Bignose Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I don't think you understand gravity at all, you can do the math, but you don't understand the concepts. This is a truly unfair statement right here. Because quite simply -- neither do you. And you know how I know that you don't either? Because you haven't published any papers in any scientific journals explaining the concepts. If you did truly understand gravity, you would have been able to publish numerous papers and won the Nobel prize by now -- because uncovering the true mechanism of gravity is an ongoing topic of research right now. Like I wrote above, there is a proposed graviton at the carrier particle for gravity, but existence of the graviton has not been proved yet, so in reality no one truly understands gravity. So quit acting all arrogant like you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Then unconfuse it for me. How can something with the units of length per time squared (gravitational acceleration) with the units of force (mass time length per unit squared) be "indistinguishable" with something with the units of time? If there 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? You are not representing a formula for the essence of gravity, but for the force gravity exerts over a given space. This same formula CAN be used to calculate the force of movement time creates. You CAN use a spring scale to measure the ratio of time-density because the force time exerts changes in proportion to gravity. Remember, time is not time on your clock. Time is the relative speed at which objects exist. Uranium is a great example. Uranium will radiate at a constant rate. If a block of uranium was dragged out to deep space in an area of low time/gravity, the rate of radiation would be sharply different than the radiation from uranium on the surface of Earth. Time is necessary for movement and the existence of matter. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurthermore, similar to radiation, the speed of light changes based on the density of time/gravity. Right now at this instant, light is moving more slowly here on Earth than in the same spot we dropped that bar of uranium and in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This same formula CAN be used to calculate the force of movement time creates. You CAN use a spring scale to measure the ratio of time-density because the force time exerts changes in proportion to gravity. Please show me an example. Explicitly. With real numbers and everything. Please show me the formula to calculate the force of movement time. (While you're at it, you might want to define exactly what "movement time" is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The OP has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread in a sufficient manner, or is encouraging a disordered discussion. The OP must bring the thread under control within 24 hours of the time of this post in order for the thread to stay open. If the thread does not turn into a normal and rational discussion within this time then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Furthermore, similar to radiation, the speed of light changes based on the density of time/gravity. Right now at this instant, light is moving more slowly here on Earth than in the same spot we dropped that bar of uranium and in the same way. This conflicts directly with the experimental results that the speed of light is a constant. Please provide evidence that the speed of light is slower here on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Astronaut Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This conflicts directly with the experimental results that the speed of light is a constant. Please provide evidence that the speed of light is slower here on Earth. I don't believe czimborbryan is able to supply that evidence, not a mathematician. To the OP: I have wild ideas also, most do not uproot established science but just changes a variable or two. Yet I won't post them as certainty anymore, like in a previous thread not too long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Please show me an example. Explicitly. With real numbers and everything. Please show me the formula to calculate the force of movement time. (While you're at it, you might want to define exactly what "movement time" is) Force Created by the variation of Time Density Formula as quoted from http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity.htm : The force exerted from the variation in time density is the same as gravity: F = mt where F is the force pulling objects toward the Earth; it is also the weight of the object m is the mass of the object t is the acceleration due to the variation of time-density; this number is a constant for all masses of matter mt is the product of m times t The value of t equals 9.8 m/s² in the metric system and 32 ft/s² in the English system. Change in Time Density Time density effects the speed at which things exist at the following intervals above Earth's surface. For every 100 meters, time is about 0.00000000001% faster; however, upon reaching 220,000 meters gravity (force of time) is 9.16 m/s² and time is moving between 0.000000022% and 6.5% faster because the gravitational field (time-density) is rapidly decreasing. Remember, this is assuming there is no moon or sun or other gravity interacting with Earth and that the Earth is not spinning and the objects are still. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis means that light even radiating from lightning is moving 0.00000000001% faster at 100 meters above Earth's surface. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIgnore point of reference, use universal reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Force Created by the variation of Time Density Formula as quoted from http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity.htm : No! The formula you write is NOT on that page you cite. You cannot just replace a term in an equation because you want to. Please either justify your equation, or find a citation for it. Preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or else we are just going to be going in circles again because then the question is going to be to justify your equation. Time density effects the speed at which things exist at the following intervals above Earth's surface. For every 100 meters, time is about 0.00000000001% faster; however, upon reaching 220,000 meters gravity (force of time) is9.16 m/s² and time is moving between 0.000000022% and 6.5% faster because the gravitational field (time-density) is rapidly decreasing As near as I can tell, you made up these numbers. Any chance (a snowball's in hell maybe) that you can actually show how you got these numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Time dilation due to gravity is not dependent on the strength of gravity (g), it's dependent on the gravitational potential. You can have different gravitational potentials with the same value of g, and you can have different values of g that have the same gravitational potential. You can have time dilation due to purely kinetic effects, as in special relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 No! The formula you write is NOT on that page you cite. You cannot just replace a term in an equation because you want to. Please either justify your equation, or find a citation for it. Preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or else we are just going to be going in circles again because then the question is going to be to justify your equation. As near as I can tell, you made up these numbers. Any chance (a snowball's in hell maybe) that you can actually show how you got these numbers? I can replace the terms and in fact did. This is because gravity and time are ...