Thread: Conveyor Belt Theory

I have a theory on what really gravity is. I call it Conveyor Belt Theory.
The conventional understanding of gravity is that it isn’t so much a force as a shape. We think mass bends and warps the fabric of space and the effect of gravity is just the illusion based on travel through non-linear space and time. Conveyor Belt Theory is just a little different.

So here it is…
Conveyor Belt Theory of Gravity states that matter obliterates space.
Instead of warping space, matter constantly pulls and tugs at space, stretching the coordinate system (a little like frame dragging). Although you are stationary within space, space is not stationary within the universe.

As an analogy, picture the fabric of space and time as water in the ocean. Now picture matter as a drain in the bottom of the ocean. The sea water rushes into the hole, never to be seen again. If you are in the water far from the hole, the current has little effect on you and the vast abyss of the ocean (particularly if you have an infinite supply of water). But if you are very close to the hole, you feel a strong effect of the current.

Now picture our planet. The fabric of space and time is like the water, a current flowing toward a drain. Everything in space around the planet is riding the conveyor belt toward earth. If we jump into the air, we literally ride the conveyor belt back down.

The more matter that exists, the more space it obliterates. So something like a star would have a very high speed conveyor belt effect. A black hole would be any accumulation of matter large enough to have a conveyor belt speed of C of faster. Light can’t escape because it is essentially running on a tread mill.

Picture two massive bodies in space, each obliterating space, each causing a current of flowing space toward itself. The space between the two bodies looks like a piece of taffy being stretch from both ends as each body obliterates space causing a current flow. Looking at the space shows nothing interesting because the fabric is undetectable. But looking at an object in the space, you can see it travel in the current flow. It appears to be attracted to the massive body, but in reality it is just along for the ride.

More anecdotal evidence:

As water flows into a drain we see a vortex. We see that same effect as space flows into matter.

It is easy to visualize warped space when using the concept of a planet traveling around a star, however the warped space visualization does not cleanly illustrate the effect on the surface of a massive body like a planet, nor does the concept of “space bent back on itself” when considering a black hole. Conveyor Belt Theory handles all of these cases very nicely, using all the same math.

We see a red shift from distant galaxies, providing our basic foundation for an expanding universe. Conveyor Belt Theory has the fabric of space flowing toward all matter. This would give a red shift as if the universe were expanding. Furthermore, it would cause the illusion of acceleration in the expansion.


So what is the mechanism? Well, I theorize there is some quantum physics effect which causes matter to absorb space. My thought is that matter is the illusion created by vibrating strings. Those same strings somehow consume space as they provide matter. If you were to somehow stop the vibration, the matter would cease to exist and therefore would stop consuming space. (i.e. all matter has gravity)
I think of it like a one way valve; the string vibrates expanding out into space, but when contracting drags space with it.

Any thoughts?
Lee Spaziano

Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. Why do you need a different explanation than the one put forward by AE in 1916? Read the literature and when you understand it, return to the question of whether there is a better theory.

There is a very good reason to “need a different explanation” Einstein’s explanation is only a predictive model which does nothing to explain the mechanism.

You are quite crass to presume I have not read the material. If you disagree, make a counter argument or say nothing at all. Keep your ad hominem comments to yourself.

Sounds familiar to dumb holes. Are you suggesting that there is an ether of sorts? What is on the treadmill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_black_hole

Tom, No ether is required. In the same way space can have a warped shape using the conventional theory, it can also have current. There is no requirement for a flow of ether, just a stretching of the coordinate system.

ok, if matter obliterates space, like water down a drain, why is space expanding?

Originally Posted by lspaziano@cfl.rr.com

Tom, No ether is required. In the same way space can have a warped shape using the conventional theory, it can also have current. There is no requirement for a flow of ether, just a stretching of the coordinate system.

Then how does that differ from GR? That seems to be exactly the way GR approaches it ... the deal is that there is really nothing to flow as space is space and time is time ... objects can move, which they due but space cant move and time cant move in any meaningful way that I can think of.

There's a few questions I have to ask: if matter destroys spacetime, 1) wouldn't destroying something without gaining an equal amount of mass/energy violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics? 2) what would replace all that spacetime being "sucked down into a drain?" 3) If there was a way for the matter to be created (to replace the destroyed spacetime), wouldn't that violate the first law of thermodynamics?

My overarching question is, if matter is continuously destroying spacetime (as in your "drain" model), how would spacetime keep expanding without violating the first law of thermodynamics? This is the one problem I have with it. For example, in GR, the mass of the Universe determines whether or not the Universe will end in a Big Crunch or a Big Freeze from the start; after that, it's all up to dark energy and gravity. But in your model, the overall mass of the Universe keeps sucking away a large portion of said spacetime throughout the entire lifespan of the Universe, which would mean that unless there was some exception to the laws of thermodynamics that allowed spacetime to be created, the Universe would eventually "run out" of spacetime "fuel" and would either crunch in on itself (if the Universe is finite, bounded and curved) or simply stop expanding and lose all gravity (which seriously conflicts with concepts such as dark energy, the acceleration of the Universe's expansion, gravity-carrying force particles like gravitons and Higgs bosons, etc.).

Can you answer my questions?
-Jimmy

Related to Jimmy Pelletier's comments, if a massive object cruises through my neighbourhood, does this mechanism explain the return to a roughly Euclidean space-time after the object has moved on?