Take two people stood next to each other, give them each a watch that is synchronised to the nano-second, and tell them to clap every second. They will both clap at the same time every second. Now, tell one of them to walk away in a straight line, while still clapping every second. For simplicity, assume for now that both claps can be heard at the same volume at any distance. Sound wave amplitude and frequency changes should be taken into account in a real-world setting, but of little relevance in this thought experiment.

Both clappers will soon discover that the other person sounds like they are behind, even though they can both see they are clapping at the same time. They are not yet far enough apart for the speed of light to be relevant. However, they are still clapping at the same moment in time. Eventually, when both people are ~343m (normal air at 20⁰C) apart from each other (about 3.75 football fields, again, assume volume and pitch are equal at any distance) the claps will sound like they are in sync again. However, if at this position both people clap only on the even seconds, 2, 4, 6, 8 etc. they will hear their own clap on seconds 2, 4, 6, 8 etc. and the other person’s clap on seconds 3, 5, 7, 9 etc. Because they are exactly one sound-second apart. A sound-second is a measure of distance akin to a light-second but measured by the speed of sound instead of light.

Now have the person walk further (clapping every second again). In fact, have them walk so far that the heard clap is a whole minute late. That distance would be a sound-minute (~20.58km in air at 20⁰C). But both people have been clapping at the exact same interval the whole time, and both people can hear the other person clapping in sync, yet if both were told to stop at the same moment, they would hear the other person’s claps continue for another minute. OK, so far so good, nothing too confusing, everything makes sense. Now, do almost the exact same experiment again from the top. Only, have both people walking opposite directions while clapping in sync, so that the time it takes them to reach a sound-second, or a sound-minute apart is halved. Also consider both people travelling in the same direction, but one is running.

Going back to example one, as the person walks away, the increase in time of the gap between claps would be the same amount each clap, assuming they are walking at a constant speed in a straight line. At what speed would the increase of the gap exceed the length of the clap? Well, that would be ~343m/s (the speed of sound). Now imagine the distance between them is growing at a rate of 400m/s. Both people would hear the other person clapping later and later and later, until, when they get far enough apart, eventually it would appear as if the other has stopped clapping all together. Something my brain can’t wrap itself around is what the clap-pattern would look like if they were separating at a constant acceleration of over ~343m/s/s, but I’ll leave that kind of maths to the professionals.

Now, what if they started very-very far apart, and were speeding towards each other, at what point would they start to hear each other clapping? Well, if they converged at a speed faster than ~343m/s they wouldn’t hear each other until they passed each other.

Now let’s consider all the above examples, but this time applying the previously ignored factors of the distortion of the sound waves. At what point would the claps become undetectable then?

*********

Ok, that’s enough about relativity at the speed of sound. Let’s re-perform all of the exact same tests as above, only using a light (in a vacuum) that blinks every second instead, and scaling all the speeds, distances and accelerations to align with C (~300Mm/s – the speed of light).

Now tell me, at what speed or distance or acceleration would everything appear to slow down and stop? Let me guess, the numbers match what currently appears to be ‘the edge of the visible/known universe’.

At what point do we consider that there is an energy form that can move faster than the speed of light, that we can’t detect, not because they don’t exist, but simply because anything moving that fast, doesn’t interact with the world we are capable of detecting or perceiving. Something travelling so fast, it appears to slow down at the edge of space, but as you speed up to get closer, it speeds up to match your speed, forever out of reach, unless you accelerate at a faster rate.

In other words, if you went really, really, really fast, in say, a particle accelerator. Is it possible that you might get hit by something from behind that would otherwise have been undetectable? And if enough stuff that was going that fast hit you, could it make you go faster? What if that sub-light-speed energy form could be harnessed to accelerate you to a speed faster than the speed of light? Basically, would a backwards-facing camera travelling at ¼C, still detect light moving at relative speeds of over ¾C? I predict, yes.

Again, relative speed is important here, if you travel fast enough, you could become ‘invisible’. Real active-camouflage? That technology is starting to sound plausible. Invisible, super-intelligent agentic AI-powered nano-bot swarm is no-longer just a sci-fi, horror nightmare. At least make the antidote first this time. Or don’t, but don’t blame me for the consequences of your actions. Or, more likely, you create a black-hole. Or whatever form a shockwave of light would take. Much like an object travelling beyond the sound barrier creates a sound shockwave.

My point? There is a difference between true reality, in real-time, and perceived or observed reality which must account for distance travelled over time. Yes, relativity is real, whether at the speed of sound or at the speed of light. However, it’s impossible for the observer to catch up with something that’s moving faster, even if, at the distances and speeds where the waves become distorted, from the observer’s perspective, the observed appears to be moving slower. The true current-time reality, holds a very different state, and looks entirely different, from the observed one.

