Gravity is Largely a Conversion of Molecular & Atomic Vibrations into Vector Acceleration

[Questioner]

Gravity is Largely a Conversion of Molecular & Atomic Vibrations into Vector Acceleration


Reduced Space in Mass Fields

There is space contraction exactly proportional (i believe) to time dilation as evidenced by the Sun's internal rotation speed being faster than its external rotation speed.

This likely means light/EM makes the same external frame geometric progress regardless of a mass field or not.

That space differential may at some point be determined by very fine precision measurement.


Vibrations Converted to Vector Inertia/Acceleration

Imagine if one will a perfectly aligned line of particles.
Put them in a tube if one likes.
They bounce off of one another in perfect synchonity.
Back and forth in perfect periocity.
(In reality the outer bounds would be contained by electro-polar forces.)

Now let's put this perfect stack/line/tube of particles in mass field with its tidal gradient.

The particles that move to the inward side of the external mass field will move more slowly due to time dilation.
That means when they bounce back outward it will be a little later in time so their collision with the next outer particle will happen closer to the external mass field's center,
but the recoil towards the external mass field will have the same energy as always driving its center of vibration inward.

This creates a sort of 'inchworn' 'slinky' effect shifting the stack/tube (object) of particles' center of mass closer to the external mass field's center.

A shifting, moving center of mass is inertial vector energy,
and cumulatively it's acceleration.

I believe that is pretty much the defining element of gravity.

It's a sinuous, weak yet cumulative effect.

It does raise questions.

1) How to account for some conversion of energy?

2) Would that mean temperature might have some effect on the gravitational effect?

To Q1
I have proposed space contraction happens in exact proportion to time dilation.
That space contraction limits the directional range of movement slightly.
It may be that the vibrational energy that would have gone in that now absent direction corresponds to the vector movement energy.

To Q2
This idea really challenges conventional thinking.

Even though it's a miniscule fraction of the heat/vibration energy of a hotter object that greater percussive energy does seem it would cause the shift of mass inward to occur with more rapidity.

If so it would mesh with my conceptualization of Q1.
The vibrational energy lost due to a direction absence is a greater energy in a hotter object.

So the 'acid test' for my thinking is not dropping a lighter or heavier object on the Moon's vacuum surface,
but dropping a very hot and very cold object in the surface vacuum of the Moon.

That experiment may kill this whole theory.

If some object were at absolute zero by this rationale there could be no vibrational 'inchworning' taking place, no 'falling'.
Only warmer external bodies could respond to the absolute zero body's mass.
One sided 'gravity' if you will.

Does a body at absolute zero become weightless?
Or does an object nearing absolute zero become measurably lighter?

That would be an available experiment.

 

[Questioner]

I suppose the conversion to vector energy could be uniform and any excess energy gets turned into compressive heat.

Space dictates (limits) how much energy can be converted?

But i still wonder about objects at absolute zero temperature.

Could vector energy alternatively be pulled from the heat of immediately adjacent space?

Maybe the loss of directionality (of space) itself is converted to vector movement (energy?).
A collapsing of a miniscule amout of space of overlapping contraction (mass fields) becomes vector inertia?

Consumed space is converted into movement?
Space distributed across time?

 

[Atlan0001]

Gravity is no reductionism except toward zero-g. Isaac Newton's apple fell into an accelerating expansion of an opening frontier universe until it struck a quantum barrier blocking its way to infinity in the magnitudinous open system of universes (plural).

From a distance the Earth is a blue dot in the universe. Move toward it and it expands, opens up wide open system, until it fills the void, the SPACE, of the local-relative universe.

Newton's apple falling, and you moving toward the expanding universe blue dot of Earth, are the point sources in this particular gravitational illustration of inverse square law;

Inverse-square law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Questioner]

In simplest terms, vibratorily speaking, the particles spend more/longer time nearer the external mass field's center which inherently shifts the center of mass in that direction.

Moving/shifting mass IS vector inertia.

Whether thermal energy is consumed or converted,
OR the consumed overlapping contracted space is the source of the vector energy I'm teally not certain.

But particle vibration and its position variability would seem to be the driver of the gravitational effect.

If thermal energy is being converted I'm not sure how to distinguishably detect it.
If there's some compressive heat due to reduced space likewise.

Does make wonder about objects at absolute zero though.
No vibration, no location variability equals no gravitational effect?
It would be a calm unchanging center of mass.

 

[Questioner]

Why Would Light Seem to Curve Through a Mass Field

My thinking is light [only] seems to curve crossing through a mass field because of the non-Euclidean relatively reduced/contracted space there.

Which I wouldn't even refer to as 'gravity'.
It's just vector movement though that spatial geometry.

Qualifiers,
a photon exists primarily as a probability wave.
That waveform extends through space,
but has virtually no resting mass.
So there's no mass to shift around in manner of the gravitational effect.
I believe a photon travels and merely responds to the geometry of space.

Objects demonstrating the gravitational effect have a non-zero extent in space & a non-zero resting mass.
They must have an animated, vibrating [be above absolute zero temperature] occupation of their extent of space.

The 'gravitational effect' is driven by tidal time dilation and may or may not involve the reduced space of a mass field.

Light's seeming curvature proximate to a center of mass is purely a function of non-Euclidean geometry there.

Which makes them two distinctly different things.

A mass body traveling proximate to a mass field does travel the non-Euclidean geometry there,
but the actual kinetic acceleration and subsequent deceleration are above and beyond that.

Whether that inertia driven path of a mass body exactly mimics the pure geometry lines of non-Euclidean space there i don't know.
My guess is it doesn't match the pure non-Euclidean geometry of the external mass field.

