# Thread: Gravity, Light, and Time.

1. Ok, so ever since I took first year physics in high school last year, I've been having a constant flow of ideas into my mind about Gravity, Light, and Time. I'm currently in second year advanced placement physics and the more I seem to learn, the more ways I'm starting to fit my own theory of these three physics terms into the rest of the working universe.

I first started with gravity last year, and I even wrote my junior research paper on it (though I wasn't allowed to include my own ideas because it was not the kind of research my teacher was asking for). My theory of gravity is somewhat different from Einstein’s theory of gravity. Einstein said that matter warps space and time and so other matter tends to fall near it. Then he tried to describe his theory by telling to think of a 2-dimensional plane made of a flexible material, and then to think of a ball being placed at a point on the plane. The ball dips down and in sense "warps" the 2-dimensional plane. If another ball were to be placed on the plane then the smaller would roll towards the larger. This is how Einstein tried to describe his theory and people are accepting this. The only problem is that space is three dimensional, and personally, I didn't like the idea of space and time being warped. How can space be warped I asked to myself, my father, and my teacher. How can space be warped if it isn't anything? Space is space, it does not exist, and it is the absence of everything.

Then an idea clicked into my head. What if gravity was not associated with the matter itself, but instead the energy that makes up the matter. Though I have changed this theory already, bear with me because I'm working through my whole thought process. My idea was that maybe there is attraction of the pure essence of energy to itself. My observation was that light is affected by gravity as well. I wondered how it could be possible if light was considered to be a massless (matterless) particle of energy. I was already playing devil's advocate so I decided to continue going against Einstein's proposals. I searched for a way to relate light to matter and in the end I realized that matter can be converted into energy, as shown by nuclear reactions. So in sense, I said that matter (energy) is attracted to light (energy). I know that last year I went into a lot more depth than this though, but unfortunately with all of my recent thoughts, I've forgotten some of the old ones.

Going into my senior year into AP physics, another idea clicked in my mind. This idea was somewhat chicken-scratch on my paper but I'll type it off basically as I wrote it.
I questioned whether light was just a particle, and then added in that maybe light has a time characteristic to it.
I then asked, "How can time exist if no motion is present?"
If we could look into a container where everything was perfectly still on every level of magnification, levels of magnification beyond our capable technology, if the container was at true absolute zero where nothing has energy and nothing moves, then is time occurring in this container? One might say "Well, of course it is, we're experiencing time so the inside of the container must be as well." This assumption is wrong however, we experience time because we are outside of the closed system, but inside the system, I don't think time is occurring.
To rephrase things: If time stops, then there is no motion. Everyone should be able to agree with this statement, so then, to stop all motion should also be to stop time itself right?
My thoughts jumped at this point to a slightly different topic.
When objects reach near absolute zero, they begin to turn into mush. Why?
If light particles make up a part of matter and are "so called" energy particles, then when objects are cooled, they actually lose matter, like a balloon losing air.
I do agree with some of Einstein's theories also, some of his statements or claims have been proven. It is a known and partly proven theory that as matter reaches near the speed of light, time slows down. This supports light particles being particles of time and it supports the "no motion, no time" theory that I proposed previously. If light particles or energy particles are time particles and always in motion, then time for matter that reaches the speed of light will stop, because relative to these time particles, there is no motion.

