The mechanic of gravity: gravity fields and the importance of mass


Now you know how the movement of galaxies and black holes cause the gravity, but I STILL haven't told you yet how it all works. Interested? Read on!

First of all, realise that gravity is really a reactionary (pseudo)force of the universe that responds to objects who are moving through space and time. It is the universe's way of "balancing things out". If one object speeds up on Earth, the reaction is that it slows down again after a certain point in time, due to counter-forces. In space, these counter-forces are almost non-existent and to top it off, it seems that dark energy is accelerating the entire universe. So the only way for the universe to maintain balance is to either try and slow everything down by pulling the fastest objects to the slowest ones or by speeding up all the slow objects to match the speed of the fastest ones. As a reactionary force of the universe, you must realise that there is no such a thing as a gravitational pull of a mass. There is only a gravitational pull between two masses.

The strength of the pull itself is actually counter-intuitively not just dependant on mass alone, but also on the differences in frequencies between both masses. Gravitional attraction between two objects becomes weaker over larger distances so they must have significant masses in order to influence eachother as the amount of mass determines how strong it's influence is going to be over a certain range. The more massive an object, the further away it's passive gravitational field will extend towards another object.

However, mass plays yet another role. It also determines the polarity of the gravitational pull. You see, gravity fields generate a pull from heavy masses to light masses. Therefore when two objects with a different mass are being attracted by gravity, the object with the fewest mass will be pulled more towards to object with the most mass than the other way around. This is why heavy masses cause strong pulls, without being influenced all that much themselves by lighter masses.

Makes sense? I think it does and I hope you'll agree with me.

To summarise: gravity is a difference in acceleration between two objects. The strength of the gravitational pull is determined by the difference in acceleration of these masses. The strength and maximum distance of the field is determined by the total mass. The polarity is determined by the difference in mass.

Heavy mass = large gravitational field, heavy influence generated
Light mass = small gravitational field, weak influence generated

Equal mass = equal gravity pull
Unequal mass = pull biased towards heaviest mass

Large frequency difference = strong pull
Small frequency difference = weak pull

Example: I move through space and time and I pull all other objects in range that are moving at a different speed through time. In order for an object to get pulled towards me, I must have significant more mass than that object. If not, I will be pulled towards that object instead. If none of our masses are significant different from eachother, we will be pulled towards eachother, with a small direction towards the object that has most mass. Since the Earth has a heavy mass, it has a strong impact on me. However since I have a light mass, I cannot move too far out of orbit without moving out of it's influence zone, while the Sun who is much further away has no problem maintaining it's own gravitational pull with the Earth since it has a vastly heavier amount of mass.



Acceleration = Relative acceleration + Intrensic acceleration


This is the fun (and confusing part). Explaining what acceleration means to me. Since I utterly failed to explain it once, I figured I might as well draw it. Meantime, you can all enjoy my special graphic skills. :p

Disclaimer: scales not representative for actual size.


The picture to the left shows the observed relative motion of the Earth in orbit around the Sun.
The picture to the right shows the same motion in white, but in blue you see the motions within the Earth as it orbits.

It shows the vibration of the mass or it's frequency. In the same way, the Sun also has an inner motion or vibration. Only the relative motion causes the object to move around the Sun and usually this is what we determine as it's speed, but the inner motions of the Earth that do not change it's position relative to the Sun are actually another part of it's speed, that remains hidden as the position doesn't change over time. Therefore, when calculating the acceleration of an object to determine it's gravitational pull, both motions must be taken into account and when an object accelerates, it can result in either an increase in motion or an increase in frequency.


Time dilation

Quoted from wikipedia:



Combine this with my concept of time and you get time passing at different rates in a gravitational field. With time, however, the seconds themselves don't change, but rather the amount of time that fits in a second changes. This means that one second has a longer duration than another in a gravitational field and that changing from frame by switching to a different gravitational potential causes your seconds to become longer or shorter relative to the frames around it. You will still measure one second as a second in all frames of reference though.

I call this the concept of "stretcheable time" or "stretcheable seconds". It is measured in 1/s, the unit of frequency and together with m/s, they both count as units of speed.

Evidence for this can be found in the Pound-Rebka experiment

Starting from time dilation on Earth, based on the Schwarzschild solution gives the following formula

I quote from Wikipedia:



where

t is time as calibrated with a clock distant from and at inertial rest with respect to the Earth,
r is a radial coordinate (which is effectively the distance from the Earth's center),
θ is the latitudinal coordinate, being the angular separation from the north pole in radians.
\varphi\ is a longitudinal coordinate, analogous to the latitude on the Earth's surface but independent of the Earth's rotation. This is also given in radians.
m is the geometrized mass of a central massive object, being m = MG/c2,

M is the mass of the object,
G is the gravitational constant.

