Physicists who read this may get a little bent out of shape - those who ignore it risk their relevance.

The Fiasco in Modern Physics called Gravity

Sir Isaac Newton is rightly considered the father of modern physics. In the 17^th century he was able to fit his observations to mathematics, which could describe and link what he saw to what he calculated. From this he was able to then extrapolate those mathematics to predict observation. He helped pioneer what was then new mathematics, the maths of motion, now called Calculus. His mathematics were so good in describing reality that their accuracy in describing the motion of the planets around the sun is revered today.

Fast forward, through the 18^th and 19^th centuries (where understanding of electricity, astronomy, atomic theory, light and other phenomena added to Newton's considerable legacy,) to the early 20^th century.

The one key missing ingredient was an understanding of where the force called Gravity should fit into the observations and mathematics of the universe. Gravity is key in that it is essential to understand its source and nature before the cosmos and everything happening within it can make any sense. Albert Einstein revolutionized thought concerning the nature of space and time, but struggled for all of his life to reconcile gravity to his theories. Modern physics has, after nearly a century, now shown that Einstein was correct in his theories. Modern physics is no closer to understanding the source and place of gravity. The current proposition that gravity arises as a result of the distortion of the 'fabric of space-time' is, most likely, in itself a fabrication. It sets off my own personal 'bulldust' alarm.

Modern physics missed the essential clue, which came from the work of Max Planck in the early 20^th century. Planck argued that physic's units of measure were arbitrary, (somewhat like the old imperial measures such as a 'nip', a 'gill' and a 'hundredweight'). He proposed a set of 5 constants based on the physics of free space and quantum theory, not on any man made unit of measure. Planck's thought processes led to the mathematics which can convert any 'man made unit of measure' to a unit of measure that can be expressed in terms of the two fundamentals, space and time.

This thought process is not complicated if one begins at the simplest point. For example, most of us understand that speed is measured by distance travelled in a given time (km per hour). That is expressed mathematically as speed equals distance divided by time. S = d / t. The other concept most of us understand is that distance is a one dimensional expression of 'space'. Area is a two dimensional expression of space (s²) and volume is a three dimensional expression of space (s³). We cannot conceptualize time in a similar way, but mathematics can. For example 1/t is the mathematical expression of frequency, or 'so many thinga-mi-jigs per second'.

Without going into complex mathematical proofs in this article, it can be shown beyond any reasonable doubt that space-time (S-T) units can substitute for any other units in the physics of mechanics, electricity, magnetism and mass, whether Newtonian or Einsteinian physics, just as Planck proposed. If s = space and t = time, all units of measure are a combination of these two fundamentals.

Here is what mainstream physics has missed : The S-T units for electric energy (emf) is t/s, and the S-T units for the electric field (current) is s/t. The S-T units for magnetic energy (mmf) is t²/s², and for the magnetic field is s²/t². The S-T units for mass energy is t³/s³, and for the mass field ( = gravity) is s³/t³.

Mass is the three dimensional analogue of electricity, and gravity is the three dimensional analogue of the electric field,(magnetism is the two dimensional analogue). These three dimensions of mass are at right angles to each other just as the dimensions of volume are (length, width, depth). That is why the motion of a generator is at a right angle to the magnetic field, which is at a right angle to the electric current generated, and the electric motor produces motion from the electric current and magnetism for the same reason. There is no rational explanation of electricity and magnetism in current physics.

The implication of the above analysis between mass, magnetism and electricity is that mass is also a form of energy, not a form of matter. Mass has the S-T unit t³/s³, while the simplest particle, the up-quark has the S-T unit 'ts'. Mass and Matter are not the same quantity. The difference in energy between the three energy analogues is a function of the constant c, which is a very large number (3 x 10⁸) . Between electricity and magnetism the difference is mc, and between electricity (or energy, which has the same unit) and mass it is mc² as Einstein famously pointed out.

Gravity is in fact the mass field, or the field produced by mass current, analogous to the eletcric field produced by electric current. Gravity is a mathematical inverse (reciprocal) of mass. In S-T units, mass = t³/s³ and gravity = s³/t³. If they are mathematically multiplied by each other the result equals 1. In physics this is written mg = 1. The same applies to electricity and its field, and magnetism and its field. Gravity and Acceleration are not the same quantity. The S-T unit for acceleration is s/t². So what is happening in the real world?

In a region of high mass, such as the centre of the galaxy or a black hole, we know the acceleration of the matter is high. Expressed in S-T units, gravity (s³/t³) = s/t² (acceleration) x s²/t, which multiplied together equal s³/t³. The quantity s²/t has no name in science. It may be a good bet that it represents Hawking radiation which is observable in space coming from a black hole. If these two constituents of gravity are elevated then the residual gravity field is reduced. This fits with the equation mg = 1, in that if m (mass) is high, then g (gravity) is low for their product to equal 1.

