A New Look at Relativity, just a few thoughts

Last night I began thinking of an alternative way to look at relativity, to explain things in a different manner. After all Relativity is still a theory isn't it?

A thought struck me as I was specifically thinking about time dilation. Could time dilation actually be a large mass "starving" a smaller mass of it's energy from the vacuum of space (Ether)? Therefor, making it operate slower? As one gets closer and closer to the mass, time increasingly slows down accordingly, perhaps this could explain it. As I further extrapolated my idea, I came to a black hole. Could the reason nothing escapes from a black hole, be because it's being completely starved of its energy from space, hence why they say time stops beyond the event horizon. This may also explain why light can't escape. But once the object reaches the center it's greeted with an immense amount of energy stored in a very small space. leaving us utterly confused as to what is happening in the center.

After I dealt with time, I soon came to think about gravity. This was a little harder to deal with and therefor is a bit weird. If a larger mass "starves" a smaller mass of its energy from space, how am I to explain the increase in gravity? My answer goes something like this: the energy the large mass is starving the smaller mass of, is specifically being pulled toward the larger object in one direction. It's being focused in a much smaller cone, 1 degree compared to 360 degrees. So the smaller object will follow this highly concentrated line of energy toward the large object and will never stop. But it is only acting in a much smaller area. How much of your body is being pulled up towards the sky in comparison, little to none. Now dealing with the black hole again. Because the lines of energy the black hole is creating towards it are so powerful, nothing can escape. Matter has no choice but to follow the line into the hole. Once something passes the event horizon, there is no longer any energy at all, being pulled from any other angle by the object other than the line it is following into the black hole.

What do you think, I thought it was an interesting idea. Though it is a little confusing.

You seem to be suggesting that the relationship between matter and time is relevant to understanding space and energy.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

I'm not sure what to think about your theory at all, though I think you created an extra dimension... The ether...


As someone who wholeheartedly believes we are living inside a giant computer simulation of the universe, I did read somewhere on ATS about what another person believes in regards to black holes.
That person believed we were living in a computer simulation too and put the time dilation effect down to processing power.

The more mass/bigger something is the more interactions they have and must be made in that generalized local area and just like any computer when calculating large things, it slows down as there is so much to compute in that area, and that is why time is slower in the area of large objects of mass.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Time dilation is entirely explicable by applying Einstein's equations to a concept of 'deformable' space-time.

Imagine first that we have been measuring all directions except for one with one measure, but for the remaining direction we have used a different scale of measure because we believe it is significantly different than the other directions.

This is what we have been doing with space and time. We measure space in meters or feet but time we measure in seconds.

Einstein proposed that time also could be measured in meters or feet and that time was of the same 'stuff' as space. We know that because the speed of light is invariant that something else must 'give', hence both space and time must warp to accommodate a constant speed of light from all reference frames.

Mass and energy has an equivalence as does space and time. The same equation describes how they interrelate and is testable to verify that it does describe reality.

Your model of "energy stealing" does not explain what this energy may be, how it propagates and how it gets stolen.

But it may be that you will resolve these issues and it will give us a deeper understanding. Definitely there are interrelationships there we may have no clear sufficient model to explain and Einstein's work arose from questioning the orthodoxy.

a reply to: chr0naut

In consideration the Big Bang was an explosion of Space/Time.

This resulted in the existence of Matter/Energy.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

What kind of energy are you talking about?
Because it seems to me like you are talking about "motivation", something which gives the human mind the illusion of being "energized" or not, depending on the level of motivation.

- If a mass enters an area around a larger mass, it's potential energy will climb and then decline = convert to kinetic energy as the smaller mass falls towards the larger mass. There is no deprecating of energy on a physical level.

Could you explain why timedilation is equal to dropping to "a" lower level of energy?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: chr0naut

In consideration the Big Bang was an explosion of Space/Time.

This resulted in the existence of Matter/Energy.

Any thoughts?

