Physical Implications of Flowing Space

Henry H. Lindner

Updated October 27, 2000

This theory is as big as all physics. I can't do it alone. Please let me know what you think; especially if you find any errors in my arguments or evidence. Let me know what you think.

Abstract

Many implications and predictions of the theory and their possible tests are discussed. This necessarily involves speculation, some of which is certainly inadequate, if not incorrect. This theory of space, gravity, light, and matter reaches beneath the level of appearances to explain the Cosmic phenomena which Relativity and Quantum theory merely describe.

1. Unified Dimensional System

This physical interpretation of gravity leads to a new and fruitful interpretation of our dimensions, and of the gravitational constant, G. Having characterized gravity as due to the acceleration and flow of a massless space, we can reduce our mass unit (kg) to a function of length (L) and time (T ). Maxwell suggested¹ that if mass were defined in terms of the acceleration it produced, its units would be L³T ^-2. This is apparent from the Newtonian formula: , which requires that GM have the units L³T ^-2. In order to emphasize the spherical geometry of space flow, I reinsert the cancelled terms to produce:

. (1)

In Newtonian mechanics, describes matter's sink strength--the centripetal space acceleration (LT ^-2) that it produces through any given spherical area () outside the mass M and sharing its center. This implies that is simply the conversion factor between kilograms and LT units. Thus the sink strength, , of a 1kg mass ism³s^-2. In LT units then, momentum (mv) has the units L⁴T ^-3, force () has L⁴T ^-4, and energy () has L⁵T ^-4.

To treat electromagnetism, we consider that matter produces a spatial velocity which affects atomic clocks and light outside any mass. describes the square of space's velocity (L²T^-2) through a given circumference ():

. (2)

This velocity explains the known effects of gravity on electromagnetic (EM) phenomena and predicts others. To include EM phenomena in this unified LT system, we again follow Maxwell and substitute (L³T ^-2) for M in his M-L-T electromagnetic units² . Electrostatic charge thus has the dimensions L³T ^-2 (identical to mass); the electrostatic field is LT^-2. EM charge is L²T; EM voltage is L²T ^-2; etc. The permittivity of free space, (L^-2T ²), and the permeability of free space, (L⁰T⁰), are fundamental spatial constants

2. Spatial Dynamics

I propose that space is a hitherto unknown substance, the substrate of all physical phenomena. In regard to space, we are in the same position as the ancient Greeks were in regard to air. They argued over its existence, since it could not be directly seen. Eventually the skeptics were convinced by concrete demonstrations of its substantial effects. Likewise, space cannot be directly sensed, but its existence is evidenced by its effects. If we are to move beyond the mere description of measurements, we must theorize about space and how it produces its effects. Space is that which resists the acceleration of matter; that which transmits light at c; that which resists the luminal velocity of matter; that which mediates gravity; and that which produces and sustains subatomic particles and mediates all their interactions. Although we can imagine a space which is a void--mere extension; it is obvious that the actual space of the Cosmos is a physical substance with many real properties. Einstein admitted as much after he had tried to treat accelerated motion and gravity in his general theory.³

The task of a truly theoretical physics is to take all that we know about space, motion, and matter and create a theory which can account for and explain all phenomena. We must attribute to space the needed qualities. We must violate Einstein's prohibition and give space both parts and motion. To begin with, space must have parts, it cannot be an undifferentiated continuum. The consistent size of physical phenomena implies that space has a fine structure, possibly at the Planck scale. I envision volume-creating "cells". These spatial cells constitute a unique type of fluid. They can move relative to their neighbors. The cells may have some internal structure or external features that allow them to support these various phenomena, or there may be two or more kinds of cells. The data imply that these cells are themselves massless and frictionless. Mass is the dynamic result of sink flow. While flowing like a fluid, they can also conduct EM motions like an elastic solid. I propose that all phenomena can be explained if we posit that space supports two kinds of phenomena: fluid-dynamic and electromagnetic. I have tried to explain most known phenomena using a space that had these two essential characteristics.

Characteristics of Space:

1. Fluid-Dynamic--Space acts like a compressible fluid
Gravity due to sink flow into hadrons
Inertia due to hadronic sink flow
Entrainment of space by moving sinks -- see Flowing Space
The compression of space in sink flows
The motion of light in sink flows
Creation/Release of space in nuclear reactions
Fluid-dynamic spatial waves--gravity waves and "neutrinos"
Spatial tension in the interior of celestial bodies--geothermal energy
Interactions of moving sinks
Hadronic/Cosmic cycle

2. Electromagnetic--Space supports transverse EM waves
EM radiation
Electrons and positrons
Electronic quanta
Leptons
Hadrons
Atomic clocks and spectra--the transverse Doppler shift
Atoms

I will first deal with the fluid-dynamic aspects of space.

2.1 Inertia from Gravitation

This theory leads to a plausible explanation of inertia. I have posited that all matter is a spatial sink. Since gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent (Eötvös 1889, 1908), it is reasonable to presume that they have the same cause. This theory suggests that the dynamic, accelerative field of flow that a body creates in its surrounding space not only causes other matter to accelerate towards it (gravity), but also tethers the body in space so that any translational acceleration of the body relative to the surrounding space is resisted. Such a translational acceleration, interacting with the inflow acceleration, would create tension in the surrounding space. There would exist opposing accelerations (L⁴T ^-4) as the body is accelerated away from the very space which it is accelerating towards itself. This tension cannot be instantaneously relieved. Once the force is no longer being applied, the opposing accelerations will cease, the tension in space will be relieved, and the body will move at a uniform velocity in the massless, frictionless space with very little resistance (L⁴T ^-3). Significant hydrodynamic resistance to unaccelerated motion may occur only when the body moves at near luminal velocity.

