Gravity as Falling Space

If you want to see a diagram, you find it he
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

GRAVITY AS FALLING SPACE
INTRODUCTION
Gravity appears to be really strange, something inexplicable by theory. This
view has been stated at some time and appears to be well founded. When an
object falls in a gravity field, it seems to be in accelerating motion.
However, this is not so, the acceleration is only apparent. We who observe
it are ourselves in accelerating motion as we stand on the surface of the
Earth, and we experience the acceleration as the surface of the Earth
pushing us upwards. If we could see events from the "correct" perspective,
we would observe that freely falling objects move forwards at a constant
velocity. Gravity is not a force, but something else. But what is the
correct perspective?

The first important theory in the history of research into gravity was Isaac
Newton's theory of gravity. Newton noticed the odd fact that a feather and a
stone fall at the same speed, if air resistance is not taken into account. A
feather and the Moon will also fall at the same speed. If a feather were in
the Moon's place, it would orbit the Earth as the Moon does now. You would
think that the gravity between two massive objects would arise from the
interaction of their masses, but this is not the case. Nevertheless, the
moon has its own effect, as in the Earth-Moon system the Earth does not
remain "in place", instead the objects revolve around their common centre of
mass. This extra motion does not properly fit into any equation depicting
gravity. But it exists, and its effect on the movements of objects can be
calculated separately. In the theory of falling space, this motion is
separated from gravity, and its cause is termed the tidal force. Thus, there
are two separate factors in celestial mechanics: gravity (non-force) and
tidal force (force). More will be said about the tidal force later.

If Newton had made this distinction, he could have corrected his gravity
equation by removing the mass of the falling object from it. In the equation

F = GMm / r2

F depicts the force ma (mass x acceleration) acting on a falling body. G is
a gravitational constant, M is the gravitational mass and r is the distance.
If m is removed, the equation becomes

a = GM / r2

In this form, it states that gravity is not a force, but a property of the
space surrounding the object. Newton did not make this reduction, because
right up to the end he believed that gravity is a force.

Albert Einstein's relativity theory brought many new ideas to gravity.
Einstein rejected Newton's view that gravity was a force. Einstein concluded
that space is not absolute (the ether), nor is time absolute, the same
everywhere. Einstein attempted to explain gravity as the curving of the
time-space by stating that time is the fourth dimension. According to the
theory, time passes at a different pace on the surface of the Earth than,
for example, at the distance of the Moon's orbit from the Earth, and as the
Moon orbits the Earth it actually moves forwards in a straight line.

But what is the source of the pessimism that gravity can never be explained
by theory? In Newton's theory, objects attract each other, in Einstein's
theory, an object changes the space surrounding it so that the objects
appear to attract each other. But if there are no rubber bands between the
objects, and if we accept that gravity is, after all, not a force, a
contradiction arises. If the deviating motion of objects in a gravity field
is caused by a transmission mechanism that has so far remained unobserved -
the movement of particles or a wave motion - it could never explain the
special characteristic of gravity, that it is not a force. Objects should
move straight ahead in space and not revolve around each other. An external
force is needed to change this. But even if such a force existed, it could
not explain the true nature of gravity. However, the transmission mechanism
of gravity is continually being sought - almost certainly in vain. In
Einstein's theory, space curves, but why? This remains an abstraction.

The only way out of the impasse and forwards is to demonstrate that, in
certain respects, relativity theory is incorrect. We must go back to the
beginning, the Michelson-Morley experiment at the start of the 20th century.
Prior to the experiment, it was generally believed that the Earth and other
celestial bodies move in the ether of space, and that the "ether wind"
caused by the movement could be measured from the surface of the Earth.
Though such a wind would have no effect on particles, it should be visible
as changes in the speed of light. Light should travel faster with the wind
than against or across it. The experiment was carried out using a local
source of light and an arrangement of mirrors, the light being diverted from
its direction of travel and its speed being measured in two directions at
right angles to each other. The result of the experiment was surprising - no
change in the speed of the light was observed. Therefore the ether does not
exist!

