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

#### Questioner

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.

#### Questioner

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.

#### Questioner

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.

Ouch!
Was that a voodoo pin i felt?

#### Questioner

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.

#### Greenlight

I think you mostly right except
Why Time Dilation is Insufficient for Gravity
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.

#### Questioner

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.

#### Questioner

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.

#### Questioner

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.

#### Questioner

Cont.

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.

#### Questioner

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.

#### Questioner

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.

#### Questioner

Per Light Frequency

Blue light is still blue light traversing a mass field.
The time flow is slowed, but space is contracted proportionately so it still makes the same luminal/geometric progress to the external viewer,
its wavelength seems relatively extended/stretched to the external viewer.

Light geometric progress is the same from all vantage points.

The time & space traversed depend on whether it is experienced in/through the mass field or viewed from a mass field external frame of reference.

Wherever/whenever a photon hits an optical receptor it is still the same frequency.
There is no frequency shift regardless.

Light gets across a mass field more efficiently.
It makes less phase oscillations crossing a mass field.

Distance measured by wavelength (or any other internal means) remains constant,
the distance varience only becomes apparent when trigonometrically measured from an external frame of reference.

#### Questioner

Per Seeming Variable Planetary Orbits Around the Sun

When a Solar system planet makes its [apparent?] elliptic orbit to an external viewer it seems to go fastest when traversing around the focus nearest the Sun and then seems to slow down around the focus furthest from the Sun.

But in fact it is in a constant velocity trajectory per inerta.

Traveling around the focus closest to the Sun it is encountering less space than Euclidean normal and time is slowed/dilated.

Going around the focus furthest from the Sun it is encountering more space (closer to Euclidean normal distances) and time is flowing faster.

So from an external frame geometry it seems to slow down & speed up,
but it is actually at a constant velocity across a range of non-Euclidean spaces.

#### Questioner

Per Proximity to Black Hole Event Horizons

If the space in a mass field were Euclidean normal proximate to a black hole's event horizon there would be a wadded up traffic jam of matter going ever slower and slower due to extreme time dilation as it approaches the event horizon.

Matter would be caught in the 'log jam' molassas of extreme time dilation.

Why don't we observe that with virtually all black holes?
Because space is contracted exactly proportionally with time dilation.

As time slows in a mass field space contraction compensates for it.

As i mentioned earlier that means the event horizon (Schwarzschild radius) is arrived at sooner than expected as something travels toward the black hole.

#### Questioner

Per Seeming Curving Trajectories

When light traverses expanding space direction per the external universe is unchanged because the expansion is unform.

When a moving body encounters a mass field (not diving directly to its center)
effectively for it space is contracting asymmetrically.

The moving body follows that asymmetric distribution of space which for it is a straight line,
but to the external frame viewer that appears as a curve.

From the moving body's POV the universe rotated underneath it,
to the external universe the object curved its pathway.

The universe rotates around the Earth on an annual basis.

#### Questioner

(still trying to get my mind wrapped around this)

The law & math of gravity describes/maps the shape of space of the vector(s) between masses
and as masses move the shape of space changes with it.

The vector between two masses is the shortest distance compared to any other distance radially around each of them.

Space forms a smooth continuous manifold even as it flexes & changes.

Why there's Seeming Rotation

Because the interior side of a mass field has less space (lowered dimensionality) there are less movement options there,
conversely on the exterior side of a mass field there are relatively greater movement options,
so it tends to move more on the outer side than the inner side creating a rotational effect per the external frame of reference.

More concisely,
In a mass field an object has greater freedom of movement on the outer side than the inner side & that creates an external seeming rotational effect.

The freedom to move is a function of [the definition of?] space.

#### Atlan0001

SPACE forms a smooth continuous manifold only in a superposition Horizon of it, the closed up collapsed cosmological constant (/\) 'Mirror Event Horizon' of the Planck heat, among other things. Otherwise it is coolly grainy . . . coldly coarse grained. The set being the fundamental base2 set of a self-similar (strongly interactive) fractal zooms (gravitational) structure of universe(s).

