The Theory Of SpaceFluidity
By Michael Spears
serious_spears@yahoo.com.au
email me for proper version with diagrams and working subscripts/superscripts.

The aim is to form the foundations of an entire new theory of time and space from first principles, using as few assumptions as possible, so I shall begin by stating why a new theory should be attempted.
Einstein’s theory has been confirmed by experiment many times, but it has also been unable to account for what is assumed to be dark matter and dark energy. There have been many observations that have confirmed the theory of Relativity, but there have also been many observations which seem to contradict the theory of Relativity. Most people believe in the existence of unseen mass and energy, but some have tried to tweak the theories of Einstein to account for these observations. What I am proposing is not a tweaking, but a complete overhaul, a completely new theory. I believe that it is possible to account for all of the observations that have confirmed the theory of Relativity over the past century, as well as the observations that have contradicted the theory of Relativity over the past century, if the correct theory is developed. The problem seems to be that the theory of Relativity works very well when studying local phenomena, but collapses when studying galaxies.
I believe that where Einstein went wrong is in the way that he developed his theory, Einstein developed his theory by comparing similar situations as the same. For example, Einstein compared a beam of light in an accelerating chest free from gravity to a beam of light in a non-accelerating chest under the effects of gravity, and this is how he came to the conclusion that light would bend under the effects of gravity. I will explain later why this was in fact an incorrect assumption, even though it led to one of the first experimental proofs of the theory of Relativity. Einstein had no genuine understanding of how space-time and gravity work, but his theory did work, or it appeared to. My theory is instead developed by building up a visual picture of space-time and gravity, and reaching conclusions based on that picture. I believe that if one understands how space-time and gravity actually work, then all of the physical equations should fall into place.

Part 1: The Constancy of Light

Assumptions:

1) Rather than assuming that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers in all inertial reference frames. Instead I shall assume that the speed of light in a vacuum appears constant for all observers in all inertial reference frames. Since this is what experiment has shown.
Part 1a: Conceptual Problems
There are some conceptual problems associated with a constant light speed.
Let me first treat a classic Einstein thought experiment, a light pulse on a fast moving train. [Figure 1a]

The passenger sees the light pulse travelling in a perfectly vertical direction. The observer sees the light pulse follow a diagonal path. Since the observer experiences a longer time interval than the passenger while observing the light pulse cover a greater distance than for the passenger, light speed appears constant for both passenger and observer.
Let me show you the mathematics. For simplicity of numbers, in this example I shall use a train travelling at 3/5 of the speed of light. The subscript T denotes time and distance as measured by the passenger, no subscript denotes the relatively stationary observer.

Δt/ΔtT = 1/(1-u2/c2)1/2

Δt/ΔtT = (5/4)s/sT

Speed of light for the passenger is given by,

cT = 3.0x108m/sT

A conversion of units yields,

cT = (4/5)(3.0x108)m/s

Adding vertical velocity of light to horizontal velocity of the train by Pythagoras gives,

(cT2 + u2)1/2 = (25/25)1/2(3.0x108)m/s = 3.0x108m/s

Therefore the light pulse appears to travel at 3.0x108m/s for both the passenger and the relatively stationary observer.

While this example is very commonly found in university textbooks, examples where the light pulse travels in other directions are in fact never found. The reason for this? The mathematics does not work. [Figure 1b]


For the next example, both the passenger and the relatively stationary observer see the light pulse travel in the same direction as the train, the train is again travelling at 3/5 of the speed of light. For this situation, length dilation also needs to be taken into consideration.

Δt/ΔtT = (5/4)s/sT l/lT = (4/5)m/mT

Speed of light for the passenger on the train is given by,

cT = 3.0x108mT/sT

A conversion of units yields,

cT = (4/5)(4/5)(3.0x108)m/s = (16/25)(3.0x108)m/s

Adding velocity of light to velocity of train gives,

cT + uT = (16/25)(3.0x108)m/s + (3/5)(3.0x108)m/s = (31/25)(3.0x108)m/s

Which is > 3.0x108m/s.

[Figure 1c]


For the final example, both the passenger and the relatively stationary observer see the light pulse travel in the opposite direction to the train, the train is again travelling at 3/5 of the speed of light.

cT – uT = (16/25)(3.0x108)m/s – (3/5)(3.0x108)m/s = (1/25)(3.0x108)m/s

Which is < 3.0x108m/s.

According to the theory of Special Relativity, if light is indeed constant for all observers in all inertial reference frames and independent of the motion of the source, the pulse of light must therefore be in two physical places at once. According to the passenger the pulse of light in one position at a certain moment in time, while according to the relatively stationary observer the pulse of light is in another position at that same moment in time. This is a physical impossibility.

Next let me take you through a thought experiment about measuring distances with electromagnetic radiation.

[Figure 2]


