A Time Experiment

[Greg A.]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You don't understand science discussion either, apparently. We keep asking you to support what you claim, and you claim you're meeting those obligations. I think you've failed to explain anything to any degree of clarity. Four pages of "Look what I made up!"

 

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You don't understand science discussion either, apparently. We keep asking you to support what you claim, and you claim you're meeting those obligations. I think you've failed to explain anything to any degree of clarity. Four pages of "Look what I made up!"

From the opening post I've had to fend off challenges. These relate to the two apparent aspects of time we become aware of. That's Time, the chronological concept where we mark off rhe hours & minutes so as to increment some imaginary clock in the sky. And time that relates to velocity, the time of science. These are the obligations I'm confronted with. I've stuck with my claims all through this, Too bad you can't visualize the effects of time. So, there is nothing made up you arrogant sack. 

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

A planet is spherical (ignore angular momentum for now) because the geometry of the underlying spacetime has spherical symmetry. That means that the solutions of the geodesic equation depend only on the r-coordinate, but not on the angular coordinates. Thus, a free fall from rest will tend to be radially inwards towards the center of gravity.

My interpretation of this is that it what I've been saying all along. And fair enough I dont have the ability to put it so accurately, and sure that is my fault because it is what is expected at a science forum. But please accept that when I say the moon does not share our velocity and so has a different but still parallel 'point' in time resulting in an orbit above earth. 

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I can’t be sure, because you’re using non-standard terminology. Geodesics are those curves in spacetime for which proper acceleration vanishes (a=0 at all times and at all points). These are the curves that are traced out by particles in free fall.

These are parallel and converging.

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

You cannot separate time from space in any meaningful sense - but spacetime as a whole can’t be visualised because it is 4D. So I’m really not sure what it is you’re doing, or what it has to do with velocity.

It can be done by simply using the parallel lines of longitude that give us the points of convergence in 3d space above each of the poles. Our common velocity shifting these still parallel lines to a different point so that they appear to be the center of the earth, a point all particles aim for in the confines of curved space while traveling at the same velocity, 13M mph in this instance. 

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The present issue is that you are advocating that we agree with your idea and those that refute it because not only are your ideas full of errors, you refuse to show supporting evidence.

You can never refute what I'm saying while still asserting gravity as a force. What errors? 

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 At the same time telling people (scientists) on a science forum that they are the ones who are wrong!

You should be looking in the mirror ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gravity is a convention that you have adopted as gospel. And I'm sure no intellectual, otherwise I would have done a better job of explaining something I'd never set out to explain in the first place.  

Edited July 28, 2022 by Greg A.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Gravity is a convention that you have adopted as gospel

Well no, gravity is a real effect that can both be observed/experienced, measured and modelled with a very high degree of accuracy and predictability. 

Whether you want to model it as a force, geometrical effect, or any other, makes no difference (provided the model is testable). You can call the effect what ever you want,  non of this sways the fact that "gravity" which is a name place holder for a  real phenomenon. 

Your idea of time & gravity has no validity until you can prove it so using a testable model. We can all imagine how things might work, we might all have our own ideas on such which may seem logical to yourself. Makes no difference unless you can model it in a way that can be independently tested and verified.

Your current ideas are not even close to making any logical sense from what you are posting. So unless you can provide a model explaining how you believe it works, or rather, might supersede the current verified models, then you are in no position to argue against those that actually know what they are talking about. 

Again I will remind you that to argue against something that has been verified over and over and therefore is commonly accepted by the mainstream to be correct, you should at the very least educate yourself to a good level of understanding on what you are arguing against. How can you claim it is wrong when you don't even understand what you claiming against??? This in itself is illogical to begin with.  

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

But please accept that when I say the moon does not share our velocity and so has a different but still parallel 'point' in time resulting in an orbit above earth. 

I’m sorry but I can’t make sense of this. You really need to come up with a mathematical formulation, so that one can extract actual predictions from this, and compare them to experiment and observation.

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

My interpretation of this is that it what I've been saying all along.

I don’t think you’ve been saying anything even remotely like that.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

It's earth's velocity that matters and that is in effect unchanging. 13M mph in relation to the CBR. 

It's 1.3 million, and you need to explain why this is the number that matters.

