What is gravity?

Feb 17, 2023
I have a new theory about gravity that uses energy as the basis for gravity rather than mass. This based on Einstein's e=mc2. This new theory is a twist on relativity in that it explains the mechanism for equivalent gravity as the speed of light (energy) moving through space as the variable instead of "time." This places energy as the basis for gravity as well as matter. The mechanism for changing the speed of energy is variations in energy density, which are based on the "impedance of space" (Z0). This lumpy space dielectric is a result of energy density itself.

Not only does it explain gravity, but it explains much more about the system in which gravity is not only an emergent property but a vital part, including: the forces that organized the universe before gravity; how the universe can be scaled (not possible with the Big Bang); Redshift as entropy; Quantization of gravity. Additionally, it has the possibility of explaining the unification of forces, duality, and quantization of gravity.

The postulates are: Gravity is based on energy; Equivalent gravity is due to slight changes in the speed of energy due to Z0; Time is constant; Charges are constantly seeking equilibrium.

This idea is based on the classical mathematics of Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Plank, and Lorentz, with a new equation describing gravitational acceleration due to slope changes in the contours of the impedance of space (Z0) at every point in space. ∇⋅ Gv = ∂c/∂t or ∂t/∂(√ε0μ0). No new particles are required, nor is a changing "time" an intelligence defined as "constant."

Implications of this theory include: Adjustment to the energy imbalance is at the local speed of energy (c); Energy can be borrowed from time (i.e., antiparticles do not exist in the present). The quantization of gravity is based on the quantization of energy. In the -j regions of time, energy is seen as in a mirror with spin and polarity reversed (i.e., attraction repulsion reversed); Variations in redshift represent the number of energy deflections encountered between source and observer.

Predictions of this theory include: The universe did not start from a single point; There are no discernible boundaries to the universe. The universe may be ageless. The universe may not be expanding. The universe is scalable. Creation is an ongoing process, with each galaxy having a new center of energy, with black holes as one pole of an energy concentration and open space as the other. Entanglement may be the "same energy event" seen in different impedance spaces at identical times.

All proofs of relativity apply. Occam’s Razor prevails.
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2021
You have part of down. Gravity is the result of mass. EM radiation has mass and causes the warpage of space and time. Energy in the form of matter also warps space and time. Charge does the same thing. Einstein's Field Equations describe the warpage of space and time as the result of any form of mass. Each type of energy tensor is equated to a certain amount of warpage.
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and Rod Mack
Feb 17, 2023
As seen in the postulates, this theory is based on gravity as a function of energy, not mass, and the variable used to cause "equivalent gravity" is the speed of energy, not time.

While it has long been accepted that gravity is due to mass since Newton, my theory takes a different path. Newton’s gravitational equation relates the force between masses as a function of the inverse square of the distance between them. This was even after Galileo showed that acceleration was independent of the mass of an object when he dropped objects of different masses from the leaning tower.

While the tensor nature of forces associated with "classic" gravity is understood and certainly offers a correction to Newton's gravitational equation, where gravitational attraction is defined as the center of gravity, this is negated when one computes the individual element attraction using 1/r2. Because of the inverse square, the center of attraction is always closer than the center of gravity when forces are reduced to individual elements. Tensors aren't required with equivalent gravity. It is the slope of the Z0 contours that drives the speed of energy as specified by Maxwell's Z0=√μ0/ε0 .

Using Maxwell’s c2=1/μ0ε0, Einstein’s e=mc2 becomes e=m/μ0ε0, revealing another possible mechanism. In coming up with his “Relativity,” Einstein said “he stood on the shoulders of Maxwell,” 1/μ0ε0 may be a clue. The juxtaposition of mass and energy was only theoretical at the time. For my theory, mass is not considered as part of the cause of gravity but rather an effect of it.

As for EM energy, the question is: which comes first, energy or mass? There are several scenarios where energy might be harvested in the vacuum of space. Since it is equivalent to mass, I chose to view it as a cause of mass rather than an effect.

This theory is a change over special relativity in that the a change in speed of energy (acceleration) due to a varying impedance of space (a lumpy dielectric) are what is seen as "equivalent" gravity.

As for Einstein's changing time, this is intellectually unappealing. The human concept of time is a measurement constant. It is a man-made construct to measure the passage of action in a fourth dimension, just as meters or inches are used to measure the passage of distance. As such, it is established as a standard, not a variable to be changed at the whim of a theory that could not otherwise present a plausible mechanism of action.

Altering "intelligence-defined" constants to make a theory mathematically correct is a sign that something is not understood. Other constant adjustments used with the relative time theory are equally plausible. There is not any proof showing time is a variable. Since time is a man-made construct, the only reason it is considered a variable is if we let it.

The idea that time needs to be modified to cause equivalent gravity comes from Einstein’s "Special Relativity" proposal that the vacuum of empty space contains nothing that allows energy to transit. Space is filled with things we see and can measure, from high-energy particles to hydrogen to dust to planets to stars and galaxies, with a lot of energy in between. Contrary to Einstein, there are plenty of substances in space that can impede energy flow.

Also, the idea that the speed of light (energy) is constant comes mostly from measurements showing the speed of light is the same regardless of direction. To date, every speed measurement for energy has been at a single point on a round trip. There is no way to tell what the speed of energy is once it leaves the measuring point.

A constant speed of light would be the case if it were controlled by some medium that acted like a “speed zone,” like school speed zones. The speed of energy inside this zone is not necessarily the same as that outside this zone. The same characteristics are present at both ends of the speed testing, as mentioned previously.

