Here you find a new, shortened version

A reward awaits

You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a major part of it. For example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that contradicts an experimental result.
The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If you doubt this, let me tell you something about myself. I am 60 years old, I publish four magazines, and I am quite well known in Finland. My reputation would not allow me to break my promise.

GRAVITY AS FALLING SPACE

A. - INTRODUCTION

A1
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?

A2
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 (old term, but now in a new wider context). 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.

A3
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.

A4
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.

A5
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.

A6
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!

A7
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 observer.

A8
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.

A9
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.

A10
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?

A11
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.

A12
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.

A13
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.

B. - GRAVITY AS FALLING SPACE

B1
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.

B2
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 m³ / s². The mass (M) of the Earth is obtained from it in kilograms, using the equation

M = aA / 4πG

From it, it is also possible to obtain

a = GM / r² (because A = 4πr²)

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

B3
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.

B4
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.

B5
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.

B6
Time is absolute, and in a free fall every atomic clock of the universe shows the same time. But they work erratically if there is any change from the free fall. Acceleration affects the function of the atomic clock, and that has been measured in centrifuge. Free fall is the basic state without any acceleration.
This is observable with current technology, and the result of the test will invalidate either the relativity theory or this theory of gravity as falling space.

B7
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.

C. - THE TIDAL FORCE

C1
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.

C2
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.

D. - 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.

E. - GRAVITY AND THE ATOM

E1
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?

E2
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.

E3
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?

F. - ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM

F1
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.

F2
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.

F3
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.

F4
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.

F5
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.

F6
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.

G. - ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION

G1
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. That leads to a conclusion that free protons and electrons do not exist. This is only half true, because there must be free electrons. But how? That was so far the most difficult problem to solve.

G2
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. A negatively charged electron is always elongated.
But where do the free electrons come from? The photoelectric effect and some ideas from quantum physics helped in making things click. A vibrating electron field radiates, and this radiation is in fact duplication of the electron field itself. One frequency of radiation adheres to one electron field, and in suitable circumstances it may become one. In the photoelectric effect, radiation energetic enough will eject electrons from the surface of a metal. This is explained by a frequency of radiation taking the place of an electron in an atom of the metal.
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.

G3
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.

H. - RADIOACTIVITY

When the nuclei fuse into heavier nuclei in the temperature and pressure of stars, the nuclei in fusion must have an enormous velocity. That speed cannot disappear anywhere, its nature only changes. The former velocity becomes the orbiting speed inside the new larger nucleus. The speed will be the larger, the heavier element is involved.

The connection with radioactivity is this: we know that the half-life of radioactive material cannot be affected by any chemical or physical means. And the internal speeds in nucleus are exactly what those means cannot affect. But heavy nuclei are not perfect “perpetuum mobiles”. For some reason they eventually leak their energy and begin decaying.

Nuclei can be ball-shaped, longish or consisting of several ball-shaped clusters. From the decay schemes of radioactive elements we can deduce something about their nuclear structures.

I. - EXPEDITION

Let us make a voyage into four-dimensional space (falling space is the fourth dimension). In the theory, I say that the events should be seen from a correct perspective, and the correct perspective is the basic state where we experience no force acting on us.

You are floating somewhere in space. But then in the vicinity you see a point that starts to enlarge. You identify it as a planet that seems to approach you with increasing speed. You can only wait and fear for the worst. But the planet does not hit you after all, it passes close by. And a strange thing happens: in passing, it changes its direction. You stay still all the time, and not even a hair moves on your head. If you had been sleeping, you would know nothing about it.

Now we change the scenario: two planets approach you from separate directions. Luckily they miss you again, although they both go pretty close. Will you float serenely again? Not this time. You get into quite a turmoil, and that is because of tidal force.

As you float in space, you can move almost at the speed of light, comparing to something other, or stay still - it will not affect your state, and you are not aware of it.

J. - OPEN QUESTIONS

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 kirppu@kolumbus.fi