Think about this:
Relativity demands that the cosmological constant (Which isn't entirely 'constant' even though time, space, and mass are all inextricably linked) keeps everything 'relative' spatially. That means the constant has an effect on mass and on space, obviously. Thing is, the effect on space acts as a linear, point-to-point, mechanism. The effect on mass is essentially the same, but many orders of magnitude stronger. The space between two massive objects grows at an accelerating rate as well. What happens when a subject 'falls' is that the acceleration of the massive object has superseded the accelerations of the space between the massive object and the falling subject. The more the acceleration of the massive object reduces the space between it and the subject, the less "anti-gravitational" force the dwindling space between can exert.
Now take two massive objects in equilibrium: The Earth and the Moon. It's a tenuous equilibrium. We know that we're going to lose the Moon. The fact that the Moon has a elliptical orbit creates greater and lesser spatial distances between them. What we have is not a 'mysterious pull' from the Moon when it is near, but rather an 'explicable reduction in push'.
'Gravity' has never been 'found'. There are no 'gravitrons' raining down from heaven to push us to the surface or some mysterious universal quasi-magnetic attraction to objects of mass. It just doesn't exist. Every single thing we attribute to 'gravity' can just as easily be explained by the notion that what is really going on is the inertial force created by the radiation of the 'Hubble' constant through mass and space in time.
And this perspective will help to explain many more things to come.
Edit history
Please
sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):