I Believe One can have Gravity Without Time-dilation

[Questioner]

I Believe One can have Gravity Without Time-dilation

2024 May 28

Time-dilation alone is not only insufficient for gravity, but mechanistically unnecessary for gravity.

Gravity the mutual seeming redirection of masses across/through space.
If space is simply redistributed inequitably (reduced) around masses in a standard graduated manner the effect of redirection would hold imo.

Take a rubber sheet and mark it with Cartesian grid lines.

We'll say this is incredible rubber that even when squished/scrunched together or stretched does so with perfect uniformity & without wrinkles (it just gets thicker or thinner).

Now at some circumference around a point (mass) we draw all that circle together to a single point, essentially removing the interior of the circle functionally from the sheet.
All the lines that intersected with the original circle would all come-together/converge at a single point.

On the cardinal(?) lines one wouldn't see a change but the former parallel lines proximate to the circle would have inward detours as they got nearer to the newly created point.

I believe that gives a good approximation of gravitational trajectories.

Now think about objects moving along those trajectories themselves having their own drawn together effects on the sheet and i think one gets a good correlary of gravity.

And time dilation is only an independent adjunct to the primary gravity function.

Now in actual physics time and space are inseparably joined, but for the purpose of gravity space shrinkage is by itself sufficient to the task.

Not sure if there are any major flaws in this imaginary illustration, but any intellectual critiques are welcome.

 

[Gibsense]

Does the process of shrinkage not require time to happen? this is from a 3D perspective.
From a 4D perspective, the shrinkage is a completely static 'picture, including the pre- and post.

 

[Questioner]

Time has to pass for movement/changes to happen,
but shrunken space is sort of existential to [the] masses.
A moving mass body would have the shrinkage follow it, but existentially it is just statically there.

 

[Questioner]

Honestly i wonder if two mass bodies could be perfectly motionless if there would be any demonstrable movement caused by gravity in actual physics.
If i were perfectly motionless 50 feet above the surface of a perfectly motionless Earth would i fall?
Is it only because of constant movement noise everywhere that the reconciliation of reduced space actually happens?

 

[TimeTraveler00]

I Believe One can have Gravity Without Time-dilation

2024 May 28

Time-dilation alone is not only insufficient for gravity, but mechanistically unnecessary for gravity.

Gravity the mutual seeming redirection of masses across/through space.
If space is simply redistributed inequitably (reduced) around masses in a standard graduated manner the effect of redirection would hold imo.

Take a rubber sheet and mark it with Cartesian grid lines.

We'll say this is incredible rubber that even when squished/scrunched together or stretched does so with perfect uniformity & without wrinkles (it just gets thicker or thinner).

Now at some circumference around a point (mass) we draw all that circle together to a single point, essentially removing the interior of the circle functionally from the sheet.
All the lines that intersected with the original circle would all come-together/converge at a single point.

On the cardinal(?) lines one wouldn't see a change but the former parallel lines proximate to the circle would have inward detours as they got nearer to the newly created point.

I believe that gives a good approximation of gravitational trajectories.

Now think about objects moving along those trajectories themselves having their own drawn together effects on the sheet and i think one gets a good correlary of gravity.

And time dilation is only an independent adjunct to the primary gravity function.

Now in actual physics time and space are inseparably joined, but for the purpose of gravity space shrinkage is by itself sufficient to the task.

Not sure if there are any major flaws in this imaginary illustration, but any intellectual critiques are welcome.

Time dilation is a myth.

The only thing getting affected is the clock because time is just a literal measurement of repeated cycles in movement caused by gravity.

Time measurement and time itself isn't the same thing. Time is null and an absolute, it does not exist. We have the measurement to coordinate our events between stellar events and we have this sense of time ingrained so well as a method of relative coordination in events, not space.

Since time is based on space because it measures events that occur in a cycle, than it also directly relies on gravity, but this is only as a measurement. When time is dilated it's only dilation of the measuring parameters, time itself doesn't change nor does the rate of evolution of events change. You age the same, as on earth, but your measurements will say that you aged 100000 years instead of 100 in a system that is 1000 times faster than ours.

Time-travel is therefore impossible as well in a traditional sense. The realistic version of time-travel would be reversal of events, either local events or reversal of all events (or changes, since events are also a concept) at the same time. The traditional time-travel would imply reversing or skipping all events or changes in unison. Therefore, you can consider direct and equivalent reversal of any change as local time-travel.

There is an exception where time travel is possible, and that is if the universe is an infinite map of events, like the event horizon is depicted in interstellar. It is a possibility that there are infinite copies of earth out there at every event, and every alternative event, as hard as it would be to believe. In this case theoretically somehow teleporting between these instances of earth by breaching incredible amounts of time-space you could reach another copy of earth at an earlier stage or at a future stage.

The ever mentioned issue is why isn't there other humans time traveling if it is possible?
If something is occurring in all-time then at every point in time you would be aware.

It is entirely possible that even if someone managed to do it, it's so rare that our version of Earth hasn't been exposed to it, but since this is an event in itself, is prone to paradoxes. Evolution would tell you that if one is able to do something shortly a lot will so that also implies limitations to evolution itself and laws that cause this to never occur.

The second part of this text is going a lot into hypotheticals so I will end here.