czimborbryan's thoughts on gravity and time

[czimborbryan]

I think gravity is the result of a variation of time. The variation of time creates movement which causes movement toward a mass and is perceived as a seperate force from time. This is why I say it's time/gravity.

[Sayonara]

"I think" doesn't cut it. You need to propose a mechanism and make specific mathematical predictions which that mechanism should produce. These predictions obviously need to be commensurate with observed reality.

[czimborbryan]

The way I see gravity is completely integrated with time, in fact gravity is probobly just an effect of time density.

 

Immagine gravity/time as a density on a spectrum from uranium to a nearly complete vacuum. The density from the earth's surface to space is stratofied. Each "layer" (there really are no layers, but go with this) has a different timing. This variation of time from one point to the next creates movement. A form of this movement is gravity (from a lower to higher density of time).

 

So gravity/time can maintain a momentum toward areas of density and also exert what appears to be an attractive force between two areas of density.

 

To make matters even more confusing, a moving object with propulsion (like a jet) can warp time/gravity. The density of time through the moving object changes and shifts, which allows the object to move directionally. This also changes gravity directionally which is responsible for the force of momentum and force of impact of that object. This may also help to explain the strange behaviors of fluids at high speeds.

[mooeypoo]

References? Math? How is this theory better than the current theory? Predictions?

 

Moving objects "warp" space/time not gravity. Gravity is the *result*.

 

~moo

[czimborbryan]

References? Math? How is this theory better than the current theory? Predictions?

 

Moving objects "warp" space/time not gravity. Gravity is the *result*.

 

~moo

 

Hey moo,

Explain this to me again, but in more detail (as if I were a 5th grader). I need to see this more clearly and reconcile how gravity can be the result if time and gravity are interealated.

[mooeypoo]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm

 

The above link has a fairly simple explanation on what gravity is. It will be a bit hard to have this discussion as if you are a 5th grader, since your question (and suggestio/claim) goes to areas within physics that are a bit more complicated than a 5th grader would normally understand.

 

A lot of these relationships (between time, gravity, acceleration, velocity, etc) are expressed by derivatives and second derivatives. I don't want to confuse you, though, so tell me if I should get into this mathematics or if we should stick to the theoretical level and try (hard) to work from there.

 

In *any* case, your suggestion is not one that is accepted in the scientific community. You might add a "yet" to that sentence, which is perfectly fine - science changes. But it won't change, or accept your idea, if you can't show unequivocally that (1) it fits our current observations, (2) it is supported by math, (3) it can predict phenomena *better* than the current theories.

 

At least the above three concepts should be shown for anyone to support your idea scientifically. We can debate this "theoretically" forever, but then we just leave things in the philosophical range and never go to physics.

 

~moo

[czimborbryan]

OK, I read the article on gravitation. From the way I have things figured out is close to what is already accepted except for a few details. I beleive gravity can not be discussed seperate from time. My assumptions are below (sorry, no proofs).

 

1. The equation for determining time density is parallel to the equation determining gravity. For example as stated with gravity, time density is sparse (or weak) from atom to atom, but very dense (or strong) with a large mass. The strange thing is that even though an object may be large compared to an atom, lets say the human body, the molecules and atoms within that body still operate with the relative low time density, even though the entire mass of the body has an accumulative time density at the relation of person-to-person measurements.

 

2. The force of gravity is a result of this variation in time density from one point to another. When time density changes, it creates movement. This can be modeled by looking at a rendering of the gravitational field of Earth or any object. This rendering parrallels time density.

 

3. The rendering of the gravitational field throughout the universe will show areas of very low time density/gravity. These areas, because of their low time density, can accomodate great speeds of travel. For example, let's say it takes one second for light to travel from one renedered gravtational field line to the next. In areas where this model has widely spaced gravitational field lines, the light still only takes one second to pass from one line to the other. In other words, light is moving rediculously fast. The reason why this can not be seen is because the forward radiation of light is not bent, such as around planets or black holes. (I do not beleive space is bent, it is time which causes this illusion.)

 

4. One of the big consequences of this if it were true is the accepted distance of a light year. This distance is as varied as the gravitational fields it passes through. In some areas, the light year is enormous, while in other areas it is not quite as large. It may also effect the discharge rate of a battery. The passing through areas of low times density may allow for slower consumption of energy. (not completely thought out, but a possibility)

 

5. Remember, this variaton in time is in the here and now and does not represent past or future; it better represents speed or motion.