For simplicity’s sake assume that the planets involved do not move relative to each other, that they do not in fact orbit the stars they are near but sit in stationary positions relative to each other.
Adam and Bruce live in the future. Adam lives on a planet quite close to a massive star (point A), while Bruce lives on a planet further away from this star (point . Since time is slower near large bodies of mass, time moves at half the rate for Adam as it does for Bruce, i.e. when one year has passed for Adam, two years have passed for Bruce. The two men are in a direct line to a planet orbiting a neighbouring star (point C), which they both wish to measure the distance to. They decide that the best way to measure the distance to this planet is by bouncing an EMR signal off this planet and timing how long it takes to receive the returning signal.
Adam sends the signal from his home planet, it passes by Bruce a few days later, Bruce sends a message to Adam telling him that the signal has passed him by and is on its way to the planet in question.
After ten years have passed for Bruce he receives the returning signal, he decides that this planet must be a distance of five light years away. The signal continues on to Adam. Bruce sends a message to Adam asking if he has received the returning signal, what is his reply? Remember that since Adam lives so close to a massive star, only five years have passed for him. How could this planet be a distance of two and a half light years for Adam, but a distance of five light years for Bruce? Or if ten years must pass for each man, what would happen were Bruce to travel quickly to Adam’s planet to await the returning signal? How far then is a light year?
Part 1b: Time And Gravitational Red Shift:
According to Einstein’s theory of General Relativity “in every gravitational field, a clock will go more quickly or less quickly, according to the position in which the clock is situated (at rest)”. If one has two clocks, one clock situated in a stronger gravitational field, and the other in a weaker gravitational field, the clock in the stronger gravitational field goes at a rate permanently slower than the clock in the weaker gravitational field.
Furthermore, in the theory of General Relativity Einstein predicted a “displacement of spectral lines towards the red” when the light measured comes from an object with a stronger gravitational field, and he proposed testing this experimentally as a proof of Relativity. In his words “a displacement towards the red ought to take place for spectral lines produced at the surface of stars as compared with the spectral lines of the same element produced at the surface of the earth”.
According to Stephen Hawking, Einstein proposed that light loses energy as it leaves a strong gravitational field and enters a weaker gravitational field due to gravity, causing time to appear slower closer to larger bodies of mass (like the earth, for example). This theory was tested in 1962 when two very accurate clocks were placed at the top and the bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom was found to run slightly slower than the clock at the top, confirming Einstein’s prediction.
I propose that although Einstein was correct in his prediction, there is an explanation for this experimental result which contradicts one of the theory of Relavity’s two postulates “The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference and is independent of the motion of the source.” I wish to propose that although the speed of light in a vacuum appears constant, this may not necessarily be the case.
Let us exaggerate the effects of this gravitational red shift and draw a diagram of these two (confirmed) proposals from the theory of General Relativity. [Figure 3]


I would like to propose an alternative explanation for these two results from the theory of Relativity, an explanation that becomes apparent from visualising the situation.
What if, instead of moving at a constant velocity, light accelerates as it leaves a stronger gravitational field and enters a weaker gravitational field, proportional with an increase in the rate at which time advances?
Let us first develop a new definition of time, or rather, let me introduce a concept with a definition, “the speed of time”. Let us measure the “speed of time” in the S.I. units seconds/earth seconds, or s/sE, where we could take an “earth second” to be a second as measured from a particular point on the globe, for example we could make an “earth second” to be a second as measured at sea level on the equator. So if the “speed of time” is greater in a particular place, then time is moving faster at that location.
The “speed of time” could now be defined as representative of the ease with which mass and energy moves through space. If the “speed of time” is greater, i.e. if time is faster, then mass and energy move more easily through space. If time is faster, there is less resistance to the motion of mass and energy through space. Consider this, if time is faster, chemical reactions happen faster, flora and fauna age faster, our brains work faster, is it not possible that light also moves faster?
[Note: Why there is less resistance to the motion of mass and energy through space in weaker gravitational fields is covered in Part 2.]
According to the above definition of time, any increase in the speed of light in a vacuum would be unnoticable because the timing mechanism we are using to measure the speed of light in a vacuum would also move faster. If the speed of time was greater in a particular place, then a second would become shorter, and therefore light would have to travel faster in that shorter second to cover the same distance that it would in a longer second (where the speed of time is less). Thus by this definition of time, the speed of light in a vacuum can appear to remain constant when in fact the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant. However, there is one way that an observer could notice a change in the speed of light, and that is by the red/blue shift that accompanies this change in the speed of light. By my definition of time, if time is faster, then everything moves faster, including our clocks, and including light.
First let us introduce a new definition, “the speed of light as measured from the perspective of someone on earth”, and give it the value cE measured in the S.I. units of metres/earth second or m/sE. Let us now consider the situation where light is leaving the surface of the earth, and consider also the proposal that cE increases gradually as light leaves a stronger gravitational field and enters a weaker gravitational field and think about what might happen if light does indeed accelerate as it leaves the surface of the earth. If cE was to gradually increase as light leaves the surface of the earth, one would definitely expect the wavelength to increase proportionally to this increase in the speed of light, due to the first law of thermodynamics. Since the energy of light is given by the relation EE = hυE and cE = υE, (where energy, frequency and the speed of light are measured relative to the S.I. units of “earth seconds”) if cE increases, then for the energy of light to remain constant υE must remain constant, this would be achieved by an increase in wavelength. This increase in wavelength would indeed create the false impression that the energy of light decreases as it leaves a stronger gravitational field and enters a weaker gravitational field, however I am proposing that this is simply an illusion due to the increase in the “speed of time”, that is, if one takes the perspective of a stationary observer in the stronger gravitational field. If one were to follow the beam of light one would notice the energy decreasing, but if one remains in the same inertial reference frame then one would observe that the velocity of light increases, the wavelength of light increases proportionally and the frequency (and therefore the energy) of light remains constant. The first law of thermodynamics is always obeyed.
If a second (for example) becomes shorter, but the velocity of an object being observed increases proportionally, then the velocity of the object can appear to remain constant because the distance it travels in this shorter second will be less than the distance travelled in a longer second. So if light were to accelerate proportional to an increase in the “speed of time”, this change in velocity would be unnoticable, since what one refers to as a second (for example) has become shorter, and less distance can be travelled by light in a shorter period of time. Therefore, the only way that this increase in the velocity of light would be observable would be due to the resultant red shift, which would be caused by the energy of light remaining constant as its velocity increases. (Of course, this is from the perspective of an observer in a constant inertial reference frame.)
This hypothesis for these two experimental results can be easily justified. Although it seems unusual that light may accelerate as it leaves a stronger gravitational field rather than decelerate, in fact this proposal could be expected from the first law of thermodynamics and from the equation for the momentum of light. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be converted to other forms of energy. Therefore, one would expect that a beam of light leaving a strong gravitational field would not lose energy due to gravity, since the “lost” energy of the light would have to be converted to another form of energy, and the energy of light is given simply as E = hυ, there is no gravitational potential energy of light, the energy of light is based solely on its frequency. There is another characteristic of light, however, that should be taken into account, an equation that Einstein developed, E = pc. Rather than the traditional equations, let us consider these equations from the perspective of someone on earth, so we will use EE = hυE and EE = pEcE. From the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth, if the energy of light remains constant as light leaves the surface of the earth, but the velocity increases, then the momentum of light must decrease due to gravity since the momentum of light is inversely proportional to velocity. So although the acceleration of light as it leaves a stronger gravitational field and enters a weaker gravitational field seems unusual at first, it makes a lot of physical sense. The velocity of light increasing while the energy remains constant means that the momentum of light decreases due to gravity.
The idea that although light does not experience acceleration due to gravity, but rather travels at different velocities dependent on the strength of the gravitational field may seem unusual since it is known that the path of light can be bent by gravity. This is justified by the proposal that the momentum of light changes due to gravity, as explained above. So although light does not accelerate due to the effects of gravitational accleration, the path of light could theoretically be bent by a change in the momentum of light due to gravity.
Einstein predicted that light would be bent due to gravitational acceleration because of what was in fact an incorrect assumption. Einstein came to the conclusion that light was affected by gravity when he compared a beam of light in a chest in two different situations. Einstein compared being in a chest free from gravity but accelerating, to being in a chest not accelerating but under the effects of a gravitational field. Let us take a closer look at these two situations which Einstein had assumed to be identical. [Figure 4]

