It need not be only acceleration because gravitational propagation is finite, and so even when an object travels at constant velocity it is running into more of its own propagating gravity towards the direction of motion than in the direction away. It would seem that the rate of time (or change)...
The model for spacetime is not mine alone; it is the model generally accepted by contemporary physicists. In the model, t does not stand for time--unfortunately, that is what most people get confused about and where they go wrong--it stands for the rate of time (or change) observed in a system...
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the fourth dimension that many people suffer from. Obviously, the three spatial dimensions are a result of matter and energy being in a certain place. But most people tend to think that just as one can travel the first three dimensions, they can also move...
Backward time travel is virtually impossible even if one were to "step out" of the universe. That is because even if one is outside of the universe, changes still occur on the inside. By realizing that time is not a dimension, one can begin to see why a time line is merely an accumulated...
Contemporary proponents of time travel make the erroneous assumption if B occurs after A then B is caused by A; or more specifically, time is caused by velocity/motion. I will elaborate: as the velocity of an object increases, time decreases to the point which when velocity becomes c time...
And your calculations are most likely correct. Light, and everything else, is governed by gravity because it is unable to overcome its own propagating gravity wave front. So mathematically, light should be slightly slower (even if infinitesimally) than the speed of gravity, but for the purposes...
Actually, Michael is correct in his understanding of the movement of massive objects as they travel through time. He has just restated one of the principles of Einstein's theory of relativity. And one of the underlying implications to his theory is that energy and time are equivalent, at least...
I realize that it is all about etymological syntax, but it is the only measuring stick we have; however, words do change over time. It is generally accepted that all-knowing means knowing everything—including future events. I should not have to explain that to anyone. Furthermore, "that it is at...
This has been discussed for ages...
Does not all-knowing include knowing tomorrow? Of course it does: so he must choose not to know it. Is that not reckless for God to do so? Of course it is: why would God, who could see my future, create me only to eventually have me become a victim of my...
The phrase "massive body", to a physicist, means "any body of mass" as opposed to its literal translation of a relatively large body.
Again, it all depends on our definitions. So until a new process is identified that is known not to send or (not and/or) receive information, the universe is...
Gravitational influence is calculated from mass and distance. Distance is discrete only if space (the realm in which we measure distance) is discrete. In your above reasoning, you wrote "... move from one discrete unit to another" which is in direct conflict with "infinite forces".
So if...
Yes, that's good! Of course, it all depends on the definitions we choose--but, I like this one for the moment.
So now we have to figure out if there is any part of the universe that does not partake in this information exchange. And by exchange I understand you to mean that an aware part must...