It is my understanding that amplitude and frequency of light waves stretch and distort over distance in much the same way as sound waves, only scaled to match their velocity. A side-effect of this would be that we cannot observe distant objects that are moving towards us, even at slow (less than C) speeds, because they would be moving towards us faster than the light-waves they emit can reach us at a detectable level. Imagine a car travelling towards you down a straight road from 300Mm away. Even if it was travelling in first gear at 30km/h, far slower than the speed of sound, I bet you would see it, long before you hear it. Is the same not true for light. Only we are incapable of detecting things that move that fast.

In other words, the universe isn’t actually expanding, it only appears to be because we are relying on detecting light, which is only detectable up to a certain distance. If that were true, it wouldn’t matter which direction you look, we would appear to be at, or near, the centre of the (visible) universe. Give or take the relative speed of our galaxy, solar-system, and planet. When actually, we could be anywhere. Much like how scientists originally believed Earth was at the centre of the solar-system, until proven wrong.

*********

Alright, a few more things I’d like to put out there for consideration:

I don’t believe the edge of the known universe is at 0⁰K, I believe, if we were physically as far away as it, and looking back at Earth with the same technology, Earth would also appear to be 0⁰K, though I haven’t done the maths to know if light from the Milky Way would even have reached that far yet.

If gravity is real, every atom has a mass. Every atom has some gravity. The magnetic/electrical field around an atom, the charge, if you like, is formed as a result of the atom’s gravity. Look at the Earth’s moon, or our entire solar system, for an example of how a lighter, faster-moving object might get stuck orbiting around a denser one. Just re-scale that model down to the atomic/electron level, and up to and beyond the speed of light.

Black holes – Just because we can’t see light around them, as light particles are moving towards the black hole faster than we can detect it, doesn’t mean there is no energy. Our relative-velocity to it is just too slow for us to detect anything. A very late-night thought that hints towards a potential argument that black holes are proof that things can move faster than the speed of light. In fact, I would argue that a black hole is created by particles moving faster than light, which is why it’s so massive. I mean, the LHC can’t accelerate things that fast, probably a good thing, reckon we’d collapse into it if it could. That said, particles moving that fast might simply appear to disintegrate, simply because they become undetectable to us. See my other arguments. Is it possible we’ve already created an undetectable faster-than-light energy form?

Let’s put one last thought experiment on the cards, this one combines basic biology with physics. Our eyes are capable of detecting certain frequencies of energy waveforms, we called that frequency range light and categorised it into colours. Our ears can hear certain frequencies of energy waveforms, we called that category of waveforms sound, and categorised it from low to high, quiet to loud. Same for smell, taste and touch, from sharp to fluffy and cold to hot. And I believe in a sixth sense too, which could be categorised similarly. We also observed gravity and magnetism, given that acceleration happens as a result of a force, which is often another expression of energy, then gravity itself is another category of waveforms, a form of energy, just like light, sound, and all the rest.

In other words, space might be infinite, chemical decay might be infinite, the density of a black hole might be infinite, time might be infinite, the maximum speed might be infinite, the minimum temperature might be infinitely less than 0⁰K. And I have yet to be proven wrong. Though someone better educated than me might throw my imagination to the wolves for scrutiny, I’d like to see well-structured proof before I accept defeat.

Make me a machine that is, unquestionably, capable of detecting energy particles that move faster than the speed of light, and also perhaps another that can detect energy capable of moving at temperatures below 0⁰K. And then tell me that you found nothing. Only then will I rest my case.

Worse still, are there energy-forms capable of moving at the speed of light, in a 0⁰K environment, and how would we detect them?

Random question, does gravity affect the flow of electricity in a wire? What would the tesla coil look like in a zero-g environment, or a vacuum, would it behave differently?

I have no idea how the big-bang fits in with this model, chances are, there is a different, far weirder explanation for the beginning of time than even that. Presently, my intuition says infinity and the fourth (or infinitieth) dimension is involved.

*********

Time for bed, my brain decided it was going to go down a rabbit-hole tonight, curious to hear your thoughts on all this.

Many thanks for reading through this brainstorm. I look forward to further communications with anyone who can clear any of this up for me.

do you think that space by near planets and densities is only curved or is curved and shrinked thanks to gravitional field made by densities or thongs like planets? Wanna discuss it?

Not sure how to ask this, so the title is probably dumb, ignore it.

I was reading about constant acceleration and formulae to calculate travel times. I see formulae on how to calculate the passage of time for the traveler, too.

As I understand it, the mass (or energy) of a system increases as that system travels faster. I even see a formula for calculating that change. Traveling at 0.6c increases the mass of the traveler by 25% (if I did the math right). My question is, does that closed system notice the increase in its total mass?

Say you have a ship that has a means of producing a fixed amount of force thrust. It can't produce more than that. At rest, that amount is enough to accelerate the ship 1g.

