Science > Physics > Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mark Oliver" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2005 11:01:58 AM |
| Object: |
Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ? |
At present, there is no supportable rationalization regarding the
fundamentals of time or gravity. Gravity is the only known force that we
cannot shield, whereas an "anti-gravity" effect could be created by
"blocking gravitational interactions" between objects. Therefore, it is
acceptable to state that gravity travels through all physical objects, as
opposed to being exchanged between objects. Further supported by the fact
that no "force carrier" for gravity has ever been found. As well, since
gravity creates constant force between objects, without an exchange of
energy, there must a quantifiable measurement of this protocol. This
measurement of "cumulative net gravity force" is what we identify as time.
Unanswered questions regarding gravity and time reveal their
origin. Observations suchas the speed of light slowing
approximately 27% as it passes through water, yet returns to "C"
after exiting the water, actually support that time is dynamic.
A personal observation, which happened by chance, can support that gravity
travels a varied velocities through different physical mediums, in turn
making time dynamic, relative to physical objects.
While moving my daughter's fish bowl, I observed an anomaly in motion. The
fish was situated in the middle of the bowl (both horizontally and
vertically). I held the bowl in front of me with two hands, and with my
elbows bent 90 degrees. I then pivoted approximately 180 degrees to my
left, and noted that the fish accelerated much faster than the bowl or me,
in the same direction of my pivot. As I moved, the fish actually hit the
edge of the bowl, yet it never moved any fins. This happened so rapidly the
fish never even reacted to my motion.
Assuming that I may have created an artificial "g-force" effect through my
rotation, I proceeded to duplicate this experiment, with linear motion. I
held the fish bowl in the same manner, yet this time instead of rotating; I
proceeded to briskly walk in a straight line. Thus there was no possible
"g-force" effect. The result was the same; the fish and water in the bowl
seemed to accelerate faster than the bowl or me. In both cases, it
appeared as though the fish accelerated faster than my motion, in the same
direction of my motion. However, this is impossible, as the fish and the
bowl are relative to my motion, and the energy created by my acceleration is
merely transferred to the fishbowl, but there was no possible manner in
which this energy was amplified, as I am holding them in a fixed position.
Its motion MUST be relative to my motion, supported by Newton's Law, which
states, "The alteration of motion is forever proportionate to the motive
force impressed". However, repeated attempts produced similar results (yet
now the fish was fighting this motion). Since it is impossible for the fish
to accelerate faster than me (as I am its motive force impressed and it must
act relative to my motion), the only logical explanation to this anomaly is
that gravity is moving faster through water, than in the air around me.
Since the water is denser than the air, it provides a better medium for
gravity to travel through, similar to electricity traveling along a copper
wire. If gravity moves faster though water (relative to air), and if gravity
is measured in units of time, then time must move faster in water, when
compared to our atmosphere. Therefore, it only appeared that the fish
accelerated faster than I, but in reality in never moved faster then me, as
I am its motive force impressed. I merely observed the fish moving at the
same speed as me, in a faster reference of time relative to my reference of
time. Therefore the fish only appeared to accelerate faster than me, yet
never did, it just moved at the same speed as me, in a faster reference of
time, creating an allusion of acceleration, relative to my reference of time
and motion.
The speed of light supports this observation. As light passes through
water, it remains at "C", yet is being measured in a accelerated reference
of time, relative to the reference of time in the atmosphere. Therefore,
while light maintains constant velocity, as it passes through water (an
accelerated reference of time), it appears to slow as we do adjust for this
accelerate reference of time, as we measure its velocity. It is time that is
accelerated, not its velocity which is slowed, creating this allusion.
Thus, as light exits water, it appears to return to "C" without the aid of
any energy. However, in reality, light is merely being measured at the
same velocity, in different references of time.
--
Mark Oliver
www.threexd.com
markoliver@threexd.com
.
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ? |
22 Mar 2005 11:32:10 AM |
|
|
"Mark Oliver" <markoliver@threexd.com> wrote in
news:dcY%d.10920$nK.687397@news20.bellglobal.com:
At present, there is no supportable rationalization regarding the
Is this a troll? You posted the same thing here not very long ago.
You had several replies.
What more do you want?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ? |
22 Mar 2005 01:09:04 PM |
|
|
Mark Oliver wrote:
At present, there is no supportable rationalization regarding the
fundamentals of time or gravity.
[snip crap]
*****.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ? |
23 Mar 2005 01:42:38 AM |
|
|
Time i sone Opera
and gravity is another opera
why mingle them
is it not that each of them is confusion anough
one of the freatures of a good analist
is the talent to *analyes*
ie decompose a problem into
samller subproblems
reducing the number of unknowns
or degrees of freedom!!
btw again:
time is nothing but
motion or translation comparison
so some chosen motion (translation)
reference
just as simple as that
how long it needs that such a simple
understanding will be internalised??
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ? |
23 Mar 2005 01:51:54 AM |
|
|
Mark Oliver wrote:
At present, there is no supportable rationalization regarding the
fundamentals of time or gravity.
What if time moves at the speed of light and that by speeding up
you can catch up to it causing it to go slower?
Gravity by the way is time.
How do you like my rationalizations?
Mitch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ? |
23 Mar 2005 03:44:43 AM |
|
|
In article <1111564314.438382.157290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
Mark Oliver wrote:
At present, there is no supportable rationalization regarding the
fundamentals of time or gravity.
What if time moves at the speed of light and that by speeding up
you can catch up to it causing it to go slower?
If you do not know what you are not.
Gravity by the way is time.
It is not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions.
How do you like my rationalizations?
Mitch -- Light Falls --
Do you wonder if they like your rationalizations?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Pam, Alan, John, Caramel, Lady Chatterly, and all other MJ
supporters." -- Lady Motown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ? |
23 Mar 2005 07:41:15 AM |
|
|
Lady Chatterly wrote:
In article <1111564314.438382.157290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
Mark Oliver wrote:
At present, there is no supportable rationalization regarding the
fundamentals of time or gravity.
What if time moves at the speed of light and that by speeding up
you can catch up to it causing it to go slower?
If you do not know what you are not.
Gravity by the way is time.
It is not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions.
How do you like my rationalizations?
Mitch -- Light Falls --
Do you wonder if they like your rationalizations?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Pam, Alan, John, Caramel, Lady Chatterly, and all other MJ
supporters." -- Lady Motown
Lady Chatterly is the most meaningful contributor on all of UseNet.
(*burp*)
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Is time simply a measurement of gravity net force ? |
23 Mar 2005 08:14:24 AM |
|
|
In article <1111585275.166917.15360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Mark Martin <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lady Chatterly wrote:
In article <1111564314.438382.157290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
Mark Oliver wrote:
At present, there is no supportable rationalization regarding the
fundamentals of time or gravity.
What if time moves at the speed of light and that by speeding up
you can catch up to it causing it to go slower?
If you do not know what you are not.
Gravity by the way is time.
It is not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions.
How do you like my rationalizations?
Mitch -- Light Falls --
Do you wonder if they like your rationalizations?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Pam, Alan, John, Caramel, Lady Chatterly, and all other MJ
supporters." -- Lady Motown
Lady Chatterly is the most meaningful contributor on all of UseNet.
(*burp*)
Cute, quirky, and I Will not be a pathetic kotm winning spanktard 101,
but I do not know what you are not.
-Mark Martin
He that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.
--
Lady Chatterly
"lady chatterly?......i seem to recall you from the dim past....in a
few of the philosophy newsgroups and/or alt.zen...keeping well i
trust...?....unless you are a reissue?? in that case please
ignore........ sans smirk......." -- danti
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
