Gravity is Time

[Slinkey]

The universe has mass. This mass creates a gravitational field that spans the Universe. Whether the Universe is flat (very doubtful), open, or closed is still very much in debate (although recent research suggests an open universe doomed to a cold death), but one thing that is clear in all three scenarios is that gravity exists.

 

Gravitational fields warp time. It is well known in GR that bodies in stronger gravitational fields appear to move more slowly if the the observer is in a weaker gravitational field.

 

Gravity is not range-limited. It's effect falls off by 1/4 if the distance is doubled from the gravity source. It may get incalculably weak at massive distances but is never zero.

 

Someone once said that time exists to stop everything happening at once. I submit that the reason we have time and eveything does not happen at once is because of gravity.

 

Simply put: gravity = time.

[Eric 5]

 

Gravity is not range-limited. It's effect falls off by 1/4 if the distance is doubled from the gravity source. It may get incalculably weak at massive distances but is never zero.

 

Someone once said that time exists to stop everything happening at once. I submit that the reason we have time and eveything does not happen at once is because of gravity.

 

Simply put: gravity = time.

 

So would that mean that the stronger the gravity the stronger the time?

 

How does your gravity is time theory explain that sometimes events feel like they took longer or shorter amount of time than a clock said, ie: a quick workday, a long movie, a quick drive.

 

So you say that gravity prevents everything from happening at once, WOW!

[Bignose]

Within you theory, then, please remedy this conundrum. Given that gravity = time.

 

Gravity is a force. [math]F = G\frac{m_1 m_2 }{r^2}[/math] where F is the gravitational force between two objects, with masses m_1 and m_2. The distance between the two objects is r, G is a constant.

 

A force is mass * acceleration. [math] F = ma[/math] The acceleration felt by object 1 in this case is

[math]a_1 = \frac{F}{m_1}[/math]

 

acceleration is the second derivative of position with respect to time.

 

[math] a = \frac{d^2 x}{dt^2}[/math]

 

But, if time = gravity, how do I put this into this equation? Force is proportional to acceleration which is the second derivative of position with respect to time. If gravity isn't a force, what else could it be? And, if gravity is a force, how does it get remedied with the definitions of force and acceleration which has time in it?

[kaneda]

Bodies in higher gravity areas naturally move slower, even on a molecular scale. That is called time dilation by the unthinking.

[zule]

I don’t know about physics, but by logic, I understand that something moves slower if it has to counteract the effects of a greater gravity (at least that the movement direction is the same as tha gravity aceleration one). But the fact that the object moves slower, doesn’t mean that the time passes slower.

[Slinkey]

Don't remember making this a separate thread. Just my comments on another thread in another forum I believe. It was not put forward as a theory (a theory is something that has been tested experimentally in some fashion and shown to have accuracy in it's predictive power) nor even as an hypothesis. It's a speculation.

 

It seems clear that gravity and time (and space) are inextricably linked with each other as shown by the relative time dilation effects that involve the gravitational force. I speculated that they might even be the same thing due to the idea that wherever there is spacetime there is gravity.

 

Bignose, I don't have a mathematical treatise for every off hand comment I make. Sorry.

 

Eric5, I have read one or two books on the subjective experience of time. One thing that is clear is that if you put someone bored in a room with someone having a good time the clock on the wall still ticks and the mood of one or both people will probably change too! Maybe Bignose has a mathematical treatise on the dilation of time relative to mood?

 

kaneda, what do thinking minds call it?

 

In my speculation I was trying to get across that the universe is suffused with the gravitational field and therefore clocks anywhere in the universe are subject to it. As clocks run more slowly in higher gravitational fields relative to the observer it struck me that we cannot describe the universe without gravity. If clocks run faster when they are in lesser gravitational fields than the observer how fast do they run in the absence of a gravitational field?

 

Since Einstein time has become malleable - you can dilate time - but without a defintion of time itself. Events still happen in spacetime but the timing of events are dependent upon the location of the observer. If you and I are watching the same event from different locations we will disagree on timings. These timings will be related through relativity and to a high degree of accuracy, but still no definition of time itself.

 

My thoughts were that maybe we are trying to define something that has already been defined (in whole or in part) within relativity. Why does relativity allow for time dilation? I know Einstein put forward geometrical reasons to show the relationship and his reasoning is sound but it does not show me any mechanism. It simply gives me the tools to relate the effect of the mechanism.

