1

How gravity works

A.Findlay,

P. Haenggi

2013

Abstract

Gravity is described scientifically very successfully by Einstein’s Gen-

eral Relativity Theory. Mass causes space (or as Einstein preferred to call

it space-time) to curve. This curvature causes the effects of what we call

Gravity.

What is not described and what we will try and show here is how a mass

interacts with space to curve it.

2

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Section 1 Mathematical analysis .............................................................................................. 10

The expansion of the universe – Increased kinetic energy of the masses in the expanded

universe, whilst the total energy of the universe remains constant. ..................................... 10

Dark energy ............................................................................................................................... 12

Dark matter ............................................................................................................................... 12

Section 2 - Specific calculations ............................................................................................... 14

To calculate the mass of the smallest possible volume of space that can be absorbed by a

particle ....................................................................................................................................... 14

For a cubic meter of Space, in 1 second, ................................................................................. 16

For the universe ........................................................................................................................ 16

Proof of compatibility with General Relativity ...................................................................... 18

Proof of compatibility with Quantum Electrodynamics ........................................................ 20

How can we experimentally verify this theory? ..................................................................... 29

About constants ......................................................................................................................... 30

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 31

3

So let us start.

First we will define the universe as being the sum of everything. Therefore

there can be no interaction with anything outside the universe.

Let’s make a sketch of the universe to help us understand this

Diagram 1

At a certain time which we will call T1 it

has a certain size.At a later moment in time, lets call it T2 it has expanded.

Diagram 2

Time T1 Size D1

Time T2 Size D2

4

What can we say about these the universe at these two different times?

They contain the same amount of energy.

Of course inside the universe things are going on and types of energy are con-

stantly changing form, like chemical energy changing to heat, but still, the sum

of all types of energy in the universe remains constant.

So let’s have a look at our universe at time T1. And let’s have a particular look

at two arbitrary objects with mass, a, and b.

Diagram 3

Now these objects could be anything, and we can assume that they are not sta-

tionary so they will have a kinetic energy, a measure of their energy of move-

ment.

Let’s now look at them again at time T2. As the universe expands, they have

now receded away from each other.

Time T1 Size D1 Total energy E1

d1, v1

a b

5

Diagram 4

As we have observed that objects further away recede faster, we can say that at

any particular later moment in time the sum of the kinetic energy of all these

objects will be greater than at the time T1.

So where does this energy come from?

What has changed? Well let us assume that between time T1 and T2 they have

not come into contact and therefore not interacted with anything, then the only

other change is that the universe has expanded. Or in other words the volume

of space has increased. However the volume by which the universe has in-

creased is less than the volume by which it would have increased without mass.

Time T2 such that T2>T1 Size D3 Total energy E3

d3, v3

a b

6

Therefore we think the volume of space must have something to do with the

increased kinetic energy of the two objects.

But you may ask, how can this be, does a volume of space have energy? Yes it

does, scientists call it vacuum energy.

Also the mass in the universe slows the expansion of the universe.

So let’s make an assumption. For a given volume of space there is a given

amount of energy at any time T. An increase in the volume without energy

being added would cause a decrease in the density of the energy per unit vol-

ume. If you would take energy out of a certain volume of vacuum, you would

either decrease the energy density, or, decrease the volume or more probably a

combination of both.

So in a universe with mass in it such as ours, on the one hand there is an in-

crease in kinetic energy of the masses and a reduction in the increase in the vol-

ume of the universe.

Missing space (and hence vacuum energy) on the one side and additional ki-

netic energy on the other side?

Can we presume that the increase in kinetic energy comes from an object with

mass absorbing energy from space? Later, we will show mathematically that

under certain conditions, the missing vacuum energy and the additional kinetic

energy ae equal.

If this was the case, what would be the consequences?

The first consequence would be that if all of space has vacuum energy and this

vacuum energy is evenly distributed, then as the energy density of space tries to

reach zero as time goes on, in order to obey Newton’s second law of thermody-

namics, the volume of space would have to increase.

So if there is some type of local quantum interaction such as the exchange of a

graviton between empty space and a mass at the edge of the two, then the space

next to the mass would lose energy and get smaller. Does the mass then gain

7

kinetic energy if it gains velocity relative to space, even though it is gains ve-

locity relative to space in all six directions, up, down, left, right, forward and

backwards? Relative to a stationary point in space such as perhaps the middle

point of the universe, yes.