Most recently I've been thinking more and more about light (we just finished quantum physics in my class). It is said and accepted that photons are particles of light, and that they are small discrete bundles of energy. I wonder though, how can photons be the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena when they are all of different frequencies of energy. Then I thought, well what if rather than being a bundle of energy, photons are actually a series of particles, each particle having the same basic "energy" value. Photons with higher frequencies would have more of these particles in a set space than photons with a lower frequency, and so they would appear to have different energy values. At the same time that I thought of this, I was thinking of electrons and their different energy levels. These energy levels remind me of how the nucleus of the atom has different isotopes. Then I put both thoughts together. Maybe electrons have to absorb so many of these particles in a photon at a given point in time or else they are not stable and they kick the particles back out. This is how we create different isotopes of atoms anyways, we inject neutrons at high speed but we have to get just the right amount of neutrons to stick in the nucleus and they have to enter at just the right time or they get ejected out. But my theory goes even a little further. When electrons move up in energy levels, they are stable, but they are not stable enough to stay at that point, so they eject these particles from the photon at a certain rate. It is true that electrons eject photons of light, but in sense, I am saying that the reason for this is that like the nucleus of an atom, electrons too have their own half-life or decay rate, accept an electron's half-life is much much shorter than the half-life of the nucleus.
The most recent of all though, I remembered that neutrons are simply a proton, an electron, and some energy. So I'm thinking that somehow if there are particles in photons, then they are associated with the nucleus as well. If they are associated with the nucleus then I'm thinking they might be associated with gravitational force, because if they're associated with the 3 subatomic particles then there might be something there.

Lastly, I thought of my own explanation to why it is impossible to travel the speed of light. I've never heard Einstein's explanation, but I don't think I believe in his special relativity where if I'm going the speed of light and I shine a light in front of me, then relative to me the light is still going the speed of light away. I believe more that light particles have a set constant speed, and if these light particles make up a good part of matter like I stated earlier, then matter should not be able to travel faster than the particle. I think that when it gets down to it, all energy: heat, light, kinetic are all directly associated with the transfer of light particles. When something heats up, it vibrates, and gives off radiation. The radiation can be absorbed by other atoms and that "heats them up" but really they are simply absorbing light particles, and so I think that when a hot object (vibrating object) touches another object, it is somehow directly transferring light particles. I don't really know how to put the idea in my head into words, but when we accelerate, I'm thinking that light particles are giving us momentum, but as we get closer and closer to the speed of light, if a light particle were to hit us, it won't increase our speed as much because of the relativity involved. The light particle is not hitting us as fast if we're moving close to the speed of light as it would be if we were not moving at all. So to move the speed of light, we would have to have an infinite amount of light particles hitting us to increase out speed, if that makes sense.
I think that pretty much concludes all of my current ideas and theories on Gravity, Light, and Time.

2.

3. I can't read all your post because I'll have to make a draft that would save me all the time. Then I'd have mitchellmkain or Janus contradciting me. So if you have specific questions, please PM me and I will send you details that are far more helpful than the closed minded ones you are about to get.

4. Etah

It sounds as though you're doing a lot of really imaginative thinking about these matters, which is excellent.

What I would suggest however, is this: see if you can get a mathematical or empirical component into your concepts. This will allow for them to be tested against other theories purporting to explain these phenomena and allow people to evaluate them as more than just 'ways of conceptualising' these issues.

All the best with that.

5. It looks like really good and creative work. Be careful, though, about getting too critical toward people like Einstein. It's good to question them, but don't criticize them too much, because people who become famous like him get a lot of criticism from all directions, and so they're reluctant to take criticism seriously unless it's very credible. (Not that Einstein himself would care, being dead and all)

You're only getting a reader's digest version of the theory in High School, though you seem to understand it pretty well. Still, it could turn out that there's more to the theory that you'll learn later on, which makes it all add up better.

Relativity is one of the most poorly explained subjects I've ever seen. It took me actually having to read Einstein's own words, and then some study helps to figure him out entirely. And, yeah, it does seem like an incomplete picture, but much more complete than what he had to work from.

So let me see if I have this right. What you're suggesting is: Energy/light has a maximum speed that it can propagate at, but in theory matter doesn't. It's just that when matter starts to approach the speed of light, it's harder and harder for light to catch up with and push it to go any faster???

That actually makes a fair amount of sense, and there might be some things in quantum mechanics that actually support that. I'm not fully sure, because I've never tried to look at it from that perspective.

6. How can space be warped if it isn't anything? Space is space, it does not exist, and it is the absence of everything.
Well, that may be a problem. I think we are learning there is no such thing as a complete vacuum, just less stuff. Interstellar medium would be more correct. Think of space as a gradient of matter.

Vincent

7. Try to divide your post up a little. Allot of people, the second they see a post that long, will instantly decide to never read it due to how long it takes.