 

Personally I think it is important in science to look at things from as many perspectives as possible even seemingly outlandish ones. Imagine how outlandish Einstein sounded to some when he first put forward SR. How outlandish did Darwin sound when he put forward evolution? How outlandish were Einstein's reactions to his own GR when it demanded an expanding or contracting universe to be right?! I'm not saying my idea might be right because it is outlandish either. It is simply an attempt to inject a new perspective. A speculation with the intent of provoking ideas.

 

bignose, with your obvious grasp of, and delight in, mathematics, can you shed any light on this?

 

Had to correct a word in the last post so if you get it twice please read the edited version.

[Bignose]

As much as anything, Slinky, it was my hope that my post wasn't so much trying to confound you with math, but a plea to be very careful with how you use words. Saying something like "gravity = time" is meaningless because -- like I wrote out above -- the force of gravity is proportional to the acceleration is has on an object and acceleration requires a concept of time to define acceleration. So, setting these two very different and related concepts equal to each other doesn't mean anything. In order to make sure everyone knows what everyone else is talking about, you have to be very precise in the way you use words. When I talk about a "force" in physics terms, everyone well versed in physics knows what I mean -- they also know I am not talking about momentum or energy or velocity or acceleration or etc. Physics isn't completely perfect about this, but it tries very hard to make sure not to use ambiguous words or words with multiple meanings or interpretations. So, again, calling gravity = time has no meaning.

 

I don't have any treatises in me, and I don't know the mechanism by which the passage of time changes during acceleration. I do know that the effects aren't just relegated to gravity, however, the physics is completely independent of what is causing the acceleration, be it gravity or magnetism or some futuristic warp-drive system. Any acceleration changes the passage of time.

 

But the big thing is to be very careful with your word choice and be very careful with not intertwining concepts that are already well defined. You second post in this thread seems better about not just re-using words in a casual manner. But, the first is gobbledygook.

[Slinkey]

...I don't have any treatises in me, and I don't know the mechanism by which the passage of time changes during acceleration. I do know that the effects aren't just relegated to gravity, however, the physics is completely independent of what is causing the acceleration, be it gravity or magnetism or some futuristic warp-drive system. Any acceleration changes the passage of time....

 

The interesting thing I find with accelrating a body is that two distinct things happen.

1. The mass of the accelerated body increases
   
2. the length of the accelerated body is shortened in the direction of it;s movement
   

If we had a one meter square box (1m^3 volume) that had a mass of 100kg (density 100kg/m^3), at 0.8c it would have a mass of 166.6667kg and a volume of 0.6m^3 (density 277kg/m^3).

 

From the observers perspective this body now has a stronger gravitational field as well. Could you accelerate the body to sufficient sub-liminal speeds for it to become a black hole?

[foodchain]

Within you theory, then, please remedy this conundrum. Given that gravity = time.

 

Gravity is a force. [math]F = G\frac{m_1 m_2 }{r^2}[/math] where F is the gravitational force between two objects, with masses m_1 and m_2. The distance between the two objects is r, G is a constant.

 

A force is mass * acceleration. [math] F = ma[/math] The acceleration felt by object 1 in this case is

[math]a_1 = \frac{F}{m_1}[/math]

 

acceleration is the second derivative of position with respect to time.

 

[math] a = \frac{d^2 x}{dt^2}[/math]

 

But, if time = gravity, how do I put this into this equation? Force is proportional to acceleration which is the second derivative of position with respect to time. If gravity isn't a force, what else could it be? And, if gravity is a force, how does it get remedied with the definitions of force and acceleration which has time in it?

 

Energy?

[swansont]

The interesting thing I find with accelrating a body is that two distinct things happen.

1. The mass of the accelerated body increases
   
2. the length of the accelerated body is shortened in the direction of it;s movement
   

If we had a one meter square box (1m^3 volume) that had a mass of 100kg (density 100kg/m^3), at 0.8c it would have a mass of 166.6667kg and a volume of 0.6m^3 (density 277kg/m^3).

 

Basically the first item is saying that when you do work, the kinetic energy can increase. That's hardly surprising. Usually when the term "mass" is used it is the rest mass. When you use relativistic mass (especially without calling it that) you add confusion.

