Jump to content

Is gravity = time?


Recommended Posts

Is time and gravity related, are they the same thing?


Time in different planets are different.


Even the time on space station is different to time on earth.


Posting messages like this, information in cyberspace is travelling in near light speed if the cables are optical fibre, then the data transfer in the speed of light.


Geographical coordination of the server storage on earth is also important. Specially some places has higher magnetic field thant the others.


It should be achievable in theory...


What is your thoughts?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is time and gravity related, are they the same thing?


Hmm, it is time and energy that are directly related, by the famous E=MC^2


Basically, one can consider the speed of light as being 'the speed of time'. If light travelled faster.....time would run more quickly. So it's just as well light doesn't travel instantly or the universe would have been over in a millisecond.


Gravity is indirectly related, in that gravity bends space, and thus time too. The best way to look at it is that gravity stretches space ( in 3 dimensions ) near massive objects......this stretching makes space act as if the relative distance between points in space is more than in an area further from the massive object. This means light takes longer to travel that distance.....which effectively means a slowing of time.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, my initial thought was this, it only needs some high school maths to understand it.


Einstein's infamous equation: E=mc^2


E = Energy


m = mass (weight of particles)


c = Constant speed of light


If you swap E and C as in high school mathematics on Algebra, you got


c = sqrt(E/m)


Where sqrt is Square root, opposite to square (^2)


c (speed of light) is a physical constant (299,792,458 metres per second)


Metres per second can be graphed in a distance verses time diagram.


Now let's changed "c" to "d/t"


d = distance


t = time


Therefore :


d/t = sqrt(E/m)


and we got time formula from E=mc^2 after swapping in algebra again


t = d/ sqrt(E/m)




Now gravity is acceleration (speed change over time).


Acceleration formula is :


a = (vf-vi) / t




vf is latter speed


vi is older speed


t is time


Now we swap the algebra and get the time formula:


t = (vf-vi)/a


remember a is acceleration of gravity.


Let's call it "g" for gravity from now on and replace "a"


t = (vf-vi)/g


Now we combine both simple physics formula related to time "t" together:


First Equation:


t = d/ sqrt(E/m)


Second Equation:


t = (vf-vi)/g




d/sqrt(E/m) = (vf-vi)/g = t


From this simple physics formulas, we can see that:


gravity "g" and time "t" is related


If you manipulate the acceleration rate / gravity, time will also be affected.


Similar to the "Matrix" movie "bullet time" special effects,


when a person is moving in an enormous speed, everything surround him including the flying bullet forwards him is slowed down in his sight.


Which also means, if you can manipulate the gravity (acceleration rate), time related to you (mass "m") can also be altered.


And at the moment, CERN's LHC system as I posted in the other thread is trying to make black holes, which means manipulating gravity, which also means the time curve inside it will be affected.


This is what I can think of so far, Pamela.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now my second thought was is time reversible?


According to the Wikipedia articles, there are theorys about this matter:






T Symmetry is the symmetry of physical laws under a time reversal transformation.






CPT symmetry is a fundamental symmetry of physical laws under transformations that involve the inversions of charge, parity and time simultaneously.


Which means, time is reversible in theories.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like someone is ahead of me using optical fibre with laser to create event horizon test....


Fibre-optical analogue of the event horizon




Fiber-Optic Event Horizon Mimics Black Hole





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now let's say I have a laser or maser beam from each end of the optical fibre or put a mirror on one end of the laser beam, then the laser should bounce back to optical fibre itself and crashing photons into each other.


Then put this optical fibre with laser in rings, doing it like copper coil and round and round in a donut shape like you make electric generator.


Let's put eight super electro-magnet aligining the eight directions of compass surrounding the optical fibre, the magnetic field shall be charged and energises the particles.


Now spin this laser-optical fibre circular ring in enormous speed.


Will the laser/maser in the optical fibre ring travel faster than light? (speed of light + strong spinning gravitational force)


What would happen afterward?



Link to comment
Share on other sites



CPT symmetry is a fundamental symmetry of physical laws under transformations that involve the inversions of charge, parity and time simultaneously.


Which means, time is reversible in theories.

That's not actually what the T-symmetry suggests. In thermodynamics what T-symmetry suggests is that is you look every closely at the atoms and molecules in a thermodynamic process, which is statistical in nature, it looks the same whether you run the "film" of the event forward or backwards. Its a bunch of atoms and molecules running around in what appears to be a random "pattern". The laws of physics neither distinguish nor require, at that level, difference between forward or backward running time.


The entire CPT symmetry says that is you look at a process and trade every particle for its anti-particle ©, take the mirror image of the system (P) and then run the process backwards (T) you would see the same process as you saw when it was running forwards, except it is the mirror image moving backwards in time. What you wouldn't see is anything "strange" going on, e.g. broken cups "falling up" and reforming into unbroken cups.