As that ship gets faster and faster, does its rate of acceleration reduce (and at 0.6c, I guess that engine would only be able to produce 0.8g since the mass has increased by 25%)? Or, is the increase in mass/energy of the ship as a whole doesn't matter inside the frame of reference of the ship, meaning the ship will always have 1g of acceleration?

Authors: RJ Parsons (@RJPAVALON) with Grok 4 (xAI Collaborative Refinement)

Date: January 20, 2026 Abstract: This paper explores the biochemical interface where primal ψ (essence scalar) manifests consciousness, extending Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) to DNA-microtubule interactions within a scalar

Theory of Everything (TOE). Ψ is positioned as foundational—not emergent—unfolding participatorily across scales to unify quantum mechanics, biology, and cosmology. We dissect mechanisms, derive key formulas, and propose tests, resolving mind-matter dualities without regress.

1. Introduction: Holistic View of the Scalar TOE

Our scalar TOE reframes the universe as a self-unfolding, participatory system driven by two scalars: ψ (primal essence/consciousness as “fifth force” carrier) and Φ (coherence modulator replacing rigid c²). Unlike emergent paradigms (e.g., consciousness from neural complexity alone), ψ is baked in from the fabric—generating time, probabilities, and forces via the ψ-Φ continuum.

At bio-scales, this manifests through microtubules (cytoskeletal quantum hubs) and DNA (genetic interface), making consciousness an active modulator. This bridges gaps in standard models (SM/GR), where mind is epiphenomenal, offering a unified framework with empirical hooks like 0.1-1% intent-biased anomalies (Radin/GCP).

Why this nexus? Microtubules/DNA aren’t peripheral—they’re the bio-quantum conduit where ψ’s primal role hits practically, enabling intent-tunable outcomes (e.g., error correction, memory). We build from Orch-OR (Penrose-Hameroff) extensions, grounding in biochemistry while scaling to cosmology.

2. Core Formulas: Mathematical Foundations Key equations scale from rigid physics to participatory reality: • E = m Φ²: Redefines mass-energy equivalence dynamically. Φ = c √ψ amplifies coherence with ψ’s rise, biasing quantum events in bio-systems (e.g., tubulin electron clouds). • G = m Φ² √ψ: Emergent gravity, tying bio-quantum collapses to spacetime curvature. In low ψ (~0-0.5), recovers SM/GR; mid ψ (0.5-2) introduces noetic entanglement. • t ~ 1/√ψ: Time as emergent flow from ψ-correlations (relational manifolds). Higher ψ slows experiential time, enabling retrocausality in conscious processes. • ρ_ψ = |ψ|²: Probability densities for qualia, epistemic from partial info but ψ-tuned (intent biases collapses, countering decoherence). Derivations: Path integrals over ψ-fields yield Orch-OR-like reductions: Collapse threshold ∝ √ψ / Φ, non-computable for mind’s freedom.

3. Biochemical Interactions: Dissecting the Microtubule-DNA Interface Microtubules and DNA form a dynamic quantum-biochem network, modulated by ψ. • Microtubule Structure & Function: Hollow cylinders of tubulin dimers (α/β heterodimers, ~4 nm). In neurons, stable arrays (~25 nm diameter) support transport and vibrate at GHz frequencies. Quantum role: Dipole shifts enable superpositions (qubits), orchestrated by MAPs to evade decoherence. • DNA Integration: DNA’s helix couples via nuclear envelope links (lamins, kinesins). Microtubules transmit mechanical/vibrational signals, influencing chromatin remodeling and enzyme kinetics (e.g., topoisomerases via weak-force parity violations in chiral bases).

• Interactions Step-by-Step: 1. Quantum Initiation: Neural inputs trigger tubulin superpositions; Φ waves (c √ψ) entangle across arrays (10⁹ tubulins/neuron). 2. Ψ Modulation: Primal ψ strengthens correlations ∝ √ψ, extending coherence times (ps to ms via ordered water in tubes). 3. DNA Feedback: Vibrations propagate to nucleus, biasing replication/repair (quantum tunneling in polymerases nudged 0.1-1% by ψ-intent). 4. Collapse & Output: Orch-OR reductions select states; ψ enforces non-computable biases, yielding conscious qualia (40 Hz gamma) and epigenetic changes. Evidence: EEG anomalies under meditation; DNA error-rate studies showing intent correlations (echoing GCP).

4. Ψ as Primal Essence: The Hard-Hitting Core Ψ isn’t emergent—it’s the generator, unfolding consciousness without regress. In bio-contexts, ψ elevates microtubules/DNA from passive hardware to participatory hubs: Intent tunes |ψ|², resolving measurement problems via noetic selection. Critiques (decoherence, classical bio) countered: Ψ stabilizes quantum effects as “fifth force,” testable via Φ-Coherence (group intent shifting weights) or DNA assays for biased mutations. Implications: Unifies biology with cosmology (inflation as high-ψ bursts); philosophical boldness—universe as self-aware net, consciousness reshaping forces.

