Space Compression Theory of Gravity

[tinyta]

Мысли ваши правильные . Изучайте эфир, и конкретно эфиродинамику. Официальные физические постулаты, это полная фикция, и не зачем ссылатся на соответствие с такой устаревшей физикой. Масса гравитирующих объектов, например планет, это не причина гравитации, а лишь следствие от разной плотности эфира в конечной сфере окружающей конкретно этот объект. Нет никакого научного сообщества, это только бизнес, которому на истину начихать. Вершат истну лишь одиночки, что своей гениальностью и творчеством открываютсинные законы мироздания, лично для себя, и совершенно не важно, примет ли общественность иние труды. В итоге всё встанет на свои места. Дерзайте. Здоровейте.

Mod Edit - Please post in English
English Translation:

Your thoughts are correct. Study the ether, and specifically ether dynamics. The official physical postulates are a complete fiction, and there is no need to refer to correspondence with such outdated physics. The mass of gravitating objects, for example planets, is not the cause of gravity, but only a consequence of the different density of the ether in the finite sphere surrounding this particular object.

There is no scientific community, it’s just business, which doesn’t give a damn about the truth. Only individuals carry out the truth, that with their genius and creativity they discover the laws of the universe, for themselves personally, and it does not matter at all whether the public accepts other works. In the end, everything will fall into place. Go for it. Hello.

 

[Coops]

Many thanks for relating this theory of compressed space gravity. I have been struggling with a very similar theory for sometime and your theory has answered some of my unresolved issues. One thing I have considered is how the variation in mass affects gravity. Obviously, different volumes of matter would, on the face it, cause a change in space compression. However, why then would an object of great mass but small volume cause gravity to increase? My thoughts on this go to the sub-atomic level. We all know that an atom is comprised of mostly nothing. I considered that spacetime has some (as yet) unknown substance (perhaps even dark matter). I then considered that spacetime can pervade the empty space in an atom but not the nucleus. In the space compression theory, this would extend to all of the atoms in the matter. Therefore, the more dense an object is, it would compress spacetime more as the atoms are closer together.

I realise this may be naive poppycock, but as a scientific lay person (although my daughter does have a doctorate in Astro physics), I thought I would put my thought out there for critisism.
Please be kind with any comments on my ramblings.

 

[Antrix]

Hi.
I also came to same idea about mass compressing spacetime. Our idea can suggests that blackholes may not be singularities but the spacetime at blackhole boundaries will be compressed to zero and hence light cannot travel out. Can we connect to discuss this? I also don't have formal training in theoretical physics. Am just an engineer.

 

[Greenlight]

Lorentz contraction is an optical illusion due to the finite speed of light. The item itself does not contract in its own reference frame.

That's not exactly what i learned when i went to school.

so i asked the chat thing.

Chatbot: " Lorentz contraction, a phenomenon predicted by special relativity, is a real physical effect, not an illusion. While it can be described as a consequence of relativity and observer perspective, the effects of length contraction are measurable and have real physical consequences.

Length contraction and time dilation are interconnected effects in special relativity. You can't have one without the other. "

We know time dilation is a real physical effect, thus length contraction must also be real or we wouldn't have a constant speed of light.

 

[contrarian]

We know time dilation is a real physical effect, thus length contraction must also be real......

But it is only "real" to the observer. If you are traveling at the speed the observer is watching, you do not see either time dilation or length contraction, and since you are the real object, that is what matters, not what the observer sees.

"The item itself does not contract in its own reference frame" is quite correct.

 

[billslugg]

This condundrum is part of the reason Einstein came up with Special Relativity. He knew from Maxwell's equations that the magnetic field arose only when a charge was moving relative to the observer.
If you ride down the street in a car with an electron driving, you cannot measure a magnetic field around it.
But, if you are sitting on a park bench as the car goes by you will measure a magnetic field.

 

[Gibsense]

Nonsense speculation needs to be put down in a way capable of explaining in a common sense way. In the Observer's frame (non rotated object) the object's length will physically be real in its interaction with other objects. For example if the objects length at rest is say longer than a container with an entrance door and exit door then it would not fit inside. However if speeding (as diagram) the object could during an instant in time fit inside the container with both doors closed. Clearly the opening and closing of the doors timing would be crucial!!

You can substitute time for length to get a 'handle' on time dilation. Duh!

 

[Greenlight]

But it is only "real" to the observer. If you are traveling at the speed the observer is watching, you do not see either time dilation or length contraction, and since you are the real object, that is what matters, not what the observer sees.

"The item itself does not contract in its own reference frame" is quite correct.

This is the same as cosmological expansion.

there is no expansion in our local frame of reference.

it's just an illusion, but it's real at the same time.