Gravity and Space/time - Einstein

[CrashProof]

In most articles that speak of gravity and space/time it is mentioned that gravity is due to the curvature of this space/time. I believe the space/time around the Earth is not curved, causing gravity. But more of the space/time being "stretched" which causes the effect of gravity. In an environment with no gravity (outer space), if there is a given amount of space and an object travels through that space at a constant rate of speed it will always take x amount of time for the object to travel through that space every time. Newton states that an object will stay in motion until acted on by an outside force. Now lets assume you take that same given amount of space but this time "stretch" it (Think of a rubber band stretching). Its still the same amount of rubber band (space) but stretched out. Take the same object as before traveling at the same constant speed as before and it will still take the object the same x amount of time to travel through that stretched space. Due to Einstein's theory of relativity, any observers would think the object is traveling at a faster speed than before.

To give another illustration in simpler terms: Instead of a rubber band take a 10 mile road and a car traveling at 10 mph. It will take the car 1 hour to travel that space. Now let's "stretch" that same road so now the same amount of asphalt appears 20 miles in distance. (Same space but stretched). That same car traveling the same speed as before (10 mph) will still take 1 hour to travel that appeared 20 miles in distance. An observer would think the car is traveling 20 mph instead of the actual 10 mph. Remember, the car traveled 10 miles (even thought it was stretched to 20 miles) in 1 hour. So anytime an object enters stretched space it will appear to accelerate as it goes into and through the stretched space.

I believe an object not in motion in the presence of stretched space will begin to travel in the direction the space is being stretched. Because an object cannot occupy two spaces at one time, when that space the object occupies begins to stretch, it naturally begins to move in the direction of the stretching, and this appears to the observer as the object to be accelerating. This illusion I believe is what we observe as gravity. So i believe it isn't the curving of space causing gravity, but the STRETCHING of space which gives us what we call gravity.

What are your thoughts?

 

[userque]

How would you describe objects in orbit? "Curved" stretching?

 

[CrashProof]

Same way it's always been described. Orbits are the result of a perfect balance between the forward motion of a body in space, such as a planet or moon, and the pull of gravity on it from another body in space, such as a large planet or star. ... These forces of inertia and gravity have to be perfectly balanced for an orbit to happen.

 

[userque]

Same way it's always been described. Orbits are the result of a perfect balance between the forward motion of a body in space, such as a planet or moon, and the pull of gravity on it from another body in space, such as a large planet or star. ... These forces of inertia and gravity have to be perfectly balanced for an orbit to happen.

Yeah. Thanks. I should have thought about it a little more before posting that question.

I believe the space/time around the Earth is not curved, causing gravity. But more of the space/time being "stretched" which causes the effect of gravity.

Assuming it is stretched, and not curved (even though those two concepts may be different without a distinction). Couldn't it be gravity that's causing the stretching?

 

[CrashProof]

That's a very interesting question. It reminds me of the chicken and egg conundrum to a degree. I don't feel gravity can exist by itself. I feel that 'gravity' is just the perceived effect of objects moving through stretched space around an object of mass. So therefore without an object of mass, no 'gravity' can exist. I'm not a physicist but maybe 1 foot of natural space is stretched across our known 32 feet near Earth's mass (see pic). This could possibly give us where objects move towards Earth (direction of stretched space) at a rate of 32 ft/sec/sec. Like I said, I'm not a physicist so those numbers might not be exactly accurate, but you get the concept.

Keep in mind the picture shows the 'fabric' of space in 2 dimensions. Remember that we live in a 3 dimensional physical world. So try to imagine how this picture would look with the fabric surrounding the objects in these 3 dimensions. The more severe the curve in the picture would translate to a more stretched space/time fabric. You see the fabric appears more curved closer to the object; this would just translate to the fabric being more stretched closer to the object.

 

[userque]

That's a very interesting question. It reminds me of the chicken and egg conundrum to a degree. I don't feel gravity can exist by itself.

Gravity wouldn't have to exist by itself regarding my question.

Gravity could exist as a result of matter, just as magnetism exists as a result of magnetic matter, and light radiation as a result of luminous matter.

I feel that 'gravity' is just the perceived effect of objects moving through stretched space around an object of mass. So therefore without an object of mass, no 'gravity' can exist. I'm not a physicist but maybe 1 foot of natural space is stretched across our known 32 feet near Earth's mass (see pic). This could possibly give us where objects move towards Earth (direction of stretched space) at a rate of 32 ft/sec/sec. Like I said, I'm not a physicist so those numbers might not be exactly accurate, but you get the concept.

Your model seems to be missing something: acceleration.

Suppose we have a stretched section of space. Suppose I place an object in that space, with no motion given to that object by me. And the object doesn't propel itself--it remains perfectly still.

Now if I place that object near a planet, without adding motion to it, it still moves and falls to the planet.

