Back to Einstein.
In arguably his most famous thought experiment, Einstein envisioned an observer inside a box in 'empty' space. The observer has no windows or doors
to see out of, and so can only perform experiments that are carried out completely inside the box. Now with the box floating around, the observer
would experience weightlessness. Einstein then asked the question: "What would the observer see if the box were to be accelerated?
Now envision a rope attached to the 'top' of the box, accelerating it at a uniform acceleration through space. To the observer, any experiment he
could possibly perform inside the box would yield the result that everything, including himself, had weight (or mass). If he threw a ball upward, it
would fall to the floor precisely as though there were a gravitational field acting on it. Thus, Einstein postulated, there is no difference between
mass and inertia, and no difference between gravity and acceleration.
This is where the books leave off, but we do not know what thoughts rolled around in Einstein's head later but were never published. I do, however,
know what thoughts rolled around in my
head, and I present them here for perusal.
If there is no difference between gravity and acceleration, then all of the phenomena we observe on Earth can be explained without gravity, if we
simply assume that all matter, including the surface of the planet, is accelerating outward at a constant acceleration equal to our observed
gravitational acceleration. It is not that we are being pulled toward the ground, but that the ground is rushing up toward us, at an ever faster
The problem with this logic is that it is rather obvious that all matter is not accelerating outwards. The Earth would be the size of the Universe in
a short time were that the case. Einstein also has an answer fo this, however, in the Theory of Relativity.
Since everything is relative to whoever is observing it, could it be that matter is not accelerating outwards, but that everything else is
accelerating inwards toward matter? That would yield the same results. Now for everything to be accelerating inward toward any matter, much less all
matter, there would have to be some sort of medium in which matter exists. This is the aether (ether?) you read about.
Not very long ago, scientists believed that space was made up of a fluid, which is where the term comes from. Of course it was quickly proven that no
material fluid existed outside the planetary concentrations of matter. But there is more in the Universe than matter; there is also energy. Space,
therefore, could be filled with a zero-value three-dimensional energy 'membrane', if you will, that contains all mater and energy. In this model,
energy can be seen as waves traveling through this membrane, and gravity can be seen as the movement of the membrane itself.
Consider it like a huge sheet of rubber, pulled between opposing forces. What we call electromagnetic energy, light, electrical fields, magnetic
fields, are all simply undulating waves in this rubber sheet. Gravity is the movement of the sheet between the opposing forces holding it.
As another example, take a strip of rubber in your hands, with each hand holding it at one end. Now pull your hands away from each other stretching
the rubber. You will feel a force trying to pull your hands together. If that rubber were invisible, it would appear to be some sort of unexplained
force, just as gravity is to us today.
Now for this model to be applicable to observed phenomena, it is essential that matter be an inherent part of the membrane, and so it can be
postulated. For this part of the post, I turn to the theoretical behavior of black holes. The black hole, in this model, can be seen as a phenomena
where the movement of the membrane is occurring at a speed that exceeds the speed of light. Thus, it can be seen in the same light as someone rowing a
boat against a current. If the current is moving faster than the rower can row, he will still be moving backwards. We term the point at which the
speed of the membrane equals the speed of light as the Schwartzchild's Radius
, more commonly known in layman's circles as the "event
The Schwartzchild's Radius is an inherent property of any matter which attracts the membrane. This must be true due to the nature of spherical
geometry. If matter is drawing in the membrane, the speed at which the membrane is moving is a function of the distance from the center of the mass.
There will be a point where the distance from the center of mass, and therefore the area that exists in spherical geometry, causes the movement of the
membrane to equal the speed of light. In normal matter, this is located inside the matter itself; in the case of black holes, this Schwatrzchild's
Radius is located outside the physical edge of the matter.
How does this tie back into what we are discussing? Simply because the matter must be trapped within the membrane and therefore integral with the
membrane. For this to be true, matter must be one of two things: a totally new concept, or a function of wave energy. I believe it is the latter.
Some time back, I was watching a show on black holes and got the inclination to run some calculations. I calculated the amplitude and frequency of a
wave that would be required to form a spherical shape the size of empirical estimates of the physical size of a proton or neutron. I then took the
energy of a wave of such magnitude and frequency, and converted it to an equivalent mass using the famous E=mc² equation, and lo and behold, it came
out to be the mass of a proton/neutron (actually, the calculations showed something like a 0.002% deviation that can be easily attributed to
inaccuracies in measurement).
Now I cannot publish those calculations; they are locked up tightly and securely on a dead hard drive that I am unable to access. Perhaps one day,
when recover costs have come down... or perhaps I will again get the urge to rework those calcs. The latter seems like a better bet, to be honest.
This tells me that there is an outstanding probability that matter is indeed a standing wave function in the spatial membrane. But it also led to a
more surprising piece of data: if matter is a function of a standing wave somehow trapped upon itself, then as the mass of said matter increases, the
physical size of said matter decreases. In other words, a proton is larger physically than a black hole! (I am talking here about physical size and
not the size of the Schwartzchild's Radius, which does indeed increase with mass.) Interestingly enough, similar calculations done on an electron
gave differing results, making me wonder if an electron is indeed an actual particle, or rather a charged region of space that exhibits particle-like
This also explains the myriad of uncommon particles as well: if the above is true and matter is indeed a trapped energy waveform, then it would follow
that only certain frequencies would be able to form a standing wave. The most stable of these would be the frequencies inherent in the most common
type of particle, the proton/neutron. Other frequencies could no doubt form short-lived particles of differing masses, each existing for a certain
period of time as allowed by the standing wave that formed them in the first place. Decay would be where the standing wave breaks down, and would lead
to formation of differing standing waves (different particles) as the energy dispersed. This is exactly what we see in high-energy colliders.
I would go on, but the next thought involves time and I prefer to 'tickle' a brain instead of frying it.