*Gravitation, although described clearly and concisely within the context of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, its nature has remained elusive in regard to quantum theory, in that whereas the other three primary forces of nature have been unified among themselves, gravity or gravitation has never been woven within that fold. That is to say, gravitation as never been quantized in a way that allows it to exist within the context of Einstein’s relativity theory of gravitation.*

## The Strange Dichotomy of Gravitation

It has been demonstrated via general relativity that a falling object has no force acting on it, but gravitation has been described within the theory as a “curvature of spacetime”. At the same time, if one is standing on the earth, or anything attached to the earth, one feels a definite force-like effect pulling him downwards, attaching him to the earth. This same effect exists when one stands on the deck of an airplane in flight. However if that same plane is in free-fall, the passengers float and feel no gravitational force acting on them at all. Einstein skillfully maneuvered through this dichotomy using his principal of equivalence, which shows inertia and the g-force to be equivalent. His solution is briefly discussed in the area: Einstein’s Gravity and a Question of Gravitational Vectors. It might sound at this point that I disagree with his summation but that is not so. I don’t feel he carried the analogy far enough. I also believe he didn’t have the benefit of recent discoveries in cosmology and that his understanding of energy was limited to baryon matter and a strict interpretation of how it interacts with energy. Future information regarding dark energy and dark matter should clarify this.

Although I approached gravitation from a different direction, I believe that I ended up in approximately the same place as he did. This section describes that approach.

## A Dynamic Approach to Reality

Because the study of *physics* is by its nature a study of *dynamics*, I decided in 1984 to look at this quality in a more restricted sense than the prevailing context. The idea was to look at pure dynamics as an a priori condition rather than an incidental reaction that happened between objects or particles. The breakdown of that approach went something like this:

Dynamical reactions between any two masses are interpreted as *motion* resulting from *forces*. There are understood to be two fundamental types of forces, *attraction* and *repulsion*. It is difficult to articulate but I had the feeling that the chances of both these qualities appearing simultaneously as the *primal nature* of energy were *zero*. My reasoning was that if one could correctly conclude which this was, then the *opposing quality* could be explained within that context. So, the question is; is the true identity of energy at its most pristine level *attracting *or* repulsing*?

Gravity is described in general relativity theory as two effects overlapping each other. The language of relativity can be a bit confusing when explaining it. On the one hand saying it is not a force at all but a curvature of spacetime that bends all massive objects towards each other. On the other hand, it can be caught saying that the force bends spacetime, making objects follow the lines of the now curved space. Any description can be confusing if our assumptions are slightly skewed. EMT shows that energy only has one nature but our location in the matrix makes this nature seem to split into two effects or manifestations of the same force…but only *“seem”* to split.

## Attraction or Repulsion?

Given the imperative of allowing only one force to be the genesis mechanism for our universe, most people intuitively opt for an *attracting force.* After all what holds things together? However, when one extrapolates attraction as an *only* force, the universe quickly disappears, for all matter everywhere would collapse towards the same point as if the universe were a microscopic black hole. Additionally with no repulsing force to form the *surface* of solids…objects would never form. The other option is to look at a *repulsing force * to see if a universe not unlike our own could be constructed from such…and surprisingly, one can be. To be convincing the model had to be capable of duplicating gravity, as we know it.

Inertial forces can be produced by any change in motion of any object, whether by speeding up or slowing down. The acceleration and g-force spoken of in the following paragraphs is the same feeling one gets when they accelerate in a car and are pushed back in their seat…*g-force.*

Albert Einstein has already theorized a duplication of gravity by what can be described as a repulsing force *via* the **principal of equivalence.** This happens by the fact that the g-force resulting from the acceleration of any mass is exactly equivalent in nature to the attracting force of gravity. That is to say that *gravitational mass* is identical to

*inertial mass*. So, for example; an astronaut in an enclosed capsule or rocket ship would be incapable of discerning the difference between being stationary on earth and feeling the force of gravity or accelerating at a constant 1-g,

*unless*he had external information telling him so (sounds of engines, vibration or external messages about his state of movement).

**Acceleration**is defined as the rate of change of velocity of any moving mass. The following excerpt derived from an essay written in 1987 illustrates how attracting forces could be produced from a repulsing energy.

## Simulating Gravity with a Repulsing Energy

Imagine yourself placed at a location in space far from any obvious gravitational effects. You are floating almost in contact with a hollow orb 10 meters in diameter. 100 meters away are two crochet balls about 50 meters apart. If you were to touch the orb, it would respond by moving away from you and as long as all conditions remained the same, it would keep moving away from you. However, at a given instant YOU,* the orb and the crochet balls* will all start expanding at a rate of let us say 2 times per second (**t**) of linear value, expressed (**L _{n}**) in each moment of expansion.

As the expansion proceeds a*bsolute length* = **2tL _{0}…2tL_{1…}2tL_{2…}etc. **

This expansion would appear* spatially proportional* so that changes in magnitude are unnoticeable to you as a participant. That is to say, because everything in your immediate vicinity including you, is expanding at exactly the same rate, you would not notice the changes in the size of anything! The orb will expand with **t**, from the original 10m, to…20m, 40m, 80m, 160m, etc*. *This increase is actually an acceleration, which according to the *principal of equivalence* produces a gravitational force. As the force from this acceleration approached 1 “g”, you could stand up or sit on the orb. The crochet balls would have converged on each other and towards you so that you could catch them in your hands. Throwing them away they would always repeat the same process converging towards you and each other, even appearing to accelerate as they fell towards you. In your hands they would have weight due to inertial forces, a result of the acceleration as the surfaces expand into each other from their centers of mass. This progression would be an accelerating expansion, which we will let continue until it settles in at an arbitrary 1 *g-force* of acceleration. Past this point the *rate* of acceleration (as based on the expansion of the orbs) will be decreasing from second to second but the rate of speed or velocity will always keep increasing *(at 1 g-force of acceleration)*. The scenario around you would come alive with activity. First you would feel the orb nudge you and experience a gravitating-effect as you mutually expand into each other*.* If you stood on a* bathroom scale*; at 1 *g-force* of acceleration, your *weight *would be exactly the same as on earth and you would experience a *gravitational force* of the same magnitude as felt on earth. Our scenario has almost perfectly duplicated the gravitational phenomenon without invoking any absolute attracting forces.

The preceding was of course just an illustration to get over the “hump” of accepting a universe with *no absolute *attracting forces, while finding a replacement mechanism for them. The actuality is more complex. The key element missing in our experiment was an artificial space-time continuum that would more accurately complete the picture. This was omitted as our perceived* space-time * sufficed within the context of how the simulation was modeled. Subsequent papers will postulate a framework approximating the form such geometry would need in order to mirror reality.

The key issue to contemplate then is; if there are no true attracting forces…what is really happening to make them appear? An expanding matrix seems to be the only solution.