Question Who thinks Gravity is Partially or Totally a Function of Reduced/Shrunken Space of Mass Fields or not?

[Questioner]

Poll:
Who thinks Gravity is Partially or Totally a Function of Reduced/Shrunken Space of Mass Fields or not?

I will state a couple of my pro reasonings for those who might want to examine them.

1) 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.

2) 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 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 external Euclidean normal space inward.

I know that the universe's position in the matter is conclusive,
but it would be informative to see other's opinions and ideas on the matter.

Rational critiques and comments welcome.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Interesting Q and the way you have put it.
Let me understand:

• Are we saying that inside or very close under its influence the space around the massive object is non-Euclidean, then I agree, in fact in that object or close to it, it is affine multidimensional.
• Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity should work while I am still trying to understand why you are emphasizing only time dilation?
• Nature of Gravity is more than space-time, it is only one description. Regards

Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Questioner]

Well I'm saying both time-dilation is insufficient as well as unnecessary to explain gravity as the reconciliation of intersecting 'space deficits' (per Euclidean normal) between two proximate masses.

Further that reduced space in a mass field is at a lower, non-integer dimensionality.
That it is tighter, shorter, 'straighter' space.

Lower dimensionality creates the convergent behavior of gravity we see
and higher dimensionality would instead create divergent (deflecting) behavior.

 

[Gibsense]

Lower dimensionality creates the convergent behavior of gravity we see
and higher dimensionality would instead create divergent (deflecting) behavior.

I understand this statement but am vague about the rest of the thread. Are you implying Gravity in, say, 5 Dimensions is Dark Energy?

 

[Questioner]

Gravity imo is just the mechanics of non-uniform distributions of space,
the non-Euclidean geometry of space.

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

When two Euclidean deficient regions (mass fields) overlap they adjust/reconcile in the manner that is gravity.

There is less space around a mass body, but because it's generally symmetric it's not apparent.

Only when two (or more) space deficits overlap is there a shared vector bias and the space deficit reveals itself as gravitational behavior.

 

[Gibsense]

Gravity imo is just the mechanics of non-uniform distributions of space,
the non-Euclidean geometry of space.

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

When two Euclidean deficient regions (mass fields) overlap they adjust/reconcile in the manner that is gravity.

There is less space around a mass body, but because it's generally symmetric it's not apparent.

Only when two (or more) space deficits overlap is there a shared vector bias and the space deficit reveals itself as gravitational behavior.

Yeh understood I think.
3D space enters (or similar) mass resulting in gravity phenomena. This is not noticeable in proximity to a mass alone. It becomes obvious when space between 2 mass objects is depleted; which causes the masses to 'fall' together (rubbersheet). Is that ok?

So a more suitable analogy to the rubber sheet (which I also feel is not so good but could not think of something better) would be to imagine a ball suspended in space with the volume around it at a lesser air pressure (air substituted for 3D space) which becomes more obvious as the mass is approached (?)

 

[Questioner]

imagine a ball suspended in space with the volume around it at a lesser air pressure (air substituted for 3D space) which becomes more obvious as the mass is approached (?)

That's a good analogy.

So moving through space in a mass field the space is stretched/spred thinner, tighter.
70 points in space are the same amount of space in or out of a mass field its just crossing the mass field those 70 points get one geometrically farther, but not technically, spatially farther.


So light progresses geometrically the same across a mass field as it would without the mass field,
But time is running relatively slower which is compensated for by there being less space.

So light makes the same geometric progress,
But crossing the mass field took less, but slower time so it's a 'younger' photon and had a fewer number of phase oscillations than it would have crossing the same geometry without the mass field.

 

[Questioner]

In the large frame light always makes the same geometric progress,
which is why luminally time and distance are the same in the large frame even if for the actual photons it's different from their POV, because they crossed a mass field.

 

[Gibsense]

I don't think it works. What determines a photon's path to give for example lensing by a galaxy say. The rubber sheet seems more feasible i.e. a shape of space rather than pressure.
Regarding time dilation and gravity - think of the time process as being at right angles to space. As in the rubber sheet dipping into the hollow, the direction of time leans over to remain at right angles to space (the sheet). The angles involved show (using Pythagoras) the time dilation. In special relativity, it is similar in that the dilation can be considered a rotation of an object spatially.

 

[Atlan0001]

In navy lore for centuries, pertaining to cannons and cannon balls stored on indented brass sheet plating (called a "monkey") to hold them in place, there was a slang saying pertaining to the physics of cold and the contractions of the brass sheet latticework, "It is cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey!"

I wonder, does it ever get cold enough to freeze the spheres off of a "rubber sheet dipping into the hollow"? A "shrunken" hollow?

 

[Gibsense]

I wonder, does it ever get cold enough to freeze the spheres off of a "rubber sheet dipping into the hollow"? A "shrunken" hollow?

On Mercury, yes

 

[Questioner]

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 mass is actually extracting space and time flow/speed from around it,

even as it moves around.

 

[Questioner]

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 like a 'curve' to external viewers is actually the straightest shortest path.

Pure vector momentum in action.

Gravity is just vector inertia in non-Euclidean geometry.

 

[Questioner]

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

There is no 'force' of gravity.

No 'pull'.

No 'magic'.

"Goodbye you sweet little gravitons,
we'll miss you."

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.