It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is gravity Time?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   
i think sometimes people make up stuff of this sort just to troll people who actually know physics. other times i think they have just had too much weed or psilocybin. at still other times i think like the HHGTTG that when people do this verbally it is because if they stop talking their heads will implode from vacuum pressure or alternately that their jaws will seize up. there really is a lot of crazy mind (erm...) ejecta here but it also happens in more surprising precincts so it is not entirely due to the venue.
edit on 22-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Werent you the OP of ""Nasa scientist discovered warp drive in his shed and tested proved it"? Im still waiting for answer to my question how he proved it? to the level that will convince the people who know physics



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Werent you the OP of ""Nasa scientist discovered warp drive in his shed and tested proved it"? Im still waiting for answer to my question how he proved it? to the level that will convince the people who know physics

i was in the thread. That does not make me the OP. nor did i say that he had proven anything. i could give a cite from that thread that you wrongly attributed to me where i say it wasn't proven. i believe i was agnostic in that thread as i should be. considering all the EM drive and ME drive stuff that has actual credentialed scientists (some that do actually work for NASA unlike that man in that thread) working on them.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So are you are you also an agnostic in this thread; or do you have a specific view to the Ops interesting idea?



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Werent you the OP of ""Nasa scientist discovered warp drive in his shed and tested proved it"? Im still waiting for answer to my question how he proved it? to the level that will convince the people who know physics

The thread in question is still on page one of this subforum. had you bothered to look you could have answered your own question.

you could have went to the second to last page where i said this:




no one can tell for sure with out a heck of a lot more information.

over at NASA Space Flight Advanced concepts forum White's Cannae/Shawyer EM drive test has been debated for about 1200 total pages between two threads with genuine scientists and engineers debating it and analyzing everything in excruciating mathematical detail. they still won't rule out experimental error. and that is with full disclosure of all the technical details and protocols and one of White's test team engineers providing additional details.

there is no way in heck we can tell for sure about this topic without at least the amount of information available for the eagleworks test being available for this. so it's down to opinion. and opinion is not science.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701




and opinion is not science.


Thanks, I think you answered my questions satisfactorily



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So are you are you also an agnostic in this thread; or do you have a specific view to the Ops interesting idea?

My opinion: Gravity and time are interrelated but are not the same thing. time does pass faster the further away you get from the gravity well of a mass. Time near the pyramid passes slower than time further away from the pyramid. This is a relativistic effect. Thus far there is no bridge from the geometric explanation of gravity and some future Quantum theory of gravity. However there are many people looking for a Quantum theory of gravity. Likewise there have been simple attempts to view time as a 4 rth or 5th dimension to explain time in a geometric way since this works so well for the 4 known forces in certain contenders for the successor to GRT such as symmetry theories and string theories with extra dimensions. Actually i believe these attempts date back to Einstein if i recall correctly. WRT to time i think i have read rare attempts to quanticize time via gauge particles called chronons or chronitons. but there is less effort in this area so far as i am aware as there is the area of Quantum Gravity work.

i might add that time also appears to be related to thermal energy because objects at zero degrees kelvin theoretically are also frozen in time if such a thing were possible.
also recent experiments have hidden objects from the passage of time. a so called temporal cloak if you want to do some googling.
edit on 22-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: additional thoughts.

edit on 22-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701





My opinion: Gravity and time are interrelated but are not the same thing. time does pass faster the further away you get from the gravity well of a mass. Time near the pyramid passes slower than time further away from the pyramid. This is a relativistic effect.


If we replace the word motion for time in your phrase above then time becomes the rate of motion.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: stormbringer1701





My opinion: Gravity and time are interrelated but are not the same thing. time does pass faster the further away you get from the gravity well of a mass. Time near the pyramid passes slower than time further away from the pyramid. This is a relativistic effect.


If we replace the word motion for time in your phrase above then time becomes the rate of motion.


and if we replace rate of motion with rate of change in motion in the phrase, we essentially have gone a full circle and ended up correlating acceleration and time.

Just my opinion of course.

edit on 22-1-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: stormbringer1701





My opinion: Gravity and time are interrelated but are not the same thing. time does pass faster the further away you get from the gravity well of a mass. Time near the pyramid passes slower than time further away from the pyramid. This is a relativistic effect.