Thought: I believe that time is motion (even on an atomic and quantum level), and have discussed it before on this forum; but this asks the question; how could you observe stopped time, if time is motion, and nothing is moving including the atoms? If time was truly stopped, then no stimuli would be emitted for our senses or instruments to observe. So really, we could never prove the existence of fully stopped time. It would be a black body object, but it would be hard to tell what is causing it to be so.

8. Thought: I believe that time is motion, and have discussed it before on this forum; but this asks the question; how could you ever observe stopped time, if time is motion, and if nothing was moving including the atoms, you would not be able to observe it? If time was truly stopped, then no stimuli would be emmited for our senses or instruments to observe. So really, we could never prove the existence of fully stopped time. It would be a black body object, but it would be hard to tell what is causing it to be so.
Time is motion in the sense that process is change. Speed of process is relative to our visible abilities.

A rock on the ground does not appear in motion but it is experiencing what we call time. Since process is variable in visible motion, I.e., the blooming flower vs. the eroding rock.

So with so many processes present then motion would be dependent on medium and process type even with time being constant. So to say time is motion would be a gross over simplification.

Vincent

9. it seems to me that the word TIME is a bad example for such an important prosess in our universe, can anyone suggest a better term? (possible stupid question- but is light not time). A term which explains time in the sense of the action or reaction caused at the initial moment of the big bang, like was that time action faster with more energy input, abuse accepted.

10. it seems to me that the word TIME is a bad example for such an important prosess in our universe, can anyone suggest a better term? (possible stupid question- but is light not time). A term which explains time in the sense of the action or reaction caused at the initial moment of the big bang, like was that time action faster with more energy input, abuse accepted.
My 2 cent

Time is not a process but a measurement of process with a constant. It is a human thing that started with sand running through a glass.

A process is the action of change, I.e., water freezing. Light is photon emission from an object. None are interchangeable but interdependent on temperature and pressure

Vincent

11. We have limited senses and techniques to observe the universe right now; space time could exist, but I do not see enough evidence. Kojax is right though; I might criticize them allot now, but If I were to get a PHD in physics and read allot of books on the subject, I would likely understand some physicists theories allot better.

If gravity were formed by a bend in space time, then what determines the plane for which the object to bend? The solar system is on a plane and does not have the planets hurtling in every which direction. My theory of gravity explains this; it doesn't say that mass bends space time, but rather that gravity originates from a source similar to a magnetic fields. Imagine a wet squeegee play ball with a rod going through its center. Rotate this rod and observe what happens. I imagine the magnetic field as a particle, like the water, that gets forced out of its body due to spin. Unlike the water, the particle leaves a depletion zone that cannot be left as is, and requires the particle to re-fill it. The particles would come back to their origin, but particles continue to come from behind them...forcing them to go to the poles where the smallest number of particles are being emitted, intrinsic to the shape of a sphere. They then progress to go towards the center of the body; upon reaching the middle, either stream of particles win the flow, causing a polar N and S system to form. Since the body continues to spin, the process of the particles going out and in continues until the object ceases to spin. The gravity comes from the depletion zone fulfillment delay; this causes the depletion zone to attempt to pull you in, since you and all other objects of known matter contain trace amounts of the particle, and can move into the zone faster than the particles can.

I don't think light is a time particle. Time dilation occurs because of other reasons....that we do not know yet.

Photons aren't energy. Photons are composed of electrons, which do have mass and can be broken down and rearranged enough to form other particles. Look at a laser; if you watch one fired at a sheet of steal, it will throw molten steel out the other end. YOU NEED MASS TO DO THIS, without mass it would only melt. There could be an explanation for a massless beam of energy doing this, but I am yet to hear one.

You cannot go the speed of light due to various energy rules, and time dilation. "And so I think that when a hot object (vibrating object) touches another object, it is somehow directly transferring light particles. I don't really know how to put the idea in my head into words, but when we accelerate, I'm thinking that light particles are giving us momentum." Heat transfer when two object touch has nothing to do with the transfer of light. Light particles are only another type of energy/mass formed by the universe. You can accelerate in many different ways, even by using light, but light is by no means the main form of movement in the universe.

12. Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
I can't read all your post because I'll have to make a draft that would save me all the time. Then I'd have mitchellmkain or Janus contradciting me. So if you have specific questions, please PM me and I will send you details that are far more helpful than the closed minded ones you are about to get.
Because of course you do not want to know what science has to say but what 425CR has to say because he will flatter you rather than correct you -- oh I'm sorry, I mean because he is more "open minded" about things.

But in case 425CR is wrong and that is not actually true and you are interested in science rather than fantasy, I will take a look at the latter part of your post and comment on it. Particle physics and relativity are my specialities.

Originally Posted by Etah
The most recent of all though, I remembered that neutrons are simply a proton, an electron, and some energy.
First of all its neutron -> proton + electron + antineutrino, where some of the energy is carried away by the kinetic energy of the particles.

But you really should not think of it like this. It is not like mixing paint at all. Otherwise how do you explain that you can get a great number of things out of neutrons by smashing them? The point is that energy is convertible from one form to another and this conversion of the neutron to a proton, electron and antineutrino is only one of those possible conversions - one that can happen spontaneously because these particles have less energy than the neutron - which is what make the neutron unstable.

If you are going to think of a neutron as a composite particle at all then you should think of it as a collection of three quarks bound by gluons.

Originally Posted by Etah
So I'm thinking that somehow if there are particles in photons, then they are associated with the nucleus as well.
Photons are fundamental particles and not composite particles at all, but again like ALL forms of energy they can be converted into other forms of energy. But photons cannot decay in the same way as neutrons because they are massless particles (move at the speed of light) which means they cannot have a half-life.

Photons are associated with the nucleus because they are the exchange particle associated with eletromagnetic fields, and protons have an electric charge.

Originally Posted by Etah
If they are associated with the nucleus then I'm thinking they might be associated with gravitational force, because if they're associated with the 3 subatomic particles then there might be something there.
All forms of energy can interact via the gravitational force but photons are not an exchange particle in the gravitational interaction. The nucleus is primarily held together by pion exchange, but this is a simplification.

Originally Posted by Etah
Lastly, I thought of my own explanation to why it is impossible to travel the speed of light. I've never heard Einstein's explanation, but I don't think I believe in his special relativity where if I'm going the speed of light and I shine a light in front of me, then relative to me the light is still going the speed of light away. I believe more that light particles have a set constant speed, and if these light particles make up a good part of matter like I stated earlier, then matter should not be able to travel faster than the particle.
What you do not understand is that the speed of light is not really a limit at all, but an infinite speed that only appears to be finite because of the structure of space and time. So it is like you have the following mathematics: infinity - your velocity = infinity. No matter how much you take away from infinity, you still have infinity.

If all this is just a matter of belief to you then perhaps this should be in the religion section. And that is fine. Why not? I like religion and philosophy too. But it seems strange to me that you decide on whether you are going to believe something without understanding it first. And it seems strange to me that you reject some things here and later assume other things that are derived from the very things you have rejected.

Originally Posted by Etah
I think that when it gets down to it, all energy: heat, light, kinetic are all directly associated with the transfer of light particles. When something heats up, it vibrates, and gives off radiation. The radiation can be absorbed by other atoms and that "heats them up" but really they are simply absorbing light particles, and so I think that when a hot object (vibrating object) touches another object, it is somehow directly transferring light particles.
But the process you are describing and the phenomenon it explains is well understood. It indeed explains a great deal but it does not explain everything.

Why do you have this impulse to simplify reality? Is it because you are in a hurry to have all the answers already so the you can pretend you know it all. If that is all you want then the "Goddit" explanation is the simplest of all, so why not settle on that one.

Scientists never pretend that they know it all but simply tackle one piece of the puzzle at a time, which always reveals more puzzles. Real understanding is better than a pretense, so why not give it the time it requires and understand one piece of the puzzle at a time, like they do.

