Nothing is something. The universe is composed of FOUR DIMENIONS - 3 of space, 1 of time. Time is everywhere. Time moving at 100% rate is "Nothing".
If you took this nothing you can stop a part of the time and create a piece of matter.
Think about the most basic structure of the universe. If you stripped away as much stuff as you could and only leave the framework, what do you have? A four dimensional structure of spacetime.
Unfortunately, we tend to think about matter more like a painting, we think of spacetime like the canvas and matter as some weird foreign things that exist on this canvas. Matter is created out of time, or we need an explanation of where matter came from and how it can be converted into energy (which is nothing more than a way of measuring time). The most simple explanation is that matter is created out of time.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
Proving what we know is a fallacy...
t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
This equation describes the effect of speed on time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
In physics, spacetime (or space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation describes how motion through spacetime works. Basically, the one dimension of time controls everything that happens in the three spatial dimensions.
If inertia and gravity are equivalent, then the time dimension should effect the spatial dimensions in a similar manner for both inertia and gravity.
Einstein comes to the conclusion that a sufficiently strong gravitational field will shrink an object to a quantum size - black holes. This is actually incorrect. Because TIME effects the dimensions of space, the effects of gravity will MIRROR those of inertia - as an object approaches the speed of light, its size appears to decrease for observers not in the same inertial frame. There should also be GRAVITATIONAL frames - and as such, a black hole has an actual size - much much larger than anything near quantum size. As time approaches ZERO in inertia, the size also approaches zero - TO OUTSIDE OBSERVERS. THEN as time approaches ZERO in a gravity, the size also approaches zero - as in inertia, size appears to approach zero - to outside observers, however to a person on the body which is slowly approaching zero rate of time, nothing will change.
This equation describes the effect of speed on time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
In physics, spacetime (or space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation describes how motion through spacetime works. Basically, the one dimension of time controls everything that happens in the three spatial dimensions.
If inertia and gravity are equivalent, then the time dimension should effect the spatial dimensions in a similar manner for both inertia and gravity.
Einstein comes to the conclusion that a sufficiently strong gravitational field will shrink an object to a quantum size - black holes. This is actually incorrect. Because TIME effects the dimensions of space, the effects of gravity will MIRROR those of inertia - as an object approaches the speed of light, its size appears to decrease for observers not in the same inertial frame. There should also be GRAVITATIONAL frames - and as such, a black hole has an actual size - much much larger than anything near quantum size. As time approaches ZERO in inertia, the size also approaches zero - TO OUTSIDE OBSERVERS. THEN as time approaches ZERO in a gravity, the size also approaches zero - as in inertia, size appears to approach zero - to outside observers, however to a person on the body which is slowly approaching zero rate of time, nothing will change.
Friday, November 25, 2011
There is no infinite density.
t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
If you believe my interpretation of this equation, then both black holes and the speed of light are measurements of maximum occupation of spacetime. Neither is/can be infinite.
To recall the example of the square rug in a square room, once the size of the rug is equal to the size of the room, the values that are returned are the same as the values for a black hole or an object traveling the speed of light. We never say that the room is infinitely dense.
If you believe my interpretation of this equation, then both black holes and the speed of light are measurements of maximum occupation of spacetime. Neither is/can be infinite.
To recall the example of the square rug in a square room, once the size of the rug is equal to the size of the room, the values that are returned are the same as the values for a black hole or an object traveling the speed of light. We never say that the room is infinitely dense.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Equation Explained:
As stated in a previous post, all math can be translated into basic theory - a description of the math should give an accurate account of what is happening.
t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t = time dilation, length contraction
v = velocity
c = speed of light
*NOTE* The inverse of this equation gives the increase in mass
Special Relativity is a form of geometry... Basic rules of geometry apply (squares = adding dimensions)
The easiest way to explain this equation is to give an example; if you had a square rug inside a square room and you wanted to know the unoccupied area of the floor, you would have the following equation:
unoccupied area = 1 - rug^2/room^2
where rug and room are the length of each
"1" is then representative of 100%, the whole
Time, Mass, Length are all measurements of the occupation of 4 dimensional spacetime.
Mass does not need anything other than a structure of spacetime and some amount of matter to exist.
Our arbitrary measurements of length are given meaning by putting them in terms of an absolute - the speed of light. The answer which is given is given in percent change, which is why we can still use arbitrary measurements without using an absolute for many equations. Any equation which gives an answer of percent change should be a ratio of occupation/maximum possible occupation.
The recognition that gravity is dependent on relative motion gives us information that MASS and VELOCITY are two different ways of measuring the EXACT SAME THING - the occupation of 4 dimensional spacetime.
Which leads to the conclusion that if we are to continue using "mass" as a form of measurement that there SHOULD be an equation:
t=sqrt(1-d^2/D^2)
t = time dilation
d = density
D = absolute density
THIS EQUATION HAS NO BEARING ON GRAVITY, ONLY THE TIME DILATION OF THE PARTICLE ITSELF EXPERIENCES.
Why density?
Velocity is a measure of Distance/Time.
Mass is measure of ... only the total occupation of time.
Density is a measure of the total occupation of space and time - Time/Area.
t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t = time dilation, length contraction
v = velocity
c = speed of light
*NOTE* The inverse of this equation gives the increase in mass
Special Relativity is a form of geometry... Basic rules of geometry apply (squares = adding dimensions)
The easiest way to explain this equation is to give an example; if you had a square rug inside a square room and you wanted to know the unoccupied area of the floor, you would have the following equation:
unoccupied area = 1 - rug^2/room^2
where rug and room are the length of each
"1" is then representative of 100%, the whole
Time, Mass, Length are all measurements of the occupation of 4 dimensional spacetime.
