The Case for Gravity as a Function of Reduced Space in Mass Fields

The Case for Gravity as a Function of Reduced Space in Mass Fields

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.
I think if one could measure the moon's orbit from a point outside of its orbit that should work for an external frame of reference measurement.
The further out the better.

One could measure the farthest positions of the Moon orbit per the background stars as an angle.
Then the distance(s) to the moon from the viewing POV would make the triangular base the orbit diameter.

I believe that would work as an external [enough] frame of reference measure.

Then that could be compared to an Earth to Moon laser distance (× 2) plus the diameter of the Earth to get a mass field interior measure of the Moon's orbit diameter.

It probably wouldn't be expensive at all as just a minor measurement from an already outgoing planetary space launch.
If i am correct I just made physics harder.

Distance will no longer be absolute.

Measurement will always need a frame of reference qualifier.

I can just feel the love.

Was that a voodoo pin i felt?
Additional evidence that a mass field has reduced space compared to external Euclidean normal space.

"Astronomers estimate that the core of the sun actually rotates as rapidly as once a week, four times faster than its surface and intermediate layers, according to NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) page."

A spinning ice skater turns faster as they reduce their radius.
The interior of the Sun has a shorter radius on the inside then we would/do measure from the outside.
I think you mostly right except

It's the time dilation that defines the reduced distances in space.
you really cannot separate space from time.
space is dimensionless without time to give it dimensions.
As far as we know time-speed and space volume are inseparable,

but I think the reduced space aspect is largely sufficient to explain gravity.
Space Depletion Regarding Dimensionality

[& why that stretched rubber sheet illustration is a horrible artifact of misinformation]

When geometric spaces transition to higher dimensionality they gain space and movement options.

When geometric spaces transition to lower dimensionality they lose space and movement options.

A transition to higher dimensionality would deflect and diffuse movement vectors.

A transition to lower dimensionality focuses and converges movement vectors.

Gravity focuses & converges vectors and movement along those vectors.

Gravity fits perfectly with lowered dimensionality.

Mass fields are transitional geometry from external Euclidean normal 3D to more & more reduced space and dimensionality as one nears the center of mass.

'Curve' is a really misleading term when what really happens is a tightening, shrinking, straightening of space.

Apparent Redirection of Vectors Transiting a Mass Field

A vector inerta traveling mass object & light keeps the same direction and fixed time & distance relationship.

The shortest path is the straightest line/vector,
but clearly direction matters because otherwise vectors would take an abrupt turn straight into the center of mass upon encountering a mass field.

What i believe happens is because space is convergent as it is reduced what would have been two close parallel vectors in external Euclidean space now in the mass field become triangulated/converged to a shared point.
So direction vector A and direction vector B converge to point C and become the same direction.

Conversely there are divergent/branching correlaries as a vector is moving further from a mass field center.

My (probably erroneous) thought was with a branching fork with directional ambiguity mass might favor the shorter direction, but how could it foresee any difference in distance?

Logically it may just randomly choose one or the other divergent path
which by itself has it moving in what to an external viewer seems 'curved', but is in fact a straight (same direction) vector from the object's POV.

This probably works as an explanation for seeming redirection,
but I'm still a tiny bit uncomfortable with it.
Needs rumination to see if it seems to hold up to sharper scrutiny.

Any better analyzations are welcome as well as exposing rational flaws.
Necessary Details on Obtaining Experimental Evidence of the Earth's Mass Field Reduced Space per the Moon's Orbit Diameter

To be clear, more precise,

in terms of measuring the Moon's orbit from an external POV,

for experimental purposes,

it needs at minimum to be done from the line of the Earth's orbit or outward from the Sun.

If done from closer to the Sun the reduced space of the Sun's own mass field will counter act & possibly supercede the Earth's mass field reduced space.

So ideally the Moon's external frame of reference measurement should be done as far out from the Sun as is pragmatically possible.

A spacecraft going to an outer Solar system planet, moon or asteroid should work.

That way being more (relatively) 'external' to the Sun's own mass field will at most amplify the measurement differential between a shorter mass field internal measurement of the Moon's orbit and a longer external Moon orbit measurement using trigonometry.

The external measurement should use the interior point of the Moon (towards the Earth) to derive the angle against the background stars,
so as to be consistent with the mass field internal distances measured from the Earth to the Moon.

It will entail two angle and distances to the Moon 14 days apart so it may need to be calculated as two different right triangles as a spacecraft is journeying outward in the Solar system.

Time-dilation measurements have to be quite precise to reveal the differential and the space differential will (i believe) be exactly proportional to the time-dilation differential.

I suppose one could the geometric parameters all at the same time by measuring the diameter angle of the Earth,
calculating the [occulted] center vector of that to calculate the interior angle to the Moon and doubling that to get the whole Moon orbit diameter from the/an external POV.

Or one could add the whole Earth angle to 2 times the angle from the Earth's surface to the inner surface of the Moon to get the whole Moon diameter angle.

The distance measurement is a little tricky because one wants the distance to the tangent point of the Moon's inner surface edge. That will remove the curved surface variability of distance.

One does need to measure at the Moon's maximum position out from Earth from whatever POV one is measuring from,
so one is getting a full perpendicular to orbit POV.
Why 'Curvature' is Misleading and Arguably Erroneous Terminology

Curving indicates a change of direction.
Curving, changing direction requires additional energy to accomplish.

If light or a mass body's trajectory through a mass field was actually curving as it appears to an external viewer,
it would require additional energy to overcome the centripetal effect.

Analogously an ice skater requires additional flashing feet effort to change direction on near frictionless ice.

To keep the Earth in orbit would require a giant jet pack that glided along the Earth's surface to push us constantly inwards towards the Sun.

Clearly the Earth is moving in a perfectly straight line in non-Euclidean geometry that wraps around the Sun.

What otherwise might have been an infinite straight line now, due to a mass field, finds closure with itself.

No jet pack required.

Pure vector inertia in action.

There is no 'curvature' approaching the center of a mass field,
but instead a straightening, shortening tightening of space.

Geometry transitioning from external fully Euclidean 3D to lower (non-integer) dimensionality as one approaches a center of mass.

In short there is less space as one approaches a center of mass.

Which is why that standard gravity 'ILLustration' of a rubber sheet stretched into a higher/additonal dimension is a garbage construct of confused minds.

Curvature is at best misleading and arguably wrong terminology.

The difference between apparent and actual action.
In for a dime in for a dollar.

If as i have proposed with evidence to support it,
there is proportionally less space in a mass field per external 3D

does that suggest that the Schwarzschild radius is geometrically further out per the external frame than if a mass field were Euclidean normal space?

Paraphrasing so if one is going from Euclidean normal space inward to a mass center one arrives at the Schwarzschild radius at a shorter distance than erroneously expected from assuming Euclidean normal 3D space there.

Not sure if that has ramifications,
but seems interesting at the very least.