The concept of inertia resulting from gravitation can be illustrated with a hydrodynamic analogy. Imagine a large perforated sphere with an attached hose which is connected to a powerful suction pump. The sphere is placed deep in a large body of water. With the pump off, one pulls on a rope attached to the sphere and measures the resistance to acceleration. When the pump is turned on, the sphere sucks water from all directions, creating a field of flow similar to that created by matter in space. Now when one pulls on the hose, one will find that the "energized" sphere's resistance to acceleration will be greater. Entrainment may also be demonstrated in this analogy. Experiments using dye in the water will show that, as the sphere is pulled at a uniform velocity in the water, the water around it is swept or entrained into its motion as it is being sucked into the sphere equally over all its surface. Of course the analogy is imperfect. Unlike space, water has mass and friction that reduce these effects.

Tests: Studies of fluids and sinks in motion in a medium, both real and computer-generated, could support or challenge this theory of inertia.

2.2 The Gravitational Compression of Space

Consider that the formula for the velocity of space near matter,

, (3)

differs in r-dependence from the formula for the velocity of an ideal fluid flowing into a sink:

, (4)

where is the sink strength.

As the space flows into mass, its velocity increases at a slower rate than that of an incompressible fluid. For an ideal fluid, has the units L³T ^-1, which reflects an equal volume rate of flow at any given r. But the has the units L³T ^-2, which indicate a volume rate that changes with time. In fact, the apparent spatial volume rate, which is the product of the apparent spatial velocity and the spherical area at a given r, , decreases as space approaches the Earth. For instance, the apparent volume rate at 1000 Earth radii (1000_er) is proportional to or 1000^3/2 or times that of the surface. At 10_er the rate is 10^3/2 or 31.6 times that of the surface. At 2_er the volume rate is 2^3/2, or 2.83 times greater than the volume rate at the Earth's surface.

There are several possible explanations for this apparent volume loss. Space might be uniformly compressed as it flows into mass. Its constituent parts, or "cells", may lose volume and thus do not increase in velocity as much as an incompressible fluid would (spatial velocity being what we measure with atomic clocks or escape velocity experiments and corresponding to some number of space "cells" per second.) Secondly, some spatial cells might just "disappear" as they approach mass, but I can produce no evidence or arguments for this. Thirdly, the cells might be compressed in a non-uniform manner. They may be compressed horizontally but elongated vertically as they approach mass. In this case, they would produce a lower velocity (cells-per-second) and thus a slower apparent atomic clock velocity than they would otherwise. Perhaps some other process is involved which I simply have not imagined. Remember that Einstein, using abstract concepts only, also predicted the compression of space near mass, and thus that objects are larger when farther from mass. This compression was supported by studies of the time delay in light signals passing through the (compressed) space near the Sun (Shapiro 1964).

Tests: Studies of fluids, both real and imaginary, flowing into a spherical sink could shed light on the alteration of the space as it flows into matter. Further studies of the light-time delay near celestial bodies to test this theory would also be helpful. The predictions of this physical theory of inflowing space could be compared to Einstein's model to produce a decisive experiment.

2.3. The Motion of Light in Gravitating Space

How will the field of sink flow around a celestial body affect the motion of light? I can identify three known or expected effects: curvature by compression of space near mass, curvature by velocity differentials in the field of flow, and displacement towards the sink.

2.3.1 The Curvature of Light

How will the field of sink flow around a celestial body affect the motion of light? It should produce two effects: curvature towards the body; and displacement. Light will be displaced towards the body if the body is a sink, and away from the body if it's a source.
The direction of light grazing a gravitating body like our Sun should be both curved towards the body and displace towards it. Curvature towards the body could be caused by the velocity differentials in the sink flow and/or by the transverse compression of space as it flows into the body. The curvature causes objects on the far side of our Sun to appear farther from the Sun's edge than they actually are. However, the displacement of grazing light towards the Sun would cause objects to appear nearer the Sun, thus antagonizing the curvature effect.

The compression of space cells near matter would cause a grazing light wave to have a slower velocity on the matter-ward side--causing it to curve towards it. The curvature of light has indeed been described in the literature as resulting from an increase in a "fictitious" refractive index of space near mass⁴ represented by the formula:

. (5)

Since represents , the refractive index can be expressed as

. (6)

The experimentally-confirmed GR formula for astronomical light deflection,⁵

, (7)

can likewise be written as

. (8)

Thus the deflection of light passing by a body at any altitude, r, is proportional to the ratio of the squares of the space velocity at r and the velocity of light in space. This relationship of curvature to spatial velocity certainly suggests a causal relationship.

Tests: To what extent curvature is due to compression of space alone or also to velocity differentials in the sink flow, and how these are offset by displacement of light can be examined by experiment and mathematical modelling. Simple experiments can show whether the velocity differentials in an area of sink flow create a persistent change in the direction in waves passing through that area. If not, then we will be able to conclude that it is the compression of space alone that creates gravitational lensing.