If there is no ether, it means that the MM experiment could be carried out
on any celestial body and would always produce the same result. A body's own
motion in space with no ether is relative and is irrelevant in itself. But
Einstein made the further assumption that the speed of light is also in
general independent of the state of motion of the body.

Observations have shown that the universe appears to be expanding at nearly
the speed of light, i.e. that celestial bodies move relative to each other
at great speeds. But conditions on different celestial bodies are
independent of speed. Conclusions concerning the motion of one's own or
other celestial bodies can only be made on the basis of the red or blue
shift in the light emitted by other celestial bodies. But the examples in
relativity theory deal with travel in space as if one observer could move
while the other remains stationary. Generally, one moves at nearly the speed
of light while the other remains stationary. In practice, Einstein did not
fully understand the significance of the non-existence of ether.

In relativity theory, the terms railway station and the surface of the Earth
are used to depict the stationary observer, while the one leaving the
station or the surface of the Earth is considered to be in motion. But in
ether-free space all movements are relative, and relativity theory does not
speak the truth. Using these examples, relativity theory attempts to
demonstrate that time would pass at different rates for a moving and a
stationary observer. But in ether-free space the observers only move apart
or towards each other. The situation is always symmetrical, and this fact
can only be denied through a mathematical lie.

Relativity theory assumes the speed of light to be independent of the state
of motion of an object. This is impossible, for it is precisely from changes
in the speed of light that velocities and directions of movement can be
measured. Changes in velocity appear as red or blue shifts. Consider, for
example, airport radar measuring aeroplanes' movements, directions, and
speeds. Can anyone really believe that the radar signal always hits each
aircraft at the same speed, irrespective of the aircraft's own speed?

In relativity theory, time has been made a varying quantity like weight and
distance. This assumption is still unsupported by any research result.
Relativity theory's most enthusiastic supporters believe that there should
be a mass of evidence - but there is none. There are only misunderstandings
of how an atomic clock operates (the effect of acceleration), and
misunderstandings of what objective research demands. In many cases,
attempts have been made to use the theory to prove itself.

Despite the defects and errors of relativity theory it must be said that
there will never be another genius like Albert Einstein. The curvature of
space and the relation of mass to energy are magnificent discoveries,
besides many others. Perhaps relativity theory's greatest fault lies in
being too good. It has successfully stopped the development of theoretical
physics for decades.

It was said above that, if we could see events from the correct perspective,
we could see the world as it really is. But what is the correct perspective?
It must be a state, in which we experience no force acting on us, i.e.
free-fall motion. But if free-fall motion is the basic state, the entire
universe becomes different. It is then a short step to the core of the
matter.

GRAVITY AS FALLING SPACE
If gravity is not a force, and if the basic state of space is free-fall
motion, only one conclusion is possible: space itself is in free-fall
motion. Objects fall without any force attracting them. When space falls,
they fall with it. And in such falling motion the relative acceleration of
space should be the same as in Newton's law of gravity, i.e. inversely
proportional to the square of the distance. But an explanation can also be
found as to why this is so.

How is it possible to state mathematically that space falls at a solid angle
of 360 degrees? In its entirety, such an event would be too complex to state
as a mathematical equation. Let us examine a slice of falling space, the
surface of a contracting ball. The following mathematical correlation exists
in a contracting ball:

aA = constant,

in which A is the surface area of the ball at any distance from a
gravitational mass and a is the acceleration of gravity (falling space) at
that distance. For the time being, this is the only mathematical equation in
the entire theory, from which everything else that is necessary can be
derived. Each celestial body has its own aA constant. The Earth's aA
constant is 5,015 x 1015 m2 / s2. The mass (M) of the Earth is obtained from
it in kilograms, using the equation

M = aA / 4?G

From it, it is also possible to obtain

a = GM / r2 (because A = 4?r2)

i.e. the acceleration of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of
the distance. This results in an equation that Newton almost invented.

