0

Is there any possibility to explain gravitational time dilation as a result of space being constantly moved by the gravitational attractor towards its centre? (Something similar to 'frame dragging'). So the EM-waves emitted by a body moving towards the attractor move like a person on a reverse escalator, which slows down his motion, so the photon has to do the first part of its journey towards an observer for a very long period of time.

I think that is not why the observer sees the object motion slower and slower as the object approaches closer to the attractor, let say, a black hole. As I think of that, if the object were suddenly to stop there would not be any time dilation because although the photons have to do their paths for longer time periods these periods would be equal to each other in time. The time dilation should derive as these periods are changing due to object's approaching the attractor because a more and more longer element is added to the integral of the next photon path time as the object is closer to the attractor where the 'reverse escalator effect' is larger.

But for me it is very difficult to understand how, in that case, this space moving inwards would make the photon aquire longer wavelength. So I am not very convinced in that presumtion, so I would like to know how others think about this question. Also, in that case, somebody should think of the space as not being just a void but a medium that transports photons. Although it cannot be closely compared but this should basically do to the photons something like a Newton's cradle does to the momentum of motion of its elements.

PM 2Ring
  • 11,873
  • Personal theories are off-topic on this site. – G. Smith Nov 20 '20 at 17:47
  • 2
    Check out the river model. Note that the river model isn't a physical theory. What makes it interesting is that it is mathematically consistent. This suggests that the river model does express an aspect of what gravitational time dilation is. – Cleonis Nov 20 '20 at 19:50
  • Here are some other questions related to the river / waterfall model of gravity. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/106447/123208 & https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/183905/123208 & https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/513962/123208 Also see https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html – PM 2Ring Nov 21 '20 at 01:05
  • Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory "Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both [Lorentz Ether Theory and Special Relativity], it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable aether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET". – PM 2Ring Nov 21 '20 at 01:24

0 Answers0