Of course gravity exists, and gravity is an external property of material energy!
The essence of any matter is energy, but the state of its existence is different, and any matter has a field, which is the source of gravity!The density of matter is different, the form is different, and the field force, that is, the gravitational force, is also different!
The distortion of time and space is wrong, first of all, time does not exist, time is just a virtual measure of human beings describing the development and change process of everything in the material world of the universe, and the real space is the void where there is nothing!
Any force can only act on matter, and it cannot act on time or on the void where there is nothing!
The so-called space-time is just a concept that mathematically integrates time and space, not the real cosmic space material world!
It is impossible to distort the space unless it is packed with a container and then twisted and compressed, but it is the container itself that is twisted and compressed in the first place
As soon as I said that Einstein's theories of "space-time distortion" and "the speed of light cannot be surpassed" were wrong, a bunch of people sprayed me wildly, saying that I was pseudo-scientific, civilian, unlearned...There are even people who report that they can't share what I sent....
The theory of space-time distortion is because they first believed that photons have no mass, so the light is attracted by gravity near the celestial body and cannot be explained, so they came up with the theory of space compression distortion to explain, but mathematically it is not equal, so they have to compress the amount of time to balance, so they came up with the super outrageous theory of [gravity causes space-time distortion] [cover face].
Since then, the purely mathematical concept of space-time has inexplicably been said to be the material space form of the universe!In fact, time and space cannot be distorted by any force!Because the use of pure mathematical calculations to explain the material world has created the strange perception that the world is virtual!And their explanation logic is outrageously wrong!
The so-called empirical evidence of space-time compression is to observe the phenomenon of "light is attracted by gravity and deflected when passing from the edge of the celestial body", and then put an iron ball on top of a grid cloth to simulate the earth, and press down the middle of the elastic grid cloth to form a pit to simulate the space-time compression caused by gravity.
First of all, they ignore itLight is matterSuch an important fact!Secondly, gravity attracts light and deflects the trajectory of light near the celestial body, but it does not mean that space is distorted, if it is really gravity that causes space to be distorted, then the fact should be this: when the NEO object approaches the vicinity of the Earth, its trajectory is deflected towards the Earth due to gravity, but its trajectory should return to the extension of the original trajectory after passing through the Earth!It's like the middle of a grid is compressed, and the vertical and horizontal lines near the middle are gathered, but the outer extension direction of the grid lines in the gathered area is still the original direction!But the reality is that once an object is attracted by gravity and deflects its trajectory, it will never return to its original trajectory!This is clearly not proof that space is compressed!For example, no matter how the middle part of a tube is twisted, the ball coming in from one end of the tube should come out from the other end of the tube, because you are only twisting the middle part of the tube, if the ball enters from the mouth of the tube and bends 90 degrees and keeps the last path to go forward forever after turning, it can only be said that the whole tube is distorted, that is to say, if the space warp theory is correct, then when the light passes next to the celestial body, the trajectory is deflected and can never return to the original trajectory, indicating that the entire universe behind the celestial body is compressed。
The main reason for the emergence of the concept of so-called distorted space-time is that these people who firmly believe that light is a wave, they believe that light is not a substance and has no mass, and then deny that light can be attracted by gravity and come up with the theory that gravity does not exist, so in order to explain the phenomenon that gravity causes the trajectory of a straight-line moving object to be deflected, they have to hypothesize [space-time compression distortion] If this is true, then when I take a magnet, the space-time around the magnet should also be compressed and distorted [covering face] and proportionally speaking, the force of the magnet to distort space-time should be more powerful than that of large celestial bodies, only black holes can compare!The most important thing is: if space-time is distorted, then why isn't the scene near the magnet distorted?The light rays near celestial bodies are deflected by their paths, resulting in a gravitational lensing effect, and are therefore blamed on the compression and distortion of space-time?The reason for this conclusion is that the argument that light has no mass is fixed, so it is impossible for light to be attracted by gravity, but the distortion of light can only make up the statement of space-time compression distortion to round this phenomenon.