2.3.2 The Displacement of Light

As light grazes a celestial body, it might not only suffer curvature towards the body, but also a displacement towards that body as it is carried inward by the sink flow. Locally, on the Earth's surface, light emitted parallel to the surface should drop 0.112 m over a 3 km distance (11.2 km/s spatial velocity 3 x 10⁵ km/s light velocity in space). This is not a curvature but only linear displacement. A spreading sphere of light from an Earth-surface source should be displaced downwards in the 11.2 km/s flow. Interestingly, the angular deviation of the apparent position of a source that this flow might cause is masked by the compensating effect of aberration since both the observer and light source on the Earth's surface have the same velocity in the 11.2 km/s spatial flow. The question also remains whether light, having passed through the entire region of sink flow, will suffer a displacement toward the sink.

Tests: The astronomical data can be reviewed to whether any displacement towards celestial bodies is compatible with the evidence.

2.4 The Gravitational Doppler Shift
Within GR, the question has not, and indeed cannot be resolved ⁶ as to whether the gravitational red-shift seen astronomically in the spectra of atoms is due to an intrinsic change in the atomic frequency, or to an increase in the wavelength of the signal due to its rising out of a gravitational field. This theory resolves this question in a most economical way. It is known that the gravitational 2^o Doppler redshift occurs when no intervening signal is used. It has been documented in experiments where atomic clocks were kept at different altitudes. Comparison of elapsed times revealed that the higher clock (in the slower space flow) ran faster.⁷^,⁸ In such cases, the slowing of atomic clocks at any given r was a 2^o Doppler effect given by the formula:

. (9)

These experiments clearly demonstrate that there is an intrinsic slowing of the electronic and nuclear frequencies of atoms near mass. The observation of spectral lines from the Sun⁹ and from white dwarf stars¹⁰reveals only this instrinsic shift given by the above formula. No additional red shift in these spectra, such as might be due to the signal's rising against gravity, has been observed.

The Pound-Rebka experiment¹¹ introduced a very small velocity between emitting and absorbing isotopes that created a 1^o Doppler shift to compensate for the gravitational 2^o Doppler shift affecting the upper and lower isotopes as described in the above formula; again implying that there was no additional Doppler shift in the signal due to the signal rising or falling in gravity. I conclude that light itself is not red-shifted as it rises in a gravitational field, nor blue-shifted as it falls.

This analysis opposes the conventional relativistic rationales for the gravitational red shift:

1) That it is due to the loss of mass-energy () of photons rising in a gravitational field, and
2) that it is due to what a falling observer would see (sic).

Both imply, contrary to the atomic clock evidence, that it is an observed frequency shift in the freely propagating light signal that causes the gravitational red-shift, not an intrinsic slowing of the emitting source.

The velocity of space is 11.2 km/s at the Earth's surface, less at higher altitudes, and theoretically zero at an infinite distance. At first glance this seems to imply not only an intrinsic 2^o Doppler slowing of atomic spectra and clocks as discussed above, but also a 1^o Doppler shift in light signals traveling with or against the space flow. For instance, a signal sent to the Earth from a source at rest at an infinite distance might be seen on the Earth's surface as blueshifted by a factor of v/c or . But the distant observer should also see a signal from the Earth's surface blueshifted by the same amount since the Earth-surface source is moving through the space at 11.2km/s in the direction of the distant observer.

So how can there be no 1^o Doppler shift when the inflowing space has an increasing velocity? Obviously, an observer cannot perpetually count more waves than a source produces. Extra oscillations cannot arise from nothing. In order to increase in velocity in the region between source and observer, the medium must undergo some change. There must be either streaming of the medium, or a stretching. These alteration of the medium was discussed in section 3.3 above. We saw in that section that in order to explain the apparent changes in velocity and volume rate in the inflowing space, there must be not only compression of the cells, but also rearrangement, or "streaming". This is similar to but less prominent than the streaming that occurs in an incompressible fluid flowing into a sink. This alteration of the medium must elongate the waves which the medium is transmitting.

2.5. Hadronic Space Consumption

Why does mass consume space? Let's look at the evidence. The huge majority of the apparent mass of an atom is in its nucleus, which is composed of hadrons (protons and neutrons). The nucleus holds many positively charged protons by a perpetual "strong force" which we do not understand. Electrons do not have the strong force and have not been proven to have the same kind of inertia that multiatomic matter does. We ascribe mass to electrons on the basis of their resistance to deflection in a magnetic field; not by putting them on a scale or giving them a push. And an electron's velocity is a function of its wavelength; when it is forcibly accelerated it emits waves and in order to decelerate it must emit waves. This radiative electromagnetic "inertia" has never been detected in multiatomic masses. Contrary to current assumptions, there is no direct evidence that electrons, light or "energy" actually create gravity, as is currently assumed. Therefore, it is likely that only hadrons consume space and cause gravity. This would imply that the "strong force" and gravity are different aspects of the same process, and that it is the consumption of space that "fuels" the perpetual "strong force" and gravity. I will try to demonstrate the fruitfulness of this hypothesis.

Tests: Experiments can be designed, or astronomical observations reviewed to test whether gravity is actually created by electrons, heat, light, increased "mass-energy" due to increased relative velocity, or any other forms of measured "mass-energy". Lack of such evidence supports this theory and contradicts Relativity.

2.6. Space Creation/Release

If space can be consumed, can it also be produced? Might this help to explain hitherto unexplained phenomena? I suggest that there are four phenomena which indicate that the destruction of hadronic mass creates or releases space:

1. The shock wave that accompanies nuclear blasts
2. Neutrinos
3. The observations of Supernova 1987A
4. The Cosmic inflation of the Big Bang.

