PART I - GRAVITY

One very important feature of pseudo forces is that they are always proportional to the masses.
The same is true of gravity. The possibility exists therefore that gravity itself is a pseudo force. Is
it not possible that perhaps gravitation is due simply to the fact we do not have the right coordinate
system?
Feynman - Lectures on physics
For Richard Feynman, the idea that gravity could be a delusory manifest of some known
phenomena seemed to be always with him. In his Lectures on Gravity, he frames the issue thus:1
1) Gravitation is a new Field of its own, unlike anything else, or
2) Gravity is a consequence of something already known but incorrectly perceived.
New Physics requires strong evidence. The empirical support for a theory of gravitons
congruent with the successful predictions of Einsteins geometric was then, and is today, still
missing. In lieu gravitons, perhaps the void can be understood in terms of yet to be discovered
spatial dynamics. Indeed, some characteristics commonly attributed to the void are similar to those
of solids, liquids and gases. But well understood descriptors such as expansion, distortion, and
pressure can be nebulous and even contrary when applied to a massless volume.
Feynman referred to forces that result from acceleration as pseudo forces (instantaneous
inertial opposition proportional to mass).2 The identity of the structure undergoing acceleration,
however, is not specified by Newtons second law. In fact, it would not be inconsistent with the
formulation of Newtons second law to consider local g fields as vacuum reactive stress in the form
of spatial momentum flow. Reversing the roles between space and matter excites new possibilities.
While working out the theory of General Relativity, Einstein explored the properties the
universe must posses to prevent the detection of absolute motion.3 What followed was the principle
of relative acceleration...the force felt by the crew of an accelerating rocket ship is no different than
that experienced by the same crew at rest in a universe undergoing unidirectional acceleration. It
was a bold but safe objectification of space, at the time, not capable of validation or falsification.
How might this pseudo force be distinguished? Although not recognized as such, the answer would
come with the discovery of cosmological expansion. Accelerating objects feel inertial reactions as
pseudo forces. By like reasoning, is it not possible that inertial mass subjected to isotropic spatial
acceleration, would effect a counter reaction? Embellishing upon Feynmans musings and the
reversal of roles played by space and matter, we derive an expression for the g fields that appear
to emanate from local matter. Just as the ma force opposes velocity change of matter, so also is
volumetric acceleration of space opposed by inertial mass.
1

Feynman, Lectures on Gravity, Lecture 1, 1.5

Feynman, Lectures on Physics, Vol I, 12-5

Understanding Physics, Isaac Asimov, Barns and Noble 1993. Mechanism at pages 115-120:
-1-

As Einstein foretold, gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent. More correctly, the
gravitational effect (a la General Relativity) is curvature of static space induced by inertial matter.
But throughout post Newtonian history, the inertial property of mass is patently observable only as
opposition to changing velocity. In G.R., inertial mass was given a new job descriptionthat of
bending static space. Herein, we extend its Newtonian functionality to that of opposing isotropic
spatial acceleration. Inertial matter at rest in volumetrically accelerating space feels the same pseudo
force as mass accelerated relative to the cosmological rest frame. Because matter is composed of
particles held together by electric and quantum forces, condensed forms of energy are not deformed
or disassociated by the relatively weak expansion field. In resisting isotropic acceleration, masses
create counter fields proportionate to their masses. To complete the picture of gravity as a pseudo
force within Feynmans denotation, the dynamic must be identified and quantified.
Mass, gravity, space, time and charge are intimately entwined. As one of two long range
force fields, gravity will necessarily depend upon the content and action of the cosmos of which it
is a part.4 Commencing with a 2-dimensional template built upon reasonable estimates of Hubble
mass (1.5 x 1053 kgm) and size (1.1 x 1026) meters, we extemporize an expanding shell having
surface density u = one kgm/meter2 By this artifice, we morph Machian mass into Hubble
expansion to create a reactive surface density5

u = (1.5 x 1053 kgm)/4(1.1 x 1026 m)2 . one kgm/meter2

(1)

As a corollary, cosmic mass-energy conveniently reduces to:

Mu = 4R2 kgm/meters2 = 4R2u

6

with gravitational energy

(M u ) 2 G
U2 =
2R

(2)
(3)

Exposition of gravity as global expansion follows from the shell model illustrated in Figure 1. In this
turn-around of roles played by mass and space, local g fields emerge as a consequence of sprinkling
matter throughout the void created by placing all existing mass on the Hubble surface. Transition
from shell mechanics to the real world of 3-sphere homogeneity completes the ontogeny.

When asked to summarize G.R. in one sentence Einstein Replied: Time, and space and gravitation have
no separate existence from matter....physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended.
5

The 2-sphere is a make-believe Expanding Rubber Sheet Analogy [ERSA] where imaginary experiments
can be made and results projected to the real world of three dimensional space. A true 2-sphere universe only has
two dimensions. Our analogy of an empty interior 3-sphere borrows the 2-sphere formulation of energy as u. The
Toy Model in the context herein, is a set of parameters to be played-with to test different theories.
6

The gravitational energy depends upon how mass is distributed. The energy of a shell structure will be

less that Mu by a factor of (i.e., the sum of the separate masses if far removed from one another is twice of the
shell model). For a uniform density three-sphere, the energy deficit is greater than the shell model by a factor of 6/5.
Exact calculation is not trivial for our lumpy Hubble, as extensively studied by Arnowitt, Deser and Misner [(Physics
Rev, Lett 4 (1960) 375, Rev 118, (1960) 1100 and 120, (1960) 313].