In Figure 4a we can see that in a gravitational field the path of a beam of light is bent, however Figure 4b shows that the path of a beam of light is not in fact bent but it is the opposite wall of the chest which moves. In the situation in Figure 4a if somehow the gravitational field ceased to exist the individual photons of light would continue to move in their altered direction, however in Figure 4b if the chest ceased to accelerate the individual photons would continue to move in their original direction. Furthermore, for an observer inside the two chests both of the beams of light would appear to move differently, the beam of light in the chest in Figure 4a would take very slightly longer to reach the opposite wall of the chest, as the beam of light in Figure 4b would give the illusion that the speed of light is broken by the photons when in fact it is the chest that is moving, the beam of light in Figure 4b moves from one side of the chest to the other at the speed of light but an extra vertical component is added to the apparent velocity.
Einstein’s comparison between acceleration and gravitation in the theory of General Relativity as one and the same is in fact a false assumption. He wrote of this comparison “We have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity to include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect to each other, and as a result we have gained a powerful argument for a generalised postulate of relativity.” This “powerful argument” fails when the assumption was incorrect, although acceleration free from gravity is similar to gravity free from acceleration, they are not the same. I propose that light does not in fact experience acceleration due to gravity, but a change in momentum due to gravity.
Let us now think about why things appear to be moving slower in areas of stronger gravitational fields, when time is slower. Imagine a person in a location where time is faster looking at a person in a location where time is slower. For simplicity’s sake let us consider a case where time is moving at twice the rate for one person as it is for the other. [Figure 5]

