By the time you finish reading this page you will have an understanding of how and why gravity works.  You will also have new insights into general relativity, the nature of matter and how quantum theory and relativity are connected.  Such knowledge is worth spending a little time to acquire.  If you are still in a hurry, follow the link to the condensed version.  Perhaps then you will be willing to devote the time required to read the full treatment and supporting arguments in the main page.  After reading these pages allow several weeks to turn these ideas over in you head.  Many things that seem mysterious will become simple.  I recommend reading this page through again before sending me e-mail about how my theory will work with slight adjustments, there is a lot covered in here.

Thank you for spending the time to consider my thoughts on the universe.    John  Huenefeld

Here are links to the main and sub pages.

Fluid Space Theory   Posted 07/08/2000    Updated 04/26/2005
On Black Holes         Posted 09/01/2000    Updated 06/21/2003
Clocks on Rockets     Posted 07/27/2000    Updated 06/21/2003
Reference Systems    Posted 07/27/2000    Updated 06/21/2003
Matter and Space      Posted 07/27/2000    Updated 09/02/2004

Printable Article Posted 04/26/2005
 
 

Existence can not be questioned, for those who question existence cannot deny the existence of the question.

In the quest for understanding the nature of our universe, much investigation has been given to the nature of matter, and all of it's complexities, with the phenomena of time and distance (space) forming a simple backdrop and playing the role of a stage for the actions of matter/energy.  Without establishing and understanding some fundamentals of time and linear distance, the true nature of matter may escape us due to assumptions we never knew we had made.

To most, empty space represents nothing, yet it has many fundamental properties and is deeply involved in any interaction of material objects.  Try to imagine a place in the universe without any matter, light waves or radio waves in it. A place that is totally unaffected by gravity.  If such a place exists, what properties would this "empty space" have?  It would contain no energy, have no mass or momentum, it would occupy volume and time would pass there.  How would we know of its existence? If we traveled through it or sent a signal through it we could measure it, but in the process we would destroy its "emptiness".  A question  that physicists have struggled with since the time of Newton is:  Can space be assigned a physical existence in the absence of matter or energy (material objects)?

Newton claimed that he made no assumptions, but he had to admit that underlying all his laws and formulas there was a spatial reference system and therefore the answer to the question above had to be yes.  This led the scientific community to arrive at the concept of the "luminiferous ether" in which matter moved and light waves propagated.  The rise of the industrial age and the march into the age of technology have their foundations based on engineering and science that is for the most part calculated on a backdrop of Newtonian space.  Einstein, Lorentz and Minkowski changed our concept of space and time with the development of relativity theory.  With relativity, space and time merged as did matter and energy bringing us to an understanding of a universe where matter-energy acts in and distorts space-time.  These quantities being inseparable, matter-energy needing space time to exist and vise versa.  Still the focus of most research and science is on material and energetic objects on a backdrop of assumed space and time.  We may be missing half the picture.

How do we know anything about space, energy or anything else for that matter?  The foundation of science is philosophy.  One of the key principles of scientific philosophy is that the simplest explanation is the best.  In the following paragraphs, I will build up a concept of our world from simple ideas and observations.

Things most certainly exist, and we become aware of a thing only by observation of it (it having an effect on our senses) or by observation of its effects on another thing (the other thing having an effect on our senses). The sum of our understanding and knowledge rests upon observations of things.  In order to interact, two things must be in relative motion, (relative distance changing over time).  In addition, each thing must change the motion of the other thing otherwise they would simply pass without interacting. The interaction of things on the stage of time and space becomes a test for existence.  If a thing can not be observed directly or indirectly then its existence can not be known or proven.  By definition, then, a thing that can not be observed and has no effect on anything that can be observed can not be said to exist.  This leads to my version of Occam's razor, my postulate #1.

#1. "All of the observable universe exists within the boundaries of time and space. Anything that exists in time and space may be observed either directly or indirectly, anything outside the boundaries of time and space cannot be observed and therefore is beyond speculation."

This may seem trivial, however, without stating it as a postulate, it is an underlying assumption that may or may not be accounted for in further developments. Anything built without this postulate would not have the proper foundation of reason.

Can space-time pass the test of existence above?   Space cannot be observed directly so it must be observed in terms of the effect it has on things that can be observed.  Newton's laws of motion, provide "flat" space with some basic properties.  An object will continue in a uniform state of motion unless acted on by an external force.  This implies that objects move through space without resistance.  The other two laws (uniform acceleration under constant force and equal and opposite reactions) imply that all interactions are between material bodies and not between any thing and space itself.  This does not bode well for observing space.  Still, the simple act of measuring an interval of distance or time could be seen as observations of space itself.  Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the physical "existence" of space-time is found in rotational motion.  When an object rotates, it is difficult to see it other than rotating relative to space.  The following pages develop the existence of space and how it may be observed.

Time and linear distance have many things in common and are, as I will show, inextricably intertwined.  Lets develop some principles of time and space based on fundamental logic using single and multi dimensional systems. It may be possible to derive the universe from scratch.

Undeniable Truths.

Lets build a system from scratch based on some fundamental concepts that can not be denied.  The actual development can be quite tedious so advanced concepts are thrown into the discussion the development of which can be found elsewhere.

1. Things exist.  This is hard to argue with.  There is a presence property that acts within time and space.  When an amount of this property is accumulated, a thing exists.  Lets identify three things A, B and C.  At the moment these things exist all together at a single point.