(as stated above). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTime dilation due to gravity is not dependent on the strength of gravity (g), it's dependent on the gravitational potential. You can have different gravitational potentials with the same value of g, and you can have different values of g that have the same gravitational potential. You can have time dilation due to purely kinetic effects, as in special relativity. I am familiar with the relationship of time and kinetic energy, but to say that kinetic energy causes it is not correct. This shift in time-density in a kinetic state allows motion to happen, it is synonimous with the movement itself. However, you are absolutely correct about gravitational potential. I threw together the above numbers in about ten minutes because certain people want to see stuff like that - and it turned out they were off (big surprise). Anyway, this is what I was trying to say. The position that you are at in a gravitational field determines the value for time density, because this field IS time density. So gravitational potential is the perfect way to measure it, because it is concerned with the strength of the field. The difference of time-density between two positions creates what is called time dilation, but i do not necessarily agree with the terminology and the way it is explained. As stated before, you can see the time-density by studying a rendering of the gravitational field. The speed that light moves in low areas of time/gravity is much faster than in high areas of time/gravity - despite frame of reference, because frame of reference is immaginery. This difference in speed is real and can not be discounted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The speed that light moves in low areas of time/gravity is much faster than in high areas of time/gravity - despite frame of reference, because frame of reference is immaginery. This difference in speed is real and can not be discounted. Why has this never been observed? You also state that radioactive decay of uranium changes with gravity, where has this ever been observed? I am not sure what kind of forum you are used to but it seems to me that you are a very fortunate person to have gotten the answers you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Why has this never been observed? You also state that radioactive decay of uranium changes with gravity, where has this ever been observed? I am not sure what kind of forum you are used to but it seems to me that you are a very fortunate person to have gotten the answers you did. It has been observed. See the links: http://leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-tom/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift Read about History and how the speed of light is calculated differently depending on where it is at (space or on Earth). If it is calculated differently to get to the same speed...speed is actually DIFFERENT. The calculations are manipulated to keep light speed at a constant depending on your frame of reference. If you ignore frame of reference and take a real-world look at the speed of light, it is not constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 and although those are predicted by general relativity, to very precise levels, yet you say relativity is completely wrong. oh, and its just a difference in reference frame. things tend not to translate between reference frames very easily without some of that funky maths you hate so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I am familiar with the relationship of time and kinetic energy, but to say that kinetic energy causes it is not correct. I guess it's a good thing that I never said kinetic energy causes it, then. I said, "You can have time dilation due to purely kinetic effects, as in special relativity." kinetic = relating to or resulting from relative motion. No mention of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czimborbryan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Refreance frames are not real, they are a tool to isolate occurances. Using a universal frame of referance shows that these discrempancies in speed of light are real (because there are infinite frames of referance). What i meant about time and kinetics is that movement does not CAUSE the change in time, but that the change of time accomodates movement. It's more of a simultainious thing and not one thing that causes the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Using a universal frame of referance shows that these discrempancies in speed of light are real (because there are infinite frames of referance). There is no universal frame of reference, so that's patently rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 yet again, czimborbryan show a complete failure on understanding basic concepts of what he is trying to debunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What i meant about time and kinetics is that movement does not CAUSE the change in time, but that the change of time accomodates movement. It's more of a simultainious thing and not one thing that causes the other. That's a claim, but it needs to be tested. We know that motion and changes in gravitational potential will affect time measurements in predictable and verifiable ways. How do you propose to test your hypothesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I can replace the terms and in fact did. This is because gravity and time are ...(as stated above). OK, but then you haven't actually shown anything that I've asked. I asked how gravity and time as the same, how you would use this in an equation, and all you did was say... "gravity and time are the same." If I said, "bananas and strawberries are the same" and then just said "b=s, therefore bananas=strawberries" , that doesn't prove my first assertion at all. It is just a repetition of my first point and doesn't actually prove anything. What I am looking for is actual evidence that supports the first statement, not just re-iteration of it. t is the acceleration due to the variation of time-density; this number is a constant for all masses of matter For example... what is "time-density"?!? How can you measure time-density? How can this be a constant for all masses, when the acceleration due to gravity (g) is definitely different for different masses and the t in your equation is meant to replace the g? Any chance at all these will be any evidence to support your assertion forthcoming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Thread suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts