Use it to help explain (or describe) it . .

For the first time I have posted a view on a web forum that the force of masses attracted to each other by gravity is just a symptom or artifact (due to the elastic nature of space-time) of a much larger force acting on all masses.  I posted in response to two interesting discussions (a) that gravitational mass (=) inertial mass, and (b) that two masses of 1kg each, separated by 1m, experience a force towards each other of 6.67 x 10^-11 Newton, ie the gravitational constant G.

But it has led me to a step I have avoided so far, to use gravity to help describe gravity.  We have a video of Aristotle telling the young Alexander that gravitational attraction is a property of nature not to be tested. The stone falls to the ground and remains stuck there.  But if they had lain on a rubber sheet stretched on a frame, they would have noticed a tendency to roll towards each other.  Experiments could have measured the force involved, and its dependence on their masses, the distance, and the thickness and stretchiness of the sheet.  The body indentations would also have been apparent.  All their weight is supported by the sheet.

If the frame is now stood vertically and they stand against it, there is no indentation and no tendency to move together.  But now mount the vertical frame jusr within the wall of a cylinder (say 20m diameter) which is able to rotate freely about its vertical axis, and closed so the occupants can't see anything outside.  An air cushion horizontal bearing would be good, like those linear tracks used for mechanics experiments, and a nice firm smooth axis bearing.  The subjects standing with their backs to the rubber sheet may experience a tendency for more and more of their weight to be borne by the sheet, and there could be a point where there are indentations in the sheet, and an attractive force between each other equal to that experienced when flat on their backs.  The only difference is that now they have 2^0.5 ("root 2") times their weight, and it acts at 45 degrees in the direction down and behind them.  Two equal components of weight, one acting downwards as usual, and the other through the sheet at their backs.  Coincidence, or perhaps the same cause?  The cylinder is rotating at a rate which accelerates them at 9.8ms^-2.  (We used to have a fairground ride which did this, but stuck people to the wall - if your clothes had sufficient friction . .)

And yet if the rotation is increased from zero very gently, and those bearings are smooth, there is no way the standing subjects would know that they were rotating, except for the increasing pressure on their backs.  How to explain it - Aristotle would have been stumped.

To cause the rotation would require work, and an exchange of angular momentum with the Earth in order to conserve it.  But once rotation is up to speed, and ignoring the friction in those bearings, no further energy is required, indefinitely, even though masses are continously being accelerated.  The only other problem with this model is that in four dimensions (3s+t) it acts only in the plane of the local cyclinder wall, whereas gravity acts in the volume of local space.  Implying that the real universe has 4s+t, ie 5 major dimensions.

Question for today - does General Relativity allow the rotation model?  If it does, how?  And if not, why not?