Cosmic Everything Charts Compared

GravitationLab.
com
Cosmic Everything Charts Compared: General Relativity vs. the

Space Generation Model of Gravitation and Cosmology
R. Benish(1 )
(1 ) Eugene, Oregon, USA, rjbenish@teleport.com
Abstract. —
Using logarithmic scales, it is possible to compactly show on a graph how the masses
and sizes of all known physical objects in the universe relate to one another. Such
graphs are necessarily skeletal. By filling in more detail than usual (e.g., Kraus, [1]
Barrow, [2] and Hartle [3]) and by adding density and gravitational acceleration to
the axes, the meaningfulness of these relationships becomes more strikingly per-
ceptible. Organization of the first chart (Figure 1) is entirely consistent with the
standard paradigm, with data obtained from the standard literature. The second
chart (Figure 2) is organized the same way. It uses the same data for mass, but it
differs in that nine objects are placed inside the Schwarzschild horizon line, which
thereby reflects the absence of black hole horizons and singularities. A new model
of gravity, the Space Generation Model, is presented in support of the second chart.
Most importantly, a relatively simple laboratory experiment is proposed whose re-
sult would decisively refute either general relativity or the new model, and thereby
indicate which chart is closer to the truth.
PACS 04.80.Cc – Experimental tests of gravitational theories.
1. – Introduction
One of the most well known predictions of Einstein’s theory of gravity, general rela-
tivity (GR) is that sufficiently large and compact bodies of matter form black holes. A
graph that plots mass vs. radius on logarithmic scales so as to include a wide range of
masses and sizes, shows such bodies lying on a straight line—as seen for nine points in
Figure 1 (Chart 1). Figure 2 (Chart 2) is essentially the same graph except that these
nine points have been moved to the left of the black hole line. This essay concerns the
reasons why the latter placement of these points makes more sense, which is tantamount
to proposing a new model of gravity.
For reasons that will be explained in detail, I call this the Space Generation Model
of gravitation and cosmology (SGM). A simple laboratory experiment would be the best
way to decide between GR and the SGM. The difference in predictions is not subtle;

c Richard Benish 2010 1
2 R. BENISH
it is dramatic. Even the weak field regime of Newton’s theory of gravity is challenged.
The SGM is thus radical in many ways. Yet it is consistent with all physical facts
that I know of. In what follows the SGM’s prediction for the proposed experiment will
be supported 1) by a critical assessment of not only GR, but of various foundational
concepts of physics and 2) by showing that certain alternative concepts are logically
more coherent. By developing these new concepts we will see that some of the persistent
enigmas of contemporary physics disappear. We will venture far and deep and wide. We
seek to discover whether Chart 1 or Chart 2 serves as a better map of the world.
Therefore, we’ll begin by pointing out a few general features of the charts. (Note
that, to facilitate printing or viewing at a larger size, they are available as stand-alone
documents. [4, 5] ) The charts may be thought of as “globes” that allow the whole world
to be seen at a glance, rather than having to mentally piece it together with scattered bits
of information. We immediately notice that human beings are located near the middle.
Familiar bodies of atomic matter surround us along an orderly arrangement of points.
Since the density of atomic matter has a fairly narrow range, masses increase very nearly
as the cubes of the radii of physical bodies. The mass vs. radius slope in this region of
the charts is thus ≈ 3, the density vs. radius slope is ≈ 0, and since the acceleration due
to gravity varies by the inverse square law, its slope is ≈ 1.
Moving toward the microcosm along our trail of points, measurements are no longer
so straightforward as they are for bulk atomic matter. With sophisticated machinery
the sizes and masses of molecules, atoms, nuclei and particles can be deduced. The
lightest thing whose mass has been reliably measured is an electron. The measurements
are tricky, but at least they yield a definite result for an electron’s mass. The size of
an electron, on the other hand, is best thought of as more of a theoretical thing than
a physical thing. Without going into the reasons for this, suffice it to say that, though
the two electron radii shown on the graphs are widely recognized as being of theoretical
importance, it would be erroneous to think of one electron as having such a definite size.
If we include the approximate size of an electron cloud in a ground state hydrogen atom,
then these three radii are related to one another by powers of the fine structure constant,
α, and the Bohr radius, a0 .
A hydrogen atom without an electron is a proton, whose mass is nearly the same as a
neutron. For the purposes of the charts (which take no account of electric charge) both
protons and neutrons are essentially indistinguishible nucleons. Muons have the same
electrical charge as electrons, but are ≈ 207 times heavier. Though rare, atoms whose
electrons are replaced by muons have been created in laboratories. Thus we include muo-
nium (which lies between the electronic hydrogen atom and the lone proton [nucleon]).
With the exception of the lightest elements, nuclei in atoms have nearly the same den-
sity, known as nuclear saturation density. Thus we find another region where the mass
vs. radius slope ≈ 3, the density vs. radius slope ≈ 0, and the slope of the acceleration
due to gravity is ≈ 1. Note that on these charts the radius and density of one nucleon
are derived from the radii and densities actually measured from collections of them. We
will find that nuclear saturation density bears a curious relation to atomic density and
other key densities when we consider their occurrence in astrophysical phenomena.
Which brings us, then, to the opposite direction along our scale of size. In the realm
of planets and stars, because of gravity, we get two branches in the pattern: Unlike the
case of smaller bodies of atomic matter where gravity’s role seems negligible, in this
region, along one branch gravity causes bodies to be more compressed; adding mass
actually makes the objects get smaller. Along this branch we encounter brown dwarfs,
white dwarfs, neutron stars and finally, extremely compressed stellar objects commonly
COSMIC EVERYTHING CHARTS COMPARED: GR vs. SGM 3
CO S M I C E V E RY T H I N G C H A R T (st a n d a rd * )
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
55 Planck Density is way
55
off the Chart: at log ρ ≈ 96.7 Mass within
Cosmic Rc = c/H
Planck Acceleration
50 Radiation ÷ c 2 within 50
Cosmic Rc = c/H
Shapley
* Note that the gravitational accelerations corresponding to objects
on the Schwarzschild horizon were calculated using Newton’s Supercluster
equation. Whereas, according to general relativity, the acceleration Coma
of a stationary body at the horizon would be infinite. (See, e.g., Virgo Cluster Cluster
45 Rindler, Essential Relativity, 2nd Ed., Springer-Verlag, 1977; p. 149.
45
Or Hartle, Gravity, Addison-Wesley, 2003; p. 435.) Nearby Group
Milky Way M87
Also, the densities of these objects were calculated as an average— M31
as though the mass were distributed throughout a sphere of radius N3379
= 2GM/c 2. Whereas, according to general relativity, the matter would
OJ287 Galaxy Core N4486-B
40 quickly collapse to a central singularity of infinite density. 3C 66B Galaxy Core M32 40
An alternative treatment of these extreme and undesirable conse- M32 Nucleus
quences is presented on the otherwise identical graph: Cosmic Milky Way Core M31 Nucleus Omega Centauri
Everything Chart (SGM).** This alternative is physically more
Center of Omega Centauri Giant Molecular
reasonable—at least insofar as the Post-Newtonian accelerations and
35 densities are all finite; there are no singularities. See also Cosmic Center of G1 Clouds 35
Everything Charts Compared** which gives a more thorough Center of M15
comparison. Supra-Nuclear IC 10 X-1 HLX-1 Rigel Bok Globules
Density Stars J1650-500 Betelgeuse
**Documents referred to immediately above are accessible at
Neutron EXO 0748-676 Sirius B
GravitationLab.com or at Scribd.com, under Benish. Red Giants & Planetary Nebulae
30 Stars J0437-4715
Sun & Other Main
30
log ρ (3M/4πr 3 ) (kg m–3)

White Dwarfs
Sequence Stars
Brown Dwarfs
To minimize clutter, many points are not labeled—especially those Jupiter
for acceleration. But everything is labeled at least once. Identi-
fication may require finding the point corresponding to a different
25 quantity along the same vertical line. Moon, Earth, Sun, Milky Way Earth 25
and Milky Way Core have been colored to facilitate finding these
particular points. Moon
S
Ceres
20 20
D
16 Psyche
I
NUCLEAR SAT U R AT I O N D E NSI T Y Nucleon Neutron Supra-Nuclear

& Nuclei Stars
O
Density Stars VISI B L E

433 Eros OBJECT
R
15 SIZ E GA P
15
E
Electron J1650-500 HLX-1

(classical
T
radius α2 a0) 1999 KW Center of M15

S
HLX-1 Center of G1
10 Muonium 2000 UG 10
A
Sirius B Center of Omega Centauri

Electron White Dwarf (Typical)
(barred Compton
wavelength λc = α a0) Sirius B Milky Way Core
J0917+46
log m (kg)
5 Osmium Elephant Brown Dwarfs J0917 3C 66B Galaxy Core 5

+46
WATER D E NSI T Y OJ287 Galaxy Core
Sun
)
Moon
ld
Human
r
o
Density Earth 3C 66B Galaxy Core

W
of
0 0
e
Melon
h
Bubbles,
t
Atmospheres
OJ286 Galaxy Core
f
Rigel
o
&
e
Giant Stars
g
log g (GM/r 2 ) (m s–2 )

Blueberry
d
Red Giant
E
(
Betelgeuse
N
-5 -5
O
Grape Seed
IZ
Planck Planetary Nebula

R
M32 Nucleus
O
Mass Nucleon
H
& Nuclei Sand Grain M31 Nucleus M32

D
IL
Milky Way
H
Omega Centauri
C
-10 -10
S
Electron
Z
R
(classical
A
W
radius α2 a0) Bacterium Coma

H
Bok Globules Cluster

C
S
Electron M32 Nucleus

-15 (barred Compton M31 Nucleus
-15
wavelength λc = α a0) N4486-B
Virus Omega Centauri M32
Hydrogen
Atom (a0) Giant Molecular Clouds
Bok Globules N3379
-20 Complex Molecule
Giant Molecular Clouds
Milky Way -20
M31
M87
Buckyball (C60) Nearby Group Virgo Cluster
Uranium Osmium Coma Cluster
-25 Atomic Nuclei Calcium
Carbon Iron Oxygen Atom Gases at STP Shapley Supercluster -25
Helium Atom (radii derived
Nucleon Hydrogen Atom from densities) Mass within
(radius derived from Muonium Cosmic Rc = c/H
nuclear saturation density) Hydrogen Atom (a0)
-30 Radiation ÷ c 2 -30
Electron Electron within Cosmic
(classical (barred Compton Rc = c/H
radius α2 a0) wavelength λ c = α a0)
-35 -35
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Copyright © Richard Benish 2010. With this copyright
tag in place, free unaltered distribution is encouraged.
log r (meters)
Fig. 1. – Chart 1. Logarithmic scales of mass, radius, density and gravitational acceleration of
objects spanning the range of size of the known universe. Due to the fuzziness of some objects,
deviations from spherical shape and uncertainties of measurement, some values are rougher
approximations than others. Being on a logarithmic scale, all quantities shown are nevertheless
fairly accurate. This chart is thus a generally reliable representation of key physical magnitudes
in our universe, with the possible exception of objects on the Schwarzschild horizon line.
4 R. BENISH
CO S M I C E V E RY T H I N G C H A R T ( S G M * )
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
55 Planck Density is way
55
off the Chart: at log ρ ≈ 96.7 Mass within Cosmic
* SGM stands for Space Generation Model of gravitation and cosmology. For details
on the motivation for this chart, see Cosmic Everything Charts Compared, and
Rc = 3 c/H = GM/c 2
Planck Acceleration other documents at GravitationLab.com and under Benish at Scribd.com.
Radiation ÷ c 2
within Cosmic
50 If the Schwarzschild horizon were real, it would entail infinite central densities, Rc = 3 c/H = GM/c 2 50
infinite accelerations and a singularity, at r = 0 (“where the laws of physics break Shapley
down”). Peter Bergmann has suggested that a theory with such properties “carries Supercluster
within itself the seeds of its own destruction.” Unfortunately, most physicists ignore
this prediction. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to expect quantum theory, whose Coma
Virgo Cluster Cluster
45 proper domain is small and light objects, to rescue general relativity in this domain
of large and heavy objects. It is physically unreasonable to conceive that bodies of
45
matter collapse to zero volume behind a barrier to all communication (horizon).
Nearby Group
This Chart presents key features of an alternative model of gravity according to Milky Way M87
which volumes and densities remain positive and finite; concentrations of matter
M31
N3379
may be compressed by gravity so much that spacetime curvature significantly OJ287 Galaxy Core N4486-B
40 reduces the frequency and the amount of light that can escape, while densities and
accelerations remain well-behaved (so that there are no singularities). 3C 66B Galaxy Core M32 40
M32 Nucleus
This model predicts the existence of a density regime about as far removed from
Milky Way Core M31 Nucleus Omega Centauri
nuclear density as nuclear density is removed from atomic density:
rs
Center of Omega Centauri Giant Molecular
n Sta
35 Center of G1 Clouds 35
Center of M15
tro
HLX-1 Bok Globules
Rigel
Neu
IC 10 X-1
HYPER - SUPER D E NSITY
J1650-500 Betelgeuse
Sirius B
Red Giants & Planetary Nebulae
30 Sun & Other Main
30
log ρ (3M/4πr 3 ) (kg m–3)

White Dwarfs
( is the fine structure constant.) HLX-1 Sequence Stars
Brown Dwarfs
Jupiter
25 Though it varies slightly from one atomic species to another, nuclear saturation
Supra-Nuclear
Density Stars
IC 10 X-1
Earth 25
density is closely approximated by J1650-500
Moon
S
Ceres
20 20
D
J0437-4715 Neutron
I
NUCLEAR SAT U R AT I O N D ENSITY

Nucleon & EXO 0748-676 Stars
O
Nuclei
433 Eros
R
15 Electron VISI B L E
15
E
(classical J1650-500
0-500 OBJECT
Though it varies considerably, an illustrative radius α2 a0) J0437-4715
T
SIZE GA P
approximate measure of the density of most 1999 KW EXO 0748-676
S
familiar substances can be expressed as the mass IC 10 X-1

Muonium HLX-1
10 of a proton within a spherical volume whose
2000 UG 10
A
size is given by the Bohr radius: Sirius B

Electron White Dwarf (Typical)
(barred Compton Sirius B
wavelength λc = α a0) Milky Way Core
J0917+46
log m (kg)
5 Earth 5
Osmium Elephant Brown Dwarfs
ATOMIC MATT E R D E NSITY 3C 66B J0917+46
Sun
Moon
Human
ld
OJ287
r
Density
o
W
of
0 Bubbles, Melon 0
e
h
Atmospheres
t
& Rigel
f
o
Giant Stars
log g [GM/(r+2GM/c 2 )2 ] (m s–2 )

e
Blueberry Red Giant

g
d
E
Betelgeuse
D
-5 Grape Seed -5
IL
H
Planetary Nebula M32 Nucleus

C
Nucleon
S
Z
& Nuclei M32

R
Sand Grain M31 Nucleus

A
Planck Mass
W
Milky Way
Omega Centauri
H
If this chart is a
C
-10 -10
S
reliable indicator,
then this theoretical
Electron
concoction is of no (classical
immeidate physical radius α2 a0) Coma
significance. Bacterium Bok Globules Cluster
Electron M32 Nucleus

-15 Note: To minimize clutter, many points (barred Compton M31 Nucleus
-15
are not labeled—especially those for wavelength λc = α a0) N4486-B
acceleration. But everything is
Virus Omega Centauri M32
labeled at least once. Identification Hydrogen
may require finding the point corres- Atom (a0) Giant Molecular Clouds
ponding to a different quantity along Bok Globules N3379
-20 the same vertical line. Moon, Earth, Sun, Complex Molecule
Giant Molecular Clouds
Milky Way -20
Milky Way and Milky Way Core have
been colored to facilitate finding these M31
particular points. M87
Buckyball (C60) Nearby Group Virgo Cluster
Uranium Osmium Coma Cluster
-25 Atomic Nuclei Calcium
Carbon Iron Oxygen Atom Gases at STP Shapley -25
MINIMUM BAC KGRO U ND Helium Atom (radii derived Supercluster
Nucleon Hydrogen Atom from densities)
MATT E R D E NSIT Y
(radius derived from Muonium Mass within Cosmic
nuclear saturation density) Hydrogen Atom (a0) Rc = 3 c/H = GM/c 2
-30 MINIMUM BACKGRO U ND
R A D I AT I O N D E NSIT Y
-30
Electron Electron Radiation ÷ c 2
(classical (barred Compton within Cosmic
radius α2 a0) wavelength λ c = α a0) Rc = 3 c/H = GM/c 2
-35 -35
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Copyright © Richard Benish 2010. With this copyright
tag in place, free unaltered distribution is encouraged.
log r (meters)
Fig. 2. – Chart 2. Essentially the same as Chart 1, except that objects that were on the
Schwarzschild horizon line are now interpreted in terms of the Space Generation Model (SGM).
The masses of these objects are the same as in Chart 1, but their densities and accelerations
have been adjusted to reflect their new proposed radii. According to the SGM radii smaller than
2GM/c2 are allowed without entailing division by zero; i.e., without predicting the stoppage of
light and clocks or infinite accelerations. As a result, we find within a region of relatively small
mass differences (horizontal segment of the “S”-curve) profound transformations in size and
density. If the pattern initiated from atomic density to nuclear density is continued across the
Schwarzschild line, we expect to find two more key densities—each one corresponding to an
α-folding in size and an α−3 -folding in density. (See §11 for more details.)
thought of as black holes. We’ll return to this branch below.

Presently, note that the other branch consists, initially, of stars whose densities are
small compared to that of familiar matter (except, perhaps, air). Then, after crossing a
gap corresponding to a range of size that few if any visible bodies of matter adopt, we
come to regions of space so large that they contain many stars—or perhaps only clouds
of extremely tenuous molecular matter. Continuing on to larger masses and sizes, we
find globular clusters, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. The largest local structures that
are still identifiable as such are superclusters of galaxies.
At the extremity of this branch we find another length that is not so much a physical
thing as a theoretical thing. In standard cosmology (big bang inflation) this scale length
is known as the Hubble radius (big bang): RC = c/H, where c is the light speed constant
and H is the Hubble constant. The latter constant plays a key role in the law which
expresses how much the light from distant galaxies is redshifted for increasing distances.
In the alternative SGM cosmology RC is similarly related to the redshift-distance law, but
its size is three times greater than the standard Hubble radius (SGM): RC = 3c/H. (This
is explained in §10 and, in more detail, in SGM Cosmic Numbers and DE. [6]) By either
model, on this scale of size it is no longer meaningful to think of being at the boundary
or center of a particular structure. In other words, on this scale the universe appears to
be homogeneous. Therefore, though we may calculate a gravitational acceleration due
to the matter within RC , by contrast with all smaller structures, the calculated value no
longer corresponds to a positive accelerometer reading. All smaller structures that are
identifiable as such manifest inhomogeneities that would result in positive accelerometer
readings because of these inhomogeneities. But on the scale of RC , the gravitational effect
is the same from all directions, so it cancels out to zero.
Now consider the line of slope = 1 cutting across the upper portion of the charts.
In Chart 1 the region to the left of (and above) the line is shaded. This boundary
represents the Schwarzschild event horizon, whose radius for any given mass, M is r =
2GM/c2 , where G is Newton’s constant. Most physicists consider this line to be of
physical significance, as it follows from GR, which is otherwise fairly well supported by
empirical evidence. By definition the line is unobservable: Everything at or within the
horizon is beyond communication with the outside world. Hence, such objects have been
given the name, black hole. The existence of black holes is deduced from theory and from
evidence indicating the presence of extremely massive, yet dark, bodies of matter. These
observationally deduced masses, as shown on the charts, span the wide range of about
(4 − 1010 )M , where M is the mass of the Sun, which is 2 × 1030 kg.
Considering the fact that we really don’t know the sizes of these objects, it is natural
to ask whether this trail of points should in fact be located on the theoretical horizon line.
Are there any reasons to think the radii corresponding to these masses should have some
other values—values that do not abide by the standard black hole paradigm? In what
follows we will consider three kinds of reason to question the standard model: aesthetic,
mathematical, and physical. The aesthetic argument, which is brief and presented in
§2, is by itself not intended to be nearly as convincing as the mathematical or physical
arguments. But in conjunction with them, I think most readers will be able to see which
model looks better.
The mathematical and physical arguments are not always distinguishable as such.
The most patently mathematical argument, briefly, is that black holes arise in the minds
of physicists from the dubious practice of dividing by zero and accepting the result as
physically reasonable—or perhaps acknowledging the unreasonableness but not persist-
ing to find a reasonable alternative. A few of the key elements of contemporary black
6 R. BENISH
hole theory are presented in §3. Most physicists have come to regard the inevitable
singularities in the black hole paradigm as not a problem—at least, not a big enough
problem to discourage the enormous output of academic publications concerning these
hypothetical, unobservable objects. Evidently, they are gambling that quantum theory
will someday rescue GR from the predicted singularities. The more physical arguments
are too numerous to mention them all. In §4 we briefly discuss six physical issues that
should, perhaps, cast some doubt on the black hole paradigm. If authoritative opinion
were the scale by which we judge, the most weighty objection could be the doubts cast
in 1979 by the prominent physicist, Peter Bergmann. His impression was that admitting
“the occurrence of a singularity” amounts to “going overboard.” [7]
The most important reason for caution, from the present point of view, is that our
empirical knowledge of gravity suffers from a large gap that exists not only in the exotic
realm of black holes, but extends to the centers of massive bodies in our common expe-
rience. This gap could be filled by performing a relatively simple laboratory experiment.
The basic idea of the experiment and what standard physics predicts should be its out-
come, are presented in §5. Throughout this essay, we question standard physics; or more
accurately, we insist on questioning Nature to see if standard physics rings true. The
result of the experiment might be such as to invalidate the interior solution of GR—and
thereby, the whole black hole paradigm.
Although the proposed experiment is disarmingly simple, its potential import is hard
to overestimate. If the result supports the standard theories, very little would change;
we’d simply have confirmed a prediction that physicists have presumed to be true (with-
out empirical evidence) for generations. But if the prediction presented in this essay were
to be confirmed, many of the foundations of physics would be overturned. Therefore, in
§6 we will begin to take a detailed look at the foundations of the model that serves as
the basis for the new prediction. At its core, the whole argument is based on a strict in-
terpretation of measurements obtained from motion sensing devices: accelerometers and
clocks. Simple logic quickly shows that this interpretation is untenable if there are only
three dimensions of space. Rather than prematurely reject the model because of this, we
instead infer this to be an indication that the world actually has four dimensions of space
(and one of time). Special emphasis is given to the importance of this inference. The
new model’s proposal that there are four instead of three spatial dimensions is put in
the context of the history and current state of other investigations into the possibility of
“extra” space dimensions. Unlike the earlier conceptions, the new one explicitly relates
the space dimensions to both matter and time, such that the whole manifold is in a state
of perpetual stationary motion. All three of the fundamental elements of physics, mass,
space and time, thus combine interdependently via gravity so as to necessitate a fourth
dimension of space.
Since extra-dimensional space is a key feature of various theories of quantum gravity,
our purpose in §7 will be to see how these theories compare with the present model. In §8
we look at the relationship between higher-dimensional space and the inverse square law
of gravity. The proven validity of the law down to very small sizes is regarded by standard
physicists as evidence that, if higher dimensions of space exist, they are very well hidden.
According to the model presented in §6 this is not true: the fourth dimension of space
could be infinitely large. If it is hidden, it is hidden in plain view.
In §9 we reinforce the implications of §6 and establish the foundations of the new
model in more detail by deriving equations that explicitly deny the total “blackness” of
astronomical objects that are currently regarded as black holes. The derivation appeals
to three things: 1) the consequence of special relativity according to which the velocities
of material bodies never exceed that of light; 2) Einstein’s equivalence principle; and
3) the inverse-square law. These results, which mean that light and clocks do not stop
because of gravity, include an equation which expresses a (mass-dependent) limit on the
acceleration due to gravity, as seen in Chart 2.
An outline of the cosmological consequences of the new gravity model is presented in
§10. Two of the most prominent points here are: 1) agreement with observations; and
2) that the scheme implies a deep significance to and connection between the various
density regimes in the universe. Among them are the nuclear saturation density, atomic
density and the two cosmic background densities: matter and radiation. The SGM cos-
mology predicts a stationary universe. That is, a universe that expands but maintains
the same proportions because matter increases along with space. It has sometimes been
suggested that, especially in a universe whose proportions remain constant, we should
expect a connection between the constants arising in atomic theory and those arising
in astrophysics and cosmology. Beginning with a small number of assumptions, we find
an extraordinary order arising amongst atomic and cosmological constants. For exam-
ple, we end up with an extremely simple definition of Newton’s constant and intriguing
connections between the energy density of the cosmic background radiation, nuclear sat-
uration density, the fine structure constant, the proton-to-electron mass ratio and other
notoriously mysterious numbers.
In §11 we explore the implications of the cosmological model as they apply to our
Cosmic Everything Charts. Within a small range of mass, profound transformations
occur to stellar matter because the force of gravity begins to be comparable to nuclear
and electromagnetic forces. The first of these transformations is the formation of white
dwarf stars. A more extreme transformation is the formation of neutron stars. Along
our trail of points we see that a class of stars with a little more mass than the Sun are
found to have densities of the order of Nuclear saturation density. This is near what the
standard paradigm regards as an astrophysical limit, beyond which a black hole would
form. Because of this imagined limit, the trail of points is here supposed to take a sharp
turn, as shown on Chart 1. But various physical facts as well as the locations of the
non-controversial points outside the horizon, suggest not a sharp turn to hug it, but a
continuation across the Schwarzschild line. This then implies the existence of two more
key density regimes. The first SGM-specific regime would be that of “supra-nuclear
density” stellar objects. And the last would be that of super massive and “hyper-super
density” collapsed cluster cores. What distinguishes Chart 2 from Chart 1 is the logic
that motivates the rearrangement of these nine points.
An application of the SGM to observational data suggesting the existence of black
holes is presented in §12. Objects that are regarded as strong candidates for being bona
fide black holes acquire this status by revealing certain characteristics that standard
models in physics are incapable of explaining any other way. It is shown that the observed
characteristics are entirely consistent with those predicted by the SGM for objects that
are very compact and very dark, but do not have horizons or singularities.
One of the recurrent themes of this essay is the importance of accelerometer readings.
In the standard literature we sometimes find discussions that imply a similar importance
and yet come to completely different conclusions. Our final section, §13, begins by
comparing the logic displayed in two of these standard discussions with the logic of the
SGM. This launches us into a summary of the essay’s main points. It is shown that
the logic that leads to the new arrangement of the nine contentious points on Chart
2, converges from two directions. The first appeals to immediate human experience
and empirical evidence obtained on or near Earth. It involves the strict interpretation of
8 R. BENISH
accelerometer readings, clock rates, the limiting speed of light and the inverse square law,
which suggest the existence of a fourth spatial dimension. Along this route we find cogent
reasons for doubting the existence of bona fide black holes. Even at this point we would
see fit to place the nine contentious points somewhere inside the Schwarzschild horizon.
Independently of the black hole question, however, this route leads to certain cosmological
consequences. Exploration of these consequences reveals that the well known ubiquity of
the fine structure constant, α at smaller scales extends also to cosmology and astrophysics.
This reinforces our doubt (about black holes) borne of physics at smaller scales and
provides the basis for the conjecture as to (approximately) where inside the Schwarzschild
horizon the nine contentious points should be placed. Thus local and global reasoning
converge to yield Chart 2. Emphasized here, as elsewhere is that this model as a whole
stands or falls depending on the result of the experiment discussed in §5, §6 and §9.
2. – Aesthetic Argument: an Edgeless World
A quick inspection of Figure 1 may naively suggest that the absence of any bodies
of matter (red dots) to the left of the Schwarzschild horizon means this line represents,
in a sense, the edge of the world. Many distinguished scholars believe in the reality of
this edge, whose properties we’ll discuss below. Before considering these properties, let
us simply inspect the trail that leads to the edge, i.e., the string of points from dwarf
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
50 50 50 50
Standard SGM
40 40 40 40
30 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
log log
density density
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
log log
-10 acceleration -10 -10 acceleration -10
-20 -20 -20 -20