2. There are differences between one thing and another.  The most fundamental difference between two things is location.  That is, they could be otherwise identical but as long as they are in different locations they will be distinct from one another.  Let's cause things A, B and C to diverge from the single point into a one dimensional system (we will explore multidimensional space later). As they diverge, they become distinct from each other in both time, and space.  This is how time and distance are fundamentally related, there can not be a difference in space without a difference in time as well.  If a thing travels at less than infinite velocity relative to another thing, then for any change in the spatial relationship, there must also be a change in the temporal relationship. If a thing is not absolutely at rest relative to another thing, then for any change in the temporal relationship there must also be a change in the spatial relationship.  This in itself suggests a speed limit to the universe, otherwise this definition of divergence could not be met and things would not be distinct.  (If a thing could travel at an infinite velocity, then it could be every place at once.  If everything traveled at infinite velocity there would be no difference between one thing and another.)

Differences in time and space may range from very small to very large.  If a stable division of time and space could be found, then relationships between relative quantities of time and space could be expressed mathematically with units of time T and space S.  At present, within our system, points A, B and C are all in motion with respect to each other and their spatial and temporal relationships can not be quantified.

Note that things A, B and C have no physical size, they exist as points.  To have size would mean that one portion of A is displaced from another in time and space.  This would imply that A is actually more than one thing.  Follow this link for more on simple geometric systems.

3. Things that exist affect one another.  At present, the things in our system exist in time and space, yet cannot be observed because they cannot affect one another.  Let's give them this ability.  For two things in space and time, the only effect possible is to increase or decrease the level of relative motion (change the relative velocity).  How can a thing change the velocity between itself and another thing?  It could push or it could pull on the other thing.  The following thought experiment attempts to deduce how a thing would have the ability to push or pull.

Let's make a first law for our system:  No two things can occupy the same point in both time and space, an exclusion principle.  This is fundamental for the ability of two things to interact.  Lets start with a 1 dimensional system otherwise two things without size would almost never try occupy the same point.  If two things approach each other on a line they will be forced to bump.  How will a bump actually happen?  As A and B approach each other on the line, they bump and both A and B head back in the opposite direction from which they came.  How do we know that they didn't just pass through each other and that we simply got them mixed up?  If they did collide and rebound, what actually happened at the instant of collision?  Lets look closely at the instant of collision.

In order to be certain that things A and B do not pass through each other we must be able to watch each thing reverse its motion and there must be some amount of space, no matter how small, between the points at the moment of reversal.  Thus in order for our exclusion law to be true, things A and B must be able to repel each other from a distance.  This conclusion might also be reached by considering that two mathematical points in a multidimensional system might never collide.

4. In order to affect one another things must have the ability to push or pull across time and space.  How could it be possible for a thing to reach out through time and space and push or pull another thing?  (A push is equivalent to a pull with the time vector reversed.)

In order to achieve "this action at a distance" some have suggested the concept of an exchange particle.  As A and B approach,  A spontaneously fires off a piece of itself (C) which is absorbed by B, resulting in a change of motion of each.  While this may be an accurate mathematical representation of the result of the collision, it fails as an explanation.  The problem is this, how did object A become aware of the approach of B and what mechanism did it use to divide itself and fire C in a precise intercept of B?  Further we now have two particles B and C that are about to interact which really puts us back at our starting point.  The only difference being that the result of the collision of B and C is that particle C will stick to B.  Also in as much as A and B have exchanged C they have changed their identity and could be called D and E.

How then could time and space be arranged to cause the behavior of collision between two things?  Let us consider that all we have to work with are time T, space S and existence E.  Suppose a thing could push or pull space-time itself.  Lets imagine that we can cut a length out of our time and space line that will contain points A and B for the foreseeable future.  Within this length of space, points A and B are unaware of the cutting and continue to move as usual.  Lets now imagine we can relocate this length of space along the time-space line.  The points within the cut-out piece of space are unaware of the relocation and continue to move relative to each other without change.  Point C outside of our cut-out space segment sees a change in motion and position with respect to points A and B.  By moving regions of space and time, changes in relative motion of things could be created.  In our one dimensional system this would require time and space to be discontinuous.

In a linear system things that are not composed of time or space exist between lengths of time and space and therefore represent discontinuities in time and space. Suppose things A, B and C had the ability to reel in or reel out time and space.  If when two things come within a particular distance of each other, they begin to spit out space in the proper amounts, a distant observer might perceive that a collision had taken place.  In a linear system the effect of reeling in or out time and space would not diminish with distance.

Lets now extend the above concepts to multi dimensional systems.  In a two or higher dimensional system if time and space were constantly radiated or absorbed by things, the effect would diminish with distance creating a "sphere of influence" around an object.  This concept hinges on the idea that objects maintain a relationship to the space around themselves and if a larger region of space that contains them is somehow dislocated all the material objects in that region of space are dislocated with it, and are oblivious to the dislocation.  This concept has the advantage in that any point object, with a sphere of influence around it, is always ready to interact with any other such object.  The concept, however, requires that space itself be given a physical reality.

5. Every thing has its own point of view.  A thing, or an object composed of many things, "sees" the universe in terms of how it is affected by the things that bombard it.  Each particle of our world sits at the center of its own sphere of influence and affects other particles based on their relative distance and direction.  Every thing behaves according to the physical laws within the region of space-time that it occupies.

