2024 June 01

Per Time Dilation

Why Time Dilation is Insufficient for Gravity

With time-dilation alone a perpendicular span of light running through a mass field would all run in parallel trajectories in Euclidean normal space with only the innermost trajectories slowing down per an external viewer.

There would be no [apparent] redirection, no 'curving' [per an external viewer] of trajectories.

There would be no gravity as we know it.

Why Time Dilation Alone Doesn't Correspond to Observed Mass Bodies Traversing a Mass Field

With time-dilation a mass object running a near miss past a massive body should appear to slow to the external viewer because inertia is a constant time distance relationship and as time slows the distance/space aquired should reduce proportionately.

But in fact that is not what the external viewer perceives.

We see the object continue on and even apparently accelerate as it nears the massive body.

The only way that makes sense is if the object is traversing less space/distance than the external viewer imagines is there based on their projection from Euclidean normal external space inward.

Functionality of Reduced Space

Gravity is just the mechanics of vector inerta in/through non-uniform distributions of space,

the non-Euclidean geometry of space.

Spatial geometry runs from Euclidean 3D to less than Euclidean 3D in a mass field.

When two Euclidean deficient [per external reference frame] regions (mass fields) overlap they adjust/reconcile in the manner that is gravity.

There is relatively less space around any mass body, but because it's generally symmetric it's not apparent by itself.

Only when two (or more) space deficits [per an external reference frame] overlap is there a shared vector bias and the space deficit reveals itself as gravitational behavior.

If one is going to think of a rubber sheet,

a mass field actually removes (draws together at a single point) a circle of the rubber at the center of mass.

That makes the rubber sheet thinner and tighter around a center of mass.

The potential energy of matter is actually extracting space and time flow/speed from around it,

which is the definition of mass.

Matter removes space and time flow from its vicinity even as it moves around in space.

The closer to a center of mass the shorter the distances get

and a straight line is the shortest distance between two points,

so what looks geometrically like a 'curve' to external viewers is actually the straightest shortest vector path traversed at a constant speed.

It's pure vector momentum in action.

Gravity is just vector inertia in non-Euclidean geometry regions of the universe.

And if as i propose gravity is just vector inertia in non-Euclidean geometry,

There is no 'force' of gravity,

No 'pull',

No 'magic',

No 'gravitons'.

As I've said elsewhere,

if i were absolutely motionless and 50 feet above an absolutely motionless Earth i believe rest inertia might keep us both in place,

but since motion 'noise' is everywhere all those vector vibrations reconcile the space deficit between us at 32 feet per second per second.

Light's Time & Distance Interchangeability

In astronomy time and distance are interchangeable for light.

How can that be if light passing through a time slowing mass field is Euclidean normal space?

Wouldn't we have to factor out all the slowed passages through mass fields?

The reason we don’t have to do all that messy calculation is because in the large frame of external geometry light makes the same progress in or out of a mass field.

The way it works is even though time is slower per the external viewer in a mass field there is proportionally less space to traverse.

So to the large (external) geometric reference frame the same progress is made.

The only difference is to the actual mass field traversing photons which are 'younger', have made less phase oscillations, gone a shorter distance than they would have traversing non-mass field space.

Testable Evidence

If one could string a long enough tape measure across from one side of a mass field to the other side the distance would actually be less than we would expect projecting Euclidean normal geometry upon a mass field's interior.

One needs to measure an orbit's diameter using an external frame of reference and then compare that to the measure through the/a mass field.

If that measure through a mass field is less than an externally calculated measure/diameter my hypothesis will have pretty much conclusive evidence.

Rational critiques and comments are welcome.