#### Questioner

That raises the question of why any continuous math functionality has import on what may ultimately be hyper-granular discrete 'eventery'/particalization.

We might say probabilities impose that continuous math application,
but then where is the probability functionality housed/embeded?
There can be simple probability mechanisms, but those must be deeper than the event outcomes themselves.

There must be cross influence between discrete events, otherwise everything becomes incoherent, fragmentary chaos.

Events could be sort of chunkwise/clusterwise self sorting where some local set of outcomes harmonize one way and intermingled among them are some other set that converge/harmonize another. Perhaps a version of the many worlds theory.
I suppose in that some stray events may be 'orphanized'/non-aligned/non-converged,
whether or not those spawn their own thread is anyone's guess.

It makes me think of graphics of pixelated screens selected for the closest approximation of an ellipse. The ellipse math & concept exist elsewhere than the blunt granular display screen itself,
although the screen is also self connected construct, but pixels are relationally discrete/independent within their degrees of freedom.

#### Questioner

From a recent post per the 'seeming' rotation of objects traversing a mass field,

the portion of the object further from the center of mass has greater freedom of movement [space] than its inner side
AND time is also going slightly faster there.

So further from a mass center an object would have greater animation in space AND time.

A personal question is, does the front/leading-edge of an object remain its leading edge as & after its seeming rotation?
The inside most edge (perpendicular to the leading edge) has the most restricted movement and slowest time passage.
My guess is the leading edge remains the leading edge but I'm not actually certain about that

Confession of a Current Shortcoming

While I think i have made a sound case for reduced space in a mass field i really haven't addressed the seeming acceleration and deceleration of bodies with their own resting mass encountering a mass field.
Which means I haven't fully explained all gravitational effects by contracted space.

I am quite sure for light, with essentially no resting mass time dilation and relatively contracted space exactly compensate,
so light's/EM's external frame geometric progress remains constant, with or without the/a mass field.

Objects with resting mass do appear to accelerate into a mass field and appear to decelerate out of one.

If one thinks only of the contracting space gradient (ignoring time dilation) through a mass field it all has the potential to fit together neatly.

An object traveling through ever shortening space approaching a mass center will seem to accelerate to the external viewer even though from its POV its time and distance ratio remains constant.

As it moves away from a mass center it encounters more & more space so it seems to decelerate to the external viewer even though from its POV it is traveling at a constant speed.

Only in the external view geometry does a body seem to accelerate into a mass field and seem to decelerate out of it, in this thought experiment.

Would the spatial components of a mass field predominate over temporal components with non-relativistic speeds/bodies?

I'm really not sure.

#### Questioner

Don't go chasing down rabbit holes.

Reduced Space Slowed Time & Thermal Energy

If one takes a cubic foot of fluid and then compresses it into half a cubic foot pressure and heat are increased.

There is some difference with lower dimensional space contraction in that there are less spatial directions for particulate matter to move/vibrate in.

With slowed time there would logically be relative slowing of vibrations.

I'm not sure but with reduced time speed it might cause some consolidation of events in time. When there is just less time there are just less instants for actions to occur. Events might be more likely to be synchronous or at least much more proximate in time.

I don't know if there is some addition of compressive heat/vibrations as an object moves into the reduced space of a mass field.
It seems possible, although with slowed time i am not sure how that all works out.

In lower spatial dimensionality there is a reduced capacity for randomness.
This definitely happens with reduced space & quite possibly also with slowed time.

In a point-wise (dimensionless) universe there is no heat, no vibration. It's always at absolute zero. There's probably no way to detect any passage of time, and likely there is no time.
No change = no randomness.

In a relatively reduced space there is a perhaps some small additional tendency for randomly moving particles to harmonize, move in parallel.

Particles moving in parallel may impart some vector inertia characteristics.
Some tiny fraction of heat may be (for the field occupation duration) converted/organized into vector impulses.

On the mass field inner side of an object vibrations will be more parallelized, conjoined AND they hang/snag-up that way a smidge longer due to slightly slower time.

A sort of semi-coherent, more persistant 'nail' possibly pushed by a soft diffuse cloud of vibration.