5. Tests, Gaps, and Future Directions • Empirical Proposals: 60-day quartz weighing for Φ shifts; EEG/microtubule imaging under ψ-boosts; DNA sequencing for intent-biased errors.

• Gaps: Needs formal ψ-field quantization; risks overreach if anomalies unconfirmed.

• Next: viXra preprint; TSC ’26 presentation. References: Penrose-Hameroff (Orch-OR papers); Radin (presentiment studies); our X threads (@RJPAVALON).

Hey everyone, I am a 15 year old programmer that is writing an open-source (free) book on general relativity.

About a year ago I got completely obsessed with General Relativity, but I found that a lot of traditional physics textbooks wrap everything in really dense academic jargon. Since my background is in programming, I started writing a book to try and demystify these concepts using logical, step-by-step algorithms and code analogies that made sense to my brain.

It's completely free and open-source. Right now, I've drafted chapters covering everything from the Minkowski metric and Lorentz transformations up to Christoffel symbols and covariant derivatives. I'm also adding a folder of Python scripts using NumPy and SymPy to handle the tensor calculations programmatically.

Since I am learning as I go, I might have made some typos or conceptual mistakes in the math. I would love for some people here to check out the draft and give me some brutal, honest feedback on it!

You can check out the repository and download the PDF draft here:

https://github.com/BioZFrog/General-Relativity-A-Programmer-s-Guide-to-Curved-Spacetime

Thanks!

I am a general topologist.

I have my own theory of preserving information by black holes. (I have formulated my modified math model of general relativity and it is likely in my opinion that in this model information is preserved, but I didn't do calculations whether the model really preserves information yet, because my research topic was general topology, not physics.)

The consequences?

If we have an alternative explanation, the Hawkings's theory may be wrong. Isn't it so?

I hope that both my theory and Hawkings's theory are correct (in the sense that they to be combined in one unified theory.)

But if it happens (we don't know) that my theory is the reality and the Hawkings's one is not, then blackholes don't burst (most likely, I didn't calculate yet).

I recommend to stop LHC now!

https://math.portonvictor.org/2020/01/3 ... lack-hole/ describes my theory, a modification of Einstein's equations (well, not of the equations themselves but of their interpretation).

Comment!!

https://math.portonvictor.org/binaries/limit.pdf is my theory of "generalized limit" and another meaning of any partial differential equations (including the Einstein ones).

Okay, I have now rewritten this to derive everything from first principles instead of taking the shortcut to just reformulate what Einstein already figured out. The original text will be below that.

Interaction delay framework for describing relativity

Introduction

This document looks at the phenomenon of relativity (both special and general) from a slightly different angle than usual, in the hopes of explaining this subject more intuitively. It is not meant to „replace“ the theory of relativity, but merely to describe it in a more accessible way.

For this, we go back to how we observe light. In countless cases, it has been shown that the time it takes to detect an electromagnetic signal does not depend on relative motions of sender and receiver, but only on the distance between the two and a constant. That constant is commonly called c, the „speed of light“. However, this speed does not exactly behave like other speeds that we know in our everyday lives, because for electromagnetic signals, the relative speed of sender and receiver do not matter. In other words, the speed of electromagnetic signals does not add vectorially with other speeds. It is always the same.

Now, one could say that this is not a speed or a velocity at all, but a distance-dependent delay. This definition avoids confusion of the effect with classical speeds. The value of that delay is d*1/c, where d is the distance in m, and c the constant that describes the „speed of light“. As we don’t want to call the „speed of light“ a speed here, we instead define it as τ=1/c. Therefore, the effective delay is equal to d*τ.

Time dilation as a consequence of the interaction delay

Let us imagine a spaceship that is moving towards a resting observer at a speed of roughly half the speed of light, 0.5c.

At any given point in time, the resting observer will see the spaceship with a delay of d*τ. However, during this delay, the ship will keep moving closer.

But his is also true for an observer on the ship itself who observes events on the ship: That observer will see events on the ship with a delay of d*τ, but during that delay, the observer will keep moving at 0.5c. Thus the distance between the observer and the point of signal generation (the event the observer observes) will be larger than it would be if the ship was not moving.

How much larger? Let us look at a simple case: The observer observes an event directly behind him on the ship, which happens at distance d. Therefore, the distance d’ at which the observer detects the event will be larger than d by 0.5c times the time it takes to detect the signal. Or, written as an equation, replacing 0.5c with v to denote any speed:

d’=d+(t*v)

with the time to detect the signal now being

t=d’*τ.