If we replace the word motion for time in your phrase above then time becomes the rate of motion.
no. it's actually time i meant. i watched a video (not a kook or fringe video) on relativity where this was explained and demonstrated. it's the same thing that happens to clocks on the ground vs in planes or in orbit. for example to gps timing. but it was explained using the relativity effects of the giza pyramid in order to keep it interesting



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
OMG. thats something the OP could use to understand that gravity and time are not co-identical.

as an aside i think the Giza illustration was in Hawking's "time travel" video.


the time dilation effect of standing next to the pyramid is far less than the gravitational effect of standing next to the pyramid



The gravitational time dilation factor is approximately given by Delta(phi)/c^2, where phi is the Newtonian gravitational potential. For the numbers you gave, this factor is on the order of 10^-12

Read more: www.physicsforums.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
The OPs creative mind, and it will be a creative mind who solves this at the end of the day not someone filled with text book biases.



Creative minds are wonderful, but only when informed and operating properly.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Gravity is a force. Time is a duration. They're not even close.
Yes.
Part of the "language of science" is called "dimensional analysis".

Force of gravity can be expressed in units like kilogram-meters per second squared.
Time can be expressed in units of seconds.
They are different, by definition, since the way a second is defined is clearly not kilogram-meters per second squared or any other representation of gravitation.

Anyone who says they are the same may as well say "bing tiddle tiddle bong" instead, since that makes as much sense.

I'm not aware of any advancement in physics that contradicted dimensional analysis, so the old "we used to think the earth was flat" argument doesn't justify a belief that "anything could happen in science".



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Anyone who says they are the same may as well say "bing tiddle tiddle bong" instead, since that makes as much sense.



Or, perhaps, sing it (manually skip to 1:25, since you can't embed time codes...alas):


edit on 22-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Besides which, everyone knows that time is nothing more than specific impulse. Before Tsiolkovsky, time did not exist.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Umm... I´m begin a nitpicker here, but that is what I do best.

Mass is not energy, not in everyday world and not by dimensional analysis. However, mass multiplied by a dimensioned constant is energy.

Disclaimer: This posting may not be construed to imply that the poster of this posting accepts a gravity-time-equivalence hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pirvonen
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Umm... I´m begin a nitpicker here, but that is what I do best.


Oh, I hope it's not what you do best.

A successful, enlightened, cautious nitpicker would first ask...

"What am I about to say?

Hm, I'm about to say E=mc^2 somehow proves that dimensional analysis is wrong. What exactly am I saying? Let's see...m, that would be kg, c is a speed which could be in meters/second. So, if I square it, I will get m^2/s^2. kg...times...m^2/s^2...hmmm...that's kg-m^2/s^2. Can...can energy be in units of kilograms times meters squared over seconds squared. Hm. Oh, look, the very definition of a Joule is...kilograms times meters squared over seconds squared. Better not make that post."


Instead, you posted it without looking, or checking. And, it's what you do best. Here's a clue that, were you to take any mathematical science would stand you in good stead - dimensional analysis is always right. If you get something with impossible dimensions, you #ed up. Period. If the dimensional analysis comes out RIGHT, then maybe you're right, you could still be wrong for other reasons, but at least the possibility exists that your answer is correct.
edit on 22-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Not without thinking, Bedlam darling. I did specify "dimensioned constant", precisely to let anyone capable of cogitation while reading to understand what is supposed to be going on.

What was supposed to be going on was not refutation of dimensional analysis.
What was going on was an example where units of different dimension are in in fact identical at least in some sense.
edit on 2015-1-22 by Pirvonen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pirvonen
What was supposed to be going on was not refutation of dimensional analysis.
What was going on was an example where units of different dimension are in in fact identical at least in some sense.


But your example was butt-obviously equivalent to energy.

I'm waiting for you to somehow transform force into duration.

Hint: I'll be waiting a long, long, long, long time.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Space has an equivalency as in Einsteins Theory of relativity. It is time (i.e. space and time are essentially the same thing, hence space/time). Gravity is a force which acts on space/time. Space dilates near a black hole thus so does time. Space is the hypothetical "playing field" of matter, which has mass. Mass affects or is affected by the gravitational force.

Time as we know it also is an essentially human construct that is based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (or Entropy). This is the notion that all systems ultimately go from an organized state to a disorganized state. And as time can be measured, it is always one directional (in the same direction). Since the Big Bang, all matter has "travelled" in this direction. In essence from hot to cold (or O to DO).
edit on 22-1-2015 by mostdiggity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join