A member wrote the following:
One set of observations that are connected to Newtonian gravity, that are left out of GR, is connected to pressure.
Neither Newton’s equations for gravity or Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (GR) directly relate to pressure.
GR talks about the time within space-time but not the time associated with matter/energy transitions as a function of pressure induced by gravity.
Neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s theories address [the passage of] time as it relates to pressure or matter/energy transitions, since they are not related. However
both of the theories do give a force or an acceleration due to gravity, so for a given mass of a given dimension you can calculate the pressure the mass would exert from either theory.
For example, in a star, the center has the slowest time frame in the space-time well, yet the core also has the fastest matter/energy frequencies or fastest average time of phenomena, due to pressure; gamma and fusion reactions.
No, no you are somehow confusing vibrational frequency with time itself! Additionally, you are incorrectly implying that the high vibrational frequencies are due to the pressure when in fact it is due to the temperature.
Inside the star the high pressures results in a high temperature. It is the same phenomena that diesel engines use. If you increase the pressure the temperature will increase. In a diesel engine the high pressure of fuel and air in the cylinder during the compression part of the cycle yields temperatures high enough to result in the auto ignition of the fuel/air mix.
Fusion of the hydrogen in the core results from the high temperatures (which cause extremely energetic movement of the hydrogen) and the close proximity of the hydrogen (due to the high pressure).
This unlike the abstract of space-time, the matter transitions are tangible. One can save a cup of hydrogen. But instead we choose the imaginary time as the standard. Does this have to do with contrivances?
Space-time is not an abstraction it is part of our everyday life. Yes, one can have a cup of hydrogen, but as the poster implies, one cannot have a cup of time. However, you cannot have a cup of length either, can you? It is intuitively obvious that one cannot have a cup of dimensions! Hopefully you see the problem in how that quote was phrased.
If we start in the core of the star, and move up the space-time well to the surface, time speeds up. Yet the tangible matter/energy frequencies get slower, which means matter/energy based time is slowing down instead of speeding up.
You have again somehow confused vibrations and frequency with time itself. The vibrational frequency of the matter decreases because the temperature decreases as you move from the core of the star to the surface of the star, which has nothing to do with slowing or speeding up time. The frequency of the gamma rays produced in the core decrease in frequency between the core and the surface of the star because they give up a tiny fraction of their energy with each encounter with charged particles. A gamma ray that is produced from fusion in the core of the sun may take 250,000 years to reach the surface of the sun. Due to the repeated interactions with the charged plasma in that time it will have decreased in frequency from a gamma ray to a visible light. But again, the frequency has changed due to well understood principles and there is no slowing of time.
Why do we use the abstract time instead of the tangible time?
You have introduced a term [tangible time] without explicitly defining it. The implicit definition based on the use makes no sense that I can see. The poster is indicating that the rate of the passage of time can be calculated by the frequency of matter or energy. If this were true we could use the vibrational frequency of atoms as a method to determine the rate of time passage. Doing this would be very confusing to say the least. Using this implicit definition of “tangible time” we could construct a “Tangible Time Rate Clock” out of a box of air with a pressure gage. As the vibrational frequency of the atoms in the air increased the pressure would increase, indicating a relative vibrational frequency. I guess you see the problem with “tangible time”, it does not measure time it measures temperature. As the temperature increases the pressure would increase because of the increased vibrational energy of the air molecules. So if you heated the box, then using your “tangible time rate clock” the “tangible time rate” would increase, but actual rate of time as shown on your cell phone would be unaffected.
Tangible time allows for global references.
The term “tangible time” is a made up term that incorrectly attempts to say that a change in the rate of vibrations due to physical interactions tells us something about the actual rate of time passage. The vibrational frequency of matter is not “tangible time” it is what is currently called temperature. Additionally, the frequency of electromagnetic radiation in a star is not “tangible time” the frequency of the radiation is changed by its interaction with matter.
If we see fusion in stars and the rate of output energy, we can infer the amount of mass and gravity needed, regardless of how we frame it in space-time.
We currently use the energy output of a star (through the surrogate of luminosity) to determine the mass of the star, so I am not sure what the point is here.
In this respect I can see why BlackHoley contents that time is a contrivance that does not exist, because relative/abstract time cannot used as a global standard, like tangible time.
Hopefully, it is now clear that ‘tangible time’ is a misnomer and signifies nothing. Ironically, the poster sneers about ‘abstract time’, yet uses this ‘abstract time’ in his analysis with frequency since we typical measure frequency using inverse SECONDS.