-2-

Comes now the introduction of a single uniform spherical mass ME concentric with the
Hubble density manifold u where all other matter (except for ME) is concentrated.7 Since ME and
u are concentric, it cost nothing in terms of energy to constellate ME anywhere, i.e., every point is
the center of its own Hubble sphere.8
If U and ME be mutually attracted, each would exert a symmetrically balanced force upon
the other. But as later developed, unless an accelerating environment can be found, there is no force
between masses. To create gravitational attraction, interstitial space must be dynamically catalyzed
in some manner. Expansion being yet undiscovered in 1916, Einstein inventively dismissed the lack
of a force by postulating a new physics principle, namely: mass induced curvature of static space.9
While G.R. correctly predicts the motion of masses along geodesics of curved space, it does so by
inserting the measured value of G at the point where functionality is most needed. By contrast,
gravity as a pseudo force follows from cosmological expansionno new physics required. When
the velocity-distance law (v=HD) is interpreted as a temporal velocity change of space (dv/dt) the
universe takes on de Sitter persona, expansion is exponential, H reaches a minimum and the radial
acceleration an is:

an = dv/dt = H(dr/dt) + r(dH/dt) = H2r = c2/R

(4A)

Non expanding mass creates negative

pressure. When negative pressure (-P)
equals uc2/3, positive matter density u
is balanced by the negative pressure of
the vacuum field. In the de Sitter
universe, volumetric acceleration is
3c2/R,, so an acting upon u at any point
creates pressure (c2/R)u, that is anu =
(c2/R)(kgm/m2) = uc2/3. And since
(an) also acts upon ME, the isotropic
expansion stress per Newtons 2nd law
for non accelerating mass is (F = Ma):

F/u = ME(an/u)

(4B)

Throughout Part I of this treatise, capitol M refers to ordinary matter mass and lower case m refers to
meters In Part II a subscripted lower case (e.g., mo) refers to a subatomic mass
8

To quote Richard Feynman: it cost nothing to create a mass. The idea of a net zero (energy) universe
appears to have originated with him, although he did not pursue it further. (Feynman - Lectures on Gravity)
9

To complete the theory, Einstein set up a static field equation, the left side he referred to as made of fine
marble. It represented the scalar Riemannian manifold which described curved spacetime. The right side he dubbed
a house of straw. It premised matter as the cause. Only after discovering the elegance of the mathematical
construct, did he artfully introduce a new role for mass as the provocateur of curvature. He was confident about the
marble mansion, but never quite satisfied with the house of straw.

-3-

&& = 0, R
& = c,
If the spatial volume defined by the Hubble sphere is uniformly expanding, R
and global volumetric acceleration per unit area is 2c2/3R [first term of (11)].10 When recessional flux
&& = c2/R) volumetric acceleration per unit area increases to 3c2/R. This condition
is accelerating ( R
corresponds to de Sitters exponentially expanding universe, and as yet to be demonstrated, it is also
compliant with the balanced state sought by Einstein a la his introduction of the cosmological
constant . By the artifice of portraying all forms of non-expanding particulate matter as a spherical
surface having area commensurate with the Hubble manifold and mass equivalent to the Hubble
sphere, the pressure force created by de Sitter expansion equals (c2/R)/u (which equates to 4G).
In Figure 1, the black arrows illustrate isotropic the expansion c2/R, the Hubble manifold depicted
as a stretching shell having surface density u per (2). The isotropic global acceleration field will
create a negative pressure at the space-matter mass interface of any non-expanding inertial mass [e.g.,
ME] as shown by red arrows]. It is one of natures deceptive charades, that these reactionary g fields
appear to originate from within and emanate outward therefrom. In reality, local gravitational fields
are negative pressure counter action rucked upon spatial expansion by non-expanding inertial matter.11
Since g fields diminish inversely over area (same number of imaginary reactance lines cross each
imaginary shell encompassing ME), the total reactive force summed over any spherical surface
encompassing ME at any distance r > rE is the same. Thus:
F = [ME(c2/R)/u][1/4r2]

(5)

Equation (5) specifies the g field intensity for a mass ME in an expanding three dimensional
universe where all mass (except ME) is concentrated on its surface. Relative acceleration between
space and mass (as synthesized from the density shell u) creates an overall average negative pressure
uc2/3. The essence of the G field is expanding space. Each mass in turn reacts thereto, creating a
reactive local g field proportionate to its inertial content.12 Rewriting (5) as:

F = Fg = G[(ME)/r2]

(6)

where c2/4R2 is replaced by the symbol G. The acceleration an for an expanding empty 3-sphere
with shell mass Mu is then:
an= MuG/R2
(7)
From (2), (3) and (7):

G = [an/4u] = c2/4Ru

(8)

G thus depends upon a vector field an and a scalar density field u.

10

More specifically, the change in volume (dV/dt) = 4R2c and volumetric acceleration (d2V/dt2) = 8Rc2.
The acceleration per unit area is therefore (8Rc2)/4R2 = 2c2/R which corresponds to the isotropic field 2c2/3R.
11

God hath chosen the most foolish things of the world to confound the wise. (1st Corinthians I, vs 27).

12

In the case of the 2-sphere, it makes no difference if the mass ME is subjected directly to the volumetric
acceleration field of expanding space or the reactionary field ). While that is not the case for the 3-sphere reality
model, there are yet to be explored conceptual aspects of 2-sphere formalism.