 

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

 

Anyone who refers to gravity as a force is wrong. It is an effect. 

It's both.

In GR it's not a force, but you really haven't elevated the discussion to the point where GR is pertinent. You don't seem to understand the basics of Newtonian gravity.

 

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Then you have pretty much ignored most of what this experiment is about. Intellectual arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual cowardice are examples of the barriers to change. 

I can't ignore something that hasn't been presented.

 

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I've refused nothing. I try and meet my obligations, which do not include satisfying anybody's curiosity.

Actually you do have such an obligation, if it's relevant to the discussion.

 

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I will make the prediction as originator of this thread at the appropriate time, that's if that opportunity somehow finds a way around the barriers in place already. 

I've stuck with what I've been saying all along, and if anybody is tap-dancing it is yourself. 

Sticking with what you've said is part of the problem. Repetition is not the same as clarification.

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I will continue to answer posts (and expect replies) until the present issue is resolved. 

Repetition is not "answering" in any meaningful sense.

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I have difficulty in interpreting what it is you say, but despite that can see that what you appear to be saying is not in any way what I'm suggesting. Mass would decide the geometry of spacetime, velocity decides the convergence point of all matter within the spherical mass we call earth. How else does it get it's shape if not by the fourth dimension we call time?

I thought you were advocating a position that says time doesn't actually exist.

 

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

 

I'm visualizing time

Which you say doesn't exist. So you're visualizing...nothing?

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Too bad you can't visualize the effects of time. So, there is nothing made up you arrogant sack. 

If you're done being civil, you need to find the door.

[Markus Hanke]

Honestly, I have no idea what your contention actually is. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Are you rejecting GR and Newtonian gravity? Are you rejecting time as being physically relevant? What, according to you, is gravity then? Clearly your comments on velocity don’t make sense, since it is trivially easy to demonstrate that massive bodies at rest with respect to one another (ie in the same state of motion with respect to some external reference point) also gravitate.

You need to succinctly summarise your position here, because I think everyone is confused now.

[dimreepr]

38 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If you're done being civil, you need to find the door.

Unfortunately, he lacks a map... 

[Greg A.]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's 1.3 million, and you need to explain why this is the number that matters.

 

It's obvious that any significant figure outside (either way) of this velocity creates a separate time frame. As obvious as the fact you have tried to build a stumbling block with this. 

 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

It's both.

It's an effect. Time is the force. 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

In GR it's not a force, but you really haven't elevated the discussion to the point where GR is pertinent. You don't seem to understand the basics of Newtonian gravity.

I've made it clear and have not shifted (unlike yourself). Newtonian gravity is not relevant. 

 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

I can't ignore something that hasn't been presented.

It has been presented  as a visualization. I accept I did not do a good job of it but is still there. 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Actually you do have such an obligation, if it's relevant to the discussion.

It's only relevance to this present discussion is that as a catastrophic outcome it is being aided here by evil (negative action). 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Sticking with what you've said is part of the problem. Repetition is not the same as clarification.

Repetition is not "answering" in any meaningful sense.

I've done what I could to clarify what is a visualization of time and it's effect on our planet. I can't change this in any significant way. It is for you and the other 'evil-doers' to stop being repetitious. 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

I thought you were advocating a position that says time doesn't actually exist.

A little bit less arrogance and a bit more respect would had made you aware that I make a distinction (from the OP) between Time and time. One a chronological thing, apparent time, the other scientific, integral to space time. 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Which you say doesn't exist. So you're visualizing...nothing?

I believe it exist but in only the one form. Which is as a part of space time (not local time). 

51 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’m sorry but I can’t make sense of this. You really need to come up with a mathematical formulation, so that one can extract actual predictions from this, and compare them to experiment and observation.

I can and it looks like you are now resorting to cowardice by expecting me to do something I'm incapable of. The visualization was a forced thing that did not need to happen.  

51 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

I don’t think you’ve been saying anything even remotely like that.

It's what I've been saying all along with different words. And it's you that has 'now' came up with your version. 

 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Well no, gravity is a real effect that can both be observed/experienced, measured and modelled with a very high degree of accuracy and predictability. 