So a mass body proximately encountering another creates actual curving trajectories that also include a small amount of only apparent curvature due to the non-Euclidean space each body carries with it.

This sounds kind of complicated.

It could be the non-Euclidean character of space in a mass field is small enough to be considered negligible in determining gravitational effect driven actions.

 

[Classical Motion]

You need two conditions to change the direction of light. The first is a density barrier. A density change. This will bounce light.

OR, you need a density gradient. A mass density gradient will bow or curve light.

Neither gravity or space can distort the path of light.

You have been lied too. The bending of starlight close to the sun is not due to gravity. It’s due to the density gradient of the sun’s atmosphere. And the same for so called gravity lensing. Galaxies have a density gradient also.

If spacetime were true, light could not travel in a straight line and it could not have a constant velocity. And variance of direction is an ACCELERATION. And NOT a constant velocity.

The number one dogma of modern science is the constant V of light. Spacetime is based on this.

No one knows the cause or dynamic of gravity. But you can be sure our science does not.

The H1 atom is not an atom. It is a dipole. It is NOT a proton with an electron orbiting it. The electron and the proton are lined up and share the same magnetic axle. They spin in opposite directions.

An atomic dipole is the most asymmetrical structure there is. And the most asymmetrical dynamic.

The electron is several hundred times the size of the proton. The density difference between these two poles is enormous. The large electron rotates slowly compared to the proton which is much faster spin.

These two opposing rotations with these huge different spin rates, oscillate in and out from each other to blend those rotations. Because of the difference in mass and inertia, the electron does most of the motion.

This asymmetrical dipole dynamic is the cause of gravity. But which property of this dynamic is not known for gravity, yet.

The inertia of the dipole is always is a jiggle motion. The inertia of isolated particles have a symmetrical location and reference, but the dipole is nervous. This jiggle inertia might be attractive.

Or the difference in density might be attractive. There is a dipole property that causes gravity, just don’t know which one yet.

There is asymmetric spin, asymmetric mass, asymmetric density, asymmetric energy, and asymmetric electric pole fields.

Pick one. It’s a very weak attraction but it is cumulative. And one more thing, mass can NOT be superpositioned. No black holes. The closest that superposition can get is the neutron. A proton co-planar and inside the electron.

Modern science has been chasing it’s tale between light and gravity for the last one hundred years.

Without knowledge of what the source(mass and matter) for these dynamics really is.

This is just a personal opinion using modern classical science. One universe time and one universe length.

 

[Classical Motion]

There is a suspicion that there might be an unknown handedness law. Charges are NOT positive and negative. There are left handed and right handed.

Some law of handedness might be causing gravity. Always trying and always failing to balance that handedness law.

Because of that dipole.

 

[Questioner]

Details on Actual & Apparent Curving Trajectories

With light/EM the redirection per maasfield external viewpoints is a function of relativity contracted space & slowed time.

[I believe] The superposition waveform relates to actual space and time.

On the side most outward of the massfield's center there is more space, more freedom of movement.
There is also faster time there.

On the inner massfield side the converse properties hold.
The outer side of the waveform moves [more] freely and faster and on the inner side the movement is more restricted and relatively slower.

So there is reorientation per the external frame,
but since no additional energy is required for that reorientation it seems to me it is a pure inertia driven linear trajectory.

So i would label it apparent curvature rather than actual curvature.


Actual Curvature of Non-Zero Mass Bodies Traversing a Mass Field

With mass bearing bodies their is the same space-time shape as with light which creates a minute reorientation of apparent curving trajectories,
but the major behavior is actual curvature of trajectory.

With mass bearing bodies there is that constant inchworning mass behavior aka 'gravity'.
That effect is constantly adding vector acceleration towards whatever direction the external massfield's center is in.

With a near miss of the external massfield's center trajectory
initially there is acceleration that mostly amplifies the transiting mass body's own vector inertia.

As the body gets near the minimum distance to the external massfield's center there is acceleration perpendicular to its trajectory which causes (i would say) an actual curving path.

As the body is leaving the massfield there is acceleration mostly in opposition to its initial inertia which largely consumes the faster velocity it gained from gravitational effect acceleration.

The reason I believe a mass body's trajectory curves in this case is because the acceleration is adding energy/speed to the body's velocity.

I am not sure if that energy comes from a thermal source or perhaps from the effectively contracting space it is encountering,
but it is coming from somewhere.

So most of a mass body's trajectory is [actually] curved by the addition & subsequent subtraction of speed [energy] with only a minute amount of external apparent curvature [energy-less reorientation] from pure space-time geometry.

I still think a body at absolute zero will not accelerate towards some external mass field.
That external mass source, if it is not at absolute zero, will accelerate towards the absolute zero body's center of mass.

That would create a one-sided gravitational effect.

 

[Questioner]

Including Space Reduction in the Mechanics of the Gravitational Effect


Putting all the onus of the gravitational effect on time-dilation is probably not completely accurate.

A single vibration impulse has its inertia that drives it until the electro-polar 'bungee' forces retrieve it.

In 'flat/level' space-time there is some fixed amount of extent it reaches.

Space reduction is (i believe) exactly proportional to time-dilation.

So when an impulse to an external mass field's interior happens the spatial extent of it goes geometrically [per an external frame] deeper into the mass field which i think means the time-dilation gradient it encounters is more non-linear than with a time-dilation gradient alone.

In other words it doesn't have sufficient space [for its 'bungee' trajectory] but must use space that is additionally time-dilated,
thus slowing it down further.

I see it as amplifying the molasses effect of time-dilation,
with a bias to an external massfield's center.

Cumulatively, aggregately shifting the object's center of mass towards the external massfield's center.

I still don't know where the vector acceleration energy is extracted from,
but i would ltake a ook at the thermal energy characteristics.