-4-

Adverting again to Figure 1, mass beyond the surface of ME does not add to the g field of
E. A second particle P introduced into the Hubble arena of E, defines its own Hubble coordinate
center. The reaction field of both Mp and ME will be isotropic except to the extent ME and Mp act
upon one another. Global expansion thus converts Newtons 2nd law to volumetric expansion per unit
mass which results in the negative pressure that cause masses to be attracted to one another.
In what proceeded, u was used to derive the negative pressure field for the shell model.
While volumetric spatial acceleration is the source, it will be seen that the essence of u is the quantity
of matter contained by the Hubble sphere and its dependence upon 4R2. At this point we look to
the size of the Hubble sphere as a mensuration artifice. While there is no physical consequence to the
observational limit R, the Hubble scale and the Hubble mass are useful in determining G in terms of
a virtual u that roughly approximates the surface area of non-expanding particulate matter. R is the
unique distance where spatial recessional flow equals c. Interest at this juncture, is not in the
velocity of recessional flow at R, but rather the rate of change of velocity at the Hubble limit.
& within the Hubble sphere and its derivative V
&& (volumetric acceleration)
Volumetric growth of space V
13

&& . To find the internal production rate

can be related to isotropic spatial flux R& and its rate of change R
of space, we construct an imaginary Gaussian surface S of radius RS to encompass the Hubble volume
as shown in Figure 2. Accordingly, the following relations hold:
4
R 3 ................................................(9)
3
& = (4R 2 )(R
&)
V
&& = 8R (R
& ) 2 + 4R 2 (R
&& )...........................(10)
V
V=

13

Because the gravitational force of ME is not affected by matter beyond the surface of the sphere rE the g
field of ME is the result of spatial expansion, the two sphere shell density u has no obvious affect upon ME
Nonetheless it is indirectly a factor in the constellation of G.

-5-

Figure 2: The radius of the expanding Hubble sphere is given a subscript RH to distinguish it
from the fixed Gaussian sphere RS. A Hubble scale RH has volume VH = (4/3)(RH)3. For
uniform radial dilation at velocity c the volumetric acceleration of the Hubble sphere is
[8(RH)(c2)]. RS represents the radius of a spherical Gaussian enclosure having a fixed surface
area 4(RS)2, the rate of change of spatial volume dV/dt will equal 4RH2c as indicated by the
arrow dV/dt denoting spatial volume per second exiting across the fixed Gaussian surface. In
a slowing universe, the Hubble dilates at greater velocity than the recessional flow of internally
expanding space; in an accelerating universe, the opposite is true. To evaluate the present state
of the universe, it is necessary to know whether the acceleration is zero, positive or negative.
When the radius of the Gaussian surface S is shrunk to RS = RH (or conversely when the Hubble
has expanded to RS) the Gaussian surface takes a snapshot of the exiting flow as measured by
the metering orifice 4Rs2. The conceptual significance of spatial flux exiting across the
Gaussian surface is that it reveals the dynamic state of the universe within the Hubble sphere.
All space beyond RH can be ignored since only changes within the Hubble sphere contribute to
acceleration. The changing radius of the Hubble sphere has no physical or functional effect in
determining the value of G. The instantaneous Hubble radius does tell us where to put the
Gaussian gauge for measuring the internal rate of spatial growth in terms of the exit flux at the
instant of coincidence.
Encompassing the Hubble sphere with a Gaussian surround S concurrent with the Hubble
sphere at the instant of measurement is an adaptation of a volume to surface transformation first
elaborated by the 18th century mathematician, Carl Fried rich Gauss.14 For purposes of determining
volumetric acceleration, the Hubble universe is considered devoid of mass, composed only of
infinitesimal volumes, each expanding uniformly in three dimensions. In this expose volumetric
expansion of space is treated as a functional operative at the smallest limit of existence (The vector
divergence field is expressed mathematically as the fractional change in volume per unit area as the
area approaches zero). The fractional change in volume per unit area can thus be regarded as a
dynamic modulus, a measure of the intrinsic characteristic of space as expansion. Gausss divergence
theorem relates the integral over the volume of the surface that contains the divergences to the flux
exiting across the surface that contains the volume. To apply the theorem to an expanding Hubble
sphere, we sum over the exiting volume of recessional space and divide by the surface area of the
Gaussian surround 4RS2. At the juncture of coincidence, RH = RS = R, then from (10):

&&
& ) 2 + 4R 2 (R
&& ) 2 2R
&2
V
8R (R
&&
=
=
+R
2
Area
R
4R

14

(11)

Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777 1855) sometimes referred to as the Princeps mathematicorum
(The Prince of Mathematicians)..

-6-

When (11) is expressed in terms of the deceleration parameter q then:15

&&
& 2
V
(R)
[2 q],
=
Area
R
(12) In

where... q =

&&
RR
&2
R

an accelerating universe, q = -1, and therefore:

&&
V
3c 2
= AH =
= 3H 2 R
Area
R

(13)

Equation (13) expresses the volumetric acceleration per unit area of an exponentially expanding
Hubble sphere in terms of the Hubble constant.16 But equation (13) is also Einsteins prescription for
a static universe. More specifically, to balance the gravitational force FG tending to collapse the
universe:

FG = GMu/R2 = 4GuR/3.

