return to homepage EXPANSION THEORY I call this an interlude because I know I am not finished with expansion theory. There is a lot left to do, and I cheerfully admit it. However, since the theory (as I have promoted it) is about a decade old, and since I have filled it out a lot since its first telling, I feel that now is a good time to gloss it with this minor amount of hindsight. If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.
return to updates
an interlude
[I have just proposed a mechanism to replace expansion, keeping the vector out but with no necessity of an increase in size. January 2012]
I never claimed to have invented expansion theory, of course. It has been around for centuries, in many forms. Einstein's own equivalence principle is a famous form of it, and that has been around for almost a century now itself. Several other people are promoting expansion theories right now on the internet, and I wish them well. I began toying with expansion theory in the late 90's, to explain some big anomalies to myself, and began writing papers on it around 2000. As with my work on the calculus, I came to expansion theory independently. I had not done much reading on the history of physics or math, in any subfield, when I began working on these problems. I didn't even discover LeSage's push gravity until a couple of years ago, when I was researching the Allais Effect. I basically just followed my intuition, re-inventing the calculus of finite differences to suit myself, and doing the same with expansion theory. I connected it to Einstein's equivalence principle pretty early on, which allowed me to write simple equations for it, and it reached its current form a year or two later. However, without my work on the E/M field, it remained just a skeleton.
So, although I make no claims to priority on the vector reversal of expansion theory, I do believe that I am the first to really make it work. In my opinion, expansion theory doesn't work until it is married to a new and successful E/M theory, and I consider my work on E/M theory to be even more important and fundamental than my work on expansion theory. To my knowledge, I am the first to have cracked open Newton's equation, showing that G is scaling constant between the two fields the equation contains. This may be the central pillar of my new theory, and the most important true discovery I have made. The reason this is important to expansion theory is that the orbit and other problems of expansion can't be explained without the E/M field. Expansion can only be made to work mechanically in a compound field, where both expansion and E/M are working in tandem, in a strictly defined manner.
This is why I have spent the bulk of my time in the last 5-7 years working on the charge field. By marrying expansion to the charge field, I have not only been able to explain orbits and other problems of gravitation, I have actually been able to explain them better than the standard model. Up until now, expansion models were just as full of holes as mainstream gravity theory, so there was really no reason to throw one over for the other. Why throw out a moth-eaten old theory, one that is at least familiar, for another moth-eaten theory, one that still has the moths in it? No, the mainstream response to expansion theories was fairly understandable, until now. At least the moth-holes in standard theory had been duct-taped over and tucked under the mattress, where they were out of sight. Expansion theory, being newish, couldn't hide its holes like that.
But with my extended expansion theory, most of the holes have already been filled, and my expansion theory now contains much less air than standard-model gravity theory. If we pull current theory off the bed and roll it out on the floor and turn on the bright lights, we find it has the tensile strength of an old cobweb. It is nothing but a gray patchwork of darnings and fibs. Compared to this, my theory is already a kevlar comforter.
As the first of many examples, we just have to look at the Moon. A huge pile of very embarrassing data is smiling down on us each night. The same side of the Moon is shining on us always, and this shine is from a nearside crust that has been obliterated almost down to the mantle, creating a very obvious negative tide. Current theory predicts a positive tide there, the same as the tide for the back of the Moon, and cannot begin to tell us what has caused this obliteration. Since my compound field includes the charge field, it is clear that the charge field has been obliterating the nearside crust for millions of years. The Earth is bombarding the Moon with photons, and that is all there is to it. Clear evidence for me and clear evidence against the standard model.
I will be asked what this has to do with expansion. Well, the obliteration itself has nothing to do with expansion. But the orbit of the Moon has everything to do with expansion. The Moon is the third player in the nearest 3-body problem we have. According to the tenets of gravity theory—in which the orbit is determined only by the tangential velocity of the orbiter and the centripetal acceleration—the orbit of the Moon should not be stable. It should not be stable because the Moon feels a varying force from the Sun as it moves around the Earth. In the current model, the Moon has no way of correcting for that variance. Mainstream physicists try diverting our attention into a summation of the orbit, showing us that the orbit is closed, but that is no answer. If we look to the differentials instead of the sum, we find the “innate motion” of the Moon changing. The tangential velocity of the Moon is changing to offset the variance from the Sun. How does it manage that? Is the Moon self-propelled? Can the Moon make changes upon itself to suit a sum? No, but it is easy to explain with a compound field. Orbits have a degree of float, and we know that. The float is determined by the charge field, which can respond to changes in distance. Because the fields are spherical, a nearer pass will create a denser charge field and a farther pass will create a less dense field. With my compound field, the orbit is correctable, without any strange motions of the Moon itself.
Again, you will ask what this has to do with expansion. Well, if we add the charge field to the current gravity model, the orbit becomes correctable on the inside but not on the outside. With gravity defined as it currently is, the charge field can correct a Moon that is bumped lower by the Sun. But the charge field cannot correct a Moon that is bumped higher, since in current theory any orbiter bumped higher for any reason must escape. Less charge from the Earth out there won't bring the Moon back. However, if we join the charge field to expansion, the orbit is correctable both inside and outside. The Moon will have less charge repulsion at a greater distance, and also less torque. It will be unbalanced at that distance, and will seek its original distance of balance. Or, the Earth, moving toward it always, will catch the Moon again, since it will not be driven off enough to maintain that extra radius.