 

From the observers perspective this body now has a stronger gravitational field as well. Could you accelerate the body to sufficient sub-liminal speeds for it to become a black hole?

 

AFAIK the relevant term for gravitation is the rest mass. The relativistic mass depends on your reference frame; if what you propose was possible an object would be a black hole for some observers and not others.

[Slinkey]

Basically the first item is saying that when you do work, the kinetic energy can increase. That's hardly surprising. Usually when the term "mass" is used it is the rest mass. When you use relativistic mass (especially without calling it that) you add confusion.

 

I think it was clear enough that you understood what I was saying and could apply labels in the relevant places, and that is sufficient.

 

AFAIK the relevant term for gravitation is the rest mass. The relativistic mass depends on your reference frame; if what you propose was possible an object would be a black hole for some observers and not others.

 

Indeed. The question still stands however.

[Sayonara]

That is called time dilation by the unthinking.

 

On this site we attack the argument, not the person making it. Refer to the site rules and etiquette notice if you are unsure.

[swansont]

I think it was clear enough that you understood what I was saying and could apply labels in the relevant places, and that is sufficient.

 

 

But I've seen the term misused many times before — I know what to look for. others may not. It's best to keep things clearly defined.

[Eric 5]

The interesting thing I find with accelrating a body is that two distinct things happen.

[*]The mass of the accelerated body increases

[*]the length of the accelerated body is shortened in the direction of it;s movement

 

Sounds like you are talking about the effects on rods in a moving body of reference that was introduced in the Theory of Special Relativity.

 

When you say "things that happen" Do you mean actually physical happen, or just appear to happen?

 

If you think objects will actually "shorten". Then please think about the following:

 

If an actual physical object is physically shortened, what force is doing this compression of the object? The force would have to be applied equally, and at the same time to both ends of the object to accomplish this.

 

Also, if this accelerated body were made of many different materials of different density and compressive strengths would they all "shorten" at the same length?

 

And, when this accelerated body comes to rest, what type of force pushes all of this material back to its original shape?

 

If you say that accelerated bodies appear to shorten to an observer that is at rest relative to the moving body, then that would be correct according to the Theory of Special Relativity.

[Slinkey]

.....If you say that accelerated bodies appear to shorten to an observer that is at rest relative to the moving body, then that would be correct according to the Theory of Special Relativity.

 

And an accelerated clock appears to slow down, right?

[Eric 5]

And an accelerated clock appears to slow down, right?

 

What does Special Relativity say regarding an accelerated clock? That would be the best place to go and get that questioned answered.

 

I would also like to retract the following: "If you say that accelerated bodies appear to shorten to an observer that is at rest relative to the moving body, then that would be correct according to the Theory of Special Relativity"

 

I should not tell you what is correct to think about anything. I will only ask questions of anybody on this forum to clarify any misunderstanding I might have of their statement, and if their statement is a personal comment or opinion on anything, I will then add my comment or opinion. I will not tell anyone what is right or wrong. If I see that there might be something stated as fact by someone, and I disagree, I will refer this someone to the reference that I got my information from regarding the topic, or ask that someone for the reference that they are getting their facts from. Either way, I will try and clarify any misunderstanding through references, and definition of terms if necessary.

 

So, I Just wanted to clarify what you meant when you said that two distinct things happen. Did you mean they actually happen? If so, then my questions regarding this occurrence that I posted in the above post (#14) still apply. If not, then fine.

[swansont]

What does Special Relativity say regarding an accelerated clock? That would be the best place to go and get that questioned answered.

 

Depends on the sign of the acceleration. If the speed increases, the clock rate decreases, i.e. it runs slow.

[Slinkey]

.... I Just wanted to clarify what you meant when you said that two distinct things happen. Did you mean they actually happen? If so, then my questions regarding this occurrence that I posted in the above post (#14) still apply. If not, then fine.

 

I don't think they are an illusion. I have seen nothing in the literature to tell me otherwise. The Lorentz contraction made the Michelson-Morley experiment understandable in light of the null result they got when they ran it. Richard Feynman, however, does use the word "appear" in his Lectures on Physics Vol.1 Ch.15-5, but then goes on to explain how the contraction makes the experiment correct and we should have a null result. ie. if the contraction did not happen in reality then the result would be different.

 

As to mass increase, I would have thought this would have needed no explanation as this is routinely detailed every time they run a supercollider.

