JohnSSM

or, if the mass distribution lies within the radius...you say forward, i say drawrof I do believe adding spin would make the radius smaller...according to the energy used on spin...and if the object isnt symetrical, its just harder to define a radius... I dont think thats correct...If the radius of a mass shrinks, but the mass stays the same, it creates more gravity...because it retains more energy than before and exerts more back in terms of gravitational influence...you just have to wonder where the energy to shrink the volume of mass came from...normally it comes from the addition of more mass...we are adding a mysterious force to shrink the volume in this case without adding mass, and only accounting for it in the resulting increased gravity...

ps...i shall attempt the experiment and see what i see...i didnt feel like holding torches under magnets, or compressing mass into a black hole that then interupts the spacetime continuum...but i got a pencil and ball right here brotha Newtonian gravity didnt need tensors, did it? Doesnt the swartzman prophecy tell us that compressed mass is what interupts spacetime and causes a black hole?

Yes...Im being forced to read about MONDs now...and scalar fields and tensor vector scalar gravity... What an incredibly good time it is to express and confirm and re-evaluate and realize and unlearn and move forward...its friday night...i wouldnt have chosen another way to spend it...crashin...thanks for the discussion

\ Definition of Vector " a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another." Tensor " a mathematical object analogous to but more general than a vector, represented by an array of components that are functions of the coordinates of a space." I ADD THIS...an array of components that are functions of space are vectors... Yes...a four momentum vector makes good sense... That bit about four vectors of momentum is definitely making me think I should have known that...it is intuitive In my mind, all those vectors combined (source of gravity from itself and other objects)...they each effect a direction and time influence... But i knew every object has four dimensions of force being applied to it...i might have called it 3...is the 4th accounting for time and the other 3 space?

Strange...my point WAS, could they exist?...not how it would look if they did exist...cause if something cant exist, theres really no reason to look any farther... Without merging GR and QM, we will never KNOW what might exist first...which is why they moved that forum topic to speculations too... How many times have I heard that curved spacetime is the geometrical results of the masses within it...and i was like...no...its foam being compressed...they were like...you dont need the foam...its all done in geometrical eqautions...that is where the curves are made and found...but only after you apply some mass... If some mass has some energy in a certain vector...or someone is pushing me at a house,..youre gonna have to apply the fact that i just recieved energy from a certain direction to create the space time that i move into...and the distance between me and the house apparently shrinks no matter what direction and energy i had before being pushed...energy applied in that vector is going to influence my movements in that directions...but im not moving...the energy was applied to me and now space-time changes shape and form... But it changes shape and form because I took on more energy...in a certain vector...it couldnt change spacetime accurately without both bits of info... if there were no mass to create a change in vector or energy, why would there be a coordinate system created by anything....it has no input...no impetus for creation...there is no info...none...why do you need space to store no info? you dont

Yes...energy-momentum...it does have a vector, right? a vector would be the direction of force...cant figure out geometry without some directions! It not only has a vector of direction (which way are forces moving me?) it also has a vector of momentum (am i losing or gaining momentum)...you need all that info to create a coordinate system and thats all you need brotha! That info is what GR uses to come up with the geometry of spacetime...or ,the curves of spacetime...did i leave out an influence?

Im not trying to do these experiments...ha...Im making a correlation between Electromagnetic fields, Magnets and heat to Space-time geometry, mass and gravity.... I said that spacetime geometry is created by the vectors at their energy levels, of mass...Or...Mass contains energy with a vector...arent these 2 properties of each mass what general relativity uses to compute the spacetime they occupy? I know there are existing vector forces effecting spacetime cuvature as well, (they are outside forces of gravity, other mass with vector energies of their own) but general relativity figures it all for us...IT takes into account, our own, applies it to what is there allready and changes it accordingly...and then it can in turn, effect what used to be our old vector and energy level..its changes again and changes all the vectors and energy levels in its relative proximity...this is the interaction of changing geometries...isnt it?

yes...same video....right before the 5 minute mark...he is using newtons laws of gravity of his example of the law that didnt last because of new math... They say otherwise when they take certain ideas and put them in speculations... Not looking for proof...looking for perspectives and online discussion...its a forum, not a reality test... I heard someone in a forum refer to spacetime as a reference frame and EMF as a secondary frame...called it complimentary by mistake...sorry bout that...