6. Existence is more than divergence in time and space.  In our system, A, B and C exist in relative motion. Their existence is true regardless of the amount of space S and time T that separate them.  That is to say that the fact of their existence does not increase or decrease based on the amount of separation in time and space.  If there is a difference in their level of existence, lets assign a unit of existence E to allow us to quantify this property when a stable level of existence is found.
 

The Building Blocks of the Universe.

The above discussion leads to postulate #2. In all mathematical equations, quantities are represented in units of time, distance and energy.  The search for the fundamental building blocks of the universe perhaps needs to go no further than this.

#2. " All things in the universe are composed of Time (change), Space (distance) and Energy (existence).  These three quantities are combined in various arrangements both stable and unstable to form all that is observable.  All of these quantities are continuous in that there is no amount of any that is too small to be further divided."

It is now time to apply the above to creating a model that behaves as our observed universe does.  Consider the first fundamental force, gravity.  Classical models speak of a "gravitational force" that causes matter to accelerate toward other matter.  Observations indicate that this force increases inversely to the square of the distance between the two objects.

Lets put two observers into isolated inertial systems A and B.  Observer A and B are both boxed in a can not see beyond their own reference frame.  They each have a clock and an accelerometer.  Each system is affected only by the gravity of the other system (A by B, B by A).  Before closing the hatch each observer notes that there is no relative motion between A and B.  An observer C, at a great distance, can see both systems and notices that as time passes A and B begin to accelerate toward each other.  From inside their boxes A and B detect no acceleration and have no indication that anything is happening.  As far as they can detect their velocity has not changed (no change in velocity with time thus no change in relation ship to their local space).  The only time their accelerometers indicate that a force is acting on them is at the point of impact.  If A and B have both remained at rest, or in uniform motion, relative to the space that they each occupy what happened to the space that separated them?

Consider the case of a black hole. According to relativity theory, the speed of light is the limiting velocity.  No object may be observed to move faster than the speed of light relative to any other object.  A black hole is an object so massive and compact that even something moving at the speed of light can not escape the gravitational field.  If gravity is considered to be a field that is projected or radiated from matter, then the fastest it could propagate is the speed of light.  How then could a black hole propagate a gravitational field?  Why wouldn't a black hole suck in its own gravitational field?  This is even more puzzling considering that most black hole theories consider that the mass is reduced to a mathematical point (singularity) deep inside the object requiring gravity to propagate faster than the speed of light.  (What is it like "inside" a black hole anyway?)  To explain this, some would say that gravity does not interact with other gravity, but the principle of equivalence requires that gravity affects everything.  Perhaps the gravity carrier (graviton) can exceed the speed of light.

Both of the above examples are based on a concept of time and space that is rooted in the way we instruct our science students. Space is presented as continuous as described by mathematics on an x, y, z axis.  The foundation of scientific investigation of our physical world began with basic geometry.  Initially we slapped an X, Y, Z axis on the universe and assumed a constant grid iron of time and space out to infinity that matter moves within. An infinite, continuous rigid body that spans the universe for matter to act within.

Einstein told us that space is curved and that matter was the cause of this curvature. (How matter causes this curvature of space is not explained.)  The theory of relativity has shown that time and space are flexible and can, in fact must, stretch and compress.  So now the infinite continuous rigid body becomes an infinite continuous elastic body that spans the universe.  General relativity includes no boundaries for space-time, if the mathematical function continues, space-time continues as well.

Going beyond Einstein, consider that time and space may also flow as a fluid and may appear to vanish or spring forth from nowhere.  Space-time is four dimensional and exchanges volume for time through velocity.  This fluid may have a surface or perhaps be filled with bubbles.  I am proposing a fluid model of space-time where the body that spans the universe is fluid, elastic and filled with discontinuities or boundaries wherever the flow velocity reaches the speed of light.
 

Gravity as a flow field.

Imagine space as a vast volume of fluid at rest with no initial currents.  At a point in the volume we begin to draw away fluid at a constant rate.  A flow field develops.   Assuming the fluid has equivalent properties in all directions the flow field is spherical.  At a great distance from the center the flow is very slow, near the center the flow is very fast.  At any distance from the center, the flow velocity is equal to the volume being drained divided by the area through which it flows (see below).  A particle in the flow field will accelerate as it moves toward the center.  Assuming constant density, the acceleration is inversely proportional to the fifth power of the distance from the center point as shown below.  An object moving through this field while keeping a constant velocity relative to the fluid (space) through which it is moving would curve toward the center point as if a force were acting upon it. This does not duplicate gravity but it does demonstrate how a spatial flow field with an acceleration term can disturb the path of an object moving through it and in essence project a force through space.

If matter consumes space at some rate and space is considered to be a fluid without mass, then gravity need not be the result of a projected field but could be a flow gradient in space, an acceleration of space itself.  Gravity does not propagate through space, it IS space.

The special theory of relativity states that as an object approaches the speed of light (c) it begins to appear shortened or flattened in the direction of motion.  Consider that space itself flowing at a high velocity  becomes shortened causing objects in that space to appear shortened.  Applying this to a spatial flow field toward a central point, space (as it accelerates inward) would become shorter and shorter as it flows inward until, when it reaches the speed of light, it would have no length at all in the direction of motion.  This would allow for a steady state flow field in which volume vanishes when observed from the outside.  Instead of being drawn off at a single point however volume would vanish across the entire flow field as velocity changes.