 

6. Another factor which effects time density is energy (which again is inter-related with time). The greater the energy, the lower the time density between atoms and molecules, but the time density is still cumulative for a larger mass.

 

7. Moving objects also have an off-set time density from one part of the object to the other; the same could be said for the gravitational field. This time density is warped which causes or allows movement and is responsible for such things as momentum and force of impact. Force of impact can be immagined as the amount of force it takes to re-establish an objects original state of time density. In a way, the moving objects' time density can influence and interact with the time density of another mass.

[swansont]

So instead of motion and gravity affecting time, you have it reversed. Now you need to come up with a way that tests this hypothesis. Special relativity starts from a basic premise (c is constant), and kinematic time dilation neatly pops out. General relativity is more complicated, but have several basic tenets (one being gravity being indistinguishable from any other acceleration) and gravitational time dilation is a result.

 

These results give specific predictions (i.e. there is math, and a distinct result is calculated) and stem from particular behaviors of nature. What is the physical basis of your thesis, and how can it be (in principle) falsified?

[czimborbryan]

So instead of motion and gravity affecting time, you have it reversed. Now you need to come up with a way that tests this hypothesis. Special relativity starts from a basic premise (c is constant), and kinematic time dilation neatly pops out. General relativity is more complicated, but have several basic tenets (one being gravity being indistinguishable from any other acceleration) and gravitational time dilation is a result.

 

These results give specific predictions (i.e. there is math, and a distinct result is calculated) and stem from particular behaviors of nature. What is the physical basis of your thesis, and how can it be (in principle) falsified?

 

First off, I do not expect to even begin with the calculations necessary for laying this out; laziness, I suppose or just disinterest.

 

As far as your first sentence goes, I believe that motion and gravity are perceived as seperate from time, but it is time that is the underlying influence here.

 

I will also need to read more about general relativity, because I think most of what I am saying must be tied up in that somehow (even though I have little interest for spending this much time on the subject... too many hobbies).

[Bignose]

First off, I do not expect to even begin with the calculations necessary for laying this out; laziness, I suppose or just disinterest.

 

Then, quite simply, you aren't doing anything related to science at all. Like I wrote in your other thread, all you are doing then is telling stories.

 

You also aren't going to gain a lot of traction here on a science-based forum. Because every single story you post, the scientific minded members are going to ask you for evidence, going to ask you for quantitative predictions, going to ask you if your idea predicts things as well as the very-well established and substantiated current theories we have today.

 

I'm not trying to tell you to leave this forum, but I am saying that this tactic of throwing out stories and then refusing (either through inability or lack of desire or any other reason) to approach them scientifically isn't going to go over well on a scientific forum. You may enjoy yourself more, and will get a better reception to this kind of tactic on a philosophy forum or something similar.

[czimborbryan]

Then, quite simply, you aren't doing anything related to science at all. Like I wrote in your other thread, all you are doing then is telling stories.

 

You also aren't going to gain a lot of traction here on a science-based forum. Because every single story you post, the scientific minded members are going to ask you for evidence, going to ask you for quantitative predictions, going to ask you if your idea predicts things as well as the very-well established and substantiated current theories we have today.

 

I'm not trying to tell you to leave this forum, but I am saying that this tactic of throwing out stories and then refusing (either through inability or lack of desire or any other reason) to approach them scientifically isn't going to go over well on a scientific forum. You may enjoy yourself more, and will get a better reception to this kind of tactic on a philosophy forum or something similar.

 

I'm looking for intelligent feedback from those that may have a backgriound in science and some interest in helping me figure this out without having to spend years digging through books when I have much more practical things to do. Since I came up with a few ideas, I thought there may be some like minded professionals that wouldn't mind opening a discussion that would save time and money.

 

I do appreciate swansont's and mooeypoo's feedback and their willingness to throw me a bone.

 

If somebody out there has a good handle on gravity and time and willing to share it with me, I'm all ears.

 

In the meantime, I would appreciate those that are not interested in this discussion to just avoid it. Otherwise, give me some meat to work with.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Does anybody know of any good sites that have the tenants of relativity layed out in bullet points or concisley condensed?