Originally Posted by Etah
I don't really know how to put the idea in my head into words, but when we accelerate, I'm thinking that light particles are giving us momentum, but as we get closer and closer to the speed of light, if a light particle were to hit us, it won't increase our speed as much because of the relativity involved. The light particle is not hitting us as fast if we're moving close to the speed of light as it would be if we were not moving at all.
All this is correct if you mean that when light particles hit us they give us their momentum, but I hope you do not mean that we cannot move if light does not hit us. Light is not the only thing with momentum so things other than light can give us momentum. In fact we can create momentum in one direction by throwing something in the opposite direction - no involvement of light at all.

Originally Posted by Etah
So to move the speed of light, we would have to have an infinite amount of light particles hitting us to increase out speed, if that makes sense.
If an infinite amount of light were to hit us and thus to impart and infinite amount of momentum to us (without incinerating us) then that indeed would seem to fulfill what is required for us to accelerate to the speed of light. But that is impossible of course. But more importantly, it is unneccessary and in fact undesirable unless you wanted to discover the end of time. Ignoring the impossibility of reaching the speed of light, once you acheived it you would not be able to stop, because you would have no time to do so.

Originally Posted by Etah
I think that pretty much concludes all of my current ideas and theories on Gravity, Light, and Time.
Scientist don't just sit around thinking up ideas the way a novelist thinks up ideas for a book they write. They are actually forced to the conclusions they make by the evidence. If you are not interested in that methodology then fine but you should understand that what you are doing is philosophy not science. But then why would you want a philosophy that talks about the theoretical entities of science??? What to photons and other particles have to do with our everyday experience of reality? Unless perhaps you are thinking about being a science fiction writer?

13. Mitchellmckain

I like your style. I sense an anger and impatience in your writings, some people call this passion. I get that way from time to time.

-Why do you have this impulse to simplify reality? Is it because you are in a hurry to have all the answers already so the you can pretend you know it all. If that is all you want then the "Goddit" explanation is the simplest of all, so why not settle on that one.
Seems you are getting worked up with the kid, that’s what kids do. I knew when he did not understand interstellar medium that all bets were off, then again nobody really knows about interstellar medium, damn. But he is thinking and seeking answers now it is comprehension

=Scientist don't just sit around thinking up ideas the way a novelist thinks up ideas for a book they write. They are actually forced to the conclusions they make by the evidence. If you are not interested in that methodology then fine but you should understand that what you are doing is philosophy not science.
Now we diverge. I think it is called hypotheses and theory. Some are real whoppers.

Gather round boys and girls,

Once upon a time there was a ball about the size of your hand. In this ball was everything and everything that will be. Then for no reason this ball that came from nowhere overheated for unknown reason and exploded and over billions of years formed everything including you.

Get me a bucket.

Now you got to admit that it took some great minds to come up with that. All firmly based in science. If that is were the road map leads then we obviously should have turned right in Albuquerque.

I think that sums up what we don’t know, now lets get back to the stuff we can not see but must be there.

Vincent

14. Now I have seen lots of ladies on the internet that wanted to play scientist.

Now is your chance. Talk to me.

Vincent

15. Sorry I can be such a prick.

Vincent

16. Originally Posted by Vincent
I like your style. I sense an anger and impatience in your writings, some people call this passion. I get that way from time to time.
No anger at all only puzzlement. If I felt anything it was irritation at 425CR who seems to have decided that pretend science is more worth his time than the real thing.

Originally Posted by Vincent
-Why do you have this impulse to simplify reality? Is it because you are in a hurry to have all the answers already so the you can pretend you know it all. If that is all you want then the "Goddit" explanation is the simplest of all, so why not settle on that one.
Seems you are getting worked up with the kid, that’s what kids do. I knew when he did not understand interstellar medium that all bets were off, then again nobody really knows about interstellar medium, damn. But he is thinking and seeking answers now it is comprehension
Believe me I understand all this very well. I have been there, as I have told 425CR. I wrote a paper for competition on Relativity when I was in high school for a competition. It was more than 50% philosophy much like what 425CR had written and like what Etah has written here. I am entirely sympathetic, but patting them on the head and condescendingly saying how wonderful, is not doing them any favors. My paper won an honorable mention in that first competition, but later when I met Dr. Price in the GR dept of the University of Utah who had read it as part of another competition, he did not tell me what he thought, but he did not have to. I could see it in his eyes and the way avoided the topic.

