Gravity: Compounded Space (Time) Signal?

[CuriousGiles]

TL;DR

If the curvature of space (time) in the presence of mass induces attraction between masses then can gravity be described as a compound signal of multiple space curvatures?

Disclaimer - I am not an expert by any means so this might be as much about confirming my understanding as an inquiry from the general public... as such, it might be fairly conversational as I attempt to clearly communicate my thoughts and understanding. Please excuse this.

If gravity is the attraction between masses (Fg = G⋅M1⋅M2/r) then is it true that with an absence of multiple masses gravity cannot exist? This is a curious consideration for me as it implies gravity is an effect arising from interacting disturbances like a convolution. Visually:

Observing the green space plain in the fourth image, there is a minimum point under m producing a slight increase in the space curve slope on the right side of m prior to rejoining the red space curvature caused by M. Is this the theoretical development of the gravitational attraction?

If the above is accurate, then is there an relationship between the tension of the space plain and the gravitational constant (G)? I intend to read up on the Einstein Tensor to explore this further but if anyone has a good reference to share that is appreciated.

 

[PeterDonis]

'

If gravity is the attraction between masses

You are in the relativity forum, so no, it isn't. Gravity is not a force in relativity. It is spacetime curvature.

is it true that with an absence of multiple masses gravity cannot exist?

No. There are perfectly good solutions in General Relativity that contain only one gravitating mass.

Visually

Diagrams like these are a very bad way to try to reason about what relativity says. First, they only show space, not time, and second, they depend on a particular choice of coordinates, but coordinates in relativity have no physical meaning.

the tension of the space plain

This concept appears nowhere in relativity. There are speculations along these lines in some work on quantum gravity, but discussion of those belongs in the Beyond the Standard Model forum, not this one.

 

[CuriousGiles]

@PeterDonis, was not expecting such a prompt response - thank you.
Before I move to the Beyond the Standard Model forum, while E=M⋅c^2 and given that in the human capacity to observe at a distance >0 only through sense (sight, hearing) detecting energy. Is it fair to conclude that mass, as perceived by me, only exists when at 0 distance and that the rest of the perceived universe is represented only in the synonymic energy state?

If this is the case, now thinking about a mass at a distance to any other mass, is there only an interaction between those bodies energies at any midpoint between them?

 

[PeterDonis]

while E=M⋅c^2 and given that in the human capacity to observe at a distance >0 only through sense (sight, hearing) detecting energy. Is it fair to conclude that mass, as perceived by me, only exists when at 0 distance and that the rest of the perceived universe is represented only in the synonymic energy state?

If this is the case, now thinking about a mass at a distance to any other mass, is there only an interaction between those bodies energies at any midpoint between them?

I don't know what any of this means. It doesn't sound like any physics I am aware of.

You might want to review the PF rules on personal speculations.

 

[A.T.]

Summary:: If the curvature of space (time) in the presence of mass induces attraction between masses then can gravity be described as a compound signal of multiple space curvatures?

Disclaimer - I am not an expert by any means so this might be as much about confirming my understanding as an inquiry from the general public... as such, it might be fairly conversational as I attempt to clearly communicate my thoughts and understanding. Please excuse this.

If gravity is the attraction between masses (Fg = G⋅M1⋅M2/r) then is it true that with an absence of multiple masses gravity cannot exist? This is a curious consideration for me as it implies gravity is an effect arising from interacting disturbances like a convolution. Visually:
View attachment 275199
Observing the green space plain in the fourth image, there is a minimum point under m producing a slight increase in the space curve slope on the right side of m prior to rejoining the red space curvature caused by M. Is this the theoretical development of the gravitational attraction?
View attachment 275200
If the above is accurate, then is there an relationship between the tension of the space plain and the gravitational constant (G)? I intend to read up on the Einstein Tensor to explore this further but if anyone has a good reference to share that is appreciated.

I think the conceptual question you have in mind here has nothing to do with General Relativity. You can pose it in terms of the Newtonian gravitational potential, where your pictures are much more relevant to the attraction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential

The question is: Why do two bodies come together, if each is in its own self-generated potential minimum?

The answer is. With a second massive body present, the individual potential wells are not perfectly centered symmetrically around each body, but are distorted with a bias towards the other body. This accelerates each body towards the other one.

 

[pervect]

Summary:: If the curvature of space (time) in the presence of mass induces attraction between masses then can gravity be described as a compound signal of multiple space curvatures?

A better model is given by Wheeler. The remark is quite famous:

“Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”

I'm not quite sure if your idea is equivalent, though I suspect it is not. One can detect the curvature of space-time by the behavior of test masses and/or clocks.