.

Would anyone living on an object with mass notice this? Probably at first not,

because gaining velocity in all 6 directions effectively leads to a zero change in

apparent velocity, making the observer think he is stationary. However as the

velocity has increased relative to the surrounding space there would be a rela-

tive acceleration. And again the relative acceleration of the object to the sur-

rounding space would be in all 6 directions all towards the centre of the object.

This acceleration towards the centre of an object with mass is indeed felt by

humans when the object is large enough. We have given this acceleration a

name, Gravity.

Not only that, but as the object withdraws energy from the surrounding space

the energy density of the surrounding space decreases, drawing in energy from

the next piece of space and so on. This then is how space is curved by any

mass.

X axis

Z axis

Y axis

8

X axis

Z axis

Y axis

X axis

Z axis

Y axis

9

1) The maximum velocity of this flow is the speed of light.

2) That the gravitational constant G or actual 1/ G is a measure of the cur-

rent energy density of the vacuum.

How does an object with mass absorb energy from the vacuum? Here we specu-

late that this is via a graviton, but that the entire process is over the Planck

length and time, making the capture of a graviton experimentally for us humans

very difficult. However it does make gravity a local quantum phenomenon, fi-

nally linking quantum theory with General relativity. Not only this, it explains

the expansion of the universe explaining dark energy, and by giving a certain

volume of space mass (energy) it provides a candidate for certainly a part of the

missing dark matter.

10

Section 1 Mathematical analysis

The expansion of the universe – Increased kinetic energy of the masses in the expanded universe, whilst the total energy of the universe remains constant.

First, for simplicity let us assume an idealised universe. Let us say that the uni-

verse is a sphere and the edges of the sphere are a distance away from the cen-

tre. We observer any two arbitrary masses a and b with combined kinetic en-

ergy of Ek and mass energy of Em

The vacuum energy of cold dark spacetime also has some energy. It could be

positive or negative or even zero, but to ensure completeness we need to in-

clude it.

Let’s call the vacuum energy of cold dark spacetime Est

Let us look at the total energy of this theoretical universe.

Let us call the total energy of this theoretical universe Et

Total Energy Et = Est + Em + Ek

At time T1

Et1 = Est1 + Em1 + Ek1

And at time T2

Et2 = Est2 + Em2 + Ek2

Then, as the total energy does not change,

Et1 = Et2 = Est1 + Em1 + Ek1

= Est2 + Em2 + Ek2

11

In the case that we choose T2 such that any gain in mass from the in-

creased velocity is negligible we can then set Em1 = Em2

And conclude that the change in Vacuum Energy = Change in Kinetic Energy

Est1 - Est2 = Ek2 – Ek1

Conclusion based on the analysis of the whole universe:

The point we are making here is that any increase in kinetic energy must come

from the vacuum itself.

Where does space time contract (or expand) because of these changes?

How fast does spacetime contract or decrease its density?

If the rate at which the vacuum energy of space time between the particles was

transferred to the particles in form of kinetic was at a constant rate, then there

would appear to be AN ACCELERATION between the particles.

But this is exactly what we observe. This is what we call gravity.

This energy is supplied by the vacuum energy. This energy is absorbed at a

constant rate at all times by a mass dependent only on the mass of the object –

It gives the object the property of mass! The rate of acceleration is however

proportional to the local energy density of the spacetime at the particle.

Nearest the particle the energy density is lowest. Further away from the particle

are areas with higher density. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that

different energy densities will tend to cause a flow of vacuum energy from re-

gions of higher density towards regions of lower density. (From which the

“flatness” of the universe arises)

This will cause the local regions of space time to change size and shape depend-

ing on their local vacuum energy densities, which would have the effect of mass

causing local bending of space time. The fact that space time remains bent

around a mass infers that there is a constant transfer of energy of space time to

12

the mass. The path of the particles in spacetime due to such an effect and the

rate of change of velocity of the particles would be identical to what we call

gravity. But there is no actual attraction between the masses, they absorb the

vacuum energy at a constant rate and hence spacetime next to them and thus the

effect would be that they accelerate towards each other.

So what would happen if as we suggest, the vacuum energy of spacetime was

transferred to the particles? Then the particles would start to move towards each

other and the space time between them decreases. If this was a constant process

it would look like a force of gravity attracting the two particles, causing them to

accelerate towards each other. So we would have the same effect as a force of

gravity. However there is no “gravitational” force acting at a distance between

the two particles, and the two particles would be just absorbing energy locally

from its spacetime surroundings.