log log
-30 mass -30 -30 mass -30
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

log r (meters) log r (meters)
Fig. 3. – Simplification of Charts 1 and 2. The aesthetic argument, basically, is that Nature
is beautiful, which, to my mind’s eye means also that Nature is fundamentally continuous.
Therefore, we should expect not to find an edge to the world where, for example, time stops and
bodies of matter collapse to zero volume. These properties characterize the wall that the trail
of points runs into in the Standard graph above (left)—which causes the trail to bounce back
at an acute, unnatural, ugly angle, dictated by a geometrical theory far removed from physical
experience. Whereas the SGM graph (right) reflects what happens when the imaginary wall is
removed. Whether it really is truer and therefore more beautiful, depends on the result of the
experiment discussed in §5, §6 and §9.
stars to neutron stars. This trail meets the Schwarzschild horizon line so as to form a
very sharp corner. To more clearly see this, refer to Figure 3, which shows the general
shapes of the three lines in both charts with a minimum of detail. The standard idea is
that the trail then actually makes this abrupt, acute turn. Is this natural? My aesthetic
judgment tells me it is not. A natural extension of the trail, I suspect, would be to cross
the Schwarzschild line (beginning with objects, J1650-500 and IC 10 X-1) on a smooth
curve.
Of course it would be foolish to try to decide which path is actually taken by Nature
based on just this aesthetic criterion, or by the meager empirical evidence that we have.
Nobody knows for sure, either way. The distinguished scholars believe in the sharp cor-
nered path because of their faith in GR. They draw the chart as in Figure 1 (and the left
side of Figure 3) because they have confidence in the validity of a variety of assumptions,
assumptions that we will question in what follows and assumptions that we ultimately
propose to test with a simple experiment. (Interior Solution Gravity Experiment [8])
Until this experiment is performed, defense of the smoothly curved trail of points argu-
ment can appeal only to logical reasoning, which certainly includes mathematical and
physical facts as well as, if it may be referred to as such, at least one “aesthetic fact,”
i.e., the look of Figure 3.
3. – Einstein, Standard Schwarzschild Coordinates and Their Strong Field

Extension
In 1939, before the expression, black hole was invented and before astronomical ob-
servations revealed the presence of extremely massive, yet compact and dark objects,
Einstein wrote a paper arguing that the Schwarzschild horizon (which he refers to as
a singularity) cannot exist. Given how the black hole industry has blossomed in more
recent decades, it is obvious that most physicists regard Einstein’s argument (about his
own theory) as faulty. In simple terms, the singularity arising in this problem is the
result of dividing by zero, so that the answer “blows up,” becomes infinite, is undefined.
This mathematical operation (dividing by zero) is performed within GR’s Schwarzschild
solution, which involves coefficients representing the degree of spacetime curvature with
respect to a spherical mass as a function of distance. This is GR’s most famous and most
widely used solution because it is supposed to describe the static spacetime geometry
around a spherically symmetrical body like the Earth or Sun.
In the usual (standard ) form of the solution, the coefficient (1 − 2GM/rc2 ) applies
to the time coordinate and its inverse applies to the radial length coordinate, r. The
difference between the square root of these coefficients and unity represents the magnitude
by which clock rates and the lengths of radially oriented rods change due to gravity. (See
§9.) For most bodies of matter, the length 2GM/c2 is very small compared to the
distance, r, so the coefficient is usually ≈ 1. A black hole results from the case that all
the matter of a body of radius r lies within r = 2GM/c2 . This makes the coefficients zero
for time and infinity for length. Consequently, for this extreme case, the length 2GM/c2
corresponds to the spherical surface at which clocks stop ticking, light stops moving and
accelerations become infinite. [9-11]
Einstein opened his argument by asserting that this surface “constitutes a place where
the field is singular.” At the end of a lengthy analysis, Einstein concluded that “The
‘Schwarzschild singularity’ does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concen-
trated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles
would reach the velocity of light.” [12] The main fault in Einstein’s analysis, from the
10 R. BENISH
modern point of view, is that he failed to recognize that the spherical surface represents
only a coordinate singularity. Whereas, it has been shown that, by adopting a different
system of coordinates this singularity can be removed. Two of the most common systems
of coordinates used for this purpose are known as the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates
and the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. [13]
The transformation from standard Schwarzschild coordinates to extended coordinates
has sometimes been likened to removing the singularity arising on a map of a sphere
whose equator is designated as the zero of latitude. [14] It is thereby implied that the
removable Schwarzschild singularity is no more troublesome (shall we say) than this
simple cartographic singularity. One is well-motivated to remove the singularity in the
Schwarzschild solution in standard coordinates because, as it is commonly described, the
solution otherwise exhibits “pathological” or “bad behavior” at the horizon. This is due
to the possibility of zero appearing in the denominator. The coordinate extension is a
method for transforming the badness out of the equation. Though goodness appears
to be restored by preventing the zero from appearing, it must be pointed out that this
good behavior applies only to the character of the trajectories (geodesics) representing
falling objects or light rays that cross the horizon from the outside or to falling objects
or light rays within the horizon that can’t possibly get out. The good behavior does not
refer to the object itself; i.e., to the source of the gravitational field. Nevertheless, by
establishing that geodesics need not come to an end, but can safely cross the horizon,
at least inwardly, such coordinate transformations are typically presented as a kind of
assurance that this behavior is not only geometrically, but also physically reasonable. So
relativists seem pleased to have tamed a significant portion of the otherwise unruly black
hole; geodesics from 0 < r < ∞ are now all in perfect geometrical order.
4. – Six Issues of Concern
Notice, however, that some troubling physical questions arise or remain, in spite of
this clever display of mathematics. We can identify six issues.
1. Under normal circumstances, when we contemplate gravitational problems we have
not only geodesics (falling or light ray trajectories) but a physical body which serves as a
reference system for observations. We can draw or visualize the body and the geodesics
together in the same picture. Whereas, in discussions of black holes this contact with
physical reality is missing. Introducing a physical object to represent the location of the
horizon is deemed unacceptable because such a stationary object cannot exist. This is
not because of the force of gravity. It has often been pointed out that the gravitational
force actually diminishes as the size of a black hole horizon increases. This is reflected in
Chart 1 by the (descending) points for the acceleration corresponding to the (ascending)
objects on the Schwarzschild line. What causes the impossibility of the physical object
at the horizon is thus nothing but geometry. It’s as though physical matter is at the
mercy of abstract mathematics. Thus, it is not uncommon to find physicists proclaiming
that “gravity is just geometry.” [15] The “good behavior” of geodesics engendered by the
extended coordinates means that an object can fall past the horizon without experiencing
any abrupt change in its physical state. But a stationary physical manifestation of that
which has created the horizon is forbidden. It is only right that we should question
this drastic state of affairs. Possibly, physicists are just imagining their mathematical
abstractions to be more concrete than they really are. Possibly, matter itself does not
conform to their geometry.
2. The coordinate transformations used to extend the standard Schwarzschild solution
inside the horizon involve the change of timelike quantities to spacelike quantities and
vice versa. This is sometimes depicted (in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates) as the
“tipping of light cones” on a spacetime diagram. The cones change from opening upward
to opening to the left (toward r = 0) as the horizon line is passed. This is what happens
to the geodesics that enter the horizon, even though an observer on such a geodesic
would not notice. Inside the horizon space turns to time and time turns to space. So
says geometry. But does this make physical sense? Surely the intuitive answer is no.
If our intuition is wrong, then we should accept it as such only after all reasonable
alternatives have been considered and tested. Thus, maintaining skepticism (and a search
for alternatives) is clearly advisable.
3. Issue (1), i.e., the loss of contact with stationary physical matter, may be amplified
by pointing out again the state such matter would be in at the horizon: clocks would stop
ticking, light would stop moving, and acceleration would become infinite. These circum-
stances are not changed by extending the coordinates; this patently bad behavior is not
made good. So removing the coordinate singularity by a mathematical transformation
in the case of black holes is far from the benign operation of removing a cartographic
singularity from a map. At Earth’s equator light and clocks do not stop, accelerations
do not go to infinity and physical objects may still exist there. Faced with the prima
facie unphysical predictions of GR, two choices arise: Most physicists have simply opted
to disallow the physical body: geometry rules. The alternative is to suspend belief in the
theory: physicality rules. That the theory should make such predictions, that it should
have such trouble representing a physical object, is perhaps an indication that the theory
itself is flawed, at least insofar as it applies to extremely compact, massive bodies. This
in fact was Einstein’s view.
4. Issues (1 – 3) are all concerned with the Schwarzschild horizon, i.e., with the
coordinate singularity. Physicists are happy to have rendered this singularity removable.
As is well known, however, this is impossible to do for the singularity at r = 0. This is
where GR is helpless to avoid infinite density, infinite curvature and the breakdown of
physical law. This helplessness was made official, in a sense, by the work of Penrose and
Hawking, who demonstrated mathematically the inevitability of singularities in GR. [16]
Unfortunately, most physicists were not deterred by this work. Indeed, it seemed to set
off a flurry of work along similar lines and work that explored the further consequences of
horizons and singularities, whose physical reality was rarely questioned. Modern physics
has two main pillars: GR and quantum theory. So the failure of GR with regard to
the black hole singularity simply means, to most physicists, that this is where quantum
theory must step in to make everything okay. This logic is questionable because quantum
theory is widely regarded as the proper description of micro-physics involving very small
and light objects. But GR got into trouble on account of very large and heavy objects. Is
it reasonable to expect quantum theory to rescue GR in this domain? Possibly, this kind
of reasoning played a part in one of the cautious responses to these developments, quoted
below. One of Einstein’s former assistants, Peter G. Bergmann, voiced his concerns at a
meeting in 1979 to celebrate Einstein’s centenary. Upon opening a discussion following
the lectures of Stephen Hawking (and others) Bergmann said:
Singularities . . . are intolerable from the point of view of classical field the-
ory because a singular region represents a breakdown of postulated laws of
nature . . . A theory that involves singularities and involves them unavoidably,
moreover, carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction . . . It is conceiv-
able that the energy condition . . . could be violated. It seems, in some respect,
12 R. BENISH
that if you are going overboard and admit serious exceptions to what we con-
sider the conventional behavior of nature, a violation of the energy condition
might be swallowed just as much as the occurrence of a singularity . . . The
whole situation looks like one in which a completely new idea is required. [7]
(Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, such remarks concerning black holes are rare among such illustrious au-
thors. As the 21st century moves into its second decade, it seems the novelty and the
outrageousness of black holes has all but worn off. Most physicists have grown used to
them.
5. My various critiques and this list of concerns is directed at what has become the
standard interpretation of GR. It is pertinent to mention a small but vocal minority of
physicists who argue that the proper interpretation of GR denies the existence of black
holes. In the work of Stephen J. Crothers, for example, it is pointed out that, what
has come to be called the “Schwarzschild solution” is not the solution actually derived
by Karl Schwarzschild. [17] The solution most commonly presented in textbooks and
journals is a significantly different misrepresentation of Schwarzschild’s original work.
This claim is patently true, as one can see by looking at the originals. Also, many of
the conclusions drawn by Crothers on the basis of this difference appear true and well
argued. He asserts, for example, that Schwarzschild’s original solution exhibits neither
horizons, infinite densities, nor any reasonable possibility of swapping time for space and
space for time inside r = 2GM/c2 . But some of Crothers’ conclusions, especially those
that defend the basic idea of GR that gravity should be represented by a static geomet-
rical equation, I strongly disagree with—and I propose to test my disagreement with a
laboratory experiment. In other words, the differences between Crothers interpretation
of GR and the SGM still greatly outweigh any mitigating similarities. Furthermore, his
work is obscure and unjustly ignored by the mainstream. For these reasons, the rest of
this essay (including concern #6) will proceed on the basis that the standard ideas trace
back to the origins claimed of them—even though this is evidently not true. Since my
own work is presently even more obscure than his, I can only salute Crothers and those
others who have tried to set the record straight.
Our last concern in this section serves as a fitting transition to the next one, because
it involves the experiment whose result could bear on the black hole paradigm by finally
filling in a conspicuous gap in our empirical knowledge of gravity.
6. Extensions to the Schwarzschild solution have the curious feature of encompassing
the whole domain 0 < r < ∞. What makes this curious is that the whole thing is
an exterior solution. For material bodies under normal conditions the GR description
requires two separate solutions. The most commonly used pair of solutions were both
originally derived by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916: his static exterior and static interior
solution (for an incompressible fluid sphere). [18] The strange behavior discussed above
is found at and within r = 2GM/c2 . So there is an inside and an outside with respect to
this geometrical horizon; the horizon lies between the extremes. But the whole thing is
exterior to the source, to the matter responsible for the field. All the matter is at r = 0.
So the whole thing is just a geometrical object. Its physicality is not allowed. There
is no inside to the physical object because its matter occupies a space of zero volume.
By contrast, for normal matter we have either a surface (stars, planets, etc.) or a more
gradual transition of changing density (clouds and cluster systems). In the first case
there is a distinct difference between being inside or outside the body. In the second case
the distinction is somewhat blurred, but we can still determine the degree of immersion
by measuring the change in density. Both situations are quite physical.

What is common to both the geometrical extensions of Schwarzschild’s exterior solu-
tion and the physical insides of real bodies is that we don’t really know what happens at
r = 0. For black holes this will be forever true. In the case of real bodies the only serious
impediment to finding out what happens at r = 0 is the lack of desire to look. Suppose
we drill a hole through the center of a real body (e.g., a uniformly dense sphere) and drop
a test object into it. What happens? The theoretical answer, the standard prediction for
such an experiment is well known. But the prediction has never been tested, so nobody
really knows what happens. The alternative gravity model on whose basis we surmise
that nine of the objects on Chart 2 lie within the imaginary horizon also predicts novel
behavior for this circumstance of radial falling inside ordinary matter. Various reasons
for this novel prediction will be discussed in §6 and §9.
5. – Interior Solution Gravity Experiment: Standard Prediction
The interior falling experiment mentioned above has so far been described only in
terms of an ideally simplified, but impractical circumstance. That is, as a relatively
isolated spherical mass in outer space, as schematically shown in Figure 4. But it could
be done in an Earth-based laboratory with a modified Cavendish balance. See Figure 5.
(For more details about this experiment and its feasibility, see Interior Solution Gravity
Experiment [8].) The prediction for the result of this experiment, in Newtonian terms, is
that the test mass is supposed to oscillate from one end of the hole to the other because
of the conservative, attractive force of gravity. According to GR, essentially the same
motion is predicted, but it is supposed to be understood in terms of the curvature of
spacetime. The key to producing the predicted oscillation is that the rates of stationary
clocks inside the sphere are supposed to diminish going inward; the rate of a clock at
the center is supposed to be a local minimum. In other words, there is a very definite
correlation between how clock rates vary inside matter and how test objects fall inside
matter. This is true for both GR and the SGM.
Nobody has ever compared the rates of clocks inside matter with those outside matter
as a function of gravity. Therefore doing this experiment would test Newton’s attraction
hypothesis and, indirectly, Einstein’s local minimum clock rate hypothesis. According to
the ideals of science this experiment ought to be done simply because it hasn’t been done
before. The gap in empirical knowledge exists. The gap is of deep physical significance
because it cuts—literally and figuratively—right through the middle of the object of our
study.
Black holes are often referred to as exotic objects. The singularities which make
them so have been defined as “regions of the spacetime” into which the geodesics of
the spacetime do not enter (i.e., r = 0). Geodesics are simply the trajectories of falling
Fig. 4. – Ideal experimental setup: Relatively isolated spherical mass with test object.
14 R. BENISH
Fig. 5. – Practical experimental setup: Modified Cavendish balance in Earth-based laboratory.
objects or light rays. Since geodesics going into a black hole are “incomplete,” since they
only go in past the edge of the world and never come back out, the spacetime is singular.
Ironically, in the mundane (to relativists) context of ordinary matter (e.g., a rock or
a ball of lead) nobody has checked to see whether the predicted geodesics conform to
reality. If a hole is drilled through the ball of lead, GR says the geodesic of an object
radially falling into the hole passes r = 0. But nobody has ever seen this happen in the
physical world. It is impossible to see what happens to an object dropped into a black
hole. But in the world we actually live in, empirical evidence is much easier to gather.
The experiment calls only for an ordinary body of matter through which is drilled an
ordinary hole. Therefore, as scientists, we are well-advised to do it. We should not
presume to know its result based only on theory, analogy or extrapolation. The result
needs to be learned directly from Nature. And this should be our course of action, I
would argue, even in the absence of a model that predicts a non-standard result.
6. – Interior Solution Gravity Experiment: SGM Prediction Derived from

Accelerometers, Clocks, Rotation Analogy and Hyper-Dimensional Space
This section is lengthy and organized into subsections because in it we cover a lot of
ground concerning the physical basis of the Space Generation Model (SGM). In many
ways this model conflicts with standard ideas. Among them is a novel interpretation of
hyper-dimensional space. To clarify this interpretation and other reasons why the SGM
makes a new prediction for the interior solution gravity experiment, we will appeal lib-
erally to direct physical experience and to various analogies. To keep our perspective we
will often compare the SGM-based reasoning with reasoning borne of standard physics.
It should be emphasized that all arguments based on the SGM trace back to the concrete
empirical evidence provided by accelerometers and clocks. This will be especially impor-
tant to bear in mind when, in spite of this simple basis, the SGM becomes a challenge to
visualize. By contrast, the comparative ease of visualizing certain aspects of GR comes
only at the cost of dubious physical reasoning.
.
6 1. Logical Strategy and the SGM Prediction. – According to the Space Generation
Model, oscillation of the test mass through the larger mass, as predicted by standard
theory, does not happen because gravity is not a force of attraction and the rates of
clocks inside the body do not diminish to a local minimum, they increase to a local max-
imum. The basis for this prediction is a strict interpretation of motion-sensing devices,
in particular, accelerometers and clocks. Outside the context of gravity, it has been em-
pirically established that 1) Accelerometers give non-zero readings when they are forced
to accelerate, either by rotation or by linear propulsion; and 2) The rates of properly
functioning clocks slow down due to their velocity. The most meaningful measurements
of this latter effect are those involving rotational motion, because cyclic motion allows
an absolute measurement, whereas linear motion entails some ambiguity (that we need
not go into).
What do accelerometers and clocks tell us about our common experience of gravity?
Our strategy for answering this question is to abide by advice contained in Newton’s Rules
for Reasoning in Philosophy (whose essence is also captured by the aphorism known as
Occam’s razor ). Quoting Newton’s Rules I and II:
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both
true and sufficient to explain their appearances . . . for Nature is pleased with
simplicity and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the
same causes. [19]
Fact number one is that we live on the surface of a 5.97×1024 kg sphere of matter. We
have found at this surface that accelerometers give readings of ≈ 9.8pm s−2 in the upward
direction and clocks are slow compared to clocks “at infinity” by ≈ 1 − 2GM/rc 2
p . (See
§9.) This is how slow our clocks would be if we were moving with a velocity ≈ 2GM/r.
Therefore, the first possibility that we should consider (according to Newton’s Rules)
is that this acceleration and velocity correspond to our actual state of motion, which is
evidently caused by the huge mass beneath our feet. (This motion, in turn, appears to be
the cause of spacetime curvature—about which more later.) Let us add one more fact:
When an accelerometer is dropped (as into a hole through a larger body) its reading
immediately goes to zero. By Newton’s Rules this would evidently mean that a falling
accelerometer is not accelerating.
Now let us relate these facts and deductions to our experiment. Since motion sensing
devices indicate that the large mass moves outward rather than that the test object moves
inward, we have no reason to expect the test object to pass the center. Corresponding to
this prediction is the blue curve in Figure 6, which is compared to the red cosine curve
predicted by standard theory.
Even though we arrive at our prediction by strictly abiding by a well-worn logical
strategy, this interpretation of the facts contradicts other assumptions most of us have
made about physical reality. Upon first encountering it, the description we have arrived
at is likely to evoke the image of some kind of expansion in three-dimensional space.
Such imagery quickly runs into conflict with experience, and on the basis of this conflict,
one may prematurely conclude that the SGM makes no sense. Among the contradicted
standard assumptions are that gravity is a force of attraction, that energy is strictly
conserved, and that the world possesses only three dimensions of space. But what if
the world possesses four dimensions of space? What if the motion indicated by our
instruments is due to a process whereby matter perpetually generates space and this
space can be shown to have four dimensions? If this were the case then it should be
possible to prove that the standard theories conflict with the facts of Nature, not the
SGM. The most cogent proof or disproof would consist in the result of the interior
16 R. BENISH
+R
SGM
Standard
–R
0 15 30 45 60 t
Fig. 6. – Standard (red) and SGM (blue) predictions for interior solution gravity experiment.
solution falling experiment. If the test object oscillates, standard theories would be
supported. Whereas if the test object does not oscillate, much of standard physics would
have been falsified.
I want nothing more than to find out the result of the experiment, but the means
to do so are presently beyond me. Meanwhile, to establish the plausibility of the SGM
prediction, it is crucial to address the dimensionality of space question without further
delay. Everything else hinges on it. Therefore, in what follows we will approach the
question from several different angles. We will briefly mention the history of “hyper-
space” and point out its role in some current academic investigations that also concern
gravity. By most accounts, the question is open and important. Unfortunately, models
born of standard physics that involve “extra” dimensions are nowhere near as conducive
as the SGM is to empirical testing. If gravity is related to the dimensionality of space,
then isn’t the most natural place to begin to observe gravitational phenomena at r = 0,
i.e., the center of a massive body? Unlike standard theorists, we will not presume to
know what happens here before we look. Task #1 should therefore be to find out whether
Nature abides by the blue curve or the red curve in Figure 6.
.
6 2. Basics of Hyper-Dimensionality and the Importance of Time in the SGM . –
Having no choice, for the moment, but to postpone task #1, let us note that attempts to
conceive of a spatial dimension beyond the familiar three have a long history. Although
some of these explorations in hyper-space explicitly involve gravity, [20-23] the relation-
ship is conceived in these cases quite differently from how it is conceived in the SGM. We
can begin to see what’s involved in any geometrical conception of four-dimensional space
by considering a schematic representation of each of the familiar dimensions considered
separately, as in Figure 7. It is easy to see how the first three spatial dimensions may be
built up by progressive perpendicular extensions of simpler fundamental geometric enti-
ties: point (0 dimensions), line (1 dimension), plane (2 dimensions), solid (3 dimensions).
As soon as the point moves, we have not only a one dimensional extension of it (line) we
also have time. I am aware of only one academic author who has seen fit to point this
out. The philosopher and inventor, Arthur M. Young wrote: “In terms of dimensions,
the line is extension and the birth of time.” [24]
It is important to recognize that time is a dimension unto itself and that, even though
it goes with the dimensions of space, it has a distinctly different character. It is measured
with clocks, not rulers. To facilitate keeping this distinction in mind, we will frequently
adopt the common notation that the one temporal dimension is added to the number of
spatial dimensions in parentheses. Thus the moving point which gives us a line is a (1+1)-
dimensional entity (one spatial + one temporal). Similarly, as soon as the line moves
Fig. 7. – Schematic of hierarchy of space dimensions.
perpendicular to itself we have a (2+1)-dimensional entity (two spatial + one temporal)

