This is highly interesting, but where does gravity come into play, as we know gravity affects time relativity?
Gravity, or rather, the effect of mass, that is, the density of a size of an object, has an impact on space. Space is an object. Just one that we dismiss accounting for as an object in our daily lives.
Objects are influenced by the shap of space…in much the same way as a bubble is influenced by the shape of water it moves through.
We summarize this affect as gravity.
Time as a function is therefore affected by consequence of an object’s sequence of positions being affected by this topological impact.
Think of it this way.
If I told you that it would take more time to travel the same distance uphill than downhill for a rolling ball, you wouldn’t think much of it. It’s somewhat like that.
That’s arguably the best analogy I’ve ever heard for how time is affected. Thanks Jayson! Props as always, I hope you dont mind me totally picking your brain over this. I’ve never had the pleasure to talk with you and other people in this thread that are totally absorbed in the cosmos.
Best thread on IDMf? I think so
Absolutely willing at any time!
And actually, I just realized that analogy is a bit shortsighted.
A more full and proper analogy to hit your brain the right way would be to say…
If I told you that it would take more time to travel the same distance uphill than downhill for a rolling ball, you wouldn’t think much of it. You would intuitively understand that the ball met resistance going uphill and therefore the reference frame from one position to the next was a slow rate of change for the atoms and particles involved in regards to their motion of position as a collective, and that the opposite was true regarding going downhill.
You also wouldn’t think it was shocking if I said that a person hanging onto the wing of a plane could move less per moment than a if they were attempting to move on the ground.
Nor would you find it remarkable if I told you that if I put a person into an impressive pressure chamber, they would have difficulty moving at an equal rate of motion as in a less pressured area.
The issue involved in each of these is pressure, more than anything.
One analogy that I really love to use is this…I might be getting carried away, but anyway…
Forget the universe for a moment. There is only a blob of gel.
The universe is this blob of gel. There is nothing in the universe that isn’t this blob of gelatin.
Now, this blob of gel isn’t motionless. There’s slight activity in it because it expands and contracts, and this creates currents of gel motion inside of it in much the same way that the ocean expanding and contracting over vast distances creates currents, even if temperature wasn’t a consideration, but temperature is a consideration even without the Sun or stars or weather because motion itself generates a less than 0 Kelvin temperature. So the gel itself isn’t at exactly 0 Kelvin in a reference frame. It’s nearly 0 Kelvin (aka 0 motion), but not exactly, and that “not exactly” is all the wiggle room we need here.
Sometimes those currents, no matter how small they are, make their way to rubbing against each other or colliding with each other, no matter how feint, and once in a while this causes a bit of the gel to move around in a spot, obviously, but just like sometimes two currents in water can generate an underwater eddy, a bit of water that twists and spins, these currents can cause a bit of gel to twist up upon itself just a bit.
Now that twist of gel has a greater density than the gel around it. Now if a bit more gel nearby gets twisted up into a greater density than the gel around it, and the gel universe continues to have reverberating motion - which it does - then those two gel twists can get near each other and get moving through the gel - like that twist of water that is an eddy moving through water…it’s just water in water, but the form of that eddy makes all of the difference and makes it different from the gaussian form of water around it.
Once one gets near the other, the more dense of the two wins the ownership of affecting the spacial gel, that is the gaussian gel that isn’t twisted up into dense packets. Now if the size of these gel twists are tiny, then the force of the gaussian gel space’s “currents” of motion, which is small remember…really small…really, really, really small, then nothing’s going to happen - because of the same idea as that twisted eddy not having any ability to influence the ocean water if the ocean water current is a bigger force of mass collectively than the twisted eddy. However, if those twisted pieces of gel are of size in density that is greater than the forces of the currents of the guassian gel movement, then when one twisted bit of gel in the gel universe gets near another twisted gel, then the one that is able to more greatly affect the guassian gel space around it will be the one that appears to have a controlling force over the other twisted bit of gel. The ease of moving through a location in the gel universe, therefore, is defined (not counting an object’s velocity) by the density of the space in which the gel object (which is just a twisted up bit of the gel universe) is moving through.
It takes a moment to picture all of this, but once you can run this simulation in your imagination, and realize that the universe is ultimately just an array of itself twisted up and that nothing is fundamentally made of anything other than the same thing that space is made of, then a lot of the “wtf” confusions fly right out the door. For instance, consider for a moment that when you split a photon, you get a byproduct of an electron and a positron, and that an electron “spins” in one direction, and the positron “spins” in the opposite direction…sort of like a current of water hitting a rock and an eddy forming on each side of the rock and spinning in opposite directions. Now, the question is…is the eddy on the left a separate object from the eddy on the right? Are either a separate object from the current that hit the rock? And is the current any different from the water it rode through?
This is a good thread seriously
This is quite exciting
On that note - I ran M87 through the Phi process (described in my paper previously) and interestingly it can still be quantified by the same method, though the value of the exponent is closer to the exponent used for Neutron Star systems (Phi^30 to 40) than for regular Star Systems (Phi^21).
It may be that high energy systems have a higher return on their system core radius in the Phi sequence.
M87 in glowing green (has been scaled down in lightyears by 10^3 magnitude or else it wouldn’t even fit on the chart - so 67 lightyears where it ends is really 67,000 lightyears for the radius of the galaxy).
Only M87 is in terms of lightyears. All others are in terms of AU (astronomical units).