The concept that space and time are fluid and can flow takes relativity theory to another level.  Since it is impossible to determine ones velocity by any means within a closed reference system, it is therefore impossible to detect the flow of space and time as well.  The only way the flow of space time fluid can be detected is when the flow must accelerate.  An accelerating flow field will cause the path of objects passing through it to curve.  It will also cause meter sticks to shorten and clocks to slow in regions of higher flow velocity.  This is the phenomena Einstein called "curved space".  If space time fluid could be forced through a funnel then it would have to accelerate.  We could not expect a fluid to funnel itself so the only thing we have left to work with to make such a funnel is energy.

The special theory of relativity also states that time dilates with velocity.  In the above space flow field as the space approaches c time passes slower within that space.  An object moving in that space would appear to slow down (as if it had been acted on by a force).  Thus the same way force is projected by an accelerating spatial flow, it may also be projected by a decelerating temporal flow.  Time however is one dimensional so that while for space in a flow gradient the length in the direction perpendicular to the flow is unaffected by flow velocity, in a temporal flow gradient all directions are affected equally.
 

In the above derivation space would appear, to an outside observer, to vanish over the entire flow field.  As one would expect the velocity and acceleration profiles are softened  and have a lower order than in the prior example where incompressible space is drained at a central point.  Consider that if an observer were ignorant of the existence of the flow field, observations made of objects moving through such a flow field would be based on a assumption of constant spatial and temporal densities.  Thus the mathematical laws of motion for objects moving through the flow field would be based on a false assumption of space/time.
 

Experiences of gravity as spatial flow.

Lets consider the story of Newton under the apple tree.  The apple is at rest, hanging from its stem.  When the stem breaks the apple begins to accelerate downward until it collides with Newton's head.  Newton surmised the existence of a "gravitational force" that caused the apple to behave this way.

Consider that we put Newton and the tree onto a rocket ship that is accelerating at 1g.  In this case analysis would say that the stem of the apple is exerting a force on the apple that causes it to accelerate at the same rate as the ship.  When the stem breaks, the apple begins to move at a constant velocity.  The ship with Newton and the tree continue to accelerate toward the apple and from their point of view the apple falls.  To Newton and the tree the accelerated reference system on the rocket is indistinguishable from one on the Earth's surface yet the way of describing it is totally different.  This seemingly different situation yielding the same mass and inertia properties led Einstein to formulate his general theory of relativity.  According to the equivalence principle of general relativity,  an accelerated reference system in space is indistinguishable from a fixed reference system in a gravitational field.

Einstein would not directly consider motion of an object relative to space itself, he believed that velocity could only be considered between two objects. Giving an object velocity relative to another object and then giving each object a coordinate system however amounts to giving each motion relative the space of the other object. (Einstein saw this as a weakness of special relativity.) Consider a rocket ship isolated in free space.  If the engines are turned on the occupants will feel acceleration or "artificial gravity".  What then is the rocket accelerating relative to? If we say that a rocket ship can accelerate through space, then space can accelerate through a rocket ship.  If we bring this concept to Earth and consider that we live in an accelerated reference system then could we say that space must then be constantly accelerating through us and the Earth's surface.  Such a notion may seem to be utterly ridiculous and might be rejected by most physicists.  Gravity goes on indefinitely but if space were accelerating through the Earth's surface from all sides it would seem that the earth would quickly fill up and the flow would cease.  Where would all the incoming space go?  It can't simply vanish, or can it?

As shown by the example above, in a steady state spatial flow the acceleration of the flow and thus the effect of gravity can go on indefinitely.  The possibility of spatial and temporal flow gradients opens up an entirely new concept for the nature of matter.  As stated before, in all mathematical equations, quantities are represented in units of time, distance and energy.  Lets say for the moment that the fundamental constituents of the universe are time, space and energy.  Let us also accept that energy propagates through space-time at the speed of light as observed from any reference frame in space-time (the special theory of relativity holds).  Could energy in certain quantities surround itself with a space-time gradient that is stable for a long period?  Within these gradients the energy would continue to propagate at the speed of light (in local space) but the spatial gradient would contain the energy and when viewed from the outside, the result would be a particle of what we call matter.

A case for this can be demonstrated by the refraction of light in glass.  The refraction of light has been proven to be due to the fact that light travels slower in transparent mediums than through a vacuum.  The more dense the medium the slower the speed of light and the greater the angle of refraction.  If the atoms of the glass are viewed as spatial inflow particles they would be surrounded by a time gradient as well.  The nearer you get to the center of the gradient, the more slowly time passes.  Light traveling through an array of particles must then be traveling through space where time is slower than outside the array.  So the refraction of light could be due to gravity!  If we could find glass dense enough light could almost be frozen.

At the heart of a spatial gradient, geometrical relationships would be quite different from our experience.  As we move outward from the minimum radius (where the spatial flow reaches the speed of light and energy is frozen as a standing wave) we could travel great distances from the point of view inside the gradient and yet move very little at all as observed from the outside.  The circumference of the orbit of an object circling the near the gradient vertex would not be equal to 2 pi times the distance from the gradient center.  From the point of view inside the gradient vast distances could be traveled inward or outward with minimal changes in orbital circumference.  The heart of a spatial gradient would be a place that is bigger on the inside than it appears on the outside.  It would be a place where you could go very far in or out but not very far up or down or left or right without returning to your starting point.  Thus if you were not moving perfectly toward or away from the center you might tend to go in circles.  If there are any twists or turns in the gradient it could become impossible to find your way either in or out.