My point is that your concept of stretched space does not cause motion in and of itself--as gravity does; even if the rate of stretch is not constant. Your concept of stretched space may, however, be congruent with the time distortion effect you wrote of earlier.

Another example:

If I mark a dot on a rubber band, and stretch the rubber band, the dot doesn't move with respect to the stretched space. It is essentially, still.

But, again, an object placed stationary near a planet moves with respect to the stretched space around the planet.

Correct me if I have a misunderstanding of your concept.

Keep in mind the picture shows the 'fabric' of space in 2 dimensions. Remember that we live in a 3 dimensional physical world. So try to imagine how this picture would look with the fabric surrounding the objects in these 3 dimensions. The more severe the curve in the picture would translate to a more stretched space/time fabric. You see the fabric appears more curved closer to the object; this would just translate to the fabric being more stretched closer to the object.

 

[CrashProof]

Okay, so you are close to reaching my understanding of this but you haven't quite arrived.

Your model seems to be missing something: acceleration.

Remember in my first post i addressed this with, " I believe an object not in motion in the presence of stretched space will begin to travel in the direction the space is being stretched. Because an object cannot occupy two spaces at one time, when that space the object occupies begins to stretch, it naturally begins to move in the direction of the stretching, and this appears to the observer as the object to be accelerating."

Suppose we have a stretched section of space. Suppose I place an object in that space, with no motion given to that object by me. And the object doesn't propel itself--it remains perfectly still.

Now if I place that object near a planet, without adding motion to it, it still moves and falls to the planet.

These two sentences are one in the same except I don't believe in the premise of the first sentence when you wrote " the object doesn't propel itself--it remains perfectly still". Both sentences you wrote consist of an object being in a stretched space but you only gave motion to the object in the stretched space in the second sentence (an object near a planet, is an object in stretched space). I believe in both sentences quoted here that the object will move in the direction of the stretching like you suggested in the second sentence.

If I mark a dot on a rubber band, and stretch the rubber band, the dot doesn't move with respect to the stretched space. It is essentially, still.

But, again, an object placed stationary near a planet moves with respect to the stretched space around the planet.

If you notice that when you do this, and you stretch the rubber band, the dot will stretch as well with the rubber band in proportion. Hence why the dot doesn't move because it is allowed to be stretched as well. Now if that dot was a physical object, such that we are speaking of in stretched space, that dot (object) will not have the physical ability to stretch when the rubber band stretches. So look at a rubber band with a dot on it, then stretch it. Imagine what would happen to the dot if it couldn't stretch along with the rubber band and remained the same. It would be forced to "accelerate" through that stretched space.

 

[CrashProof]

You asked:

Couldn't it be gravity that's causing the stretching?

I responded, I don't feel gravity can exist by itself.

Then you stated:

Gravity wouldn't have to exist by itself regarding my question.

Gravity could exist as a result of matter, just as magnetism exists as a result of magnetic matter, and light radiation as a result of luminous matter.

So this goes back to the chicken and egg dilemma: Which comes first? The matter or gravity? Matter can exist by itself. Gravity can't. Just like you said gravity exists as a result of matter. Therefore, its the matter that is causing the stretched space. And gravity is the effect that we are observing when objects move through this space. You see you answered your own question in the magnetism example above. Magnetic matter is the cause of magnetism, which is only the observation of objects being attracted to each other because of magnetic matter.

 

[userque]

Remember in my first post i addressed this with, " I believe an object not in motion in the presence of stretched space will begin to travel in the direction the space is being stretched. Because an object cannot occupy two spaces at one time, when that space the object occupies begins to stretch, it naturally begins to move in the direction of the stretching, and this appears to the observer as the object to be accelerating."

Well, let me just deal with this first point, first.

Suppose near a planet, that space is stretching. Not just stretched, but stretching; as you indicate. Stretching such that an object placed in this space would fall towards the planet as a result of the space stretching towards the planet, as you also indicate.

Now, as opposites sides of the planet are both stretching towards the center of the planet; the space must be bunching up at the center of the planet, correct? And "new" space must be coming down from "above," correct?

Now, the traditional understanding is that space is warped, not warping (in the sense that we are talking). As such, there would be no infinite bunching up of space, nor an infinite creation/expansion of space.

 

[userque]

Therefore, its the matter that is causing the stretched space. And gravity is the effect that we are observing when objects move through this space. You see you answered your own question in the magnetism example above. Magnetic matter is the cause of magnetism, which is only the observation of objects being attracted to each other because of magnetic matter.

I've skipped to responding to this one, out of turn.

It could be, therefore, that it is matter that is causing the gravity, rather than stretched space. How can you conclude one way or the other?

Regarding Magnetism: Magnetism may also be the result of matter. Again, how can we be definite. Electron flow also causes magnetism. And magnetism can cause electron flow.