When standing on the north pole, we can assume (meaning that we are neither moving up or down or along the surface of the Earth)



So this is a simplified version, but my goal is not to replace GR equations at all in the first place, but rather trying to figure out how my concept of time dilation based gravity fits in. The equations I come up with as a result will not be entirely accurate, but they should give a close estimate and more importantly, they show that gravitational pull can be written so that it involves Td instead of G.

So we have

dτ = dt(1 - 2GM/rc²)^1/2
dτ/dt = (1 - 2GM/rc²)1/2

I use the variable Td for the left part. So

Td = dτ/dt

And we get

Td² = 1 - 2GM/rc²
2GM/rc² = 1 - Td²
G = (1 - Td²)rc² / 2M

Inserting it in F = GMm/r² we get

F = (1-Td²)rc²Mm/2r²M
F = (1-Td²)c²m/2r

Which leads to

F = mc²(1-Td²)/2r

When going back to what Td is

Td = dτ/dt
Td = τ₁-τ₂/dt

My theory would rewrite this as

Td = 1 / (f₁-f₂)dt
Td = 1 / t(f₁-f₂)

Where,

t = dt
f = 1/τ and, according to my theory, corresponding with a frequency and speed through time

In other words, what I'm theorizing is that time dilation is not an effect of gravity, but rather the cause of it. The reason for that is that time is not passing by, but that all objects are moving through time at different speeds. Instead of the difference in position measured in m/s, it becomes a difference in the length of the seconds themselves, measured in 1/s.

F = mc²(1-[1/t(f1-f2)]²)/2r


Taking into account the lorentz factor

γ = c/(c²-u²)^1/2
γ = 1/(1-(u/c)²)^1/2

The lorentz factor is defined as dt/dτ and Td as dτ/dt

This means by definition that

γ = 1/Td

Working it out gives

1/(1-(u/c)²)^1/2 = 1/Td
(1-(u/c)²) = Td²
1 - u²/c² = Td²
u²/c² = 1 - Td²
u² = c² (1 - Td²)

This gives us a relation between the speed through space u and the time dilation Td, with c² as a constant factor.

We can test the validity of this equation by trying it for the measured Earth's values:

u² = 299,792,458² (1 - (1 - 6.9660 x 10^-10)²)
u = 11.189 km/s

Which matches with the escape velocity for the Earth, within the error margin.

Orbits


If a mass moves through time at a certain speed, it will have the frequency corresponding with that speed. If another mass moves at a different speed, they will have a different frequency. But what about the space between them? If the masses are planets and an observer moves from one to another, he will have to speed up or slow down, by adjusting his frequency. How would he do that if the space between those planets didn't correspond with a the various frequencies in between. There would be no way to make a motion from one planet to another in different time frames, if this wasn't compensated as well. So the interactions these masses upon their surroundings, is what we know as spacetime curvature.

How do orbits fit in the picture? Well, the equation explains it:

F = mc²(1-[1/t(f₁-f₂)]²)/2r

Gravity balances speeds in both space and time. So if the ratio between time over distance is equal to the ratio of dilation, it will be 1/1 and the gravitational force becomes 0. This means that if an object accelerates to the point it's speed difference compensates for the frequency difference, they are in balance. However any increase in speed will cause a mass to move to a higher gravitational potential with a lower frequency or any increase in frequency will cause it to slow down. Any decrease in speed will cause a mass to move to a lower potential and any decrease in frequency will cause it to speed up. Of course, this assumes that the mass has a lower frequency. If it's higher, it will be exactly the other way around. As you can see though, you can adjust both speed and frequency. However, this speed and frequency is an attribute of the object itself. When it falls, it speeds up relative to the surroundings, but it's own speed is zero, hence the acceleration effect it has on the frequency, causing a vertical motion.

Orbits are the combined effect of a planet maintaining it's frequency and having a speed to compensate for the difference. The planets closest to the Sun have the highest difference, but they compensate with a faster speed. The planets further away have a a higher frequency of their own, so they don't need to move as fast to maintain their orbit. But that's only part of the story, since this involves how they act within a gravitational field of another object. But, depending on it's mass, a planet has also a gravitational field of it's own, that equally influences it's surroundings. In other words, gravitational potentials of one field will overlap with that of the other, causing curves in spacetime of their own and altering the potentials within their influence zone. A planet like Jupiter would weaken the potentials closer to the Sun, due to it's own influence and strenghten those further from the Sun, due to the combined influence.

I know this section is oversimplified and should be refined, but this is the general concept behind it. But there's something else to consider as well.