An objection might be “But particles would heat up if the constantly absorbed

energy?” No, they would speed up and gain kinetic energy.

Why have we not noticed this change in velocity? It is not obvious but this sim-

ple analysis shows that all masses constantly accelerate and change velocity.

We know that our universe is expanding. And we know that mass in our uni-

verse should cause a slowing down of this expansion.

Dark energy

If the vacuum energy density decreases over time, but the entire energy of the

universe remains constant, then the volume of the universe must increase. This

would then also explain the dark energy causing the measured expansion of the

universe. This would follow from the second law of thermodynamics.

Dark matter

In areas of high mass (such as around galaxies) the stress caused by the bend-

ing of space time due to the mass absorbing energy and increasing their kinetic

13

energy would result in a net gain of energy around the mass, such that it would

appear that the (energy and hence) mass of the region had increased. So this

would also explain at least a part of the dark matter and the dark matters halo

like distribution around mass.

If this is true and as it seems to logically follow then we should be able to cal-

culate some real values.

14

Section 2 - Specific calculations

To calculate the mass of the smallest possible volume of space that can be absorbed by a particle

We know that Newtonian mechanics is a good approximate at low speeds and

over short periods, so, assuming two identical masses (A and P) initially at rest

are attracting each other mutually by “gravitation”, and there are no other forces

acting on them. (Idealised situation)

Mp = Mass of P Kg

Ma = Mass of A Kg

Fp = Force acting on P N

G = Gravitational constant m3/Kgs

2

R = Distance between A and P m

Sp = Distance travelled by P m

Vp = Velocity of P m/s

Ap = Acceleration of P m/s2

T = an amount of time s

Ms = Mass of smallest amount of space Kg

Vps =Velocity of P by itself due to absorption of vacuum energy m/s

Then the force acting on the mass P is given approximately by

Fp = GMp Ma/R2 1

And is also given by

Fp = Mp Ap 2

Therefore the acceleration is

Ap = G Ma/ R2

3

Therefore the velocity is

Vp = G MaT/ R2

4

And the distance travelled is

Sp = G MaT2/2 R

2 5

15

Assuming the smallest amount of space would be a cube with sides the size of a

Planck length then,

at the Planck distance where R = Sp

Vp= G MaT/Sp 12

And

Sp = G MaT2/2Sp

2 13

The above equations are based on the acceleration of two identical particles

with mass

It follows then that the acceleration of a single particle will then have to be ad-

justed

When there is only one particle and the acceleration continues anyway, it fol-

lows that the total mass in the space is given by

Ms = (Ma)/2 which can be written Ma = 2Ms 21

The mass of space can then be calculated as follows

Ms = Sp 3/ GT

2 22

Generalising equation 22 we have

M= R3/GT

2 23

This is the generalised gravitation equation for any single mass.

Putting in Planck units to work out the maximum rate at which the mass of this

smallest possible volume of space that can be absorbed, we have the mass of

space as:

M = (1.6616x10-35

)3/ (6.674x10

-11 x (5.391x10

-44)

2)

M = 2.18x10-08

Kg

This is the Planck Mass.!!!

This is the mass of the smallest quantum of space time that can be absorbed by

a particle in a Planck second. Therefore the (quantum of) energy in the smallest

volume of space that can be absorbed is 1.93x109 J. This is of course the Planck

energy

16

Therefore gravity is a local quantum phenomenon, of the constant transfer of a

quantum’s of vacuum energy of spacetime proportional to the mass of a particle

to the particle which increases its kinetic energy.

From Wikipedia…

“Significance of the Planck mass

The Planck mass is an idealized mass that is thought to have special signifi-

cance for quantum gravity when General Relativity and the fundamentals of

quantum physics become mutually important to describe mechanics.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

“The Planck energy is not only the energy needed (in principle) to probe the

Planck length, but is probably also the maximum possible energy that can fit

into a region of that scale.

For a cubic meter of Space, in 1 second,

M1 = 13 / (6.674 x10-

11 x 1

2)

=1/G = 1.498 x1010

Kg

Thus the universal gravitational constant G is not just an arbitrary constant, but,

(Actually 1/G) is the maximum amount of mass available (in the form of vac-

uum energy) in one cubic meter of space that can be made available to a body

with mass within one second at the present time.