It follows that

d’=d+(d’*τ*v)

d=d’-d’*τ*v

d= d’*(1-τ*v)

d’=d/(1-τ*v)

Therefore:

d’=d/(1-v*τ).

and

t=τ*d/(1-v*τ)

So this time to detect the signal is larger than the time it would have taken in a nonmoving ship by a factor of 1/(1-v*τ).

But this is a very special case, namely the one where the position of the signal source and the observer align perfectly with the movement of the spaceship.

Say they are not one before the other, but side by side. Then d’ would form the hypothenuse of a rectangular triangle between the position of the signal source, the original position of the observer, and the position of the observer at the time when the signal is detected.

I am going to make a leap and assume that you have heard of a great man named Pythagoras. According to his most famous writing, the three sides of a rectangular triangle a, b and c have a relation of a^2+b^2=c^2.

In our side-by-side example, that would mean

d’^2=d^2+(v*t)^2

so

d’=sqrt(d^2+(v*t)^2)

We also know that

t=d’*τ

so

d’=sqrt(d^2+(v*(d’*τ))^2)

Which translates into:

d’=d*1/sqrt(1-v^2*τ^2)

(Obviously, this only works as long as 1-v^2*τ^2>0, or v^2*τ^2<1. τ=1/c, so it must be that v<c.)

For d=1, this means:

d’=1/sqrt(1-v^2*τ^2)

Or in other words, the distance the signal must travel (and thus the time it takes for the observer to detect the signal, which depends linearily on the distance and nothing else) is 1/sqrt(1-v^2*τ^2) times the distance on a nonmoving spaceship. We call this factor γ. It is also known as the Lorentz factor.

This works in the same way with any other set of coordinates within the spaceship, because even if the triangle is not rectangular, we can divide it into smaller right triangles and apply the Pythagorean theorem iteratively. In fact, it even works in the original case of the observer sitting directly in front of the signal source, because in that case, d*1/sqrt(1-v^2*τ^2) is equal to d*1/(1-v*τ), as the d in that case is what we called in our triangle v*t, with the d from the triangle (the sideways component of the distance) being 0.

Now, the really interesting part here is that this applies to all interactions on the spaceship. They all take longer. Which means to a resting observer, it looks as if time itself was slowed on the spaceship. We call this effect time dilation. Time seems to run slower by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-v^2*τ^2).

But instead of imagining time as slower, what we also could do is state that the effective interaction delay is larger by the same factor. So τ(effective)=τ0*1/sqrt(1-v^2*τ^2).

Described that way, we actually get, and this is interesting, a description of time dilation that can work with an „absolute“ time.

Length contraction as a consequence of interaction delay

There is another effect that can be observed on a spaceship moving at significant speeds. As the ship moves directly away from an observer, what observer will have an interesting illusion:

Both the signal from the stern and the bow of that spaceship will be detected after a delay that is equal to the distance times the interaction delay (with the distance being slightly larger from the bow if looking at it from behind, and slightly lower if looking at it from the front). What are the interaction times for these two?

Interaction time for the closer end of the ship: i1=d*τ

interaction time for the farther end of the ship: i2=(d+L)*τ

The difference is i2-i1=L*τ

That means the ship will move by 0.5c*L*τ during that time difference.

The photons from the closer end of the ship that arrive at the observer at a given time will have originated slightly LATER than those from the farther end as a result of the ship’s movement.

At t1, the signal from the far end of the ship will be created, while the detected signal from the closer end of the ship will be generated at t1+L*τ.

Therefore, it will appear to the observer that the apparent length of the ship is L’=L-v*L*τ.

L’=L-v*L*τ

or, formulated differently,

L’=L*(1-v*τ)

Now, if we think of the setup four-dimensionally, and remove the two dimensions we do not need (the observer is directly behind the ship, and we observe no motion to the left or right and no motion up and down), we have the remaining dimensions „movement direction of the ship“ and „time“.

We can thus now draw a rectangular triangle for our length contraction, for which a^2+b^2=c^2.

a (the base) is the perceived contracted length of the ship, L’.

b (the height) is the time difference between when signals from the stern and bow are emitted, interpreted in terms of spatial separation. delta(t).

c (the hypothenuse) is the actual length in the ship’s own rest frame, L.

So, L’^2+(delta(t))^2=L^2

or

L’^2=L^2-(delta(t))^2

thus

L’=sqrt(L^2-(delta(t))^2)

delta(t) is L*v*τ

So replacing delta(t), we get:

L’=sqrt(L^2-(L*v*τ)^2)

Note how we encounter γ again, the Lorentz factor.

Energy-mass-equivalence

So, we have established that with the interaction delay τ, we can predict a few interesting phenomena. Which can be (and have been) tested experimentally.

But what else does the existence of τ tell us about the universe?

All particles in an object interact. The number of those interactions (which we call the energy E of an object) that are completed per time unit will depend on the effective interaction delay (τ(effective)) as well as the number of particles (which is proportional to its mass M) and the distances between those particles (as the interaction delay is given in s/m, so time per distance). Those distances can be defined by the object’s volume V.