[Sayonara]

In the meantime, I would appreciate those that are not interested in this discussion to just avoid it. Otherwise, give me some meat to work with.

You have already said that your laziness or disinterest is preventing you from doing any of the work necessary to expand your ideas (i.e. the maths), so you won't get very far by alienating the only SFN maths expert who is trying to help you develop your approach.

 

You need to get away from broaching ideas with the words "I think" or "I believe", and try and get to a position where you can instead say "my knowledge of physics leads me to hypothesise mechanism X, and by calculation I predict outcome Y, which can be demonstrated experimentally using method Z".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Does anybody know of any good sites that have the tenants of relativity layed out in bullet points or concisley condensed?

While I am not in any way criticising your willingness to learn, I suspect you will find that relativity is too complex and subtle for "bullet point learning" to be of much use in any consideration of gravitational mechanisms.

 

As always, however, Wikipedia is a good place to start for an introduction to such topics. I am fairly certain other members have good links to more easily-absorbed sites.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Sayonara³
Consecutive post/s merged.

[Bignose]

I'm looking for intelligent feedback from those that may have a backgriound in science and some interest in helping me figure this out without having to spend years digging through books

 

Here's the crux of the problem right here. This is a pretty much impossible request. There are popularizations and analogies of the concepts, but they are only the tiniest tip of the iceberg. To really understand the current theories, you have to put in the work. There is no other way. I'm sorry if I am the one who had to break this fact to you, but it needs to be made clear. Before you out-of-hand dismiss the current idea, you need understand what it really is saying. And no popularization or "bullet-point" synopsis is going to provide real understanding. To get real understanding, you will have put in the work.

 

A good book to start with learning a lot of this is Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality. It is a massive book -- 1100 pages. But it will give a pretty good overview of the current state of understanding. It isn't going to be completely state-of-the-art, you'd have to read the physics journals to get that, but it does cover the major aspects of the current theory. And, yes, it is very mathematical in nature because the current theories are mathematical, though this book is pretty good because it introduces a lot of the necessary math in the beginning of the book. It isn't a textbook, and it really is still only a survey of the major points of the theories, but it also goes much more in depth than any of the popularizations out there that gloss over details Penrose's book won't.

 

Discussion about ideas is fine. As has been written several times over the last few days, discussions are very often the seed to growing new theories. But, they are only the seed. To move past the discussion phase, you need to start doing science. That means investigating what the current theory says about your new idea; that means turning your idea into some kind of mathematical statement so that you can make predictions with it; that means taking your predictions and comparing them with known experimental results and/or developing new experiments to test your idea. That is science. Just talking about things isn't really science -- like I suggested it is more philosophy than anything. The science comes from doing the work to take the idea from mere discussion (or storytelling) and turning it into a predictive tool.

 

I don't mean this to come off harsh if that is what it sounds like to you -- I really don't. But, I think it is also important to make it very clear what is and isn't science, as this is a science forum.

[swansont]

I'm looking for intelligent feedback from those that may have a backgriound in science and some interest in helping me figure this out without having to spend years digging through books when I have much more practical things to do.

 

Do you realize how insulting and condescending that sounds?

[czimborbryan]

My point here is that since I made the post, I have had very little conceptual feedback. No explanations about Why these ideas may be wrong. So far it has been wrong because I haven't provided a proof. Yes, I understand that these ideas may be completely wrong and off-base, but I am not submitting a thesis, I'm hoping for discussion about gravity and time. Does anybody here have any interest in this? And no, I will never work out the details of these ideas in a proof, because I do not have the time (work full-time, grad school, married, other hobbies, plus an utter inproficiency with math...). Maybe somebody else can do that.

 

We should be able to discuss this on a conceptual level and ask, "Is this a possibility; yes, no - why"?

 

I do appreciate BigNose's suggestion to read Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality. This is a constructive, but it would be nice to have somebody discuss with me their understanding of the relationship between time and gravity or space and time.

[mooeypoo]

You are being very unfair.

 

You are asking about theories that sometime take a while to learn and study, and definitely take longer than a single post to explain. Your request for "a bulleted list" for the theory of Relativity (or others) is insulting, quite frankly. There are people who study physics for a long time - including the maths and concepts - and take quite a few semesters to learn the relative basics of that theory.

