Problem about the definition of gravity

Oh, people could conjecture in any way…
Modern physics now is one hundred ideas to argue one thing / phenomenon.
The key point is to see which idea is able to solve as many physical and astronomical problems as possible in one way.
Actually, piggy likes to talk philosophy a bit more. Piggy has a thread “Franklin vs elephant” in the philosophy forum…

(Once upon a time, piggy asked a question in PHF: what’s the base of cosmos? One guy’s opinion was that it’s QFT. Piggy was very surprising. Why should it be a theory? Even you consider it’s a fluffy version of guinea pig, people could have something substantial left in cosmos.
Piggy’s humble opinion is that space – time, mass and energy is the base of cosmos / physics. A good fundamental theory should be able to weave these basic elements. )

Time vs time, touchy and feely:
Perhaps “what’s time?” is one of the hot topics argued most on web. Piggy’s humble opinion is that the definition of time should reflect its basic physical property.

Piggy said in a post a head that:
““According to the mass – space equation r ∝1 / M, the rise of the increased mass of the proton results in the contraction of the radius of the proton in μ Hydrogen atom.” (For details , please see relevance in the thread “matter vs anti matter”). And according to the mass – time equation △t ∝ M, the rise of the increased mass of the proton results in the inflation of time of the proton in μ Hydrogen atom. There is no absolute time, even in situation of the static.”
It means time affiliates to matter. There is no absolute time, even in the same inertial frame. In traditional SR, time is transformed in different inertial frames. But actually, such inertial frames are built on specific objects. So, physically it’s time of that object inflates. (No matter it’s the replacement of a u particle results in the rise of the increased mass of the proton, or the movement does it, according to the mass – time equation △t ∝ M, the rise of the mass of the proton results in the inflation of time of the proton. Or say, it’s the rise of the internal energy of the proton results in the inflation of time of the proton (△t ∝ E). It’s not that there is a time flowing ahead like a river in an inertial frame.)
The gravitational situation is the same principle.

Time is controlled by internal energy of matter, so, time is the inherent property of matter.
Internal energy is wave characteristic, so, time is the pulse of everything in cosmos.
(This is time associated with 3D physical space)
Liqiang Chen
Jan 18, 2021
(The cruel and all around dark sanction / affliction of the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city over so many years has shortened piggy’s lifespan at least ten plus years. So, piggy’s pulse could stop at any time. Bounce…)
给他江门地方黑恶势力钟永康集团及新会一中九一四班谁谁一个超文革赛阎王光荣称号快快全世界全宇宙打靶啦。当今时代，全世界没有什么人能够值得如此殊荣。呵呵

The question might be if inertial frames actually exist. Because all Matter has (relative) acceleration.

The Universe expands for one. Energy and Mass could be considered as being the same thing.

Einstein related to Energy as being virtual mass or the other way around. Energy locked in Matter.

Regarding the base of the Cosmos, there are fundamental rules on which it operates, which is Science.

Time is not physical, it is conditional and a result of Matter interaction only. Secondary as such.

My previous comments which consider Nuclear formation can be analyzed mathematically I think.

Simplified Ticker Rate example: consider 2 nuclei (a Proton and Neutron), close together to form an atom for instance. These 2 nuclei need to relate to each other down to the level of the strong force. This puts a limit on their speed of interaction. Then there is the separate but more distant electron. The Ticker Rate for the 2 nuclei is relatively slow as their speed is limited by the other nucleus. The electron is not directly relating to these 2 but it is on the side of the electromagnetic force, its Rate is therefore very fast, close to c, as it can directly relate to the larger mass (or better yet: it is forced to).

An absolute Ticker Rate (not Time) does therefore exist however it is highly local and variable for each individual particle. Particles within nuclei are not truly individuals as they are locked inside Matter. This influences their Ticker Rate, possibly setting the lower limit above decay.

The combined and averaged Ticker Rate for all particles sort of is the larger observable Time frame.

I imagine the first Universes started out below or above 300000 km/s but it failed to find balance.

If Space is compressed (by Matter) then the average “Time” is reduced, a Photon will arrive quicker.

