Science Forums

# Gravity may be caused by time waves

## Recommended Posts

I saw this guy in an interview on a local chanel. very interesting stuff. he may be right or at least it makes you think. whataretimewaves com

##### Share on other sites

I checked out the website. In a word: Gibberish.

##### Share on other sites

the basics of the site is that data/light is passed or reflected from objects on time wave particles. all the particles together generate a wave. the speed of light is allways observed at the same rate for different observers because light / data pass at the same rate along time wave particles for each object in the universe... so each observer sends / recieves data at the same rate relative to themselves.

##### Share on other sites

little bang - thank you, I will check it out

##### Share on other sites
• 1 month later...

Something to think about. Thanks for sharing.

##### Share on other sites

Now it is just BARELY possible that instead of gravity "causing" time to slow down, it's the gradient of the flow of time that "causes" the gravitational force.

The rationale is that any particle will have a potential energy relative to neighboring regions of space, where PE will be proportional to the temporal gradient to that neighboring region. (The difference in the rates at which time flowed.)

If the particle would be at a lower potential energy state at the neighboring region, then the particle would feel a "force" toward that region.

If the particle was moved by the force to that region, then the particle would gain kinetic energy equal to the original PE.

Therefore mass concentrations would not "generate gravity", but would rather retard the flow of time relative to the universe at large.

Particles would be "attracted" to regions where time flowed more slowly. This would look like "gravity".

The math is left as an exercise for the student.

:-/

##### Share on other sites

A very good question is, "Why does a concentration of matter or any particle with mass cause time dilation". I am certain that even the area around an electron will exhibit this phenomena.

##### Share on other sites
Now it is just BARELY possible that instead of gravity "causing" time to slow down, it's the gradient of the flow of time that "causes" the gravitational force.
Why do you say BARELY and even in block captials?
##### Share on other sites
• 2 weeks later...

Why do you say BARELY and even in block captials?

I did it to create dramatic effect. B)

I did it because it appeared so obvious to me that gravity is the manifestation of a temporal gradient that I assumed that some Einstein out there would certainly have come to the same conclusion if there was any logic at all behind it. Since there is NO consensus that gravity is "caused" by the local temporal gradient, then I had to conclude that the possibility of such was merely BARELY possible.

:D

But the more I think about it, the more obvious it appears to me.

What causes the temporal gradient? The trivial answer is mass. The real answer is (I assert) that the speed of light © is the default velocity of everything. But when photon-like particles interact with each other in some way that we would speak of as a "bound system", some component of their "natural velocity" © appears to disappear. The bound system doesn't actually "slow down", but rather causes the local substrate of the temporal mechanism to behave as if its "viscosity" were increased enormously. Bound systems of photon-like particles interact with this temporal viscosity, and behave as if they had "mass" and cannot travel at c. Solitary photons do not interact with the temporal viscosity and always travel at c.

The presence of a bound system of photon-like particles (think of quarks), causes the temporal substrate to be "sluggish" or to behave as if it had an increased "temporal viscosity". This viscosity can be "felt" by neighboring regions of space as a temporal gradient, with time flowing slower next door where the 2 or 3 quarks are bound together. Therefore, a potential energy difference exists. Any other bound system of photon-like particles will feel a PE "force" toward other neighboring bound systems and vice versa. This property is additive in the temporal substrate, so that a huge amount of mass, say a planet, will generate a correspondingly huge temporal gradient over vast regions of space. We call this a "gravity well".

Finally, we must address the concept of the "temporal substrate". I mean by this, whatever [waves hands spastically for dramatic effect] quantum Plank-scale mechanisms out of which Space and Time appear as emergent phenomenons. I posit a "mechanism", a field, a Plank Fluid of virtual entities that do not qualify as "particles" in any meaningful sense. I will call them plankons, for lack of a better word.

If you are familiar with Conway's Game of Life, this will make better sense. Plankons can only interact with the most primitive quantum rules imaginable; they have no internal structure. At a start, we can say that they are ON or OFF, and their current state is determined to some extent by the states of neighboring plankons.

Stable, repeating, "cellular automaton"-like entities occur. Evanescent entities which self-emerge out of the chaotic Plank Fluid, and which have the emergent properties of velocity and permanence. The analog in Conway's GOL would be the "glider".

The very manifestation of velocity generates the local emergent (quantum) properties of space and time. These "cellular automaton"-like entities we call photons. They have only one velocity, c, whose value is determined by inherent properties of the Plank Fluid. Since velocity, space and time are all manifest as emergent properties simultaneously, we have a space-time structure that manifests c as the maximum possible velocity -- and vice-versa.

This is the temporal substrate. The "rules" (if you will) of the "cellular atomaton"-like photons that manifest (to us) as space, time and c.

When photons themselves become bound in tight systems, they alter the temporal substrate. Space, time and c all become simultaneously redefined. The quantum nature of the Plank Fluid enables these differences to be "felt" at a distance.

I've run out of ideas.... :blink:

##### Share on other sites
• 2 weeks later...

I have posted this before but I couldn't find it.

Time is relative to the observers frame of reference which we all know. A clock in another moving frame of reference slows with respect to our observer. If we had a one kg block setting on a frictionless surface and apply a force of 1kg.m/sec^2 it will accelerate at 1m/sec^2. The only way to increase this acceleration is to increase the applied force OR slow the observer's clock. Isn't this exactly what happens in a gravity well?”

Any particle can be considered it's own clock ( an observer ) and that a clock even one nanometer higher in a gravity well will run slightly faster than a clock one nanometer lower. Suppose we had a frictionless tube, one meter long, whose inside diameter is just large enough to allow a diatomic hydrogen molecule to move freely up and down in the tube. We fill the tube with diatomic hydrogen at STP and stand the tube up perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. Each molecule is moving up and down in the tube colliding with the molecule above and below. Let’s observe the path of a particular molecule which we call B. The molecule above we call A and the one below we call C. We start watching B as it moves down the tube toward C with velocity d/t. The molecule B (clock/observer) will calculate it's momentum, at the instant before the collision with C, using it's clock which is running slightly slower than when it collided with A. B will find it's momentum at C to be greater than the momentum of the collision with A. Doesn't this suggest that gravity is strictly a function of time dilation?

Modify post Inline

##### Share on other sites

One observational limitation of the GR model of gravity, which needs to addressed, is that not only does space-time contract with increasing gravity, but distances between things also physically contract in real terms. As an example, if the laws of physics are same in all references, the neutron density of a neutron star, for example, can only form neutron density if neutrons get really close in their reference.

We not only have GR effects with gravity, but also actual distances changes, or else neutron density would be a reference illusion. One way to prove neutron density is not a space-time reference illusion but an actual compaction are the types of emissions they give off.

I would assume a black hole is not only contracting space-time but it is a trash compactor, moving things closer and closer as space-time is is also getting closer and closer. This would cause phase changes within the compacting references of contracting space-time. It is almost like you also need a dash of Newton since he does take into consideration distance compaction.

##### Share on other sites
• 4 years later...

I have been thinking the same thing. If you imagine time as a river, as it rubs against everything,  it causes motion. If time stops so does everything else. So time is the primary energy source. Imagine time flowing through empty space free and easy cruising, then it approaches a planet, man what a bummer all these atoms to spin stuff to bang into one another, so much work to do. Which is why time slows down when it impacts matter. Time must be running in another dimension same as dark matter perhaps.  Anyway, any velocity has its own time base. However when you accelerate you are constantly moving  your time base around. This creates a bow wave in time. i.e. just like gravity does. And when you spin something around  you create a time vortex maybe.

##### Share on other sites

As Janus said: Gibberish. You'd do best to ignore it.

##### Share on other sites

Welcome to hypography, marceau! :) Please feel free to start a topic in the introductions forum to tell us something about yourself.

I have been thinking the same thing. If you imagine time as a river, as it rubs against everything, it causes motion. If time stops so does everything else. So time is the primary energy source.

What you seem to be imagining is the way educated people explained the physical world before the acceptance of “classical inertia”, which occurred between about 1600 and 1700 AD, and states that in the absence of an external force, a body remains in motion. Prior to then, based on their experience with moving things like animals, people believed that for a body to remain in motion, a constant supply or energy is required, an idea described around 330 BC by the influential philosopher Aristotle.

Although there have been some important refinements to this idea, classical inertia is still considered approximately true by physicists now. The older idea that motion requires a “primary energy source” such as “time” or “impetus” is almost certainly wrong.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.