In the reverse scenario, when mass is low, then gravity is high. This occurs in a region where there is little mass. Mass is reduced if its carrier, matter, is scarce as in empty space. That is why modern physicists are looking for 'dark matter' to account for the huge increase in gravitational influence from empty space. Dark matter and dark energy do not exist. They are man-made inventions to account for the misconception that mass and matter are the same, and that increased mass produces increased gravity when it is the reverse that is true. Increased mass produces increased acceleration of matter, while at the same time reducing the gravitational field. The energies are conserved by an increase in acceleration being 'funded' by a decrease in the gravity field.

Mass is an energy (as evidenced by nuclear energy, E = mc² ) and Gravity is its field.

There are many questions which may follow this shift in thinking around mass and gravity. One which comes to mind is how to explain Newton's equation for gravitational force, the well known

F = Gmm'/r² as the force of attraction from gravity between two objects. The explanation comes from Newton himself in his other famous equation F = ma. The first equation is not a fundamental equation, but one based on Newton's observation. The second is fundamental. It can be seen that F = m (Gm'/r²) If m' and r were set at 1, then 'a' would equal G. So the F = m (Gm'/r²) where the term in brackets equals 'a'.

The complete Table of possible S-T units clarifies a number of misconceptions within physics, however the most important one has been discussed above. Without the correct interpretation of mass and gravity, our research into the cosmos is doomed to raise more questions than solutions. This has been the case for 300 years.

The Table also is an excellent pointer to that which we do not know, which in turn drives thought and research in the most productive directions. An example of that can be seen above with the understanding of the already observed Hawking radiation being made clearer by the use of S-T units linking it with the acceleration of matter within a gravity field. Mainstream physics has no explanation for Hawking radiation. It now remains for physics to prove the mathematics, or not. Therein lies the value of mathematics as a predictor of reality, as Newton well understood.

Further information is contained within the Paper entitled 'Theoria Omnia' written by this Author in 2013, about 11,000 words, and is available as a PDF file on request, at michael3.bull@gmail.com

Word Count 1455

Mathematics of the Universe

MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM ITS ORIGIN

M.J.Bull 2013

Table 1

                                         MATTER            space expansion ---->       VISIBLE UNIVERSE

0	s0	s	s2	s3	s4	1/s	1/s2	1/s3	1/s4
t 0	s 0 t 0 singularity BANG	s length, electric quantity, capacitance	s 2 area	s 3 volume	s 4 ?	1/s power	1/s2 ?	1/s3 ?	1/s4 ?
t	t time	t s up quark	t s2 charm quark	t s3 top quark	t s4 gluon	t/s energy, work EMF	t/s2 force voltage	t/s3 elect field intensity	t/s4 pressure
t2	t 2 ?	t 2 s down quark	t 2s2 strange quark	t 2s3 bottom quark	t 2s4 photon	t 2/s inertia	t 2/s 2 momentum MMF	t 2/s 3 resistance, magnetic potential	t 2/s 4 magnetic field intensity
t3	t 3 ?	t 3s electron	t 3s2 muon	t 3s3 tau	t 3s4 Z-boson	t 3/s moment of inertia	t 3/s2 ?	t 3/s3 mass	t 3/s4 magnetic permeability (μ)
t4	t 4 ?	t 4s electron nutrino	t 4s2 muon nutrino	t 4s3 tau nutrino	t 4s4 W-boson	t 4/s ?	t 4/s2 ?	t 4/s3 ?	t 4/s4 mass current (?)
1/t	1/t ?	s/t speed elec.current	s 2/t Hawking radiation	s 3/t ?	s 4/t ?	1/ ts	1/ ts2	1/ ts3	1/ ts4
1/t2	1/t2 ?	s/t2 acceleration (change in speed)	s 2/t2 magnetic current	s 3/t2 ?	s 4/t2 ?	1/ t2s	1/ t2s2	1/ t2s3	1/ t2s4
1/t3	1/t3 ?	s/t3 change in acceleration	s 2/t3 ?	s 3/t3 gravity	s 4/t3 ?	1/ t3s	1/ t3s2	1/ t3s3	1/ t3s4
1/t4	1/t4 ?	s/t4 ?	s 2/t4 ?	s 3/t4 ?	s 4/t4 ?	1/ t4s	1/ t4s2	1/ t4s3	1/ t4s4

↓Time expansion          VISIBLE UNIVERSE                                          ANTI – MATTER

There is much information in this Table which can be scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt, such

as the three degrees of freedom of mass and its manifestation of electric force, EMF, ( t/s) and magnetic force, MMF, (t²/s²) when one of its degrees of freedom is opposed in direction by a unit of space moving through the mass. That unit of space is electric quantity, (s), as outlined in a previous paper by this author. The physics of the entire electric power industry are based on this.

There is also much information in Table 1, such as that regarding the fundamental particles, which cannot at this point be proven. That is based upon an intuitive logic presented by the direction of the mathematics as a whole, rather than by the parts, but is not a rigorous proof.

Notes onTable 1

Development of the Universe

(1) Following the expansion of space and time from the singularity, known as the 'big bang', the universe appears to have developed in two separate ways from a mathematical perspective of space and time interaction.