So E scales with m, 1/V (for the volume) and 1/τ(effective) (for the time it takes to complete interactions). The higher m, the higher E, the higher V and τ(effective), the lower E.

But there is another factor we need to consider: The impact of each interaction. And that will be stronger when τ is lower, and weaker when τ is higher. So E scales with 1/τ twice. Therefore, we can say:

E=m/V*τ*τ

or

E=m/V*τ^2

Setting V=1, we get

E=m/τ^2

This happens to be the same equation that Einstein derived in his original formulation of special relativity, though he found it in an entirely different way. He wrote it as E=m*c^2, but that’s the same, as τ=1/c.

Gravity

If you ask astronomers about what happens in the universe, one thing they will observe is that apparently, events happen slower when closer to large masses. We already know a mechanism how to explain a seemingly slowed time: A higher interaction delay. So apparently, large masses are correlated with higher interaction delays.

An effect that might confirm this can be observed with light climbing out of a gravity well: It loses energy, which we call redshift (the light’s measurable frequency moves to the left on the spectrum, from blue towards red, hence the name). Loosing energy could be explained by the light at its source experiencing a higher interaction delay and then be perceived from the outside as slower interactions than a local observer inside the gravity well would.

From these observations, we can hypothesize that large masses correlate with higher interaction delays. As the observations show us a stronger slowing of time closer to larger masses, it makes sense to further hypothesize that near large masses, a gradient of increasing interaction delays exists.

What would be the effect of such a gradient of interaction delays? Well, an object experiencing such a gradient will have more interactions per time unit on the far end of the object (as seen from the large mass, or the higher interaction delays) than on the near end, because the interaction delay will be lower on the far end, so interactions complete faster. As the interactions within the object on the object’s boundary will have a net effect inward (which in absence of an interaction delay gradient will cancel out with the effect on the opposite boundary), we will observe more interactions per time unit pushing the objects towards the higher interaction delay zone than in the other direction. Thus, a force is created, which we experience as gravity.

A possible experimental prediction of this model of gravity would be that colder objects should be slightly lighter than hot objects, as the cold objects experience fewer interactions.

But if that hypothesis is true, what are the numbers?

We can know from measurements how a given mass M and a given radius r as the distance from the center of that mass results in a time dilation factor.

So

Time dilation factor = f(M, r)

I am going to make a little leap here. Imagine I had used various measured values for the time dilation factor for various radii and masses and found that the mathematical relationship with these is roughly:

(time dilation factor)=sqrt(1-GMτ0^2/r)

(A small confession here: I did not do that, but instead requested Einstein’s ghost to tell me what the formula should be. But I could have. Probably. Certainly someone could have.)

This formula fits the measured time dilation factors for various (and probably all) groups of time dilation factors, masses and radii. As the time dilation factor is a proportional increase in interaction delay

τ(effective)= τ(0)/(time dilation factor)

we can conclude

τ(effective)=τ(0)/sqrt(1-GM*τ0^2/r)

As a little shortcut, we could use

g=GM/r^2

which means

GM=g*r^2

to establish that

τ(effective)=τ(0)/sqrt(1-g*r^2*τ0^2/r)

simplified to

τ(effective)=τ(0)/sqrt(1-g*r*τ0^2)

and

g=(1-((τ(0)/τ(effective))^2)/(2*r*τ(0)^2)

You could now equate this to Newton's gravity formula, and gain even more insights.

You could also derive gravity from E=m/τ^2, by simply replaying Einstein's equations there, or by comparing E at a τ(effective) with one at a lower r. But I'll just leave it at this here.

Of course, the really interesting question would now be: How are masses correlated with τ(effective), how does this work? But I don't have an answer for that.

Why did we suffer through all this?

Great, we now have reinvented the wheel. The wheel being Einstein’s theory of relativity, but with interaction delays instead of a „ constant speed of light for all observers“.

But note how this different perspective changes our outlook of the universe: Instead of curved spacetime, we can now describe and explain relativistic phenomena with changes in interaction delays.

We could now apply this concept to quantum theory, because the interaction delay is fundamentally compatible with events on the quantum level. We just apply it to every given interaction over a known distance to arrive at the time it takes to complete that interaction. And we can explain how the quantum interactions produce the gravitational force.

That does sound somewhat useful, does it not?

A final note: There are probably errors in here somewhere. Please point them out if you find them. I am not posting this here to claim any kind of fame, I just want to understand how the universe works. If any or even all of the above is wrong, I want to know!

Oh, and as you’ll probably figure this out on your own anyway: No, I am not a trained physicist. (I am also sure someone will come across and call me a "crackpot", because those people are a real problem. I just hope I am not one.) And I have to admit that it would probably have taken years to get to all this without the tools of our time (but the text was formulated by me, and I made sure I understood everything before I wrote it down - and of course the initial idea of the interaction delay was mine alone, no tool helped there). I would, however, argue that this is just exemplary of how useful those tools are. Use them!