For the universe

Mu = Ru3/G Tu

2

(Estimates from Wikipedia)

17

Ru= 46.5 billion light years = 4.4x1026

m

Tu= 13.8 Billion years = 4.35x1017

s

Therefore the vacuum energy mass equivalent of the universe is

Mu = 6.73x1054

Kg

Plausibility check:

The mass of visible matter is estimated to be about Mv = 3.0x1052

Kg estimate

presumed to be within 1 order of magnitude (Estimate - from Wikipedia)

Thus 3x1051

Kg <Mv<3x1053

Making the visible mass between

0.05 % to 5% of the total mass of the universe

Again, from Wikipedia…

“However, as noted in the "matter content" section, the WMAP results in com-

bination with the Lambda-CDM model predict that less than 5% of the total

mass of the observable universe is made up of visible matter such as stars, the

rest being made up of dark matter and dark energy.

”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

An analysis showing that the new theory is consistent with all existing ex-

periments.

As far as we are aware General Relativity is consistent with all existing experi-

ments. General Relativity is a theory of fields. By assuming the energy distri-

bution properties of the vacuum are compliant with the energy distribution of

the fields of general relativity such that the results would be identical to that of

general relativity as a must criteria for any detailed calculations, this theory

would then be consistent with general relativity and therefore consistent with all

existing experiments relating to space time.

18

Proof of compatibility with General Relativity

In General relativity there is a POSTULATE that the speed of light is the

maximum velocity attainable and hence remains the same maximum in every

reference frame no matter how the reference frame is moving. We use our the-

ory to show that the speed of absorption of the vacuum energy is limited to a

maximum, and we calculate this theoretical maximum.

Under the assumption that this calculated theoretical maximum turns out to be

the speed of light we see that it is proven that our theory is compatible with GR.

Further, we then do not need just a POSTULATE for GR we, then have the

reason why this postulate is true.

We start by looking at the formula for escape velocity

V= Sqrt of 2GM/R

Where

V is the escape velocity in m/s

G is Newton’s Gravitational constant (or at least its current value)

M is the mass of the escaping object and R is the distance between the escaping

object and the centre of gravity. Of the mass the object is escaping from

As mentioned above (equation 21) as we are not dealing with 2 masses, but one

mass and the energy of space, then just as above we need to modify this equa-

tion for the velocity at which space is absorbed (which equals the escape veloc-

ity with opposite sign) by dividing the term 2GM/R by 2.

We have the new formula that the velocity at which the vacuum is absorbed Vv

= -sqrt of GM/R

Where

Vv is the velocity of the vacuum being absorbed.

19

Now as the maximum amount of energy in vacuum space is limited to the

Planck energy in Planck space time, we can then say the maximum mass (en-

ergy) of vacuum space that can be absorbed is the Planck mass in the Planck

time.

Now, if this mass is absorbed in the shortest possible time, the velocity of ab-

sorption will be a maximum. The minimum time is the Planck time, which

equates to a distance of the Planck length. Therefore we have all the variables to

find Vvmax.

Inserting the amounts in our equation of the velocity of absorption, we get, us-

ing

G = 6.673 84 x 10-11

m3 kg

-1 s

-2

M = 2.176 51 x 10-8

kg

R = 1.616 199 x 10-35

m

Vvmax = 299 792 533 ms-1

Comparing this to the Codata measured value of C

C= 299 792 458 ms-1

We find that the results agree. The difference is a function of the accuracy of

which we know the values of the physical constants, especially G. Therefore the

maximum velocity attainable in our universe is a constant independent of any

frame of reference, and this velocity is c, proving that our theory is compatible

with the conclusions and experiments of General Relativity

We know that the value of G is not known experimentally to a very good de-

gree of precision, so working from the Codata measured values we can predict a

more accurate value of G

G= RV2/M

20

We therefore predict a more accurate value of G would be G = 6.6738366 x 10-

11 m

3 kg

-1 s-

2 vs the Codata value of 6.67384 x 10

-11 m

3 kg-

1 s

-2 which is within

the measured discrepancy to which G has been found by experiments to date.

This therefore implies that if G increases every year then C will increase every

year and we calculate the increase per year to be 0.011m/s or 11mm/s per year.

This will then be easier to find experimentally than the change in G.