Space-time is a construct which essentially does not deal with the Ticker Rate but with observed Time.

Space-time operates on the level of Gravity but Gravity itself only exists after the formation of Matter.

Therefore Space-time seems a invalid notion when mathematically describing fundamental particles.

Newton's law is a mathematical notion describing real (but average) phenomena. Not fundamental.

If we are able to describe nuclear formation and its (relative but primary) Ticker Rate, then the rest builds on top of that. The LHC would be out of work.

This is essentailly also what Einstein pointed to, a need to actually understand the fundamental and possibly live with the consequences. Time travel is not possible because Time does not actually exist. There is only one Universe (others are not relevant anyway) and Space travel is not a vital option even when travelling at the speed of light. Sciencefiction is however.

Just a quick Public Service Announcement

There is nothing on this thread that has anything to do with actual Physics. I am defining "actual Physics" as what is taught in Universities and High schools and is the basis of what real scientists do.

As long as no one is fooled... carry on.

@maxdancona

Please do prove my comments are wrong, mathematically or otherwise...

Science is always incomplete, like Newton`s law. That is a primary for new discoveries. Else the "Scientist" would be out of work now would they not be?

If I follow your line of commenting then a computer could basicly run the logic.

Please prove my comments wrong. I didn't say your comments are "wrong". I said they have nothing to do with real physics (as taught in high school or university).

Did I say anything about your comments? No.

If they are not wrong then they are actual Physics.

People reading this thread should understand that what you are selling is not real Physics (as taught in high school or University Physics courses). You are just making stuff up on your own. I have the advantage of a Physics degree. Other people reading this thread might not know that this isn't actually Physics.

That is my only reason for coming to this silly thread.

For one: do you know how many hours were spent on physical philosophy by the fathers of your Physics "degree"? It all started with basic concepts which then could be verified (a whopping 100 years later).

Two: what you hold is knowledge of these tested concepts, which is not real Science.

Three: that makes me the actual Scientist and you the logic analyzer.

Four: do what you are good at and prove the comments are wrong or prove them right.

Five: I never said my comments are complete but does not make them (wholely) false.

We are having a silly argument over the definition of the word "Physics".

To me, Physics is an academic subject that based on research and taught in Universities. The people who study Physics use this knowledge to build computers, send robots to Mars and create the modern technology we all depend upon.

When you use the word Physics, you are referring to something else. The posts you are making have nothing to do with the Physics you would find in a University classroom.

As long as we all understand this... then we have no problem. My only concern is that someone might not realize that your posts have absolutely nothing to do with what people learn while getting an actual Physics degree.

Your confusion originates from the fact that you seem to think that someone owns Science or Physics. And that it should have an application, for one. Or that I need to speak Math for instance.

The best Physicists often did not like Math, nor where they very good at it. They possibly understood it is only logic, complex as it comes in lots of shapes and sizes with many variables in order to describe concepts. But a concept is not reality, even when mathematically verified, it can be completely virtual.

Re-confirmation (re-search) is not Science. Science is the quest for fundamental rules governing the Universe. Not a (re-)confirmation or application of the existing (discovered) ones. That is either useless or plain business.

What is 4/2? Some would say 2. Well no it is 2 oranges on one side of my hand and 2 on the other. If you use limited or unreal variables or if you leave some them out, what do you end up with? A big mess confused with knowledge build and validated using Math. You can build a boat but without the propeller it will not run. And not all boats are equipped for the high seas even with a propeller.

The word Physics literally means knowledge of nature. However... Knowledge should constitute facts and the facts are currently incomplete. Let us not go into the notions of knowledge vs understanding.

Math by itself can never yield knowledge or understanding. It can only confirm what is already understood. There is nothing to understand in Math itself as it is the pure execution of rules, period. Therefore using mathematical statements alone does not constitute understanding (or knowledge). Regardless of how complicated the statements are. Is a computer knowledgeable? Does it perform Science? If so, your “degree” is out of luck. True, one can be very knowledgeable in the rules that exist (and their application). This might be in support of Science, business or human affairs in general. Or not.