Since photons cannot come out of nowhere, the same number of photons that are generated in one second for Person 1 would approach Person 2 in two seconds. Therefore photon frequency decreases as light travels from a stronger gravitational field to a weaker gravitational field. This effect causes motion to “appear” to be slower in areas of stronger gravity, but this is because motion is slower, this is not why motion is slower.
Part 1c: Time and Objects of Mass
So, now I have given a definition of the “speed of time” to be representative of the ease with which mass and energy moves through space. Einstein proposed that time is a function of gravitational field strength (where gravitational fields are weaker, time is faster). I have proposed that light accelerates as it leaves an area where time is slower and enters an area where time is faster. Now my given definition for “the speed of time” implies that objects of mass would also accelerate as they enter regions of space where time is faster. Is there any evidence for such a proposal?
If we take a varying light speed in different gravitational fields into account when considering Einstein’s mass/energy equivalency equation, EE=mEcE2, then for the energy of an object of mass to remain constant, by the first law of thermodynamics, when cE2 increases, mE must decrease. Now considering kinetic energy, if Kinetic Energy = ½ mEvE2 and mE decreases, then vE2 must increase proportionally. After all, what is mass but a measure of the energy required to move an object through space? So not only would light travel at a faster velocity in a weaker gravitational field (from the perspective of an observer on Earth) but objects of mass would also travel faster, since their mass would decrease (from the perspective of an observer on Earth) while their kinetic energy remained constant.
When the rotational velocities of galaxies was first studied it was discovered that stars on the outskirts of galaxies are moving too rapidly to be held together by gravity. Astrophysicists have therefore assumed that most of the mass in the universe must be unknown. If there was extra undetected mass towards the outskirts of galaxies then there would be enough mass for galaxies to be held together by gravity, this assumed unknown matter in the universe is now commonly referred to as “dark matter”. However if we consider that time is faster in weaker gravitational fields, and if we propose that objects of mass move faster in weaker gravitational fields, could it be possible that this change in the “speed of time” on the outskirts of galaxies might account for the rotational velocities of galaxies without the need for the theoretical “dark matter”? This is a possibility which must be investigated, and would be the ultimate proof of the hypothesis I am proposing in this paper, since it is the logical conclusion of the simple equations I’ve put forward.
The simplest method of testing this hypothesis is to use Einstein’s equation for changes in frequency due to gravitational field strength, since by experiment it has shown itself to be accurate, and then compare with changes in time in a galaxy. Einstein used the equation (υ0-υ)/υ0=GM/c2r to describe changes in frequency as a function of mass and distance from centre of mass. However if, for example, one were to bounce an emr signal off a satellite orbiting the Earth, then that emr signal would accelerate as it leaves the Earth and the speed of time increases, and that satellite would actually be further away from the Earth than it appears, so the value being used for r needs to be adjusted slightly. Then when one applies the adjusted equation to the gravity in a galaxy one can determine how much the speed of time changes throughout the galaxy, from the centre to the outskirts. As time changes, gravitational acceleration towards the centre of the galaxy changes with the change in time squared, and adjusted values for gravitational acceleration towards the centre of the galaxy can be determined. These should show a correlation to an adjustment of the equation mentioned previously, (υ0-υ)/υ0=GM/c2r.
A point of utmost importance is that if objects of mass move faster in weaker gravitational fields, then this could explain how a variable speed of light has gone unnoticed when studying the local phenomena such as the solar system. If Neptune, for example, is actually further away from us than it appears (since light accelerates as it travels towards the outskirts of the solar system due to entering a weaker gravitational field) then why have we not noticed that our present theory of gravity doesn’t quite work for the solar system? If time was faster on the outskirts of the solar system, then although light may accelerate as it travels towards Neptune and thus Neptune would be further away from Earth than it appears, Neptune would also be moving faster than it appears, proportional to the increase in the “speed of time”. Gravitational acceleration towards the Sun would increase proportional to a decrease in mass (conservation of gravitational potential energy). So although Neptune may be further away from Earth than presently believed, the velocity of Neptune’s orbit would also be greater, so the size of the solar system could simply be a very clever optical illusion. The theories of Newton and Einstein would appear to work, but it is our measurements of the solar system that would be incorrect. However, this cannot be tested, but only inferred as a direct result of my hypothesis, a hypothesis whose ultimate proof would come in the form of the explanation of galactic rotation curves.
The other logical conclusion of this hypothesis is that as the universe expands gravitational field strength within the universe would decrease. This decrease in gravitational field strength within the universe would cause the speed of time to increase with the expansion of the universe. So as the universe expands, the velocity of mass and energy in the universe would also increase. An increase in velocity of the expanding universe has indeed been observed, and this increase in velocity has been put down to an unknown expanding force called “dark energy”. However the increasing rate of the expansion of the universe could easily be explained by an increase in the speed of time corresponding to the decrease in gravitational field strength as the universe becomes less dense over time. Surprisingly this would not mean that the universe would expand forever. As time became faster and faster as the density of the universe became lower and lower, gravitational acceleration and velocity2 would increase proportionally to each other. Gravitational acceleration would therefore increase at a much greater rate than velocity at a very low density of the universe, finally bringing the universe to an end with a “big crunch”.
Before I finish this section, I should also mention that if this theory is correct, there exists the possibility that atomic sizes vary according to the gravitational fields in which they exist. Just as the outer planets are further away from the Sun and moving faster due to the weaker gravitational field strength, it is also possible that electrons are further away from the nucleus and moving faster in weaker gravitational fields, perhaps even the nucleons themselves are less dense. Recent research by Rudolph Pohl and associates of the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics has shown that when an electron orbiting a single proton is replaced by a muon, the muon orbits the proton 4% closer than predicted. A muon is 200x heavier than an electron, as such it should orbit a proton much closer than an electron. The research team are unsure what their results really mean, except to say that perhaps the muon method measures the proton size more accurately. However, if we imagine the solar system according to my theory, where Mercury orbits closer to the Sun than predicted due to its close proximity, then this is the best evidence yet that the gravitational field around a nucleus behave the same way as I predict the gravitational field behaves around the Sun.
If indeed atoms are affected by gravitational fields the same way as stars and planets, then atomic size should therefore vary with gravitational field strength. If atomic sizes very, then large solid object sizes will vary too. In a weaker gravitational field objects will be larger than in a stronger gravitational field. Imagine we look at Neptune through a telescope, we predict Neptune to be a certain distance away, but in fact it is further away. Since the size of Neptune would increase while the gravitational field strength decreases and while velocity and time increase also, if we measured the size of Neptune using a telescope our measurements would be exactly the same as if we were actually on Neptune itself. Such is the perfection of the optical illusion that is the true proportions of the solar system.
Part 2: Visualising Space
Through the course of this paper, rather than referring to “space-time”, I shall instead refer simply to “space”, since according to my theory, space and time although related are not one and the same.
Assumptions:
2) I shall assume that gravity is an effect of the curvature of space, and that space is somehow repulsed by mass, building up a visual picture of the curvature of space and its effects from there.
Part 2a: The Curvature Of Space
Imagine the effect of an object of mass on a plane of space in one dimension, space being repulsed by this object of mass and warping as a result. [Figure 6a]

Of course there wouldn’t be just one plane of space in all of space, so let us extend this idea. [Figure 6b]


Now, space is not one dimensional, but three dimensional, so let us imagine space warping around mass in every direction at once. [Figure 6c]

Therefore the net effect of space warping around mass in every direction at once would be something like this. [Figure 6d]

So the net effect of space warping around mass in every direction at once would create something of a “density of space”. The “density of space” could be defined as the number of planes of space passing through a two-dimensional cross-sectional area, one could alternatively call this concept “gravitational flux”, with S.I. units of planes/m2. Recall Part 1, where I gave a definition for “the speed of time” as being representative of the ease of motion through space. I covered the idea that time is slower in stronger gravitational fields and faster in weaker gravitational fields, when time is faster everything moves more easily through space, and when time is slower everything has more difficulty moving through space. Now let us think for a moment about sound waves, sound waves move faster when the medium through which they are travelling is more dense, and slower when the medium through which they are travelling is less dense. What if space were to behave similarly? When space is more “dense”, is it not possible that there would be less resistance to motion? Einstein dismissed the idea of an æther permeating space, but space is not vacant, space-time is warped to create the effects of gravity. Rather than travelling through an æther, what if mass and energy travelled through planes of space (or space-time if you prefer)? This is an idea which should not be so easily dismissed. The idea is simple, space warps around mass in every direction at once creating the effect of differing densities of space, and the denser the medium the faster the motion. Once could take the density of space (or the gravitational flux) on Earth (perhaps at sea-level on the equator) to be equal to 1plane/m2, the density of space closer to the Sun to be less than 1plane/m2, and the density of space on the outskirts of the solar system to be greater than 1plane/m2.
I shall now expand on this idea of an infinite number of planes of space warping around mass.
Part 2b: Space And Mass
Firstly I should cover the idea of what would happen as an object of mass moves through space. Let us visualise the situation. Although the planes themselves would not move, the curvature of space would be pushed forwards as the object of mass moved through the space, and space would be pushing the object of mass from behind. Every action force has an equal and opposite reaction force. [Figure 7]

