Gravity as a Temporal Gradient

Mar 5, 2020
311
43
210
Space-Time is the basis for all physical phenomena.

[arg 1] The origin of time is space.

[arg 2] Mass displaces time from the surrounding space.

[arg 3] A uniform gradient in the rate of time (slower to faster) extends away in all directions from a fixed spherical mass.

[arg 4] This gradient in time produces a force on other masses which is recognized as gravity.

Argument 1 accepts space-time as being literal.

Argument 2 introduces and (partially) defines a new property for space-time.

Argument 3 is canon.

Argument 4 reverses the relationship of cause and effect in the present canon.

A simple mathematical model relating mass (as energy) to time predicts the Galactic Velocity Curves without the experimentally missing dark matter.

A belated “watch out for that rabbit hole.”

Lewis Carroll never mentioned a Texaco oil drum containing a rather toothy cat’s skeleton.

Who would kill to control knowledge … that might produce warp fields?
 
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
This seems as much a muse as a query, and a fair-minded one at that.
If I may venture an attempt to respond favorably-minded and in kind somehow, it occurred to me recently that, whereas any fast-moving close-up object just a few feet away may be blurred in part, when we look into deep space, even though we know that the closer edge of a galaxy viewed at almost any angle other than a perfect circle, we know that the nearer edge is anywheres up to 100,000 lightyears closer than the more distant edge, this also means the near and far edges are up to 100,000 years different in their perceived age to us, yet the entire viewed as a whole is always so crystal clear in every part. Does anyone find that as fascinating as I do? And thank you for your post.
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2020
311
43
210
A nearby object is blurred because the eyes use slow chemical receptors. High speed cameras of fast moving objects are clear.
 
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
There was a science paper or news article about 'The Impossible Dinosaurs' a few years ago. Even back in the mid-twentieth century, scientists had conjectured that the big sauropods must have been so heavy that they could not have supported their own mass under one modern Earth 'gee', or gravitational unit of force or 'downward pull'. They said they must have had to spend all their time immersed up to their necks, to survive the force of gravity.
This other gentleman conjectured that instead of semi-submerged living, he thinks Earth's gravitational pull would have had to be a lot less than what it is today. In fact, he measured the sizes of the largest sauropods, and he calculated the muscle strength of modern human body builders -like Arnold Schwarzenegger- and factored in the cross-sectional strength of muscle fibers versus body mass. He observed that with increasing size, strength tends to increase as the 'square' of the measure (of the body's physical dimensions), whereas the weight tends to increase as the 'cube' of the measure.
This meant that as one went up in size, muscle strength did not keep pace with body weight.
He did some 'number crunching', and came to the following conclusions;
1) Modern elephants are already at the upper limit of what is possible for animals to grow to, and survive Earth's pull.
2) For prehistoric sauropods like brontosaurus or Tyrannosaurus Rex to have existed, Earth's gravitational pull would have had to be one-forth (1/4th) of what it is today.
Somehow, he concluded, Earth's gravitational pull must have undergone a fourfold increase between the time of the dinosaurs, and today, without completely wiping out all life on the Earth. One look at a grown elephant's load-bearing design seems to bear this out. Everything about an elephant's shape looks as if it is close to its absolute upper load-bearing limit. An adult elephant's size would have been nothing remarkable in the prehistoric world of the truly giant raptors and sauropods. Yet the body of a giant adult two-legged Tyrannosaurus does not look like it is sacrificing all under crushing burdens, but is instead graceful and useful for high-speed attack. Tyrannosaurus is often shown in bipedal mode, shifting from right to left to right legs and balancing on one springlike leg at a time. Compare that to a 'running' elephant, which dare not lift more than one pillar-like leg off the ground at a time while keeping the other three firmly grounded.

So, did a small black hole merge velocities with Earth and go 'plop' instead of 'crash', and come slowly down to the Earth's surface, and sink in, and end up at the Earth's core, increasing Earth's gee-force by 4X? It would only have had to do it so 'gently' as to have wiped out the dinosaur age, while ushering in the age of mammals. Or could perhaps a cluster of rock-like asteroids from a broken up neutron star-like object do the trick? There's no absolute template that dictates that every major rogue body has to impact the Earth at a velocity differential amounting to thousands of miles per hour.
Perhaps a second 'moon' finally merged at only a hundred kilometers per hour, a 'kiss' instead of a 'smack'. If the hypothetical anatomical formula indicates Earth's gravitational pull had to have increased four-fold, it did not necessarily have to happen as with Shoemaker-Levy 9's catastrophic multiple high-speed impacts with Jupiter.
Or was perhaps some other explanation the as-yet unknown culprit? I never would have thought of this myself, but having once encountered this 'impossible dinosaurs' scenario, I could not help being intrigued by the idea ever since.
 