Now you may be sceptical about this because it is commonly thought that rela-

tivity demands that C is constant but;

Proof of compatibility with Quantum Electrodynamics

We said previously that as the vacuum energy density decreases, space expands.

At the same time as energy is taken out of space the volume decreases. How

can this be? We have to assume that the energy density of space is negative!

Therefore as the energy density approaches zero, space expands, and as we take

energy out of space, the negative energy densitiy increases, which results in a

larger negative energy. This may seem crazy, but was actually predicted by

P.A.M Dirac in the 1930s. He called it the negative energy sea!

So if we took energy out of space and put it into a volume of space so the en-

ergy of the space was positive, how could space manifest itself.? Perhaps it

may have a magnetic field? Perhaps not, but anyway, there are volumes of

space with a magnetic field. Let us examine the case where a volume the size

of a Planck cube has a magnetic field

As the energy in a magnetic field has mass, then according to our theory it

would absorb vacuum energy and move in space.

21

The magnetised Planck cube of space absorbs energy from the surrounding

space.

This results in a relative motion with regards the surrounding space (we are

considering only the one axis at the moment)

Each side has an opposite relative movement to space, you can think of it as if

the Planck cube was split in two with each half moving in opposite directions

The relative movement causes a changing magnetic flux which results in an

electric field and the resulting forces are according to the right hand rule.

N S

N S

N S N S

22

As the North Pole moves relative to space in the opposite direction of the South

Pole, a torque occurs, rotating the Planck sized cube at the Planck angular ve-

locity

Calculating the x-component of the angular momentum

r = lp/2 where lp is the Planck length

if we assume the angular velocity is a maximum we could assume the angular

velocity to be plancks angular velocity.

Where p is the Planck angukar velocity, tp is the Planck time, c the speed of

light, G is Newton’s gravitational constant and h is the Planck constant

and h is the planck constant divided by 2

N S

N S

Distance r

23

and as

Then

c = lpp

r = c/2p

r = 2c/4p

p= 2f => f = p /2

f = c / => p /2 = c/

= 2c/p

r = /4

= 4r

p = momentum = h/ = h/4r

Angular momentum = pr = hr/ = h/4

Angular momentum = h/2

Which shows that such a system would have a single axis spin of ½ (h).

.

Of course this is not a known particle as e = hp = Planck energy

But studing the equations we can see that any system where 2r = c will result

in an angular momentum = h/2

So in the case of an electron, if we assume the mass is due to the energy ab-

sorbed from the vacuum, we can calculate “r” for the electron.

So which 2r = c ?

Where hw = Ee = the mass energy of the electron

Calculating for w

= 7.78x1020

2r = Compton wavelength for the electron divided by 2

24

We can now define the Compton wavelength for an electron as being the

equivalent of the diameter of a rotating magnetic field with a rotational energy

equal to the mass energy of the particle.

Further, for a rotating magnet we know the magnetic moment (mm) is given by

mm = qLv/2

So we can calculate the charge q that would arise from such a rotating system

q = 2mm/ Lv

Where L, = 2rc and v = c then

as we know the magnetic moment of the electron is -928.476 430 x 10-26 J T-1

and we know there is a correction due to QED for self interacting, then the

magnetic moment we are looking for is the Bohr magneton

Introducing this into our equations we get a charge of q = -1.602 176 565 x 10-19 C

Which is the charge of the electron!

Now the spinning electrical field will cause a magnetic field, and provided that

there is relative motion in space ( ie due to gravity ie due to energy from the

vacuum being absorbed by the space to generate the relative motion to the mag-

netic volume of space) this will result in the magnetic field to rotsate, causing a

standing electromagnetic wave, with an energy equivalent mass of the electron,

a spin of ½ (h ) as has the electron, and a negative charge at the centre ( point

like) equal to the negative charge of the electron.

But of course we have to think of a three dimensional system.

25

Assuming that the magnetic volume of space is not a magnetic dipole, but a

sextpole, then by combining different configurations of rotation we could then

come up with several other configurations.

Lets try and make a model of the electron.

We need three rotating magnetic fields at right angles to each other and electric

fields rotating at half the angular velocity of the magnetic fileds

Why half the angukar velocity?

An analysis of a spinning six pole magnetic cube field is shown below.

26

Therefore we can see that the rotating magnetic “cube” will be in the same posi-

tion after half the normal rotation, despite being produced by a spinning electri-

cal field rotating at twice the angular velocity of the magnetic field.