i.e., a plane. When the plane moves perpendicular to itself we have the common idea of
(3+1)-dimensional spacetime.
Also shown in Figure 7 is a possible view of the next step in the progression, i.e.,
an extension from the third to the fourth dimension. The idea is that, to geometrically
represent the fourth spatial dimension, the three-dimensional object must, to continue the
pattern, extend itself perpendicularly in every direction at the same time. It is important
to notice that this last step marks a significant departure from the previous three. Each
of the first three steps was accomplished by a linear extension. A single arrow suffices
to indicate the new direction at each step. After three dimensions have been traced
out, to keep going suddenly requires a volumetric extension. A whole family of arrows
is now needed. The right-most part of the figure is sometimes called a hypercube or
a tesseract; it is often found in discussions about hyper-dimensional space. [25-32] In
Rucker’s book, The Fourth Dimension, he states: “we can represent a hypercube by
drawing a small cube inside a large cube. The idea is that the small cube is ‘farther
away’ in the direction of the fourth dimension.” Referring to the same image, Thomas
Banchoff calls it a “head-on view” and a “central projection” of the hypercube.
Now recall our initial assumption that accelerometer readings indicate an actual state
of motion, and that to generate the “next” spatial dimension from a given spatial dimen-
sion requires time, time to extend all of the given dimension into the next one. Rucker’s
comment then implies that “further away in the fourth [spatial] dimension” corresponds
to a different moment in time. In particular, the smaller cube is further and earlier. It
is enlightening to consider another perspective. That is, to imagine ourselves as residing
at the center of the hypercube. This way we have no choice but to think of it as a
volumetric thing instead of as a flat picture. In this case, larger would mean further and
later.
.
6 3. Hyper-Dimensionality and the Importance of Matter in the SGM . – It is im-
portant to recognize that the hyper-dimensionsional explorations cited above take no
account of time or matter. It is presumed to be sufficiently logical to draw conclusions
about the dimensionality of space without reference to the other fundamental physical di-
mensions.(1 ) (This is a symptom of fragmentation, about which more will be said later.)
(1 ) Two distinct meanings of the word, dimension come into play here. In physics the term
refers to the physical units used to represent a quantity. For example, energy has the dimensions
M L2 /T 2 , where M , L, and T are generic mass, length, and time. In geometry, the term refers
to the degree of space, as in one-dimensional line, two-dimensional surface, etc.
18 R. BENISH
Space dimensions are not conceived as anything that necessarily involves or requires mo-
tion; nor as anything that depends on the cause of motion, i.e., matter. So we get a kind
of static, abstract picture of strange spatial behavior having no discernible connection to
experience. In the present conception, by contrast, matter must be mentioned because
without it we do not get a positive accelerometer reading. Without matter there is no
evidence of motion. And without motion all we get is a zero dimensional point. This
way of looking at it suggests that space is (4+1)-dimensional because matter is (4+1)-
dimensional. The three fundamental elements of physical reality, matter, space, and time
are interdependent. According to the SGM, their combined essence is gravity.
Moreover, their combined essence is also inertia. For centuries physicists have strug-
gled to explain the origin of inertia, inertia being that property of matter manifesting
itself as a resistance to acceleration. Note that this definition means a resistance to lin-
ear acceleration. According to the SGM resistance to linear acceleration is due to that
property of matter manifesting itself as omnidirectional acceleration; i.e., gravity. In the
simplest terms, the more space a body is generating in every direction, the more difficult
it is to move in any particular direction. When gravity is thought of as a force of attrac-
tion, inertia remains an enigma; when it is thought of as the process of the generation of
space we can begin to understand why it must be so. We’ll have more to say about the
dimensionality of space after reasoning out in more detail the SGM prediction for the
interior falling experiment.
.
6 4. Rotation Analogy. – According to the inverse square law the acceleration due to
gravity outside of a body varies as the inverse square of the distance. Let’s say the body
is a uniformly dense sphere. Then, moving outward from the center, since the amount
of matter increases as the cube of the distance, acceleration inside the body will increase
directly as the distance. Everybody agrees (and empirical evidence supports the idea)
that the acceleration calculated this way corresponds to what accelerometers would say
if they were placed at various locations inside the sphere.
Another situation in which acceleration varies directly as the distance is uniform ro-
tation. Due to certain similarities between gravitational fields and uniformly rotating
bodies, in the early development of GR Einstein proposed an analogy between them to
clarify the new idea (at the time) of expressing gravitation in terms of non-Euclidean
geometry. Because of Einstein’s preconception that matter is static, however, his con-
clusions based on this analogy differ from ours. We start with the same facts, but now
we are open to the possibility that matter is not static because accelerometer readings
tell us that matter moves.
All three of the circumstances described above are depicted in Figure 8. Clocks are
shown in the figure as well as accelerometers. Let’s suppose that the clock readings
also correspond to their relative rates. In all three cases everybody agrees about the
accelerometer readings; everybody also agrees about the clocks on the rotating body and
about clocks in the gravity exterior picture. For example, the slowest clock in both of
these circumstances is the one at the perimeter (surface) of each body. What is unknown
(and where predictions differ) is how clock rates vary inside the gravitating body. If we
were to guess, based on the analogy with rotation, and with the assumption that motion
sensing devices indicate an actual state of motion, then we would say that the rate of a
clock should be a maximum at the sphere’s center, just as it is a maximum at the center
of the rotating body. To appreciably slow down the rate of a clock we would need to
move it at high velocity. The axis of a rotating body and the center of a large gravitating
body are places where there is an obvious minimum of velocity so we expect clocks in
Rotation Gravity Gravity

Interior Exterior
Fig. 8. – Stationary motion. Left: A uniformly rotating body causes accelerometer readings to
vary directly as the distance (stationary inward acceleration); and causes clock rates to decrease
with distance from the axis (stationary tangential velocity). Middle: Inside a uniformly dense
sphere accelerometer readings also vary directly as the distance. By analogy with rotation, the
SGM predicts that clock rates also decrease with distance, having a minimum at the surface
and a maximum at the center. Right: Outside a gravitating body accelerometer readings vary
as the inverse square of the distance (stationary outward acceleration); and clock rates are a
minimum at the surface (stationary outward velocity).
both places to have maximum rates.

Here we have a conflict with GR. GR assumes that the sphere is a static thing. The
clock rates found outside the sphere are used, in effect, to deduce a geometrical equation
corresponding to this assumption of staticness. This assumption then further leads to
an equation for the interior of the body which predicts that the clock at the center
runs slower than all the others. Notice the disconnect from physical reality. If we ask,
what makes the central clock tick slow?, relativists have no answer except geometry. The
geometry of spacetime makes the clock tick slow. If it’s true, as Newton advised, that
Nature “affects not the pomp of superfluous causes,” then we should be suspicious.
In the case of rotation the cause of the slow clocks is motion (velocity) just as motion
is the cause of the accelerometer readings (acceleration). Even though all parts of a
rotating body beyond its axis are moving, it maintains essentially the same appearance
over time. Therefore it has often been referred to as a system which, though moving, is
stationary. [33-35] The acceleration is toward the axis and the velocity is perpendicular
to this. So we can say it is undergoing stationary inward acceleration and stationary
tangential velocity.
Upon contemplating these same facts, Einstein saw the analogy with a gravitating
body (which he presumed to be static) as meaning that it was justifiable to also regard
the rotating body as static. [36-38] Could Einstein have had it backwards? From an-
tiquity Einstein inherited the practice of giving priority to his visual impressions. So
he presumed that a gravitating body is static, which presumption entails disbelieving
20 R. BENISH
accelerometer readings. Feeling justified to disbelieve accelerometer readings in the case

of gravity, he maintained that he could do so also in the case of rotation. If Einstein
had it backwards, then the forwards interpretation of the facts is that our ancient visual
impressions are illusory, that accelerometers and clocks are telling us not that rotating
bodies are at rest, but that gravitating bodies move. Massive bodies are undergoing sta-
tionary motion: stationary outward acceleration and stationary outward velocity. In both
cases it is not geometry, but matter that is responsible; matter and space in motion.
Therefore we predict that the rate of the central clock is a maximum (as indicated in
Figure 8).
A common account of the zero accelerometer reading at r = 0 appeals to the inverse
square law. The accelerometer is at the center of spherical symmetry; gravity is the
same from all directions so the effect cancels. Since the effect on an accelerometer is
canceled by symmetry why should the effect not also be canceled for the rate of a clock?
The symmetry argument would reasonably apply here too, so the clock’s rate should be
unaffected, i.e., it should be a maximum, not a minimum. If this reasoning is incorrect
it can be proved to be so by experiment. Meanwhile, it is important to realize that GR
does not offer any physical explanation for its prediction that the central clock should
run slow.
As mentioned in §5, the way clock rates vary inside matter corresponds to how test ob-
jects fall inside matter. If it were true, in spite of our suspicion, that geometry “explains”
clock rates and makes things move, then a central clock with a local minimum rate (as
per GR) would mean that, in our experiment the test object would have a maximum
velocity at the center. It would oscillate, as predicted by Newton and Einstein.
Whereas, if our suspicion that geometry is a “superfluous cause” is well founded, if
the fact that motion causes slow clocks in the case of rotation means motion should
also be the cause in the case of gravity, then the rate of the central clock will be a local
maximum and the test object dropped from the surface will not pass the center. Nothing
ever forces it to move.(2 ) What moves are those points of space connected to the sphere
where motion sensing devices detect motion. These points move past the test object ever
more slowly for points closer to the center.
Thus Newton’s Rules of Reasoning have led us to the SGM prediction for the result of
the interior solution gravity experiment—whether we think of it in terms of clock rates
or the behavior of falling test objects. If somebody would only just do this experiment,
then we could tell whether physics is in need of an overhaul or if, in this case, Newton’s
Rules have led us astray.
.
6 5. Motion Through Space vs. Motion Of Space. – It is interesting to consider the
implications of using rotational motion in the course of building up our hierarchy of
dimensions. After the point moves and we have a (1+1)-dimensional line, the rest of the
progression might look something like Figure 9. On paper, this makes sense. But the
procedure is perhaps even more abstract than using only linear motion, because already
in going from a line to a circle, we have introduced acceleration. (Rotational motion
is accelerated motion.) Therefore we ask, if the “line” begins to rotate, what keeps it
(2 ) Note that something was forcing the object to move before it was released. It was being
forced to move upward by gravity. So when it is released, the falling object actually possesses an
initial outward velocity. Therefore, though the acceleration upon release will immediately drop
to zero, the outward velocity diminishes gradually and asymptotically approaches zero near the
center.
Fig. 9. – Hierarchy of dimensions generated by rotational motion.
intact? Why don’t its constituent points instead just fly off on tangents? The same
questions clearly apply also to the subsequent steps.
The implication is that to bring this operation closer to physical reality to prevent
disintegration, we need something to provide coherence. We need forces that are charac-
teristic of molecular matter. To produce a system that is capable of cohering with itself
we need a kind of acceleration that would counteract the otherwise disintegrating accel-
eration of rotation. Evidently this must be an acceleration operating from the inside out.
This certainly appears to be the case for gravitation (which gives accelerometer readings
that are always positive, never negative). If it’s true that gravity is the process whereby
matter generates space, then this must connect to the forces more directly responsible
for the microscopic coherence of matter; i.e., nuclear forces and electromagnetism. The
processes must ultimately be continuous with each other so as to maintain proportions.
We will find that the SGM’s implications for nuclear and atomic matter are more clearly
perceived in the context of cosmology, as the story unfolds in §10. For now, it will
suffice to think of accelerometer readings and clock rates as giving us a measure of the
macroscopically stationary, moving continuum, matter+space.
In every case where we find non-zero accelerometer readings, we find that matter is
responsible. Though superficially trivial, deeper exploration of this observation reveals
the more profound fact that we can identify three distinct kinds of acceleration:
1. Linear acceleration, as produced by a rocket. This kind of acceleration

consumes energy. It is intrinsically temporary, as it cannot be maintained
without burning some kind of fuel. (Entropic acceleration.)
2. Rotational acceleration, as discussed above. This kind of acceleration,

once initiated, does not consume energy. A rotating body left to itself in free
space will continue rotating forever (in principle). The resulting non-zero
accelerometer readings depend on the coherence of matter, without which a
rotating body would “fly apart.”
3. Gravitational acceleration. This kind of acceleration, evidently, is the

(anti-entropic) production of energy. It perpetually emanates from all massive
bodies. On large scales the omnidirectional acceleration very clearly provides
inside out coherence (planets and stars) where microscopic forces would not.
To these key characteristics we now point out an extremely important distinction as

between gravitation and the first two kinds of acceleration. The first two are clearly
conceivable as motion through space, through pre-existing, seemingly three-dimensional
space. Thanks to the microscopic coherence of matter, rotation is similar to gravitation in
22 R. BENISH
that it exhibits a range of velocities and accelerations that nevertheless leave the system
intact (stationary). Gravitation is distinct from the other two types of acceleration,
however, because it is not motion through pre-existing space; it is the motion of space.
It is the process whereby the “background” for linear motion and rotation is created by
the active extension of matter, from three to four spatial dimensions. Generation of
space is evidently synonymous with production of energy. Matter is the inexhaustible
source. Gravitational acceleration is the stationary motion of space. Without gravity no
other kind of acceleration would exist, for this is the essence of both space and matter.
There would be no space to accelerate through (or around) were it not generated in the
first place by gravity.
With regard to accelerometer readings, all three kinds of acceleration can contribute
to the net total. And it is often important to disentangle them. But in no case should a
non-zero reading be regarded as a state of rest. Nothing is static.
The distinction between motion through space and motion of space will be another
recurring theme in what follows.
.
6 6. Visualization by Analogy: Lower Dimensional Creatures. – Wrapping one’s mind
around the SGM is not likely to happen in a flash. Though simple in principle, it requires
lots of unlearning at a primal level. Having pointed out the distinction between motion
through space and motion of space, and the importance of time and matter in our new
conception of space dimensionality, another analogy should help to bring these things
into better focus.
As noted in §6.4, it was Einstein who first introduced the rotation analogy. Recon-
sidering this analogy while having a broader range of possibilities in mind, we come up
with a radically different interpretation—one that is equally consistent with the facts and
is in in better accord with Newton’s Rules of Reasoning. So too, the following analogy
has often been introduced by others, but with a broader field of view, we’ll find new
significance and logical coherence.
The idea is to imagine sentient beings who inhabit a (2+1)-dimensional world. Let’s
call them Twodees. Having no perception of any extension into the third spatial dimen-
sion, Twodees are flat and see only the linear edges of things in their world, which is
nothing but surface. We might sympathize with practical-minded Twodees who claim
that it is meaningless or impossible to conceive of a third spatial dimension because
all points of their world are perfectly locatable with a two-coordinate map. Twodees
with livelier imaginations may nevertheless come to conceive the existence of a higher
dimension by at least two different lines of thought. We’ll first imagine ourselves in the
Twodees shoes, as they grapple with the idea of a third dimension. And then we’ll extend
the problem up to the next higher dimension.
The first way that Twodees could conceive of another space dimension involves sup-
posing that their world can be intersected or penetrated by (3+1)-dimensional objects.
Suppose the penetrating object is a three-dimensional sphere. Then, as it goes through
their plane, the Twodees see a succession of linear cross-sections of changing size. If
the sphere travels all the way through their plane, they would see it appear suddenly
as a point, as a growing and then shrinking circle, then disappear. Since we who are
imagining this scenario are at least (3+1)-dimensional beings ourselves, this is easy for
us to conceive because we are accustomed to visualizing in three spatial dimensions.
The intersection of a volume and a plane causes no conceptual difficulties. If the sce-
nario described above were to happen, it may convince the practical-minded Twodee of
the existence of a third dimension. But perhaps not; he might dream up some other
explanation.
The second clue from which the Twodees could deduce the existence of a higher
dimension is especially applicable in the case that their world is not perfectly flat but
has some curvature. Suppose, for example, that their world is the surface of a sphere
whose curvature could easily have escaped their notice because it is very large. The
geometry on the sphere would locally appear to obey Euclidean laws of a plane. These
Euclidean laws would become increasingly violated as the Twodees surveyed ever larger
portions of the world. On a Euclidean plane the sum of the interior angles of a triangle
equal 180◦ . But the sums of angles of large spherical triangles exceed 180◦ , the more so
as the length of a side approaches the length of a circumference. Also, if a “straight line”
is pursued far enough, the surveyor will come back to her starting point. It is important
to note that, regardless of the sphericity or of whatever other curvature that we could
see from our perspective, this will not prevent the Twodees from drawing a perfectly
functional map of their world using only two coordinates; i.e., two dimensions—even as
the system thus drawn out does not conform to planar Euclidean geometry.
One school of thought among the Twoodees is that the non-Euclidean properties
of their world indicate that their world is intrinsically curved. This means that only
two coordinates are needed to make a complete map of it. Even though the geometry
of the map is not that of a Euclidean plane, this does not prove the existence of a
higher dimension that their world curves into. The way a coordinate grid lies on the
surface would account for the failure of Euclidean geometry, and this would compel
the creatures to acknowledge the curvature of their world. But a mathematician would
argue that postulating the existence of another dimension to accommodate the curvature
adds nothing to the Twodees actual knowledge of their surface. The alternative school
of thought, however, emphasizes the possible existence of one more spatial dimension
as a way of explaining the curvature of their world, even though it cannot be directly
visualized. The Twodees could perhaps make more sense of the curvature if it were
conceived as turning into a new spatial direction (dimension). This latter approach is
how we humans would typically view the sphere: as a (3+1)-dimensional object whose
surface is extrinsically curved.
The relationship between an intrinsically curved space of lower dimension and an ex-
trinsically curved space of higher dimension is often described in terms of an embedding
space. In this case the two-dimensional spherical surface is embedded in our space of
three spatial dimensions. It is enlightening to compare this imaginary scenario with the
approach to the spacetime curvature arising in GR, as expounded in a modern text-
book. Hobson, Efstathiou and Lasenby first clarify the distinction between intrinsic and
extrinsic much as we have:
It is important to make a distinction . . . between the extrinsic properties

of the surface, whch are dependent on how it is embedded into a higher-
dimensional space, and properties that are intrinsic to the surface itself. . . .
Properties of the geometry that are accessible to the [lower-dimensional crea-
ture] are called intrinsic, whereas those that depend on the viewpoint of a
higher-dimensional creature (who is able to see how the surface is shaped in
the three-dimensional space) are called extrinsic. [39]
Then, just like our practical-minded Twodees who are satisfied with the intrinsic descrip-
tion, Hobson, et al advise their readers to not trouble themselves with the possibility of
a higher-dimensional embedding space:
24 R. BENISH
We may take our discussion one step further, dispense with the [higher]-
dimensional space and embedding-related extrinsic geometry and consider
the surfaces in isolation. Intrinsic geometry is all that remains with any
meaning. For example, when we talk of the curvature of spacetime in general
relativity, we must resist any temptation to think of spacetime as embedded
in in any ‘higher’ space. Any such embedding, whether or not it is physically
realized, would be irrelevant to our discussion.
This advice would be perfectly reasonable if the exposition were only a math lesson. But
the stated purpose of the book is to provide a “cornerstone” for “our understanding of
many areas of astrophysics and cosmology.” So what happened to the spirit of questioning
and exploration? Furthermore, the final sentence would appear to be entirely unjustified.
If the embedding space were to be physically realized, it might be of the utmost relevance
to their discussion. This would be the case, for example, if the interior solution gravity
experiment proves that the test object does not oscillate in the hole.
Next, let’s consider the conclusion reached by an author who has contemplated a
similar scenario. In his book, Space and Time, Richard Swinburne has added to the
Twodee experience a variety of other arguments in support of his (tentative) conclusion
that there are only three space dimensions. He is thus found leaning toward our other
practical-minded thinkers who would neglect to consider the possibility of a higher-
dimensional embedding space. But at the end of his analysis Swinburne evidently feels
compelled to admit:
But, it may be objected, how do we know that we [humans] are not in the
same situation as the inhabitants of the purported two-dimensional world
described earlier? It seemed to them that only two lines could be mutually
perpendicular. They made this mistake because it was not physically possible
for the ‘objects’ with which they were familiar to move outside their surface.
Might not we be making a similar mistake in supposing that our space is
three-dimensional because it is not physically possible for the objects with
which we are familiar to move outside the three-dimensional hyperplane? It
must be admitted that we might be making just this mistake. [40]
Swinburne makes no appeal to gravity or time or motion. So even though he allows that
a fourth spatial dimension could exist, in his static world, I suppose, it would remain
forever hidden. Similarly, though Hobson, et al explicitly mention gravity, they too
presume an essentially static world. If this presumption were true, then their claim of
irrelevance for a higher-dimensional embedding space would seem to be correct.
.
6 7. SGM Rest-Frame: The Family of Maximal Geodesics. – From the SGM point
of view these assumptions of staticness and temporal independence are what preclude
conceiving of how it is “physically possible for the objects with which we are familiar to
move outside the three-dimensional hyperplane.” Newly created space moves (is gener-
ated) radially outward from matter. This is how the fourth space dimension is extended
with respect to the other three. Because the extension involves motion, it involves time.
Because the magnitude of the motion varies with distance, the proper embedding space
must not only move, it must also encompass a range of motions all at the same time, like
an extra-dimensional vector field. Simple as the idea may be that accelerometers and
clocks indicate an actual state of motion, and simple as the idea may be that the fourth
dimension of space is generated via gravity by matter, it is a challenge to visualize—but
not entirely impossible! Being able to see the fourth spatial dimension would mean being
able to see a succession of slices of the hyper-dimensional vector field all at the same
time. Being immersed in this field ourselves, we only see one slice at a time, so things
appear only (3+1)-dimensional.
By the standard conception, a succession of simultaneous time slices for a given stretch
of space is what spacetime diagrams are suposed to depict. But the motions represented
in them are trajectories of objects (or light) with respect to an arbitrarily extendible
background space that is presumed to be static. The stretch of space represented by the
spatial axis is regarded as a rest frame, such as one associated with a given massive body.
What makes the present conception of motion challenging is that the rest frame in our
diagram should not correspond to any large massive body because motion sensing devices
tell us that massive bodies perpetually move with a range of velocities and accelerations.
With respect to this motion, the SGM “rest frame” is comprised of a family of
geodesics that, in effect, trace out the negative of the motion of space and matter. I
call these maximal geodesics, which, specifically, are the geodesics corresponding to ob-
jects falling radially from infinity with respect to a given mass. Their name derives from
the fact that (if we assume them to be associated with physical test objects) they are the
unique family of geodesics that have never been forced to move by the central gravitating
body, or anything else. An infinite supply of them covers the whole domain 0 < r < ∞;
and their initial condition was “rest at—or just this side of—infinity.” So if accelerome-
ters are imagined as riding along with them, their readings are always zero. And if clocks
are also along for the ride, since they too have never been subject to an acceleration,
their rates are a maximum—all of them. This family includes, in the limit, a clock at the
center of the central mass, which ticks at the same maximum rate. Another key property
of maximal geodesics is that the speed of light is isotropic and equal to c with respect to
them.
The flip side of this family is therefore to be conceived as all those points in space that
are firmly attached to the central mass, as a system of infinitely tall rigid towers planted
on the surface, and as the walls of a tunnel through the body. This latter system—which
is conventionally conceived as the rest frame—is nowhere “at rest” except at the center
and at infinity. This conception arises from what motion-sensing devices are telling us.
All we are doing is taking them seriously. With respect to this absolutely moving system
the speed p of light is slower upward and faster downward. For weak fields the velocity is
c↑↓ ≈ c ∓ 2GM/r. This is consistent with the rotation analogy and empirical evidence
according to which, the speed of light with respect to a rotating body depends on whether
it is propagated with or against the direction of rotation (Sagnac effect). It is not too
hard to visualize how these effects pertain to a rotating body, with respect to the flat
rest frame of its axis. That’s because the rotating body is moving through a passive
background space that we conceive as already existing. In our gravitational counterpart,
the corresponding rest frame is the whole family of maximal geodesics. They appear to
move relatively to one another because the spacetime curvature they reveal is caused by
an inhomogeneous extension into another spatial dimension. The background space is
not passive; it manifests variable motion, which makes it more difficult to visualize.
It should be mentioned that the results of experiments involving light propagation
and clock rates in the gravitational field of the Earth and Sun support specific predictions
borne of this conception. (See Light and Clock Behavior in the Space Generation Model
[41]) That is, tests that have been done so far are equivocal with respect to GR and the
SGM. Of course the SGM picture gets more complicated when more than one large body
is involved. But for a single body I think one may at least begin to visualize it.
26 R. BENISH
The SGM is an extreme departure from all preceding models because this is the first
time in history that we’ve begun to seriously conceive all matter and space as being
in a state of perpetual outward motion. There is no static rest frame associated with
any large body of matter. According to GR, the mass of a falling object alters the
space through which it travels. Some proponents of GR see this as a profound and
radical departure from the prior Newtonian view. Perhaps it is. But compared to the
SGM, the difference between Newtonian gravity and GR is subtle and in most cases
inconsequential. In the limit as the mass of a falling object goes to zero (making it a
test object), gravitational motion is still just motion through essentially static background
space—however curved the space(time) may be. This is how most problems in gravitation
are treated. Neglecting subtleties then, it is fair to say that in GR large bodies of
matter and their surrounding space are static; geodesics are the paths of test objects
traveling through this space. Whereas the SGM says that large bodies of matter and
their surrounding space (as mapped out by tall rigid towers attached to the surface)
are in a state of absolute stationary motion. The evidence for this is as concrete as it
gets. We feel it everyday, every minute (positive accelerometer readings). Atomic clocks
have measured its less apparent manifestation (gravitational time dilation). Based on this
evidence, we deduce that gravitational motion is the motion of space. Maximal geodesics
from infinity constitute the “rest frame” relative to which the source mass moves. In §9
we will learn more about how this distinction between GR and the SGM nevertheless also
involves some close similarities. We’ll take a few steps toward developing a mathematical
expression of the SGM which shows that the resulting geometry, though resembling GR
in a few key respects, is more firmly rooted in physical reality.
7. – The Quest for Quantum Gravity
As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract.
— George Orwell [42]
Let’s now consider whether current researches into quantum gravity provide any in-
sight into the nature of gravity. In the last few decades the search for a way to combine
GR with quantum theory has occupied the minds of thousands of physicists. The most
popular current theories and models are string theory, loop quantum gravity and extra-
dimensional braneworld models. Common to all of these schemes is the need for gravitons,
which are the hypothetical (virtual) particles that are presumed to “communicate” the
force of gravity.
This idea of gravitons must be questioned before we go any further. Just how is it
that a shower of particles (virtual or otherwise) can “communicate” the alleged attraction
between larger collections of particles? More simply, how does a single graviton cause two
bodies of matter to move toward each other? On the rare occasions when this question
is clearly stated in the literature, the answers are, in my opinion, never plausible. Nor
are the answers consistent with one another. Sometimes we read that gravitons are
just an accounting device, that it is meaningless or misleading to think of one single
graviton and what it does. What’s important, by this view, is the field of gravitons,
the properties of this field and its net effect. The properties of this field include that
it is “virtual”; gravitons are virtual particles, so they need not obey the rules that we
insist must be obeyed by real particles. Initiates of quantum field theory know better
than to think any intuitive picture of gravitons should be conceived. But we also find
descriptions from well-respected physicists that do concern one-graviton “interactions”
at a time, descriptions that do use intuitive imagery. To clarify what’s involved, consider
the following example written by a physicist (from CalTech) R. J. Britten, who perceives
a problem with the concept of gravitons:
The primary unexplained assumption in this model is that after emission from
one mass a graviton . . . is absorbed by a second mass [and] the momentum
transfer is in the correct direction to cause an attractive force on the absorbing
mass towards the emitting mass. The underlying mechanism is not easy to
visualize, but the problem arises for any model that includes gravitons.” [43]
It is important to fully grasp the “visualization” problem expressed by Britten. We

