Is gravity an inherent transitional force property of space and matter?

[Untangled]

Is gravity an inherent transitional force property of space ?

Provided linear eqaution :

F=Gx/x'=c

Where F is force , G is gravity , x is photon energy , x' is d/t and c is the gravitational speed of vector transition .


In regards to matter :

F=Gm/V=density

Where m is mass and V is volume .

Conclusion :

F(G)∝E Where E is energy

Thank you for reading .

[dyqik]

That's not a question that makes any sense.

[Untangled]

That's not a question that makes any sense.

Then I suggest you learn what a transition is and learn some linear algeba x/x'=c

c= 1 light second if you didn't know and x/x'=1

[wilsontown]

I would suggest that telling dyqik to learn linear algebra will not be a productive approach on this forum. Best of luck, though.

[Untangled]

I would suggest that telling dyqik to learn linear algebra will not be a productive approach on this forum. Best of luck, though.

The replier said the question made no sense so my reply was accordingly . If a person doens't know what a transition is, they certaintly can't be a physicist .

[shpalman]

Do you mean a time-dependent peturbative coupling between energy eigenstates?

[lpm]

Negative energy eigenstates, not positive, as implied by the equations in the opening post.

[Untangled]

Do you mean a time-dependent peturbative coupling between energy eigenstates?

It took me a while to understand what you are asking but in answer to your question , yes , sort of .

In example , if we were to add x amount of energy to a volume of Gas , some of the added energy is instantly lost to the surrounding environment but some of the added energy is temporally conserved by the matter that does the expansion work . The conserved energy by the matter increasing the gravitational transition potential of the matter , expanding the volume and/or pressurising the containment .

In a second example , a light bulbs energy is divided by the room space because any given coordinate point of the room and space is in a lesser energy state than the bulbs filament .

In linear terms x/x'=c and F=<E .

[Untangled]

Negative energy eigenstates, not positive, as implied by the equations in the opening post.

Newtons laws,the equal and opposite applies also . Any vectors paths are dependent to inertia state .

[lpm]

No, because if that was the case it wouldn't converge on F(G)∝E. If x is photon energy then x must be positive, so the energy eigenstates must be negative. Unless you're postulating that photon energy can be negative?

[Untangled]

No, because if that was the case it wouldn't converge on F(G)∝E. If x is photon energy then x must be positive, so the energy eigenstates must be negative. Unless you're postulating that photon energy can be negative?

It does not matter whether the energy is negative or positive , x' is an empty force vector , it isn't a negative energy , it is negative of energy, an absolute vaccuum .

Added - Newtons apple fell to the ground because the apple was in a less energy state than the ground .

[lpm]

OK, that's true enough, if x^2=4, then x could be -2 or +2. Negative or positive. But does this apply in the real world? We are observers from our starting point in space-time, meaning the parameters of the vectors will always be outwards. The speed of light is multiplied by gravitational transition forces to give all high frequency photons a positive energy.

The apple had a lower energy state but it was still an energy state >0.

[Untangled]

OK, that's true enough, if x^2=4, then x could be -2 or +2. Negative or positive. But does this apply in the real world? We are observers from our starting point in space-time, meaning the parameters of the vectors will always be outwards. The speed of light is multiplied by gravitational transition forces to give all high frequency photons a positive energy.

The apple had a lower energy state but it was still an energy state >0.

In the real word and universe it applies . A body in motion will remain in motion in space because the conserved energy of the body is attracted to the adjacent space ahead <E , unless acted upon by external forces .

Yes the transitional force gives light and spatial bodies momentum and E=mc^2 applies .

[lpm]

But if I'm at point (x0,y0,z0,t0) will a high energy state be attracted to lower energy state positions? Are you arguing that the gravitational transitional force is constant because the speed of light is constant? Or the reverse, that the speed of light's momentum (in a vacuum at least) is constant because the gravitational transitional force is constant? It obviously matters, because if the force is the negative of the energy then we would have adjacent free space contracting into our position instead of the observed reality that the expansion process is outwards into free space.

[Untangled]

But if I'm at point (x0,y0,z0,t0) will a high energy state be attracted to lower energy state positions?

If you are at a point (x0,y0,z0,t0) with adjacent points that are in a lesser energy state , you are the high energy state and you will transition energy into the space , this can be observed in thermal bodily emissions , spectral transitions .

