Lately, I reconnected with my first love. In the advertisement of a well-known chocolate, they used to say that 'your first love is also eternal.' I think this applies to my case.
We went through a lot together in the past; we had a special relationship. I knew her well, at least the parts I needed to know in order to tackle the problems she presented to me. We had our ups and downs. Especially in university, we had our very deep downs. It was a coercive task I had to undertake, like another Averell Dalton breaking stones in prison with a metal ball attached to his foot. But I endured it stoically because I knew it was worth it. I knew that the real world was out there. The stones we broke, along with our nerves and our heads, were just the punishment we had to endure until we were finally released.
I showed good behavior and got the paper. Years passed since I lost touch with her, but because there's a nostalgia and a Hollywood love for comebacks, I returned to her eventually. Forward: backward! The lover of art is an amateur. So, I declare myself a lover of science, since my love is Physics. And I'm not talking about the school version, not even the university version. There, you just break stones. Without reason. You don't grasp the essence, nor do you even get into the mood. That's why I distanced myself from it. But eventually, we came close again. Life works in mysterious ways... 😝
The stones taught me that even something hard eventually breaks. So, by breaking stones, I had time to ponder the true meaning of the universe, and I had some tools to understand subtle concepts, which I gained from my imprisonment.
Now I will share these with anyone who wants to understand the essence of relativity, the truth of the world. I am not the privileged one who knows what's happening. Perhaps in 1940, few understood what Uncle Al was trying to say. Even today, many can solve problems of special and general relativity much easier and faster than I can, but most do not understand the essence of this theory. They stay on the surface and don't dive into the depths. Fortunately, though, there are now many more who can understand what the child meant with these theories. I am proud of myself for understanding the truth at a young age (crying). And for the first time, I'll say, bravo to myself. 🤣
Let's explain some simple things:
I am in a fantastic world in the void, but I can breathe—don't ask how—on a bench and throw a ball at 10 km/h to the right. Jimmy, stationary next to me, sees the same. I get on the bullet train, see Brad, tell him I need to climb onto the train roof and throw the ball to the right again. Jimmy on the bench sees me running at 200 km/h, throwing the ball at 10 km/h, and I see it going at 10 km/h, while Jimmy sees it at 210 km/h. But I change the experiment and instead of a ball, I throw a laser. I see it moving at the speed of light! 300,000 km per second. The issue is that Jimmy on the bench also sees the same. He doesn't see the light moving at its speed plus the train's speed. Why does this happen? Because light has no mass, and the ball does? Because the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. Al was right about that The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is not the limit of speeds! Detach this from your mind. It's a barrier, not the ultimate speed! 🚧 What does this mean: Simply put, anything with mass that moves at a speed slower than this is practically impossible to accelerate to that speed. It doesn't mean it can't happen because we don't know how it could, nor does it mean that if something moves faster than this, such a thing can't exist. From now on, we'll call it the 'speed barrier of light,' like the sound barrier. I've decided. And if we haven't broken it ourselves already in the future, others have. We all know E = mc^2, well, the problems start and end there. Al, as I like to call him, never said that something can't go faster than light. Without getting into technical details, in the original formula, there's a fraction under a square root, in a denominator, which if the fraction isn't nullified with the body's mass not being zero, results in the known formula of kinetic energy. However, if the fraction tends towards infinity because it's multiplied by 0 (zero) (zero mass), an indeterminate value results. But nothing is fundamentally indeterminate. In physics, we make approximations (3.14... roughly equals 3, 9.81 roughly equals 10, etc.), assumptions (3-kilogram spherical chickens condensed into a negligible-sized ball) and so on. Thus, we've officially, through assumptions, concluded that this is meaningless and haven't delved further into it. (And) That's why we're boring, and aliens don't bother with our underdeveloped reality (more on this in a subsequent article).
And another thing. Protons and neutrons in the nucleus of every atom are each composed of 3 quarks. If we measure the mass of the 3 quarks, is it equal to that of a proton? The answer is no. It should be. That's because there's already stored energy that, if converted to mass, would be equal to the mass of the proton. So, already in measuring the mass of a body in the macrocosm, there's no transparency about how much of it is actual material mass and how much is energy. Also, the space between atoms is more empty than containing something, the same applies between molecules, etc. Nonetheless, do we perceive something as solid, not as empty, and ultimately even this could be measured as mass?