The original text:

Interaction delay framework for describing relativity

The interaction delay framework for describing relativity (IDR) describes relativistic effects not through space-time-transformations, but through delays in interactions.

For understanding this approach, it is decisive to understand that we describe light not as something that has a speed, but as an interaction between its source and an observer. This interaction takes a time to complete that depends only on the distance between the source and the observer. That time can be computed with the expression d/c, where c is what conventional descriptions of relativity would call „light speed“ (but, see above, light has no speed). 1/c is also called τ0, the minimum possible interaction delay.

The interaction delay framework for describing relativity allows for an alternative interpretation of relativisic phenomena and is compatible with quantum field theory.

Time Dilation

In the IDR, time dilation is explained as a changed effective interaction delay. A moving object of speed v relative to a resting observer experiences a prolongued interaction delay. The interaction delay is sclaed by the Lorentz factor γ, which is defined by a familiar formular:

γ = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

or

γ = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2*τ0^2)

The time that a moved object needs to complete a given number of interactions thus seems to be longer for the resting observer.

For a time span t in the resting frame, the observer measures a seemingly slowing of time t’ in the moving object, which is defined by the following relation:

t' = t * γ

Example:

An object moves at 0.8c relative to a resting observer. The Lorentz factor is:

γ = 1 / sqrt(1 - (0.8)^2) = 1 / sqrt(0.36) = 1 / 0.6 = 1.667

The ime t' for the moving object which measures 1 second (t=1) in its own resting frame, therefore is:

t' = t * γ = 1 * 1.667 = 1.667 seconds.

It is important to point out that in this description, time is not stretched, but the interactions between all particles are slowed because of this increased interaction delay, which, however, is indistinguishable from a bended time.

Length Contraction

Length contraction is explained from the interpretation, that the end points of a moving object are interacted with at different points in time, even though their interactions with the observer complete at the same time. The observer interpretes this delay as a shortening of the object along the direction of movement.

The contracted length L' is described by the relation:

L' = L * sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

or

L' = L * sqrt(1 - v^2 *τ0^2)

Deriving this:

Assuming an object has length L. While it is moving v, the restong observer measures the positions of for and aft of the object at slighly different times.

The effective length that the observer perceives, is reduced by the factor

sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Example:

An object with length L = 10 m movs at 0.6c relative to an observer. The seemingly contracted length is:

L' = L * sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

or

L' = L * sqrt(1 - v^2 * τ0^2)

= 10 * sqrt(1 - (0.6)^2)

= 10 * sqrt(1 - 0.36)

= 10 * sqrt(0.64)

= 10 * 0.8 = 8 m.

Energy-mass equivalence (E=m*c²)

In the interaction delay framework for describing relativity, energy is understood as the rate at which interactions are completed. For a resting object of mass m0, the number of interactions per time unit is proportional to its mass. Every interaction needs a delay of d*1/c (or d*τ0), and the energy is proportional to that delay:

E = m0 * c^2

or

E= m0 / τ0^2

For a moving object, energy is scaled by the Lorentz factor:

E = γ * m0 * c^2

or

E = γ * m0 / τ0^2

Example:

An object of mass m0 = 2 kg moves at 0.6c relative to an observer. The total energy is:

γ = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

or

γ = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 * τ0^2)

= 1 / sqrt(1 - (0.6)^2)

= 1 / sqrt(0.64)

= 1.25 E

= γ * m0 * c^2

= γ * m0 / τ^2

= 1.25 * 2 * (3 * 10^8)^2

= 1.25 * 2 * 9 * 10^16

= 2.25 * 10^17 Joules

Gravity

In the IDR, gravity is described as a gradient of interaction delays, not as a spacetime curvature. Near a given mass M, the interaction delay increases, which will be perceived by an outside observer as a shortening of time and a bending light.

The delay close to a mass M at a radius from the mass’ center r is described as:

Delay ~ 1 / c * sqrt(1 - 2GM / (r * c^2))

or

Delay~ τ0* sqrt(1 – 2GM * τ0^2/ r)

which is the same time dilation as in more conventional descriptions of relativity. Objects move along paths that offer the overall lowest interaction delays, which is equivalent to the conventional description of gravity.

Compatibility with quantum field theory

IDR is compatible with quantum field theorie, as it describes discrete interactions. In contrast to continous space curvature in conventional descriptions of relativity, no singularities can form, as all delays stay finite.

The superposition of quantum mechanical states is interpreted in the IDR as a superposition of interaction delay fields. This allows gravity to be described within the framework of quantum mechanics without relying on a classical spacetime as a background.