 

So, yes, I would say they actually happen and are as real as time dilation.

[Eric 5]

I don't think they are an illusion. I have seen nothing in the literature to tell me otherwise. The Lorentz contraction made the Michelson-Morley experiment understandable in light of the null result they got when they ran it. Richard Feynman, however, does use the word "appear" in his Lectures on Physics Vol.1 Ch.15-5, but then goes on to explain how the contraction makes the experiment correct and we should have a null result. ie. if the contraction did not happen in reality then the result would be different.

 

As to mass increase, I would have thought this would have needed no explanation as this is routinely detailed every time they run a supercollider.

 

So, yes, I would say they actually happen and are as real as time dilation.

 

Alright, now we are getting somewhere. In any of this literature have you ever seen mentioned how this physical matter that has experienced contraction ( a shortening of length) ever regains its original size? If physical matter really does contract, then physical forces are at work. A physical force would act on this matter to make it shorter, and a physical force would have to bring it back to its original shape. I have never seen or heard any explanation of how this occurs. I would think that a complete explanation of this phenomenon would include at least a mention of the physical matter going back to its original shape, but it is not even mentioned. So if we are to take this seriously as a real occurrence, then why are we, the readers, left with only a partial explanation. Don’t you think that in order to be true to the field of research and science that if you are going to explain an experiment or phenomenon that you should not leave out any pertinent details, as in this real occurrence of matter being contracted. Why explain the first part of the phenomenon, and leave the second part un-mentioned.

 

Look, just by being on this science forum tells me that you are inquisitive and want to know more about the world around you, so were you ever curious as to how exactly this phenomenon of matter contracting occurred? Don’t you want to really know the ins and outs of how this could be possible? This type of occurrence begs further investigation because of the incomplete explanation.

 

Anyway, I am making this too long, I really want to keep this short and to the point.

 

I would like to ask your opinion or thoughts on what you think is actually occurring to make this phenomenon possible? Strictly thoughts, I am not looking for right or wrong answers, just your thoughts.

 

I have raised some questions in the above post (#14) which I would like to explore. I have asked these questions of others that I know and they either refuse to answer them or don’t really know. It seems strange that those that say that matter does contract through this phenomenon can't or will answer questions like these when asked. So many scholars and professors talk about this subject and still no one knows. Seems strange that it is still such a mystery, don’t you think?

 

I would like to talk about this with you or anyone about these questions, forums were made for this kind of talk. I do not want you think that you have to defend your view on this, that would be missing the whole point of just expressing our thoughts on the whole topic. I am not going to treat any communication on this topic as an attack on my view either. I think that there are a lot of gaps in our understanding of this topic and so it invites open communication from any viewpoint. I would like to see what your thoughts are on this. Thanks for your previous honest viewpoint.

[Slinkey]

I would like to ask your opinion or thoughts on what you think is actually occurring to make this phenomenon possible? Strictly thoughts, I am not looking for right or wrong answers, just your thoughts.

 

Well, you may just as well be asking me what causes the time dilation because I believe the answer is the same - relativity . I don't think there is a compressive force acting on the object as it moves relative to us - it is the way the Universe works. OK, I know that can be construed as a just so explanation and seems unsatisfactory, but Einstein discovered this using geometry and it is in the geometry we find the answer.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment (MME) is explained using geometry. The crucial factor is that the speed of light is constant for all observers and the consequence of this is that the laws of mechanics change. Contrary to expectation and intuition, relativistic mechanics demands that objects shorten in the direction of their movement when they are moving relative to us.

 

When I first read about Special Relativity in "About Time" by Paul Davies, he asked you to suspend asking why, at first, these things happen and just accept that they do thus making you focus on the maths (and therefore geometry) first. Once you have that under your belt the answer of why becomes apparent - it must happen for relativity to be correct.

 

Again, I know you are looking for a deeper reason than that and to a large degree so am I, and I am trying to explore an idea that involves moving gravitational fields, but it is really hard for me to get my ideas down on paper becauce I dont currently possess the mathematical prowess demanded, and trying to explain it in words is very difficult, but if you ask nicely I might give it a go..

 

Thanks for your previous honest viewpoint.

 

And thank you too for responding in kind.

[swansont]

If physical matter really does contract, then physical forces are at work. A physical force would act on this matter to make it shorter, and a physical force would have to bring it back to its original shape.