When special relativity is applied in this way to a flow of fluid space-time it can describe a particle.  This particle can be viewed from two basic perspectives, the inside and the outside.  From the outside it would be nearly perfectly spherical with a well defined boundary or surface.  From the inside, slight fluctuations in radius would become towering peaks, a tranquil surface from the outside could become a raging tempest from the inside.  The object could become quite elongated and undulate or twist dramatically perhaps with small droplets being cast off and later rejoined. Does any of this sound familiar?  (quantum electrodynamics and/or string theory)  The potential for fluid space to provide the link between relativity and quantum theory is very exciting.

When observed from the fringe of a spatial gradient (our realm of ordinary existence) length and time appear to be uniform.  If we measure the distance across a gravitational field generated by a single particle we assume a set of units of equal length and time.  That is we impose a uniform coordinate grid over a spatial field that is not uniform (length and time change with proximity to the particle).  Objects moving in the imposed coordinate system obey a set of mathematical formulas using coordinates from that system.  Objects moving in the true space of the gradient will obey a set of formulas based on non uniform distance and time.  A coordinate transformation will be required to relate the two systems. (Of what purpose is relating the real to the imagined? We will see later.)

Based on a uniform measuring system we have observed an inverse distance squared relationship for gravitational attraction of objects.  In "true space" the mathematical relationship might be different, but would have to reduce to an inverse distance squared relationship when the coordinate transform is applied.  If this fluid space theory can be developed mathematically then perhaps may questions could be answered or predictions made.
 

Predictions

1. If matter is actually energy at the heart of an inflow of space, could antimatter be energy at the heart of an outflow of space? This would follow if antimatter is the same as matter with the time vector reversed.  (I actually expect that matter is a combination of inflow and outflow particles weighted toward inflow.)  It is interesting that a spatial out flow still has an inward acceleration and would thus have an attractive effect not a repulsive force as one might have initially expected.  As space fluid expands from the center of the flow field it slows down, so the acceleration vector is directed inward.  This is good because if time suddenly started running backward we would expect to see the planets reverse course yet remain in orbit rather than explode.  There is however a subtle difference.  A region of space dominated by inward flow particles would be shrinking while a region dominated by outward flow particles would be expanding.  This would make the long range cosmological effects of inward gravity stronger than outward gravity.

2. If equal amounts of matter and antimatter were produced at the creation of the universe, then in a primordial gas cloud some regions would have had slightly more of one than the other.  After an annihilation phase what would be left would be clouds of matter and anti matter, as matter condensed together antimatter would have dispersed.  Star and planetary system formation from antimatter might be very rare or nonexistent.  This would suggest that interstellar and more likely intergalactic space may contain quantities of antimatter (probably in the form of disassociated particles or at most anti hydrogen and anti helium). Thus somewhere between galaxies and intergalactic space there should be a zone of annihilation as the fringe particles are drawn in creating a radiation halo that might be detected.

Going further down this path, galaxies would be regions of spatial inflow and intergalactic space would be regions of spatial outflow.  This would tend to make a galaxy appear to be receding from another when viewed across a distance of intergalactic space while a distant observer of both would say that the two galaxies are relatively stationary.  If we could follow a light wave as it travels from one galaxy to another the wave length would be distorted by the space it travels through.  As the wave climbs out of the flow field of the first galaxy it would be stretched (red shift) and as it falls into the flow field of the second galaxy it would be compressed (blue shift).  If the two galaxies are relatively stationary and of equal mass these two effects would be offset.  What is left is the span of intergalactic space that the light wave would have to traverse.  The effect of traveling through a region of spatial outflow would be an additional red shift.  The greater the span, the greater the shift.  With this in mind our universe might not be as big or be expanding as fast as the Hubble constant would suggest.  Some of the red shift would be due to velocity (Doppler effect) but some of it might be a measure of the amount of antimatter that is between the galaxies.

3. If a particle of matter surrounded by spatial inflow meets its antiparticle surrounded by spatial outflow,  it is easy to see that the spatial flows would cancel each other out. As the spatial gradient evaporates, the energy would be released.  Could there be another way to release the energy within a spatial gradient?  Some subatomic particles are very stable while others have very short lives.  If a particle is essentially a wave of energy surfing on a spatial inflow, then if the spatial flow could be stopped or at least slowed to less than the speed of light at the heart of the flow field, the energy would be able to escape (in fact it would have no choice).  Perhaps the stability of a particle is related to the stability of its spatial flow field.  Consider quasars.  Could super massive primordial black holes surrounded by intense electromagnetic fields suffer from a form of  "spatial starvation" causing them to release vast amounts of energy?

4. On the subject of black holes.  A premise of the fluid space model is that where ever the flow velocity reaches the speed of light, a surface is formed that represents the end of space-time-energy.  This being the case there is no way for a space-time-energy object to pass inside a black hole.  It would also be useless to speculate on the "inside" of a black hole because that would be beyond our universe.  The event horizon of a black hole would represent a boundary of our universe.  Therefore all the energy must be distributed either within the flow field or on the surface of the black hole.  Many black hole theorists may not be happy with this.

5. Could electromagnetic fields affect the flow of space?  If so then a whole new world of possibilities opens up with things like antigravity devices, weather control, new energy sources, relatively easy space travel and weapons of unimaginable power.