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
I would like to add two more possible explanations for a four-to-one gravitational shift between the times of the dinosaurs, and now. That is; the idea that the Earth's gravitational pull somehow seemingly increased fourfold between then and now.
Both are highly improbable, but since this is the forum for such ventures, why not lay them out and let the Readers take pot shots at them?
First, what if the Earth's atmosphere was so much more dense before, like that of Venus is now, but in a liveable mix? Could Earth's atmosphere have been so dense that 'bouyancy' became a factor? Venus at ground level is reported to be so dense as to compare to Earth's oceans at a depth of several thousand feet below the surface. Could this have helped 'float' the bodies of all creatures, giving the same bouyancy effect as if gravitational pull was only one-fourth as effective as now? Then we have only to explain away the loss of all that atmosphere of Earth in dinosaur times 65 million years ago, compared to today.
My second offering is even more bizarre, but that is what forums are for, so here we go. I am speaking of the 'hollow Earth' theory, which goes something like this:
When the early Solar System first began to form planets out of rocky aggregates of stone and ice, before things heated up, Earth was a mush ball of frozen rock and ice.
Now, we know that barred spiral galaxies are not the result of the physical forces found in Earth watery vortexes at sea level known as 'whirlpools'; they are instead the manifestation of 'gravity waves', which bind together the stars in migrational 'bar formations', the 'focus' of which is concentrated within the bars.
Similarly, the gravitational 'pull' of such a mud ball as early Earth, as it begins to heat up, might it not find 'focus' at the surface rather than the core? What if the heat transforms the ice into gas, and what if the gas fails to escape, and pushes outward powerfully enough to counter-act the force of gravity? Thus, all the beautiful Earth's Interior charts become like an origami-like redistribution of interior structure into exterior surface-bound effect? I mean, the heating up of the Earth's interior might only go so far down, containing molten lava as a sub-surface, spherical constituent, perhaps 500 miles thick, within which is super-heated gaseous water steam pushing outwards with sufficient force so as to be in equilibrium with the downward force of the weight of the crust? Which is not to say that the force of gravity at sea level never underwent a fourfold increase in force, but rather that the so-called hollow Earth's internal mechanism by which it all happened would depend on an entirely different explanation.
For those engaging in alternate theory target practice, you may now string your bows. :)
 
Mar 5, 2020
311
43
210
To be blunt your arguments are terrible.

But I have come across some mathematical arguments that indicate that some key properties of gravity and time are not constants. This possibility may be due to a lack of concrete data related to time and gravity.

The possibility that the gravitational force experienced on the Earth’s surface might go through cycles should be considered as a background question. If anomalies are found in say the geological record that indicates regular cycles of gigantism in the top herbivores, carnivores, or even trees this background question should be examined for relevance.

The history of science is filled with certainties that failed when confronted with a contradiction.

The majority of the practical science taught at this time can be assumed to be sound and without any small print. The arguments or examples you gave could be falsified by knowledge that has been tested and has never failed.

If you have an idea, and that fails, that doesn’t mean that you can’t have another better idea.

People who make the most mistakes make the best teachers because the correct answer was never obvious to them.

There are two sides to knowledge, answers and questions.

There is a real problem with the answers we have been getting.
 
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment. There may have been others, but I believe Larry Niven and Hal Clement both wrote of oblong-shaped worlds like uneven dumbells, in which gravity was not changed, but the shapes commanded radically varying gee forces.
The current trend, is simply super-potent animal muscle, such that no gravitational explanations are needed at all. But I find that somehow terribly unsatisfying. To my way of thinking, a valid point has been raised, and attendant upon gigantism must come that intractable 'law' of Nature; as you go up in size, whereas the external measure increases as the square, internal volume increases as the cube.
Without this 'law', as you go down in size, you can have mere atoms as Solar Systems, and 'fantasy reality' in which nobody cares about 'mass versus measure', which will come back to haunt you when people start asking "What's all the fuss about the Big One?"; and, "How do we get from Here to There?" and annoying hard science mood-pieces of a similar nature.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Sep 11, 2020
47
11
35
Do we really know how much of our mass is from baryonic matter and how much is due too dark matter. If there is a ratio for a full gravity well for example 1:1 and something with a deeper but empty gravity well came by and partially drained the solar system of its dark matter would we weigh less.
 
Mar 5, 2020
311
43
210
0% Dark Matter they can't detect it since it doesn't exist.

The Galactic Velocity Curves pointed to new science that the Empire already had a claim on.

The empire said that gravity changed the rate of time. The evidence argues that the difference in the rate of time produces gravity. Time is a physical property of space not an abstraction of consciousness.