The non-existence of gravity is a hypothesis and a false hypothesis, space-time is just a mathematical concept and not a real physical universe, in fact, magnetism and gravity obviously exist!It's just that the mechanism of the long-distance force that penetrates the vacuum space is not yet clearToday's physics community believes that the transmission of force must depend on the medium, and it is difficult to accept the gravitational magnetic electric field force that does not pass through the medium, but if the gravitational force is the result of space distortion, then what about the magnetic forceWhat about the electric field force?How many different space-time warps are going to be torn out by these physicists?
Why does light have to go in a straight line?
Why can't light go in curves?Photons can be attracted by the gravitational pull of the earth just like bullets fired from the chamber of a gun, so photons can be attracted by the gravitational attraction of large celestial bodies and their trajectories can be deflected, resulting in the gravitational lensing phenomenon
Current physics still stubbornly refuses to accept the theory: light is matter, but not solid particles like glass beads, and it is wrong to argue whether light is a particle or a wave, a photon is a high-speed flying mass of energy with vibrational properties, it has vibrational properties, so it has the characteristics of satisfying the periodic wave function, causing the misunderstanding that it is considered a wave, photons actually have mass and momentum, not only momentum but no mass (isn't that a contradiction) The speed of light is not the highest speed in the universe, there is no upper limit to the speed in the universe, only energy.
In fact, in 2015, when scientists from Helliwatt University in Scotland photographed the flight of [green laser single photon], they could actually put a final conclusion on my above statement!There is no need to quarrel about whether it is just a particle or the vibrational properties (waves) of some unknown substance!
In the natural environment of the universe, the maximum velocity of a photon is determined by the fact that its volumetric mass is almost zero, and it is impossible for any material particle larger than a photon to reach or exceed the speed of light in an instantThe reason why I can't say that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is that the correct way to say it should be [].At an instant when the acceleration time is almost zero, it is impossible for any matter particle to be emitted after completing the acceleration to reach or even exceed the speed of lightIf you can accelerate continuously without considering the energy cap, there is no upper limit to the speed!Theoretically, no matter how many times the speed of light is exceeded, nothing is impossible. Moreover, when the speed of light is reached, what space-time is reversed, what is infinitely small, and what energy required is infinitely large, it is not correct to change the speedAccelerationEnergy is needed, and energy has an upper limit, but since speed is a relative quantity, an object flying at the speed of light is actually no different from stationary to itself, no matter how many times the speed of light flying, theoretically its own feeling is the same as the state of rest, **What will be the infinitely small volume?
With the acceleration of the earth's gravity for a year, it will exceed the speed of light, it is normal for a fighter to accelerate 5 7 g, and it will accelerate from zero speed to supersonic speed in less than a minute, and people can withstand continuous acceleration for a month beyond the speed of light in the case of protective measures, the only question is: what kind of engine can continue to accelerate like this?I tell you:In order for an aircraft to reach or exceed the speed of light, it must not use the propulsion engine of Newton's classical mechanics (reaction force).Therefore, according to the calculation method of classical mechanical formulas, it is very wrong to prove that the speed of light cannot be exceeded
It is also important to note that no device currently accelerates close to the speed of light, so it is logical to verify that it is impossible for matter to accelerate to the speed of light with a laboratory accelerator!Either the acceleration speed of the acceleration device itself can reach or exceed the speed of light, or the power engine is not based on reaction force (of course there is none), and the acceleration of the former way, assuming that the speed of light can be reached, then the energy required is stellar energy, if not infinite. And the energy required for the latter is only a nuclear reactor, which is barely enough for the nuclear reactor of the submarine and aircraft carrier that we have matured at present, and if the nuclear fusion reactor is successfully miniaturized, it will be even more fine, the only question is, what kind of [non-reaction] engine I am talking about?It hasn't worked out yet, but someone is working on it!If it's fast, it can be seen in more than 20 years, and if it's slow, it will definitely come out in about 50 years!I'm sure I'll be able to see it in my lifetime!