It creates a kind of streamlining,
focused & coherent in front [on the inner side of a mass field] & a freer, faster moving vibration energy in back.
Like low compound interest it would increase when & IF an object moved further into a mass field.

I don't know if there's any way of detecting a reduction of disordered vibrational motion in a mass field because a thermometer would be in the same state.

Turning heat energy into kinetic (organized) vector movement/energy is hard (for me) to believe.

The logic of the geometry works,
but it's hard to conceptualize it causing vector acceleration above and beyond mere external viewer only apparent acceleration.

I'm not sure how much if any credible sense this might make to explain actual [above & beyond just apparent] acceleration of bodies in mass fields.

Luckily I don't have a physics reputation to worry about.

#### Questioner

If the above notion were true the conversion of thermal energy to vector acceleration would be very specific to a given space-time geometry irrespective of the temperature of a given body.

At & near the Earth's surface exactly 32 feet per second per second would be converted tfrom vibrational energy to vector energy.
No more no less.

But what about a body at absolute zero?
I find it hard to believe it would have reduced acceleration in a mass field.

Black holes still respond to mass fields and they are very cold at the event horizon.

Maybe the thermal conversion energy can be extracted from immediate surrounding space?

If it isn't thermal conversion feeding acceleration then something else must be doing that & that might get into a 'force of gravity' and graviton exchanges of energy.

I can't think of any other alternatives.

#### Questioner

Interacting Matter Vibrations of Mass Fields

The vibration of particles is the vibration of matter & its mass.
Those vibrations stick (are more consolidated? organized? condensed? compressed?) in space (the geometry) on the inner side of some other mass's field
AND stay there relatively longer due to slight tidal time dilation/slowing,
which creates an overall shift in the center of mass & matter.

That shift in mass accrues at 32 feet per second per second at or near the surface of the Earth.

It would be proportional a body's own mass and related to the radius from the center of some external mass field.

AND it would be mutual for both masses.

That sounds much better to me.

A sinuous weak accumulating effect.

Aka 'Gravity'?

#### Questioner

Under the heading of 'Interacting Matter Vibrations of Mass Fields'

With time-dilation alone i believe that the acceleration explanation works. Concentric time-dilation confers direction & the time lag would redistribute the center of mass.
(Don't like challenging my primary thesis, but things are whatever they are.)

With concentric space reduction it would strengthen directionality and focus & likely densify the eccentric redistribution of mass more.

The 'weight' we feel is the eccentric distribution of mass towards the center of the Earth.

In defense of my primary thesis it 'sounds' nice to have light make the same geometric progress irrespective of a mass field or not,
but thus far that's only an aesthetic & not a substantive argument.

I have sort of undercut my own explanation of the constancy of vector inertia progress into a mass field. I suppose it could all be a redistribution of mass acceleration.

(Making myself unsure & disappointed in my primary thesis.)

Freedom of movement is a function of both space and time,
where to move as well as when to move.

I guess it will come down to very fine/precise measurements of space to either confirm or counter the reduced space of mass fields idea.

#### Questioner

Redemption of the Reduced Space Idea?

The center of the Sun is rotating faster than the outside even though time would be relatively slower there.
I think that does get [best?] explained by shortened radii.

Even considering acceleration movements towards the center of the Sun they would be angled with and against the direction of rotation equally so they should have no net vector effect,
only noisy compression.

#### Questioner

Analogy for Center of Mass Shifting

To simplify imagine lines of particles
perpendicular to the direction of the center of external mass.
Then think of those lines bouncing back & forth off of each other in synchronity.
At the outer edges electro-polar connections recover the outer lines (possibly more slowly).

In a mass field that inner line goes in but stays there a bit longer due to tidal time dilation.
That means the next line doesn't meet it for recoil until a smidge later & deeper into the mass field and so on.
So there is sort of a cascade to the inward side.

The recoils back to the inside have about the same energy which results in an inchworn effect towards the external mass source's center.

Sinuous & weakly the center of mass shifts inward and imparts miniscule but cumulative vector inertia.

It seems like some kind of conversion of energy,
but i will ignore that for now.

Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
577
Replies
0
Views
774
Replies
11
Views
3K