Are you arguing that the gravitational transitional force is constant because the speed of light is constant? Or the reverse, that the speed of light's momentum (in a vacuum at least) is constant because the gravitational transitional force is constant? It obviously matters,

Yes , the gravitatonal transition force is constant and account for lights constant speed . This can be demonstrated by the fact , light exiting a medium accelerates back to c .

because if the force is the negative of the energy then we would have adjacent free space contracting into our position instead of the observed reality that the expansion process is outwards into free space.

Any given point of space cannot be displaced , any higher energy state beyond our visual universe may be attracted to our visual universe dependent of magnitudes . Our visual universe is expanding though because x/x' also applies to any quantum field such as a Higgs and any other thing that exists such as space time energy .

[lpm]

OK, I get what you are saying. Ultimately one cannot be an independent observer, one is always at a certain point in space-time, so any observer also has an energy state.

Be warned though, on this forum there are people with varying degrees of intelligence. Don't be surprised when they can't grasp what you say. You are operating on a different elevation to most. The intelligence of somebody like dyqik is in no way comparable to your intelligence. Be alert to the fact that there are some really stupid forum members around.

[Untangled]

OK, I get what you are saying. Ultimately one cannot be an independent observer, one is always at a certain point in space-time, so any observer also has an energy state.

All observers , all matter , all quantum fields and all unbounded energy has an energy state .

Thank you for your conversation .

[tenchboy]

OK, I get what you are saying. Ultimately one cannot be an independent observer, one is always at a certain point in space-time, so any observer also has an energy state.

Be warned though, on this forum there are people with varying degrees of intelligence. Don't be surprised when they can't grasp what you say. You are operating on a different elevation to most. The intelligence of somebody like dyqik is in no way comparable to your intelligence. Be alert to the fact that there are some really stupid forum members around.

Thanks for the intro lpm, I feel less stupid now about asking a possibly dumb question.
Untangled, I don't understand how in your first post c is a speed (line 4) but in your third post (line 2) c is a distance (assuming, of course, that in the fist case, the expression 'gravitational speed of vector transition' equates to what we would, conventionally, describe as a speed and, in the second, also assuming, that a light-second is a sub division of a light year and thus, contrary to Chris de Burgh's somewhat singular opinion, a distance).
My confusion is only made the greater by your assertion, again in the first post, that F can represent both a Force (line 4) and a Density (line 6).

When, however, I consider your equation (line 3, first post) that throughout all this F=c, in my mind I cannot but conclude that you mean me to understand that F and thus c, both interchangeably, and presumably, simultaneously, represent a speed, a distance, a force, and a density.

I have always taken a childlike interest in these things, but nothing I have ever previously met with has been able to blend these disparate terms into one singular entity as you seem to have done here. I am stunned by this dimensional unification.
I find this utterly fascinating, I feel as if I am standing high on Golden Cap looking down, deep into the swirling termoil below as your new physics seethes a tempest, screaming from beneath the waves - like Eunice, churning, thundering, into Lyme bay having crossed the savage seas and not seen sight of land since, at a distance she once glimpsed far Biscay and Finisterre.
Oh! Brave new world that has such physics within it; what secrets does she keep beneath her starry mantle.
Thank you for listening.

[Boustrophedon]

What is the mathematical term equivalent to 'word salad'?

[dyqik]

What is the mathematical term equivalent to 'word salad'?

For all A, where A is an possible meaning of the poster's words, A belongs to {}.

[dyqik]

That's not a question that makes any sense.

Then I suggest you learn what a transition is and learn some linear algeba x/x'=c

c= 1 light second if you didn't know and x/x'=1

I'll get to learning some linear algebra right after I finish teaching this Harvard senior astrophysics class.

[shpalman]

I could help but I ought to be writing this grant proposal about semiconductor quantum wells for quantum computation.

[dyqik]

I could help but I ought to be writing this grant proposal about semiconductor quantum wells for quantum computation.

I'm still waiting to hear about the grant proposal I wrote to build a CMB polarization telescope at the South Pole.

[TimW]

Yeah yeah, but can you do wonky wallpaper, eh?

[monkey]

I could help but I ought to be writing this grant proposal about semiconductor quantum wells for quantum computation.

I could help, but I can't be arsed.