Mass does not need anything other than a structure of spacetime and some amount of matter to exist.
Our arbitrary measurements of length are given meaning by putting them in terms of an absolute - the speed of light. The answer which is given is given in percent change, which is why we can still use arbitrary measurements without using an absolute for many equations. Any equation which gives an answer of percent change should be a ratio of occupation/maximum possible occupation.
The recognition that gravity is dependent on relative motion gives us information that MASS and VELOCITY are two different ways of measuring the EXACT SAME THING - the occupation of 4 dimensional spacetime.
Which leads to the conclusion that if we are to continue using "mass" as a form of measurement that there SHOULD be an equation:
t=sqrt(1-d^2/D^2)
t = time dilation
d = density
D = absolute density
THIS EQUATION HAS NO BEARING ON GRAVITY, ONLY THE TIME DILATION OF THE PARTICLE ITSELF EXPERIENCES.
Why density?
Velocity is a measure of Distance/Time.
Mass is measure of ... only the total occupation of time.
Density is a measure of the total occupation of space and time - Time/Area.
Gravity is Relative
Spacetime can exist in numerous forms, two of the main ideas are either Mach's Principle or an Independent Structure of Spacetime (ISST) (one that exists without matter to "create" it).
A universe which has an ISST must obey certain rules. We know that all motion is relative, we know that the "force" from gravity is proportional to mass and we know that "force" from gravity is also proportional to relative velocity.
The biggest problem with the idea of an ISST is that gravity is proportional to relative velocity. Any one body curves spacetime an infinite number of ways, depending on velocity relative to what it's being measured against. To put it another way, you have a single structure of spacetime but infinitely different measurements of how it is curved.
A universe which has an ISST must obey certain rules. We know that all motion is relative, we know that the "force" from gravity is proportional to mass and we know that "force" from gravity is also proportional to relative velocity.
The biggest problem with the idea of an ISST is that gravity is proportional to relative velocity. Any one body curves spacetime an infinite number of ways, depending on velocity relative to what it's being measured against. To put it another way, you have a single structure of spacetime but infinitely different measurements of how it is curved.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Gravity.
For the last 3 years, I have been constructing a universe, in my mind, that does not exist. Testament to a system of teaching which is wholly inadequate (especially given our knowledge as a species on the topic of physics), but that's another rant for another day. I'll make 900 mistakes before coming to a correct conclusion, these 900 mistakes teach me about how and WHY things are the way they are.
I have heard, too often, that physics is meaningless without math, yet in the 12+ years of schooling I received math was always a system of describing things which could be translated into a coherent idea, a description of what interactions are taking place and why each function is being performed. In Physics, the exodus away from theory (explanation) and towards math has led to a very exclusive science. Theory without math is just a bunch of words. Math without theory is equally as meaningless.
The ideas I want to discuss do have mathematical backing. They are based off of rules, followed to logical conclusions. Rules which I have spent beating out of people and texts.
My latest discovery (and one which should have been in every/any level physics book) is that the gravity of an object is not dependent solely on its mass, but its motion as well. An object in relative motion will have a slightly increase gravitational pull compared to the object when it is at relative rest.
This is been a complete epiphany for me. For 3 years I have held a model of the universe in which the structure of spacetime is independent of all matter and one of the conclusions I came to was that gravity was dependent on rest mass. If gravity was NOT dependent on rest mass, and instead changes with relative velocity, then the independent structure of spacetime has to curve differently for different objects which are all moving relative to one another.
From what I know, Physicists are currently working on a graviton "particle" theory. Which is something they will never find. Just like the Higgs Boson. This is akin to "Mach's Principle" (which then also has to explain how gravitons are created, exchanged, chicken/egg (matter/spacetime), etc, etc, etc). Each object in the universe essentially has its own "island" of spacetime that it emits and it measures every other object's gravity according to this island.
(Just a thought to address at some point: What about frame dragging then?)
A universe in which an independent structure of spacetime exists has its own set of problems. We begin needing a system which multiple states can occur for a single part of spacetime.
I have heard, too often, that physics is meaningless without math, yet in the 12+ years of schooling I received math was always a system of describing things which could be translated into a coherent idea, a description of what interactions are taking place and why each function is being performed. In Physics, the exodus away from theory (explanation) and towards math has led to a very exclusive science. Theory without math is just a bunch of words. Math without theory is equally as meaningless.
The ideas I want to discuss do have mathematical backing. They are based off of rules, followed to logical conclusions. Rules which I have spent beating out of people and texts.
My latest discovery (and one which should have been in every/any level physics book) is that the gravity of an object is not dependent solely on its mass, but its motion as well. An object in relative motion will have a slightly increase gravitational pull compared to the object when it is at relative rest.
This is been a complete epiphany for me. For 3 years I have held a model of the universe in which the structure of spacetime is independent of all matter and one of the conclusions I came to was that gravity was dependent on rest mass. If gravity was NOT dependent on rest mass, and instead changes with relative velocity, then the independent structure of spacetime has to curve differently for different objects which are all moving relative to one another.
From what I know, Physicists are currently working on a graviton "particle" theory. Which is something they will never find. Just like the Higgs Boson. This is akin to "Mach's Principle" (which then also has to explain how gravitons are created, exchanged, chicken/egg (matter/spacetime), etc, etc, etc). Each object in the universe essentially has its own "island" of spacetime that it emits and it measures every other object's gravity according to this island.
(Just a thought to address at some point: What about frame dragging then?)
A universe in which an independent structure of spacetime exists has its own set of problems. We begin needing a system which multiple states can occur for a single part of spacetime.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)