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

[Questioner]

For clarity,
acceleration is a change in velocity,
so to be analogous it would need to correlate with a change in time flow.

 

[billslugg]

The number of particles flowing past any given spot remains the same. To the person's eyes, the blood at the fingertips is Lorentz contracted and appears to be moving slower. The cell count remains the same. This ignores the spaghettification that would be happening.

 

[Atlan0001]

Acceleration and space shrinking are interchangeable, indistinguishable.

Look up "soliton" and/or "soliton wave(s)." Look up "Limitless Space Institute (LSI)" on either an internet search or YouTube's search engine for their video. A great representation of possible UFO tech and our possible future after the next step of Solar Systemic (brute force quantization and qualification) in-SPACE frontier colonization, settlement, and accelerating expansion of energy breadth and depth . . . and mass matter conversion to pyramid life activization and life's activities (frontier civilization).

Space shrinking is not time stretching, just the opposite. Time stretching is light's packet-frame relative show of holographical temporal time slowing with all distance gaining and having to connect points of the Q-Verse. A (SPACETIME) photo-hologram coordinate point of past histories past light cone in frozen packet-frame of light having to cross one light second of SPACETIME . . . two light seconds of SPACETIME . . . three light seconds of SPACETIME . . . and so forth, stretching out. The reality is long gone in shrinking emergent SPACE and instantaneous spontaneous concurrent (quantum entangled and entangling) REALTIME. Expansion or, equally but oppositely in oncoming, contraction, in triangularization of points of universe reality and universe relativity.

 

[billslugg]

If the rate of time's passing changes rapidly how do we know someone wouldn't feel it?
Temporal compression or dilation.

To the person in a space ship going really fast, time passes normally. Same thing for someone in a deep gravity well or someone in an area of very high electric field. To an outside observer, their clock runs slow. To them, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. In fact they see the outside observer's clock running slow. They think he is the one with the problem.
Our immediate thought is that such a dichotomy is impossible and that is true within the same reference frame. But in different reference frames, it always happens but it doesn't matter because you aren't there.

 

[Questioner]

Mass is a slowed time field. We certainly feel that when we change some body's speed or position.

A constant time passage is akin to constant velocity,
without other clues we would be clueless. If one presumes the Earth is moving since everything is/would-be moving with it we couldn't tell.

If everything is in the same time passage speed one is clueless about that as well.
Only changes in time-speed come to our awareness.

That is probably why we feel mass, because we are shifting/wrestling that curved time gradient around.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Acceleration is felt by the person but they cannot tell any difference in the rate at which time passes. Two different things.

Bill, I don't think people feel acceleration unless there is something they feel that is not accelerating along with them.

An astronaut orbiting the Earth is constantly accelerating towards the Earth, but feels stationary. Or, if you accelerate different parts at different rates, such as "spaghettifying" near a black hole, you would feel the stretch in your body. Similar to very rapid rotation around your center of mass, different parts of you body are being accelerated differently. And, standing on Earth, you feel which way is "down" by sensing the compressive forces between yourself and the ground, and between the fluid in you inner ear and its surrounding surface nerves, etc. It is the loss of that sensation which we call "falling". And, if we jump out of a plane to skydive, we feel the not-accelerating air whistle past our ears, but would feel nothing in a vacuum.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, we cannot feel ourselves falling in a gravitational field. But if we floor it in a car we can sure feel it. I guess it depends if you are being pushed or are simply falling.
I might point out that my discussion of relativistic effects must be confined to non-accelerating reference frames. Special Relativity. Accelerating frames is General Relativity. I understand less of it that the former.

 

[Atlan0001]

Bill, I don't think people feel acceleration unless there is something they feel that is not accelerating along with them.