It's clear that this perspective will change over time and will lead to what I and many other amateur scientists see. 😍
Gravity is NOT a force. This joke is over. Do you have a mobile? Great! Leave it stationary on a table, on the floor, wherever you want... Open your accelerometer, the one that measures your acceleration, yes. For Samsung, go to calls and dial #0#, then sensors, and then accelerometer (for other devices, figure it out... don't expect me to do everything). What does it say? 0 (zero)? No. Does it read something on the z-axis, right? Now you'll tell me "bruh, on this axis, it's the acceleration due to gravity." Yes, let's say. In reality, though, the acceleration it reads is upwards, not downwards. 🤯What? How does that happen? Patrick Ogunsoto would say it quite correctly. Yes, and yet! If this didn't happen, the whole planet would collapse under its weight at its center, so there's another force that accelerates us outwards, like internal pressure in an inflated balloon; otherwise, volcano lava would never reach the surface. 😉 To cut a long story short, the gravity we call 'force' in school is the result of the time vector. This vector points downwards, and the body moves towards that in space. Space distorts around mass (we've seen this in gravitational lenses we mentioned in another article), and all this distortion leads to what we incorrectly termed 'gravitational force.' This force never existed.
In free fall from a building, is there a force? If yes, then why do we call it 'free'? There's no force. The arrow of spacetime points downwards, and we move on it compulsorily. But at school, we say a body is stationary because ΣF = 0, meaning gravitational force balances out with the force N of the surface, and in a vacuum, there's no N force, so it falls. Firstly, if that were exactly the case, our mobile phone wouldn't have measured anything in the previous experiment. And yet! Stationary, it measured acceleration! No, it's not due to the Earth's rotation; forget that idea. Due to rotation, we have velocity, which relative to Earth is 0 (zero).
Once again, am I calling Newton stupid and making fun of him? Am I so smart when I forget to solve a simple differential equation? The answer is no. Isaac said what he saw. He said it correctly, and in general, he's right. He tells you that if you fall from a building with constant acceleration, you crash to the ground, acceleration and velocity instantly zero out, and that's why you die! However, he didn't know about the upward acceleration I'm telling you about. Physicists in your schools and tutoring centers don't know these things. They're stuck breaking rocks. But maybe in prison, they wanted to see who would break rocks and eventually make a statue or a house out of them.
Gravity shouldn't be called a force. It's not a force. It's an interaction of spacetime itself on bodies. I'll write another related article to explain it better. 😁
Wait, then why don't we fly with the upward acceleration we have? Because we have the spacetime distortion pointing downward, that's why. However, if we go a little further from this distortion, we can fly. That's what we do in the interval where it's not so intense... My only disagreement is whether mass causes it or if mass is caused by it. I hope to answer this with certainty. Anyway, the Earth's gravitational pull is not the same everywhere...
As I've said before in a previous article, the time we perceive is an illusion. All chronological moments exist simultaneously, and I'll explain it with another example. How can we tell when "now" is, when our brain takes some time to convert visual stimuli into information and perceive it, as the information travels through the optic nerve, and the information itself takes time to reach our eye because light takes time to travel? So, perhaps "now" is separate for each of us. The only way someone could accurately measure "now" is this: to stand between two mirrors and shine a laser to the right and left at the same angle. If they do this, then the light will travel a distance in one direction and another in the opposite direction, it will hit the mirror and reflect forward, so the two beams should meet exactly at the same point.
If they don't meet at the same point, it means the person is not positioned in the middle between the mirrors and needs to adjust their position. If they do this, they can confidently say that "now" is the moment when the two light beams meet after reflection.
If we conduct the same experiment but the person moves between the two mirrors exactly in the middle of their distance, and the mirrors move with the same speed and direction as the person, we will observe the following: sending the light to the right, the mirror on the right will move away from the person. Sending the light to the left, the mirror on the left will approach the person because it moves as well. Therefore, light going to the right will take more time to reach than light going to the left. The opposite will happen after reflection. The light from the left will take more time to reach than the light from the right.
I mention this to understand that to the right, in reality, is the future, and to the left is the past, or vice versa depending on the convention we agree upon. However, if someone moves, their perspective on cause and effect changes. Therefore, someone might see the result happening in front of them first and then the cause of the result. If a stationary observer dropped an ink drop into a glass of water, a moving observer would see the ink spreading in the water first and then see the drop fall, so they would see the future before the past. You might say that the moving observer is mistaken. The problem is that they're not mistaken. Each observer perceives what happens. And for the moving observer, time continues to move from past to future because that's how humans perceive time. So, now, before, and after have all actually occurred and are occurring simultaneously. We just don't yet have the ability to move at speeds needed to perceive reality differently from how we perceive it now. In essence, this creates a problem of cause and effect. Because what we perceive as a result, someone else may perceive as a cause chronologically. In a subsequent article, I promise to talk to you about spacetime travel, how it's ultimately forbidden or allowed, and some interesting but not so paradoxical things after all.
For now, I'll upload the article without photos to let you imagine some things, and in the future, I'll add them.
updated: Images have been included.
Comments