 

"really does" implies that there is a preferred reference frame, where one can measure an objective "truth" of the universe. And relativity tells us there isn't. It can't be a mundane physical force, because you will observe contraction or dilation of some other object if you are moving with respect to it (which cannot be distinguished from the situation of it moving with respect to you) — so there is no force acting on the object. It all boils down to the transformation between reference frames being nonlinear, and the physics working in all of those frames.

[Eric 5]

Well, you may just as well be asking me what causes the time dilation because I believe the answer is the same - relativity . I don't think there is a compressive force acting on the object as it moves relative to us - it is the way the Universe works. OK, I know that can be construed as a just so explanation and seems unsatisfactory, but Einstein discovered this using geometry and it is in the geometry we find the answer.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment (MME) is explained using geometry. The crucial factor is that the speed of light is constant for all observers and the consequence of this is that the laws of mechanics change. Contrary to expectation and intuition, relativistic mechanics demands that objects shorten in the direction of their movement when they are moving relative to us.

 

When I first read about Special Relativity in "About Time" by Paul Davies, he asked you to suspend asking why, at first, these things happen and just accept that they do thus making you focus on the maths (and therefore geometry) first. Once you have that under your belt the answer of why becomes apparent - it must happen for relativity to be correct.

 

Again, I know you are looking for a deeper reason than that and to a large degree so am I, and I am trying to explore an idea that involves moving gravitational fields, but it is really hard for me to get my ideas down on paper becauce I dont currently possess the mathematical prowess demanded, and trying to explain it in words is very difficult, but if you ask nicely I might give it a go..

 

 

 

And thank you too for responding in kind.

 

 

 

 

Please go to this web site and all this will become better understood.

 

 

http://www.cs.sbcc.cc.ca.us/~physics/flash/relativity/LengthContraction.html

 

Notice that the ruler does not get smaller. It only appears smaller by the way that it is measured. Nothing actually contracts.

 

If you want more visual explainations of time dilation, rod contraction, and Special Relativity, go to youtube and type in those terms. You will find good explainations that are done by people involved in the field of physics.

 

Have a good learning experience.

[swansont]

Please go to this web site and all this will become better understood.

 

 

http://www.cs.sbcc.cc.ca.us/~physics/flash/relativity/LengthContraction.html

 

Notice that the ruler does not get smaller. It only appears smaller by the way that it is measured. Nothing actually contracts.

 

But it does get smaller, when you go to the other reference frame. The two rulers are measure in exactly the same way, and yet you get two different answers, depending on which frame you are in.

 

If you want more visual explainations of time dilation, rod contraction, and Special Relativity, go to youtube and type in those terms. You will find good explainations that are done by people involved in the field of physics.

 

Have a good learning experience.

 

But I thought your claim was that none of this was true. And yet you link to an animation that demonstrates length contraction using time dilation.

[Eric 5]

But it does get smaller, when you go to the other reference frame. The two rulers are measure in exactly the same way, and yet you get two different answers, depending on which frame you are in.

 

The physical lenght of the rulers does not change. Anybody reading this post go to the web site and see for yourself. The actual lenght of the rulers does not change. Notice how swansont still thinks that there is a change in lenght.

Look at the rulers, they do not get smaller. The answers are different, but the rulers never change, can not you see that. There is no change in length.

 

 

 

But I thought your claim was that none of this was true. And yet you link to an animation that demonstrates length contraction using time dilation.

 

Look at the demonstration. What changes? Viewpoint and perception, not length or time. My claim is that time is not a physical tangible thing, this demonstration does not dispute that fact.

 

 

swansont. Do you really see one of the rulers physically getting smaller? Go ahead and state for the record that you see one of the rulers physically getting smaller. If you have the delusion that one of the rulers is getting smaller then I will have to take into account that you see things that are not actually occuring. This can corrupt all that you have stated or will state regarding what you say.

 

Seriously, do you actually see a ruler getting smaller?

 

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

 

 

 

Swansont! Lay it all on the the line. Do you see one ruler actually getting smaller in the demonstration? Yes. No.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hmm... mathematically tested theory of relativity vs. cheap Flash animation. Which is best?

 

The rulers do visually change length, and if you were to measure one using the other they'd be of different lengths. According to each ruler's reference frame, it is the correct one, but neither is "more" right than the other.