Matter Forms Space & Time is Relative Motion

In summary, the conversation discusses questions related to space-time-matter, specifically which factor should dominate these discussions and whether time and mass should be used in place of matter. The speaker believes that matter defines space and time is a human construct, and that mass is a collection of persistent force fields that should be used instead of matter in these discussions. They also propose a conjecture about inertia and gravity being a result of the relative motion and number of electromagnetic force fields. The discussion also touches on the concept of fundamental elements of the universe and how they are defined and observed.
  • #1
what_are_electrons
Questions related to the Topic Title of this Thread:

STM Question: "Which factor should dominate Space-Time-Matter discussions?"
Time Question: "Does time exist or is it a human construct?"
Matter Question: "Should mass be used in place of matter?"


My thoughts on the STM Question:
Matter forms space, so matter defines space. Time is actually the relative movement of matter. Time is a human construct that was conceived only because the Sun appeared and disappeared.

My thoughts on the Time Question:
Time is a human construct. Time is best replaced by the relative movement of matter.

My thoughts on Matter Question:
Yes, mass is a collection of persistent force fields, eg the electron or a proton. This means that a unit of mass contains one or more EM force fields and potentially one or more still unknown force fields. Mass is perceived when another set of persistent force fields exerts a force on initial set of persistent force fields. Since Matter is composed of Mass, Mass should be term used in place of Matter in these discussions.

A Radical Extension of these Thoughts:
There is no proof that "mechanical mass" exists within the center of any elementary particle. If we assume that mechanical mass does indeed NOT exist, and that every particle is comprised of an electromagnetic force field, then this leads to an interesting conjecture on inertia. What is inertia? Within this framework, inertis is the relative interaction of differents sets of differently sized masses which are herein defined as sets of EM fields. This suggests that the relative motion and relative collective number of these EM force fields constitutes inertia and gravity.
What, if anything, is wrong with this conjecture?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
My comments:

rulers define space, and clocks define time.

Rulers and clocks are to some extent human inventions, but what isn't? After a lot of work carried out on how to measure things, we get _reproducible results_ from our measurements with both sets of instruments.

Our best candidate for something that's truly fundamental about the universe is neither space nor time, both of which vary with the observer. A better candidate for something truly fundamental about the universe is the Lorentz interval, which is a combination of both. The Lorentz interval is the difference of the squares of the space interval and the time interval, except for some pesky factors of a constant called 'c' which can be avoided by the proper choice of units.

We now watch this thread get moved to "theory development", with much talk about what "should" be fundamental rather than what we have actually _observed_ by experience to be fundamental.
 
  • #3


In response to the STM Question, I believe that all factors should be taken into consideration in discussions about space-time-matter. Each of these factors plays a critical role in our understanding of the universe and how it functions. Ignoring any one of them could lead to a limited or incomplete understanding.

Regarding the Time Question, I agree that time is a human construct. It is a way for us to measure and perceive the passage of events. However, this does not mean that time is not a real concept. It is still a fundamental aspect of our existence and plays a crucial role in the laws of physics.

As for the Matter Question, I believe that the term "matter" is still a valid and useful term in discussions. While mass is a more specific concept, matter encompasses both mass and energy. It is important to consider both in understanding the physical world.

In regards to the radical extension of these thoughts, I believe it is an interesting and thought-provoking idea. However, it is still just a conjecture at this point and would need further research and evidence to be fully accepted. It is important to continue questioning and exploring different theories and ideas in order to expand our understanding of the universe.
 

FAQ: Matter Forms Space & Time is Relative Motion

What is "Matter Forms Space & Time is Relative Motion"?

"Matter Forms Space & Time is Relative Motion" is a scientific theory that explains the relationship between matter, space, time, and motion. It suggests that matter is the basis of the formation of space and time, and that the perception of time and space is relative to an observer's motion.

How does matter form space and time?

According to this theory, matter has the ability to warp and bend space and time. This means that the presence of matter creates a curvature in the fabric of space and time, and the amount of curvature depends on the mass and speed of the matter. So, the more matter there is in a certain area, the more warped space and time will be in that location.

What is the relationship between matter and motion in this theory?

In this theory, matter and motion are closely linked. The motion of an observer affects their perception of time and space, and the amount of matter in a certain location affects the motion of objects in that area. This means that matter, space, time, and motion are all interconnected and cannot be understood separately.

How is this theory related to Einstein's theory of relativity?

Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation for this theory. It builds upon the concept of relativity and expands it to include the influence of matter on space and time. It also takes into account the idea that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion.

What evidence supports this theory?

There is a significant amount of evidence that supports this theory, including observations of gravitational lensing, which is the bending of light by massive objects. This phenomenon can only be explained by the warping of space and time by matter. Additionally, experiments such as the Hafele-Keating experiment have shown that time is affected by an object's motion. Furthermore, Einstein's theory of relativity has been extensively tested and verified through various experiments, providing further support for this theory.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top