can do this with reference to a diagram from Stephen Hawking’s popular book, A Brief
History of Time. [44] (See Figure 10.) Time is the vertical axis and the more or less
vertical lines (or tubes) represent the relative positions of two massive particles (in the
Earth and Sun). The wiggly horizontal line and horizontal section of tube represent the
gravity “communicator.” Upon absorbing the graviton emitted by the Sun, the Earth
moves toward the Sun. Why? I should say that it is actually rather easy to “visualize.”
With a minimum of effort one could draw an animated cartoon of the process and see
it unfold in time. It’s possible to draw the things moving any way we please. So the
problem really has nothing to do with visualizability. The problem is that the idea
doesn’t really make any sense. If it made sense, then it should be possible to conceive of
a physically reasonable course of action (series of steps) that the graviton must undergo
to fulfill its purpose. Just what does the graviton do to make the absorbing mass move
toward the emitting mass? The hitch is the words, physically reasonable, because the
initial momentum of the graviton is in the opposite direction of the final momentum,
the momentum supposedly produced by the exchange.
According to this picture (Hawking) and the above description (Britten), it would be
like expecting the straight-on collision between a billiard ball hit by the cue ball to cause
Graviton Graviton
Particle in Particle in Particle in Particle in

the Earth the Sun TIME the Earth the Sun
Fig. 10. – Pictures of the gravitational force between the Sun and Earth according to Stephen
Hawking. A graviton emitted by a particle in the Sun is absorbed by a particle in the Earth
so as to cause an attractive force between them. Left: Exchange of a graviton between point
particles. Right: Exchange of a graviton based on the idea that particles should be represented
as strings. Hawking doesn’t explain what the graviton does to make this happen.
28 R. BENISH
the hit ball to come back toward you instead of going in the original direction of the cue
ball. The difference is one of scale and that the graviton is supposed to be a very special
kind of cue ball: it has spin 2 and it’s virtual. Which means it has the properties needed
to cause an attraction. Should we be amazed or suspicious? I’ll go with suspicious. An
object that has energy and momentum (which gravitons are supposed to have) cannot
impart momentum to an object that absorbs its impact (“interaction”) in the opposite
direction of the original momentum.
Harvard physics professor Lisa Randall has suggested that attraction by exchange of
virtual particles is like a game of catch between a pair of novice Frisbee players. She
doesn’t elaborate, but the implication is that, since the masses are likened to the novices,
their throws don’t quite make it to their intended recipients. Seeing this, the intended
recipients have to move in closer to retrieve the Frisbee and keep the game going. [45]
There is no hint of humor in Randall’s “explanation.” There is no attempt to give a better
one, and no hint of an admission that we actually do not have a sensible explanation
for attraction. Rather, she keeps the discussion extremely brief and moves on. Most
physicists just evade the question because, after all, they have equations corresponding to
the visual idea of attraction. Based on these equations they replace billiard ball imagery
and Frisbee analogies with more sophisticated expressions as, “Energy and momentum
are what the graviton listens to . . . The stress-energy tensor T µν (x) is what the graviton
field couples to.” [46] Does this make the conception of gravitons any more logical?
An ancient tradition inherited by physicists is the attempt to explain the world in
terms of things, i.e., noun-like physical agents and actors. The job of fundamental theo-
retical physicists is seen as that of discovering the basic “building blocks” of the world.
From our visual impression of a static Earth and falling objects that are imagined as
accelerating toward it, they get the idea of attraction. Attraction must, according to this
way of thinking, be explainable in terms of thing-like agents. A very successful theory of
atoms, quantum theory, makes good use of thing-like imagery. Though it also contains
many implications that this imagery is of limited value, tradition dictates that the things
should prevail, as they do. Therefore, based on the mathematics of quantum theory, at
whose foundation there is no gravity, physicists seek to incorporate gravity using similar
imagery and mathematics. It is well known that after many years of trying, they haven’t
succeeded. I would suggest that this is because their imagery is all wrong, because grav-
ity is not a force of attraction. Ultimately, there are no chunk-like building blocks and
there are no gravitons.
Even though the idea of gravity via gravitons is highly questionable, rather than ignore
it, we will briefly point out a few characteristics of the theories mentioned above for three
reasons: 1) It is simply prudent to mention an awareness of the “competition”—especially
when it involves such a huge investment of mental and physical resources. 2) Certain
features of the competing models can be meaningfully related to the SGM, especially
the need for more than three space dimensions (in the case of string theory and the
braneworld models). And 3) We need to discuss the significance of the most isolated
point on our charts (on the lower left portion of the Schwarzschild line).
Let’s address (3) first. All quantum gravity theories regard the Planck scale as being
of great relevance. (See, for example, Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale. [47])
Lisa Randall has written that “The Planck scale energy [which is the Planck mass times
c2 ] . . . is very relevant to any theory of gravity.” [48] From the SGM point of view this
is yet another thing that makes no sense. Our suspicions should be aroused simply
by looking at the charts. Due to its extremely small size, the Planck mass resides many
orders of magnitude away from anything else known in the physical world. Looking at the
trails of points corresponding to real physical objects, one is hard-pressed to imagine any
sensible, much less elegant, way of connecting them to the Planck mass. The reasonable
guess, therefore, is that nothing is over there—at least nothing of any physical relevance.
Would it make sense to study humanity by imagining the behavior of a speck of dust
in Andromeda galaxy. No. Humans are best studied by observing their activities in the
environment in which they live. Planck mass? It is evidently absent from the physical
world. Our charts are evidence of its absence—notwithstanding that the point can be
drawn at its imagined location.
One could be more sympathetic with these researches beyond the concrete world if one
could justify the assumption that physicists already know all the relevant gravitational
facts about physical objects that have actually been shown to exist. An often repeated
myth is that GR has been well tested throughout the solar system. For example, Stephen
Hawking has asserted, “We already know the laws that govern the behavior of matter
under all but the most extreme conditions.” [49] It bears repeating that we actually do
not know which law “governs” the behavior of matter in the most mundane circumstance:
Allowing a test object to radially fall into a larger body without collision. Rather than
completing the investigation of known objects by probing all the way to their centers (by
performing the interior solution gravity experiment) physicists often seem too eager to
romp in mathematical abstraction.
Before we consider a few details of quantum gravity, a preamble is in order. These
theories are abstract in the extreme. It would take way too much time and ink to put
the ideas they entail in anything resembling a comprehensive nutshell. For the sake of
brevity, my descriptions will fall short of crystal clarity. Nevertheless I’ve tried to make
them accurate. I think any shortcomings in my descriptions reflect less on the teller of
the story than on the story itself. I don’t think it’s possible to make these stories sound
rational. Please consult the original sources to judge for yourself. My purpose here is
primarily to convey a bit of the flavor of this avant garde research in physics.
Both string theory and braneworld models require extra dimensions of space and
involve the idea that branes are like lower-dimensional slices of the higher-dimensional
universe known as the bulk. According to some variations of these ideas, the properties of
the branes and bulk help to explain one of the key properties of gravity, i.e., its relative
weakness compared to the other forces. Typically, matter and non-gravitational forces
are envisaged as residing on a brane, while gravitation (embodied by gravitons) resides
primarily in the bulk. Branes can have various numbers of spatial dimensions. Bulks can
also have various dimensions and sizes (but always greater than the branes they contain).
One of the acknowledged shortcomings of these theories is that there are so many possible
variations and little or no evidence for deciding on the correct one. The role of the extra
dimensions is specifically to accommodate gravity. But the idea is much different from
the fourth spatial dimension in the SGM. The dimensions do not exhibit any systematic
mass-dependent motion; nor does anything about them change with time. As was the
case for the geometrically motivated speculations about higher-dimensional space, the
extra dimensions here too play an essentially passive role. Gravitons are allowed in the
extra dimensions, but we humans and ordinary (3+1)-dimensional things are not.
One of the most important properties of the extra dimensions is that they are very
well “hidden” from the world of our experience. In string theory this is done by supposing
the extra dimensions are rolled up or “compactified” to a very small size—as small as
the Planck scale. In the braneworld models the dimensions could be larger, but they are
either still so small as to remain hidden or their invisibility is achieved by warpage. In
one scenario gravitons densely populate the “gravitybrane” and become appropriately
30 R. BENISH
sparse due to the warpage in the bulk between the gravitybrane and where we reside,
in the “weakbrane.” In another scenario there is only one brane, where gravitons are as
populous as we “observe.” In this case the bulk is severely warped immediately adjacent
to the brane. The warpage prevents all but a few gravitons from escaping. Thus gravity is
not weakened by the bulk; rather gravity is observed to be weak because it is weak. Note
that the warpage involved here is not the usual spacetime warpage manifest as the effects
of gravity in the real world. It is an abstract warpage invoked within a mathematical
theory whose purpose is to explain real world warpage in terms of gravitons (multi-layered
abstraction).
Now let’s briefly consider a few features of loop quantum gravity (LQG). This theory
does not appeal to extra dimensions. Though its fundamental entities (loops) somewhat
resemble the fundamental entities of string theory, they actually play a different role.
The loops are imagined as components of a geometric structure called a spin network.
The idea (which proponents of LQG purport as being an advantage over string theory)
is that the spin networks are quantized spacetime. Thus, instead of possessing elements
that move through space, the elements of LQG are space. This is said to be more in
accord with the underpinnings of GR. The proponents of string theory have often voiced
disagreement with these and other purported advantages of LQG over string theory. The
field is often contentious both ways.
This whole quantum gravity enterprise sprang from the desire to unify or consoli-
date existing theories into fewer overarching theories—the grandest goal being one all-
encompassing theory of everything. It is no small irony that, in this quest for “unification”
physicists keep chopping the world into tinier bits and remove themselves ever further
from the world of experience. We conclude this section by considering comments about
this circumstance by Nobel laureate, Steven Weinberg. In the early days of string the-
ory, 1987, when the theory had just begun to show signs of great potential, Weinberg
expressed his optimism about the newly opened path by putting the prevailing older view
in a negative light:
Einstein’s general theory of relativity still left open the question: Well why
is there any gravity at all? Why does space curve? Why isn’t space just
perfectly flat and there is no such thing as gravity? Who asked for that? [50]
This is how Weinberg sets up his pitch to extoll the main virtue of string theory, i.e., the
explicit manifestation of certain mathematical properties that had been thought to be
those of gravity. Weinberg’s remark succinctly epitomizes a key aspect of the worldview
held prior to the advent of string theory with regard to the “four fundamental forces”
of Nature. Gravity is just one of these forces; it is conceived as being excludable from
the physical world. If gravity were “turned off” (which means assuming a total absence
of gravitons) it is presumed that the other forces would still exist. According to this
fragmented view of Nature, even without gravity the universe would still have the nuclear
force, electromagnetism, space, time, and various particles endowed with inertia.
At this time Weinberg was putting in a plug for string theory because it appeared
to require the existence of gravity. It requires the existence of “spin 2 particles”—
gravitons—that mediate the force. But it also invokes the existence of not just one, but
six invisible extra space dimensions; it requires the doubling of the dozens or hundreds
of particle species so far discovered (the doubling is called supersymmetry [51]); and it
proposes a new kind of Planck-sized thing (string) for explaining physical phenomena.
Such a “unification” thus comes only at the expense of further proliferation of things
and further abstraction. We’d get yet another layer of hypothetical “building blocks.”
As it has turned out so far, 23 years after the above remark was written, after lengthy,
concerted efforts by thousands of expert mathematicians, string theory remains discon-
nected from the physical world. In 2009 Weinberg reassessed this state of affairs as
“disappointing . . . it’s a pity that superstring [theory] hasn’t developed better.” [52] The
irony has been sadly compounded.
What is the world made of ? This is the question that physicists keep asking over and
over again. Loops, strings, branes, black holes, Planck masses, gravitons? They are stuck
because too many of their cherished things make too little sense. Bergmann’s comment
from 1979 echoes: “The whole situation looks like one in which a completely new idea is
required.” Suppose we replace the standard question with this one: What is the world
doing? The answer may be surprisingly close at hand. What do accelerometers say?
They say the world moves. (Now there’s a new idea!) If we simply allow that motion-
sensing devices, e.g., at Earth’s surface, say they are moving because they are moving,
and take that answer where it leads, we get a picture of the physical world that disrupts
our preconceptions of staticness. This may be just the kick we need to break the cycle
of futile and fruitless repetition.
8. – The Inverse Square Law and the Size of the World’s Space Dimensions
Compared to the prevailing world views, this new line of inquiry leads to a rather more
coherent, continuous and lively picture. The standard picture is static: the dimensions of
space are static; bodies of matter are static; the gravitational field that they generate is
static. From these static things physicists try to derive and explain motion. Should we be
surprised that things aren’t working? Assuming that accelerometers aren’t kidding when
they say everything is always moving, we inescapably come to conceive that creation of
space is the perpetual activity of matter. The process clearly unfolds in time and is not
possible without extending into a spatial dimension beyond the third.
One of the key differences between the standard conception of extra-dimensional space
and the SGM conception concerns the size of a given dimension. The standard idea is
that the first three dimensions are of infinite size, as we experience no restriction in any
of the three common directions. The size of the fourth and higher dimensions, however,
are supposed to be either unobservably small or hidden some other way so as to not
conflict with any observations that might otherwise reveal their existence. This is why
most theories say the extra dimensions are compactified to a very tiny size. And it is
why, in the braneworld scenario with a fourth spatial dimension of infinite size, the extra
dimension is very tightly warped. This is to keep the graviton flux that is presumed to
exist in our seemingly (3+1)-dimensional world consistent with Newton’s inverse square
law. The idea is that, as the flux lines of the force of gravity emanate from matter
and spread out in space, the inverse square law will only be satisfied if the lines are
confined to the first three spatial dimensions. If the flux lines “spill over” into another
dimension, then the force will fall off more rapidly than as 1/r2 . For example, if a fourth
space dimension were of infinite size, then, by this reasoning, gravity would fall off as the
inverse cube of the distance (∝ 1/r3 ).
The compactification idea was invented (by Klein [53]) to allow the possibility of
extra dimensions without disrupting the inverse square law. Curiously, provided that the
compactification is small enough, the scheme thus disallows empirical detection. Among
gravitational physicists it was therefore a cause for some excitement a few years ago when
some braneworld scenarios offered a chance of empirical detection by allowing relatively
32 R. BENISH
large extra dimensions. The predicted size was of the order of 1 mm. So the experimental
challenge was to find a more rapid (than ∝ 1/r2 ) weakening of the gravitational field
within such distances. The effect was not found (down to ≈ 0.1 mm). The inverse square
law continues to ring true.
Figure 11 shows the standard idea of compactification. The fourth dimension of space
is supposed to be a tiny circle attached to every point of ordinary three-dimensional
space. Superstring theory needs so many dimensions that, to fit them all in the world,
they must be scrunched into tiny complicated mathematical objects, as in Figure 11C.
Isn’t it strange how “higher” dimensions are supposed to be so much smaller than the
“lower” three space dimensions?
According to the SGM the size of each of the four dimensions of space is infinite.
Considering our picture of the hierarchy of dimensions (Figure 7, p. 17), imposing a
small finite size would mean, after the (3+1)-dimensional cube is traced out, the next
step would suddenly involve only an extremely tiny (basically unobservable) and localized
extension from the third to the fourth space dimension. (We wouldn’t get a blossoming
tesseract.) Going backwards one step, it would mean that a whole cubical representation
of three-dimensional space would never happen. Instead, the world would be essentially
flat, except for extremely tiny localized extensions into the third spatial dimension.
From the SGM point of view, this way of conceiving the fourth spatial dimension seems
contrived and unnatural. After the cube has been traced out, the next step should not be
merely another linear extension, characterized by a single compactified (circular) arrow.
Fig. 11. – Compactified dimensions, as explained by Brian Greene. A) “Kaluza-Klein proposal

is that on very small scales, space has an extra circular dimension tacked on to each familiar
point.” B) “Close-up of a universe with the three usual dimensions, represented by the grid,
and (left) two curled-up dimensions, in the form of hollow spheres, and (right) three curled-up
dimensions in the form of solid balls.” C) “(Left) One example of a Calabi-Yau shape. (Right)
A highly magnified portion of space with additional dimensions in the form of a tiny Calabi-Yau
shape.” [54] Images taken from The Fabric of the Cosmos, without permission.
Surely it is more sensible to conceive it as a volumetric extension, characterized by a

family of “expandified” (omnidirectional) arrows. The latter conception thus renders the
test for extra dimensions by seeking deviations from the inverse square law as misguided.
For now the gravitational flux lines do not represent the way an attractive force is spread
out over pre-existing space. It is not the distribution pattern of a swarm of gravitons in
a passive background arena. It is the very creation of space itself.
Whenever anything propagates outward from a point (or spherically symmetrical)
source at a constant rate, if there are three dimensions of space, the resulting distribution
of that thing (whatever it is) will obey an inverse square law. The common conception
is that the “thing” being distributed is propagated into a static background space that
already exists. It is a distribution into or a motion through pre-existing space. Whereas,
the SGM idea is that space itself is being generated (propagated). The generated space
did not pre-exist so the effect does not get “diluted.” The flux lines do not represent
a force of attraction weakening with distance. They represent a “flow” of space itself,
spreading outward according to the inverse square law because the rate of volume being
created is constant at any distance. It depends only on the mass and the value of
Newton’s constant; it is equal to 4πGM . This is the product of the linear acceleration
as measured by an accelerometer g = GM/r2 times the surface of the sphere at that
distance, 4πr2 .
Because of this universal volumetric spreading pattern, near a large body of matter
we see a wide range of linear accelerations. Clearly it makes no sense to conceive of
these accelerations as the expansion of matter in (3+1)-dimensional space—as accelerated
motion through space. By this impossible view, nothing would cohere; everything would
fly apart. If accelerometers indicate their actual state of motion, then a fourth spatial
dimension is absolutely necessary. The range of accelerations is analogous to those found
on a rotating body in the sense that the pattern of motion is stationary. But it differs
from rotation in that it is not stationary motion through space, but rather the stationary
motion of space. Locally, the pattern is very inhomogeneous. The fourth dimension of
space is not hidden; it is not invisible. The difficulty in visualizing it is because of our
heritage of conceiving of the Earth and of material bodies as static, and because of the
fact that we are immersed in it and see only one slice at a time.
The fourth spatial dimension is not a static, linear extension of seemingly static
(3+1)-dimensional space. It is not independent of matter and time. The fourth spatial
dimension, the (4+1)-dimensional spacetime continuum, is a moving volumetric exten-
sion of (3+1)-dimensional spacetime; it unfolds in time according to the inverse square
law because of the inhomogeneous distribution of matter. It is a property of material
bodies such as ourselves. We are not insulated from the fourth spatial dimension by
compactification or some other abstract artifice. We are it. We are a continuous part of
its infinite extension.
9. – Interior Solution Gravity Experiment and Strong Field Gravity: SGM

Predictions Derived from Special Relativity, the Equivalence Principle and
the Inverse Square Law
Superficially, the rate of a clock at the center of a large body may seem unrelated to
how an object would “fall” with respect to this clock, as in a hole drilled through the
center of the body. But the rotation analogy gives us reason to suspect that these things
are indeed related. There is a definite connection according to both GR and the SGM.
Where the models differ is in their respective predictions for what the clock rates would
34 R. BENISH
be, and why. In either case, this is agreed to correspond to how a test object would
fall inside the body. It is therefore worthwhile to show how the SGM prediction for the
rate of the central clock can be derived from special relativity and Einstein’s equivalence
principle. When this result is combined with the inverse square law, the model yields
firm predictions concerning the absence of gravitational horizons and black holes. (See
Maximum Force paper. [55]) We end up with equations according to which, even under
conditions of extreme mass and density, all quantities remain finite.
.
9 1. Speed Limit Due to Constant Acceleration Implies Speed Limit Due to Increasing
the Mass of a Gravitating Body. – Special relativity (SR) may be simply characterized
as a tool for expressing that the speed of light is a physical maximum. Energy, as light,
travels at the maximum speed, but energy in the form of matter must always move
slower. A well-known relativistic equation that brings this out clearly is
at
(1) v=p .
1 + a2 t2 /c2
This represents the speed acquired over coordinate time, t, by a body whose proper
acceleration, a, is constant. Imagine a rocket with a huge fuel supply. Eq. (1) means
that an onboard accelerometer always gives the same positive value, even as its speed
approaches, but never reaches, c. This is a very simple and very specialized example.
But the essential principle expressed by Eq. (1) is generally true. It has been verified
by experiments at particle accelerator laboratories all over the world. Therefore, we
suppose that it also applies to motions involving gravity. This means we should expect
the stationary outward velocity of gravitating bodies to always remain smaller than c.
Eq. (1) facilitates
p expressing this by a simple substitution. When the quantity, at is
replaced by 2GM/r, we get
q
2GM s
r 2GM
(2) VS = q = .
1+ 2GM r + 2GM
c2
rc2
The resulting equation gains validity by appealing to Einstein’s equivalence principle