I am not convinced that our current theories of uranium fission or hydrogen fusion reactions explain the enormous blast effect produced by nuclear bombs. Chemical bombs cause a blast effect by the mass and velocity of the reaction products. How do fusion bombs create their greater blast effect? Fusion creates only helium and tritium nuclei, EM radiation, and neutrinos. Which of these flattens every building within hundreds of meters in air bursts and creates large seismic disturbances in underground tests? It does not seem likely that it is the few high-velocity alpha particles, or the high-frequency radiation, or the massless neutrinos, or the heating of the surrounding air, or some amorphous "energy". I submit that the blast effect is due to the creation or release, at superluminal velocity, of a large volume of space. This absolutely displaces a like volume of the surrounding medium (air, Earth, water) creating a powerful compression wave in that medium.

Tests: A review of conventional and atomic bomb data may reveal whether they are consistent with this hypothesis. A study of the effects of atomic bombs in the relative vacuum of space may also shed light on the blast mechanism. Specific experiments can be designed using nuclear reactions to test this hypothesis.

2.7. Dynamic Spatial Waves

This creation of space in nuclear reactions should also cause a longitudinal compression wave in the space itself. Has this space wave ever been detected? What has it been called?

2.7.1. High-frequency Spatial Waves - Neutrinos

"Neutrinos" are an enigma. They are referred to as particles and yet they are thought to be without mass, without charge, capable of penetrating planets, and always moving at the speed of light. They have different energies even though they have no detectable mass and their velocity is invariant! What could such a phenomenon be? Current theories offer no plausible explanation. If neutrinos are particles flying through a void, they should travel at every possible velocity. I suggest that neutrinos are not particles at all but are spherically-spreading high-frequency longitudinal waves in fluid space. It appears that space conducts these hydrodynamic waves at c, the same velocity at which it conducts transverse EM waves. It is likely that all hadronic reactions either produce space or alter its consumption; thus creating hydrodynamic waves. As a result of particle decays, solar fusion, and mass motion space is everywhere disturbed by hydrodynamic waves of many frequencies. These waves appear to be particles because we detect them only by their interactions with particles and nuclei (just as with light). This method of detection could also produce the current family of different neutrinos and the spin imputed to them. The electron, tau, and mu neutrinos may simply be hydrodynamic waves of differing frequency and amplitude. Anti-neutrinos may be what we call the rarefaction associated with these waves instead of the compression (or vice versa). Astronomically, we detect neutrinos by observing weak decays of unstable nuclei (Cl¹³⁷). Since the stability of all nuclei depends upon the consumption of space, it is reasonable that a longitudinal compression-rarefaction wave in the space could provoke such a decay. It is possible also that some detected "neutrinos" are actually spatial vortices. These should be distinguished by the fact that they do not move at c. We are thus labeling as "neutrino" any spatial hydrodynamic pressure disturbance which causes a weak interaction which we can detect (see 3.4 Leptons below). And the "neutrinos" we detect are the result of the interference of waves from the "source" with background waves--resulting in the need for a probabilistic account of such reactions.

Perhaps this theory can also explain the observed solar neutrino deficit. In the space-starved stellar interior, space produced by fusion reactions will be immediately consumed by nearby nuclei, thus dampening the hydrodynamic waves produced. The waves which reach our detectors are thus lower in amplitude than expected and create fewer nuclear transformations in our detectors.

The observations of Supernova 1987A can be interpreted using this model, and can support its account of nuclear reactions. The "neutrinos" arrived in a ten-second burst two hours before the light from the event, and most of the energy of the explosion was in the neutrino output. One current explanation¹² ascribes ad hoc properties to neutrinos (extension and mass). The theory proposes that they arrived over ten seconds because they were "impeded" by the high density of the core; and that they "revived" a shock wave that moved slowly through the star from the core to the surface eventually causing the light display. My theory is that the destruction of hadronic mass created, at superluminal velocity, a sphere of new space two light-hours in radius. Thus the hydrodynamic waves arrived two hours before the light waves could propagate from the reacting mass through the new space. The ten-second duration of the neutrino burst signifies that the nuclear reaction took ten seconds to propagate through the entire reacting mass. Assuming that the reaction was started in the core and that it propagated at a velocity close to c, then the reacting mass was 10 light-seconds in radius.

2.7.2. Low Frequency Spatial Waves

Because the space is like a fluid, it would be expected that the motion of masses through it would create low-frequency waves in space. Any sudden change in the hadronic mass of a body would also be propagated as a wave. This provides a simple, much-needed physical model for the geometric "gravity waves" in imaginary "space-time" predicted by Einstein.

2.8. Astrophysical Space Dynamics

I propose that hadronic and nuclear stability depend on a process which consumes space. Space is destroyed, transmuted, or stored within the hadrons. This implies that if insufficient space is available for consumption, large nuclei will be destabilized; and at higher space-tensions hadrons will be destroyed. This process would help to explain several hitherto unexplained phenomena. Once space enters an astronomical body like the Earth, it is consumed by nuclei causing its flow to decelerate. Gravity decreases with depth. If a planet is large and dense enough, the spatial flow will decrease to the point that the core nuclei cannot get enough space. The core will have a high spatial tension as the mantle and outer core suck space away from the inner core. What happens in the core depends on the body's volume, atomic composition, and density. The evidence suggests that the core of the Earth and, to a lesser extent, the cores of all other planets in our solar system produce excess heat. In the Earth this is thought to be due to excess radioactivity. Why this excess is occurring in the core and not in the upper mantle or crust is a mystery. I hypothesize that sufficient space cannot reach the Earth's core. A high spatial tension there destabilizes large nuclei causing excess decay and perhaps fission. The fact that the inner core is solid iron, the most stable of all nuclei, implies that all the heavier elements have decayed to iron, and all lighter elements fused to iron. A similar process of core spatial tension may explain the ignition of fusion in a newly formed star. Likewise, the central regions of galaxies may have high spatial tensions causing hadronic destruction on a vast scale and creating the EM energy observed there.