In what kind of universe would space fall towards a gravitational mass? Is
space like water or gas, which it is possible to imagine falling? This image
is erroneous for two reasons. The speed of a falling substance varies, like
water in a waterfall. In ether-free space, speed is irrelevant; acceleration
is not. Secondly, the falling substance would have a volume, which should
divide into different directions, when the substance falls towards different
gravitational masses (e.g., the Earth and the Moon). Here too, immaterial
space does not act like a substance, instead space at the same point in
space could fall unimpeded in several different directions.

Falling space is the fourth dimension. It explains, for instance, the
dependence of light on gravity. It has been disputed if light has a mass or
not. This is irrelevant in a gravity field, as falling space affects
everything, whether it has a mass or not. Space curves as in relativity
theory, but its nature as falling space requires no transmission mechanism.

Falling space explains understandably why the wavelength of light appears to
change in a gravitation field. "Appears to change" means that it does not
actually change, instead the speed of light changes. In a very powerful
gravity field (a black hole) the speed of light seems to stop completely.
Red and blue shifts, caused by the movement of an object or by gravity,
always signify a change in the speed of light.

Certain prior demands have often been set for a new theory of gravity, one
of which is that it must explain the perihelial precession of Mercury (and
other celestial bodies). Relativity theory explains this by the rotation of
the gravity field along with the gravitational mass. Though this theory
could explain it similarly, the explanation would be wrong. Perihelial
precession is not directly related to gravity, it is a side effect.
Celestial mechanics are now divided into two factors, gravity and tidal
force. A planetary system is not a perfect perpetual motion machine, but
slowly loses its energy. The loss takes place in the tidal force and is
discernible as perihelial precession.

THE TIDAL FORCE
But what is the tidal force? What causes it and how is it defined? Consider
the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon. The Earth orbits the Sun and the Moon
orbits the Earth. But the Earth should also orbit the Moon due to the effect
of the Moon's gravity. It is impossible to fully meet all of these demands.
The tidal force depicts the erroneous movements arising from the
contradictory demands. Precisely defined, the tidal force is a deviation
from free-fall motion. When we stand on the surface of the Earth, the tidal
force acts on us.

There is still no unanimity concerning the mechanism that creates the tides
on the Earth. Could the tidal force be the answer? The Earth should orbit
the Sun at a steady speed, but the effect of the Moon prevents this. At
least the speed of the Earth in relation to the Sun changes most when the
tides are strongest on the surface of the Earth. This occurs twice a month,
when the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun are approximately lined up.

DARK MATTER
In some galaxies, star revolution speeds have been observed that seem
contrary to the laws of gravity. The outermost stars may remain stationary
relative to the galactic centre, or revolve in the wrong direction. No
rational explanation has been found, so people have started to look for dark
matter in space. That would be matter invisible to measuring equipment. It
does not mean black holes but a widely dispersed mass outside of galaxies.
However, those controversial observations have a simple explanation, and
dark matter is not needed. We must recall the MM experiment a century ago
that proved the inexistence of ether. What could we compare the galaxy
revolution speed to, if not the ether! If we set our equipment to rotate at
a suitable speed, we can see that all the stars in the observed galaxy
revolve in the same direction and at speeds conforming to the laws of
gravity.

GRAVITY AND THE ATOM
Where does space fall to? So far I have spoken of gravitational mass. But in
reality space falls to where gravity arises, to the atom. The only problem
is the model of the atom with its electron shells. This model has no room
for the falling space that should be essential to the existence of the atom.
The theory of the electron shells was a product of its time, which no one
has had the courage to challenge. Not even though quantum mechanics sees
electrons differently: they are not the smallest balls of the atom, but are
the same size as the atom and have a wave-like nature. The atom raises many
unanswered questions. What is the source of the enormous energy depicted by
Einstein's equation E = mc2? And why does the energy not escape into space
as radiation? Or how can the positive electrical charges, the protons, be so
close together in the nucleus without repelling each other? Could there be a
single simple and rational answer to all of those questions? Wouldn't it be
worth finally rejecting the old model of the atom?

