Does a cosmic 'glitch' in gravity challenge Albert Einstein's greatest theory?

For people using the erroneous rubber sheet 'explanation' for gravity why would any thinking person expect them to conceptually grasp anything?

Mass slows time. Slower time makes moving things (to themselves) seem to travel faster, which is equivalent to shrinking space.

The rubber sheet nonsense stretches space which is diametrically wrong.

Shrunken space is a shorter path which is why constant inertia favors (veers into) it.

Shrunken space leans into lower dimensionality not higher.

Are they confused or are they trying to confuse everyone else?
Inertia is a constant/unchanging time-space & direction relationship.

So technically nothing changes for the object.
In the/a mass field the Universe rotates around the object and the distant universe speeds up and (I believe) telescopes towards the object at least on the vector of travel.

If there is a memory awareness with[in] the object trying to reason its projected/prior expectations of constancy in contrast to its real experience in the mass field it can either see that space as shrunken or that it has speeded up while the distant rest of the universe is doing strange things.

If one takes the rubber sheet analysis the distances actually become greater which is wrong.
If one wants to do the rubber sheet more correctly one has to grab and pinch up the rubber sheet & tie it off (out of) the rest of the rubber sheet.
That way the mass field is tighter, has less space per that region than the rest of the rubber sheet.
Inertia leans into the shorter (tighter?) distance(s) not longer ones.
The rubber sheet analogy has the irony of trying to use our understanding of gravity pulling "downward" to try to explain how that doesn't really happen - that space "bends" instead.

It was a poor, unrealistic choice to begin with, and trying to use it to explore the details of how things work or would appear is just diving into the rabbit hole of misunderstanding.
  • Like
Reactions: bolide
"Slower time makes moving things (to themselves) seem to travel faster, which is equivalent to shrinking space." - Questioner

It's the other way around, mass slows time only for someone observing from afar. To the person near the mass, time moves at normal speed.
I haven't said, couldn't say, it better or more briefly! Although, I might dispute "mass" as the cause, inserting "any kind of distance" in its place, though Bill managed both in the same sentence for whatever his reason (a Schrodinger and vector (direction and magnitude)). A 'soliton wave' observed?
Last edited:
I said "mass" because they referred to it earlier. It could just as well be speed, charge, chemical energy, any form of energy. When Einstein wrote his field equations he had a term in there for every different form of "stress".
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
I said "mass" because they referred to it earlier. It could just as well be speed, charge, chemical energy, any form of energy. When Einstein wrote his field equations he had a term in there for every different form of "stress".
No matter! Still thought provoking and I "liked" it, twice! Possibly lots of "soliton waves" in the universe being observed, though not realized from a distance, any kind of distance, for what they might be.
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
I would like to correct a very common error regarding Hubble.

“The constant would be removed from thought when Edwin Hubble convinced Einstein that the universe is non-static. It's expanding, he argued. And as far as we know today, Hubble was indeed correct.”

Hubble was explicit in letting theorists decide if the “apparent velocities”, as Hubble called them, were actual Doppler results. Recall that deSitter’s model explained redshifts in a static model, though he had no mass in his model.

Eddington in ~1930, at a Belgium conference, stated there was no solution that adequately solved the redshift problem. Lemaitre was there and reminded Eddington, his former teacher, that he had the solution presented in his 1927 paper. Eddington asked for an English translation, which Lemaitre was happy to provide.

Once Eddington saw the paper he immediately saw its importance. He quickly showed deSitter who agreed and admitted its simplicity. They both convinced Einstein of it, which set BBT on its great path forward.

But by 1930, Lemaitre was well aware of the better distance data from Hubble, so he dropped the part of his translated paper that had the world’s first estimate for the expansion.

It would be a major find to see any writing of Hubble claiming the universe is actually expanding.

[Adde: There’s a great book on this…Discovering the Expanding Universe; Nussbaumer and Bieri]

Last edited:
It simply does not matter whether the direction and magnitude is toward and into earth's 'emergent SPACE', or toward and into the universe's 'emergent SPACE' on its largest scale of apparent accelerating expansion, it's the same fundamental force of gravity acting (the same systematic act of accelerating opening of universe)! The fundamental force of fractal zooms universe structure (direction and magnitude)!

You think gravity is all about closed and closing systemic contraction / compaction / mashing and smashing to a finite end?! Well it isn't a gravitational physic, it is a quantum physic.

I often thought when we were coming in for a landing somewhere after a flight, that it was an accelerating expansion in opening system we were bound for and arriving to, not a closing system to any point-particle-singularity (again a quantum physic). That we were doing just the opposite, coming from! a distant point (quantum point) to, into, an emergent SPACE of universe! It took Paul Sutter mentioning "emergent gravity" in an article of his to forcefully make me remember those counterintuitive thoughts of accelerating expansion in opening system ("emergent SPACE") from long ago.
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Most representative of the fundamental electroweak force, whether down and in into the microcosmic (monopole-point-particle-singularity) or up and out into the macrocosmic, is a black hole (singularity). Others may not, but I would identify a black hole at any scale whatsoever as an "electroweak star"!
Inertia follows the shortest straightest path not the longer stretched out path. Slowed time is equivalent with shrunken space not lengthened space.
The reason a moving object seems to bend 'around' a massive object is because what looks like bending is actually the straighter, shorter path.

From Inertia's POV that's the straight line, it just looks bent/curved to outside observers.

The standard rubber sheet illustration is just wrong.
The points in space, deep in a mass field, are closer together because it takes less time to travel between them. Or restated in getting from one point to another less time has transpired.

Time dilation equates to shrunken space.
Acceleration is indistinguishable from a slowed/slowing clock.
Am i traveling twice as fast or did my clock slow to half speed?

Gravity is indistinguishable from constant acceleration,
acceleration is indistinguishable from either space shrinkage or clock slowing.
It follows that gravity is indistinguishable from constant space shrinkage or constant clock slowing.

The standard rubber sheet analogy expands space which is just wrong.

I guess the 'best' conventional physicists can do is be wrong?
If one put one's arm in a steep temporal gradient what would that feel like? The blood at one's fingertips might be flowing slower or faster than further up one's arm. Would slowed time feel more 'solid'?