Whether you want to model it as a force, geometrical effect, or any other, makes no difference (provided the model is testable). You can call the effect what ever you want,  non of this sways the fact that "gravity" which is a name place holder for a  real phenomenon. 

 

It's an effect. It is not a force. The phenomenon is time, it is the common velocity of all things on earth that gives us the effect we call gravity. 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Your idea of time & gravity has no validity until you can prove it so using a testable model. We can all imagine how things might work, we might all have our own ideas on such which may seem logical to yourself. Makes no difference unless you can model it in a way that can be independently tested and verified.

The model is a visualization. I can be wrong about how I imagine things to be, but as no one here has managed to refute anything I've said why should I think I'm getting anything wrong. 

 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Your current ideas are not even close to making any logical sense from what you are posting. So unless you can provide a model explaining how you believe it works, or rather, might supersede the current verified models, then you are in no position to argue against those that actually know what they are talking about.

It wasn't me that started this. And what has happened in that this is Time's way of preventing me changing something that is effectively inevitable. And, I'm arguing against Newton's understanding of gravity, not Einstein's. 

 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Again I will remind you that to argue against something that has been verified over and over and therefore is commonly accepted by the mainstream to be correct, you should at the very least educate yourself to a good level of understanding on what you are arguing against. How can you claim it is wrong when you don't even understand what you claiming against??? This in itself is illogical to begin with.  

It would be illogical. That's why I'm not arguing against any thing other than Newton's belief that gravity is a  force. 

[Markus Hanke]

48 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I can and it looks like you are now resorting to cowardice by expecting me to do something I'm incapable of.

You posted an idea to a scientific discussion forum, so it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to work within the scientific method. That entails putting down a formalism for your idea, so that one can extract predictions from it and compare these to experiment and observation. All scientific models in physics - without exception - work that way. If there’s no mathematical formalism, then your idea is useless, because it can’t be used to model or predict anything; it’s just a personal opinion.

Having a formalism, besides allowing for numerical predictions, also removes ambiguity. That’s really important. Writing a mathematical statement means everybody knows precisely what it is you mean to say, in a way that verbal description can never really do. This is in fact one of the chief problems on this thread, because evidently I’m not the only poster here being confused on what you are actually trying to say.

The other problem of course is that if your idea isn’t amenable to the scientific method, then you yourself have no way of knowing whether there’s any value to it or not. You need to be honest with yourself on this. Don’t just assume you are right and everyone else here is wrong - some of us here have spent years studying gravitational physics, so we know precisely what GR says and how it works, and based on that we have the tools to give honest feedback on people’s alternative ideas. Don’t just dismiss us - instead, use us as a valuable resource to further your own understanding. I guarantee that you’ll get much more out of this thread that way.

56 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

It's what I've been saying all along with different words. And it's you that has 'now' came up with your version. 

I can see you are frustrated. That’s understandable, but you must realise that I merely gave you the perspective of the current scientific consensus on the subject of gravity (being GR). As far as I can see your own ideas do not conform to that, and, this being a science forum, you will thus naturally be challenged on them. This isn’t personal, that’s just the nature of discussion forums.

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

That's why I'm not arguing against any thing other than Newton's belief that gravity is a  force. 

You are correct, gravity isn’t a force - which is why we have GR to correct the shortcomings of Newton.

However, gravity in GR isn’t merely due to time-related effects (which is what you seem to be saying) - you have to consider spacetime in its entirety, and it’s dynamics are a pretty subtle thing. Crucially, you can’t really separate time from space, except perhaps for illustrative purposes under very special circumstances. Even the simplest spacetime geometries (ie Schwarzschild spacetime) have tidal components in the spatial parts, it is not just about time alone.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

as no one here has managed to refute anything I've said why should I think I'm getting anything wrong. 

I am waiting for a reply* about particle decay where your claims are contradicted by scientific observations. 
 

*) direct link https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127439-a-time-experiment/?do=findComment&comment=1213500

 

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

It's obvious that any significant figure outside (either way) of this velocity creates a separate time frame.

Well, that’s the problem with your idea, because objects going at different velocities with respect to the galactic center still experience gravity in the same way. The laws of gravity do not depend on any reference frame whatever, and thus they don’t depend on any velocity with respect to anything. This fact is already inherent in the formalism of GR, and borne out by all observational data. Gravity depends solely on sources of energy-momentum, and the non-linear self-interaction of gravity itself.