Perhaps the concept of an 'explosion' is clouding your conception of the Big Bang. As there was no medium and the expansion encompassed something faster than light, also, this was before there was any matter. It was only pure energy, so a Big Flash is probably a better description.

The problem is that everything we know of happens AFTER this. We can theorize but we have no experience of the kind of things that may have happened at the instant and in the singularity.

Nonetheless Matter and Time seem related,

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Could time dilation actually be a large mass "starving" a smaller mass of it's energy from the vacuum of space (Ether)?

You are confusing special relativity (the theory that talks about the electrodynamics of moving bodies) with general relativity (the theory that explains how gravity works). Although they have similar names, depend on the invariance of the speed of light and were developed by the same genius, they are about very different things. And the ether, as the same genius showed, does not have to exist and most probably does not exist.

originally posted by: Kashai
Nonetheless Matter and Time seem related,

"Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve". - John Archibald Wheeler.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

I heard a talk recently about a number of scientists who are claiming that Einstein was wrong and that his theory could not be reproduced. They seem to be considered as outcasts because of not towing the official Einstein line. If these men are right, they are Professors from a number of different areas of physics, then isn't it time to re-evaluate our basic understanding of relativity? I don't know as physics has never really interested me as a separate subject, but bothers me that we may be going about this half-kilter from the start.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Read:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Special and general relativity are supported by large bodies of evidence. To claim that "Einstein was wrong and that his theory could not be reproduced" is nonsense.

a reply to: DaRAGE

That's also a very interesting concept, if only we knew.

a reply to: Shiloh7

That's one thing I find very unusual in the scientific community. Why are people somewhat put-down when they mention anything outside the realm of Einstein. Keep in mind, it's still a theory.

a reply to: Astyanax

I very well may be, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. I just want to get to the bottom of what ever this "universe" really is.

a reply to: chr0naut

What is spacetime? Surely there is more to it than stretching. I have no doubt that Mr.Wheeler is correct but, does he know what lies behind the mechanism?

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Last night I began thinking of an alternative way to look at relativity, to explain things in a different manner. After all Relativity is still a theory isn't it?

A thought struck me as I was specifically thinking about time dilation. Could time dilation actually be a large mass "starving" a smaller mass of it's energy from the vacuum of space (Ether)?

before you can discuss this, you need to gain a better understanding of Relativity both general and special. it is clear that you do not understand relativity based upon the fact that what you are saying makes no sense what-so ever and/or is completely wrong.

It is clear you have an interest in physics... my advice is act on that interest and educate yourself.... crawl before you can fly in this case...

a reply to: GetHyped

Just because there is a great amount of evidence showing that it is probably true, does not mean it is true. There are a few things Einstein's theories did not account for (dark matter and dark energy), that of which make up 95% of the universe. It still remains a mystery.

Einstein's theories may perfect describe what we see, but many others as do I, believe there may be some underlying mechanism that we simply haven't discovered or measured. Nothing against Einstein, I just find it a bit uncanny.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I'm entirely aware of how most of the theories work, but that doesn't mean I'm totally settled on it. We could simply be miss interpreting what we are seeing. Besides, no one has proven that space is actually being warped. Everything so far can be described through another manner.

Just because starlight is being bent, does not mean space is warping. There could be an alternative method.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: GetHyped

Just because there is a great amount of evidence showing that it is probably true, does not mean it is true.
There are a few things Einstein's theories did not account for (dark matter and dark energy), that of which make up 95% of the universe. It still remains a mystery.

None of this invalidates relativity.

Shiloh7 said, specifically:

I heard a talk recently about a number of scientists who are claiming that Einstein was wrong and that his theory could not be reproduced.

...which is utter bunk and something you have not addressed in your response to me.

Einstein's theories may perfect describe what we see, but many others as do I, believe there may be some underlying mechanism that we simply haven't discovered or measured. Nothing against Einstein, I just find it a bit uncanny.

Then you better have evidence to back up your beliefs. Do you?