## Gravity from Newton to Einstein

One of the first things an aeronautical or rocket-engineer learns contrary to some myths, is that a bird or conventional airplane can never get to the moon by simply flying higher, only by flying *faster*. This may seem counter-intuitive but it is absolutely true. The only way one can hope to get there is by exceeding the earth’s *“escape velocity” *of 11.2 kms per second (see Escape Velocity)*. *Every large body has an escape velocity, which depends on its mass. The more massive (weight) a large body is, the greater the *escape velocity*. This may sound counter-intuitive if one thinks of gravity as an *“attracting force”*. It’s as if a conventional airplane is like a bumblebee that is flying in front of a moving car. To a bumblebee flying in front of a faster-moving car, it might seem that the car has an attracting force that is pulling the bee towards it and to survive, it must overcome that force. However neither an airplane nor anything else can escape the earth’s upward boundary unless it exceeds 11.2 kms per second. In other words, it seems as if an airplane or rocket must outrun the earth’s upward acceleration! In fact an assumption based on just such acceleration is how Einstein created his theory of relativity. He considered the similarity of “inertial mass” to “gravitational mass”, which he incorporated together under his *“Principal of Equivalence”.* This assumption is I believe at the heart of the difficulty in unifying the forces. He assumed that gravitation just appears *like* the acceleration linked to motion, *when they are actually both the same thing.*

## Galileo’s Falling Experiment

If one considers what is known about falling objects, the above claims and those of expanding matrix theory make more sense. In the absence of air resistance and friction, the fact that all masses fall at the same rate tells us amazing things about gravity (see: The world’s biggest vacuum chamber). Here it is demonstrated that a feather and an anvil fall at the same rate in the absence of air resistance.

One wonders why at various stages of Einstein’s discoveries and conclusions that he didn’t arrive at an expanding matrix theory himself. The fact is, he seemed to philosophically or instinctively resist anything that would destabilize physical reality. Proof of this was the *“cosmological constant* *term*” he inserted into his equations to stabilize the universe, until Edwin Hubble proved that this added an error to his original theory.

## Gravitational Field as Space and Spacetime

Gravity and space were closely linked in Einstein’s theory. He combined space and time into a single entity or field he called *“spacetime”*. *Spacetime *he identified as the gravitational field, which he referred to as *“dynamic ether”*. He saw it as the medium that carries all forces and energy including light.

I’ve heard it said in explaining space, that space to us is like water to a fish; even if a fish could think, water wouldn’t be anymore to him than space is to us. He would consider it as *“the nothing”* that his world exists within.

Our thinking and perceptive processes are colored by our fundamental perceptions of *space and time*. It can be difficult to argue with anyone that insists on the traditional view that space is *“nothing”* and only needs be accounted as an incidental *“distance”*. Gravity as an *attracting* *force *is also an idea difficult to discard, even by viewing it, as Einstein suggested…*a curvature of spacetime*.

The Holy Grail of physics since the time of Einstein has been what is called a unified field theory…a way of uniting the electromagnetic force and the gravitational, with the strong and weak nuclear forces. There has been success in unifying 3 of the 4 forces but the 4^{th} gravity could never be included. The reason for this is that the other 3 unified forces have been *quantized* but gravity has resisted *quantization*. In fact, if one tries to combine quantum theory and general relativity to make a single coherent theory, the two theories seem to destroy each other. This is because in relativity, gravity as an attracting force creates problems because of simple geometry. In physics geometric properties (length, surface, volume) do not scale evenly. Higher dimensions increase faster with size than the lower…because they are actually exponents, whereas inversely; lower dimensions increase proportionally faster the smaller an area is that is considered. The result is that surface and the resulting available energy increases to infinity when very small regions of space are considered, resulting in energy growing to infinity in infinitely small regions of space. Because energy is considered to have mass; mass would increase to infinity at quantum scales making the universe equivalent to a black hole. Thus the two theories are incompatible.

Quantum theory treats the very small, making it easier to have verified much of it, whereas relativity treats the very large, so it has taken science much longer to thoroughly verify it. Recently though, it has been the subject of numerous studies and experiments, all of which have conformed to Einstein’s predictions. If the quantum theorists have been able to verify quantum theory and scientists are now confirming Einstein’s theory of relativity: how is it that the two theories are still incompatible? The difficulty in unifying gravity with the other forces has led to the conclusion that something might be wrong with the framework or lens through which physicists look at the problem. But what else is there? They believe that they’ve considered everything.

## What Can Be Missing?

“The double slit experiment” with its strange results opens the door to suggest that one can have a quantity of energy that does not necessarily exist as a particle until it appears as one. This study between particles and fields is at the heart of gaining a grasp of how reality is formed. Also, Einstein has shown gravity to be a curvature of spacetime but this has not laid to rest the tendency to still view it as an attracting force as can be seen by the theoretical evidence regarding Black Holes.