As more confirmation of this, we only have to look at Einstein's field. Current physicists currently have two models to work with, and if they get in a jam in one, they switch to the other. If you push them on Newton, the switch to Einstein, and if you push them on Einstein, they switch to Newton. For instance, if you push them on the two motion question, mentioning the tangential velocity and the centripetal acceleration of Newton, they dismiss Newton and tell you that gravity is a curve, in a field of no forces. If you ask them to then explain tides in a field of no forces, they get a red face and go back to Newton. But the problem with Einstein's field is even greater than that. As I have shown, Einstein has no impulse to motion from rest in his field, since his field is a field of differentials, not potentials. Einstein did not overwrite Newton's first law, by which we are still taught that any object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force. Since Einstein's field is not a field of forces, and since an object in a curved field doesn't need to feel any forces (we are told), an object at rest should remain at rest. Yes, Einsteins' field allows us to describe the motion of an object already at motion in the field, but it does not allow us to describe or explain any impetus to motion. Lacking forces, Einstein's field must also lack motion from rest.
This is one of the primary arguments for expansion over GR. Expansion allows us to say why objects placed in a field appear to begin to move: the Earth is always moving at them. Although my field and Einstein's are mathematically very similar, and although I could write my field equations with tensors and get almost the same answers as Einstein, Einstein cannot explain the primary fact of gravitation: motion from rest. Newton explained it as a pulling force (across empty space), I explain it as simple motion, and Einstein explains it not at all. You can see which explanation is to be preferred, I hope.
Another way that expansion is preferable to GR is with gravitational blueshifts. As I have shown in a recent paper on the Pound-Rebka experiment, the math to solve these problems, and all like them, can be done only by giving the gravitating body a real motion in the field. The mainstream admits this, if you press them, since the shifts can't be shown without using the equivalence principle. Well, the equivalence principle allows them to assign a motion to the surface of the Earth in the math. Feynman even admits this openly in his Lectures on Gravitation (lecture 7.2). Although the mainstream often hems and haws about motion relative to light, they give the Earth a motion relative to light when they do math on gravitational blueshifts. You won't find them admitting it, usually, but if you study the math you will find it is so. This is important because this motion is an expansion. The mainstream may admit to using the equivalence principle, but they will never admit to using expansion. However, the equivalence principle is just a euphemism for expansion. Every month I seem to uncover a new problem the mainstream can solve only with expansion, so the question becomes, why not admit it? If these problems can be solved only by giving motions to gravitating bodies, how can that motion be ditched once the problem is solved. The mainstream reverses the vector, then reverses it back at the end of the math, so that they can keep their static universe. Why? Why not just leave the gravitational vector pointing out? Would anything fail if they did so? No.
My math also allows for certain corrections to Einstein. I have not just promoted a theory, I have done the math and used it to correct Einstein's field equations. In my paper on the perihelion of Mercury, I showed that Einstein's field equations are 4% wrong across the board in the field on the Sun. This error is due to a general flaw in Einstein's equations, since Einstein treats the field as a field of mass. In other words, he does a mass transform in a curved field, in order to find the motion tensor. But this is subtly flawed, because he needs to do a force transform, not a mass transform. The gravity field is a force field, not a mass field. By the equation F=ma, he needs to do simultaneous transforms on time, length, and mass. I have shown that if we do those three transforms simultaneously in the field of the Sun, we find a 4% difference from Einstein. This explains the various Pioneer and Saturn anomalies of the past half-century. Interestingly, the recent Saturn anomaly is an error of precisely 4%.
In the case of this correction, it was expansion that allowed me to solve it, since it was by allowing my objects to expand and then doing the time differentials that I was able to quickly and easily show the error and its solution. It did not take me many pages of partial derivatives or tensors, it took me a few lines of high-school algebra. Perhaps the greatest selling point of expansion, beyond the fact that it matches data better, is the fact that it can be expressed with short and simple math. Once we reverse the gravitational vectors of all the bodies in the problem, we can ditch the curved field and the tensors. The curved field has been sold as a thing of great beauty, but it is actually quite unwieldy. If you like to fill blackboards with fancy equations, it may be the thing for you. But if you like to solve problems as quickly and transparently as possible, my math is the logical choice.
The marriage of expansion with my new E/M field has also allowed me solve many old and new problems. I have shown that Newton's equation already contains the E/M field, but the form of Newton's equation hides some of the subtleties of that marriage, preventing us from solving all problems. In other words, Newton's equation, although a useful general equation, is not correct in all situations. Because Newton's equation does not account for density directly, it fails in a wide array of problems. For instance, if we take two objects with the same mass but different radii, and place an object midway between them, Newton's equation tells us that the object will not move. I have shown that it will move [see the two-mile problem], since we have to consider the E/M fields of the objects. Although the masses are the same, the E/M fields will not be the same, because the field is being emitted from different surface areas. Not only have I shown that the object would move in such a situation, I have shown that the answer varies depending on the size of the gravitating objects. There is no general answer, because the E/M field acts differently with different sized objects. In solving, we have to compare the solo gravity field to the E/M field, and these two fields sum differently at different sizes.
Nor have I limited my corrections to hypothetical problems. In that same paper, I showed that a satellite at 1.5 Earth radii would show a .06% error from current equations. According to Newton and Einstein, the acceleration should be 9.806/1.52 = 4.3582. According to me, the acceleration should be 9.816/1.52 — .009545/1.54 = 4.3608. This correction may also have something to do with the satellite anomalies we are continuing to discover.
As you can see by studying my section on gravity, these are just a few examples of the problems I have solved in the years since I first posted my expansion papers. I now have over 30 papers up, addressing everything from Roche limits to atmospheric muons to gravitational lensing to Hubble redshifts. Almost weekly I discover some old or new problem that yields a better solution when solved with my new unified field.
[I have just proposed a mechanism to replace expansion, keeping the vector out but with no necessity of an increase in size. January 2012]