Why is 2 m = e

90 x 90y 90z 180x 180y 180z

27

So lets make a diagram of this system. The single set of electric and magnetic

fields will look something like this.

Combined in three dimensions it will look like something like this.

re = 2rm

rm

28

re= 3.86159E-13

rm= 1.9308E-13

q 5.34059E-20

3.141592654

m 3.03646E-31

c 299792458

K 8987551788

Now the three charges will repel each other. This will cause them to move apart

slightly.

We can make an approximate calculation of this.

Centripetal force Fc = mv2/r = 3.03646E-31 x 299792458 x 299792458 /3.86159E-

13

Fc = 0.07067123 N

The force between the charges = kqq/rr As there are three, any one will feel the force from 2. Looking at the x axis, the component along the x axis is (2re

2 )

½

Therefore the electric force = kqq/2rr = Fe = 0.000085952 N So the total net force = 0.070585277 N Which gives us a new radius Re of the charge as an approximation as being Re = 3.86629E-13 This gives a g factor for the electron as - 2.002435 Which is very close to the QED theoretical and actually measured value of ge =- 2.002319 Of course the model we present here to calculate this is only an approximation. A charge at the magnetic moment radius which would be in phase with the angular mo-mentum radius would have a velocity greater than c. Therefore any calculation based on this model will not be accurate, however, as an approximation it is in good agree-ment (99.994%) with the g factor predicted by QED and also measured, and therefore

29

we believe that this is proof enough that this theory of how mass acts on space is

compatabile with QED because the DeBroglie hypothesis that mass could have

wavelike properties on which the foundations of quantum mechanics is based,

would then be due to the fact that mass is the result of waves, standing electro-

magnetic waves, which are predicted by our theory, which is therefore compat-

able with all aspects of quantum mechanics. .

How can we experimentally verify this theory?

1) By measuring G more accurately to see if it is our predicted value of

G = 6.6738366 x 10-11

m3 kg

-1 s-

2 vs the current the Codata value of

G = 6.67384 x 10-11

m3 kg-

1 s

-2

2) By looking at the expansion of the Universe and calculating the corre-

sponding decrease in the energy density of the vacuum. This should pro-

duce a change in G over time.

Mu = Ru3/G Tu

2

Or Ru3=Mu G Tu

232

And Eu= Muc2

So Ru3= Eu G Tu

2/ c

2 = approximately Vu, the volume of the universe

As Eu and c2 are all constants, then

Vu = K GTu2

Now we know that Vu is approximately proportional to Tu3.

Therefore G must be proportional to T i.e. G= Ғ T

This makes sense, as our reasoning suggested 1/G should be the “current energy

density of the vacuum” As the universe expands, the density must decrease so

1/G must get smaller with time. Therefore G must get bigger with time and G

must be proportional to T

Calculating with the current state of the universe

30

Ғ can be calculated as

6.674x10-11

m3kg

-1s

-2 / 4.35x10

17 s = 1.534 x10-

28m

3kg

-1s

-3

In one year G will increase by 1.534 x10-28

times the seconds in 1 year

Therefore we can predict the change in G per year as being

4.84 x10-21

m3kg

-1s

-2

Further, as we can defne gravitational waves as moving changes in energy den-

sity of the vacuum, we should be able to detect such waves by noting the

changes in G caused by such waves.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein’s_constant

About constants

The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the

stress-energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it

appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate

would be violated.

However since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based

on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be

unvarying constants themselves, but that the only absolute constant is their ra-

tio:

Of course we as humans can always decide we like the idea of defining the

speed of light as a constant because that makes many things a lot easier

.

Unfortunately we would then have to live with the consequence that we then

have to accept that the total energy of the universe is increasing, and we are

creating the increase in energy artificially by deciding to define the speed of

light as being constant…

31

As much as we would like to keep the definitions of the fundamental measure-

ment quantities in physics as they currently are based on a constant speed of

light, the consequence mentioned above unfortunately leads us to to the conclu-

sion that the “cost” of this would be too high a price to pay.

REFERENCES

Please note. Although we are aware that papers submitted for publication in

research journals should be placed in the context of current research, with ap-

propriate citations to the literature, we have not used any such information di-

rectly. All the information we have used from external sources is referenced

below

[1] Wikipedia as mentioned in the text

[2] http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html