236...but i did a quote above Can i apply enough external vectors and energies to make the vectors and energies of a much less energetic object obsolete in the mix? sure, it may add to the total, but now instead of being 10 percent of its own influence, its .00000001 % of its own influence...obsolete basically, if the sun gets close enough to the earth, the moon is going to leave our orbit... IN deep space, i dont know how little gravity can exist...but if you were floating in a region of 99 percent uncurved space, you would mostly only be under the influence of your own vectors and energies...and how could you ever get out without waiting for the 1 percent of gravitational influence to bring you close enough to something before it started to slowly speed up? worse than a black hole death? maybe

Would you, at some point, take a moment to look at something i wrote earlier? I really wanted a couple opinions on it and its fun stuff...

Beyond all that i do see the reason for a test particle...like a little feather in the wind...to see whats happening to the wind Yes...I think so

I get it...im just mentioning that I found out today that each little bit of mass effects GR in its own individual way...so you can measure the effects of GR in one mass...and like i said...in terms of reality, everything in the universe is one mass and has one collective vector with energy...the tensor of the universe? Say im standing on the earth...whe you measure earths gravity, my own will be a part of that product...when i jump 10 feet from the earth,...my gravity is still part of the product...when i get 5 million miles away, my own gravity is still part of the product...depending on whether or not you now include me or dont include me in earths gravitational product is weather I effect it or not...no amount of space between us (space is only the product of vectors and energies) will make us mutually exclusive of the others gravity...nothing can if we exist in the same universe... You can use one half of the earth as a test particle for the other half...you dont have to rip earth apart to do that....

The sama paradox I was in!

GR could fail? I proposed that very early on...and now im a believer...and you pull this on me? LOL... Its my reality now...i aint budgin one bit till i see math that contradicts it...or someone really good with math tells me that math contradicts it... And until then, anyone who is even testing for it is wasting their time...

I still dont understand why one needs a a test particle to say anything about gravity...

Just under the influence of gravity? The paths that particles take is a geometrical effect of their own vectors and energies...as an individual and as a group...an individual particle may only spin if there is not another particle influencing its' relative vectors and energies...but it's relative vectors and energies change the shape of gravity, geometery and GR on its own... Wait a second here...why does anyone have to test for GR if it is expected to be 100 percent reliable equations? Is this basically when youre using GR to prove some other unknown? IS there anything other than the equations of general relativity that effect gravity?

Suns being on their way to being black holes is kinda a popular idea I think...not many make it comparitively It not ambitious when its allready been done...its something else I find it so interesting that most of the time, we as humans are mostly under the pressures of our own vectors and energies too...we meet certain folks, its changes our vectors and energies...and often get caught up orbiting sources of energy that we can never overcome...like lobbying...and religion..and network TV...material possessions! personal power! delusions of grandeur are relativity at work... panic attacks are black holes and xanax weakens the field...

If you understand my very first entry of this thread, you can see me describe this radius...I had heard that black holes are a result of compressive energy and also rationed it very easy myself, but had not heard or read this thoery...true

Well yeah, it would start fusion...thats what's happens on your way to becoming a black hole... then fusion begins to make really heavy elements...thats how the density of these things can really get exponential...you started with a big cloud of hydrogen and such light things...and end up with iron, steel...etc the earth makes enough pressure to make molten lava...far short from fusion... But the schwatrman thing it totally on the level right? any mass has a certain radius, that if reduced (in whatever theoretical way) will create a BH if you retain all the mass...

with a large enough lever, I could move the planet... with a large enough trash compactor with large enough power, I can make fusion...or a black hole Why mopes the black hole occur in that instance? What makes it occur?

Did you mean a shrink in volume when you said a shrink in volume?

What im saying is that you didnt understand his postulate completely...if you did, then youll have to account for the sentence "shrink in volume"? He said it within that statement...what did it mean to you? if you can run GR on empty space that will never exist and it works. for sure we can run it on one massive body...whatever exists in spacetime is the same massive body...

Swarzenchild is clear...for every amount of mass, there will be a certain radius, that when compressed to, will create a BH... We dont care how much energy it takes...it happens all the time...where does the compressive force come from if we arent supplying it? how does nature pull it off? (Nature pulls it off all the time...)

You dont need a test particle to figure space curvature...thats what GR does Im just saying...if youre looking to a test particle for the effects of gravity change, you must not know how to figure them with GR...cuz i heard GR does it perfectly...and you dont need 2 masses

What do you think he meant by "shrink in volume"? When you stuff mass into the volume its different apples...