Strange

You need to watch several series of Doctor Who. It is all explained there. Even the timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly bits. As it is a fictional idea, you can make whatever effects you like!

What do you mean by “particles? Just dust? Dust and aerosols? All atoms and molecules?

I wonder if that relates to Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates This is another of your "cryptic question, when it might be better to say what you mean" posts, isn't it.

But that is an interesting example, because larger black holes create less Hawking radiation. In fact only implausibly small ones would generate measurable output.

How can it be available simultaneously when two different observers may disagree about whether two events are simultaneous or not (or even the order in which they occur).

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-26294007

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Note that the rules for this part of the forum require you to support your idea with evidence or mathematics. Please show that your idea can reproduce the same results as current theory (in other words, that it matches the real world).

But the fact that the element has mass is due to the strong force binging the quarks in the nucleus. And the reason it is solid is because of the Pauli exclusion principle forcing the electrons into separate energy levels. But we only know those things because we have built ever-larger particle colliders. 🤷‍♂️

! Moderator Note Moved to Physics (for the time being; until we see where this is going) What is the "slip of time"? Who are these different people?

! Moderator Note Interesting but off-topic question split to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122105-small-to-large-split-from-what-determined-the-inital-state-of-the-universe/ Some people do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Interesting question. Maybe it is just the way we think about it? Breaking things down to components. The collapse of stars, and the collision of neutrons stars, are required to create most of the different types atoms in the universe. So I'm not sure your conjecture is universally true.

Orbital speed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help Do you mean “escape velocity”?

Well, as I say, if you take a conclusion of GR as your starting point, it is not surprising that you might be able to derive another related result from GR. (You haven't actually done that, though.) IF it did, you would become incredibly famous. Maybe even get a Nobel Prize. (Spoiler: it doesn't.) I just had another look: you haven't even shown you can derive Newtonian gravity, never mind the non-linear effects of GR. Come on, then. Let's see you derive [math] F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/math] from (the only math in your "paper").

Because you haven't shown that it does. And it seems impossible for a simplistic model like yours to reproduce all the complexity of the Einstein field equations. I think someone would have noticed in the last 100 years if it could be simplified like that. But of course, even if your model does reproduce some limited results from GR, it is only because you have based it on GR. I would love it if you did that. Which is why I asked about it.

Personal preference has nothing to do with it. Unless you can reproduce all the results of GR (or improve on it) it is irrelevant what approach you take or what you like. That is just a preference about an interpretation. It has nothing to do with the underlying science, which is the same for all interpretations of QM. You can dismiss all the interpretations. It doesn't matter. But you are not claiming a different interpretation of GR (if that is even possible). You are presenting a different model (based on a result of GR) which does not appear to produce the same results.

What analogy? If you cannot reproduce all the results of GR, then your model is wrong. Which would be especially ironic as you are basing it on GR. Irrelevant. It works. No one disagrees with that.

We already have an explanation for that. And you are using it already, by basing things on time dilation. It is based on rather dubious science (this "EM mass" concept seems to have been invented by some engineers and, despite [or perhaps because of] being an engineer, I have seen some very dubious "physics" produced by engineers.). Does it reproduce all the effects of GR? Can you correctly calculate the precession of Mercury? The Lense-Thirring effect?

Not really. I haven't looked at it in detail, but it is not very surprising if you can derive gravity from time dilation as they both have the same underlying cause. It's a bit like saying "if you tell me how fast we are going, I can tell you when we will arrive". I struggle to see the relevance of this speculative "EM mass" concept. Mass is mass. And we have a "causal mechanism for gravity" so I'm not sure what is new, as you are invoking the same cause.

Relative. Just because the situation is asymmetrical, it is still relative.

I think when you get to the point of imagining a model without time, or worse without space, then it becomes hard to give realistic answers. However, mass is not defined in terms of time or length. It is an independent quantity unlike, for example, force which is defined in terms of mass, length and time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis What does "values in the higgs field" mean? The Higgs mechanism is responsible for the mass of particles, including those bosons that have mass. Well, their position can be defined. In as much as the position of any quantum particle can be defined; i.e. when it s measured. Yes. Models of spacetime with no mass are useful for understanding GR. Probably. One definition of mass is "the curvature it causes in spacetime". If you change that then perhaps you are changing the meaning or effect of mass. But, again, once you start departing from the physics we know then any answers are just guesses. I would say the existence of space is a requirement for anything to exist. Momentum. Energy. Color (in the case of gluons). Interestingly, there are no massless particles with charge. I don't know if there is an explanation for that. Yes. So do massless ones because they have energy. (Mass does not appear in the equations for gravity; only energy.) Gravity does not curve spacetime, energy does. Gravity is just how we perceive the curvature.

! Moderator Note That is not the equation for gravitational force. Once again, you have started from a false premise and produced a lot of nonsense. I don't know if this is ignorance or trolling, and I don't really care.

What's wrong with "relative"? Time dilation due to relative speed is not illusory either. So I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make.

That is not what "absolute" means.

It is relative in that it depends on the relative difference in gravitational potential.