 

Then, when others try to explain in general terms, you insist on holes that the only reason exist, is because there's no way we can explain the entire theory without getting into the *WELL PROVEN* math (which is the most powerful aspect of the theory, since it provides accurate predictions!).

 

Be fair, and at the very least be open minded enough to read about the theories you think are so false. The fact you don't understand them (which is fine, some theories make my brain hurt too), doesn't mean they're false.

 

This is why fifth graders DON'T get into Relativity. For that matter, most of our education system (around the world) wait until quite an advanced stage in college (after you have the mathematical tenets required, and the physical concepts of the basics) to teach Relativity.

 

Expecting us to explain this perfectly in layman's terms without getting into math, and then having you rip apart our *analogies* (how else can we explain this without math?) is quite unfair.

 

This is a science forum, not a myth and not a philosophy forum. If you want science, be a bit more open minded to the fact that you might not have all the information required to make a valid judgment on a theory you admittedly don't understand.

 

~moo

[czimborbryan]

I am not stating that the entire theory of relativity is false. I think there have been some misunderstandings about my stand here. I am not discounting the established science of the theory, but I am stating that within this theory, time is actually the foundation of the forces behind gravity (in layman's terms). This is further defining what has already been defined (as far as I can tell). I am also giving an alternative to the basic building blocks of matter as waves versus strings or particles or whatever.

 

What we have here is an inability to communicate effectively. I do not understand the math and to a large degree the appropraite scientific vocabulary. Few people are understanding my layman's terms and vague concepts.

 

So I guess what we have here is a quagmire. There, however, should be a way for us to meet on some kind of middle ground to discuss these things.

 

This is what I will do (begrudgingly) - I will dip my big toe into the subject a bit more to use better terminology and find specific pre-existing elements of the theory that I can make contrast and comparison statements about. This way, there is a reference point for the scientific community to relate to. However, if i attempt the math, this will become a 10-year obsession that will not have any practical consequences for me, because I am not an established scientist.

 

I have to admit, I had underestimated the degree of methodological communication needed within this scientific community forum. I am more accustomed to open dialogue with purely conceptual verbage and assumed that there would be a forum for such discussions here.

 

In the meantime, if anybody knows of any good work on time and gravity, drop me a line.

[mooeypoo]

To make any type of declaration about the validity of a tenet of a theory, you need to understand it.

 

You admittedly don't.

 

We have posted here a few attempts to get you on the right direction towards understanding why your idea is just not working in relativity, but you seem to refuse to follow them, and then accuse us of lack of communication.

 

There is no lack of communication here, there's only lack of trying, and it's on your part. I suggest you step down from the high branch you put yourself on and go read the theory you insist on trying to change. The definitions of time, mass, energy and the relations between them are very well defined within Relativity.

 

These relationships are expressed through mathematics.

 

Mathematics are the language of physics, whether you like it or not. I allows us the incredible strength of predicting what would happen if and when something's done.

 

Newton's laws state, in laymen terms, that an action results in equal and opposite reaction between 2 bodies. The math defines the relationship between their masses, the time, and how these would react. Accurately.

 

Same goes with relativity. The tenets are mathematical. The tenets are defining the relationships of mass and time just FINE, and those relationships are not what you propose.

 

You have two options: Get off your high horse and actually do some reading, or keep putting your hands on your ears and stomp your feet on the ground, insisting that you are correct, but refusing the see the maths and "bit-more-complicated" aspects of the theory that prove you wrong.

 

Choose.

 

~moo

[Bignose]

time is actually the foundation of the forces behind gravity

 

Ok. Let's discuss this specifically then.

 

How is this possible? What does "time is actually the foundation of the forces behind gravity" even mean? Because current theory has particle exchange (i.e the photon exchange is the electromagnetic carrier particle) as the foundation of the forces. While its existence hasn't been confirmed, it is currently suggested that the graviton is the force carrier particle for gravity.

 

How does time enter into this as the "foundation"?

[czimborbryan]

Ok. Let's discuss this specifically then.

 

How is this possible? What does "time is actually the foundation of the forces behind gravity" even mean? Because current theory has particle exchange (i.e the photon exchange is the electromagnetic carrier particle) as the foundation of the forces. While its existence hasn't been confirmed, it is currently suggested that the graviton is the force carrier particle for gravity.