The uninitiated may believe that there are instruments to detect the gravitational field. There are in fact instruments *(gravimeters)* to detect the strength of whatever seems to makes things fall, these instruments though do not detect the field, except by proxy. They must detect something *falling* or something affected by what they believe is gravity. The simplest *gravimeters *are basically just very accurate *weigh-scales.* This is because weight is a basic way of telling the amount of gravitational force on a mass. Other *gravimeters* operate by accurately measuring how fast something accelerates when dropped. They measure *an effect on masses*, but do not directly detect the field itself. Even when scientists detected the first gravitational waves, they didn’t detect the field per se, but detected distortions in space as waves passed by from a distant event. This is based on the assumption that space **is** the gravitational field. It is difficult to express succinctly here but this is only similar what *expanding matrix theory* says.

Apart from measuring weight or falling (downward movement), we have no other way to physically detect either gravity or its field, except as has recently been detected by “gravitational *“waves”*, which is assumed to prove the existence of the gravitational field. A field can approximate the same way we think of a map. When we use a map, we sometimes think of it as having a reality relative to what it represents but we usually realize it as just a concept of what one person or group of people hope or believe. Many wars have been fought over discrepancies in belief over different maps of the same area. A map often acts like a field because the borders it shows seem to be associated with real (armed) forces but those connections are in people’s minds (which when human thought is involved, can have very serious consequences). Keep this aspect of a map in mind as regards a gravitational field.

Within the framework of EMT, gravity is a combination of two effects…not necessarily a single force or a field! What we interpret as the force of gravity is actually *two effects* happening simultaneously, these *“effects”* combined have appeared like a single *force*. This may be related to the symmetry physicists search for (one might even trade the monopole for dipole in theory).

In Relativity, particles with mass and those without mass differ diametrically. The speed of any *massless particle is* always the speed of light, whereas

**particle with**

*any***mass can only move slower than the speed of light and can**

*any***reach the speed of light. The more massive an object is, the harder it is to accelerate. This is especially relevant when relativity is invoked because an accelerating mass increases mass with acceleration making it harder to accelerate more. Approaching the velocity of light,**

*never**mass would increase to infinity*. If we were accelerating a rocket, theoretically it would take all the matter in the universe as fuel to accelerate a bit more and even then could not reach the velocity of light.

The model of the expanding matrix is simple; the entire universe, which is composed of dynamic energy, is expanding outwards into a *true*, or *absolute* space. The only thing that can affect this expansion is this same energy interacting with itself. This means that energy inwards is confined by energy outwards, so that if we thought of the energy as packets, the inward packets, because of their confinement would have to pass their momentum outwards, so that outer packets would be going much faster than inward ones, thus separating more.

## The Universe as an Energy Field

Each separate mass whether star, planet or sub-atomic particle becomes a model of all energy in the universe as a field of expanding energy. In any such stabilized outward interaction, there would form a region of relative stability. This would be for us *“surface”* the region where our *stable *reality forms. If we could look at the total of all energy everywhere, we would see our universe as a giant expanding ball with new energy added as the expansion proceeds. Our reality though does not exist at the outer edge of the expansion but well within it, so that new energy appears to *stack up* on the periphery. For all energy (as momentum) to equalize; there must be a flow of the ongoing excess from the outwards region…inwards, in essence against the expansion. This is what half of the gravitational effect would be…the part making things move downwards or stick to the earth or if we can stand up in a flying airplane…a flow of energy that flows downwards to make us stay on the floor. This effect, combined with the expansion of the matrix creates what we interpret as both a gravitational force and acceleration, as well as why large bodies have an escape velocity.

This energy flow is not as expected. It is customarily believed that energy and fields should primarily emanate from matter in masses. Probability is a very subjective effect, depending on the observer.

## The Appearance of Probability

Considering a target, probability is random in the area around the bulls eye but is 100% at the bulls eye. This is of course a pre-designed scenario but one can understand the definiteness of the difference between missing and hitting something. Gravity is taken into consideration in all instances where it is viable and probability is gauged based on its strength. But if the gravitational field is spacetime and probability is a function existing in spacetime, then the relationship of gravity to probability should be more than has been assumed.

Quantum probability theory has probably successfully covered this ground already but perhaps using different criterion than that presented here. It would be interesting to see if a different expression could yield the same results.

## To Think About

The expanding matrix can be understood by the axiom *“if everything has come into existence, then, coming into existence is probably the prime directive”*. I encourage the reader to read the part on the origin of perspective to understand the expanding matrix and why reality appears as it does, see: Perspective and the Arrow of Time.