(14)

15

After the discovery of the velocity-distance law v = Hr circa 1928, and throughout most of the 20th
century, expansion was assumed to be slowing due to gravity. To express the rate of change in terms of velocity and
distance, a q factor was concocted with a minus sign and given the name deceleration parameter. If the rate of
expansion is increasing with time, then dv/dt is positive and equal to H(dr/dt) or what is the same, H2r. At the
Hubble distance r = R and v = c, so recessional flux exiting the Hubble sphere at any point is normal thereto. The
Hubble surface is the transluminal locus of the q = -1 universe where velocity is c and acceleration is (c2/R).
16

The same relationship follows if the ME is placed immediately beyond the Hubble surface. ME can now
be considered a point mass separated from by distance R per (6). The velocity-distance law specifies the
acceleration, i.e., if the rate of spatial expansion is increasing in proportion to the amount of space in existence, then
since v = Hr, the acceleration is:
dv/dt = H(dr/dt) = Hv = H2r.
At the Hubble sphere, r = R, so the acceleration a is = H2/R. Equating this as the acceleration produced by the
gravity field of the universe per(6) then:
MuG/R2 = H2/R
Substituting the cosmic density-volume product uV of the Hubble universe for Mu, there results:
G = 3H2/4u
This value is listed in the Electronics World table of constants. It obviously cannot be a constant because of the
factor u in the denominator. Nor does it provide a physical model for G that can be used to rationalize the implied
increase in G as the universe expands. [density is normally considered to diminish as (1/R3)]. The derivation is not
without merit however. When properly modified by a mass accretion algorithm, the above leads to the same value
for G as the expanding two sphere model shown in Figure 1.

-7-

Einstein introduced a counter force that, when multiplied by R/3, would cancel gravity on the
global scale. From the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations, this can be expressed as:

R/3 = - 4GuR/3 = -H2R

And therefore:

= 3H2

(15)

Exponential spatial growth is locked to the velocity c at distance R where recessional space
becomes transluminal, that is, where c = HR and q = -1. How is it, that , can at once fix Einsteins
universe as static while simultaneously sourcing exponential expansion. The metamorphosis from
static to dynamic follows from the physical implementation of as spatial expansion. For the
mathematical model (General Relativity) to be static, the physiology must be functionally dynamic.
When Einsteins is embodied as spatial expansion, G emerges as /4u.
The physical interpretation of Einsteins cosmological constant is de Sitters exponentially
expanding void. Expanding space is the dynamic implementation of Einsteins prescription for a
balanced universe. But as originally envisioned, it is not a precisely tuned independent operative
purposely instituted by nature (or otherwise) to counter gravity. Quite the opposite. The G field is
the manifestation of global expansionthe intrinsic property of space as a dilation. The recognition
of as spatial expansion, renders the cosmological dynamic comprehensible. Given the state of
Hubble expansion as exponential, the isotropic acceleration field c2/R can be expressed as = 4Gu.
Negative pressure unlike positive pressure, is non-uniform, the nominal being herein assumed that
created by scattered inertial matter (-P) = uc2/3.
In the light of later discoveries, Einsteins inclusion of in the 1916-1917 edition of the
General Theory, proves to be of momentous significance. The relevance of as the source of G
resolves several enigmas, including the puzzling question of why density appears to be miraculously
balanced between run-away expansion and gravitational collapse.
An isotropic field concentric with a Hubble sphere provides a convenient coordinate system
for expressing gravitational fields as Feynman pseudo forces. The inertial reaction of matter in reply
to cosmological acceleration masquerades as a locally originated. But as Einstein correctly observed
in reality there is no gravitational mass per se. Inert matter in repose cannot self-create a force in
static space. Inertial matter, can however, resist isotopic expansion, and in so doing, create negative
spatial pressure. MEG like all pseudo forces, is simply a Newtonian (2nd Law) reaction that must
necessarily be spread over the matter-space interface upon which the isotropic expansion field acts
(BIG G) defines (little g) when properly scaled by local mass and surface area. Fields are surface
intensities. As a formalism, the General Theory outputs correct results, but the action depends upon
the measured value of G which can now be understood as an expansion field scaled by the Hubble
mass. Gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent because both are inertial reactions.
To determine the field acting upon ME in Figure 1, we first impose the spatial acceleration
field (13) upon the volume and express the reactance of the shell u as:

G = c2/4Ru = (c2/4R)[meters2/kgm]

(16)

acts upon the matter shell E to create isotropic inertial reaction, the intensity of the pseudo
-8-

force field diminishes inversely with the square of the distance, while at the same time the area of the
field increases with the square of the distance. The result is that total reactionary force is the same
at every distance, consequently the isotropic reactionary force acting against the expansion field is
the same as Mu exerts upon ME. To illustrate, we consider E as the earth, then ME is the earths mass,
and rE its radius. Next we imagine ME as uniformly distributed over the earths surface to create a
surface density = ME/4(rE2). Figure 3, depicts the shell Hubble surface density u as a green circle
= one kgm/m2. For a generic cosmological acceleration factor An, the local g force reduces to a
simple ratio of surface densities E/u where u is one
kgm/m2 as per (17).

Me
Me
2
e 4 (re )
4 (re ) 2
g
=
=
=
Mu
kgm
An u
meters 2
4 (re ) 2

(17)

In a de Sitter mode, An equals an = c2/R and the earths

gravity gE from the double shell model of Figure 3 is:

g = [Me/4(rE)2](c2/R)(meters2/kgm)

(18)

For earth ME = 5.98 x 1024 kgm and rE = 6.37 x 106 meters,

so from (18) gE is 9.6 m/sec2.
In the Mercator projection shown in Figure 4, the Hubble shell and Earths surface are
depicted as flat areas where the ratio g/An = E/u. Spatial expansion is unidirectional, and during a
de Sitter era equal to c2/R. Both E and u feel the same acceleration field, but E >> u, therefor g
is proportionately greater. Mu does not act directly upon ME since mass beyond rE does not,
contribute to the gravitational force of E.
However, matter and its distribution, does
effect the gravitational energy deficit of the
universe.17 Lumps of matter, even though
uniformly distributed, adds to the complexity,
e.g., both the Moon and Sun exert tidal forces
which cannot be distinguished from other
forms of acceleration. Exclusive of external
mass, Figure 4 also leads to (18) for the case
of unidirectional acceleration of the universe
with respect to its contents, i.e., the ratio of the
surface density fields (E/u) is equal to the
ratio (g/An) of the acceleration fields.
17