An astronaut orbiting the Earth is constantly accelerating towards the Earth, but feels stationary. Or, if you accelerate different parts at different rates, such as "spaghettifying" near a black hole, you would feel the stretch in your body. Similar to very rapid rotation around your center of mass, different parts of you body are being accelerated differently. And, standing on Earth, you feel which way is "down" by sensing the compressive forces between yourself and the ground, and between the fluid in you inner ear and its surrounding surface nerves, etc. It is the loss of that sensation which we call "falling". And, if we jump out of a plane to skydive, we feel the not-accelerating air whistle past our ears, but would feel nothing in a vacuum.

Space and time have nothing to do with implosive compressions (nor the decompressive opposite), except to record compression's time taking effect. It is your quantum constitution versus the quantum constitution of the environment you inhabit. Or, the quantum constitution of your exoskeletal suit or other intervening vessel you inhabit versus the quantum constitution of the outer environment inhabited. Space and time, as such, are neutrals . . . the neutrality of the universe at large, versus the up close and personal non-neutrality of the Q (QM)-Verse.

Now I shall await someone forgetting the counterintuitive functionality of Schrodinger and tell me that in another thread I had put the Q-Verse at a distance (development of complexity and chaos developing "spooky actions at a distance"). As though, as if, we weren't made -- weren't constituted -- of those Q-Verse (relativity predicts its own downfall) "distances." The universe deals in 'nonrelative' horizon distances as Q (QM)-Verse matter and energy substance within us and within our local-relative environments (the bizarre self-similar infinite finite form of quantum entanglement). Multi-dimensional 'multiverse' physics "magic," eh, as I have read some physicists now and then call it ('Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass' stuff).

** I had to edit a big correction to big mistake made above in the last paragraph, from 'relative' to 'nonrelative'! **

 

[Gibsense]

How does this explanation for the glitch go down?

Re Billsluggs "Balloon Analogy" (in reality a hypersphere) The distance to 'Time Zero' is significantly further than in a Flat Universe Scenario (which seems to be the first call assumption). Gravity weakens with distance, yes? The effect is more pronounced as the distance to time zero is approached (from an observer positioned at time 'Now').
I could illustrate with an Excel Worksheet if there were some way to attach files. If i anyone is interested I can email it.

 

[Gibsense]

Yes, we cannot feel ourselves falling in a gravitational field. But if we floor it in a car we can sure feel it. I guess it depends if you are being pushed or are simply falling.
I might point out that my discussion of relativistic effects must be confined to non-accelerating reference frames. Special Relativity. Accelerating frames is General Relativity. I understand less of it that the former.

Interesting. You might be interested in an idea relating to the application of Special Relativity as applied to our whole universe. Oh, just been told I have to take her and the dog to the coast today. Will have to wait - a new thread maybe

 

[Gibsense]

Might 'Space Compression' substitute for ' Space Shrinkage'?
I mention this because Brian Cox (Black Holes by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw) talks about space flowing into black holes. If realistic we can imagine space flowing into mass (causing gravity).

She changed her mind about a trip to the coast as it's a better day tomorrow.

Quite what Quantum Mechanics might say about Space Shrinkage I Dunno.

 

[Questioner]

Compression implies pressure & substantiallity which I have no opinion about,
but they both have a shrinking reference frame.

Space flow and movement are largely interchangeable. Did I move away from something or did more space flow in between us?

Does the Earth rotate or does the universe rotate around it? Is space twisting rotationally in between them?

Is an object moving or is the universe moving in the opposite direction? Is some space flowing around the object in one direction or is a universe of space flowing in the opposite direction?

We usually treat the largest reference frame as foundation, but for all we know that frame is itself moving per [embedded in] a larger reference frame.

The Sol centered Solar system and Earth (or other) centered epicycles just depend on where one grabs and holds on to the otherwise identical animation/mechanism.

 

[Helio]

Yes, we cannot feel ourselves falling in a gravitational field. But if we floor it in a car we can sure feel it. I guess it depends if you are being pushed or are simply falling.
I might point out that my discussion of relativistic effects must be confined to non-accelerating reference frames. Special Relativity. Accelerating frames is General Relativity. I understand less of it that the former.

SR can address acceleration, on a limited basis, because it can be treated in iterations, one ref. frame change at a time, more or less. [Not that I would know how, but that's what physicists have stated.]