Consider the SMBH at the center of our galaxy - its velocity with respect to itself is zero. So does that mean, according to your ideas, that no gravity exists there?

And what about objects outside our galaxy, which don’t move around any central point? Like other galaxies? Or entire galaxy clusters? What does their gravity depend on, according to your ideas?

Or consider the Cavendish experiment (which you can do yourself at home) - the gravitational interaction between the balls demonstrably depends only on their masses, but not on the Earth or its relative velocity to anything else.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[Greg A.]

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If you're done being civil, you need to find the door.

After you!

It was you that posted this: "Four pages of "Look what I made up!" That's when I've made nothing up that isn't consistent with what else I've said. . 

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

I am waiting for a reply* about particle decay where your claims are contradicted by scientific observations. 
 

*) direct link https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127439-a-time-experiment/?do=findComment&comment=1213500

 

Some years back I'd come across a possible solution to Schrodinger's cat's predicament. Which was that the apparatus, the box and the cat are all products of our perception. That is the cat only reappears when the box is opened and was therefor never in a state of flux while the lid was closed.

Just another attempt at solving the problem I suppose. But I hope you get the point being made.  

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

 

It's obvious that any significant figure outside (either way) of this velocity creates a separate time frame. As obvious as the fact you have tried to build a stumbling block with this. 

You just told me that having various velocities on the earth's surface does not. You said "this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference"

 So what is sufficient? A geostationary orbit is about 7,000 mph. Which is a lot smaller than 1.3 million. An X-15 traveled almost 5,000 mph, but was not in orbit. The moon's speed is under 2,500 mph, but it is in orbit.

Seems to me this isn't the criterion you think it is, and the stumbling block is something I'm pointing out. It's your own creation.

 

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

 A little bit less arrogance and a bit more respect would had made you aware that I make a distinction (from the OP) between Time and time. One a chronological thing, apparent time, the other scientific, integral to space time. 

Oh, please.

 

 

[Greg A.]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Well, that’s the problem with your idea, because objects going at different velocities with respect to the galactic center still experience gravity in the same way. The laws of gravity do not depend on any reference frame whatever, and thus they don’t depend on any velocity with respect to anything. This fact is already inherent in the formalism of GR, and borne out by all observational data. Gravity depends solely on sources of energy-momentum, and the non-linear self-interaction of gravity itself.

Consider the SMBH at the center of our galaxy - its velocity with respect to itself is zero. So does that mean, according to your ideas, that no gravity exists there?

And what about objects outside our galaxy, which don’t move around any central point? Like other galaxies? Or entire galaxy clusters? What does their gravity depend on, according to your ideas?

Or consider the Cavendish experiment (which you can do yourself at home) - the gravitational interaction between the balls demonstrably depends only on their masses, but not on the Earth or its relative velocity to anything else.

I'm not capable of giving anyone here a lesson in physics. So if I'm right somehow then the lesson is in comprehension. And that said I believe it would be impossible for me to mislead the majority of those here. 

And I'll remind you that pretty much everyone of these posts have been off topic. That is the only relationship they have with the OP is that they form one of the barriers that must be present if the future is real and a particular predicted event does takes place and what I'm attempting here is at odds with that outcome. The situation where the grandson attempts to eliminate his evil grandfather before his own father is born, being frustrated in all his attempts. It would be impossible to prevent a future eventuation, but as we don't know the future and as it is that probability plays a part in future events, its worth trying. 

I'm not avoiding anything with this, and the following is an analogy with what is my explanation of the current (last one hundred twenty years) understandings. 