(EP). Before going into the EP, however, note that we might expect something like
this simply by analogy with the Newtonian version of Eq. (1). In pre-relativity physics
the denominator would simply equal unity. The velocity would be directly proportional
to time, without limit. Just as it makes sense (because of empirical evidence) to take
account of the speed of light as a limit in this kinematic circumstance, it makes sense
to expectpa similar limit when gravity is involved. Thus, it is reasonable to expect both
at and 2GM/r to be low speed and weak gravity approximations that are valid in
the Newtonian limit but are ultimately in need of relativistic correction. Therefore, we
expect these corrections to be of the same mathematical form.
.
9 2. Equivalence of Gravitation and Acceleration According to Einstein. – Coming
back to the EP, then, note that this principle served as one of the conceptual founda-
tions of GR. Einstein introduced the principle by comparing two different “systems of
coordinates.” The first he calls the stationary system K, “in a homogeneous gravita-
tional field (acceleration of gravity γ).” The second he calls “K 0 moving with uniform
acceleration (γ).” The first system is thus essentially the same as a state of “rest” at
the surface of a large gravitating body. And the second system is just like our rocket
accelerating with acceleration a. One of Einstein’s motivations is to explain why bodies
of different sizes and bodies made of different substances all fall with the same apparent
acceleration. So he concludes:
We arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law of experience, if we

assume that the systems K and K 0 are physically exactly equivalent, that is,
if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space
free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated.
This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to
speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference. [56]
A popular way of expressing the EP is as follows: the effects of gravity at the surface
of a large gravitating body are exactly the same as the effects of uniform acceleration,
as though the ground were accelerating upward. In one popular account of GR, L. C.
Epstein thus explained that, “Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the
floor comes up!” [57] We’ll have occasion to cite other authors who have described our
experience in similar terms (§13).
.
9 3. Equivalence Principle Implies Gravitational Time Dilation. – As well as apply-
ing this principle in situations involving linear acceleration, as by a rocket, Einstein
also applied it to situations involving angular acceleration, as uniform rotation. [36] The
advantage of rotation over the accelerating rocket owes to the stationary character of ro-
tation, and that its effects go to zero at the axis. These features more straightforwardly
lead to non-Euclidean geometry, and then gravitation.
To see how Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) tie into this, let’s first consider the equation from SR
expressing how the rate of a clock varies due to velocity:
r
v2
(3) f = f0 1− ,
c2
where f0 is the frequency of a clock at rest. In the case of rotation, v is replaced by the
product of the radial distance r, and the constant angular velocity ω, so that we get a
speed rω, that depends on the distance:
r
r2 ω2
(4) f = f0 1− .
c2
Since we have a body undergoing stationary motion such that clocks at different distances
from the axis tick at different rates, we have established a kind of temporal curvature
on the rotating body. To deduce a corresponding spatial curvature, note that, according
to SR the form of Eqs. (3) and (4) applies also to lengths. The significance of this will
be seen most clearly by supposing the rotating body to be a circular disk, rotating in its
plane about the center. An observer on the disk would then find that a measuring rod
held parallel with the direction of motion is shortened by
36 R. BENISH
r
r2 ω2
(5) l = l0 1− .
c2
The best way to see the significance of this is to consider the result the rotating observer
would get if he used a collection of such rods to measure the circumference of a circle along
the direction of rotation. The result would come out longer than 2πr, i.e., longer than
what would be measured by an observer at rest. Using shorter rods, the rotating observer
needs more of them to cover the circumference. p The ratio of these lengths is given by
the inverse of the radical factor in Eq. (5); i.e., 1/ 1 − r2 ω 2 /c2 . It is important to note
that in both cases, for spatial measurements and temporal measurements, the change is
due to velocity (not acceleration) and the magnitude of the effect is the same for both
space and time. The fact that measured lengths and times both vary with position (and
with orientation, in the case of lengths) indicates that the system could be appropriately
described by non-Euclidean geometry. The fact that the circular circumference measured
by our observer comes out greater than 2πr clearly suggests that Euclidean geometry
fails. Such was the reasoning used by Einstein to infer warped spacetime geometry.
Now let us momentarily return to the EP accelerating rocket scenario to see how the
SR clock slowing effect applies to the rate of an onboard clock. The v in Eq. (3) should
evidently be replaced by the right side of Eq. (1). Then we get
r s
v2 a2 t2 1
(6) f = f0 1 − 2 = f0 1− = f0 p ,
c c2 (1 + a2 t2 /c2 ) 1 + a2 t2 /c2
This insures that, no matter how long the rocket maintains its acceleration, the rate of an
onboard clock will never become zero (because the velocity never reaches c). Indirectly
this result applies also to rotation. In this case the product rω would be prevented
from reaching c because for it to increase, something would still have to accelerate the
extremity (e.g., the rim of the disk) to higher linear velocities. And the linear acceleration
involved would be subject to a similar light speed limit as that of Eq. (1).
Now let’s adopt the same strategy for velocity due to gravity, as given by Eq. (2). We
begin by squaring it:
2GM 2GM
(7) VS2 = 2GM
= .
r(1 + rc2 ) (r + 2GM
c2 )
Substituting this for v 2 in Eq. (3) to get the clock rate, we find
s
2GM 1
(8) f = f0 1− = f0 p .
c2 (r 2
+ 2GM/c ) 1 + 2GM/rc2
Not surprisingly, we see that the form of these equations, Eq. (6) and Eq. (8), is the
same. The difference is that, in the kinematic, accelerating rocket case, what makes the
velocity approach c and the clock rate approach zero is increasing time. Whereas in our
adaptation for the case of gravity, it is increasing mass. No matter what r is, if we keep
adding mass, the quantity 2GM/c2 (r + 2GM/c2 ) is always less than one. So clocks never
stop.
Notice how we keep encountering the quantity 2GM/c2 . This is the Schwarzschild
radius (mentioned in §3 and found on our charts), which is sometimes also referred to
as the gravitational radius of a body of mass M . It comes directly out of our equation
expressing the unreachable light speed limit to gravitational motion, which is the gravi-
tational analog to the SR expression for constant linear acceleration. This is seen most
clearly in the squared form of this velocity, Eq. (7). A brief digression is in order here to
point out that 2GM/c2 is not the concretely measurable size of any physical body, but
is rather, another theoretical scale length. Let’s call it rS = 2GM/c2 .
.
9 4. GR’s Schwarzschild Radius and Quantum Theory’s Compton Wavelength. – GR
maintains that rS corresponds to a horizon in space if all of M resides within it. In
this case GR maintains that any mass within rS will quickly collapse to r = 0. But in
the SGM the radius of a body is allowed to be less than rS . By being added to r in
equations involving physical magnitudes such as velocity, clock rate, acceleration, etc.,
these quantities all remain positive and finite because of this addition. A somewhat
analogous scale length commonly used in quantum theory is the Compton wavelength,
λC . Typically λC refers to a fundamental particle such as an electron, but in principle,
it is applicable to any massive body. In this case m is in the denominator, so the length
gets smaller as the mass gets larger:
h
(9) λC = .
mc
As P. C. W. Davies explains,
Its significance is that no meaning can be attached to the location of a particle

inside a distance comparable with its Compton wavelength. The nearest one
can get in quantum theory to the idea of two particles ‘touching’ is that they
approach [no closer than] this basic distance. [58]
It is important to notice that the constants that characterize macrophysics (G) and
microphysics (h) are in both cases divided by a power of the light speed constant, c. It
is clear to see that, λC naturally becomes significant when m is very small (being in the
denominator) and rS becomes significant when M is very large (being in the numerator).
The significance of the Compton wavelength will arise again when we turn to astrophysics
and cosmology (§10 – §11). Presently, it is good simply to bear in mind that their roles
are similar in their respective (extreme) domains of size. The resulting length does not
represent an edge in space, but rather a distance that characterizes the physical influence
of the mass M (gravity) or m (quantum theory). In the case of gravity it means that,
because of its mass, a physical body is effectively extended in space further than its
apparent physical size.
.
9 5. Metric Coefficients of GR’s Schwarzschild Solution Compared to Curvature Co-
efficients in the SGM . – Note that the rS of Earth is ≈ 0.0089 meters, and of the Sun it
is ≈ 2970 meters. Thus, even in these cases (the largest bodies familiar to us) rS is very
small compared to the measurable sizes of the bodies (6,378,000 meters and 696,000,000
38 R. BENISH
meters, respectively). This is why even these gravitational fields are commonly regarded
as “weak.” The spacetime surrounding them is relatively flat.
It is useful to define the length sum appearing in Eq. (7) as r-gamma:
2GM
(10) rγ = r + .
c2
This facilitates expressing gravitational time dilation in a form that is almost the same
as the corresponding expression in GR:
s
1 2GM
(11) f = f0 p = f0 1− .
1 + 2GM/rc2 rγ c2
The square of the radical quantity on the far right resembles the coefficients in the
Schwarzschild solution. In the Schwarzschild solution (1 − 2GM/rc2 ) is the coefficient
for the temporal coordinate and its inverse, 1/(1 − 2GM/rc2 ) is the coefficient for the
radial length coordinate. Together they describe the spacetime curvature that is re-
sponsible for all known gravitational effects in the solar system. The square root of the
temporal Schwarzschild coefficient represents a clock rate ratio just as our Eq. 11. The
only difference is that between r and rγ , i.e., the gravitational radius 2GM/c2 added to
r in the denominator.
Since the rotation analogy and the facts of experience lead us to expect that a similar
relationship should obtain for the spatial coefficient, our alternative to GR should be
coming into view. I.e., we propose that the spacetime curvature around a massive body
would involve not the coordinate radius r by itself but only as added to rS . This is the
implication of Eq. (2) and Eq. (11). We have already begun to see that, in most familiar
circumstances the difference between the corresponding coefficients is very small. Yet
it could be of monumental importance because of its implications for the strong fields
found in astrophysics and, most importantly, its implications for the insides of massive
bodies, where it can be immediately put to the test.
Important as the length rS is (to both GR and the SGM) even more important is
2
that, unlike GR, in the SGM its appearance in pthe ratio 2GM/rγ c is due to the velocity2
which gave rise to it in the first place, VS = 2GM/rγ . In GR, by contrast, 2GM/rc
is regarded as a static length ratio that somehow gives rise to velocities. (This is why
it is so common to hear that “gravity is geometry.”) In other words, the cause and
effect relationships are essentially opposite as between GR and the SGM. GR says static
spacetime curvature (characterized by static length ratios) causes velocity. Whereas the
SGM says velocity, i.e., the outward motion (generation) of space causes spacetime to be
curved. In GR’s Schwarzschild solution, nothing moves. In the SGM, everything moves.
.
9 6. Plots of GR Curvature Compared to Plots of SGM Curvature. – Now let’s compare
the SGM and the GR approaches to spacetime curvature graphically. Curiously (though
it would be no surprise at all to a mathematician) the graphs are of exactly the same
curve, only shifted by the distance 2GM/c2 . (See Figure 12.) Note that the red curve on
the left side of the figure is a cross-section of the funnel-shaped distortion in the “fabric
of spacetime” often shown in books and popular media to represent Einstein’s theory
of gravity. This is usually shown to include great distances from the gravitating body
where space becomes nearly flat. Whereas our cross-section near r = 0 emphasizes the
difference in the strong field regime. When the distance is large compared to 2GM/c2
the curvature is almost exactly the same for both models. But when the distance is
near to or less than 2GM/c2 the pictured curvatures become radically different. The GR
picture actually disappears; contact with physical reality is lost; we come to the edge of
the world, beyond which everything is black. In the SGM there is no problem; everything
changes continuously and remains in contact with the rest of the universe.
Though the graphs in Figure 12 represent only the exterior, they provide clues as
to how physical behavior would continue below the surface of the gravitating body.
One question that is not immediately obvious, but bears on how the clues should be
interpreted, is whether the effects of matter on space and time should continue to be of
the same magnitude inside matter. Should the magnitude of spatial curvature remain
the same as the magnitude of temporal curvature? From the SGM point of view, the
answer is obvious: of course the magnitude of the effects should be the same. Newton’s
Rules of Reasoning again guide us to this answer. In the context of SR, if motion affects
the rates of clocks by a certain amount, lengths are supposed to be affected by the same
amount. Since the effects are clearly coupled in SR, and they are caused by motion, the
simplest guess is that “Nature would be pleased” if the same were true in the case of
gravity.
GR does not regard these gravitational effects as being due to motion, so its predic-
tions stray yet further from simplicity, as we will see in §9.7. The curve representing
PARABOLIC CROSS-SECTION OF SPATIAL & (INVERSE) TEMPORAL

WARPED SPACETIME (EXTERIOR) COEFFICIENTS (EXTERIOR)
GR: Singularity due to horizon at 2GM/c2 GR: Singularity due to horizon at 2GM/c2
SGM: All quantities continuous and finite SGM: All quantities continuous and finite
z SGM: 9
8 2GM –1 2GM
z= 8GMr
1— 1+
c2 7 rc 2 rc 2
6
Schwarzschild SGM
5 solution
4 Schwarzschild solution:
3
z= 8GM r 2GM
2 —
c2 c2
1
0
0 2GM 5 10 r 0 2GM 5 10 r
c2 c2
Fig. 12. – Graphic comparison between GR and the SGM. Left: Parabolic cross-section of the
common “ rubber sheet” depiction of GR (red) and similar cross-section of SGM (blue). The
vertical axis is not a physical length. It is simply scaled so that a projection of any curve segment
onto the r-axis corresponds to a length ratio as between proper length (curve) and coordinate
length (r-axis). Right: Coefficients representing both spatial and (inverse) temporal curvature
outside a spherical mass. The difference between rγ and r, i.e., 2GM/c2 , is the mathematical
reason why the SGM curves are both shifted that far toward the origin compared to the GR
curves.
40 R. BENISH
0
0 2GM 9 GM
r
c2 4 c2
Fig. 13. – For a sphere of uniform density, the interior “cap” predicted by GR for the spatial
curvature is an arc of a circle that joins with the exterior parabolic cross-section. It is not
possible to represent the temporal curvature predicted by GR on this graph, as it is supposed
to get increasingly steep moving inward from the surface. Both curvatures can, however, be
represented on a different graph (Figure 15), where we see that they diverge at the surface.
spatial curvature inside matter can join with the (red) exterior curve of Figure 12 at any
point at or beyond 9GM/4c2 . The extreme case looks like Figure 13. This is actually
SGM: Interior & exterior spacetime curvature
z 9
Interior
8 Parabolas
4
Exterior
Parabola
3
0
0 1 2GM 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
c2 r
Fig. 14. – As the density of a sphere of given mass increases, the coordinate radius shrinks. This
is represented in the graph by the narrower parabolas lower on the z-axis. According to the
SGM, when all the mass is within 2GM/c2 , nothing bizarre √ happens. It simply means that the
ratio of proper length to coordinate length
√ has exceeded 2 and that the corresponding clock
rate ratio has become smaller than 1/ 2. The beauty of this parabolic embedding diagram is
that these ratios correspond to the length of any segment of the curve divided by the projection
of that segment onto the r-axis. The maximum value, i.e., the maximum slope indicates the
maximum curvature of both space and time at the surface (where the interior parabola joins the
exterior parabola).
the smallest size that a spherical body of given mass can have, according to GR. The
reason it’s a little larger than the Schwarzschild radius is that this is the limit at which
the coefficient for the temporal coordinate, if extended inside the body, would go to zero
at the center. In other words, a singularity would form even before the matter of the
body was compressed to the Schwarzschild radius. (For a discussion of this consequence
of GR, see, e.g., Wald [59].)
By comparison, a series of nested interior curves for the SGM are shown in Figure
14. For spheres of increasing density (but the same mass) the up-opening parabolas join
with the solitary right-opening parabola at decreasing radii. According to this model,
for a given mass, there is no limit to how small the body can get; and for a given radius,
no limit to how massive the body can get. Thus there is no upper limit to the ratio M/r.
As we recall, increasing M for a given r in this gravitational circumstance is analogous
to increasing time t in the kinematic circumstance of Eq. (1).
.
9 7. GR’s Divergent Curvatures vs. the SGM’s Always Coupled Curvatures. – Another
pair of graphs serves to compare the GR and SGM curvature of space and time both
inside and outside matter. (See Figure 15.) In our example, r = 3GM/c2 . Within
this radius, according to GR, the (inverse) temporal coefficient keeps increasing, so that
clocks keep getting slower, reaching a minimum at the center. But the coefficient for
spatial curvature flattens out to unity, so that at the center space is flat. By contrast,
according to the SGM, for a body with the same mass and radius both the space and
time coefficients go back to unity at the center. (For additional mathematical and other
details concerning these results, see [55].)
Note that the abrupt change at the surface, when the results are plotted this way,
GR: SGM:
Interior and exterior space Interior and exterior space
and (inverse) time coefficients and (inverse) time coefficients
diverge at surface are equal everywhere
8 8
7 Schwarzschild 7 SGM
6 6
5 5
TEMPORAL COEFFICIENT TEMPORAL COEFFICIENT
4 SPATIAL COEFFICIENT 4 SPATIAL COEFFICIENT
3 3
2 2
1 1
INTERIOR EXTERIOR INTERIOR EXTERIOR
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 15. – Comparison of space and time curvature coefficients. GR predicts divergence at the
surface. The SGM predicts equal magnitudes everywhere.
42 R. BENISH
corresponds to the abrupt change in density, from being inside matter to being outside
matter. This corresponds to the slope suddenly changing from positive to negative (mov-
ing outward). Figure 14 conveys essentially the same information, but with equations
whose merging point is not a cusp but a smooth inflection from increasing slope to de-
creasing slope. The SGM graph in Figure 15 indicates the effects of gravitational motion
on measuring rods and clocks inside and outside matter. The effects have a physical
cause and they are naturally coupled. Whereas the GR graph indicates the effects of
static geometry on measuring rods and clocks. There is no physical explanation for why
the central clock should have a minimum rate and no physical explanation for why the
effect on space and time should be uncoupled at the surface. An experiment ought to be
performed to test whether geometrical or physical reasoning is truer to reality.
.
9 8. Stationary Outward Velocity Inside a Uniformly Dense Sphere: The Non-Oscil-
lation Prediction Re-stated . – The right side of Figure 15 indicates how the SGM curva-
ture coefficient would vary for this one case. Outside the body the coefficient is simply
(1 + 2GM/rc2 ) = (1 − 2GM/rγ c2 )−1 . Inside the body the equation is a little more
complicated because the mass within r is different at every r. We expect the stationary
outward velocity to be due only to the mass within the given radius. This is because the
effect of all mass beyond this radius cancels by symmetry. If the field is not very strong
and the density is uniform, the velocity varies directly as the radius. Without going
into details, suffice it to say that, for a given density ρ, the interior stationary outward
velocity is given by
q
8π
r 3 Gρ
(12) VSINT = q .
8π Gρ r 2
1+ 3 c2
Figure 16 shows the graph corresponding to this equation for seven different densities.
The middle one is such that the surface radius is exactly r = 2GM/c2 . It corresponds
to the cyan interior parabola in Figure 14. In GR this would be a black hole. In the
SGM we see that it is just one in a continuous series of well-behaved possibilities. We
can also see that the curvature coefficient follows by taking the square of these velocities,
dividing by c2 , and adding unity. For the case of r = 0, the mass and the velocity also
equal zero, so the coefficient is unity, which means this corresponds to the fastest clock
in the system. As noted at the outset, this also means that an object dropped into a
hole through the body will not pass the center.
Conceivably, one could have arrived at this result by the following simple reason-
ing, which summarizes the above discussion. Since the relativization of constant proper
acceleration gives Eq. (1), which approaches c with increasing time, the corresponding
relativization of the gravitational velocity of a stationary body would give Eq. (2), which
approaches c with increasing mass. This leads to the exterior solution curve, whose ver-
tex is at the origin instead of at 2GM/c2 . Having this graph and equation in view, it
becomes natural to suppose that the extension from a given surface distance to r = 0
would be something like an up-opening parabola. This is confirmed by building up a
sphere by starting with a small kernel and successively adding larger shells of uniformly
dense matter. Add the natural assumption that both space and time should be curved
by the same magnitude inside matter as outside matter, and the rest follows. The idea
of gravitational attraction need never arise. The prediction that the test object should
not oscillate in the hole becomes almost obvious.
VS 1.0
c 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
r
Fig. 16. – Stationary velocity inside and outside of a uniformly dense sphere. For the highly
idealized case of uniform density, the velocity inside the body varies directly as the radius for
weak fields; but for very strong fields (as shown here) the variation is non-linear.
.
9 9. Stationary Outward Acceleration and the Maximum Force in Nature. – Before
turning to cosmological considerations, another consequence of Eq. (2) warrants our at-
2
tention. We have seen that the inverse square root of the length p rγ = r + 2GM/c
gives the relativistically corrected velocity due to gravity VS = 2GM/rγ . Therefore,
in accordance with the inverse square law, it is reasonable to expect that rγ2 should give
the relativistically corrected acceleration due to gravity. Thus, instead of g = GM/r2 ,
we have
GM GM
(13) gS = = .
2
rγ (r + 2GM
c2 )
2
This simple equation is significant because it leads to a prediction for a maximum force
in Nature and it determines where the strong gravity acceleration points lie on Chart 2.
Expanding the denominator gives
GM GM
(14) gS = = 4G2 M 2
.
(r + 2GM
c2 )
2 r2 + 4rGM
c2+ c4
In the limit as r → 0, this becomes
c4
(15) gMAX = gS(r→0) = ,
4GM
a maximum acceleration that depends only on the body’s mass. Multiplying by M thus
gives the maximum force:
c4
(16) FMAX = ≈ 3.0256 × 1043 N .
4G
44 R. BENISH
Curiously, this result agrees exactly with the maximum force derived by C. Schiller
from an entirely different perspective. In Schiller’s approach there are still horizons and
singularities because it is based on standard relativistic thinking. Schiller actually goes so
far as to claim that his derivation of maximum force allows “deducing universal gravity.”
He writes:
A maximum force of c4 /4G implies universal gravity. There is no difference