6. Gravity reversal in supernovae.  Gravity is always observed as an attractive force however, when viewed as a flow field, there might be rare circumstances when it could have a repulsive effect.  As a star converts matter into energy its "appetite" for space will decrease resulting in a slowly diminishing gravitational field.  For a normal star this decrease in mass and gravity is very small and very gradual with minimal changes in the spatial inflow field.  In a star moments before a supernova, large amounts of matter are converted into energy in a very short time and this will significantly reduce the spatial inflow requirements around the core of the star.  Thus the velocity of the inflow near the stellar core will adjust itself downward according to the demands of the decreased mass within the stellar core.  In addition as spatial inflow fields around individual particles are destroyed, the space within those fields will return to its "normal" volume decreasing the need for space from outside the core.  Depending on the severity of the velocity reduction, the acceleration of the flow field will be sharply decreased or even reversed, perhaps significantly reversed.  The result could be a repulsive gravity spike that will begin to expand outward from the core of the exploding star.  Combine this with the energy being released and the stellar explosion would be quite spectacular (and deadly).

7.  The recent observations of class Ia supernovae might actually signal the beginning of the big crunch!   Fluid Space Theory predicts that  in addition to the expansion of space-time in intergalactic space, there is an offsetting contraction of space-time around matter that is not accounted for in the standard model.  See item 2 above.  On a chart of stellar distance ploted against predicted red shift, the Hubble line (or a line very near it) then becomes a line representing net zero velocity.

According to Fluid Space Theory, a galaxy approaching ours could have a large red shift added to its real velocity depending on its distance.  Such a galaxy would appear to be further away and dimmer than indicated by its Hubble shift.  Conversely a galaxy receding from ours would have additional red shift making it appear closer and brighter than predicted by the Hubble constant.  In this way galaxies falling below the Hubble line would be approaching (indicating contraction) while those above the line would be receding (indicating expansion).

If we are indeed seeing  galaxies in the middle distance falling below the Hubble line while galaxies in the far distance fall above the line, we could be looking back through the transition from an expanding universe to a contracting one.  This would mean the universe began to contract about the time Earth formed and that it could be older than the 10 billion years predicted by the standard model for that time.
 

The three forms of gravity.

Lets revisit the example of Newton on the Earth or in a rocket ship.  This time lets set up a more specialized situation.  We will seal three Newton clones into three identical habitats and provide them each with a variety of  instruments to take measurements, no information will be allowed in from the outside.  We place them all into hibernation before relocating the habitats and starting the experiment.  One habitat is placed on a very dense planet that is not rotating and has the same gravity as the Earth at its surface (lets call it P for planet).  Another is taken into space, far from any gravitational field, where its up direction is aligned with that of the one on the planets surface (this alignment is done only to help with visualization).  We then apply a constant force to the habitat in space so that it accelerates at 1g (lets call it R for rocket).  The third is taken into space and set up on a long cable with a counterweight and set into a rotation so that 1g acceleration is established at the floor level (lets call it C for centrifuge).  We now wake up our Newton clones and ask them to figure out whether they are on a planet or are accelerating through space.  We have also set up a series of outside observers at various locations and various constant velocities along the path traveled by habitat R.

The foundation of special relativity theory requires that the laws of physics be invariant in all inertial systems.  Einstein extended the invariance law to the principle of equivalence for gravitational fields and thus if the three fields are equivalent, we have given our Newtons an impossible task.  On the other hand, if the habitat in space (R) continues to accelerate at 9.8 m/ss then in about 354 days it will reach the speed of light and must stop accelerating while the one on the planet surface may remain there indefinitely.  This is supported by the fact that all of the observers agree that R is constantly gaining kinetic energy and momentum while the others P and C are not. We seem to have a situation where one of our Newton clones can simply wait and eventually find out if he is moving.  This would violate the equivalence principle of general relativity.

The answer is that we can apply a constant force to habitat R in space indefinitely without it reaching the speed of light.  This can be shown to be true with relativity theory based on increased mass due to velocity.  As the mass of the moving habitat increases the constant force being applied causes an ever diminishing acceleration and the habitat will never reach the speed of light.  What also must be true is that due to the constant force applied to the habitat (R), our clone inside has the ongoing experience of 1g no matter how massive he becomes.  With time dilation, spatial contraction and mass increase it can be shown that all of these factors cancel out to give the ongoing feeling of 1g acceleration inside the habitat.

Now we have a paradox.  We have three systems in which each occupant has the identical experience of 1g acceleration that goes on indefinitely, yet one system continuously gains momentum, energy and velocity while the others don't.  What is it about gravity that allows this to happen?

Suppose that the habitats are very tall towers.  The researcher in tower R may take measurements of the weight of an object at the top of the tower and at the base.  Since the entire tower is accelerating at the same rate the object would weigh the same on any type of scale.  In the "stationary" tower P, if it is tall enough, the weight of an object measured could vary greatly depending how far out of the gravitational field the tower reaches (using a spring type scale not a balance type!).  We could also imagine dangling a weight on the end of a very long string from each habitat.  On tower R is there any length of string that could be reeled out where a change in the force exerted by the weight would be noticed? (Accounting for the mass of the string of course.)  This is not true for habitats P and C.