 

It's not necessary but suppose earth is represented by a bunch of marbles, and the moon by a single marble and the force of gravity is much greater than it is. The moon has a velocity relative to earth (the rest frame). The moon marble has velocity and is in orbit around the earths marbles. But if not subjected to gravity from the earth it would then leave its orbit and travel on in a tangent into space. Instead the moon travels in a straight, yet curved, parallel line around earth. Ignoring marbles crashing directly into earth, other marbles traveling at greater velocity than the moon marble may not enter into orbit around the earth marbles because the added velocity puts them on a non-parallel trajectory. Their greater velocity is too much for earth's gravity to brake. The relationship between velocity and gravity is clear. So if we were to put a retro rocket on the moon, which in its orbit is weightless, and started braking it would remain in a parallel but now converging path. Eventually stopping, at which point its weight is at the maximum force as applied by 1g. So, the moon marble is now sitting with the earth marbles and this then explains the increase in its weight, ok? No, not quite, because the moon marble is now sharing the same velocity as the earth marbles, and it is this that really explains gravity.  You say, no! and that I am wrong, mass explains gravity. But the problem then is that the moon has gone from being weightless to having weight (while not increasing in mass), and from not being synchronized to earth's velocity to being in synchronous. That is, all of the other marbles are aligned with the point in time that their velocity represents, and that's because to have zero velocity is to have zero time which is to have no curvature of space time because without the time factor there is no gravity. 

 

Another way of looking at this is if you have two planets traveling in straight parallel well separated lines, and if one planets velocity is slower or faster than the other, the two will never come together. And there will be no net gain in gravity.  Their velocities are not aligned, they don't share the same time factor and will never merge. 

 

And if somehow you can see there is validity in the above then really you have learned nothing new other than to comprehend something in a different way. A more layperson's view if anything. 

There is potential in a Time experiment for new things though.  

Edited July 29, 2022 by Greg A.

[Ghideon]

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

But I hope you get the point being made.

I do not see a connection to the discussion about your claims and how they are incompatible with observations, sorry. 

[Greg A.]

If time is a dimension, and space is three dimensional, and our velocity gives us time, then there is no coincidence in the earth being spherical, as time would need to be represented by a point. It is this point that all the atoms of the earth, having shared velocity. gravitate toward. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

 It's not necessary but suppose earth is represented by a bunch of marbles, and the moon by a single marble and the force of gravity is much greater than it is. The moon has a velocity relative to earth (the rest frame). The moon marble has velocity and is in orbit around the earths marbles. But if not subjected to gravity from the earth it would then leave its orbit and travel on in a tangent into space.

Yes, this is what physics tells us. But you have claimed the moon is not subject to gravity.

If the moon were subject to gravity (was not weightless) it would collide with earth.

 

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Instead the moon travels in a straight, yet curved, parallel line around earth. Ignoring marbles crashing directly into earth, other marbles traveling at greater velocity than the moon marble may not enter into orbit around the earth marbles because the added velocity puts them on a non-parallel trajectory. Their greater velocity is too much for earth's gravity to brake.

As I pointed out earlier, the moon's velocity is less than that of a satellite in geostationary orbit (by about a factor of 3) and yet these objects are in orbit. Low-earth orbits are even faster.

It's almost as if there was a force being exerted that drops off with the distance. And that circular orbits require specific velocities that depend on the radius of the orbit.

 

 

 

 

 

[Greg A.]

9 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I do not see a connection to the discussion about your claims and how they are incompatible with observations, sorry. 

It's easy. Put an end to Schrodinger Cat's quandary. I mean let's face it nothing living should be left in a box. 

[Greg A.]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

You just told me that having various velocities on the earth's surface does not. You said "this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference"

As our velocity increases on earth we become lighter. The increase in velocity shifts our time frame, that's until it is no longer positioned below the earth's surface which at that point we become in an orbital time frame, our velocity + earth's. There is no gravity (as you know) but instead the curvature of space time. That is no invisible tether connecting us to earth. 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

 So what is sufficient? A geostationary orbit is about 7,000 mph. Which is a lot smaller than 1.3 million. An X-15 traveled almost 5,000 mph, but was not in orbit. The moon's speed is under 2,500 mph, but it is in orbit.

What ever velocity that positions the objects time frame outside of earth's cluster of matter. 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Seems to me this isn't the criterion you think it is, and the stumbling block is something I'm pointing out. It's your own creation.

It is if it's my poor ability with words. But that said I've been to atheist's forums where I've noticed the only challenges come from those that either don't accept or don't understand what it is I'm saying, these mostly older Brits, some Canadians (displaced Brits & French). 

 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Oh, please.