The present value of the Hubble constant Ho is usually expressed as recessional rate in (km/sec) per unit
of distance measured in mega parsecs (mpc). One mpc = 3.09 x 1019km. For Ho = 70, (or 2.3 x 10-18/sec) the
Hubble time 1/Ho is = 3.09/70 or 4.4 x 1017 sec. One year equals 3.16 x107 sec, so the Hubble age is .14 Gy. The
measured value of G (6.67 x 10-11 m3/sec2 per kgm) corresponds to Ho in the range of 70. km/sec/mpc

-9-

Figure 5 sketches the process for building a uniform density three sphere from thin shells of
thickness dr. The differential work at each stage of assembly is

dU = GMr(dM)/r

(19)

And since Mr = u(4/3)r3, then dM = u(4r2(dr), the total work in building the universe is:

U 3 = G

3G 3 (M u ) 2
16 2
( u ) 2 r 4 dr =
3
5R

(20)

Comparison of (3) with (20) confirms the gravitational energy

deficit U3 of a uniform 3-sphere is greater than the gravitational
energy deficit U2 of a shell universe by a factor of 6/5. That is, for
the same radius R and mass-energy content Mu,

3(M u ) 2 G 3
U3
6
5R
=
=
U2
5
(M u ) 2 G 2
2R

(21)

The question arises as to whether the value of G calculated from

the shell model needs to be adjusted when the matter content is
distributed throughout the empty volume. If G depends upon
gravitational energy content rather than total mass, then the 6/5 difference in energy between U3 and
U2 could affect the Hubble size. Since G depends upon 1/R, any amendment of the radial scale will
also affect Mu if we are to preserve the one kgm per meter squared surface density u which seems
to be a requirement of Newtons second law when formatted as a spatial field. However, in reality,
our volume need not be considered as empty. When mass is distributed throughout the volume, net
energy is zero because (-P) = uc2/3. As per equation (23), de Sitters solution of Einsteins
gravitational equation is satisfied since positive and negative energy terms algebraically total to zero.
From a dynamic perspective, there is thus no difference between the empty shell model and a fully
homogenized positive matter density in balance with negative gravitational energy. Conceptually G
is volumetric acceleration driven by spatial expansion , independent of whether mass be uniformly
distributed throughout the volume or evenly spread over the surface. Further discussion of the empty
shell model being deferred until we have introduced Einsteins equations.
*****************
Long term studies of planetary lunar orbits are generally interpreted as proof of gravitational
invariance. Equation (16) ostensible requires that G diminish inversely with R. Like other variable
G theories, the formulation presented here appears suspect except where exponential acceleration
drives H (and consequently R) to a ultimate minimal value (called the Hubble Horizon). What is
significant about the failed attempts to measure changes in G is that experiments only evidence the
constancy of the mass-gravity product. Mass is a condition of energy. Energy is conserved, but mass
converted to other forms of energy need not exhibit inertia, and when energy is in the form of mass,
moving at relativistic velocity, means greater inertia. Mass is a state, not a conserved quantity.
-10-

All attempts to measure G are masked by the constancy of the MG product, a decrease in G
accompanied by an increase in M.18 Inasmuch as our development is based upon a present state of
acceleration, we need not now delve into the proposition of mass enhancement.19 Exponential spatial
expansion ultimately freezes Hubble scale, H becomes constant and therefore so also is R. So while
it is not known whether G is fixed or changing at the present, there is compelling consistency for a
era where inertia increased as the universe expanded. The R in the denominator of (16) does not
necessarily require G to be presently diminishing.20, 21, 22
Prior to Einsteins recognition of equivalence, inertial and gravitational mass were viewed as
separate but enigmatically equal functionality(s). Unification led to gravity as spatial distortion.
Herein, reactionary g fields supersede static distortion. With no separate existence from that which
brings about their existence, they can still be understood in relation to a primary acceleration field.
As previously related in our prelude, McCrea conjured a mass creating process founded upon
expanding negative pressure. While tension and pressure would be uniform in an expanding negative
pressure void, McCrea argued that the introduction of matter sprinkled throughout the volume would
behave else-wise (unlike positive pressure space where Pascals law applies to equalized pressure
throughout the volume). McCrea reasoned that areas of high energy density (condensed energy
matter) would create resistence, i.e., gradients. Together with Edward Milne, the theory was
formulated intuitively from Newtonian dynamics, which reduced to Einsteins gravitational equations
(24) and (25).23 What is surprising is that G.R. and Newtonian Dynamics lead to the same equations:

18

For an orbital moon, v and r depend upon the product of the planets mass Mc multiplied by G. The
orbital parameters v and r are determined by equating GMcM*/R2 to centripetal force, M*v2/r from which:
GMc = rv2

(22)

19

In most expansion scenarios, R and H change as the universe ages (that is not the case in a spatially
accelerating universe where recessional flow exceeds the Hubble rate c.). But (23) shows in any event, G variance
cannot be detected if the inertial property of a mass increases in proportion to R.
20

As an aside, gradually acquired inertia resolves a cosmological quandary, namely the high degree of
tuning required for critical density. G has units of volumetric acceleration per unit mass [m3/sec2 per kgm]. To
what might these units apply other than expanding space? And if applied to expanding space, is it not conceivable
that the rate of volumetric growth would change as the size of the universe changes? The stability of orbits is
testament to the invariance of the MG product. If G palliates as 1/R, the mass factor in the force equation must
increase proportionately with R. Equation (2) can be viewed as other than a coincidental condition the present
21