It helps to recall Einstein's original name for "Relativity". He called it his "Invariance Theory". [It was the media, IIRC, that pushed "Relativity".] IOW, he was able to model the universe where the laws of physics would be invariant for any given inertial frame. Thus, no one frame would be superior over another, though some, IMO, are more favorable (e.g. Hubble Flow).

Einstein imagined a person in a windowless elevator in space far from any planet. If the elevator begins to move, the question for Einstein was whether the person would be able to determine if the elevator was moving, or was it being held motionless over a new source of gravity, say a planet that magically appeared? This is his Equivalence principle that led him to argue that acceleration and gravity are more than similar, as in Newtonian mechanics, but one and the same. [I think I have that right.]

 

[Gibsense]

Does the Earth rotate or does the universe rotate around it? Is space twisting rotationally in between them?

Is an object moving or is the universe moving in the opposite direction? Is some space flowing around the object in one direction or is a universe of space flowing in the opposite direction?

We usually treat the largest reference frame as foundation, but for all we know that frame is itself moving per [embedded in] a larger reference frame.

The Earth Spins and it shows as an Equator Bulge. Yes there always will be a foundation reference; ultimately the 'cradle' for all things. But within a reference frame, it is possible to distinguish between spinning and not spinning. For example, space spinning around the planet Earth would include the rest of the universe but then space spinning around the sun would be a contradiction. Our universe might spin and bulge.
And, space dragging around spinning black holes?

 

[Mergatroid]

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?

We are anxiously awaiting your theory of relativity.

 

[Mergatroid]

May I offer a dumb idea?
I have been wondering, if mass can curve space, doesn't that make space a thing? And if space is a thing, wouldn't mass attract it like anything else??
So, isn't space being pulled into every mass everywhere?
Wouldn't this cause space to stretch?
Could this somehow be dark energy?

 

[Questioner]

We are anxiously awaiting your theory of relativity.

Mass curves space-time, but it curves it into lower dimension not higher dimension,
which is why the 'standardly' stretched rubber sheet is wrong.

It would be a more correct illustration to clench the rubber sheet together at a [mass body] point and essentially remove that rubber from the sheet.
So proximate to a mass body the sheet is tighter, meaning actually LESS rubber (space-time).

A [vector] moving body's path SEEMS (to an external viewer) to curve around a mass body,
but in fact that seeming curve is actually the shortest, straightest path because there is less space (interchangeable with slowed time) near a mass body.

Is this really that difficult?

 

[Questioner]

The Earth Spins and it shows as an Equator Bulge. Yes there always will be a foundation reference; ultimately the 'cradle' for all things. But within a reference frame, it is possible to distinguish between spinning and not spinning. For example, space spinning around the planet Earth would include the rest of the universe but then space spinning around the sun would be a contradiction. Our universe might spin and bulge.
And, space dragging around spinning black holes?

Yes, centripetal force as well as superluminal rotation speeds are the questions about the universe rotating around the Earth.

although if it is space flowing superluminality is not a problem.

To some degree inertia performs as if it is the unchanging center of everything. Its relational orientation does seem to be strictly linear, which is the reason for centripetal force. Linear inertia competing with a circular/curved path.

 

[magnoflux]

The WMAP results clearly show the universe is expanding which the Magnoflux3D hypothesis considers is because the universe is magnetised and polarized.
No dark matter/energy has been found in space as dark massless electro-magnetic forces that God created are needed to balance the WMAP 4.6% atoms in universe result
1 The dark force of mass attraction G is the weakest in deep space volume x,y,z.
2 Electromagnetic dark matter magnoflux spin x,y inertia force of about 6.28G rotates galactic stars around a magnetic black hole hub
3. Electro-static repel about 25G dark energy force in z direction is responsible for expanding the universe as stars are huge + charges.
The ΛCDM standard model needs adjusting to incorporate this major glitch.