between stating that all bodies attract through gravitation and stating that
there is a maximum force with the value c4 /4G. [60]
Schiller makes similar claims in his more sophisticated derivation of the result. [61] It is
now clear that this view is incorrect. One could work backwards from maximum force
(= c4 /4G) to the SGM just as well. In fact, this latter route should clearly be preferred,
since it does not entail any singularities. It never gets marooned beyond an imaginary
edge.
10. – Clues from Cosmology
I feel that we are now, at this moment, going through a new period of epicycles
in cosmology . . . We seem to be able to barely fit the data only with the aid of
some rather convoluted mathematics . . . We have contrived to glue the various
parts of our world view together to fit the data . . . There is no trick to fitting
the data. What one has to be able to do is fit to the data elegantly.
— Arno Penzias [62]
In the last several decades observational evidence has accumulated that can be pieced
together to reveal an elegant picture of the universe. Unfortunately, various ancient
preconceptions persist so as to perpetuate the prevailing convoluted hodgepodge. In this
section we take a fresh look at some of the evidence from an SGM-inspired perspective
to find what appears to be a most astonishing order. If the interior solution gravity
experiment supports the SGM prediction, what follows would arguably be the proper
extension of the model to the universe as a whole.
.
10 1. Edge-plagued History and the Possibility that All Merges Harmoniously. – For
many centuries humanity’s conceptions of the physical world have been permeated by
the seemingly clearcut division between matter and space. In GR the tradition persists.
Though it has sometimes been argued that GR involves a continuity and interdependence
between matter and space (e.g., in the context of Mach’s principle), in the end it must be
admitted that interdependence is too strong a claim. Mutual influence is more accurate.
Matter and space influence each other, but they do not depend on each other. This is
seen most clearly in GR’s representation of the universe as a whole.
The prevailing big bang theory of cosmology is based on GR and perfectly illustrates
the dichotomy. Bodies of matter (galaxies) are supposedly moving away from one another
as more and more space is created by the big bang expansion (and lately, supposedly, by
“dark energy”). The space between bodies is envisaged as increasing while the bodies
themselves stay the same size, as they “try” via gravitational attraction, to pull every-
thing back together. The behavior of matter is thus not only different from the behavior
of space, it is the opposite. Another edge of the world is given to us, where space stops,
matter begins, and the tendency to expand confronts and prevails over the tendency to
contract.
Before the idea of dark energy was invented, there was hope among some cosmologists
that matter, via gravity, would eventually prevail over the expansion of space by pulling
everything back together in a “big crunch.” It is worthwhile mentioning this somewhat
outdated idea because it illustrates two key things: 1) the dichotomy between space and
matter, as mentioned above; and 2) that even gravitational attraction is conceivable as
a process that changes the amount of space in the universe. The standard view is that
gravity reduces the amount of space; it “tries” to eliminate the space between all bodies.
Gravity fails to completely eliminate space only because the density of matter in the
cosmos is not sufficient to overcome the big bang expansion (or dark energy). Either
way, by their assumed opposing behaviors it is obvious that this view entails that matter
and space are grossly discontinuous.
The relationship between changing amounts of space and gravity is implied by the
physical dimensions of G, which may be thought of as acceleration of volume per mass:
L3
(17) G= ,
T 2M
where L, T and M are generic length, time and mass. The presumed attractive nature
of gravity entails that gravitational (“potential”) energy is a negative quantity. Space
between bodies is subtracted because of gravity, not added.
Contrasting with this presumed role of gravity in big bang cosmology is the SGM
idea, according to which gravitational energy is positive. (Positive accelerometer read-
ings, positive energy: very simple.) The dimensions of G suggest the idea that gravity
involves an increase in the space of the cosmos because it is the process whereby matter
generates space and regenerates itself. This not only entails that gravitational energy
is positive, but that it is constantly increasing. For accelerometers to endlessly keep
giving positive readings requires an ever increasing amount of energy. As mass, time and
space increase it takes ever more energy to keep the motion proportionally constant. If
this description actually corresponds to physical reality, it means that matter is an inex-
haustible source of perpetual propulsion. It is not that acceleration of volume per mass
means space is being generated apart from matter. But that, being the source of space,
matter regenerates itself as well. This would not be possible unless space and matter
are ultimately continuous with each other. It implies that the proportions of matter to
space should remain constant.
It is pertinent to add a few facts from atomic and electromagnetic theory. One of
the fundamental results of quantum theory is that it is impossible to define (or find) an
edge where matter stops and space begins. Some experimental results yield pictures of
events that appear approximately localized in space. But the resolution of these pictures
is absolutely limited, according to the theory. At a certain scale the pictures must be
fuzzy. Fuzziness is also implied by the equations of motion pertaining to this realm
involving non-localized, wave-like distributions of energy. One of the deepest puzzles
that plagued even pre-quantum theorists is the question of what keeps a distribution of
like charge, e.g., an electron, from flying apart. Consisting of only negative charge, an
electron should like to explode. Quantum theory does not solve this problem; it just has a
way of keeping it more or less at bay. It is a specific technique known as renormalization.
Fritz Rohrlich gives a basic account of the problem as follows:
Intuitively, the situation seems trivially simple: A surface charge on a sphere

would “fly apart” unless held together by some attractive forces . . . The elec-
46 R. BENISH
tromagnetic stresses are not compensated and the electron is not stable.
Poincaré simply postulated attractive forces corresponding to stresses which
would exactly balance these and establish equilibrium.
[After explaining that the “renormalization” technique seems to solve the
problem, Rohrlich continues.]
It remains to explain why, after renormalization, the electron no longer “flies
apart,” since no attractive forces have been introduced. How can renormal-
ization play the same role as the Poincaré “glue” played previously?
This seems indeed to be a baffling situation. But what makes the electron
unstable in the first place? It is the (repulsive) Coulomb force of one part
acting on another part of the charge. The [theory] permits a separation of the
field of the electron into a part which acts on other charges and a part which
acts on itself. The latter part is removed from the theory by renormalization.
No part of the renormalized electron can act on another part of it. [63]
Everyone is happy with how well renormalization works, but many physicists have grave
reservations as to its ultimate legitimacy. One of its inventors, Richard Feynman, called
renormalization a “shell game,” a “dippy process” and “hocus-pocus.” [64] Without some
such technique, calculations indicate that the “self-energy” of an electron is infinite. Since
the details are beyond the scope of this paper, suffice it to say that we do not really know
why matter appears to be stable. [65, 66]
These atomic dilemmas have many different interpretations. Presently, we regard
them as being consistent with not only the ultimate edgelessness of the world, but with
the idea that matter moves endlessly outward. Matter is an inexhaustible source of
perpetual propulsion because charged (and even uncharged) “particles” of matter do not
wholly succeed at preventing themselves from “flying apart.”
At any given time the amount of energy contained in even a small bit of matter is
tremendous. One gram of matter, when unfurled (i.e., converted to light) is sufficient
to destroy a city, as has been witnessed twice in Japan. This means that in its furled
state, when matter is tied as a knot of space, it is engaged in a dance of unimaginably
intense motion, the vast majority of which is happening in atomic nuclei. It has long been
assumed, and empirical evidence superficially seems to suggest, that for all the various
possible forms of energy, the total energy of a system is always conserved, that energy
neither increases nor decreases. Curiously (and for reasons that we won’t go into) GR
has severe problems with the energy conservation law. Suffice it to say that the reasons
have to do with the equivalence principle. The solution that all well-trained physicists
are trained to resist (or to not even think of) is that the readings of accelerometers
strongly imply that energy is very plainly not conserved. Maintaining constant accelera-
tion for long time periods for large masses requires lots of energy; maintaining constant
acceleration forever requires infinite energy. This energy is evidently not getting “used
up.” It keeps on coming. A “residual” portion of the intense atomic and nuclear activity
therefore appears to not be contained; it keeps moving ever outward. This is the essence
of gravity. This is the source of perpetual propulsion that keeps accelerometer readings
positive, keeps us on the ground and gives us mass.
Already a deep connection is implied between atoms, nuclei and the cosmos as a whole.
We have evidence that the interior of matter is engaged in vigorous motion, yet in our
everyday experience we don’t see this. Matter appears to be mostly quite stable and
“inert.” This implies that the edgelessness, the fuzziness of the matter/space boundary
zone is a delicate affair whose maintenance requires a kind of concerted cooperation

from both micrososm and macrocosm; inside and outside. If the proportions changed,
we’d have an inharmonious, unstable system—which is pretty much what the big bang
is all about, and which is not so much observed as assumed. Due to the inhomogeneity
of the distribution of matter, the local effects of gravity are similarly inhomogeneous
(inverse square law). But on a cosmic scale the collective effect of innumerable local space
generating accelerations is an exponential growth of the whole system, of all matter and
space. The constancy of the accelerations is in reference to the physical scale existing
at a given time. But in reference to different cosmological times the rate of growth is
continually increasing. The whole keeps increasing in proportion to how much exists at
a given time. That’s what increasing exponentially means. The global pattern of growth
always looks exactly the same, like an endless exponential spiral.
A disproportionate amount of space can be neither added to nor subtracted from the
universe. The continuum cannot be so disrupted. According to this picture the average
density of the universe is constant, so that, going back in time, no matter how far, means
everything was smaller, but in the same proportions as they are now. There was no
beginning. In the opposite direction, the universe does not die a heat death as all energy
pours irretrievably into the ever widening, every colder gulf between galaxies. Everything
grows; the universe is ageless and eternal. Of course it means a lot of other things, too.
We will discuss a few of them in what follows.
With a little reflection one can see that the cosmic properties proposed above ne-
cessitate an interplay, a very tight relationship between microcosmic and macrocosmic
(cosmological) phenomena. If matter and space are part of the same ever-growing contin-
uum and the growth is locally concentrated in proportion to the concentration of matter,
then, ultimately, we should expect the behavior and the essential nature of subatomic
particles to be what gives rise to gravity. All the more so, since this process is also
identifiable as the origin of inertia.
.
10 2. Beginning Look at the Numbers. – Having such potentially grand and far-
reaching ideas of course means nothing unless they can be supported with observational
evidence. Since we don’t know the result of the interior solution gravity experiment,
we’ll have to do some speculation based on the assumption that the SGM prediction will
be supported. If the universe is really in a stable state that is maintained by the kind
of micro-to-macro interconnection suggested above, then we should expect to find more
concrete evidence of this in existing data. Specifically, we should expect to find a set
of simple numerical relationships between nuclear, atomic and large-scale gravitational
phenomena which reveals these extremes to be tightly connected. Having found exactly
this (as we will see) our eagerness to do the experiment increases.
So let’s see what we’ve got. One of the first empirical facts that needs to be accounted
for is the redshift-distance law, which is held to be evidence that the galaxies recede from
one another. Since we suppose that the average constant density does not change, the
galaxies would not be receding from one another, so an alternative explanation for the
redshift is needed. Before going into that, let it first be noted that this by itself is
reason to expect the kind of numerical relationships suggested above. Before the big
bang hypothesis became the prevalent dogma that it is today, J. Q. Stewart considered
the possibility that the redshift was not due to a velocity of recession. Thus he reasoned:
On the hypothesis, however, that the nebular red shift is not indicative of
a true velocity of recession . . . one might look for a connection between [the
48 R. BENISH
cosmic scale factor] and other universal constants. [67]
The cosmic scale factor is a length that characterizes the size of the universe. Stewart
proposed that the sought connection would involve ratios such as that between the elec-
tron mass to the proton mass, between the electrostatic force and the gravitational force
in an atom, and the fine structure constant. He took a stab at an expression that relates
these ratios to one another and remarked:
Considering the large numbers involved, the [proposed expression] is simpler

than would be expected if it is assumed to represent a relationship due merely
to chance.
The reason for quoting Stewart is not because his expression is thought to be viable.
Rather it is because his speculations set (or reinforced) a precedent for this kind of
exploration. They characterize many similar speculations made over the years in that the
suggested relationships are hypothesized as being significant even though the numerical
connections have only order of magnitude agreement. This is regarded as “close” because
the numbers involved span a few dozen orders of magnitude. Interesting as these order
of magnitude relationships may be, it should be emphasized that in the SGM-based
explorations to follow, we will find that observational evidence agrees with the numerical
connections at the order of 0.01 or better.
One of our primary guides in the search is simplicity. Starting then, with the redshift
distance relation, note that it depends on the cosmic scale factor, RC . Let’s assume that
this length is given by
(18) RC = GMC /c2 ,
where MC is the mass contained within the cosmic distance RC . Several others have
suggested this possibility. In the 1960’s it was often proposed as being in accord with
Mach’s principle. The well respected physicist, Robert H. Dicke made Eq. (18) an integral
part of his cosmological model, which also included the attempt to attach a meaning to
some of the ratios mentioned above. It is pertinent to mention Dicke’s work because
he also speculated that the masses of particles might increase in such a way as to keep
Eq. (18) true with the passage of cosmological time:
The masses of the particles would adjust themselves appropriately, in such a

way as to give M/R the appropriate value . . . It is as though the universe is a
giant servosystem, continuously and automatically adjusting particle masses
to the value appropriate to the feed-back condition GM/Rc2 = 1. [68]
Dicke’s intent was certainly not to defend a model such as the SGM, and yet this remark
may seem to support it. The local action of gravity, which is the generation of space,
is accompanied by an increase in mass of the local body such that the cosmological
proportions, which includes the ratio MC /RC remain constant. To begin connecting such
speculations to observations, the SGM redshift-distance law will be given with only a
basic explanation for it. (For a detailed explanation, see SGM and Cosmic Numbers. [6])
The law is
(19) z = exp(3r0 /RC ) − 1 ,

where z represents the magnitude by which light from a galaxy at distance r0 will be
shifted with respect to light emitted in a local laboratory. This law is derived primarily
from two things: 1) the exponential expansion of both matter and space alluded to above;
and 2) the fact borne of SR that matter is clock-like, whereas light is not. Though the
mass of material bodies is assumed to increase, this is only possible because massive
bodies are clocks which operate according to something like the “feed-back condition”
mentioned by Dicke. A common observation in relativity physics is that “time stands
still for the photon.” From Eq. (3) we can see that, for anything traveling at the speed
of light (which must be light) the clock rate would be zero. Thus, by its inability to keep
time with the matter in the universe, the energy of emitted light appears to decrease the
longer it travels. The matter that surrounds the light is clock-like and so keeps increasing
in energy as the timeless light passes by. Light from distant galaxies is seen at diminished
frequencies (energies) because while it was en route the energy of the receiver increased.
The exponent 3 appears in the expression because the change in mass is proportional to
the change in volume, which is the cube of the change in length.
Having the redshift law still does not allow determining the value of RC or MC . But it
allows determining another observed quantity, which is a ratio of densities. Specifically,
we can determine the ratio of the SGM cosmic matter density to the density known as
the critical or closure density. Omitting some details, this ratio is customarily given the
symbol Ω, and we get
2
ρC 3HSGM /4πG 3(3c)2 /4πGRSGM
2 2
2 RBB
(20) ΩM = = 2 /8πG
= = = 0.2222 ,
ρCRIT 3HBB 3(3c)2 /8πGRBB
2 2
RSGM
where the subscripts indicate the Hubble constant and the scale radius expressed in
terms of either the standard big bang model or the SGM. Since the calculations for
the respective densities differ by a factor of two, and since we have different definitions
for H, the resulting Ω comes out substantially smaller than unity. The number is in
excellent agreement with observations. [69-74] Note that one of the reasons that Dicke’s
speculations about the significance of RC = GMC /c2 proved untenable is that, on the
basis of the usual meaning of the redshift-distance law, his RC (as with the standard big
bang RBB ) would have been only one third as large as the SGM RC . The equation for
omega would then yield Ω = 2.0 instead of 2/9. There is no way to reconcile the larger
value of omega with observations. The agreement with observations for the SGM traces
back to the 3 in the exponent of our redshift law.
.
10 3. The Temperature of the Universe and Hubble’s Constant. – The next number
we want to find is Hubble’s constant, whose value would tell us what redshift to expect
for a galaxy at a given distance. Hubble’s constant is directly related to the SGM scale
factor: RC = 3c/H. To find the absolute value of RC we need more than just a ratio of
densities whose absolute values are unknown. If the density estimated from observations
were known to sufficient accuracy, that would do. But it is not. So here we need to make
another assumption, actually two assumptions. We have already alluded to one of them,
which we now make more explicit. The ratio of the average (background) matter density
of the universe to the background radiation density is a constant. Fortunately, the cosmic
background radiation (CBR) has been fairly well measured. This value will allow us to
make an educated guess (our second assumption) as to the background matter density
by supposing that the ratio between them is related to known fundamental constants.
50 R. BENISH
We start with measurements taken with the COBE satellite beginning around 1990.
The instruments on COBE actually measured the background temperature, TCBR , of the
universe. The radiation density is given by
4
(21) µCBR = aTCBR ,
where a is the radiation density constant. Radiation density is then converted to mass
density by simply dividing by c2 . Note first, however, that, the COBE measurements
involved two different methods, whose results differed by a small, but perhaps significant
margin—whose potential significance we’ll discuss in what follows. One of the methods
used an onboard calibrator and the other used the sky itself as a calibrator. Ideally,
the measurements should have given the same value. But the sky calibrator method
consistently gave slightly lower values than the onboard calibrator method. I mention
this because it is the lower value that agrees almost exactly with the SGM, whereas the
higher value is in a little greater disagreement. Even the higher value is very close. If we
gauge by the higher temperature measurement, the disagreement is about one part in 232.
Since the energy density goes as the fourth power of the temperature, the disagreement
would be about one part in 58. But the lower measured temperature disagrees by only
about one part in 3900, which would make the energy density disagreement only about
one part in 970. Analysis of the data took place over the course of nearly 12 years.
At least one objection was made to the way the different results seemed to be getting
massaged so as to yield a combined value with a small error margin. [75] I point this out
to suggest that the final published value, TCBR = 2.725 K, may actually be further from
the truth than the earlier published value, TCBR = 2.714 K. Unfortunately, this is still by
far the best direct measurement, and to my knowledge there are no immediate plans to
get another one. Until more temperature measurements or the interior solution gravity
experiment are done, the reader will have to assess what to make of this situation based
on logical and physical arguments.
With this (hair splitting?) caveat in mind, we come back to the second assumption
mentioned above, concerning the ratio of the matter density to the radiation density.
Recall that Stewart mentioned the proton mass to electron mass ratio, mp /me as one of
the pieces of the cosmic puzzle. His guess was made long before the CBR was discovered.
Now that we know it exists, in a universe whose density proportions are constant, we
may well expect the matter density to be related to the radiation density by a simple
factor of mp /me . As we will see, the best guess turns out to be
ρµ 1 me
(22) = ,
ρC 2 mp
where ρµ is the mass equivalent of the radiation density (gotten by dividing the energy
density, µ by c2 ) and ρC is the average cosmic matter density. The rationale for this guess
is simply that the matter side of the ratio corresponds to the form of most of the matter
in the cosmos, a proton, which is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. The radiation side of
the ratio corresponds to the ethereal components of atoms, i.e., electrons, whose role in
emission of electromagnetic radiation is ubiquitous and well known. Picturesquely, we
thus have the universe’s matter represented by a proton and the radiation represented
by one half an electron. According to the SGM this is a fixed proportion.
Under the assumption that Eq. (22) is true, we can calculate the absolute value of
the matter density and then simple algebra allows calculating the value of the cosmic
scale factor, as per Eq. (18), RC = GMC /c2 . This then allows calculating the value of the
constant we set out to find. Using the usual units, kilometers per second per megaparsec,
for Hubble’s constant we get
3c
(23) HC = = 63.355 km s−1 Mpc−1 .
RC
which is very close to measured values. (For details on the status of these and other
measurements, see SGM and Cosmic Numbers. [6] )
.
10 4. Large and Medium-Sized Numbers of Immense Importance. – Having deduced
the cosmic role of the dimensionless ratio mp /me we now consider two others. First, we
have the fine structure constant, alpha, which is a ratio formed from other constants that
pervade quantum theory and electromagnetic phenomena:
e2 h
(24) α= = .
4π 0 ~ c 2π me c a0
Here e is the elementary charge, 0 is the electric constant, h is Planck’s constant, and ~
is Planck’s constant divided by 2π. To me, the right side of this expression is the most
perspicuous, as we have a ratio of angular momenta (the units of Planck’s constant),
where the elementary, fundamental character of the denominator is plain to see (electron
mass, light speed constant, and Bohr radius). The numerical value of this constant is
often expressed by its reciprocal, 1/α ≈ 137.03599968. The importance of this number
is widely recognized, as can be seen from the following comments about it.
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote: “All good theoretical physicists put this
number up on their wall and worry about it . . . It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries
of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” [76]
One of the “magic” things about the number is explained by P. W. Atkins: “If α were
much larger than 1/137, the distinction between matter and radiation would be much less
clear. If α were much smaller than 1/137, matter would have virtually no electromagnetic
interactions.” [77] This number is thus deeply involved in the “delicate” balance alluded
to above between matter and space (light). The visual appearance of an edge between
matter and space is maintained by α so that it is neither too hard nor too soft, but is
“just right.” From a distance we perceive an edge, but if we zoom in the edge disappears;
matter merges with space, space that moves with unimaginable intensity. Various powers
of α are found in many of the equations of quantum physics. It is one of the most
ubiquitous of the “medium-sized” numbers.
The proton-to-electron mass ratio, whose medium-sized value is ≈ 1836.1527 is of
similar importance. Barrow and Tipler call the latter ratio β and write: “The gross
physical properties of atoms, molecules and solids can, in principle, be determined as
functions of the pure numbers α and β.” [78] The ubiquity of α and β is an example of
the beauty of fundamental physics. The simple mathematical order that they represent
permeates physical reality, but it has taken lots of ingenuity to figure that out.
Next, let’s consider one of the most well known large numbers: the ratio of the elec-
trostatic force to the gravitational force in a hydrogen atom. This number characterizes
52 R. BENISH
the huge disparity between the strength of electricity or magnetism and the strength of
gravity:
FE e2 /4π0
(25) = = 2.2687 × 1039 .
FG Gmp me
In terms of the standard model of particle physics the largeness of this number is referred
to as the hierarchy problem. Why should electricity be so much stronger than gravity?
What makes the puzzle all the more mysterious is that a similar number arises when the
cosmic scale factor RC is compared to a length characteristic of atomic physics, e.g., the
Bohr radius a0 :
RC 4.3804 × 1026 meters

(26) = = 8.2777 × 1036 .
a0 5.2918 × 10−11 meters
Though the order of magnitude here is close to what just about any cosmological model
would give, this particular (SGM-based) value depends on the chain of reasoning which
traces back to the CBR temperature. The radiation density derived from TCBR gives
an “equivalent” mass density based on the assumption Eq. (22) which, from Eq. (18),
gives a value for RC . As explained below, the temperature that would yield the best
agreement is TCBR ≈ 2.7133 K. Our prediction would deviate by the margins discussed
above—slightly more deviant if TCBR = 2.725 but nearly exact if TCBR = 2.714. The
closeness of these temperatures in either case compels the conjecture that the number
given above for RC , and thus Eq. (26), actually rings true. The key step to finding the
“preferred” temperature is to form another ratio from the ratios Eq. (25) and Eq. (26):
FE /FG 2
(27) = 274.0720 = .
R/a0 α
If we had started with the official COBE temperature, Eq. (27) would have deviated
slightly from 2/α. But it would have been so close that it makes sense to assume that it
should be exact. It was under this assumption that, by working backwards, we arrived
at TCBR ≈ 2.7133 K to make Eq. (27) “exact” so that everything else falls into line. If we
assume that the SGM value for RC is correct, then we find the energy equality:
(28) 2 FG RC = α a0 FE
or a definition for the fine structure constant:
FG RC
(29) α=2
FE a 0
This is an intriguingly compact expression for α. But, since RC is a model-dependent

quantity, even though the model used to deduce it is simple and reasonable, it would be
preferable to find a result (i.e., some kind of numerical connection) that is independent of
the model. We do eventually arrive at such a result. But first, to reinforce our motivation
for this kind of exploration and to set the context for our next step, let’s take note of
the work of others who have intuited the existence of and have therefore seen fit to look
for such connections.
In addition to Stewart’s remarks, mentioned above, we should add those of Herman
Bondi:
The likelihood of coincidences between numbers of the order of 1039 arising for
no reason is so small that it is difficult to resist the conclusion that they rep-
resent the expression of a deep relation between the cosmos and microphysics,
a relation the nature of which is not understood . . . These coincidences are
very striking and few would deny their possible deep significance, but the
precise nature of the connexion they indicate is not understood and is very
mysterious . . . In any case it is clear that the atomic structure of matter is a
most important and significant characteristic of the physical world which any
comprehensive theory of cosmology must ultimately explain. [79]
Bear in mind that, as was the case with Stewart, Bondi is also referring only to the
suggestiveness of the order of magnitude connection. Even the rough agreement of these
numbers arouses curiosity because of their magnitude and their scope. Prior to the SGM
there were no models that yielded such simple relations that also agree so well with
observations. The view that Nature almost certainly abides by such an overarching,
interconnected scheme and that it is important to discover it is reflected in this comment
by J. D. Barrow:
The dimensional constants can always be combined so as to produce combina-

tions that are dimensionless. The challenge of explaining the numerical values
of these dimensionless constants of Nature combinatorically or geometrically
is the greatest unsolved problem of physics. A belief in their ultimate expli-
cability is rooted deep in many scientists’ faith in the unity of Nature. [80]
The context of Barrow’s comment is a discussion of the history and present state of
these ideas. One of the theorists he wrote about was the distinguished physicist, P.
A. M. Dirac, whose work on the “Large Numbers Hypothesis”(LNH) spanned three or
four decades. His hypothesis is noteworthy because, though it appealed to the same
dimensionless quantities presented above, the underlying idea actually contrasts sharply
with the SGM.
Dirac interpreted the “large numbers” as implying that the value of Newton’s constant
is changing. Corresponding to the change in G is his hypothesis that the amount of
mass in the universe is increasing. But this is nothing like the kind of mass increase
posited by the SGM. It is not an increase in masses that already exist, but an increase
in the number of particles throughout space. Dirac’s hypothesis also agrees with the
assumption that the redshift law represents a velocity of galactic recession. His model
ran into conflicting evidence in the 1980’s and in its original form has been abandoned.
But recent observational puzzles in cosmology have renewed interest in the LNH in some
quarters. [81,82] Given its present state, alternatives to the dogma of modern cosmology
should certainly be encouraged. One of the things that sets the SGM apart from this
other work is that it is a readily testable alternative. The connections being proposed
on the basis of the SGM ring either true or false, depending on the result of the interior
solution gravity experiment.
54 R. BENISH
.
10 5. Nuclear Saturation Density, Cosmic Temperature and Newton’s Constant. –
Now back to our exploration. This is where we go far beyond LNH-like hypotheses,
because we will assimilate domains of physical reality whose connectability has previously
been overlooked. The clue that motivates looking where we will is that we already have
two constant densities: the average matter density ρC and the radiation density ρµ . Are
there any other constant density regimes that might be of cosmic significance? It turns
out that the density of atomic nuclei, which is nearly the same from one nucleus to the
next, may indeed be of cosmic significance. This is known as the nuclear saturation
density, ρN . Measurements of this density are not quite as accurate as measurements
of TCBR . However, the standard theory of nuclear physics presents a way of deriving a
density that comes very close to these measured values and fits well in our cosmological
model. I should point out that the derived value is not a bona fide prediction of standard
nuclear physics, but is a logical deduction nevertheless. It turns out that an adjustment
by about 1/96 results in a value that fits our cosmological model even better. Since this
is a similar order of deviation as that of our temperature prediction, we’ll proceed, and
bear in mind that we are not pretending to be strictly exact or rigorous. (See SGM and
Cosmic Numbers. [6] )
Further on I will present the ρN deduced from nuclear theory so as to compare it with
the ρN assumed in the SGM. Presently, we begin with the latter:
2 mp 12 mp
(30) ρN = 3 = 6 a3
= 2.8552 × 1017 kg m−3 .
4 πα
1
2
π 2 α a0 0
3
When this density is compared with the cosmic matter density we get
ρN
(31) ≈ 1.7041 × 1044 ,
ρC
another large number close to 1040 . Comparing this with FE /FG we get
ρN /ρC 4
(32) = 2.
FE /FG α
Notice that this is the square of Eq. (27). The square of α is thus given by
2
2 FE ρ C FG RC
(33) α =4 =4 .
FG ρ N FE a0
As with Eq. (29), Eq. (33) is an intriguing definition of α, which, however, is model-
dependent because it involves ρC . But ρC derives directly from ρCBR , which is a measured
quantity. So we can rearrange our results in a way that excludes model-dependent quan-
tities. Perhaps the most important such rearrangement is this definition for Newton’s
constant:
ρµ c2 a0