Therefore, when an object of mass is in motion, space would also effectively move with that object of mass. Energy is required in order to set an object of mass in motion, but once that object of mass is in motion it continues to move through space, the law of inertia. In order to set an object of mass in motion, one would have to have enough energy to push the space in front out of the way, and once in motion the space pushing from behind the object of mass continues to keep it in motion. When an object of mass is at rest, the space on either side of that object of mass must be in balance. If space offered no resistance to the forward motion of mass, then mass would always move at its maximum velocity, having to set space in motion would require a specific amount of energy in order to move through space.
In Part 1 I said “what is mass but a measure of the energy required to move an object through space?” Let us think about the question, “what is mass?” Let us visualise the space around a light body of mass compared to a heavy body of mass. [Figure 8]

So, “what is mass?” From our visualisation of the effect on space of a light body of mass compared to a heavy body of mass, one could conclude that mass is determined by the effect an object has on the space surrounding it, that heavier masses have a greater effect on the curvature of space than lighter masses. So one could decide that mass is a measure of the effect an object has on the curvature of space. What is it about mass that creates this effect that causes space to warp? One could consider the possibility that mass was not entirely separate to energy, that mass was the effect of a type of energy field, the field of a type of energy that warps space. The greater this “mass energy” field, the greater the mass. In nuclear reactions, “mass energy” could be converted to other forms of energy, such as electromagnetic radiation.
If mass is a measure of the energy required to move an object through space, the greater the mass, the greater the energy required to move that object through space, then objects with greater “mass energy” fields surrounding them would require more energy to set planes of space in motion. Why could this be? Possibly because when a heavier object of mass pushes on space, more planes of space are affected, since the warping may push harder on each plane of space, and that plane of space may then have to push harder on the plane of space in front of it. Why could a denser space mean that objects of mass move more easily through space? Possibly because if these planes of space were closer together, the transfer of energy from one plane to the next would be easier. Why is light speed a limit? Perhaps motion through space is limited by how quickly one plane of space can push on the next, perhaps these planes of space can push on each other no faster than 3x108m/s. Why would light speed vary? Perhaps this limiting speed could be determined by how close together these planes of space are, the closer together they are, the more easily they push each other out of the way, and the greater this upper limit of light speed is. Why is mass is not conserved when moving through different densities of space? If mass is merely a measure of the energy required to move an object through space, and an object of mass moves into a region of space where motion through space requires less energy, then naturally the mass would be less. Perhaps mass may not be conserved, but if these ideas are correct, then the “mass energy”, that is, the strength of the space-warping energy field surrounding an object of mass would be. Energy is always conserved, mass is not. Mass energy is always conserved, mass is not. Of course this is all just speculation, but some very interesting questions to ponder about the motion of objects of mass through space.
How exactly does gravitational acceleration work? Let us again consider Figure 7 and think about what would happen if there was more space on one side of an object of mass than the other. Every action force has an equal and opposite reaction force, so while mass pushes on space, space also pushes on mass. Perhaps the effect of unbalanced space on either side of an object of mass would cause that object of mass to be pushed by the denser region of space into the less dense region of space. These ideas are all very interesting, gravity has long been considered to be a weak force, and it is amazing how little gravitational acceleration is created by so much mass, and how much energy can be created by so little mass. If we consider the forces that I am proposing are at work in creating gravity, then this is hardly surprising. Consider the amount of energy that would be required in order to warp space, and then consider that gravitational acceleration is caused only by subtle differences in the amount of space on either side of an object of mass. Surely it would be hardly surprising the amount of energy, and the amount of mass required to create the effect of gravitational acceleration.
One more thing about mass to be considered before we move on from the subject. Why is it that time slows for an object of mass (for example a spacecraft) when moving at high velocity? We already know that time is slower in stronger gravitational fields, and we know that mass increases with velocity. So why shouldn’t the two phenomena be related? What if travelling at high velocity required more energy to push space forward when travelling through it, so when travelling at high velocity the “mass energy” surrounding that object (like a spacecraft) must increase. What should be an increase in velocity by more energy being added to motion instead could result in an increase in this mass energy, an increase in the force pushing space out of the way to accelerate. The increase in this mass energy would subsequently create a stronger gravitational field surrounding this object of mass, and therefore less dense space surrounding that object of mass, and therefore time would slow when travelling at high velocity. This is a possible explanation for a change in time with velocity.
We have considered the effects of the curvature of space on objects of mass for long enough, now let us consider the effects of the curvature of space on electromagnetic radiation.
Part 2c: Space And EMR
Let us begin by again considering Figure 6, the motion of space with objects of mass in motion, and think about what this would mean for light waves approaching or leaving an object of mass in motion. If the medium that light travels through is space, and the space that light is travelling through is in motion, then surely light would change its velocity depending on the velocity of the space that it is travelling through. This should explain how red/blue shifts would work, the idea is simple, that light waves are either “stretched” or “squashed” due to the motion of space. [Figure 9a, Figure 9b]


Red/Blue shifts are one situation where the first law of thermodynamics is not obeyed, but if this idea is correct red/blue shifts do actually obey the first law of thermodynamics. Although the wavelength of light changes when red/blue shifts occur, the velocity would also change. If cE=λυE, and cE changed due to the motion of space the light waves are moving through, then λ would change proportionally, leaving υE constant. However, just as frequency changes when time changes as explained in Part 1, frequency would appear to change, but this would not be the opinion of an outside observer, only the opinion of the person receiving the light signal. Thus, due to the change in the velocity of the light waves, frequency would actually remain constant, and therefore the energy of light is unchanged during red/blue shifts. The constancy of light is also obeyed, or rather, my first assumption is obeyed, that the speed of light appears constant at all times.
An important question which may arise is, if this idea about moving space is correct, wouldn’t objects of mass then experience being pushed away when moving space is approaching? Yes they would, but this effect would of course be countered by the effect of gravitational attraction.
Why is 3x108m/s the velocity of light? In Part 2b I mention the idea that light speed may be the limit on transfer of energy between planes of space, with light speed being determined by how closely together these planes are. So perhaps the motion of light through space involves a transfer of energy from one plane of space to the next. Pure speculation of course, but something else to consider.
But more now on the motion of light through space. Imagine a train travelling towards a light source at a velocity close to the speed of light. Let us give this train a velocity of 3/5 of the speed of light as before. [Figure 10]