 

[Questioner]

We expect space to be uniformly orthogonal and instantaneously empiric.
That a wire-frame of it will be rectilinearly regular and (infinitely) instantaneously reflective of objects moving within space.

Relativity tells us, counter to our experienced expectations, that that is not the case.

Mass is time-dilation. Time-dilation is interchangeable with space shrinkage/reduction.

When a mass body is (relatively) isolated its mass, its reduced space is uniformly, symmetrically around it so it has no bias that demonstrates that fact.
However when two mass bodies approach one another that means the perfect radial/spherical symmetry is disrupted on the vector directly between the two bodies.

On that vector the shortage of space shows up as 'gravity'. That reduced space is not instantaneously existential. That's probably due to space and time intertwining. It shows up as externally apparent (but not actual) curving movement of the bodies. The bodies themselves are actually moving in straight, time constant per dilation inertia pathways even though it doesn't look that way to us (external observers).

 

[Questioner]

I 'fall' towards the surface of the Earth because there's less space between me & the Earth. 'Gravity is trying to reconcile that fact.

 

[Questioner]

If one encountered a continuation of space into a higher dimension there would now be all these different, additional directions to go in, all this additional space.
Higher dimension invites indeterminism it doesn't focus or limit things towards certainty, simplicity, conclusion.

Gravity 'zeros in' objects to one another,
it doesn't cause them to wander off, spead out in a spectrum of indeterminate additional directions accrued from higher dimension.
Gravity is a focuser not a diffuser/deflector.
Lower dimension not higher.
Gravity converges, it doesn't diverge things into higher dimension(s).
Mass shrinks space it doesn't expand space.
Less space not more space.

Matter's mass doesn't 'bend' or 'curve' space-time, it cinches it up, straightens & tightens it (out) under lower dimensional influence.
It is continuous into lower dimension not curved or bent into higher dimension.

Light doesn't 'bend' or 'curve' around stars or black holes it only looks that way to us. Light follows a straight line. It is space that is inequitably distributed. Light is piercing straight through non-uniformly distributed (shrunken) space.

 

[billslugg]

There are only 3 spatial dimensions. One temporal. When scientists say they need many more dimensions to describe something they are talking about things like temperature, pressure, smell, whatever. Note: It is more complicated than that but that's your basic idea.
Additional dimensions of space would be outside of our physics. Aka "magic". I don't buy into it.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There are only 3 spatial dimensions. One temporal. When scientists say they need many more dimensions to describe something they are talking about things like temperature, pressure, smell, whatever. Note: It is more complicated than that but that's your basic idea.
Additional dimensions of space would be outside of our physics. Aka "magic". I don't buy into it.

Bill, not saying that you should "buy" it, but "string theory" involves more than 3 physical dimensions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory .

"String theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In bosonic string theory, spacetime is 26-dimensional, while in superstring theory it is 10-dimensional, and in M-theory it is 11-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using string theory, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments."

"Compactification is one way of modifying the number of dimensions in a physical theory. In compactification, some of the extra dimensions are assumed to "close up" on themselves to form circles. In the limit where these curled up dimensions become very small, one obtains a theory in which spacetime has effectively a lower number of dimensions."

"Another approach to reducing the number of dimensions is the so-called brane-world scenario. In this approach, physicists assume that the observable universe is a four-dimensional subspace of a higher dimensional space. In such models, the force-carrying bosons of particle physics arise from open strings with endpoints attached to the four-dimensional subspace, while gravity arises from closed strings propagating through the larger ambient space. This idea plays an important role in attempts to develop models of real-world physics based on string theory, and it provides a natural explanation for the weakness of gravity compared to the other fundamental forces."

I failed to find the number of dimensions for a "theoretical rabbit hole."

 

[Questioner]

What one needs is some kind of light or something that loses (gains?) energy at a known rate.
Then one could simply launch/release that on a path through a mass field and measure on the far side to know how long/far it had traveled. Then its measure would be shorter, longer or the same as orthogonally projected space.

Maybe a radioactive isotope?

Obviously my guess is that its measure would be shorter than orthogonally projected space.