µCBR a0
(34) G=8 · =8 · ,
ρN m e ρN me
The weakest link here is the nuclear saturation density, whose value is sometimes
quoted as being about 6% smaller than the value we have adopted. But its value is
sometimes also quoted as being almost exactly as what we have adopted. For example,
in the 2007 book Nuclear Physics in a Nutshell [83] C. A. Bertulani refers to ρN =
0.172 mp fm−3 as “the approximate density of all nuclei with A & 12,” where A is the
number of nucleons in a given atomic species. Converting to kilograms per cubic meter
this is about 0.7% larger than our assumed value. (That is, Bertulani’s value is ≈
2.877 × 1017 kg m−3 compared with our 2.8552 × 1017 kg m−3 or 0.1707 mp fm−3 .)
As promised, we’ll now consider the theoretically calculable density referred to earlier.
The calculation is based on a description by E. Segre of the condition for “equilibrium”
within atomic nuclei. It is simply the ratio formed by the masses of two interacting
nucleons divided by the volume of a sphere within which equilibrium is reached. The
radius of the sphere is the Compton wavelength of a charged pion, π+ . (This is because
a charged pion is regarded as the quantum “mediator” of the nuclear force.) The value
comes out to
2 mp
(35) ρNSEGRE = = 2.8259 × 1017 kg m−3 .
4
3π 3π+
The difference between this density and that given by Eq. (30) is due to the small differ-
ence between the mass of a charged pion and the mass of an electron times 2/α:
2 me /α
(36) = 1.00344 .
mπ+
If the mass of the charged pion were exactly 2me /α, then the SGM value for ρN and the
density derived from nuclear physics would be the same. The important thing is that,
even if our assumed value for ρN lacks a high degree of rigor, it is at least very close
to measured and properly derived theoretical values. Therefore our expression for G
[Eq. (34)] is similarly at least very close. The simplicity of it deserves further comment.
It should first be emphasized that, up to now, Newton’s constant has remained es-
sentially aloof from the rest of physics. That in itself is a compelling argument that
standard approaches to understanding gravity are badly misguided. Curiously, by some
accounts, it has become practically routine policy to ignore the lack of connection, to
treat it as inevitable or inconsequential. Thus A. H. Cook has written
The relevance of G to the rest of physics is slight. The other principal con-
stants of physics form an interconnected set and a good knowledge of their
values has consequences in both fundamental theory . . . and in practical mea-
surement of high precision . . . Almost no such requirements or implications
apply to knowledge of the value of G. It is, so far as is known or postu-
lated . . . independent of all the other constants. [84]
Isn’t this a most unnatural state of affairs? How can gravity’s connection to the rest of
physics be so casually dismissed? To one who senses the unity of Nature, it seems to me,
“the relevance of G to the rest of physics ” should be “postulated” as being of extremely
huge relevance. And then we could set out to find the connection.
Fortunately, I have found a poignant counterexample to Cook’s remark. In his
thoughtful review of research motivated by the desire to unify physics, The Vacuum
56 R. BENISH
and Unification, I. J. R. Aitchison addresses the potential importance of connecting G

to the rest of physics:
Could the dimensions of Newton’s gravitational constant be explained [by]

a theory of gravity characterized by a fundamental mass (or length) and a
dimensionless strength? Could we then unify all the forces?. . . Something
new is needed. [85]
Notice how Eq. (34) fulfills this guess. We have both a fundamental mass and length, the
speed of light, and the dimensionless strength represented by the density ratio. Moreover,
the constants span the whole range of known physical reality, from nuclei, to atoms and
electromagnetism to the background radiation of the universe. Notice how simply the
constants here (and above) have been related. Simplicity in this regard means that the
coefficients and the exponents are small; they are all what we might expect to find from
a more strictly rigorous analysis.
Our exploration yields other model-independent expressions suggestive of profound
interconnection. The energy density of the CBR appears to be directly related to G:
3 G me mp
(37) ρµ c2 = µCBR =
2π α6 a40
Rearranging, we get:
2π α6 a40 µCBR
(38) G=
3 me mp
By Eq. (34) and Eq. (38) G has thus found its place in relation to the rest of physics—
by way of cosmology. From here many other interesting algebraic relationships can be
formed, whose physical implications would be worthwhile to pursue.
Of course, the question arises, could it all be an accident? If the COBE result that
found TCBR = 2.714 K—the one that used the whole sky as a calibrator instead of the
onboard calibrator—were the official measured value (confirmed by additional measure-
ments) then this question might not even arise. The chance of it being an accident would
be absurdly small. Given the scope of these results, which started with the redshift law,
agreement with measured values of the density parameter Ω, and the Hubble constant,
given the simplicity with which all these constants have been related, we should still see
how unlikely it would be to have so many complex puzzle pieces fit so neatly together
by accident. The discrepancy with COBE’s official value, after all, is still impressively
small. Everything fits. Gravity and its constant have to be related to the rest of the
constants somehow. I doubt if a more algebraically convincing scheme could be cooked
up even without regard for observational evidence. If it is an accident, we can prove it
by performing the interior solution gravity experiment.
11. – Implications for the Cosmic Everything Chart 2
Cosmology is not simply an application of physics, as it is commonly supposed

to be. Much of the great complexity of modern physics is probably due to
attempting to formulate the basic laws in the absence of cosmology.
— Fred Hoyle [86]
.
11 1. Quantum-Jumped Extreme Astrophysical Densities. – Even within the context
of standard physics we have at least two meaningful density regimes. These are shown
on the charts both as horizontal lines (and square points) and as sloped lines (and
circular points). On Chart 1, which represents the standard point of view, the cosmic
matter and cosmic radiation density regimes are not labeled as such because, from the
standard point of view, they are not regarded as having any lasting significance. Thus
one of the COBE scientists, John Mather, would assert, “The exact temperature of the
CMBR is not important for cosmology, since every other cosmological constant is more
poorly determined.” [87] Most of the “constants” that Mather refers to, including the
background temperature, from the standard point of view, are actually not constants.
For example, the Hubble constant, the cosmic scale factor, the matter density and the
temperature are all supposed to change with time. So a standard theorist would see only
nuclear density, atomic density and perhaps white dwarf density as being of any lasting
significance. Whereas the idea of a physically important connection between TCBR and
ρN would seem far-fetched, indeed.
From the SGM point of view, on the other hand, the assumption that these density
regimes are all constant leads us to expect that the exact value of TCBR is of huge impor-
tance for cosmology. Our numerical exploration has fulfilled that expectation. Moreover,
one of the patterns emerging from this scheme implies the existence of two more cosmi-
cally significant density regimes.
To see this, let’s first consider the key members in one of the graph’s most interesting
junctures, where objects of atomic density diverge. This occurs because, by climbing
up the scale of size of atomic-density matter, gravity gradually gets more and more
important. The juncture is where we find the Sun, brown and white dwarfs and neutron
stars.
Brown dwarfs are very large planets, having not quite enough mass to generate the
heat to sustain the nuclear reactions that make stars radiate so hotly. A white dwarf is
a late stage in the evolution of stars of about the Sun’s mass. The whole evolutionary
scenario is complex and varies depending on initial conditions. A rough and simplified
description of what often happens is that, in the core of the star hydrogen is fused to
helium, carbon and oxygen. This results in an increase in core density because the fused
nuclei take up less volume than individual hydrogen and helium ions and because the
electrons can barely maintain pressure against the enormous weight due to gravity. The
resulting temperature increase accelerates the helium burning in middle layers. This
forces the outermost layers to escape the system. The remaining hot core is not hot
enough to fuse carbon into heavier elements. As the ingredients for fusion get used up,
the thermal motion of the ions steadily diminishes. What remains to support the star is
just the pressure of the electrons. The star’s gravity will have compressed the electrons to
a state of maximum density (for electrons). This is called a state of electron degeneracy.
It is significant that the shrinkage in size, compared to normal atomic matter, ap-
proaches and in some cases comes close to reaching a factor of about α, i.e., ≈ 1/137,
which is the ratio of an electron’s (barred) Compton wavelength to the Bohr radius:
α = e /a0 . This means there is a relatively narrow range over which, adding mass causes
the size to decrease in proportion to 1/M 3 . The ionic nuclei in stars that have not yet
collapsed thus have close to 137 times more distance between them than in a white dwarf.
A size shrinkage of the order α, of course, corresponds to a density increase of the order
α−3 . The white dwarf Sirius B comes close to having this density, as shown on the charts.
A neutron star is formed from a star whose initial mass was greater than the Sun by a
factor of eight or so, which ends up going supernova. In this case the electronic pressure
58 R. BENISH
succumbs to gravity in what may rightly be called a quantum jump to an even smaller size,
by another factor on the order of 1/137. The events leading to the cataclysm are about as
follows. The compression due to gravity causes the core temperature to get so high that
iron is eventually synthesized. Following the fusion of lighter elements, thermonuclear
reactions at the center will then have about stopped, and will have diminished as it takes
place in progressively lighter elements further out. The star’s outer layers begin to lose
the support they once had from the thermonuclear reactions closer to the center. As
gravity causes yet further accumulation of mass from the star’s middle layers onto the
small core, temperatures get so high that the iron disintegrates into helium, the helium
disintegrates into protons and neutrons and the electrons can no longer survive in such
a state of compression. I.e., they are unable to survive even in a degenerate state. They
fuse with protons to form a huge mass of mostly neutronic matter: a neutron star. As
noted above, this represents another shrinkage in size by a ratio that is roughly that of
the “classical” electron radius to the Bohr radius; i.e., a factor of α2 = re /a0 ≈ (1/137)2 .
And it corresponds to an increase in density by a factor of ≈ α−6 . Since a progenitor
of a neutron star has more mass than a progenitor of a white dwarf, it’s gravity is
stronger. Therefore, rather than escaping the system with a relatively slow speed, the
outer layers fall and are overcome by the core with enormous force. This causes an
energy transformation and a shock wave that ejects the outer layers in a blast known as
a supernova.
This is all still within the domain of standard physics and astrophysics. Curiously,
to my knowledge, the connection to factors of α has not before been explicitly pointed
out. Clearly, this juncture on our charts marks a zone of remarkable transformation.
Masses change very little—by only an order of magnitude or so, yet monumental changes
in structure take place because the force of gravity has become comparable to the forces
of subatomic matter. In this zone (from atomic to nuclear density) distances between
nuclei differ by about five orders of magnitude (with a midway jump at about 102.5 ) and
densities differ by about 14 orders of magnitude (with a midway jump at about 107.0 ).
From here GR says we’re near the end of the line. The edge of the world is upon us.
A neutron star—a star whose average density is about two or three times that of nuclear
matter—that gains just a little more mass would go over the edge to become a black
hole. Light and clocks are supposed to stop and densities go to infinity at the center.
.
11 2. Extending the Pattern. – From the SGM point of view the order of nuclear
density appears as a transition zone on either side of which a gravity-induced α (or
1/α-folding in size results in an α−3 (or α3 )-folding in density. Since gravity also has
its limits, the process cannot continue much further. The mass-radius curve on Chart 2
presents a pattern suggesting that the trail of points continues as an “S”; so that another
density plateau is eventually reached. Thus, nuclear saturation density appears to be the
middle of the “S.” The next α-folded size step and α−3 -folded density step represent the
supra-nuclear density star stage. According to the general relativistic world view, this
is where we’re supposed to find singularity-ridden stellar mass black holes. The SGM
suggests instead that another α-folding of size occurs, with its corresponding α−3 -folding
in density. Counting from the regime of atomic density, at this point we’d have a total
size shrinkage of about α3 and a density increase of about α−9 .
The logic of the pattern comes to light, I believe, by considering the standard meaning
of nuclear saturation density. This is the limiting density of nuclei in atoms because the
strong nuclear force and the inner structure of nucleons prevents further collapse. Though
nucleons are strongly attracted to other nearby nucleons, a stronger repulsive force from
within prevents their centers from getting closer. The system saturates to a kind of
ground state. The idea is analogous to electron degeneracy pressure, so it is sometimes
referred to as nuclear degeneracy pressure. In the microcosm (lower left portion of our
charts) this is the limit. There are no stronger forces to compress the system any further.
But when so much matter accumulates that gravity’s force exceeds that of the “strong”
nuclear force, another density jump occurs. Since α clearly plays a role in the collapse
from atomic matter to the white dwarf (degenerate electron) stage, and then to neutron
stars, it follows that it would continue to play a role to the next and perhaps terminal
level of saturation. I have called this latter “terminal” stage the level of hyper-super
density. So here, with one more α-folding in size and one more α−3 -folding in density,
from atomic density we’d have an α4 factor in size and an α−12 -factor in density. That’s
about nine orders of magnitude in size and about 28 orders of magnitude in density.
It may well be that collapsed cluster cores are not just one lump of matter, but are
inhabited by numerous smaller dark, compact objects. In this case the sizes would be
larger and densities smaller than the implied maximum. So the upper “terminal” line
would not be so narrow; it would fade to the right (toward larger size). That a maximum
should exist, having about the magnitude as shown on Chart 2, is nevertheless clearly
implied by the look of the Chart and by the physical patterns and behaviors we’ve
discussed.
.
11 3. Comparison with Standard Theory and Observational Evidence. – The scenario
sketched above is clearly greatly simplified and involves a fair amount of guesswork. To
render it more plausible, let’s fill in a few details and bring in more observational and
theoretical facts.
First of all it must be emphasized that astrophysical objects do not behave with such
regularity as fundamental particles because that’s not what they are. They are much
more complicated. Therefore the “quantum jumps” in size and density that I’ve referred
to are clearly approximations. For example, it is well known that white dwarfs have a
range of sizes and masses, just as neutron stars do. Also, within each object the density
cannot be uniform. Astrophysical objects always exhibit maximum densities at their
centers, so the densities referred to above are averages.
It is key, however, that the range of masses over which these dramatic transformations
occur is relatively small. Such transformations in size and density are commonly regarded
at phase-transformations, from one form of matter to another. Since this is happening on
an astrophysical scale, we expect more complexity than transformations found at smaller
scales. There are more available “paths” to the transition. For example, though neutron
stars are usually the end products of large-mass stars that go supernova, they could also
be the result of a white dwarf that accretes matter from a companion star in a binary
system. [88]
The key thing, again, is that by adding more matter to an already large accumulation
of matter, the force of gravity reaches a critical point at which internal pressures (of one
kind or another) are no longer sufficient to withstand it. To re-establish stability the
system must squeeze itself to a state of higher density.
Curiously, our best theory of matter used to explore this domain, known as quan-
tum chromodynamics (QCD) is of limited help. This is also true of data gleaned from
experimental high energy particle physics. In fact, theorists have come to think of col-
lapsed stars as their most hopeful “laboratories” for this research. This circumstance
is reflected in the following introductory remarks by Bennett Link, from a recent paper
titled, Neutron Stars as Dense Matter Laboratories:
60 R. BENISH
One of the central questions in nuclear physics is: what is the ground state
of matter above nuclear density (' 2.8 × 1014 gm cm−3 )? Stable matter at
supra-nuclear densities is not available in the laboratory. Its properties cannot
be calculated from first principles . . . The basic interactions to include in a
description of dense matter are not known;. . . The situation is fraught with
technical difficulties . . . the calculation of the properties of dense matter . . . in
the context of mean field theory is a formidable problem. [89]
Link continues by pointing out that, “Whatever the state of matter is above nuclear
density, it exists in abundance in the estimated 109 neutron stars in our galaxy.” To put
this situation in proper perspective, we should first compare it with the first astrophysical
“jump” mentioned above, i.e., the phase-transition to the white dwarf state. Electron
degeneracy was predicted on the basis of quantum theory and in 1926 it was proposed as
the explanation for white dwarfs (which had been observed about 15 years earlier). GR
is not explicitly involved here. Though strong enough to collapse the electrons in atomic
matter, in relativistic terms, the gravitational field is still relatively “weak.”
In terms of our charts, we see this by the fact that white dwarfs are still three or four
orders of magnitude away from the horizon line. By the same inspection we see that
this is not the case for neutron stars. As noted above, with just a little more mass, it
is supposed that a neutron star would be pushed over the edge. Now in the standard
attempts to understand and explore the supra-nuclear densities at the center of neutron
stars, GR is assumed to be valid. Therefore, theorists are restricted by their assumptions
that neutron stars are precariously close to becoming black holes. This requires, in this
regime, a very delicate dance to combine the principles of nuclear physics with those of
GR. Many models have been proposed, but as Link’s remark indicates, they appear to be
a long way from success in finding a suitable equation of state to fully describe neutron
stars and to understand the next phase transition to “supra-nuclear” densities.
Some of these models include the idea of a phase transition to “quark matter” or
a “quark-gluon plasma.” But these speculative models involve only very small changes
in density—compared to those predicted by the SGM. To my knowledge, there is no
precedent to the suggestion that the next phase transition involves a jump in density
of the order of α−3 ≈ 2.6 million times nuclear saturation density. The limitations and
the extreme complexity of QCD make progress by the standard approach challenging.
But faith in QCD and GR is the reason work continues is this direction. From the SGM
perspective, it’s the wrong direction; we surmise that the assumption that GR is correct
is the main cause of the snag. If the rate of a clock at the center of their model star goes
to zero, they’ve lost it. GR is very fragile in this respect. It is very easy to break near
its self-imposed edge.
The SGM alternative is speculative, of course. But one more batch of perplexing
observational evidence could be rendered less mysterious if it is true. The astrophysical
phase transition to nuclear density is almost always accompanied by an extreme outburst
of energy; i.e., supernovae. Though still mysterious in some ways, the connection between
supernovae and neutron stars is well established.
What are much less well understood are the causes and origins of gamma-ray bursts.
These extremely energetic blasts pose various puzzles. Lasting from a few micro-seconds
to a few minutes, if a gamma ray burst emits its energy isotropically, it would be like
the sudden conversion of all of the mass of the Sun to light. Since this is such a huge
outburst the commonly accepted alternative is that the blasts are beamed in narrow jets.
In any case, the mechanism responsible for the burst is unknown. Various models have
been proposed, but each one has its problems. One of the difficulties is that the signature
(light curve) of the blasts vary so much in duration and character. Without pretending
to have a definite solution, it is nevertheless appropriate to point out that the SGM offers
another possibility. The transition from nuclear density to supra-nuclear density should
result in a gamma-ray burst similar to at least some of those that are observed.
.
11 4. Key Properties of Chart 2 Organized in a Table. – Be that as it may, let us
now summarize the SGM’s interpretation of the data by reference to the table in Figure
17. The pattern is established with the first three density states: atomic, electronic and
nucleonic. Bodies composed of stable atoms span the extraordinary range of over 50
orders of magnitude. Electron-degenerate matter exists only in the narrow density range
of white dwarfs. The densities deduced to exist in neutron stars (near their centers) can
Key Density Regimes in the Universe
DOMAIN/ CHARACTERISTIC CHARACTERISTIC STABILITY ACCURACY OF

NAME
EXAMPLE RADIUS DENSITY (÷ 3mp /4πa30 ) RANGE (MASS) DENSITY COEFFICIENT
Atomic/ Common matter: 1 Exact in principle:

water, wood, a0α0 =1 > 1050 varies with species and
Molecular α0
aluminum, salt environment.
More like maximum than

1 median: Small variation
Electronic White dwarf a0α1 (1) ≈ 10
α3 depends on environment and
history.
Atomic: slight variation

Atomic nuclei between species.
1 ≈ 100
Nucleonic a0α2 (16)
α6 < 10 Stellar: small variation depends
Neutron stars
on environment and history.
Supra- Supra-Nucleonic 1 SGM SGM speculation: small

a0α3 (16) speculation: variation, depends on
Nucleonic stellar objects α9
≈ 10 environment and history.
SGM speculation: small

Hyper- Globular cluster 1 SGM
a0α4 (48) variation, depends on
Super & super massive speculation:
α 12 environment and history.
cluster cores > 100,000
Possibly, absolute maximum.
Background Universal GMC FE 4Gmp 1 SGM Very close to measured value.