Time would slow for the people on the train and the length of the train would decrease. Assuming the Lorentz transforms are correct, where the subscript T denotes the train,
Δt/ΔtT = (5/4)s/sT l/lT = (4/5)m/mT
So according to the people on the train, they would feel like they were moving at a velocity given by,
u/uT = (4/5)(4/5)msT/smT
Therefore uT = (3/5)c(25/16)(m/s)(mTs/sTm) = (15/16)c(mT/sT)
So according to the people on the train, due to the change in time and length of the train, it would feel to them as if they were travelling at a velocity of (15/16)c, rather than (3/5)c. Then, if the people on the train could somehow see the light source approaching it would appear as if the light source was approaching them at a velocity of (15/16)c + c = (31/16)c. (Of course they could not actually see a light approaching them.) However, once the light source enters the moving space, and the gravitational field surrounding the train, the light would slow and approach the train at light speed, no more, no less. As the light reaches the train, the light would travel at the velocity 3x108m/s relative to the velocity of the moving space and relative to the density of space that it is moving through. The first assumption of my theory is obeyed, that the speed of light appears constant. However, the speed of light is not truly constant.
Perhaps now it would be a good time to revisit the “Conceptual Problems” with the theory of Relativity that I mentioned in Part 1a.
Again I will assume that the Lorentz transforms are correct. [Figure 11a, Figure 11b]


In both scenarios the train is travelling at a velocity of 3/5 of the speed of light. In scenario (a) I showed that a light pulse shining forward would appear to be travelling at a velocity of 31/25 of the speed of light for the outside observer, and in scenario ( I showed that a light pulse shining backwards would appear to be travelling at a velocity of 1/25 of the speed of light for the outside observer.
According to my theory, since light moves through moving space, there is no reason why it cannot travel faster or slower than 3x108m/s from the perspective of an outside observer. According to my theory, space is not nothing, but space consists of an infinite number of planes of what Einstein would call “space-time”, through which all matter and energy must travel. The important thing is that, yes, light can travel faster or slower depending on the velocity of the space through which it is travelling, but the outside observer could never know this. The outside observer could not actually see this light inside the train, unless the light was transmitted out of the window of the train and into his eyes. By the time light travelled out of the train to be seen by the outside observer, the light would then be travelling at the speed of light in the gravitational field, or the space, surrounding that observer. My first assumption is still obeyed, that the speed of light appears constant.
It may be important to point out, that according to this theory, due to the motion of space with objects of mass in motion, light can have sideways momentum when travelling within an object of mass in motion, but not when leaving an object of mass in motion. According to this theory, light travels at a velocity partially determined by the space through which it is moving.
I should also talk about the other “Conceptual Problem” mentioned in Part 1a. [Figure 12]

The experiment regarding two men on different planets with different measures of time is quite simple to explain by my theory. For Adam (at A) time moves at half the speed as it does for Bruce (at . An EMR signal leaves Adam and when it passes by Bruce it has accelerated to twice the velocity and the wavelength of this EMR signal also doubles. It passes by Bruce, continues to accelerate on towards the planet at C, slowing down again as it enters the gravitational field in which planet C is located. Then the EMR signal is reflected and returns likewise. So if roughly 10 years have passed for Bruce, and 5 years have passed for Adam by the time the signal returns, then it becomes clear that an EMR signal is not a good way to measure the distance to a nearby planet, since the speed of light is not constant, but only appears to be constant.
Part 2d: Black Holes
Before finishing this paper, I would like to talk briefly about what my theory says about black holes.
The first thing I would like to talk about is the very existence of singularities. According to my theory, as gravitational field strength increases, and therefore the density of space decreases, time becomes slower. According to my theory, the speed of time represents the ease of motion through space, when time is slower, everything moves less easily through space. So what would happen to a star as it collapses to form a black hole? As the star collapses, and as the centre becomes more and more dense, time would slow more and more. Although theoretically a singularity could become infinitely dense, due to the slowing of the speed of time it would take forever for an infinitely dense and infinitely small singularity to be formed. I would propose that if this theory is correct, rather than calling the centre of a black hole a “singularity”, it should instead be called a “black star”.
The other thing I would briefly like to talk about with regards to black holes is x-rays that have been seen coming from black holes, such as Cygnus X-1, when matter is being pulled into these black holes. There exists the possibility that these x-rays actually began as gamma-rays, the gamma-rays being created by the release of the binding energy of atomic nuclei as they are being destroyed entering a black hole. According to my theory, light does not accelerate or decelerate due to gravity, but the momentum of light can be changed, light cannot be stopped by gravity, but its path can be bent by gravity. Therefore if a gamma-ray was created somewhere within the so called “event horizon” of a black hole, and that gamma-ray was travelling directly away from the centre of mass of the black star at the centre, there is no reason that a gamma-ray could not escape, but by the time that gamma-ray did escape its wavelength would have increased due to a loss of momentum. If a gamma-ray left at the wrong angle however, its path would be bent, causing it to enter the black star at the centre.
Let us take the example of a black star with a mass of around ten solar masses and perform some rough calculations.
The Schwarzschild radius would be given by,
RS = 2GM/c2 = 2(6.67x10-11Nm2/kg)(20x1030kg)/(3x108m/s)2
= 29.6km
If a gamma-ray created from the breakdown of an atomic nucleus had a frequency 100x greater than the x-ray being detected, and Einstein’s equation for change in frequency due to mass is correct, then the location where this gamma-ray was created would be given by,
(υ0-υ)/υ0 = GM/c2r
100 = (6.67x10-11Nm2/kg)(20x1030kg)/((3x108)2®)
r = 148m
This location is well within the Schwarzschild radius. A very interesting idea, and one which should be investigated further as a proof of the idea that light does not decelerate due to gravity, but can only have its momentum changed by gravity.
The final question I will ask regarding black holes is, why would x-rays leave a black hole only in jets concentrated at the poles? The answer to this is simple. Consider a neutron star, apart from a black hole a neutron star is the most dense stellar object. Neutron stars spin very rapidly, so I’m sure it would be no great leap of faith to assume that a black star at the centre of a black hole would also spin very rapidly, even much more rapidly. Since mass, or gravitational field strength increases with velocity, one would expect the gravitational field strength around the equator of a black star to be greater than the gravitational field strength at the poles. Therefore a photon would find it much easier to escape a black star at the poles rather than at the equator, a much larger percentage of photons emitted at the equator would have their paths bent and enter the black star. X-rays would no doubt be concentrated at the poles since it is easier to escape, as observation has shown. [Figure 13]