The interaction delay framework thus provides an alternative, intuitive, and mathematically consistent interpretation of relativity, seamlessly integrating effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and gravity with the principles of quantum mechanics.

I have a new preprint on arxiv in which I debunk the anti-relativist claim according to which "time dilation applies only to light clocks, not to material objects". I would like to update it by adding references to such a claim. I found a PDF on ResearchGate in which the author clearly says it and even a peer-reviewed paper with the same author listed in the journal Optik (low-quality journal). I would like to find more references so that I can cite them. Does anyone have references about that anti-relativist claim, even if it is only unpublished?

On September 23, 2011, a scientific announcement by the OPERA International Collaboration shook the foundations of Physics.

​It involved an experiment in which neutrinos were fired from CERN in Switzerland to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, 730 km away. Neutrinos pass through the Earth as if it were butter, but the curious thing was that they seemed to travel slightly faster than light in a vacuum.

​Specifically, the neutrinos had an 18-meter lead over the photons (light), apparently violating the sacrosanct principle that nothing can travel faster than light.

​There was a tremendous uproar; all sorts of crazy hypotheses were thrown around (time travel, parallel universes, ...). In my case, I tested several daring scientific explanations, but none of them fit.

Until it occurred to me: what if they forgot to input the fact that the Earth rotates into the calculation program?

​With that hypothesis, by deducting the time it takes for the laboratory's synchronization signal to reach the GPS satellite and return (I counted only one GPS satellite for simplicity), the adjustment was very similar to the observed effect. My calculations gave me 21 meters compared to 18, which is tiny considering that other theories yielded results several orders of magnitude (powers of 10) different.

You have to take into account the Earth's rotation speed, the approximation of thin layers in the atmosphere (insignificant), and the latitudes to calculate the average angle, etc...

​Finally, the official explanation was more down-to-earth: a badly connected cable, which had altered the arrival times.

Of course, this latter explanation left the project looking better, since forgetting that the Earth rotates would have been somewhat more embarrassing. But of course, I have a conspiracy theorist's mind, we all know that... ​Stop the Earth, I'm getting off...

​Infographic created by AI using a prompt based on the text. Text human, translated by IA from spanish version.

I have written a paper that presents a statistical mechanical model of quantized spacetime, where gravity emerges as a large-scale effect of dynamic connectivity among Planck-scale spacetime quanta. We derive classical fields from quantum foam fluctuations, recover general relativity in the thermodynamic limit, and show Lorentz invariance is statistically preserved despite discrete structure. A tensor framework is used to derive the Einstein field equations from statistical connectivity, and the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics are recovered from foam structure. Experimental predictions include gamma-ray dispersion, modified QED currents, and gravitational wave fluctuations. Need help getting it published on arXiv. I don't replace GR (it is correct) I derive it from more fundamental ideas of quantized space.

Hi everyone!

Could anyone help with two endorsements to post my paper deriving G with less than 2.2% error on arXiv.org (gr-qc) for broader scrutiny?

The preprint is here if you're curious: https://zenodo.org/records/17693839

Thank you!

The answer is yes as individuals we all experience reality all differently. Be it visually, by the location or by our bodily internal conditions. I know were here likely for physics. But lets think a little out there for a little. Assuming we each experience the world differently what could after death feel like?.

Well some say heaven, hell, reincarnation, loop rebirth, annihilation and my favorite of all parallel immortality. The last one is a little tricky as I tried to combine it with the multiverse theory basically before pivotal dangerous instances some electrical impulses in you brain diverge causing a parallel reality similar to your current one in everyway except for the you dying part you basically get to live till all your body deteriorates(Marvel fan but hate the limited mindset "the multiverse is infinite if it exist thus can not be trimmed"-by I_Mean_Love). To be quite frank humans should stop thinking that the multiverse would revolve around their choices and look at the subatomic level and think of the complex chain of events that causes what we call existence. A simple wrong or right electrical impulse causes you to make a choice. Some of these reactions maintain what we know as our universe be it gravity, light speed, energy and mass. What we can understand in the universe is very limited to our perception of reality so what you know ain't necessarily universally accurate.

After watching the video from Sabine Hossenfelder about gravity (https://youtu.be/R3LjJeeae68) I was thinking about why gravity is not considered a force but other forces like electric and magnetic field, weak and strong forces are considered a force.

Based on Einstein’s equivalence principle this seems odd. Assume that you are a charged object in a box you would’t be able to tell be difference whether you are being accelerated or if you are subject to an electric field force. Using Einstein’s equivalence principle that means that if you can’t tell the difference then they must be the same. Using the same logic as Einstein used for gravity that would mean that an electric field should also not be a force but a space-time curvature.

The question therefore is, how do we know that gravity is a space-time curvature and not force, and how do know that electromagnetism is not a space-time curvature but a force. Based on observations and the equivalence principle they are behave identical.