Tests: It should not be too difficult to create a mathematical model of this spatial tension and its effects and compare it to the Earth and astronomical data. This theory has many new implications for black holes. They can be treated as physical objects instead of mathematical oddities. As stated above, a black hole would be created when a body's mass and volume are such that the terminal velocity of its inwardly flowing space exceeded the velocity of light in space. At the body's surface, atoms subjected to superluminal motion relative to space (RTS) would be pushed toward the interior and stripped of electrons. If their nuclei could not survive superluminal motion, then space and EM energy would be created and carried into the interior which would become a superheated plasma. If the black hole's consumption of new material is insufficient to compensate for this loss of hadronic mass, the space flow would slow to subluminal velocity and EM radiation and particles would escape. If surface nuclei can endure superluminal motion RTS then a black hole will be far more stable. But it would also be threatened by space starvation and the destruction of hadronic mass in its core.

A black hole orbiting with another mass, or a black system of masses, may ingest just enough hadronic mass to cause the spatial flow to rapidly cycle between superluminal and subluminal velocities over some part of the system's surfaces due to tidal effects. This radiation would be greatly redshifted when seen by an outside observer since it originates in a near-luminal space flow (gravitational redshift). These processes could account for some of the observed pulsating and variable Cosmic radio sources. In a rapidly rotating near-black body, it is conceivable that only at the poles would the motion of the body's surface RTS have a subluminal velocity. This could produce jets of particles and radiation from the poles; such as have been observed.

Tests: The astronomical data can be reviewed in light of this hypothesis to see if it is consistent with the evidence, particularly the many strange new objects revealed by the Hubble Space Telescope.

2.9. Interplanetary Space Dynamics

The orbital motions and interactions of the heavenly bodies can now be interpreted using this dynamic model. Let us apply our hypothesis that the gravitational effects among bodies in a system can be understood as resulting from the bodies' motion through and consumption of the surrounding fluid medium which must flow into the system from outside. The physical situation in celestial mechanics is that of a number of spherical sinks in motion in a large body of frictionless, massless fluid.

The motion of the space in our solar system is conditioned primarily by our Sun and to a lesser extent by its satellites. Since each planet entrains a large volume of space into its orbital motion, a significant amount of the space in our solar system is rotating around the Sun at varying angular velocities. This creates a partial vortex which enhances the stability of the orbital system and further reduces any resistance to planetary motion. Every solar system drags a large volume of galaxial space with it as it orbits the galactic center. This may explain the vortical appearance of galaxies.

This physical model provides a plausible explanation of the observed variations from Newton's inverse square law of gravitation. His law, which simply multiplies two accelerations to obtain an attractive "force" (L⁴T ^-4), is a simplification which works only if masses are within a certain range of comparable size and within a certain range of distance; i.e. if a certain tension develops in the space between them. Not surprisingly, most of the bodies in our solar system fall within this range. But if two masses are very far apart and there is no other nearby mass, the apparent force between them will be less than Newton's equation suggests. The space in the surrounding space can easily flow into the volume between the two masses so that less tension develops between them than expected by Newton's law. Less tension also occurs when the masses are close but one mass is very small compared to the other. Its motion reduces to the equation for the spatial acceleration created by the larger mass (). Thus our "law" that all masses fall at the same acceleration in the Earth's gravity is only an approximation for masses that are very small relative to the Earth. As comparably large planetary masses are brought nearer from a great distance, the volume under tension increases and space flow into the intervening space cannot compensate. The apparent force of attraction becomes equal to Newton's prediction, then begins to exceed it. This would account for "strong gravity" and explain Einstein's concept of the added gravitational potential of gravitational energy itself. This could explain the excess gravity thought to cause the anomaly of Mercury's perihelion. It is reasonable to assume that within galaxies there is also excess spatial tension which causes the apparent attraction of the stars for each other to exceed the expected. This could explain the excess rotational velocity of galaxies and eliminate the need for the undiscovered galactic dark matter.

2.10. The Hadronic-Cosmic Cycle

All hadronic matter appears to be consuming space, and there is no evidence that enough space is being created anywhere in sufficient quantity to compensate for this consumption. If the Cosmos is finite, then galactic space consumption must eventually slow the expansion of the Cosmos, and then reverse it. No "dark matter" would be needed. Gravitation would eventually cause Cosmic implosion. As the Cosmos imploded, it would reach a certain density at which there is no longer enough space to maintain the galaxies in the center and they would be destroyed. A vast amount of space would be created over a brief period of time. This spatial sphere would expand at superluminal velocity; thus accounting for proposed Cosmic Inflation. New hadrons would condense in this new space, eventually forming new galaxies. Fragments of outer galaxies, or even whole galaxies might survive this implosion. Both old and new galaxies would be carried to widely separated locations by the expanding sphere of space. Since this is an inhomogeneous physical process, it would produce an inhomogeneous Cosmos such as astronomers have discovered. The end of inflation would leave the new galaxies with their momentum in the new space and they would continue to fly apart - the Hubble expansion we see today. The vast amount of EM radiation released by hadronic destruction during Cosmic implosion would be greatly red-shifted due to the fact that it originated in the Cosmic fireball (gravitational redshift)--leaving the Cosmic microwave background. Eventually, the recession of the galaxies would slow and then reverse as the finite amount of Cosmic space was consumed and the tension in the intervening space increased--thus beginning another Big Crunch. The Cosmos thus may be inherently cyclical, but space and its motions may be eternal.

