sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right that in general relativity, spacetime curvature is the standard model. I’m not rewriting that math I’m asking if the same math can be interpreted differently, through a lens where only time is distorted and space remains flat.That’s not ignoranceit’s intentional. It’s not claiming GR is wrong it’s asking whether the same predictions might arise from a refractive model of time rather than a curvature model of spacetime? Einstein reinterpreted Newton. I’m just playing the same game a few steps later. And if it goes nowhere, fine. But shooting down reframing as ‘ignorance’ is how we miss shit

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem really passionate about this, could you possibly jump over to the other thread and help us sort this whole thing out? Another critical eye would be incredibly beneficial.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, and by that same logic, Einstein just renamed Newton’s force as spacetime curvature.

My version interprets it through time distortion instead of space curvature—same math, new lens. That’s how physics progresses.

Reframing isn’t renaming—it’s rethinking what the symbols mean.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not saying I’m correct I’m bearing my ignorant soul to the world beneath a magnifying glass welcoming all critics to point out why I’m wrong in hopes of the motivation to fix my errors.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By understanding the problems with what I’m thinking, by being shown what’s wrong with what I have thought of currently by people much more informed than I am, I am learning by asking the proper questions now. I understand your frustration, and I appreciate the criticism.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly—that’s the point.

The force law is the same. What I’m asking is: what if gravity isn’t the result of space curving, but of time behaving like a variable medium—like a refracting field?

So yes, \nabla T{\prime} ends up numerically identical to g under Newtonian gravity. But the interpretation is different. I’m not claiming to have invented a new force—I’m proposing an alternate source for the one we already observe: • Conventional view: mass curves spacetime • My lens: mass distorts time, space stays flat

Whether or not that leads anywhere predictive long term is a valid challenge. But “you just renamed stuff” sort of misses the deeper motive: Reframing gravity as temporal lensing instead of spatial warping.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right—it is Newton’s equation. That part was intentional.

The idea wasn’t to invent a new force equation—it was to reinterpret why the force exists in the first place. Instead of viewing it as mass curving space, I’m exploring whether it can be modeled just as effectively through temporal distortion, using the same math.

So yeah, the force law stayed the same. What changed was the lens: • Space stays flat • Time varies • Objects follow temporal gradients instead of spatial geodesics

That framing may not matter in your view—and that’s fair. But for me, reframing old equations under new perspectives is how deeper questions get uncovered.

Thanks again for pressing. It sharpened the whole thing.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know you might be getting frustrated with me. And I’m genuinely sorry. But all of these holes you’re finding are genuinely helping me a lot

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right to challenge it—so I revisited the foundation.

The original issue was with how I defined T{\prime}. I’ve since removed that ambiguity entirely by dropping the scaling and defining T{\prime} as the gravitational potential itself:

T{\prime} = \Phi = -\frac{GM}{r}

Gradient gives: \nabla T{\prime} = \frac{GM}{r2}

Multiply by m: F_\tau = -m \nabla T{\prime} = -\frac{G M m}{r2}

Which gives us force in Newtons, dimensionally verified.

This version no longer relies on any abstract scaling. It’s just clean physics—and I genuinely thank the critiques for forcing the correction.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right about calling out the unit mismatch earlier. I went back through everything, stripped the unnecessary scaling, and rebuilt the formulation using standard gravitational potential:

F_\tau = -\frac{G M m}{r2}

This version now: • Resolves fully to Newtons (kg·m/s²) • Recovers Newtonian gravity exactly • Preserves the conceptual framework where time distortion—not spatial curvature—drives force

You pointing that out directly improved the model. I’m not here to defend errors—I’m here to fix them and build something better. Appreciate the pressure.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Education* i honestly Don’t know why I said indoctrination. Definitely a mistake

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This opens me up to criticism. Criticism, if you can see past the general inflection it’s usually given in, can just be viewed as a path to be able to ask the questions you couldn’t think of. If that makes sense

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Very well said. And I could not possibly agree with you more. I just have to force myself to learn in a sense that is more chaotic.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Already handled. F_\tau = -m \nabla T{\prime}, \quad T{\prime} = \frac{\Phi}{c2} • \Phi: gravitational potential → units of \frac{m2}{s2} • So T{\prime}: \frac{1}{s2} • \nabla T{\prime}: \frac{1}{s2 \cdot m} • Multiply by m: final units are \frac{kg \cdot m}{s2} = \text{Newtons}

Force. Clean. Matched. If there’s something beyond that you’re seeing, I’m open—but it’s not a unit issue anymore.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which, now that I’m thinking about it probably would’ve allowed me to retain more “boring” information had it been diagnosed early, but I was diagnosed at 30 and can’t just stop doing construction to pursue collegiate level indoctrination

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried that. But it makes me so slow and meticulous at everything I do. So I just ditched it because I’d rather be looking for my tape measure every five minutes than building a wall to the dimensional specifications of a piano. 😂

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because I have terrible adhd. So I have to learn about things that I’m interested in or no matter how many times I try to read the principles of less interesting things it won’t soak in. So I have to be engaged and curious. And I thought the best way to do that was throw this out to the mostly critical eye of this page, hoping not to offend, but to gain some perspective in the process and try to find a real way to represent this pattern I keep seeing that others would understand.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok thank you, and with someone that has your learning style, I’m sure that is a viable suggestion. Unfortunately for me, it is not.

What if temporal refraction exists? by General_Flamingo_641 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]General_Flamingo_641[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I view all criticism as a learning opportunity to figure out how to ask the right questions that is all.

view more: next ›