In 1937 Paul Dirac published the Large Number Hypothesis (LNH). Reasoning that the near equality
between the electro/gravitational force ratio and Hubble/subatomic size ratio must be more than a coincidence, Dirac
suggested that these large numbers maintain the same proportions at all times. This can only be true if one of the so
called constants of nature changed as the universe expands. This lead to Diracs hypothesis that G varies as % (1/R).
22

There is no law of conservation of mass. The inertial resistance of masses to acceleration increases for
masses traveling at high velocities relative to the fame of measurement. Nor is their bases for the idea of an
explosive mass creating genesis, although much effort has been directed to justifying such scenarios. Gradually
acquired inertia is as it must be, it must grow to balance the negative energy of the expanding Hubble volume.
23

Equations (24) and (25) were originally synthesized from General Relativity by mathematical skill and
considerable labor. That Newtonian physics should lead to the same equations is still somewhat of a mystery.

-11-

Specifically:

3Ps
4G
R

R&& =
+
R
+
u
3
3
c 2

(23)

2
2
2
1 dR 8GR u R kc
+
2
R dt =
3
3
R

(24)

where k/R2 is the curvature. In a universe where tension equals energy density, the equation of state
is:
P = uc2
(26)
then (24) and (25) become:
= 8Gu 3qH2
(27)

k/R2 = H2(q + 1)

(28)

The condition P = uc2 is the state equation seized upon by the detractors of Big Bang Theory. The
underlying premise is that positive energy released by expansion maintains density constant, ergo, the
universe need not have a beginning. This was McCreas ingenious idea for the creation of matter.24
It provided a foundational bases for a constant density universe, what is commonly labeled Steady
State Theory. In 1981, Alan Guth appropriated McCreas recipe to develop his own mass creating
algorithm, which debuted as Inflation.25 We touch upon these historical efforts to introduce another
theoretical model also admitted by McCreas work, namely the balanced energy universe. When
negative pressure (-P) = uc2/3 then (24) reduces to:

&& = R
R
3

(29)

Equation (29) has the same solution as de Sitters empty universe, that is, when negative pressure (-P)
cancels positive energy density, the universe behaves as though it were empty. This condition was
introduced pursuant to (4A) and (4B), and above, to transition from shell mechanics to 3-sphere.

(uc2/3) = (-P)

(30)

P = -(c2/R) = uc2/3

(31)

P = (an) x (surface density), then

And therefore

u = 3/R

(32)

24

.McCreas concept exists in one form or another in most creation theories. In contrast to Hoyles Steady
State Theory, the doctrine of gradually acquired inertia foretold herein, requires no new particle production.
25

Like instant genesis, the supposition of rapid exponential grown during inflation results in a whole lot of
up-front energy produced in a short span of time.

-12-

And since

u = Mu/(4/3R3) = 3/R
Mu = 4R2

Then

(33)
(34)

Energy balance between density and negative G field thus comports with de Sitter expansion and the
dependence of positive mass-energy upon cosmic size [equation (2)]. All of which leads to the long
standing cosmological puzzle of why the ratio

MuG
=1
c 2R

(35)

appears to be a factual statement of the universe within the limits of experimental error. How is it that
MuG/Rc2 equals 1" [or what is the same thing, why should cosmic mass equal (c3/HG)]?26 From
(13) and (34), we see that for the shell model, (35) is an identity relationship:

MuG
=1
c 2R

[(4R 2 ) 2 ]
c2
x
4R 2
(c 2 R )

(36)

Equation (36) holds for any value of sigma, and any value of R, consequently it applies to any era. It
is a relational statement between mass, size and acceleration. Compare next (36) with the derivation
of G and its dependency upon u. To reduce (8) to its simplest form, we substitute back Mu/4R2 for
u, and behold:
c2
c2
c 2R
G=
=
=
(37)
4R 2 4R (M u ) M u
4R 2
which is the same equation as (35). G, as in previous reprise, reduces to the factuality of Hubble
expansion divided by inertial content, more precisely the ratio of volumetric acceleration divided by
the present inertial magnitude of its mass. The relationship (35) has been known for many years, and
because the measured value of G fit so perfectly, the ratio acquired seductive fascination as a
cosmological congruity. Hopefully, we have shed some light upon why.
Using the values for G that conveniently specify the cosmic surface density as one kgm per
square meter, we arrive at the correct value of G through the back door. Equation (35) is in reality,
an alterative equation for the gravitational coefficient G, that is:

(9 x10 16 m 2 /sec 2 )1.1 x10 26 m

c 2R
G =
=
= 6.6 x10 11 (m 3 /sec 2 )kgm 1
53
Mu
1.5x10 kgm

26

(38)

Princeton Cosmologists Robert Dicke endeavored to find a scalar-tensor theory of gravity based upon the
proposition of the numerator and denominator of (35) defined the organic connection between inertial and
gravitational mass via Machs Principle. To make merit of Dickes theory, Rc2/G must equal Mu. The problem then
reduces to that of expressing G in terms or R and c2. That issue is resolved by (37).