Einstein discussed each of these types of  apparent gravity in the development of general relativity.  He then made a jump of logic that all of these fields are equivalent, can be described by one equation and that they cannot be distinguished from one another from within a closed box.  This generalization may have been unnecessary and the assumption of equivalence questionable.  These three types of gravity are the only three types of gravity.  Any experience of gravity can be reduced to a combination of the three, each providing a component to the total apparent field.  Once having solved each individually, any field may be described.  Suppose we place a rapidly rotating carousel on a rocket and blast off from a very dense planet!  What would be the easiest way to accurately describe the experience of someone on the carousel?  Einstein however stood fast to the idea that space could have no physical reality of its own separate from material bodies and had to take the scenic route.

In each of the habitats, the observer can tell which he is in by means of a device no more complicated than a clock hanging from a calibrated fishing pole.  In habitat C while reeling out he would notice that the clock would swing always in one direction and in the opposite direction while reeling in.  He would also notice that the further he reels out the clock, the more its weight would increase and it would also run slower. He might also discover that it is possible to throw a ball into the air in a certain direction and have it describe a loop returning to the point of origin.  In habitat R there would be no swinging upon reeling in or out (also for P) and no matter how far the clock is lowered its weight will remain the same and it will keep the same time.  In habitat P as the clock is lowered it will increase in weight as long as it is still above the surface of the planet and the clock will run slower the further it is lowered.

The fluid space inflow model of gravity states that as an object moves toward the center of  the flow field the acceleration of the flow increases thus the apparent gravitational force.  In addition the spatial flow velocity increases toward the center of the flow field, thus an object sitting nearer the flow center is moving through space faster than an object further out.  This would mean that a clock at the base of the tower would read slower than a clock further up.  On tower R the flow of space would be the same velocity at the top and the base making both clocks read the same. (Attempts have been made to show that clocks in accelerating systems run at different speeds but I have found them to be in error.) In short, while a planetary gravitational field is always accompanied by a temporal field,  acceleration in free space has no velocity gradient and thus no temporal gradient.

What about the equivalence principle?  The tower moving through space represents a uniform accelerated system while the tower on the planet exists in a spatial and temporal gradient and thus exists in a variable accelerated system.  The tower swinging around on the end of the cable is also in a variable accelerated system of another kind.  Since the three systems are distinguishable from within each system the curvature is not equivalent.  There is only equivalence at the very local level of space in each system.  At a microscopic level the three systems are similar and the fluid flow model predicts this.  At any larger level the three systems may be distinguished from each other.  Equivalence is maintained in the properties of the space that is flowing within each system.

It is interesting to note that each of the three forms of gravity described above makes use of a different number of spatial dimensions in addition to time.  The rocket type (linear acceleration) uses one space axis.  The centrifuge type takes place on a rotating plane involving two space dimensions.  The spherical inflow (or outflow) model uses all three space dimensions.

The answer to the question of why objects in a gravity field do not gain energy and momentum over time is a unique feature of a spatial inflow. At any place in the flow there exists both an instantaneous acceleration and velocity.  At any fixed distance from the center, the flow velocity and acceleration are constant.  When viewed this way, an object that is "stationary" experiences an acceleration while remaining at a constant velocity.  Kinetic energy and momentum being functions of velocity and independent of acceleration are thus unchanged.  [This is something that I find to be amazing, how the laws of physics (conservation of energy, momentum and special relativity) involve velocity alone and impose no limits on position or acceleration (the higher and lower time differentials of velocity).  This indicates that space-time obeys a very special mathematical function related to velocity where both the derivative and the integral of the function vanish.]

Einstein's principle of equivalence is at times not properly applied.  It is an attempt to generalize all gravity fields within one mathematical formula, to extend the law of invariance for inertial systems of special relativity to accelerated reference systems.  The equivalence principle assumes that all gravity fields that can be experienced are of the same type and exhibit the same characteristics i.e. curved space.  This proposition may have a flaw.  This can be shown without applying the concept of spatial flow.

In general relativity, a gravity field due to mass constitutes positively curved space.  In this space, the region of increased curvature (spatial density) lies in the direction of the field center, what we call down.  In the up direction lies free space and decreasing curvature.  This is also true for a rotating system (negatively curved space).  In an accelerated system (R) the region of higher spatial densities lies in the direction of travel, the up direction.  As the system accelerates (in the up direction) it progresses into regions where mass increases, length diminishes and time slows.  Behind it (in the down direction) lies the region of lower masses greater length and faster clocks.  How is this reversal accounted for?  There is a flaw in this argument as well but it is the same flaw that has been used to show that clocks at different elevations in a linearly accelerated system (R) run at different speeds.  The flaw is that to view things this way we have stepped outside the reference frame of the rocket so any conclusions we draw will not be valid inside the rocket.

The answer is that system R is neutrally curved, it is gravity without curved space.  If an observer watches habitat R fly past and adjusts his observations for time delays that result from viewing objects at different distances, he would observe that at any one instant the velocity of the base is equal to the velocity of the top and thus all points in between (otherwise the habitat would be coming apart).  Applying the Lorentz transformations of special relativity he would conclude that a clock at any location in R would keep the same time as in any other location and meter sticks would be of equal length anywhere.  At any instant we could select a reference frame moving at the same velocity as the rocket located at any point on the rocket and see no relative velocity to any other point on the rocket.  If general relativity assumes that clocks in all gravitational fields keep different times in different locations, it is a generalization that whenever a gravity field is experienced space must be curved.  Not allowing for neutral curvature in this case would put general relativity in conflict with special relativity.