If you measure the properties of gravity using clocks instead of lasers what you will see will have no connection to General Relativity. GR is a scientific doppelganger to keep people from knowing that there are big gaps (missing data) in science. This was not Einstein's fault. The powerful (Empire) get what they want (most of the time).
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Sep 11, 2020
47
11
35
There is a maximum rate at which you can travel through spacetime the faster you cross space the less time passes. Most science was inferred at on time until we figured out how to see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Mar 5, 2020
311
43
210
Your star, don’t leave home without it. Without the mass of a star to shield you, any portable energy source (reactor) will exhaust itself (from experiencing a faster time rate) long before you can get anywhere.

Stuff is even a bigger problem. As in running into stuff. Humans may soon be able to build spacecraft that can do .2 c (20% of the speed of light). The problem is that a lifeless debris field will fly right past the destination.

The transporters on Star Trek are ridiculous. But the concept of shields is only a few steps behind it…. maybe not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Sep 11, 2020
47
11
35
E=MC squared
M=baryonic matter + dark matter
But only the baryonic matter actually reacts
The measured mass could drift without anything else changing
If this happened over millions of years
The space between might not be as empty as we thought
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
I suggest a 'charity joke thread' for those of us (like me) who use it -humor- as a crutch on a semi-regular basis. By the way, can I use btw or BTW in place of 'By the way', or is that not permitted?
As for space travel, our potential dropdown menu of mind sets may need to include flow chart clones of ancient mariners using sail power, and even more ancient; conceptual mental clones of ice age land bridges across the Bearing Strait and elsewhere. In other words (can I use iow or IOW?), we may have to wait until the environment includes multi-million year providential developments, such as the Milky Way rotating us around differentially until an ideal Earth-type world comes within reach -there's your Bearing Strait-Ice Age analogy- of almost present day space travel technology. For which, I would include Geomartian's suggestions of top secret discoveries already achieved but held back by the Powers That Be. Also Known As (or AKA) 'wild cards'.
Can I at least use the original type font-based smilies; a colon and right parenthesis? I tried, as here; :) and it won't stay up on 'post reply'. edit: nope, it's gone. Or will it... hmm ;)
 

Wolfshadw

Moderator
Apr 1, 2020
149
100
260
I suggest a 'charity joke thread' for those of us (like me) who use it -humor- as a crutch on a semi-regular basis. By the way, can I use btw or BTW in place of 'By the way', or is that not permitted?
As for space travel, our potential dropdown menu of mind sets may need to include flow chart clones of ancient mariners using sail power, and even more ancient; conceptual mental clones of ice age land bridges across the Bearing Strait and elsewhere. In other words (can I use iow or IOW?), we may have to wait until the environment includes multi-million year providential developments, such as the Milky Way rotating us around differentially until an ideal Earth-type world comes within reach -there's your Bearing Strait-Ice Age analogy- of almost present day space travel technology. For which, I would include Geomartian's suggestions of top secret discoveries already achieved but held back by the Powers That Be. Also Known As (or AKA) 'wild cards'.
Can I at least use the original type font-based smilies; a colon and right parenthesis? I tried, as here; :) and it won't stay up on 'post reply'. edit: nope, it's gone. Or will it... hmm ;)
FYI, yes, you can use BTW or btw.

-Wolf sends
 
Mar 5, 2020
311
43
210
such as the Milky Way rotating us around differentially until an ideal Earth-type world comes within reach -there's your Bearing Strait-Ice Age analogy- of almost present day space travel
The Solar System's orbit has an inclination of about 30 degrees to the galactic plane. As the solar system moves away from the galactic plane its speed increases. A half orbit (exiting to entering plane) that should take about 110 million years, takes about 30 million years in our time.

The Solar System's speed increase is due to the energy of the kinetic field remaining constant while the field in empty space has a lower energy content. The solar system moves faster so that the kinetic energy it exchanges with the surrounding space is held constant.

For a small spacecraft the rate of time increase would be proportional to the speed increase. A spacecraft traveling a hundred light years behind the Solar System would experience a half orbit time of 110 million years.

Because the Solar System outruns its former galactic neighborhood when it crosses the galactic plane again, it is always entering a different part of the galaxy.

For these reasons the aliens thought that Earth (and other parts of the Solar System?) were a good bet. The galactic plane is an asteroid and cometary slaughterhouse for civilizations.

I posted (section removed) that the Cambrian Explosion was not a natural event. Too many Phyla (body types, niche specialization) came into existence simultaneously. The super adaptable organism that did this using standard evolution would be impossible. Earth was seeded by the de-specialized (earliest and most adaptable forms) of phyla from a dozen or more alien planets.
 