 

How does time enter into this as the "foundation"?

 

1. Gravity and time are indistinguishable from one another (space may also be bundled up in this as well, except I'm not sure about this).

 

2. Your quote about current theory is incorrect. So after reading a bit about relativity, it turns out that my great earth-shaking idea of gravity and time has already been written about (maybe I should read a little more).

 

Tony Stanton wrote the following in his paper Gravity, Time & Space

A theory of three dimensional Spacetime Part IV:

"Whilst it is true we all experience the direction or arrow of time there has never been a real physical

explanation for time itself in known physics nor has there ever been any real physical explanation for

the presence of space.

All theories of gravity, until now, have used Newton’s universal gravitational constant but the purely

geometrical nature of TR and the radical way spacetime is viewed in this concept does away with the

need to use ‘G’.

The foundation of the theory of TR is based on time and space being exactly the same entity. In this

concept matter radiates a zone of spacetime by a fixed volume each and every second." - AND he provided the math which i will not pretend to understand: http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton10.pdf

 

See the following info for more: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html

http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node8.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96095009

 

The difference between relativity and my idea is that I beleive:

1. The speed of light is not a constant because variation in time literally change the speed of light and anything passing through it (disregarding a single frame of reference - because of the nature of time/gravity there really is no true single frame of reference- the real frame of reference is a universal one, because this is what we are dealing with in reality).

 

2. Time/Gravity is the "ether" for which waves travel (light spectrum).

 

3. The absence of time/gravity = the absence of everything.

 

4. The essence of particles are waves formed by collisions which due to the nature of time/gravity, become "frozen" and material.

 

5. The relationship of time and gravity are proportional to one another and/or equate one another.

 

6. Time does not move from past to future, it is static in the here and now and provides a ratio of movement only with all frames of reference at the same time.

 

7. Time has density, which can be visualized by seeing a rendering of gravitational field lines around a mass. The more dense time/gravity, the slower time moves. At areas of deep space, time barely exists which can accomodate great speeds of both matter and light.

 

- I'm not sure what else to say.

Edited January 13, 2009 by czimborbryan

[mooeypoo]

1. Gravity and time are indistinguishable from one another (space may also be bundled up in this as well, except I'm not sure about this).

False.

 

Universal Law of Gravitation: [math]F = G\frac{mM}{r^2}[/math]

Time is a unit of measurement. There's no time influence in the above mathematical representation of the law of gravitation.

The two are absolutely distinguishable.

 

 

2. Your quote about current theory is incorrect. So after reading a bit about relativity, it turns out that my great earth-shaking idea of gravity and time has already been written about (maybe I should read a little more).

Do you really claim here that "reading a bit" gives you the ability to unequivocally state the quote as incorrect?

 

Tony Stanton wrote the following in his paper Gravity, Time & Space

A theory of three dimensional Spacetime Part IV:

"Whilst it is true we all experience the direction or arrow of time there has never been a real physical

explanation for time itself in known physics nor has there ever been any real physical explanation for

the presence of space.

All theories of gravity, until now, have used Newton’s universal gravitational constant but the purely

geometrical nature of TR and the radical way spacetime is viewed in this concept does away with the

need to use ‘G’.

The foundation of the theory of TR is based on time and space being exactly the same entity. In this

concept matter radiates a zone of spacetime by a fixed volume each and every second." - AND he provided the math which i will not pretend to understand: http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton10.pdf

 

See the following info for more: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html

http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node8.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96095009

None of the above are peer reviewed articles. You might think that's petty, but it's not. Those are either philosophical ideas by the author (that were not reviewed by other professionals) or popular-science articles, which are not science.

 

Math, man. You can't avoid it, specifically with what you're claiming, and since you seem to be terrified of it, I suggest you - at the very least - drop your "I know better than all" attitude, and be more humble to those who actually follow up on the mathematical applications of what the theories suggest.

 

The difference between relativity and my idea is that I beleive:

1. The speed of light is not a constant because variation in time literally change the speed of light and anything passing through it (disregarding a single frame of reference - because of the nature of time/gravity there really is no true single frame of reference- the real frame of reference is a universal one, because this is what we are dealing with in reality).

Proof? proof proof proof. "I believe" doesn't count.