In a region of curved space as described by general relativity clocks and meter sticks if laid out in an extended grid would gradually begin to disagree from location to location in the grid.  Even if the clocks and meter sticks are all made and calibrated at one location and shipped out to the outlying regions of the grid this would still be true.  Within the extended grid, if a clock in region A is fast compared to a clock in region B special relativity would predict that a meter stick in A would be longer than a meter stick in B and atoms in A would have less mass than similar ones in B.  The difference in the rate of the clocks would be related to the difference of the lengths of the meter sticks and masses of atoms by the Lorentz transformations.  In order to make the calculation we could compute a "virtual velocity" between A and B to plug into the equations.  I say "virtual velocity" because the grid between A and B is in place and the number of clocks and meter sticks between them is static.  In a real situation this would compare to a clock at the top of a mountain (A) and one on the base (B) on a planet that is not rotating.  Any one can tell that as long as there are no earth quakes or landslides the clock at the base is at rest relative to the clock at the top.  General relativity however predicts that the clock at the top of the mountain will run faster than the clock at the base and this has been verified by experiment.  We would then expect that a meter stick at the top of the mountain would be longer than one at the base.  We could calculate this difference using the virtual velocity obtained from the difference in the clocks.

Now lets set up a string of clocks and meter sticks from the base of the mountain to the top.  Each clock and meter stick along the way would gradually change from the prior one as we progress along the line.  We could calculate a virtual velocity relative to A for each step along the way to map the curvature of space from A to B.  The virtual velocity would be a good unit because it would allow us to compute both the difference in lengths of the meter sticks and times of the clocks from one figure.  If the virtual velocity changes from one location to the next could we describe the rate of change in virtual velocity as a "virtual acceleration"?  Just as the virtual velocity was used to map the curvature of space, the virtual acceleration could be used to map the gravitational effect of the curvature of space.  We know that an object would weigh less on the mountain top because it is further from the planet's center and the acceleration of gravity decreases inversely to the square of the distance from the planet's center.  If we add the virtual acceleration to the acceleration due to gravity as we move down the mountain it works out that at the base we arrive with the exact difference in the gravitational acceleration between the base and the top of the mountain.

Lets review, we can put a real clock at the base and the top of a real mountain and read real differences in the time they keep,  from this we can compute a real difference in the length of a meter stick between the base and one at the top of the mountain.  We can also measure a real difference in the weight or acceleration due to gravity between the base and the top of a mountain.  Why then must we say that there is only a "virtual" difference in velocity?  If all these other things are real the difference in velocity is also real.  Clock A at the top of the mountain must have a real velocity relative to B through space.  We know that the mountain is not growing or moving so the only way for this to be true is that space must be flowing and accelerating between A and B.

If the spatial flow model is accepted, the concept that gravity is propagated outward from a massive object can be seen as similar to the ancient physicists who believed that vision emanated from within our eyes.  They reasoned that the speed of the optic rays must be infinite since having closed your eyes and then opening them objects at a great distance could be seen instantly.  Isn't this similar to Newton's assumption of instantaneous action at a distance?  Just as when it was discovered that the way we see comes in from the world at large that new answers followed, it will also be for gravity when seen as coming from without and not from within.
 

It is time to establish a mathematical basis for stable spatial gradients.

The problem in developing a mathematical model is the duality of point of view.  From the point of view of a particle moving within a flow field, its path does not change.  It maintains constant velocity in relation to its local space.  This is similar to fields arrived at by general relativity.  From this view point Newton's "force" of gravity is an illusion.  Two particles interacting by gravity then each see from their own point of view that there has been no interaction.  It is only when viewed from an outside point of view that curved trajectories are seen and changes in velocity, momentum, kinetic energy.  The reason that these are seen is that there is an assumed uniformity of space imposed over the reality of curved and flowing space.  If the flow of space could be "seen"  every particle in the universe could be viewed as being at rest or moving at a constant velocity in a straight line.  A mathematical function that could map flowing space onto a coordinate system of  "fixed space" and vise versa could lead to great simplification in the accounting of motions and interactions of particles.

The development should be guided by keeping to one point of view or the other and making substitutions that are appropriate for the chosen point of view.  Formulas and equations should be either within one point of view or the other or with one point of view on the left of the equal sign and the other on the right.  Functions involving radial distances expressed as either length or (time x c) should be handled carefully using terms independent of radius when possible.  For example expressing the area of a sphere in terms of it's measured circumference or visual diameter rather than it's radius.

I have derived Newton's law of gravitation with higher order terms from an inflow model using differential equations.  I believe it is possible to derive the Lorentz transformations from an inflow model.  I have many more ideas concerning the interaction of multiple spatial inflow and outflow objects.  I am willing to share these with anyone interested who might have more analytical resources available.

The challenges for this theory are in proving that the inflow model works in terms of volumes and velocities when the time derivative of the flow rate is set to a constant.  If this is accomplished, a characterization of the surface formed when the flow velocity reaches the speed of light and the properties of the object that is created would follow.  There may be several types of these objects depending on the directions of the time, velocity and energy propagation vectors.  If these objects can describe matter there would have to be a limited set of stable solutions for the inflow models.  I have only taken a few steps down this path.  It is a path that Einstein strictly avoided and he may have been right.  I have tried to put this theory down as completely and coherently as possible.  Any comments and questions of a constructive nature are welcome at the address below.
 

John Huenefeld  e-mail  huesoft@flash.net