-13-

AFTER-THOUGHTS
A. The Reality of Cosmological Acceleration
The factuality of accelerating space remains an unanswered question. That de Sitter expansion
comports with the formulation of G as volumetric acceleration per unit mass, would seem to warrant
enthusiastic support for the theory of Accelerating Cosmological Expansion. Indeed, volumetric
expansion of space 3c2/R is the crux of the thesis. For the observational data of 1a supernova events
to be a correct measure of accelerating space, the nebula must co-move with recessional flow. This
requires energy, i.e., dark energy, the yet to be discovered source that powers accelerating expansion.
Acceleration of space, by contract, need not impose upon the universe for added velocity.
Curiously, the spatial acceleration factor c2/R is equal to the retarding effect of gravitational
matter acting upon the presumed comoving velocity of the galaxies. That is, from the perspective of
an earth observer, spatial recessional flow is isotropic, a luminous object at the Hubble limit recedes
at velocity c while urged by the accelerating rate of spatial flow to accelerate at c2/R to maintain its
presumed state as a comoving mass. Thus if cosmic mass Mu is 4R2u then the retarding effect of the
Hubble mass acting upon a receding galaxy of mass M at the Hubble limit is:

FG =

4R 2 u [MG]
R2

4 u c 2 M
=
4R u

(39)

and the gravitational force per unit mass is therefore c2/R which is opposite the acceleration field of
space at the Hubble distance. The provisional conclusion is that net force acting upon luminous matter
is zero. Since zero net force produces no acceleration, no dark energy is required by way of
explanation. Massless space accelerates, matter moves at constant velocity. How then might the
apparent diminution of the more distance supernova events be rationalized?

B. The Faint Supernova Studies

Spontaneous creation has been a recurrent theme throughout scientific history. But an abrupt
beginning of spatial expansion need not include the entire mass of the universe in a single event just
as it does not include all of space. The sudden appearance of mass-energy out of nothing is discrepant
with all that is known about evolutionary process..... like Zeus springing full grown from the head of
Athena. Nonetheless, the general sentient of the twentieth Century had the more distant galaxies
receiving a greater initial boost and therefore traveling farther since the beginning. The model was
fortified by the belief recessional velocities were slowed by gravity, and for mainstream cosmology,
exponential deceleration was the defacto standard for many years. The all at once matter myth requires
expansion velocity to be fine tuned to avoid a quick crash or runaway.
The 1998 supernova studies were based upon the proposition that SN bursts could be used as
standard candlesthe exclamation of identical energies, and therefore of equal brightness and duration.
To the investigatorss surprise, the intensity of the more distant events were fainter than what would
-14-

be expected for a slowing universe. Either the universe was accelerating or something else was in play
in the distant past.
The gravitational pressure needed to trigger a supernova was derived in 1932 by the Indian
physicist, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, for which he later received the Nobel prize.27 The critical
energy Mlimit (approximately 1.4 solar masses) depends upon the factor (hc/4G). If G diminished
inversely with R, the invariance of the MG product speaks directly to the question of whether
supernova events were less energetic in the past. If that be so, the evidence for exponential expansion
vanishes, and so also does the search for dark matter.28 A larger G factor in the past requires less
inertia to create the same force. 29 Since electron degeneracy pressure is constant, the inertial factor
is less (that is, because G is greater in the past, less inertial matter is required to trigger a 1a supernova
event in the early universe). If intensity diminution is the result of less mass rather than greater
distance, the theory of the accelerating universe needs to be re-thought. The irony is that the
acceleration factor seems to be required in order to derive the correct value of G. In other words,
exponential cosmological expansion is the auspicate of the declining G theory, and its corollary, the
doctrine of acquired inertia.
But even if space is accelerating across the Hubble boundary, there is an issue as to the
acceleration of luminous objects (the nebula). If the galaxies are co-moving wrt spatial recessional
flow, all is well with the interpretation of the universe as accelerating expansion (c2/R at the Hubble
sphere). But for space to accelerate matter requires energysomething in the form of dark energy is
needed, and its operative means explained within the context of a zero energy universe. From the
perspective of the Hubble center, the entire mass of the Hubble sphere is in the retardation field of a
mass M at the Hubble limit. Resolution awaits the discovery of dark energy. Until then, the question
remains as to whether Faint Supernova are evidence of inertial accretion.

27

A white dwarf star is kept stable by two opposing forces: 1) the electron degeneracy pressure created by
nuclear fusion in the heart of the star (making lighter elements into heavier ones) pushing outwards from the core,
and 2) gravity pulling inwards. When a white dwarf is locked in an orbit with a companion star, it sucks off matter
over time. This increases the gravitational pressure until it overcomes the electron degeneracy pressure. The amount
of mass in the core has a special significance called the Chandrasekhar Limit. When the core acquires a mass of
approximately 1.4 solar masses, the electron degeneracy pressure is overcome by the pressure of gravity acting upon
the core.
28

As a side note, efforts to explain the present value of G in terms of q = led to much frustration for the
author. The discovery of Cosmological Acceleration provided a good fit to the empirical value of G based upon
standard model consensus Ho = 71. The perception of uniformly expanding 3-D space as time can be appreciated as
a consequence of a changing 4th dimensionality.
29

Because the MG product is constant, the weight of the mass required to overcome the degeneracy
pressure is the same at all eras. When the weight overcomes the electron degeneracy pressure, the white dwarf star
collapses with a violent luminous display. Since the electron degeneracy pressure does not change with time, the
MG pressure required to trigger a supernova event will also be invariant irrespective of the individual contributions
of G and M. A robust G during an earlier era translates to smaller M, and consequently less energetic events. For
the present value of G, Chandrasekhars equation predicts 1.4 solar mass as the critical value.