There is another scenario suggested by this theory. If Suns are net space sources due to their nuclear reactions, then all galaxies are might be net sources. If all galaxies are producing space now, then they would be forced apart with time--the older the galaxy, the more space it has created, the farther apart it is from its neighbors. The more galaxies there are between ours and a distant galaxy, the greater must be the velocity of its recession from us. The radial velocity space creation of easy intervening galaxy would be additive. This could Hubble expansion. In this scenario, expansion would have to continue until most stellar fuel is exhausted, only then would space consumption outstrip production and the collapse begin.

Tests: A prevalence of heavy elements greater than expected to be synthesized since the last Bang would indicate that some matter from a previous Crunch survived. Further study of this hypothesis and the "dark matter" issue would be useful. Studies of particle motion near our Sun could help us to determine whether its a sink or source.

3. Spatial Electromagnetics

3.1 Light

So far I have been discussing the implications of a simple single hypothesis: Space is like a fluid which is consumed by mass. Now I must addressEM phenomena in more detail. It is reasonable to presume that space, like any fluid, has some sort of fine particulate structure; perhaps it is composed of volume-creating "cells" at the Planck scale. To explain all physical phenomena, we must assume that these same cells which flow into matter like a fluid can, at the same time, conduct electromagnetic motions like an elastic solid. Electromagnetism is an activity the space cells. It's not an irreducible "wave-like energy" in an empty void; it's a wave in electromagnetic space. EM motions may involve some sort of distortion, rotation, or internal rearrangement of the space cells. It has long been argued that space should have an extreme mechanical rigidity in order to transmit transverse light waves at c, and that this is incompatible with the passage of mass through space without resistance. This argument is a non-sequitor because the evidence demands only that space have electromagnetic, not mechanical rigidity. Space is a unique substance--the ground of electromagnetics and mechanics. In our ignorance of space, we must ascribe to it whatever qualities are demanded by the evidence as long as these contain no contradiction. Since electromagnetic and hadronic/fluid dynamic motions are qualitatively different processes, it is possible, nay, it is necessary that the space can act with extreme rigidity to EM motions while, at the same time, flowing and moving frictionlessly into and around matter. This simple bi-partite theory of space works, as shown, to explain many phenomena.

3.2 Electrons

What is an electron? How can it be related to this theory of space? I submit that the evidence indicates that the electron is simply an EM wave-formation in the space; it is curled-up light that has formed some sort of stable structure in the space. This conclusion is supported by the evidence that electrons do not participate in the weak or strong forces and that the mutual annihilation of positrons and electrons produces only EM radiation. TheEM waves in an electron are uniquely arranged so that the electric fields are all directed outward from the center, producing the negative charge. The free electron is not a point particle, it is as large as its sphere of EM influence in the space. EM "attraction" and "repulsion" may be explained as motions induced in overlapping standing wave-fields by the interference of their respective directional stresses in space. Constructive interference of their waves (e.g. a positron and an electron) causes charged particles to coalesce; destructive interference (e.g. two electrons) causes these standing waves to separate. The presence of spin and electromagnetic moment in electrons indicates that the EM wave-energy propagates around an axis; there is an axial symmetry. Electrons also freely absorb and emit EM waves in the form of wave quanta whose amplitude and length are determined by the electronic wave structure. (See below.) I will use the term "electron" to designate the basic charge-creating standing wave structure--whether existing alone (electron and positron) or included in leptonic and hadronic structures.

What can we say about the motion of electrons in the space? The evidence indicates that it is qualitatively different from hadronic motion. All matter is not alike. Electrons propagate in space like all EM waves, perhaps in the direction of their axis of symmetry. It has been noted experimentally that electrons cannot remain at rest. And whereas mass "glides" through space when motion is imparted to it, the de Broglie relation () implies that the free electron has an axial structure and "pulls" itself through the space; higher frequency causes higher velocity RTS. When an electron is accelerated by an EM field its waves are increased in number. The electron can be decelerated RTS only by emitting waves (Bremsstrahlung process). Hadronic or multiatomic matter does not have these characteristics . The degree to which an electron resists a change in velocity in a magnetic field is its "EM inertia"; it is called "mass" only by analogy to hadronic inertia. Electrons accelerated RTS must radiate EM energy due to the inability of the space to instantaneously accommodate their changing EMfields. This is the cause of radio and synchrotonic emission. Electrons cannot move at c RTS because a circulating wave-structure cannot move at the free-wave velocity. Thus the translation of free electrons at near-luminal velocities RTS in particle accelerators requires a mushrooming wave frequency which is mathematically represented by the 2^o Doppler (Lorentz) equations. Electrons bound to moving nuclei, on the other hand, suffer a decrease in their frequency with increased translation velocity RTS. (See below 3.7 Atomic Clocks) Because electrons are EM wave-structures and not space-consuming particles, their motion and frequency should be affected by the velocity and acceleration of the gravitational space flow; not by its acceleration only as with hadronic matter.