 

 

I don't see any evidence for Time. But am aware of the effects of time dilation and how these 'don't' allow for Time travel.

[Greg A.]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, this is what physics tells us. But you have claimed the moon is not subject to gravity.

If the moon were subject to gravity (was not weightless) it would collide with earth.

 

The convention is the moon is held in place by earth's gravity. The reality is that it's curved space time (as you know) that keeps it on what is in fact a straight course, and therefore needing no tethering action.   

14 hours ago, swansont said:

As I pointed out earlier, the moon's velocity is less than that of a satellite in geostationary orbit (by about a factor of 3) and yet these objects are in orbit. Low-earth orbits are even faster.

It's almost as if there was a force being exerted that drops off with the distance. And that circular orbits require specific velocities that depend on the radius of the orbit.

And if that radius position is outside of the earth's matter including it's atmosphere, traveliing parallel but not converging (not slowing) it is an orbit. It will never merge with earth because its unchanging velocity gives it a separate time frame, pictured as a dot in the center of the moon projected onto the radiuses. The dot being the convergence point of a time dimension coinciding with the objects velocity. 

14 hours ago, swansont said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Markus Hanke]

53 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

The convention is the moon is held in place by earth's gravity. The reality is that it's curved space time (as you know) that keeps it on what is in fact a straight course, and therefore needing no tethering action

You are right, an orbit is a geodesic in curved spacetime, where it is the “straightest” possible connection between events, in a certain precise mathematical sense.

But the geometry of spacetime (more precisely: geodesic deviation) is gravity. That’s the definition, and the current consensus. I don’t quite understand why you feel there is any kind of contradiction to “convention”?

I think you may be referring to Newtonian gravity, which uses forces. This is a much older model than GR, but it still works really well in situations that deal with slow motion and weak fields. In such cases it is often unnecessary to employ the full machinery of GR, which is mathematically much more complicated than Newton. So Newton is a good approximation to Einstein in the right circumstances - which is why it’s still taught in schools.

[Ghideon]

7 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Put an end to Schrodinger Cat's quandary.

Ok. You brought Schrodinger Cat into the discussion but let's remove it from the discussion again. That does not change the fact that particle decay contradicts your claims. Would you mind addressing that instead of brining in unrelated topics?

[Greg A.]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

You are right, an orbit is a geodesic in curved spacetime, where it is the “straightest” possible connection between events, in a certain precise mathematical sense.

It's the moon's velocity that prevents its 'geodesic' from converging with earth. So, if we were capable of running fast enough ourselves we would see own our geodesic slowly separate from the center of convergence of all other geodesics emanating from matter traveling at the same velocity here on earth converging at its center due to time being a dimension and consequently not being able to be represented by anything other than a point (in relation to the 3 other dimensions). 

  

 

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

But the geometry of spacetime (more precisely: geodesic deviation) is gravity. That’s the definition, and the current consensus. I don’t quite understand why you feel there is any kind of contradiction to “convention”?

What happens is something that can't be expected if gravity is anything other than a convention. Our velocity be it zero or one thousand mph, should not increase our weightlessness. But if increasing velocity shifts our time frame away from earth's velocity's distortion of space time, then it is our velocity, represented by a separating time frame (geodesic), that is responsible for our increase in weightlessness. Gravity survives as a convention. 

 

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I think you may be referring to Newtonian gravity, which uses forces. This is a much older model than GR, but it still works really well in situations that deal with slow motion and weak fields. In such cases it is often unnecessary to employ the full machinery of GR, which is mathematically much more complicated than Newton. So Newton is a good approximation to Einstein in the right circumstances - which is why it’s still taught in schools.

Newton never had a theory of gravity, believing it to be a force, for that reason he hasn't really made any mistakes. The rubber sheet model displays the effects of gravity accurately, but does not explain gravity itself. 

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. You brought Schrodinger Cat into the discussion but let's remove it from the discussion again. That does not change the fact that particle decay contradicts your claims. Would you mind addressing that instead of brining in unrelated topics?

Schrodinger's cat (as you know) links decay to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and if I remember it was this as a previous issue relates to what you are claiming. So show to us your solution to the cat's situation first.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Greg A.

[Ghideon]

58 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

So show to us your solution to the cat's situation first.

