Gravity as dependent exclusively on acceleration?

v. 2 n. 48

A conundrum was apparent in the previous letter. * To expand the postscript:

• ... the expanding/contracting option [of the model universe] does not appear possible because for an accelerated expansion to go to an accelerated contraction condition a model universe must pass through a constant velocity condition. This constant velocity condition of an entire "universe" suggests no gravity at large given the equivalence principle. If there is no gravity, there is no mechanism for any subsequent contraction. Since general relativity is founded on the equivalence principle, this would make general relativity conditional to scale if gravity is substituted by the cosmological constant, i.e., valid in the Solar system and the galaxy with black holes, but not with the accelerated expanding Universe at large, thus calling the theory into question as universally applicable because, again, conventionally it is said this acceleration is caused by the "cosmological constant;" this term is a placeholder for an unknown, not a physical entity. Replacing the equivalence principle with such an unknown might be mathematically satisfactory for the moment, but not in accord with the founding tenet of general relativity -- the equivalence of gravity and acceleration; not the equivalence of the unknown and acceleration.

The items under consideration here in consecutive order are

1. A positively accelerating mass with gravity.
2. A constant velocity mass without gravity.
3. A negatively accelerating mass with gravity.

In these situations this implies that gravity is contingent on acceleration, but not on mass. Then what about Newton's laws of motion and gravity? What about Einstein's gravity that reduces to Newton's in the limit?

If the concepts of mass or force are called into question there might be a way out. Force is already brought into question with general relativity regarding space curvature. Also, particles were described as gravitational sinks instead of sources, which is falsifiable. ** As such their mass could be everywhere in the ambient gravitational field except where it is perceived. If this holds for a single elementary particle, it would also hold for a conglomerate. That is, mass/force might be phenomenological but not fundamental, as are any mathematics dependent on these common phenomena.

In this way the suggested experiment to verify particles as gravitational sinks instead of sources might resolve several issues.

______

* Gravity as dependent exclusively on acceleration? (Preliminary) | LinkedIn

** (1) KEEPING IN TOUCH: A rationale for Mach's Principle | LinkedIn

(1) How can gravity be seamlessly combined with the other three forces? (quantum gravity) | LinkedIn

(2) Is matter made from space? | LinkedIn

(1) Is all matter Relativistic? ("booklet" ) | LinkedIn

(1) Could particles be gravitational sinks rather than sources? | LinkedIn

(1) JUST WHAT IS A PARTICLE, ANYWAY? | LinkedIn

(1) Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?* | LinkedIn

INERTIA, and the primacy of space | LinkedIn