(a) Firstly, the fundamental particles, which in various combinations constitute all of the atomic particles, are the mathematical product of space and time, that is, tⁿ sⁿ. Also to note is that the fundamental particles are contained within the boundaries of the visible universe (in Table 1 coloured in pale yellow). The anti-matter particles have two boundaries adjoining the visible universe and two boundaries which do not. This may point to an explanation as to why in our visible universe anti-matter is less abundant than matter.

The Gauge Bosons have in common s⁴.

The Leptons have in common t³ and t⁴.

The Quarks have in common t and t².

It is not clear where the recently found Higgs boson fits into this model.

(b) Secondly, the visible universe, of which all things familiar to us including ourselves, is constituted from a mathematical ratio of space and time, that is, tⁿ / sⁿ, or vice versa.

The section of the visible universe defined by t/s contains mass, while the section defined by s/t contains gravity. These two phenomena are reciprocal and when multiplied equal 1, mg = 1. The mathematics indicate this to be the case for all of the equivalent elements for t/s and s/t. For example t/s (work or energy) x s/t (velocity) equal 1. It is noted that at present less is understood about the s/t or gravity sector than the t/s or mass sector. Mainstream science has yet to understand the nature of mass and gravity and their relationship to each other. The fundamental space-time measurement units of known quantities clarify their true nature and relationship to each other. Max Planck first pointed out that our units of measure are mostly contrived and he proposed measurement based on the physics of free space, which still stand as valid. The units of space-time used above are easily and consistently verifiable from simple SI units, including that of mass and gravity, and give greater clarity to the understanding of various phenomena (refer previous paper).

(2) The difference in the mathematics between the fundamental particles and the visible universe may point to an explanation for the baffling difference in the behaviour of Quantum physics and Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. The fundamental difference may be that of st and s/t. The photon and electron are familiar interacting with the s/t universe as carriers of energy between space-times, and the function of some of the other particles has yet to be found.

Mass and Gravity

(3) A consequence of the reciprocity between Mass and Gravity that is mathematically, mg = 1, is that the corollary to this simple equation is that if mass approaches infinity then gravity approaches zero and vice versa. In a region of large mass, such as the centre of the galaxy or a black hole, the acceleration applied to the mass is increased and at the same time gravity is reduced. If one looks at the space-time units, gravity is s³/t³, and acceleration is s/t². If the s/t² (acceleration) is elevated then the residual is s²/t, (which combined make s³/t³ gravity) is also elevated. The unit s²/t does not have its own identity, but is the reciprocal of force. It is probably that which is known as Hawking radiation. If both acceleration and Hawking radiation are elevated, then gravity is reduced by those amounts in that region of high mass. The equation mg = 1 holds as valid. The reason it seems to be counter intuitive is that of the misconception that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. In SI units, acceleration is measured in N/kg or m/s², gravity is measured in kg^-1. The acceleration unit N/kg can be written N.kg^-1 which is Force x Gravity. In Newtonian physics,    F = ma and also F = a/g from the reciprocal relationship between mass and gravity.

(4) The inverse scenario is a region with a very small quantity of mass. In this region of space-time the equation mg = 1 indicates that gravity is high. As t³/s³ (mass) is small, then s³/t³ (gravity) is high because their product equals 1. This is likely the reason that regions of so called 'dark matter' have a high input to gravitational effects. The dark matter will likely be found not to exist at all because it is not mass which generates gravity. It is, in fact, the lack of mass. Dark matter and Dark energy are man made inventions to explain a deficit in comprehension of the true nature of mass and gravity.

Time

(5) Time is a more difficult quantity to envisage than is space. It is not difficult to understand the concept of length, width and depth with space because they are visible to us. To use an analogy, it is difficult for a camera to discern depth when it needs to see it in two space dimension when there are three. The only way the camera can accomplish this is to reduce the length and width of the object to keep its two dimensional perspective relative to its surroundings. In the case of time, which we cannot envisage at all, it is difficult to accept that it also has dimensions equivalent to space, at least in a mathematical sense. The evidence for this lies in the space-time units which measure quantities which we can see, feel and understand. For example, acceleration has one space dimension and two time dimensions, s/t², but we have no difficulty comprehending acceleration. The t² part on its own leaves a comprehension deficit.

A study of Table 1 indicates that time is an energetic fundamental. In the Mass t/s section of the Table, it can be seen that the t is the numerator in the ratio. The energy content rises as the power of t rises. Mass, t³/s³ is more energetic than MMF, t²/s², which in turn is more energetic than EMF, t/s. The variation in energy between each is denoted by the constant, c, which is a large number (3 x 10⁸). The energy level between each of these is mc and between mass and emf it is mc² as Einstein famously pointed out. On the other hand in the Gravity s/t section, t is the denominator, so that equivalent progression between electric current (field) through magnetic current (field) to gravitational field shows a large reduction in field strength per unit volume. These observations give some concept of the energy that time has, without the need to visualize it.