply the same thought to gravity? Considering swansont's post I thought what? No way they are comparing gravity using wave peaks. That seems to close considering I shot from the hip. I'm still scrutinizing, and probably misunderstanding that reference. I really liked MigL's answer and was tempted to jump behind it and say, yep this is exactly what I meant... But no it wasn't. Sadly, it was just me watching a video, having a thought, and then questioning accepted science, just because that seems to be my nature. So thanks everyone. I copied this from the hyperphysics page (The strength of the gravitational force can be related to the force between two selected masses.)

No, actually I thought you understood my question better than anyone else. I'm sorry you misunderstood...

Am I? I hit the submit button by accident. I didn't see the quote I wanted so I selected the proper quote then reposted. I tried to make the original quote selected go away, but apparently after hitting submit you don't make a quote go away. I could start all over again and try to get it right, but my feelings aren't really hurt, and I would probably just screw it up again. So, sorry...☺

Okay now me feelings are hurt! What exactly did I say here that earned a down vote?

☺☺☺ All right an answer I can understand, thank you, thank you, thank you. So long as no one asks me to explain it, I'm good! I probably could, but I would likely just confuse the issue even more.☺☺☺

☺!

☺ well I am confused... Thanks I read this.

Thanks, I do seem to have the ability to be as confusing as I am confused. Maybe I am expecting the wrong thing to happen when increasing an objects velocity. It also probably matters in how I am applying it in my thought. In my thought the Earth gets bigger and bigger thru velocity until it eventually reaches the point of collapse. In my mind it would be a different velocity for a particle. I could be wrong for thinking this. Not just because the entire thought is wrong, but because I'm thinking the particle density is lower and it would have to go really really fast before it collapsed into a black hole. Anyway thanks :).

Your reply indicates that there is a distinction between Matter and Mass that I wasn't making. I am going to try and insert a link to the video. It appears to have worked. They said Matter I may have confused it with Mass? Apparently, I did. But this seems to have led to another question. If there is a distinction, between Matter and Mass. Again I'm having trouble remembering does an object get bigger or smaller as it nears c? I thought it was bigger? you apparently have posted another reply while I'm writing so I'll pause to read it. Maybe it will clear up the next question regarding the object size and it's velocity?

I'll revisit the video maybe I misunderstood. I was sure it said adding enough pressure by adding Mass would cause the collapse. It even gave a formula. I watched it again and got the same impression. I don't know how to link it. It's on YouTube called (The Black hole Tipping Point) posted by minutephysics. Is it because I am confusing matter with Mass?

If you consider that as a force gravity pulls in an infinite number of directions would it still be the weakest of forces if you applied the same terms to other forces?

I watched a video that said that theoretically you could make Earth a black hole by adding Mass until it collapsed into a black hole. So? If you can add Mass thru acceleration how fast would something have to move before it collapsed into a black hole? I'm assuming it would be a proportional type process? Would there be a constant velocity that would apply? Assuming it is theoretically possible?

I can see a connection to Fermat's Principle, because it was refraction that put me on the thought. From there I started trying to apply the thought to Relativity, but I am having a difficult time making the connection to Grigori Perelman. I found a somewhat broken connection between Fermat, and Perelman in that both of their works were to a degree related to two different men named Hamilton. So, somewhat broken. My question is, are you saying that Perelman used Fermat's Principle in his work? Which is possible by my limited understanding, but I would have to read more than an article about him to see the connection if they failed to make the connection obvious in the article. I was reading kind of fast so, I might have missed it if they did. An interest in manifolds was sparked the other day when researching quadrupoles, but my head started spinning. I should make another effort. At the least I might figure out why the man said no to a million Dollars..... Nope... That won't ever happen

I saw a different diagram without all the math that looked like they had folded space then funneled up and funneled down. Apparently using two blackholes one for each funnel. Then I started wondering why bother with two blackholes if they are going to fold space. They only need one blackhole that connects to each side of the fold. Then they no longer need the funnel shapes that allow you in but don't allow you out. All you need do is travel around the black hole to get to the distant space, which would be much shorter than following the fold, and a whole lot better than getting stuck in the middle. Not to mention the math would maybe be a lot easier..... Maybe...

Thanks, I'll look this up soon as I'm finished here. I thought time dilation was due to spacial distortion, or warped space. Sometimes I get hung up on an expression that would have been better expressed a different way to convey a clearer meaning. Then I really get it tangled up when trying to straighten it out while at the same time trying to figure out where I went wrong. Loved the article, but I would have bowed to the judgment of my betters before turning down the money.

Wouldn't light from a distant star seen due to gravitational lensing have traveled further than the straight distance? Thus the extra distance that relativity explains? Again, maybe I am confusing thoughts? The light travels at c. Does it take longer to travel the curve distance? Okay, maybe I am trying to reverse engineer the process then say, okay this is what it must be like from the photons view, and I am wrong in doing that... Gravity applies a force to the photon it changes direction, the distance is accounted for by the force. Relativity, is not needed. Is this correct? The photons view is not needed? Thanks... Of course it would probably work better if I was Einstein. (I meant to quote-(Strange) here) Its a little funny I had been reading a thread where you used the word refraction then it was pointed out politely that you meant the word reflection, when I started trying to take the photons view of. "As I leave the atmosphere medium and enter the body of water would I notice the change of direction that an observer would label as refraction." Thanks I've had fun thinking about it. Even if I'm wrong.

Really? Don't people do it all the time, or is it my wording? Isn't that what they do in just about every video on relativity? Is it that I am just not allowed to imagine moving at c? Is it because two different frames of reference are used so both have to be ignorant of the other? (If something turns without acceleration) what is it if not Relativity? See Note below... As an observer in my frame of reference I have to see refraction as change of direction I understand and agree with that but how do I account for c and the extra distance if not Relativity? Or, maybe I just totally screwed up the thought when I presented it... Note - I should have written (turns without a velocity change) Note - I really don't know how to word this question correctly...

If I could place myself in lights point of view, as I moved through the universe than atmosphere then a body of water would I in a sense see each medium like a guy on an imaginary ship traveling at c Would view his travels? As normal? Whiile an observer might see some differences in the ships movement that might relate to relativity? Could a body of water be viewed as a distortion of spacetime? As an outside observer refraction presents a direction change, yet from the photons point of view there is no direction change its still going straight as an arrow? Could this also also apply to gravatational lensing. We see the light as bending yet from the photons, or imaginary ships point of view there is no acceleration because it hasn’t changed direction? Inside the imaginary ship I wouldn’t see any change in distance either. Where from an observers posistion I might, well especially me, might be scratching my head questioning okay the path is curved, yet everyone keeps telling me it’s traveling at c. Is this relativity in action?

Thanks...

I think that one of the reasons I get confused is be cause until you wrote this I thought of photons and light as inseperable as space/time, but with this statement you seem to have seperated the two?

I've seen the drawing of a hole dug through the center of earth, from one side to the other. The guy jumps in (it's always a guy?) shoots down to the center then up to the surface, then reverses. Okay, maybe it is too simple to be a worm hole, but assuming that a black hole is round, wouldn't it sort of kind of have to work the same way meaning that this distant part of the universe to be reached would have to be just on the other side of the black hole? The nature of the black hole says you don't get out the other side. Doesn't the nature of the black hole pretty much make it so you don't make it past the center? Do you need two black holes to have one wormhole? Still how do you get out at the distant universe? Assuming that the wormhole is theoretically possible?