In recent years, it has been proposed on various grounds that the nucleus of
an atom is a black hole. A black hole is more familiar from outer space as a
point of extreme density, from which not even light can escape. It is
generally depicted as rotating at enormous speed, and the rotation is
thought to cause the gravity field in its immediate vicinity to wind into a
spiral.

If space falls into the atom, could it fall into a black hole? There is no
computational obstacle to this. What would the hydrogen atom be like, if
this were the case? The proton in the nucleus of the atom is where the
falling ends, the black hole, and the part of the gravity field wound into a
spiral is the electron. The energy contained in the proton and the energy's
permanence are now explained naturally. The acceleration of the falling
space on the surface of the proton exceeds the limit below which energy
cannot escape as radiation. And what about the several protons in the
nucleus of the atom? The proton's positive and the electron's negative
charge are surely indisputable facts! Or are they? No one has ever proved
that some parts of an atom have an electrical charge in the atom's normal
state. Theory has only assumed so. What then are electricity and magnetism?

ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM
In atoms there are generally several protons and electrons. I will now deal
with the atom's nucleus as a single totality, similarly its electrons. Let
me remind you that the electron is not a ball that orbits the nucleus, but a
part of the gravity field (falling space) wound into a spiral around the
atomic nucleus. To avoid misunderstandings, I will call the electron an
electron field (a new term!). As the properties of electricity and magnetism
are known in practice, the new model of the atom permits precise definitions
of them.

Magnetism is an electron field's state of equilibrium or the moment at which
the field passes the state of equilibrium.

The state of equilibrium of the electron field refers to its normal state,
the magnetic state. The electron field is a spiral around the proton, but it
cannot remain the same at a solid angle of 360 degrees. The spiral must
become a vortex at the "polar regions". This creates magnetism with its
poles, and all proton magnets in the universe have the same direction of
rotation. The opposite direction of rotation would signify antimatter.

Electricity is an electron field's deviation from its state of equilibrium.

If vibratory motion is induced in the field, energy is released as
electromagnetic radiation (spectrum). The electrical and magnetic states of
the electron field then alternate. The various wavelengths of the radiation
are caused by the spiral structure of the electron field. The accompanying
drawing depicts a more permanent exceptional state. In it, the red ball
depicts the nucleus of the atom, while the electron field is elongated to
form an oval. The drawing shows an atom in a charged state, for example, in
a conductor.

When an atom is in a magnetic state, its components have no electrical
charge at all! This sharply contradicts what we have been taught to believe.
An electrical charge has been regarded as a permanent property of a
particle, in the same way as its mass. When an atom is in an electrical
state, its nucleus forms a single unified charge, the size of which depends
on the number of protons. The protons are not separately charged and do not
repel each other. The nucleus of an atom is a black hole, and magnetism and
electricity are properties of the black hole.

This provides a natural explanation for many aspects of electromagnetism.
Take, for example, an electric current, which is explained as being a
movement of so-called free electrons. There are many contradictions between
the explanation and the actual phenomenon. An electric current moves in a
conductor at nearly the speed of light immediately as the current is
switched on, even though the electrons have scarcely time to begin moving.
And what happens in a conductor in which there is a charge? How does it
differ from a conductor in which there is no charge? The theory of the
movement of free electrons in no way explains an electric current, nor does
it explain charges, electrical resistance, or anything else relating to the
phenomenon. This is not a problem in practice, because we can use
electricity despite the theory. The theory of the movement of free electrons
should be rejected as erroneous.

