Gravity doesn't make things fall (directly)

[David]

[Wolfgang]

A note...

Is there even one example in the microcosm or macrocosm in which acceleration does not cause a freely moving body to rotate?

No matter where I look, gravity always goes hand in hand with rotation.

But none of our major theories of gravity address the issue of rotation.

Note: My use of the term "rotation" may be inaccurate.

[David]

Frame dragging in GR could be use in that context.
But you are right it not explicitly baked it.

[Wolfgang]

Since in reality gravity and rotation occur together without exception (?), it seems likely to me that there is a connection between the two.

At any rate, it seems more likely than the "elevator gravity" described in textbooks.

[David]

But is it necessary in every context. Just like Newtonian gravity works fine.
I think it's mostly true because everything is relative motion to something else to some extent.
But is it because it is necessary or because inertia and gravitating bodies are inherently inclusive?

[David]

GROK :

This is where CUGE shines by making it inclusive from the ground up. In your framework, gravity emerges from vacuum ε(r)/μ(r) variations, which are inherently responsive to the EM fields and motions of bodies. Inertia (resistance to acceleration) ties directly to how these gradients interact with charged particles, and since real bodies are extended with internal motions, rotation/spin becomes "inclusive" as an emergent feature of the system's dynamics—not tacked on, but baked into the relative interactions. Contrast with standard models: inertia is axiomatic (Newton) or from Higgs (SM), but rotation needs separate conservation laws. If gravitating bodies are "inherently inclusive," it's because their mass-energy distributions can't be divorced from their motional states in a unified EM-vacuum picture like CUGE.

[Wolfgang]

But is it necessary in every context. Just like Newtonian gravity works fine.

Yes. A new approach to gravity is absolutely necessary. Because so far, we can only describe gravity. But we have not yet understood it.

[David]

Yes. A new approach to gravity is absolutely necessary. Because so far, we can only describe gravity. But we have not yet understood it.

Yes i would think so, but i'm inevitably biased now, so i'm not in a position to be a judge of that anymore.

[Wolfgang]

Even with bias, one cannot close one's eyes so tightly that one overlooks the similarity between cosmological structures and fluid vortices.

This does not seem to be a new discovery, as Wikipedia writes:

When fluids converge toward a center, fluid elements that possess angular momentum cannot simply plunge straight in: the conservation of angular momentum forces them first into a circular orbit around the center, causing protoplanetary disks—vortices of dust and gas—to form around young stars in interstellar space.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirbel_(S ... ungslehre)

If I understand mass as potential or pressure and gravity as (vortex) flow, then I consider this to be more obvious than falling apples, window cleaner or geodesics.

[Wolfgang]

From the nature of cosmological structures, we can also deduce that mass corresponds to low pressure and a vacuum to high pressure. This also fits with the Casimir effect.

So it is not that matter attracts other matter, but rather that a vacuum displaces matter.

[David]

That's not exactly how I see it but I understand you analogy.

For me the analogy is this one and it inverted to yours about pressure. It a "density" gradient of the property of the vacuum.
$ \mu $ $ \epsilon $ (permittivity and permeability.)

The close you get to a mass, the "denser" this gradient get, slowing electrons in atom closer the mass, slowing their proper time.
This also regulate the speed of light, which also slows down. Local observer does not see this because it's time is also slowed down.

The electrons are spinning so one side it pulled toward the denser side of this gradient. A good example was given the other day on twitter in a similar discussion. You are in car and one wheel is on the pavement and the other in the sand. Your car get drag/steered toward the sand side (more resistance.)

$ \frac{1}{v^2} = \mu_0 \epsilon_0 $

So yes it's always related to rotation in that context. You could say it's the same for light, if you have variation in the speed;

it bend, just like refraction, only this is less related to rotation but a half phase () feeling more drag if perpendicular, full phase head on. That how I imagined it.

This is an interesting video to visualize it.

[Wolfgang]

Newton, Einstein, and you can precisely calculate the trajectory of an object in a gravitational field. I see these theories and models as a simplification of reality.

In contrast, fluid dynamics teaches us about randomness. Nature is demonstrably dominated by butterfly effects, asymmetries, and tipping moments.

What good is a theoretically maximum matter density if the resulting vortices prevent the formation of a compact mass?

[David]

The closes analogy I could think of here is hardness (COR) like in material of a 3d mesh/latice. The maximum density is only a the result of the quadratic scaling of force interaction, in simple terms, it scale with the Lorentz factor because e=1/2mv^2. At some point you have to occupy a physical space but you get slow down so much (the electron) that you binding energy vs gravity and pressure strip the electron away. You are left with a neutron star. It cannot get much denser beyond that point because of physical space constrains, your electron are left orbiting the central mass trap in it's magnetic field. But the electron are still there generating motion and vacuum strain only in this globally layered configuration around a core. At that point gravity becomes tied to this surface configuration, you can add mass but it does not increase the electron density it has reach saturation. Just like painting a red wall for example, after 2 layers, even if you add another one, it does not get redder.

I might be wrong. It makes sense to me. It does not prevent compact mass, but caps density and surface gravity.

[David]

At atomic scale randomness become statistical.