Part 3: The Universe
Assumptions:
3) Space is infinite.
In the theory of General Relativity, Einstein confronts the gravitational problems associated with an infinite universe, and presents a solution. In his words [Reference 1, Section 30]
“If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same.
…
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space.
This conception in itself is not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished.”
Einstein then proceeds to describe ‘The Possibility of a “Finite” and yet “Unbounded” Universe’ [Reference 1, Section 31], essentially a four-dimensional spherical universe, as a solution to the gravitational problems associated with an infinite universe.
“It follows from what has been said, that closed spaces without limits are conceivable. From amongst these, the spherical space (and the elliptical) excels in its simplicity, since all points on it are equivalent. As a result of this discussion, a most interesting question arises for astronomers and physicists, and that is whether the universe in which we live is infinite, or whether it is finite in the manner of the spherical universe. Our experience is far from being sufficient to enable us to answer this question. But the general theory of relativity permits of our answering it with a moderate degree of certainty, and in this connection the difficulty mentioned in Section 30 finds its solution.”
Forgive me for quoting Einstein so much, but I wish to make a point. Einstein argues the case well for an infinite universe, but he understands that matter could not exist in an infinite universe with an average density due to the problem of gravity tearing that matter apart, if indeed that matter were somehow to be formed in this universe of gravitational chaos. Einstein then poses a solution to the gravitation problem while still keeping the idea of a universe without boundaries. Einstein suggests that the universe is in fact a four-dimensional sphere, such that were we to travel in one direction long enough, we would eventually return to where we had started. Einstein invented the concept of the finite but unbounded universe, not based on scientific evidence, but based on the assumption that it was the only solution to the gravitation problem associated with an infinite universe.
There is another solution, I call it “the super-universe”. Let me explain.
Part 3a: The Big Bang
In Part 2d I talk briefly about the concept of black holes, and explain that according to my theory an infinitely small singularity could never form, since as time slows with increasing gravitational field strength, it would literally take forever for an infinitely small singularity to form, and rather than “singularities”, I talk about “back stars”. I also explain that according to my theory, since light does not decelerate due to gravity, but can have its path bent by a change in momentum due to gravity, photons could theoretically escape a black hole. I also propose the idea that observed x-rays leaving black holes may in fact begin as gamma-rays, created within the Schwarzschild radius from the release of atomic binding energy as the nuclei of atoms are broken down as the atoms approach the black star at the centre of a black hole.
Now let us consider what would happen if a black hole had strong enough gravity to prevent any photons leaving it. Is it not possible that the internal energy of a large black star would continue to increase as more and more atoms are destroyed, and more and more mass is converted to other forms of energy? What happens when heat is added to solid or liquid matter? Once the molecules involved have enough energy to overcome the forces of attraction, the matter boils, and the molecules separate. Could the same thing not have happened with the big bang? The early universe, in the time immediately following the big bang, is believed to have had a temperature somewhere in excess of 1030K. Could this temperature be an approximate “boiling point” of a universe sized black star? The extremely hot early universe is good evidence for this hypothesis.
If this is the case, and my theory of time and gravity is correct, then the universe would have initially expanded at a slower rate due to the massive gravitational field strength surrounding it, and as time became faster, the universe would have accelerated its expansion as the speed of time increased. Just as proposed in the inflationary early universe model.
In Part 1c I mention that according to my theory since mass decreases as the universe expands and the gravitational field strength within the universe decreases, and since when mass decreases gravitational acceleration and velocity2 increase proportionally, that our universe will inevitably collapse in a “big crunch”. Gravitational acceleration towards the centre of the universe increases at a much greater rate than the velocity of the expansion of the universe.
The logical conclusion of my theory is that once the “big crunch” occurs, it shall again of course form a universe sized black star. This universe sized black star would destroy atoms as they approach, the destruction of atoms would result in the conversion of mass to energy, the internal energy of the black star would increase until “boiling point” is reached, and the cycle begins again. The energy in the universe is constant, the first law of thermodynamics is always obeyed.
The next question becomes, if space is infinite and three-dimensional, what could possibly lie outside our universe?
Part 3b: The Super-Universe
If space is infinite, but the universe is finite, then surely there must be more of these “big bang universes” outside of our own. I imagine somehow looking at a scaled down map of infinite space, on this map of infinite space, our universe wouldn’t even appear. On a map of infinite space, our universe would be an infinitely small blip in vast field of nothingness. Einstein addressed the problem of gravitation in an infinite universe, his solution was a four-dimensional sphere, but there is a simpler solution.
Perhaps we should start this another way, perhaps we should start with the idea, and then design our proofs and evidences and arguments around that idea.
Imagine that our universe is not all there is, imagine if our universe were nothing more than the equivalent of a star in a bigger universe, let’s call it “super-universe I”. This super-universe I is in fact an unfathomably massive universe containing not galaxies and stars and planets, but containing entire systems of big bang universes, and universe sized black stars. Now imagine that this super-universe I also undergoes a cycle similar to what I’ve proposed for our universe, that this super-universe I has a cycle of expansion, stellar formation (in this case universe formation), and inevitably a big crunch, then the generation of energy causes it again to reach boiling point, and the cycle begins anew.
Think again about our scaled down map of infinite space, as massive as this super-universe I is, it would be an infinitely small blip in a vast field of nothingness. As unfathomably massive as this super-universe I may be, it still would not even be visible on a map of infinite space. So let us expand this idea even further. Imagine that this super-universe I was nothing more than the equivalent of a star in an even more massive universe, let’s call it “super-universe II”. This super-universe II contains within it, not merely planets, stars, galaxies, or universes, but super-universe I’s. Imagine that this universe also undergoes a cycle similar to what I’ve proposed for our universe, that this super-universe II has a cycle of expansion, stellar formation (or super-universe I formation), and inevitably a big crunch, then the generation of energy causes it to again reach boiling point, and the cycle begins anew.
I needn’t think I should have to continue this explanation further. Imagine the infinite universe to be essentially a cyclical, regenerative, breathing entity, with no beginning and no end, an infinite series of universes within universes. Imagine that the infinite universe has always existed, and will continue to exist forever in some form or another. The energy in the infinite universe is constant, the first law of thermodynamics is always obeyed.
Now if you read back over the Einstein quotes at the beginning of Part 3, you will see that in order to prevent gravitational chaos in an infinite universe, the density of matter in the universe would be required to decrease as you travel further and further away from the centre of the universe. The model for the super-universe is the one feasible model which could possibly fit this criteria. Our big bang universe may have an average density of matter, but once the outer limits of our big bang universe are reached there is a massive drop in this density of matter. Sure, the collection of other universes within super-universe I would have an average density, but once the outer limits of our super-universe I are reached, there is another massive drop in this density of matter. So on, and so on. Since the density of matter drops massively each time the edges of a super-universe are reached, the gravitational effects within the universe are limited. I believe that this arrangement of the infinite universe is the only possible way that the universe could be both three-dimensional and infinite. There is no need to live in a finite but unbounded universe, a four-dimensional spherical universe, because there is an infinite universe, a three-dimensional, infinite, and unbounded model of the universe that works. Now our map of infinite space has finally been filled, and it all obeys the first law of thermodynamics.
There is further evidence, besides being the only feasible model for an infinite universe that works. Rather than thinking of the universe as cyclical and regenerative, let us now consider the infinite universe from the perspective of the second law of thermodynamics.
From the perspective of the second law of thermodynamics, since the disorder of the universe must always increase, if this theory is correct, in the beginning was an infinitely large explosion, which spawned an infinite series of explosions, and an infinite series of universes within universes. If our big bang universe was in the collapsing phase, it would seem to defy the second law of thermodynamics, but our big bang universe is not a closed system, if our big bang universe is in the collapsing phase, perhaps the super-universe I of which we are a part is in the expanding phase. If our super-universe I is in the collapsing phase, perhaps the super-universe II is in the expanding phase. Everything is a part of something bigger, and there is always something bigger in the expanding phase. Call it a loophole if you will, but this is the only way that the collapse of our universe could still obey the second law of thermodynamics.
A popular philosophical question in physics is, why is it that gravity is at just the right strength to create stars, to create planets, and to form life? Imagine again this theoretical infinite series of explosions, at what point would massive black stars stop being formed, and instead regular stars and solar systems? This infinite series of explosions would stop when gravity is at the right strength to form stars and planets rather than simply black stars. This is the very simple reason, if gravity was not at the right strength, there would have been a longer series of explosions, a longer series of universes within universes.
I believe that the theory of super-universe is the only possible explanation for the existence of the universe, the big bang mechanism I described is the natural conclusion to my theory of time and gravity, this arrangement of the infinite universe is the only arrangement in which the density of matter decreases as you move further away from the centre of our big bang universe, the collapsing universe still obeys the second law of thermodynamics, it explains how gravity came to be at the right strength for life to flourish, and it is the only theory of the origin of the universe which obeys the first law of thermodynamics. Our universe has always existed, and will continue to exist forever, in some form or another.
References:
1) ‘Relativity: The Special and General Theory’, by Albert Einstein, translated by Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation), Meuthen & Co Ltd, 1916, revised 1924, World Publications Group Inc, 2007.
2) ‘The Illustrated A Brief History Of Time: Updated And Expanded Edition’, by Stephen Hawking, Bantam Books, 1996, page 43