Engineers tune electronic circuits by changing the speed of energy by changing ε0 or μ0. These govern the speed of energy through air, wires, coaxial cable, and circuits. Why not space? The slightest change in either μ0 or ε0 will show up as a change in the speed of the signal, or velocity factor. Maxwell showed this as c=√μ0ε0. At the time of the introduction of the previous theory, components to measure or adjust these characteristics were not widely available. As it turns out, there is no scientific evidence that the speed of light is constant; only a government-dictated "Si" standard is used as a convenient reference for other "standards."

I had initially posed a link to my website that has many more details, but that got bounced, so my second best was to encapsulate the ideas in a few paragraphs. Perhaps with this discussion, some of the more important features of this theory will become clear. Thanks for your comments, as they give me an understanding of the work that needs to be done.
Feb 18, 2023
I may be wrong but I get the feeling that your theory tracks right with e=mc2. Help me out here.
I should be clear in my posts. I do not subscribe to accepted ideas. I believe Hubble is wrong, therefore everything that follows is wrong. But I do respect ( if not understand) your thoughts.
Feb 17, 2023
Yes it is compatible and uses e-mc2. The progression of math follows:
Einstein’s E=mc2, shows energy is related to mass.
Maxwell’s c=1/ε0μ0 where c2=1/ε0μ0 shows E=m/μ0ε0, or m=Eμ0ε0 using mc2.
Lorentz’s F=qE+qv*B, shows energy has attraction.
Coulomb’s F=keq1q2/r2, organizes energy into inverse square concentrations.
The speed of energy is dependent on variables ε0μ0 as shown by Maxwell’s c=1/√ε0μ0.
Maxwell’s Z0=√μ0/ε0 shows energy concentrations are reflected as Z0 contours.
Z0 contours are constantly adjusted, at the speed of c, to reflect energy density movement.
Theory Z (Maxwell’s 5th) ∇⋅ Gv = ∂t/∂(√ε0μ0) shows equivalent gravity is due to acceleration in speed of energy.

Implicaitons of my theory Z0 are:
Both the instantaneous and time delayed effects of gravity are explained.
Gravity’s static effects based on Z0, the in situ energy field, are instantaneous.
Gravity’s dynamic effects (moving bodies or energy) are based on Z0 as it is being updated at the speed of c.
Energy delay in space is relative to local impedance, like in waveguide or TEM cell (transverse electromagnetic cell).
Redshift is due to entropy as a result of gravitational energy deflections (Fout = mF1±mF2 as in signal mixing.)
Due to deflection delay, same energy events may be observed at different times at different space time coordinates.
The quantization of gravity is based on the quantization of energy.

Fallacies in previous ideas in the field that Theory Z0 clears up:

The universe is NOT expanding. Doppler shifts observed in the frequencies of starlight have been interpreted to show the universe is expanding. There is no proof that Doppler is the only reason for the shifts in frequencies of light we see from the heavens. There is some question about the viability of this based on an alternative that says entropy is caused by gravitational bending. There is only hope that "it may be" in order to confirm a perception. Lastly, there is the problem of colliding galaxies if the universe is expanding. It’s difficult to believe.

There as NO Big Bang: When Einstein deduced that gravity was not a force but rather the result of acceleration, its importance in the organization of the universe diminished. Without a "collecting force," it is impossible to bring the ingredients of an organized universe into symbiosis. This difficulty was seemingly corrected with Lemaitre’s Big Bang, which extrapolated expansion back in time to find the origin of the universe. It predicted the start of the universe around 13.7 billion years ago. While widely accepted, some discrepancies are noted in this scenario. These are singularities and an anomalous bump in the rate of expansion. here may be little bangs associated with the formation of individual galaxies.

The universe is older than 13.7 billion years old; the current numbers don’t add up. Given that we now see over 2E23 stars and that the universe is only 1.37E10 years old, this means that 1.46E13 stars are born every year. Yet, we have to witness this. Further, the sizes don’t compute. Now, with the Webb telescope, we are seeing structures that are dated to have been created in time near the beginning of the Big Bang. The problem is that the ones we see are larger than the time it would take them to expand if they started at the time of the big bang.

In light of these, Theory Z0 makes the following predictions:
The universe did not start from a single point.
The universe is not expanding.
There are no discernible boundaries to the universe.
The universe is scalable.
Creation is an ongoing process.
Individual structures in the universe develop in situ around energy concentrations.
Galaxies are the centers of regional development.
Black holes are one pole of a galaxy’s impedance slope; surrounding open space is the other.
Variations in redshift represent the number of energy deflections encountered between source and observer.
Last edited:
Dec 29, 2022
I don't think gravity is a fundamental property that comes with particle matter. But it seems to come from handedness, which is the cause of many asymmetries between the charges.

Gravity could and probably does comes from one of these asymmetries. It might very well be closely related to the entanglement property. This also most likely comes from handedness.

Every property of a dipole bond is asymmetric except for e. And I believe that a gravity field does not exist until this bond is made. Even though the amount of e is equal to the charges, the density is not. Neither is the momentum or the energy. Neither is the mass and inertia. The RPM of the -e is much slower than the +e. And the +e space occupies a much smaller space than the -e change. AND these charges rotate in opposite directions. AND they bounce with one another as they spin. It's quite a dynamic.

All or some or one of these asymmetries could exert some form of asymmetrical attraction. It's a very weak, but apparently an accumulative property. I do not believe that it converges to a point. I think it converges to a shell.

Absolute time and non-disturb-able space. Our one inertial frame. With many velocity frames.