Tests: Studies of the motion of electrons in gravity could support or refute this theory of electrons. Electrons will be found not to respond to gravitation like hadrons and multiatomic matter. An electron of a given frequency should continue to move at a fixed velocity in the local space. Its vertical motion will be affected by the 11.2 km/s spatial flow at the Earth's surface. An electron rising against inflowing space should actually increase in velocity as its moves into regions with lower space inflow velocities. If the Sun is a source, then an electron's velocity relative to the Sun will decrease as it moves away from the Sun with the slowing outflow of space.

3.3 Electronic Quanta

The idea that the "photon" is a particle flying through a void is contradicted by most of what we know about light, and it leads to innumerable contradictions whenever it is applied to any experimental setup. These contradictions are euphemistically referred to as "quantum paradoxes". Of course, we can only "see" light when it interacts with particles (electrons) in our photodetectors and our own eyes, so it is understandable that positivists would try to treat light itself as flying particles that " cause" these particle events. They have thus not bothered to create a wave-based theory of these interactions. To correct this deficiency, I present this simple wave-based theory of the quanta that we measure with our photodetectors.

1) An electron, bound or free, is a structure composed of circulating EM waves. It is not a particle associated with a field; it is its electric field.
2) The amplitude and spatial extension of the electron's waves are fixed by the electronic wave-structure. Therefore, its momentum is determined only by the frequency of its waves (de Broglie relation: ).
3) Because of its structure, an electron can absorb or emit EM radiation only in discrete wave quanta which are of fixed length and amplitude--the frequency alone is variable. Planck's constant is thus an electron-structure constant; it relates the change in an electron's momentum to the wavelength of the EM quantum absorbed or emitted.
4) When a wave-quantum is emitted by an electron, it ceases to exist qua quantum. Its EM waves spread spherically from their origin and diminish in amplitude (inverse square law) like all free EM radiation.
5) In any space, there is significant radiation (man-made, thermal, radioactive, solar, Cosmic, etc.) which, though undetected, creates an energetic EM background.
6) An absorbed quantum is always the product of the interference of source and background waves. Thus the prediction of quantum absorptions requires a probabilistic calculus.
7) The emission of a quantum is induced by the action of the chaotic background radiation upon an electron.

A more complete treatment of quantum theory is given in Against Quantum Theory: A Wave Theory of Light and Electrons.

3.4 Leptons

The muon and tau leptons decay into electrons and neutrinos. I suggest that these leptons are unstable structures consisting of an electronic wave-form existing in a temporary vortex in the spatial fluid. Because the vortex carries the charge, we have an EM "handle" on it, allowing us to quantify its additional hydrodynamic momentum. Thus in a magnetic field leptons deviate less than a free electron and thus appear to have a "mass" much greater than that of the electron alone. The muon has far less interaction with matter than a bare electron because the momentum of the vortex carries the electron past atoms with which it otherwise would have interacted. A rapidly whirling vortex could also decrease the size of the electron's wave-field. When these particles decay, the electron escapes the vortex which either remains intact or disperses. The vortex then interacts with our "neutrino" detectors.

3.5 Hadrons

I submit that hadrons, and nuclei composed of them, are the only true "particles". I hypothesize that they are complex structures composed of at least three elements:

1) single or multiple electrons and positrons
2) quarks - a fine-structural feature of the space-consuming gravitational/strong/color force
3) spatial vortices.

The myriad short-lived hadrons created in collisions are simply unstable combinations of the various structural components. The large strains caused in the space within hadrons by the overlapping of the electronic and positronic fields may cause the consumption of space and so produce the strong/gravitational process.¹³ This theory allows us to explain why the mean charge radius of a free electron's field is 600 times larger than the positronic field associated with a proton.¹⁴ The proton's positronic field is reduced in size by the centripetal space flow into the proton and possibly also by a vortical motion of space.

Unlike electronic motion, the motion of bare protons and nuclei through the space is affected both by hydrodynamic and electromagnetic mechanisms. Their sphere of spatial entrainment does not encompass their associated EM waves. Thus at all velocities their EM wavelength is well described by the de Broglie relation. The fact that protons dissipate less energy in synchrotonic radiation than do electrons supports the theory of entrainment and demonstrates that space's resistance to their luminal velocity is both electromagnetic and fluid-dynamic. Any hadron must move space aside as it moves through space at high velocity. I expect that this must dissipate the hadron's velocity and produce fluid-dynamic (gravity) waves.

Tests: This theory explains difference already noted in the behavior of hadrons and electrons in particle accelerators. Since hadrons are affected also by space's fluid dynamic resistance, their "mass-energy" doesn't increase with velocity RTS in the same way that a free electron's wave-energy does. Besides providing an interpretation of known data, these ideas are amenable to modeling and specific testing. Spatial inflow velocities very near atomic nuclei can be calculated and compared with the known behavior of electrons bound to nuclei. I expect that a hadron will require some continuous force to maintain near-c in space.

3.6 Atoms

The association of hadrons and electrons to form atoms creates a hierarchically new level of complexity involving new principles. The electronic wave structure somehow expands to encompass the nucleus; creating a composite entity which persists. The electronic waves take on new configurations which we call orbital shells, as portrayed by Schrödinger. The more waves an electron has, the larger the shell it creates around the nucleus. The absorption and emission of waves changes the shell's size and shape. The association of atoms into molecules creates another hierarchical level of Cosmic existence with new principles. The association of molecules to form self-replicating and self-sustaining units creates the biological level of existence; and so forth up the ladder of complexity until we reach conscious, theory-making humans.