Wounded pride is a waste of time. Sincere effort deserves an honest response. Anything else is just insulting to Etah's intellegence. By laying it straight, I am saying that he can study the real thing and understand it, if he will but put in the time and effort.

That said, just deciding that a theory of science is wrong as if this were the same as your right to pick a favorite color, is going to make any serious scientist decide that you are worth talking to. Again I don't think failing to make this clear to him is doing him any favors.

Originally Posted by Vincent
Gather round boys and girls,

Once upon a time there was a ball about the size of your hand. In this ball was everything and everything that will be. Then for no reason this ball that came from nowhere overheated for unknown reason and exploded and over billions of years formed everything including you.
If that can be called a description of the Big Bang theory then Genesis chapter 2 can be called a description of the evolution of man. Which just goes to show that if you are not interested in details then pretend science might as close as you can get anyway.

If you want to talk about God creating the universe, I would be delighted. But we should do it in the religion section. Or if you have other imaginative ideas about the origin of the universe, I would also be delighted, but we should do that in the philosophy section.

Originally Posted by Vincent
I think that sums up what we don’t know, now lets get back to the stuff we can not see but must be there.
Or to the "stuff" we can see but "must" not be there?

That was the approach of Aristotle and the pretend scientists of the middle ages. Why should they look in Galileo's telescope to see that Jupiter had moons when they "knew" that they "must" not be there? Why bother to drop weights from a tower to see which reached the ground first when the heavier object "must" reach the ground first?

Don't get me wrong. I happened to like Aristotle a lot. But for pete sake, that was around 2300 years ago and we have figured out quite a lot since then. So if your thinking is back in that age, you have a LOT of catching up to do, so there is no time to waste.

Originally Posted by Vincent
Now I have seen lots of ladies on the internet that wanted to play scientist.

Now is your chance. Talk to me.
Sounds like you just can't wait to tell me what qualifies you as a scientist. I'm listening.

17. Oh, mitchellmckain

I Knew you would not let me down. Lets take it a step at a time as you say.

If that can be called a description of the Big Bang theory then Genesis chapter 2 can be called a description of the evolution of man. Which just goes to show that if you are not interested in details then pretend science might as close as you can get anyway.

Well, I think that was a reference to the big bang. Almost as good as the invisible man in the sky don’t ya think. Sounds sort of stupid don’t it.

What say you?

Vincent

18. Well I thought you would fire back, Guess you most be doing some research or you just all fluff.

I aint no college kid son. What hair is left is all white. Think hard, as far as I am concerned this is a no brainier.

A song for you.

First song only. We will talk tomorrow brother.

Vincent

19. Originally Posted by Vincent
Well, I think that was a reference to the big bang. Almost as good as the invisible man in the sky don’t ya think. Sounds sort of stupid don’t it.

What say you?
Well yeah your description does sound stupid to me, especially because you think it is a description of the Big Bang theory. But I guess your knowledge of biology is no better since you did not seem to think that Genesis 2 was a poor desciption of evolution either.

Originally Posted by Vincent
Well I thought you would fire back, Guess you most be doing some research or you just all fluff.
Just fluff? LOL I guess you are as unobservant as you are impatient.

No I got a life (family, job, hobbies), so I cannot just sit here waiting desperately for your responses.

This is an asynchronous discussion. That means the participants do not participate at the same time.

Originally Posted by Vincent
I aint no college kid son. What hair is left is all white.
You could be 200 years older than me and the president of the United States but around here, you are the newbie and I am the oldster. Not that this matters all that much, but you were the one who broached the subject.

Originally Posted by Vincent
Think hard, as far as I am concerned this is a no brainier.
I thinks its a no brainer because you haven't been saying much of anything. I could wrong and you really are up to full output capacity here. In which case you have apologies.

Originally Posted by Vincent
A song for you.