CPT symmetry doesn't hold true in every case in classical mechanics. In biochemistry, for example, you can have a molecule that is necessary for life. You look at it and classify it as "levo-chemical name", left-handed. Feed it to an organism and it flourishes. But take the P symmetrical mirror image equivalent of exactly the same molecule, "dextro-chemical name" - right-handed, feed it to the same organism and it starves to death. The organism can't process the mirror image of the same molecule.


We know, and it has been shown to be true, that CP violation (CPV) does occur. We know it as a matter of simple observation because there is no evidence anywhere in the universe that particles and anti-particles were created in equal numbers at the Big Bang. This is a good thing because had they not so been created in unequal numbers there would be no matter at all anywhere. All the equally created particle/anti-particle pairs would have mutually annihilated shortly thereafter leaving only photons.


The underlying QM suggests that there was a very slight imbalance weighted to the particle side (CPV). So we see a very slight bit of matter in the universe after the original particle/anti-particles annihilated and left a smattering of "normal" matter as the remainder as a minor bit of "pollution" in an otherswise photonic universe.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your information, Darby. It is very interesting.


Now let's say there are sucessful experiments to teleport photons in space through Quantum teleportation, for example:


Australian teleport breakthrough


Monday, 17 June, 2002




Teleportation moves on


Feb 13, 2003




Can photons be teleported through time as well?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Time is reversible according a theory put out by stephen hawkins. He said that as the universe expands, time flows in one direction and we remember the past, but not the future. After the universe is done expanding, the universe starts to contract via graviattaional forces and upon contraction, we would remember the future, but not the past. This of course would make sunday confessions obsolete, as you would not remember your past sins.


As far as time and gravity, yes they are related. They are only the same though the same way you would consider light and heat the same. The whole universe, even our thoughts, are made of energies. ALL energies are connected and be converted from one form to another. The basics are like how a magnetic field can create electricity, enough electricity can create light, enough light can create heat (or enthalpy), heat can create pressure, pressure can create heat or electricity or light, etc.


Gravity, time, thoughts, memories are also in that mix and can be converted to and from other forms of energy. If we live in a universe where energy is conserved within a system, then I would have to say that the expansion of universe with acceleration that scientist are able to measure is due, in part, from mankinds population expansion, which in turn expands the amount of thought energy and memory energy within the universe. While thoughts and knowledge increase, the energy for those thoughts is not created out of nothing in a closed system. It comes from somewhere, and being that the universe is expanding with acceleration, that would mean that as we continue to expand, we are approaching the speed of light, and as we do that, time slows for the physical world. For the mental world, it maintains the same energy dynamic, and thus time seems to go faster the older we get (because physical time is slowing down as we get closer to zinging through the U at the speed of light.


If on the otherhand, we live in an endless universe, where energy can be created, then I would have to say that it is mankinds endless thought energy that is the base energy that starts it all. After a thought is conceived, the energy is converted into another energy form (maybe time, maybe gravity, for sure something very small and mostly undetectable, like the energy of thought itself). This thought energy may be the k constant that Einstein needed to balance his Relativity equations.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once speculated on this subject quite a bit.


I believe "gravity" is a byproduct and ruled over by time as the 3rd and 4th measurement respectively.


What I did for my own personal theories is basically this;


- Focus on "time" being representative to the "4th measurement" or "time".


- Relative to the above point, then try and imagine the greatest prime factors or rulers of governance of the dimensions in numerical order as structured from the aforementioned example.




Electricity, gravity, time -


What's another - one?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. can you please explain your 'joke'?

Unfortunately your response above is the joke. I understand that you don't get it.


Q: Who is Stephen Hawkins?


A: I don't get it.


John Baez's answer: 5 points [on the Crackpot Index} for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".


(Dr. John Baez is a professor of mathematics and physics at UC Riverside.)



Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hawkins <> Hawking.


The purpose of that line item in Dr. Baez's "Crackpot Index" is that quite often, internet cranks will invoke some luminary of physics (like Hawking) to try to support their piss-poor science that they are trying to sell someone. Because such people are such obvious cranks, they are often very likely to have NOT researched anything about the person they are quoting. The extreme cases can't even get their name spelled correctly.


Given what you have told us about your past, in the world of science, I would think you should appreciate just how important it is to get someone's name correct if you are citing them for scientific purposes.


It reminds me of one of the first episodes of that crappy UFO Hunters show. On that episode they had a segment where Pat Uskert, a guy with absolutely no clue, training, or knowledge of aerospace engineering proved it to one and all when he made a statement about "Louis Goddard" being the father of American rocketry. To many I am sure it slipped by. But it was like being hit over the head to me, and I almost busted a gut laughing. Someone who does not know that Robert Goddard was the famed American rocket engineer should not be opening their mouth about anything that flies, as far as I am concerned. That is equivalent to saying that "William and Robert Wright" built the first successful airplane, or that the Gettysburg Address was written and delivered by "Albert Lincoln." :D





Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...