3.7 Atomic Clocks

On the basis of this space theory, I can offer an explanation of the slowing of atomic clocks. Other timekeeping devices, e.g. pendulum and spring-driven clocks, have different mechanisms and will behave differently in gravity and in uniform translational motion (UTM). I have theorized that it is always and only the velocity of atomic clocks RTS which causes them to slow. Atomic clocks actually measure the "space wind" to which they are subjected--they are effective space speedometers. Current relativistic theory holds that atomic clocks do not actually slow while in motion. But in any actual experiment, it is found that the clock that moves through the Earth-entrained space here presented shows a lesser elapsed time than the clock that didn't move. This is simply explained if one assumes that the moving atomic clock is redshifted by a physical interaction with space. I have suggested that hadrons and the nuclei composed of them entrain space. The evidence indicates that single atomic nuclei do not entrain a sufficiently large sphere of space to encompass their outer electrons. This is not surprising since the nucleus is very small in relation to the surrounding electrons. The electrons, which are themselves composed of circulating EM waves in the space, therefore are exposed to the translational velocity of the nucleus RTS. Because these electrons are bound to the nuclei, they do not "gain" waves (increase in frequency) like free electrons would when forced into higher velocity RTS. They do not emit waves when accelerated or decelerated as free electrons do. When forced into a higher velocity RTS, the bound electrons' fixed number of EM waves must propagate through an increased number of space cells, causing a 2^o Doppler red shift¹⁵ of their frequency and of the waves they absorb and emit.

Electrons composed of circulating or oscillating EM waves are the physical reality behind the "bouncing light clocks" found in introductions to Relativity. When the bound electron is forced into motion RTS, its waves must propagate through a greater number of space cells - which is described by the Pythagorean theorem which explains the 2^o Doppler shift. Relativists agree that there is a transverse or 2^oDoppler red shift of the electronic frequencies, but they hold that it is only "apparent" or "perspectival", while I hold that it is physical and real. The physical basis of the Lorentz transformations, and thus of most "relativistic" effects, is the 2^o Doppler shifting of electronic and positronic structures.

4. Conclusion

This theory is to modern relativistic and quantum theory what Copernicus' theory was to the Ptolemaic system. It replaces an observer-based system of mathematical description, paradoxes, and ad hoc fixes with a foundational theory of what is actually moving, relative to what, in this physical Cosmos. It produces a profound simplification and unifies many truths in a single physical theory. I daresay that it is almost impossible to imagine that this simple idea of spatial flow could fit all the data and explain the usefulness and limits of previous models, and yet be false. Fortunately, the idea also suggests many tests which will distinguish it experimentally from the current models.

It is well understood that Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Theory do not form a coherent model of the universe. In fact, they do not form a theory at all. They do not attempt to explain what is causing the phenomena that they purport to describe. This theory, on the contrary, explains what is occuring in the Cosmos and how it produces the phenomena we observe. This theory deserves the full attention of all persons interested in understanding the Cosmos, of which we homo sapiens are recent products.

References

1James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1954) Vol. 1, p. 4.
2 James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1954) Vol. 2, p.267.
3 Albert Einstein, Sidelights On Relativity (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1983) Ether and the Theory of Relativity.
4 R.J. Adler, M.J. Bazin, and M. Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (McGraw Hill, New York, 1976) p. 193.
5 V. Fock, The Theory of Space, Time, and Gravitation (The Macmillan Co., New York, 1964) p. 222.
6 Clifford M. Will, Was Einstein Right? (Basic Books, New York, 1993) p. 46.
7 W. Rindler, Essential Relativity (Van Nostrand, New York, 1969) p. 21.
8 J. Phys. Colloq., 42, C-8, 395 (1981).
9 J. Brault, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 8, 28 (1963).
10 D.M. Popper, Astrophys. J., 120, 316 (1954).
11 R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960).
12 Stan Woosley and Tom Weaver, The Great Supernova of 1987, Scientific American Special Issue, 2, No.1, p.36 (1990).
13 D.E. McLennan, Physics Essays, 3, 52 (1990). Aethereal interpretation is mine.
14 Ibid., p. 51.
15 Wayne M. Itano and Norman F. Ramsey, Accurate Measurement of Time, Scientific American 269, No. 1, p. 58 (1993).

About the Author

I am a general practice physician and have devoted much of my free time for the past 9 years to developing this theory. For 10 years before that I had read philosophy, psychology, history, and science, pursuing my curiosity wherever it lead. During a slow period in my medical practice, I tried to create a theory of the Cosmos and its evolution. I soon realized that Relativity, with its purely quantitative, observer-based mass-energy and space-time offered no foundation for an objective and physical explanation of the fundamental aspects of physical reality. I realized that Relativity stood in the way of our understanding of the very Cosmos which is the source of our existence. I set about trying to create a working theory of the Cosmos, and discovered a great deal about philosophy and the mentality of our era along the way.

I have been motivated and encouraged in this effort by the philosophical ideas of Thales, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, Francis Bacon, Karl Popper, and Ayn Rand.

Other Aether Theorists

There are a surprising number of people working on alternatives to Relativity, including many that have developed aether theories similar to this one. The WWW has allowed us to find each other and share our ideas with each other and the world. Among them are:

I have participated in discussions of Relativity and aether theories in sci.physics.relativity.

Let me know what you think.