Bonehead. You switch from a real scientific measurement to what you think it 'appears' to be in the first paragraph. Dummy.

Lost interest after the 1st 27 bazillion words

..... = (25/25)1/2(3.0x108)m/s = 3.0x108m/s. Dummy.

"Time" is actually a 'subjective' entity in my opinion.
I would have reminded this fact to Prof. Einstein, if I were present at that time!
'Space' is an objective entity; whereas 'time' is a 'subjective' entity; we subjectively perceive 'time'. But the 'rate' at which my time flows may be different from the rate at which your time may be flowing. So, to bring uniformity in our descriptions, we use an objective device known as 'clock' to communicate our experiences. Therefore, it is meaningless to speak that 'time' runs faster or slower; rather we should speak that a particular process, e.g. decay of a particular radio-active-material takes longer 'duration'. If we change both: the 'time-scale' as well as 'durations' of an event, then we can not measure anything accurately. So, we cannot describe a phenomenon accurately. So, in my opinion, just as we have agreed upon the definition of a meter: the bar kept in Paris-musium, at NTP, we should agree upon a definition of 'time' e.g. half-life of a radio-active substance at NTP, and gravitational-fieldstrength G M /R where M is mass of the earth and R radius of the earth. In short we need to 'standardise' or 'absolutize' the 'Relativity Theory' if we wish to progress faster. The starter of this page has to write this page after more than a century of Special-Relativity, because we have not 'standardized' and 'absolutized' 'distance' and 'time'. What do you think, dear reader?!

I'm sorry sir but if you introduce this quantity of the "speed of time" you are inherently differentiating an independent variable in your statement. Relativity allows this by introducing the component of >1 entities ascertaining their relative speed as a variable.

that is, having more than one individuals time intervals separately creates a co-dependance of on another's time measurement allows for time dilation. I'm afraid can agree with this ever being thought of as the "speed of time"

Oh, and another thing, [QUOTE]" Relativity seems to work locally, but collapses when applied to Galaxies?"

I'm sorry. This is incorrect, and when i get home from work tonight i will have to show you some examples of relativity being unnoticable locally, but working extremly well on a cosmological scale. I havent gone to the effort of reading your entire works due to being able to isolate crucial flaws in your understanding with the small amount i have read. I'm not claiming to be any wiser im perfectly happy to remain the class idiot for the rest of my life if it means i continue to learn, so i await a reasonable respone from you.