I don't know how the cat got entangled in this topic so here is my interpretation: Before I read the first post in this thread there were a possibility that the ideas presented were correct / incorrect (similar to the cat being dead / alive before the box is opened in Schrödinger's thought experiment)
Now that I have read the ideas and compared them to documented scientific observations (opened the box / performed an observation Schrödinger's thought experiment) I've found that the presented ideas are wrong. This fact is independent of Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation or other variants; the claims regarding time and movement are incorrect and refuted by (for instance) particle decay at absolute zero. This threads state is similar to the cat; if the cat is dead when the box is opened the cat will stay dead until new physics (or, maybe in this case, progress in animal health care & resurrection) emerge. Just as the presented ideas will be stay wrong until supported by discoveries, theories and observations. Attempts to avoid the questions and arguments presented by asking me to "solve" Schrödinger's does not count as scientific evidence. 

 

[Markus Hanke]

9 hours ago, Greg A. said:

It's the moon's velocity that prevents its 'geodesic' from converging with earth.

I’m beginning to see where it is that you’re stuck, I think. You see, the form of the geodesics themselves is already completely determined by the geometry of the underlying spacetime, which has nothing to do with velocities.

There are really infinitely many geodesics in any spacetime - this is called its ‘geodesic structure’. So, in order to find the correct geodesic for a given particular situation, you need to specify initial and boundary conditions for the problem. And that’s where velocity comes in - it serves as an initial condition to select the correct geodesic out of all possible ones. It doesn’t actually determine what that geodesic looks like - only the geometry of spacetime does that, and that follows from the presence of sources of energy-momentum.

In practice, you start by solving the Einstein equations - you input what and where sources of gravity are, and out comes a description of the geometry of spacetime. For our purposes here you can think of that description as a big bundle of free-fall geodesics - all possible ones for all possible cases, and what each of them looks like is already determined in that description. So, as a second step you need to find and select that one geodesic out of that big bundle that applies to your problem at hand; so you need selection criteria. These are your boundary conditions - initial velocity being one of them. But it isn’t a case of velocity determining the geodesic structure of spacetime - it simply helps you find “your” geodesic in an infinite pile of possible ones. The pile itself depends only on the distribution of energy-momentum.

Note that velocity alone isn’t enough though, you need at least one more boundary condition.

9 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Our velocity be it zero or one thousand mph, should not increase our weightlessness.

It doesn’t. It simply tells you which geodesic is followed, the ‘shape’ of which is already determined by the geometry of spacetime. See above.

9 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Gravity survives as a convention. 

Gravity is defined as being geodesic deviation, in GR.

9 hours ago, Greg A. said:

The rubber sheet model displays the effects of gravity accurately

It doesn’t really, it presents only one specific aspect of gravity. And it isn’t a model either, it’s just an analogy.

The rubber sheet visualisation is what is called an ‘embedding diagram’ - the form that’s usually depicted uses Schwarzschild coordinates, and plots changes in the radial coordinate against changes in proper distance. That’s all - it shows just this one relationship. It doesn’t depict the time coordinate, nor the angular coordinates - so you can’t see the tidal components of gravity (or any other gravitational phenomena) in that plot. Generally it also only shows the region outside the central body, and ignores the interior part. You can deduce some of these things from what you see - but that’s only because you are dealing with the simplest of all geometries, Schwarzschild spacetime, which is highly symmetric. For something even slightly more complicated, such as Kerr spacetime, this kind of visualisation fails badly, since you can’t easily deduce any of the other aspects, such as frame dragging.

Are you actually aware that in everything you’ve said so far you are tacitly assuming a very specific spacetime geometry, being Schwarzschild? It’s the simplest of all solutions to the Einstein equations - it’s spherically symmetric, static, stationary, asymptotically flat, and depends only on the mass of the central body. This solution is great for academic purposes, since it’s pretty simple and works well as an approximation. But actually, really world gravity is vastly more complicated - it may involve angular momentum, gravitational radiation, sometimes electric charges, non-linear self-interactions, and a whole host of other things. If you account for these, the geometry of spacetime very quickly becomes vastly more complex.

Please don’t think that what you find in Schwarzschild is all there is to gravity. That’s not the case at all.