Why do you think I need or am looking for your approval anyway? I am not at all interested in your “degree” or university nonsense. Next time go and study linguistics, it seems to suit you better as you hide behind terminology like "this my degree", "at the university", "your comments" or "Physics". Be more precise.

My definition of Physics:

1. Taught in University.
2. Done by people who have spent 10 or 12 or more years of study to master mathematics and advanced topics in science.
3. Heavily based on mathematics.
4. Based on experiment and mathematics as determined by the scientific community.

Your version of Physics.

1. Not based on math.
2. Not done by people with University degrees.
3. Based on on some indeterminate ideas about "understanding".

As long as people aren't confused into thinking you have a University degree or any serious academic study on the topic... I am fine with you "understanding" anything you want.

As long as you aren't pretending to be representing academic Physics or institutional science, I will back out and you can continue.

You can only teach what you know and not all is known.

Please do stick to your definitions but do not wrongly define mine.

Each and everyone of my comments can be verified using Math if you would.

Maybe I should present several considerations to show that not everything is known at this time.

Explain the EPR paradox and consider it might be as simple as 4/2 in terms of oranges and a hand.

Magnetism is able to operate inside a vacuum, with no electrons or particles present, is this possible?

If Photons are considered to be particles which possibly move in a corkscrew trajectory, then the speed at which they travel is actually much higher than 300.000 km/s. As the circular spinning path of motion is much longer than the length measured as being the distance it travels.

For some reason there seems to be a problem with the concept of Entropy. Why?

Considering positively charged particles seem to decay at anything below the “speed of light”, how are they able to retain this charge inside a Proton? Do they therefore move at speed within the Proton?

When we look at n → p + e- + Ve + 0,78 MeV, what is happening here and why does it have an average decay of 886 seconds? And why can Protons seemingly only decay to Neutrons when they are bound inside atoms? Also consider Tritium, why is this nuclear structure the one able to release (relax) fusion energy the easiest. Where e- + Ve initially is a W-boson only.

The above might indicate that the nuclear formation and other information I presented might not be that far from the facts.

One more comment, the notion of hadrons, quarks, baryons do not seem fundamental, only temporary phenomena that require a different approach. Do allow me some typo's as I am not a native English speaker.

I did some math.

Oh dear, can you tell me what's the difference between the textbooks in universities 100 years ago and the textbooks nowadays in universities?
Define what's physics? What a joke.

Have people understand what's time exactly? Otherwise, talk what "curveture of space - time is the modern definition of gravity"?

Yes, I can in both counts.

Physics is a subject of study that uses mathematics to make models of how the Universe works. The Laws of Physics are testable and repeatable, you can make predictions with them and then make observations of experiments to test their correctness. It has been developed over a period of 100s of years through a scientific process where hypotheses are tested and results are peer reviewed. It is taught in Universities, used in technology and part of a scientific community.

100 years ago we understood what is now called "classical mechanics" (Isaac Newton). We understood energy and conservation laws. We had developed classical Thermodynamics, Electricity and Magnetism and Maxwell's laws.

100 years ago Einstein's theories of relativity were new and untested. I don't think textbooks had them yet (I am not sure when they did that). Quantum Mechanics hadn't quite been developed yet (although students did study Planck's quantization).

The Physics from a textbook from a 100 years ago is completely relevant. Classical Physics is still here and is the core of modern Physics. Every Physics student learns Newton's laws and studies Maxwell's equations. In fact, generally a student tackles the new modern topics building on a mastery of classical physics.

Thank you. You looks like an authentic teacher, really and really. Although piggy was not a good student in university and will never be, he respects teachers. Salute.
It’s said that Einstein created his SR in 1905 and flip the conception of absolute space –time at that time. But seems that it’s not the affair of any universities nor the affair of what scientific community. It was just the affair of a small patent bureau?
Nowadays, it’s said that both Relativity and QM are taught in universities. But can Relativity prove QM is reasonable? Can QM prove Relativity is reasonable? Or students are teaching something both wrong?
Energy conservation? Why? Can Relativity or QM tell the students?
Is there a unified conception of energy in universities? If there is one in a2k, why not it’s good thing?