The drawing above showed an atom in a charged state. Imagine a conductor
with all its atoms in that state and charged in the same direction. If a
current is switched on, a chain reaction occurs in the conductor in the
direction of the consecutive atoms. The electron field detaches from the
nucleus of an atom and captures the nucleus of the next atom, which
simultaneously loses its own electron field to the next atom, and so on.
This happens because the atoms tend to return to a state of equilibrium. The
chain reaction proceeds at nearly the speed of light, not only in a
conductor, but also, for instance, in lightning.

Some metals are good conductors, while others can be used as resistors. The
difference depends on the structure of the crystal lattices, and on the
magnetic positions of the atoms in the lattice. There are also differences
in the magnetic properties of metals, for the same reasons. The periodic
system of elements is based on the theory of the electron shells of atoms,
and the theory has served this purpose well. Can we reject such a theory and
start from the beginning again? In my opinion, we can, because once
development is on the right track, it will proceed in leaps and bounds.

ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION
Electrical and magnetic interaction has so far been explained by photons. In
practice, the explanation is as impossible as the explanation of gravity by
gravitons. The basic requirement of this theory is for the atom and its
gravity field to form a totality, in which one cannot exist without the
other. And if this is the case, a new surprise follows: as the electron
field is part of the gravity field around the atom's nucleus, the connection
between the nucleus and the electron field cannot be permanently broken.
This leads to the conclusion that free protons and electrons do not exist.
This sounds impossible, but it is not.

An electrical field differs in many ways from a gravity field. The clearest
difference is that an electrical force always acts between two particles. In
the electrical state of an atom, a proton and an electron attract each
other. The drawing above showed an atom in a charged state and depicts the
said attractive force. The electron can be pulled farther from the proton,
in which case its oval field elongates into a strand. The whole time the
proton is actually inside the electron field, at its other end. The atom
that has been lengthened into a strand is like a tensioned spring, which
attempts to return to its state of equilibrium. The strand can be any
length, and in a particle accelerator, for example, an atom can be stretched
to even hundreds of kilometres. Accelerated protons or electrons are really
stretched atoms. As the length of the strand increases, it acts in the
opposite way to a spring. The attempt of a tensioned atom to return to its
state of equilibrium weakens in proportion to the square of the distance.
The exchange of the electron fields from one proton to another takes place
only as a chain reaction, as an electric current. Orphan protons or
electrons are not created. But how do neighbouring atoms know about each
other's electrical or magnetic states? We must return to the principles used
to define falling space. Falling space is not a substance that divides
itself between different gravity centres, such as the Earth and the Moon.
Nor does it divide between different atoms, or even different protons. Each
proton has its own field, and they are in contact with each other even
outside the area that is termed an atom. Changes in the electrical or
magnetic properties of atoms are transmitted to other atoms as changes in
their fields.

Each proton of the atom has its own separate gravity field, such a field
being the smallest possible unit of gravity, a quantum of gravity. If and
when the theory is developed further, one limitation to the gravity field is
essential: it cannot penetrate a black hole, but must go around it. This
will become important at the latest when consideration is given to how
elements heavier than hydrogen form. In other words, what possibilities are
there to bring black holes permanently close to each other.

OPEN QUESTIONS
The neutron has so far not been mentioned, because the theory says nothing
about it. It is known from experiments that the neutron is not permanent
when removed from an atom, but that it changes into a proton and an
electron, into a hydrogen atom. This could be some kind of a hint of the
nature of the neutron.

So far, the theory says nothing about radioactivity. The greatest mystery
about radioactivity is that the speed of decay of a radioactive substance
cannot be affected by any known chemical or physical means. But present
explanations of radioactivity are only an evasion of the problem, not a
solution.

Thank you for reading, please send me your comments. This theory was mainly
completed in the early 1980s. In recent years I have made some additions to
it. As I am not a professional physicist, I have so far been unsuccessful in
having the theory published. But this theory will never be fully complete.
Perhaps it will be precisely your idea that will take it one step further.
Let us discuss it.

With thanks, Henry Haapalainen

You can send your comments to