Feb 18, 2020
1,110
814
1,570
You state "Earth was seeded by the de-specialized (earliest and most adaptable forms) of phyla from a dozen or more alien planets. "

Please advise us what sources you have to substantiate these assertions.
 
Mar 5, 2020
311
43
210
There used to be a Space.com section for either SETI or extra-terrestrial and my arguments were there.

Stromatolites are single celled organisms organized by films or filaments. Slime cementing some sand.

For a single celled organism to become a multicellular organism it must become a phylum. Some of the cells of a multicellular organism must take on specialties. Some stomach, some outer surface etc. The body shape is created by a number of genes which are switched on or off by what cells are next to it. A biochemical gradient determines what a cell becomes in the larger organism. That genetic set determines the basic properties of a phylum. You can add to this body but subtraction or reversal is just this side of impossible. For a mammal to become a reptile could never happen in nature (and reptiles and mammals share a common lineage).

In 2 to 3 billion years the single celled life on Earth did not create (or are missing from the record) one single multicellular organism or phylum. A planet might produce one or two simple phyla without outside intervention before it becomes uninhabitable (stuff like their star blowing up, or going red giant).

The Cambrian Explosion. In the span of less than 30 million years over 30 phyla body designs came into being.

These were phyla that had been found on dozens of worlds and had been cultivated and adapted for a wide range of planets. If no phyla (other than plants) have a head start the lead will shift between different animal or motile phyla. The greater the starting diversity the more likelihood of sentience arising.

The solar system’s orbit allows a respite between planetary bombardments for the perfectly adapted to be replaced. The Marxist mammals overcame the capitalist dinosaurs when the food supply network was shattered.

Sentient life arising on an unseeded planet is very rare. It is less likely than the number of edible species in a rain forest. A million species in a rain forest and less than a hundred are edible.

The Drake equation is not relevant to Earth. But it is relevant to billions of ecological wastelands in the Milky Way galaxy.
 
Feb 18, 2020
1,110
814
1,570
"There used to be a Space.com section for either SETI or extra-terrestrial and my arguments were there." My accents.

Would you agree that your first line (above) is the only relevant answer to my question, and that the rest is, well . . . . . . . . . camouflage, to put it politely?

Cat :)
 
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
edit: I wonder if this post of mine about musicians' orchestra etiquette might be too far off-topic here, and be better moved to its own or a different thread, or deleted.

edit: this is speaking of the musicians, not the audience, and is quite fascinating, as is the super-text -linked below- from which it is taken...

quote: "I suggest a 'charity joke thread' for those of us (like me) who use it -humor- as a crutch on a semi-regular basis. "
I happened by sheer accident across the following comment;
'Orchestra etiquette and rules. What to do and not do in an orchestra' ((btw I don't play a musical instrument));
((quote continues)); The following, while it may be good advice, are not my recommendations:
  • Enjoy the jokester of the group, the one making wry observations about everything happening around you and causing everyone to start giggling uncontrollably. There always seems to be one.
edit:
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
edit: Geomartian; this makes me feel like I'm 'on the right track'. All your post content here is new and unfamiliar to me. At least in part, are we talking EU -Electronic Universe- phenomena? I never could figure their deeper stuff out, but the shallow concepts made some sense to me, conditionally speaking.
They seem to rule out black holes, while I have seen time lapse tracks of stars whipping around what appears to be one at our Milky Way's core.
Their explanation of sun spots being windows to the Sun's 'dark interior' makes some sense to me, although I largely withhold judgment.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
"There used to be a Space.com section for either SETI or extra-terrestrial and my arguments were there." My accents.

Would you agree that your first line (above) is the only relevant answer to my question, and that the rest is, well . . . . . . . . . camouflage, to put it politely?

Cat :)
The subjects of Astronomy and Aliens go together like dandelions & daydreams.
I couldn't find the quote, but the late John W. Campbell, Editor of Analog Science Fact & Fiction, once stated that every historic encounter between different human cultures ultimately resulted in the destruction of the less technologically advanced culture. Or words to that effect.
 
May 4, 2020
13
2
15
Adjacent truths need carefully traced conceptualization. Meeting demands in advance of future expectations can help to enhance intractable problems. Just mind surfing can be fun, but it isn’t enough for a deeper perspective. Deunification of hyperstratified content is like a ‘key’, replacing attitude with aptitude. Fossil fuel alternatives must be our gateway to the stars. As rules can have exceptions, even so, until proven otherwise, the exception proves the rule. Counter-explanations should be brief, succinct. We listen, watch, and explore the broad sweep of a vast net-like perspective, but we must also try for repeatable and dependable results. Everything should trend towards common foci by overcoming preconceived mental sticking points. We should beware, if at all possible, hidden futile intellectual dead ends or traps.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY