# Guys i think i understand gravity now

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ethernos 1997, Oct 18, 2020.

1. ### Ethernos 1997Registered Senior Member

Messages:
265
I don't know where i can publish my ideas or i am being delusional again. I also think i'm f'ed since i don't know how work out the math.

Last edited: Oct 18, 2020

3. ### mathmanValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,787
Without indicating what you have in mind, you won't get much help here.

5. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
15,113
Does it predict testable observations that could distinguish it from Einsteinian general relativity?

Ethernos 1997 likes this.

7. ### geordiefValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,460
It's got his name on the bottom

8. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
15,113
Let my hands be clean of rope burns. I'll give him enough to hang himself.

Ethernos 1997 likes this.
9. ### Ethernos 1997Registered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Well it does say from maxwell's demon's perspective time is constant just the motion is different

10. ### Ethernos 1997Registered Senior Member

Messages:
265
take a spacetime as a length of x and the time taken to cover it is T. When the mass bends or stretch spacetime the x as x+dx. The time taken is still T. So when x proportional to T. Constant is velocity and when x+dx is proptional to T. The constant is acceleration. So what i am trying to imply which may be wrong is when the spacetime stretch there is generation of acceleration. So taking the spacetime bend around a mass it creates an acceleration field around mass. This also implies that the time flows at a constant rate.

river likes this.
11. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,019
Guys i think i understand gravity now

Great only another 6 billion 999 thousand and 999 to go

Messages:
265
Haha

13. ### HawkIRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
301
Try Painting it.

Ethernos 1997 and Hipparchia like this.
14. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,019
Not sure this will help

I GET the concept and what he says makes sense

Understanding is a different animal

Ethernos 1997 and Seattle like this.
15. ### SeattleValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,488
You're being delusion again.

Ethernos 1997 likes this.
16. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
15,113
Couple of problems I see:

If you are starting to "understand gravity" then you shouldn't have anything to publish, since your understanding will be in-line with what is already understood about it.

It seems what you mean to say is that you have your own unique idea about how gravity works. To-wit:
Before you go looking for publication, you're going to want to express your idea a little more coherently than this.

Ethernos 1997 and river like this.
17. ### trevor borocz johnsonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
251
it sure as shit doesn't work the way the GR people think it does. Their technical current idea is that gravity is created by a particle that is emitted from a quark based particle. Upsetting how pompous people get because they think they understand something because it was hard or had math to it.

Ethernos 1997 likes this.

Messages:
27,534
Ummm, yes it does. GR is tested everyday and continues to be validated.
Nonsense. We do not have any observationally verified QGT, and no evidence yet of any graviton.
Gravity is simply spacetime geometry, in the presence of mass/energy.

Ethernos 1997 likes this.
19. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Ethernos, ignore those who only come here to mock and to scoff. I think you are roughly on the right track, but going backwards.

Consider acceleration, which you mention in this context. If we assume (as Einstein did) that provided spacetime intervals are taken sufficiently small (and this means SMALL), then in these intervals, acceleration consists of a "series" of spacetime intervals, each with constant i.e. non-accelerated velocity, all different. Then from relativity they are using different coordinate systems

Now the Special Theory of Relativity states that any two coordinate system that validly "describe" the same system, cannot agree on their metrics.

Assume, again as Einstein did, that acceleration and gravitation are equivalent, at least on the scales I am using. Then the rest is coasting downhill, as it were. The curvature of a field is defined as the second derivative of the metric field. Then by elementary calculus, the second derivative any constant field is zero (this is called "flat spacetime"), if the metric is not constant the curvature - the second derivative of the metric, recall - is not zero.

So in the presence of gravitation, spacetime is not flat

Ethernos 1997 likes this.
20. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,131
Assuming you mean in all reference frames, this will be quite a problem for your hypothesis, since it is wrong.

Ethernos 1997 likes this.
21. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
In fact, my friend, it is you that is wrong.
Every coordinate system -what you call a "reference frame"- has its own unique metric, which in relativity theory is chosen so that time runs at the same rate relative to its own coordinate system.

Of course these metrics are not interchangeable between coordinate systems.

Ethernos 1997 likes this.
22. ### Ethernos 1997Registered Senior Member

Messages:
265
if we introduce a mass to a constant constant vector field in 3-D. it gives momentum vector field. so if we imagine the mass density to be greater at centre.then the mass is spherically spread all over. but the momentum field spreads or extends beyond the mass in spacetime or consatant vector field in 3-D. momentum=volume x density x velocity. now we will be taking density as energy density instead of mass.
R=rho=energy density from X to O or O to X. O being co-ordinate of centre of mass and X being co-ordinate of last or end of momentum field.
so rho is munimum at X and MAx at O.
V=velocity from X to O. since if we imagine a single a single line if spacetime or constant vector field passing through has twist n turns. so the velocity vector field is changing direction and not in displacement. so what we have is varying vector field or if we sum it up as a single length it is acceleration. volume is constant or can it be varying too?!for now we will take it constant and give it value of 10^ -105. as quantum loop gravity suggest that last unit of volume is as such.
derivating w.r.t x.
d/dx of (R×volume×velocity) limits from X to O.
=d/dx[(energy/volume)×volume×velocity] from X to O.
=d/dx[energy×velocity] from X to O.
maybe i went wrong somewhere on calculus. just kidding maybe everything is wrong.

23. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,131
No shit.
No shit.

You're such a twit, thanks for reminding me I took you off ignore. Adios.