Academia Submission

Introduction

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
—Albert Einstein

I imagine Maxwell’s Equations got Einstein thinking and the Equivalence Principle got him going on his amazing journey to Relativity. Without contradicting Newton’s inverse square law he basically reframed the geometry of gravity on an interpretation of a malleable, by the presence of mass, fabric of the universe as space-time. Both interpretations have survived copious compelling experimental support, but both men conceded they had no idea of the mechanism of gravity, only how to predict experimental results.

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
—Albert Einstein

Here is another interpretation I think worthy of serious study, the Relativistic Expanding Mass (REM) model:

REM Postulates

It’s very simple.

1. The universe, including all mass is expanding at an accelerating rate.

2. Expanding mass distorts the surrounding fabric of space in accordance with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity with little or no adjustments as per new experimental evidence or interpretation.

Implications

Einstein and Newton apparently didn’t consider this interpretation, which is no more bizarre than Relativity or geocentricity in Copernicus’ time. It is astounding that Einstein nevertheless came up with his space-time interpretation with the same formulae without any idea of the mechanism.

An understandable model for the mechanism of Relativity emerges.

The concept of spacetime needs rethinking. There is only malleable space.

The distortion shortens rulers as viewed from an undistorted frame and thus slows time as measured by any material clock, so GPS has to compensate and clocks returned from orbit show the difference.

All mass is inertial mass.

Objects in free fall near Earth are in inertial frames and Earth’s surface is accelerating upwards to crash into them.

An observer standing on Earth sees what looks like an accelerating free falling object when it is actually the observer, in an accelerating frame, accelerating upwards at g with the force on his feet F=mg. g is an actual acceleration, not spooky action at a distance.

The fruitless quest to make a fundamental force of gravity play nice with Quantum Field Theory and other incompatibilities with established science is over. Gravity is at best a pseudo force akin to coriolis.

Black holes, dark matter/energy, Hubble expansion, red shift, the nature of the “fabric” of space, and a whole lot of textbooks need some adjustments.

Special Relativity’s “Twin Paradox” is usually explained by the acceleration required for the twins to come back together. It might be worthwhile to explore acceleration, not just relative inertial motion, as the mechanism for SR.

New light shines on Quantum Field Theory and how it plays into the REM model in the sub-atomic realm.

New light may also illuminate studies of the permittivity and permeability (pressure and density) of free space and the nature of its “fabric”.

Lots more. Haven’t even mentioned the essential study of consciousness if we are ever to learn more about the nature of reality.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all previous centuries of its existence.”
— Nikola Tesla

Experiments Worth Trying

Install the Gauges app on an iPbone and observe that sitting at rest the accelerometer registers 1g, and in free fall registers NO acceleration. Very compelling given Newton’s famous laws. F=ma=m x 0.

Calculate the expansion acceleration of Earth given the measured expansion of the universe.

Conclusion

Others have caught on to the expanding mass model, but none I know of have caught on to Postulate 2. Instead they concoct wild explanations of what’s wrong with Relativity or other unconvincing ideas. I salute them for their bold efforts and creative thinking and invite them, and anyone else interested, to collaborate on this model.

The mainstream physics community appears to be stuck and more than ready to consider radical revisions of fundamental physics cornerstones in order to move forward. But it is understandably prohibiting for working physicists with reputations and jobs to protect to spend precious time reviewing, let alone promoting, the current avalanche of crackpot ideas. Newton, Einstein, and many other world shakers were crackpots—until they weren’t. How many crackpots and how long does it take to sort out the good ones?

I salute Academia and thank them for creating this forward looking forum without barriers against new ides, and thank Vladimir Netchitailo for steering me here and for his kind encouragement and continued reports on his work.

Ted King, Jr. 4-2-21