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.

 

One Guy Against Einstein('s Equation for Gravity)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Einstein provided us with Special Relativity, which taught us about inertia and motion, and then General Relativity which linked Gravity and Inertia as being one and the same. As such, there should be obvious and glaring parallels in the equations for gravity and inertia, as well as in philosophies. However, I do not believe, in their current form, the equations provide the full proof of Einstein's staggering claim. (Just to be clear: I 100% support both special and general relativity, the only issue I have is with the equation for gravity).

The first parallel we should recognize is between (gravity) black holes and the speed of light (inertia). Both dilate time infinitely (or stop it, whichever your fancy). On the other end of the spectrum we have (inertia) two object at rest relative to one another and (gravity) a completely empty universe (which, doesn't exist, but still the idealism provides a parallel and does nothing to discredit the idea). There are also shades of gray, where we can relate a neutron star with a speed close to that of light. What is parallel about these things is 1) Time Dilation, 2) an increase in relative mass, 3) length contraction (these things have similar characteristics between inertia and gravity, however may not necessarily be exactly the same).

The second parallel SHOULD be in the equations themselves, there should be a recognizable pattern in the philosophies which explain them.

Inertia: sqrt (1 - v^2 / c^2)
Gravity: t sqrt (1 - 2 G M / R c^2)

Instead of going into an in-depth discussion about the variables used, I will only briefly discuss why I believe the equation for inertia is correct and the gravity equation not.

The equation describing inertia can be summed up quite simply as a measure of the occupation of spacetime over the maximum allowable occupation of spacetime. The equation for gravity is some kind of hybrid mix of various, potentially legitimate, variables (to be honest, I think we need to dump G all together, my apologies to Mr. Newton).

Mass is, essentially, a measure of the occupation of spacetime, HOWEVER, it is wholly inadequate for measuring gravity and the effects thereof.

If we look at the equation for inertia, we find that there is a LIMIT on the amount of spacetime matter can occupy, so the same must be true for gravity (they are THE SAME).

Mass can, potentially, reach infinity, there is no cap to the amount of mass any single black hole can have, so there is SOMETHING MISSING from the equation for gravity. Density should be included in the measure of gravity. Think of it this way: density is a measure of the depth of time dilation (how much time is dilated) whereas mass is a measure of the breadth of time dilation (how far away from the origin time is dilated and how much).

Using density, mass, distance (I have NOT created any equation to describe this, I am NOT a mathematician, there may be more to the equation, I do not know) and realizing the occupation of spacetime, you can truly align inertia and gravity as being one and the same.

You will begin to realize that black holes are not infinitely dense, they are 100% dense. The 100% occupation of spacetime causes there to, essentially, be no time - as the TIME aspect of spacetime is completely filled with matter, thus causing the "infinite" dilation. Space and mass are results of the dilation of time, and thus, as time dilates to 0, relative space shrinks to 0 and mass approaches infinity.

This means that gravity and inertia are NOTHING more than the occupation of and curvature of four dimensional spacetime. (It might help you to understand if I told you to think about all types of motion in terms of time dilation and not distances... or it might just confuse you). A quick note: space is 3 dimensions, time is a fourth - HOWEVER - time is NOT a dimension of space, so we aren't talking about some funky abstract, impossible to imagine structure.

I'm sorry if this seems crude or quickly explained. I was never very good at writing papers or reports and this is something I have been meaning to write up for many months, but kept putting off (I've probably written and re-written this a dozen time, it's just so much information that its difficult for me to properly encompass everything - that and my hundreds of pages of notes ... oy). Maybe I'll come back in a few more months and explain this better and continue further... Maybe not


And for those curious about the title: en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I agree whole-heartedly that a black hole is 100% dense rather than infinitely dense.

And thanks for helping me to better understanding how the density of an object affects time.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
4 Dimensional Spacetime:

Wikipedia:

In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.


Really, 4 spacetime isn't all that difficult to imagine, why physicists insist on continually using Einstein's rubber sheet thought experiment is far beyond my understanding. The goal is to accurately represent the 3 dimensions of space, while including some way or means of measuring or representing the dimension of time.

To clarify wikipedia: TIME is NOT a dimension of SPACE, it is impossible to imagine 4 dimensional space, it is NOT impossible to imagine 4 dimensional spacetime.

If you have been paying attention, you will notice that LENGTH and TIME should always dilate at the same rate, be it in inertia or gravity.

So if you were to take a 3 dimensional wire frame (personally, I think of a giant rubiks cube wire frame) we have our 3 dimensions of space AND our dimension of time. Because time and length are always equal, we know that in a completely uniform wire frame that time is passing in all the parts of it equally. If we were to take an object, a planet, and place it inside one of the cubes, the cube in which it occupies would SHRINK in size - thus causing time dilation and length dilation. Because TIME AND LENGTH both dilate, the size of the cube, as measured from inside of it, reveals that it has NOT shrunk in size when measured against the other cubes.

So a VERY dense object - like a black hole - will dilate the spacetime SO MUCH that it will calculate to be infinitely dense, even though it is not. (How can space exist when it is 100% full with matter? It can't. This means it is 100% dense, not infinitely dense.)

Gravity, is not some projected force, it is not particles spewing out from matter causing attraction, it is nothing more than the curvature of spacetime. The dilation of time is what causes constant acceleration - the time at your feet moving slower than the time at your head (again, think of motion in time dilation, not over distances). This structure of spacetime is all that is needed to explain gravity, mass & inertia.

"Gravity" is always measured from the objects proper frame of reference. "Inertia" is always measured from another object.

Next time: a thought experiment to explain mass.


edit on 9/10/10 by Angry Danish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angry Danish
Mass can, potentially, reach infinity, there is no cap to the amount of mass any single black hole can have, so there is SOMETHING MISSING from the equation for gravity. Density should be included in the measure of gravity. Think of it this way: density is a measure of the depth of time dilation (how much time is dilated) whereas mass is a measure of the breadth of time dilation (how far away from the origin time is dilated and how much).
While there may not be a cap to how much mass a black hole can swallow up, I have a hard time conceiving of the mass reaching infinity as opposed to larger and larger finite amounts.

Who said density wasn't included in the measure of gravity? In fact after making numerous corrections to the raw gravity measurements, we can actually use gravity measurements to measure density variations on different parts of the Earth:

gsc.nrcan.gc.ca...


If one geological body is denser than another, it will have a greater mass per unit volume and a greater gravitational attraction. Measurements of gravity yield little direct geological information, other than to represent the Earth's oblate spheroidal shape, unless corrections are made to account for variations in the Earth's shape and topography....
To isolate the effects of lateral variations in density on gravity, it is also necessary to correct for the gravitational attraction of the slab of material between the observation point and the mean sea level.


And since you're talking about black holes, do you know it's possible for a star to have the same mass as a black hole, but they have different gravity profiles because of the different density? The resulting gravitational field will be the same for each object at a distance, but as you get closer to the object (or event horizon) the density of the object does make a difference in the gravity calculations.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Here are the mathematical terms you're looking for:

"Love moves from image to frontier." -Americanist

www.myspace.com...

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry

Notice the quote from NIN on my main page... Title: The Sum Of All Things Zero




top topics
 
2

log in

join