In order to make General Relativity compatible with Quantum physics, there has to be a link between both. I reckon that this link can be provided in the relation between time dilation and frequencies. That's why it's absolutely necessary for me to express time dilation in units of frequency. You see, orbits can also be explained in a similar way as described in the interaction of atoms and photons.

Remember that Pound-Rebka experiment, that was used to measure redshifts based upon time dilation? Let's go through it once more. Let me quote the part on Wikipedia that mentions the principle it's based on.

"The test is based on the following principle. When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When the same atom in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon's frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory). When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift. As a result the receiving atom can no longer absorb it. But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift will cancel out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom will be able to absorb the photon. The "right" relative speed of the atoms is therefore a measure of the gravitational shift. The frequency of the photon "falling" towards the bottom of the tower is blueshifted. Pound and Rebka countered the gravitional blueshift by moving the emittor away from the receiver, thus generating a relativistic Doppler redshift"

We can compare a mass with a gravitational field with an atom in it's base state and it's surroundings compensating with various excited states. When other masses get caught in the field, the frequency difference between the gravitating mass and the object will cause them to adjust it's position towards the corresponding state in the field. Or in other words, they will enter orbit and stay there, unless either their speed or frequency changes. Just like an atom cannot absorb a photon when it's frequency and energy is different by even a little, neither can a planet keep you on it's surface unless you accelerate or, in the case of light or other faster objects, decelerate towards it's own frequency. Light may be fast enough not to be caught in the field, but it will still be influenced enough to make it bend.

I should stress though that, just like GR claims, a mass does not pull. Gravity is not a force excerted by a mass upon an other object, it's merely an effect of those objects having different speeds through space and time and in the process distorting the area's around them. Also, in terms of quantum theory, gravity would simply be the process of masses who are "falling" from excited states, back into their ground state. Since no force is excerted, no gravitons are required either to mediate that force.

One last thing to explain is the irregular orbits such as that of Pluto. It's not so hard actually if you take into account that if the other planets maintain their frequency and speed to think that there are also masses who do not. These masses can get their speed increase from the Sun as they get pulled towards it and the increased frequency that goes along with the lower potentials gets converted back into motion as they bend around and move away once more.


Clarification

Alright, as I said, every object has a different speed through time and through space. One motion has nothing to do with the other.

Now, with that in mind, we can express the speed through time in units of frequency, as 1/s. The ratio that we can measure between those speeds, corresponds with the time dilation, measured in s/s or (1/s)/(1/s) or (1/s)/s giving a natural number.

This is how it works:

If the Sun has a frequency of f0 corresponding with it's speed through time, then all area's around the Sun will be warped to gradually account for the difference in speeds between the Sun and it's surroundings. So, any area around the Sun is a part of space that moves through time at a particular speed. Whereas f0 > f1 > f2, etc. I have drawn it out in large circles, but this actually happens at the subatomic level. What you see is a quantized way of looking at gravity, where each layer corresponds with a speed through time.

In this way, you could say f0 is the base state of the Sun and f1-f10 are all excited states objects can have to orbit the Sun. However, each object also has it's own independant ground state. For example, for the Earth this could be f3. In my model, this means that the Earth will fall untill it takes position in the area that corresponds with the time speed of the Earth, meaning f3. It will not fall any further, because f3 is the base state of the Earth.

Okay, so far so good. But what about the orbital motion then? Well, here comes the relation between motion in space important. In my model, gravity is simply objects "falling" from an excited state, to a ground state. However, if an object has enough energy or speed, it can stay in an excited state, corresponding with it's combined speed through space and time.

In terms of forces this would mean that the gravitational pull remains the same, but it's speed compensates for this pull, allowing it to remain in orbit. If we view gravity as the total force, instead of just the force of the pull, we can say that the gravity decreases. If the speed is in the opposite direction of the pull and is equal to what we know as the "escape velocity", there will still be a gravitational pull, but the total force acted upon the object will be zero. In my way of seeing things, this means it experiences no gravity (although it continues to experience a gravitational pull).

This is what I meant with "both effects cancelling out". The gravitational pull is independant to motion in space, but the total effect is not. If gravity is only considered as an effect of the motion through time, then it is indeed completely independant of the motion in space, which matches observations.

The assumption that speed through time is related to a frequency is important, because I'm using it to link my model both to General Relativity, through the motion in time, which is essentially the same as time dilation and to Quantum physics through it's way of viewing gravity as a quantized phenomenon of masses falling from an excited state to a ground state, depending on their frequency.


Implications

I reckon that gravity as an effect of accelerating objects, resulting in a change in frequency would explain gravitational redshifts. It would also explain how light and gravity are related. Last but not least, I believe this makes General Relativity compatible with Quantum physics.



Sounds almost too simple to be true, doesn't it...?