 

2. Time/Gravity is the "ether" for which waves travel (light spectrum).

As I've shown above (and as you could see if you will keep reading about actual Relativity - general and special) time and gravity are not equivalent.

 

Other than that, what you say in your pt 2 makes absolutely no sense. This would mean that light would change its movement while going in our galaxy (effect of gravity is higher) and out of our galaxy. That's not happening, other than slight effects of bending, which is consistent with gravity originated from *MASS*, and not time.

 

3. The absence of time/gravity = the absence of everything.

How would one prove/disprove this?

 

4. The essence of particles are waves formed by collisions which due to the nature of time/gravity, become "frozen" and material.

okay, I don't even know what to say to that. You need to be more specific. And supply a bit more convincing explanation on why this.. should be accepted rather than the current theory.

 

5. The relationship of time and gravity are proportional to one another and/or equate one another.

Hang on a second. You said they're equivalent. Now you say they're proportional. Turns out, the math shows they're neither, but nevertheless, you should be consistent.

 

6. Time does not move from past to future, it is static in the here and now and provides a ratio of movement only with all frames of reference at the same time.

 

Meaningless statement. Prove and explain this, otherwise it's a meaningless philosophical mambo jumbo, and belongs in a philosophy forum rather than a science forum.

 

Don't forget, czimborbryan, you came to us. We are a science forum, and as such, we require scientific evidence and rigor, specifically when one of the current theories is claimed to be false.

 

The current theory, as we repeatedly said in this and your other thread, is proven by math and observations, it is supplying proper ways to falsify it and provides ways on predicting phenomena in our universe.

 

Your theory needs to do *at least* the above (hence, be better than the current one) for anyone to replace it.

 

~moo

[Bignose]

1. Gravity and time are indistinguishable from one another (space may also be bundled up in this as well, except I'm not sure about this).

 

It took me 37.1 seconds to write this reply. Meanwhile my body experienced a consistent 9.8 m/s/s acceleration due to gravity. My body did not experience 37.1 seconds of gravity, because the acceleration due to gravity is a length per unit of time squared, not a unit of time. I have successfully distinguished between time and gravity. How do you remedy this with your statement that I quoted?

[czimborbryan]

Moo,

 

This is where the soul use of math has blinded your reasoning. This equation is a tool for understanding the force of gravity and has nothing to do with representing the essence of it.

 

This is the scientific equivelent of writing the equation for force of impact for a bullet and saying that guns don't exist because they are not in the formula.

 

I don't think you understand gravity at all, you can do the math, but you don't understand the concepts.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It took me 37.1 seconds to write this reply. Meanwhile my body experienced a consistent 9.8 m/s/s acceleration due to gravity. My body did not experience 37.1 seconds of gravity, because the acceleration due to gravity is a length per unit of time squared, not a unit of time. I have successfully distinguished between time and gravity. How do you remedy this with your statement that I quoted?

 

You are confusing the mechanics of time within the universe with time on your wall clock.

[Bignose]

You are confusing the mechanics of time within the universe with time on your wall clock.

 

Then unconfuse it for me. How can something with the units of length per time squared (gravitational acceleration) or with the units of force (mass time length per unit squared) be "indistinguishable" with something with the units of time?

 

If they were indistinguishable, why can't I use the same measurement device to measure both exactly the same way? Why can't I use a stopwatch to measure the local gravitational acceleration? Why can't I use a spring scale to measure time?

 

And finally, why are the "mechanics of time within the universe" different from time on my wall clock? My wall clock is clearly within the universe, so I would think that the same rules should apply. The space my wall clock occupies is clearly a subset of the space of the entire universe.

 

Edited for grammar & spelling.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Bignose

[mooeypoo]

You're making no sense.

 

 

The mathematical formula represents the phenomena physically.

 

While time *EXISTS*, it is not AFFECTING.

 

And you are, again, being lazy and ignoring our references, nitpicking through our answers.

 

If you insist on claiming we're wrong and you're right, then be intellectually honest enough to prove what you're saying.

 

You can "think" I don't understand gravity, but since you admitted you haven't read almost anyhting about it (from your own admission and your own lacking representations of it), I would be quite bit more careful in such remarks if I were you.

 

Do you want us to take you seriously or not?

 

We are not here to listen to fairy tails. you are in a science forum, use scientific tools. You came to us, remember?

 

~moo