REM Model Elaboration

We have been spending vast sums of time, money, resources, and brain power for centuries trying to make our theories of gravity play nice with our arguably unfalsified, but incompatible theories of Relativity and Quantum physics, to no avail. And now we've got Dark Matter and Dark Energy added to a long list of intractables even less plausible inventions than this REM hypothesis. Many top mainstream physicists admit a radical adjustment is needed to their fundamental understanding of reality which is now in shambles. REM looks like a really good fit so far, with the added bonus of at last presenting a clear understanding of space-time deformation in General Relativity.

It's at least worth deep consideration by all concerned. Like most new ideas it likely will evolve, and even if it's deemed totally bonkers, that would be progress by eliminating yet another blind alley, and possibly spark discovery of an even better road. Real understanding takes time, cooperation and risky investment, but pays off in the long run, as we have seen throughout history.

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
—Albert Einstein

Newton and Einstein were among many crackpots—until they weren't, on whose shoulders we all stand. I welcome the label that's bound to come my way. Unlike some other crackpots, I greatly respect all the shoulders, old and new, upon which we stand. We all make mistakes. If we didn't we wouldn't learn much that's very important, and true science is one of the better ways of learning from them. I welcome input from anyone who can show me what I am missing (or not) in constructive collaboration. Well intentioned collaborations of many minds are generally awesome.

"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go."
—T. S. Eliot

The postulates of REM theory

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.

So:
In everyday terms, this means objects don’t fall to Earth, Earth’s surface expands at 9.8 m/s² upwards to run into them! This provides for the computation of the rate of expansion as a universal constant [link].

All mass includes atomic and sub-atomic.

All mass is inertial mass.

There is no such thing as “gravity.”

Since all mass is expanding so are our rulers and clock mechanisms, so we can't tell the difference in our everyday experience, except for the hitherto overlooked violation of Newton's 2nd law.

Compelling verification:

Einstein’s Equivalence Principle could have led him here, but, immersed in Newton’s inverse square law of gravitation like all physicists of his time he developed Relativity in a less intuitive direction, and still got it right enough in its predictive aspect if not in advancing understanding. Sadly, nowadays science mostly gets funded on predictability, not understanding, and here we are, wasting vast efforts trying to incorporate gravity into some kind of theory of everything in shut-up and calculate mode when there may be no such thing as "gravity." Understanding takes longer, but delivers far more. What an invigorating trip it will be if we can reform our understanding of the experimental evidence with this new paradigm! It's well worth a try.

“If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going.”
—Professor Irwin Corey, The World's Foremost Authority

Digging Deeper

Newton’s laws

Newton’s inverse square gravity equation, F=Gm₁m₂/r² violates his own 2nd law on the face of it, there is no acceleration term!

In the free falling elevator his 3rd law is also violated: where is the equal and opposite reaction to the “Force” of “gravity” that “pulls” the object?

Even his first law is violated:
All proper motion is relative to an observer. To an observer in the “accelerating” free falling object’s frame it, the observer and an accelerometer if present are subject to NO force and are therefore actually in an inertial, non-accelerating frame! In addition to some thoughtful ruminations there are many lame attempts to exempt free falling objects from a=F/m. None are credible to me. Eliminating the impossible leaves what remains, however improbable, as the truth: it is the Earth's surface that is accelerating upwards to crash into the literally free falling object!

It has been shown mathematically^PDF1 that F=Gm₁m₂/r² is in essence a purely geometric formula equivalent to Kepler's laws

G amounts to a fudge factor that makes gravitational mass "equal" to inertial mass. It has been reported ^PDF1 that the inverse square formula has never been used to compute space flights. Kepler’s geometric equations are all that were needed, and if you plug in the inverse square formula into the 2nd law you get a purely geometric Kepler-compatible equation!

Einstein's Relativity

REM requires that there IS a free space “fabric,” as Einstein well knew, and that the permativity and permeability of this fabric when deformed accommodate to preserve the proper speed of light for the similarly deformed observer, his rulers and his clocks, in the deformed frame. Lorentz invariance is preserved. An outside observer in a less deformed space-time would see shorter rulers and slower clocks as expected.

Now rulers and clocks near massive objects behave as GR predicts, but in an understandable way!

Others^PDF1 have proposed expanding mass theories, but, to my knowledge, dismissing relativity, which is essential to a viable theory, and have lost their way. I commend their hard work and courage nevertheless and invite constructive collaboration.

Even the Special Theory is satisfied as mass in motion deforms the fabric of free space whether it's an expanding planet or a starship.

Think about it, a LOT. What am I missing?

PDF1 The Final Theory The Book & Reviews

Some new physics to explore [under construction]

Is it expanding mass at the quantum level or expanding dimensions of mass configurations that deforms space-time?
Some say^PDF1 its the dimensions of the expanding mass, regardless of it’s density, that determine motion in ordinary 3-space with no “fabric” or time factor in its metric. This doesn’t work for me. There must be a space-time fabric according to the 2nd postulate. It has to be mass that counts.
Calculations
Orbit of Mercury
gravitational waves
Gravitational redshift
Inflation Theory
Frame-dragging
Gravitational lensing
Black Holes
Big Bang
Dark Energy/Matter
Warp Drive
Implications at the atomic and sub-atomic scale
Quantum foundations of permativity and permeability of space-time
E=mc²