-15-

C. The Faint Sun Syndrom

Geophysical and climatological data show the earths temperature during the past four billion
years has not changed appreciably. However, numerical models based upon the Suns interior indicate
the Solar output would have been approximately 25% less than its present value. Various theories
have arisen to justify the warm conditions that prevailed for the young earth. Of significance for this
treatise, is the variable G theory.
The Suns luminosity Lu is highly sensitive to G and M, being roughly proportional to G7M5.
The invariance of the MG product thus provides the mechanism and explanation for a temperate
beginning. A 25% reduction in solar output based upon the Suns condition and status as a main
sequence star would be roughly balanced by a robust G and a smaller inertial mass M. In a recent
publication, the variable G theory was studied and compared to alternatives founded upon atmospheric
changes, most notably suppositions based upon unsupported levels of green house gases in the
atmosphere of the young earth.30 The authors avoided consideration of changes of the size proposed
by Dirac a la his Large Number hypothesis (G % t-1). Consequently, they were able to explain their
conclusions in terms of small changes. However, as developed herein, decreasing G is accompanied
by increasing inertial mass, the effect upon luminosity Lu due to changes in G is reduced from 107 to
102 when the 105 effect of increased mass is factored into the equation.

D. Relativistic Conformance.
Both the Special and General Theory of Relativity are integrally tied to the space/time ratio c.
Although rarely expressed in terms of energy transformations, real time dilations always involve
reference frames with energy differences. For special Relativity, the energy difference is kinetic, the
relative rate time depends upon velocity difference. In what initially appears to be a contrast between
the Special and General Theory, the latter relates time dilation to gravitational potential. But upon
closer examination, it will be understood that gravitational time dilation also depends from kinetic
energy differences, specifically, the velocity required to escape the gravitational well:

t* = t(1 - 2GM/rc2)

(40)

where 2GM/rc2 is the escape velocity needed overcome the gravitational field of M, or viewed
alternatively, the velocity acquired by an object falling from 4 to the surface of a uniform spherical
mass M of radius r. That this factor has a familiarcomplexion [(35)], suggests probative implications
if applied to our development of G based upon Mu and R, that is, from (8) and (34):

4R 2 u c 2
t* = t 1 2

4R u (Rc 2 )

1/ 2

= t[ 1]

1/ 2

= it

(41)

Consistent with uniform cosmological time, (41) reduces to one unit of temporal distance defined
along thei axis z to three dimensional space.
30

Can A Variable Gravitational Constant Resolve The Faint Young Sun Paradox?; International Journal of
Modern Physics D. Varun Sahini, Yuri Shtanov, Nov 2014.

-16-

E. Inertial Accretion
The underpinnings of gradually acquired inertia are rooted in the estimates of the present size
of the Hubble sphere and the mass contained therein. That space should grow at an accelerating rate
follows from the natural law of geometric growth. That the universe obeys this most fundamental of
natures laws is to be expected. That is:
dV/dt = KV
and therefore:

4R2(dR/dt) = (K)(4/3)R3
and for dR/dt = c then,

4R2c = K4R3/3
The observable Hubble volume thus grows at the rate
(3c/R)V = 4R2c
******************
The energy of the Hubble is Mu = uV = (-3P/c2)(4/3)R3
Since -P = Anu,, then for de Sitter expansion, An = an = c2/R, and therefore:
Mu = 4R2
The energy of an exponentially expanding Hubble spatial volume within the communicable distance
defined by a uniform radial Hubble growth rate c is therefore:
Mu = 4R2
Since G %1/R, and the volume of the negative G field % R3 the energy in the G field % R2. For a zero
energy universe, exponential spatial expansion results in equal positive and negative energy growth.
the inertial factor of a particle increases in proportion to the increased volume of its g field and
inversely with the diminution of the global G field. The MG product is invariant.

F. Space As Expansion
The natural result of positive pressure is to compress. Negative pressure promotes enlargement
The promotion of negative pressure appears to be self creating - once set in motion within the
framework of scattered positive matter, expansion creates negative pressure gradients which
collectively causes expansion, which maintains negative pressure.

-17-

Conclusions:
The evolution of the universe will be guided by exponential expansion when negative pressure
(-P = uc2/3). This would appear to be an initial condition for a zero energy universe. But it can also
be a later life cosmic event that arises when negative pressure is overtaken by positive matter density.
The theme here is to correlate the present G force with the now rate of expansion and its
current mass. To that end, we have pursued a line of investigation that begins with expansion and ends
with G. The dimensionality of G sets the stage for the application of Newtons second law; global
isotropic acceleration multiplied by local mass becomes a local g field when distributed over the
surface of the mass contained thereby. In this sense, the center of a uniform spherical mass can be
considered the origin of its coordinate system, gravity, as queried by Feynman, being in the end, a
pseudo force, the inertial reaction field of local mass counteracting isotropic global acceleration.
What affect does this have upon General Relativity? Actually very little, save for the fact that
distortion is provoked by a dynamic property of space rather than a static property of mass. Einstein
like Newton, believed the gravity involved continuous action. But in 1686 and still in 1916, expansion
was unknown. A global acceleration field distorted by local matter is a natural result of the symmetry
encoded in Newtons 2nd law. The issue of what space is, and what it is that is curved, reduces to
semantics. Without a way to distinguish that which is physical as between acceleration of space and
space itself, speculation is folly. The General Theory did not attempt to explain G. Rather, it tied the
metrical properties of the cosmic container to its contents. To find that G, the only experimentally
determined factor in Einsteins field equation, is itself, also an identifiable product of cosmic content,
would not be an offense to Einstein, or his theory of General relativity.
We begin our expose with a quote from Richard Feynman. It is fitting we close it likewise:
No machinery has every been invented that explains gravity without also predicting
some other phenomena that does not exist.
Richard Feynman
B. Jimerson, 2014.
Readers are invited to email comments to cosmodynamics@yahoo.com

-18-