RC = = a0α speculation: Standard: “coincidence.”
Matter average c2 2FG a0 c 2 α6
∞ SGM: prediction.
Background Universal GMC FE 2Gme 1 SGM Extremely close to measured

Radiation average RC = = a0α speculation: value. Standard: “coincidence.”
c2 2FG a0 c 2 α6
( ÷ c 2) (black body) ∞ SGM: prediction.
Fig. 17. – The characteristic size and density regimes of the universe appear to be related to one
another by factors of the Bohr radius, a0 and the fine structure constant, α. The top three rows
reflect empirical observations that are consistent with standard models. Implications borne of
the SGM, and perhaps a simple sense of pattern recognition, suggest that the pattern extends
across the Schwarzschild horizon, where it encompasses two new density regimes (fourth and
fifth rows). The two cosmic density regimes (background matter and radiation) are also well
supported by empirical observations. In the SGM they play a foundational role, but according
to standard models they have little significance.
62 R. BENISH
reach nearly 10 times ρN . But between white dwarfs and neutron stars there is a large
gap in which no stable stars exist. Under the assumption that our trail of points crosses
the horizon, a continuation of the pattern suggests another narrow stability zone between
nucleonic matter and the density zone that appears to terminate with the super-massive
cores of galaxies. Though the α and α−3 -folding size and density jumps prior to crossing
the line have numerical coefficients that are very close approximations to empirical facts,
on the other side of the line we can only guess their exact values. So the factor 16 and
48 corresponding to supra-nuclear and hyper-super density may well be incorrect. What
we should expect to be correct, however are the factors and exponents of α and α−3 : (0,
1, 2, 3, 4), (0, -3, -6, -9, -12).
Notice that the factor of alpha appearing in the middle (of the “S”) α−6 reappears in
both the cosmic densities (matter and radiation). When the density of atomic matter is
factored out of the various densities (as shown in the table) these cosmic densities exhibit
remarkably simple expressions. In the first of these we have twice the Schwarzschild
radius of a proton divided by the Bohr radius, and in the second we have the Schwarzshild
radius of an electron divided by the Bohr radius—each with a factor of α−6 .
It would obviously be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the supra-nuclear
and hyper-super density regimes exist. But just by looking at the charts, where astro-
nomical objects branch off toward higher density, such densities appear to be much more
reasonable predictions than those found by taking the abrupt turn onto the Schwarzschild
line. As noted on Chart 1 itself, the GR prediction is actually even less reasonable than
this, because objects that have such horizons are supposed to also forthwith collapse to
zero size and infinite density. Beyond the mere look of the charts, of course, we have
the more physically grounded prediction that the Schwarzschild metric coefficients are
incorrect; that the correct coefficients are (1 + 2GM/rc2 ) and its inverse, instead of
(1 − 2GM/rc2 ) and its inverse. This key difference between GR and the SGM is the
basis for the prediction that gravitational physics does not involve any horizons or sin-
gularities. When combined with our cosmological number exploration, which reveals the
ubiquity of α—not just in atomic physics, but also in astrophysics and cosmology—the
“S”-curve prediction stands out as the most reasonable interpretation of the data.
12. – Singularity-Free, But so Dark as to Seem Black
The SGM could obviously be refuted by observations in any domain where its pre-
dictions diverge from empirical facts. This essay would have had to be much longer to
address the whole range. But one consequence of the SGM that will not be neglected
here is its explanation for objects that are commonly regarded as convincing black hole
candidates. Stated as a question, if these objects do not trap light, then why don’t we
see their surfaces?
Four effects combine to make them very hard to see: 1) their intrinsic smallness; 2)
redshift and time dilation; 3) light bending/gravitational lensing; and 4) asymmetry in
up/down light speed. It should suffice to show how these effects would apply to the
smallest known black hole candidate, which is plotted on our charts: J1650-500. In most
every case the effects would be even more extreme.
Being α-folded in size past that of a neutron star—as we assume—means the object
would have a small radius (r ≈ 135 meters). This small size is reason #1 explaining why
we can’t easily see the surface.
The mass of J1650-500 is 3.8 times that of the Sun. If this mass lies within a radius
of only 135 meters, as shown on Chart 2, then the SGM equation for the rate of a clock
on the surface is
1 1 1
(39) f = f0 p ≈ f0 √ ≈ .
1+ 2GM/rc2 85 9.2
The factor 1/9.2 ≈ 0.11 applies twice because it affects two things: the frequency of the
light and the rate at which it is emitted. Since energy is proportional to frequency, this
means that our telescopes see only ≈ 0.012 of the energy that we’d see if the effect didn’t
exist. This is reason #2.
Reasons #3 and #4 are related; they diminish the amount of light that escapes the
star even further. The “light-bending” effect arising in GR is sometimes called gravita-
tional lensing because, with respect to the propagation of light waves, the magnitude of
static spacetime curvature is analogous to a variable index of refraction, n. If n varies
smoothly inside a transparent substance (e.g., glass) then a light ray passing though it
will be curved. In the SGM the observable effect would appear to be nearly the same
as that predicted by GR for weak fields. But in strong fields the SGM effect is more
pronounced because of an asymmetry in the speed of light in the up vs. down direc-
tions. As we recall from §6, the speed of light is equal to c only with respect to maximal
geodesics—i.e., the family of frames of reference falling radially from infinity.
Therefore, the upward
p speed of light with respect to the surface is slower than c,
specifically, c↑ ≈ c − 2GM/rγ . In the present case the upward speed is ≈ 0.006 c.
Due to spacetime curvature alone, light emitted from a point on the surface would not
cover the entire 180◦ of sky open to it. Instead, escaping light would be only that which
was contained within a cone of light rays whose axis is perpendicular to the surface, and
whose apex angle is less than 180◦ . Light propagating outside this angle would curve
back onto the surface. The greater the spacetime curvature, the greater the effect; i.e.,
the narrower the cone angle for escaping light rays. This is true for both GR and the
SGM. But for the SGM the effect is even more pronounced because of the up/down
asymmetry in light speed. The cone of escaping light rays becomes narrower still.
These four effects combine to make compact massive objects very hard to see. In
assessing how the SGM stands up against the standard black hole paradigm, it is im-
portant to remember that all evidence for black holes is necessarily indirect. For stellar
mass black hole candidates the most common kind of evidence is a spectrum showing
especially intense emission in the x-ray band. The sources of the emissions are supposed
to be from an accretion disk that is still very far outside the horizon. Among super-
massive black hole candidates, the most impressive evidence is that of extremely tight
and rapid stellar orbits around a dark region near the center of our galaxy (Sgr A). To
my knowledge, these and all other observational criteria for assessing whether an object
is a bona fide black hole or not, cannot distinguish a bona fide black hole from the very
dark objects predicted by the SGM.
And yet, the difference is quite fundamental. The sizes of the objects—considering
their enormous masses—are extremely small, and their densities are correspondingly
huge. But tiny sizes and huge densities are still finite sizes and densities. By contrast,
GR “goes overboard” by predicting zero size and infinite density. One theory suffers
pathological breakdown while the other remains healthy and robust. Possibly, the only
reason people still cling to GR is because they don’t know the result of the interior
solution gravity experiment. Imagine that.
64 R. BENISH
13. – Conclusion
The reasons for preferring Chart 2 over Chart 1 all trace back to the readings of
accelerometers and the rates of clocks. Physicists sometimes pretend that they regard
accelerometer readings as meaning what they say, based on Einstein’s equivalence prin-
ciple. But they don’t really believe this. When they go through the motions of saying
they do, it’s really just an intellectual exercise, a word game—a mathematical puzzle
whose solution is supposed to be static spacetime curvature. Accepting this “solution”
requires ignoring the contradictory meanings of the words static and acceleration. It
requires accepting that a static thing can be accelerating and that an accelerating thing
can be static. One is supposed to pretend there is no contradiction because the logic of
general relativity is assumed to be vastly superior to the logic of common sense. (We are
reminded of Orwellian Newspeak.) From the SGM point of view this contradictory way
of discussing motion is an intolerable delusion, a self-deception. The most reasonable
way out of the contradiction, as I have argued (§6) requires admitting the possiblility of
a fourth spatial dimension.
Let’s consider how the standard argument is posed by two different physicists, William
Unruh and J. Richard Gott. Unruh begins with a variation on the “gravity is geometry”
theme. (This variation is also well described for lay readers in L. C. Epstein’s book,
Relativity Visualized. [90] ) Unruh argues that we should not think of gravity as something
that “alters the way clocks run.” Instead
A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is that

gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster
far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from
place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely
gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the
theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually
caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place. [91]
To support this argument, whose apparent “strangeness” Unruh explicitly acknowledges,

he appeals to the equivalence principle. He purports that we are thereby led to a possible
explanation for “the pressure we feel on the soles of our feet.”
[The] explanation for the force we feel under our feet is that the surface
of the earth is accelerating upwards. Of course the immediate reaction is
that this seems silly [because if it’s true] the earth must surely be getting
larger. The distance between two objects accelerating away from each other
must surely be changing. [But] in the presence of an unequable flow of time
this conclusion does not necessarily follow . . . Both sides of the earth can be
accelerating upwards even though the distance between them does not change.
As Unruh explains, the key to seeing the logic of this is to recognize that the spacetime
path of an object on Earth’s surface is not straight, it is curved. Allowing spacetime
curvature supposedly allows, in turn, saying that objects in a static gravitational field
are also accelerating. I maintain that this logic is twisted. There is a more straightforward
explanation that Unruh has failed to consider. Either Earth’s gravitational field is static
or an accelerometer at its surface is really accelerated. Unruh wants to have it both
ways. So he refuses to be concerned with the contradiction between the meaning of the
word static and the meaning of the word acceleration. A curved line on a spacetime
diagram may be a useful clue, but it does not resolve the contradiction.
Before elaborating on the SGM resolution to this problem, let’s consider how J.
Richard Gott arrives at essentially the same conclusion as that of Unruh, using simi-
lar reasoning. Gott appeals more explicitly to the equivalence principle:
Einstein proposed [that] gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-
of-reference.
But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity [is] nothing
but accelerated motion. Earth’s surface [is] simply accelerating upward. This
explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at
the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless.
The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh
way of looking at things!
Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away
from Earth’s center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time
like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering
spacetime to be curved. [92]
Again we are given a useful clue. But surely the puzzle pieces are not yet assembled
correctly. Gott also appears numb to the contradiction of saying that a static body is
also an accelerating body. (Inspiration for this way of scrambling up our conception of
motion traces back, of course, to Einstein, who claimed that even rotating bodies could
be thought of as being at rest.)
Now recall the experience of the Twodees from §6. In the case considered there, the
Twodees found that their two dimensional surface, their whole world, does not obey
Euclidean plane geometry; they found the geometry to be curved, i.e., non-Euclidean
(e.g., as a sphere). In attempting to explain this, they have two options: 1) The curvature
is just given as found with no deeper meaning. There is no explanation beyond the fact
of its existence. This is the standard approach recommended by Hobson, et al. As we
recall, this entails the explicit denial of the existence of a higher-dimensional embedding
space for which to understand the curvature. This is essentially the same reasoning used
by Unruh and Gott.
But it could be that 2) The curvature of the Twodees’ world indicates the existence of
a higher space dimension. Another dimension of space is needed for lines on their surface
to curve into. Imaginative Twodees could devise a way to describe their seemingly two
dimensional world using three dimensions. This would not enable them to actually see it,
but by deducing it they might gain a better understanding of their experience. With our
three-dimensional perspective, humans see the curvature of the Twodees’ world as an ob-
vious consequence of its extension into a higher dimension. Conceiving their observations
in terms of one higher spatial dimension gives the Twodees a possible explanation for
them; it gives them the possibility of understanding why their surface does not conform
to planar Euclidean geometry.
The situations are clearly analogous. We humans find spacetime curvature, e.g., the
unequable flow of time, as an empirical fact. We find positive accelerometer readings as
an empirical fact. To eliminate the contradiction between the static spacetime curvature
of GR and the alleged equivalence of gravity and acceleration, we simply reject one of
these things as a faulty premise (or as a conclusion that does not follow). Staticness
and acceleration are not reconcilable concepts; they are opposites. Which one should we
66 R. BENISH
Fig. 18. – All good theoretical physicists put accelerometers on their desks and contemplate
their meaning—remembering the whole while to not “affect the pomp of superfluous causes.”
reject? Sophisticated geometrical theories are not so important to us that, for their sake,
we overlook the contradiction. We are not numb to it; it is like an injury to which we give
our full attention. Our motion sensing devices give us empirical facts. GR gives us only
abstract theoretical facts. Abstractions wither in the face of reality. So we suppose that
our motion sensing devices tell the physical truth, which means denying that spacetime
is static. Thus, to reconcile the equivalence of gravitation and acceleration with the
appearance of staticness, we deduce the existence of a higher dimensional embedding
space. Accelerometers indicate our acceleration into the fourth spatial dimension and
differences in clock rates indicate our velocity. This is not motion through space like a
rocket or rotation. It is the motion of space. It is this motion that explains why the
resulting generated spacetime is curved.
In addition to contradicting the common preconception that there are only three spa-
tial dimensions, the SGM also violates the energy conservation law. Maybe that’s a good
thing. According to Richard Feynman, “It is important to realize that in physics today
we have no knowledge of what energy is . . . We do not understand the conservation of
energy.” [93] It was excellent of Feynman to make this (otherwise) rare admission of
our ignorance. Just as it was excellent of him to emphasize the importance of trying to
understand the significance of the fine structure constant. (“All good theoretical physi-
cists puts this number up on their wall and worry about it.”) Concerning the mystery of
energy, it is too bad that Feynman did not similarly recommend that all good theoretical
physicists put a functional accelerometer on his or her desk, such as the one depicted in
Figure 18.
Spacetime curvature is a clue. Accelerometer readings are a clue. Our daily visual
impressions reinforce the conception we’ve inherited from antiquity that material bodies
are static and that space is only three-dimensional. So even with an accelerometer on
his desk, due to years of rigorous training, a physicist is likely to claim that it is at rest
in a static gravitational field. (It would be worse to say it is accelerating while at rest
in a static gravitational field. The worst kind of hell is where they say, war is peace.)
But what happens if the accelerometer is allowed to fall all the way into a hole through
the sphere it is “resting” on? Why not let it fall “forever” without collision?—just to see
what happens, as scientists sometimes do. Its zero reading then of course indicates that,
upon being released, it stops accelerating. This is where we could perhaps discover what
energy is. Just as we could discover the origin of inertia; we could discover the reason
for the asymmetry of time. We could discover the fourth dimension of space. Even if we
do not discover these things, there is no good reason not to at least look.
If the accelerometer passes the center with a maximum speed and thenceforth oscil-
lates in the hole, these prominent enigmas of physics will persist as such. But if the
sphere accelerates up past the accelerometer only so far as the walls of the hole exhibit
positive readings between the center and the surface, then we could rejoice in discovering
the violation of energy’s conservation because this is what keeps us alive.
If energy is conserved and gravity is a force (or “geometry”) of attraction, then the
mathematical expression of this entails the unavoidability of horizons, where physical
objects are not allowed to exist, because if they did, their accelerations would be infinite
and clocks would stop. It entails, within the horizon, the existence of a singularity where
the theory breaks down and densities become infinite. It entails the description of matter
as being utterly distinct from space so that, as one increases the other remains inertly
static (big bang). It entails that this fragmentation between matter and space started
from an infinitely hot singularity and that it will end with densities and temperatures
approaching ever closer to zero. It entails all the futile attempts to “marry” GR with
quantum theory by the invention of gravitons, strings, loops, branes, Planck masses and
whatnot. It entails that the rate of a clock at the center of a material body will be
a local minimum for no physical reason at all. It entails replacing physical reasoning
with “geometrical” reasoning and the invocation of counterintuitive, contradictory word
games.
On the other hand, an accelerometer at the center of a material body whose reading
is zero implies that the rate of a clock there should be a local maximum because, by
symmetry, this is as close as one can get to a state of rest. This corresponds, by analogy,
to the axis of a rotating body. The motion of a uniformly rotating body is stationary, so
it is indeed similar to gravitational motion. But rotation is only motion through space,
so the analogy breaks down. Gravitational motion is stationary, but it is also the motion
of space. Motion through space is limited by the speed of light [Eq. (1)]. No matter
what the acceleration and no matter how long the acceleration is maintained, the speed
of light will never be reached. By expressing the consequences of the light speed limit,
Eq. (1) may be regarded as the relativization(3 ) of uniform acceleration. Motion of space
(gravity) is stationary in time but can be increased by adding mass. This motion should
also be restricted by the speed of light, so we expect that relativizing it would involve
an equation with the same mathematical form as Eq. (1). The effect of adding mass for
motion of space is analogous to adding time for motion through space. Thus Eq. (1)
implies, for gravity, Eq. (2). Eq. (2) leads to the geometrical consequence that the GR
horizon line should be moved from r = 2GM/c2 to r = 0. By doing so it loses its status
as a horizon. By doing so it allows that the length 2GM/c2 may exceed r without limit.
This is, in effect, what prevents the speed of light from ever being reached as a result
(3 ) Absolutization would be a better word, but relativization is already understood as meaning

something like, accounting for the fact that the speed of light is an unreachable limit for material
bodies.
68 R. BENISH
of gravitational motion. Since we regard the motion as being of the body upon which
motion sensing devices detect the presence of motion, all quantities remain finite and
well behaved. Neither horizons nor singularities appear.
Conceiving of matter as the source of this motion (generation) of space implies that
matter and space are profoundly continuous with each other. One cannot increase or de-
crease without the other doing the same in like proportion. Locally we have pronounced
inhomogeneities in the motion because there are inhomogeneities in the distribution of
matter (inverse square law). Generation of space is always in proportion to the quantity
of matter. Increasing along with the space it generates in like proportion means that
globally, matter and space both increase exponentially. The increase is always in propor-
tion to how much exists at any given time. The global cosmological effect is thus a direct
consequence of the behavior of subatomic particles and electromagnetic phenomena, i.e.,
the constituents of matter.
One of the most important measurable consequences of this is that, due to the clock-
like behavior of matter and the timelessness of light, we expect the redshift of light
from distant galaxies [Eq. (19)]. Constant matter/space proportionality implies that
the average matter density and the average radiation density of the cosmos should be
related to each other by constants having to do with these phenomena. Thus we expect
the constants to be among those arising in atomic and electromagnetic theory. We are
therefore not too surprised to find that the relation
ρµ 1 me
(40) = ,
ρC 2 mp
accords exceptionally well with empirical observations. Specifically, this leads to pre-
dictions for the density parameter Ω and the Hubble constant H that are very close
to measured values. After deducing that nuclear saturation density should be included
among the cosmically significant constants, our numerical explorations then yield at least
two intriguing relations for the fine structure constant:
FG RC
(41) α=2 ,
FE a 0
and
FE ρC
(42) α2 = 4 .
FG ρ N
Simple algebra then leads to the discovery of a simple expression for Newton’s constant:
ρµ c2 a0

µCBR a0
(43) G=8 · =8 · ,
ρN m e ρN me
which, in turn leads to a simple expression for the energy density of the CBR:
3 G me mp
(44) ρµ c2 = µCBR = .
2π α6 a40
The ubiquity of α in this exploration diminishes our surprise that it also appears in
the relations between the sizes and densities of neutron stars, white dwarfs and atomic
Fig. 19. – To oscillate or not to oscillate?
matter. The revealed pattern strongly suggests that the maximum density in the universe
is neither infinite, nor of the order of nuclear density. Rather, by extending our trail of
points of astronomical bodies across the Schwarzschild line we pass through a transitional
density that we predict should correspond to stellar mass black hole candidates (supra-
nuclear densities):
1
(45) ρSN ∝ ρN .
α3
Nuclear density thus appears at the center of our mass vs. radius “S”-curve, whose upper
asymptote corresponds to another α−3 -folding in density (hyper-super density):
1
(46) ρHS ∝ ρN .
α6
Given all of the above, we may now be inspired to post up next the the 1/137 adorning
our walls, Chart 2, where α’s ubiquity is inescapable. And to the accelerometers on our
desks we may paste the sticky note shown in Figure 19. The question mark also belongs,
of course, on Chart 2 near the nine horizon-violating points. I would guess that answering
one of these questions is tantamount to answering the other. Astronomical bodies are
dangerous and (except for Earth) very far away. So I would recommend starting with
bodies that fit in a typical physics laboratory. What happens at r = 0? What is the
universe doing? Should we or should we not believe the accelerometers?
REFERENCES
[1] Kraus J. D., Radio Astronomy (McGraw-Hill, New York) 1966, p. 32.
[2] Barrow J. D., The Constants of Nature, From Alpha to Omega—the Numbers That
Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe (Pantheon, New York) 2002, p. 47.
[3] Hartle J. B., Gravity, An Introduction to Einstein’s General Relativity (Addison-Wesley,
San Francisco) 2003, p. 5.
[4] Benish R., Cosmic Everything Chart (Standard), <http://www.gravitationlab.com
/Grav%20Lab%20Links/Cos-Evthng-Chart-Std-8-31-10.pdf>, Accessed 1 September
2010.
70 R. BENISH
[5] Benish R., Cosmic Everything Chart (SGM), <http://www.gravitationlab.com

/Grav%20Lab%20Links/Cos-Evthng-Chart-SGM-8-31-10.pdf>, Accessed 1 September
2010.
[6] Benish R., Space Generation Model of Gravity, Cosmic Numbers, and Dark Energy
<http://www.gravitationlab.com/Grav%20Lab%20Links/SGM%20CN%20and%20DE%
209-4-09.pdf>, Accessed 30 August 2010.
[7] Bergmann P. G., Open Discussion, Following Papers by S. Hawking and W. G.
Unruh, in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, A Centennial Symposium to Celebrate
the Achievements of Albert Einstein, edited by Woolf H. (Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Massachusetts) 1980, p. 156.
[8] Benish R., Interior Solution Gravity Experiment <http://www.gravitationlab.com/
Grav%20Lab%20Links/IntSolGravExp-Apr-6-10.pdf>, Accessed 27 August 2010.
[9] Hartle J. B., Gravity, An Introduction to Einstein’s General Relativity (Addison-Wesley,
San Francisco) 2003, p. 435. “Infinite acceleration is required to remain stationary at the
horizon of a black hole.”
[10] Rindler W., Essential Relativity, Special, General and Cosmological—Second Edition
(Springer-Verlag, New York) 1977, p. 149. “Note how g becomes infinite at the
Schwarzschild radius r = 2m. It follows that a ‘particle’ at rest in the space at r = 2m
would have to be a photon.”
[11] Wald Robert M., General Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 1984,
pp. 152. “Static observers in the Schwarzschild spacetime must undergo a proper
acceleration (in order to ‘stand still’ in the ‘gravitational field’) given by
GM 1
(47) a= ,
r2
p
1 − 2GM/rc2
which diverges as r → 2GM/c2 .” [Constants were reinserted into Wald’s “geometrized”

units.]
[12] Einstein A., On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many
Gravitating Masses, Annals of Mathematics, 40 (October 1939) 922–936.
[13] Ohanian H. and Ruffini R., Gravitation and Spacetime—Second Edition (W. W. Norton
& Company, New York) 1994, pp. 449, 459.
[14] Hobson M. P., Efstathiou G. P. and Lasenby A. N., General Relativity, An
Introduction for Physicists (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 2006, pp. 36–38.
[15] Schutz B., Gravity from the Ground Up (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 2003,
p. 260.
[16] Hawking S. W. and Penrose R., The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and
Cosmology, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 314 (1970) 529–548.
[17] Crothers Stephen J., The Black Hole Catastrophe: A Reply to J. J. Sharples <http://
aias.us/documents/otherPapers/CrothersSharplesReply.pdf>. Accessed 29 August 2010.
This document contains a wealth of references to Crothers’ published works and to
descriptions by standard authors of the extreme and “exotic” behavior of black holes.
Crothers addresses these behaviors and the criticism he has received from standard
theorists in a point-by-point rebuttal.
[18] Adler R., Bazin M. and Schiffer M., Introduction to General Relativity (McGraw-Hill,
New York) 1965, pp. 164–209, 280–295. This is one of the most thorough treatments of
both the interior and exterior standard Schwarzschild solutions. References to the original
papers (in German) are given. Bear in mind our “Concern #5” in §4: the objections by
Crothers and others who have pointed out serious differences between the original work of
Schwarzschild and the standard treatments that bear his name.
[19] Newton I., Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and His
System of the World, Volume II: The System of the World, Translated into English by
Andrew Motte in 1729; revised translation by Florian Cajori. (University of California
Press, Berkeley) 1962, p. 398.
[20] Jammer M., Concepts of Space, The History of Theories of Space in Physics—
Third Enlarged Edition (Dover, New York) 1993, pp. 185f, 244–251. This historical
treatise provides extensive references on higher-dimensional hypotheses up through their
appearance in superstring theory.
[21] Randall L., Warped Passages, Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden
Dimensions (Harper Perennial, New York) 2005. Though poorly referenced, this book
describes in detail the origins of extra dimensions in physical theories and many variations
from Randall’s own recent work in “braneworld” scenarios.
[22] Seahra Sanjeev S., Physics in Higher-Dimensional Manifolds, PhD Thesis presented to
the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2003. < http://etd.uwaterloo.ca
/etd/ssseahra2003.pdf >. Accessed 29 August 2010.
[23] Wesson Paul S., The Equivalence Principle as a Probe for Higher Dimensions,
< http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601065 >. Accessed 29 August 2010. Wesson has published
many papers on “(4+1)-dimensional gravity.” When encountering a title like that of this
paper (which has happened many times over the years) I would feel a glimmer that perhaps
Dr. Wesson was onto something resembling the SGM. Alas. As far as I can tell, to Wesson,
5D gravity means to compound the abstraction of GR yet further from physical reality.
[24] Young Arthur M., Which Way Out (Robert Briggs Associates, Berkeley) 1980, p. 164.
[25] Banchoff Thomas F., Beyond the Third Dimension, Geometry Computer Graphics, and
Higher Dimensions (Scientific American Library, New York) 1990, p. 115, 122.
[26] Fitch Graham Denby, Lieut.-Col., ‘An Elucidation of the Fourth Dimension,’ in The
Fourth Dimension Simply Explained, edited by Manning Henry P. (Dover, New York)
1960, p. 48.
[27] Smith Charles Henry, ‘How the Fourth Dimension May Be Studied,’ in The Fourth
Dimension Simply Explained, edited by Manning Henry P. (Dover, New York) 1960,
p. 88.
[28] Sagan Carl, Cosmos (Random House, New York) 1980, pp. 262–264. Sagan’s description
is typically revealing for the possibility it misses: “Now let us take our three-dimensional
cube and carry it, at right angles to itself, through a fourth physical dimension: not
left-right, not forward-back, not up-down, but simultaneously at right angles to all those
directions. I cannot show you what direction that is, but I can imagine it to exist. In such
a case we would have generated a four-dimensional hypercube, also called a tesseract. I
cannot show you a tesseract, because we are trapped in three dimensions. But what I
can show you is the shadow in three dimensions of a tesseract. It resembles two nested
cubes . . . ” What’s missing is the connection to time and matter. The process of generating
the tesseract takes time and it occurs in proportion to how much matter is present. It is
gravity. But, like so many others, Sagan tries to conceive of the fourth spatial dimension as
a purely static geometrical (not really physical) thing. To give an indication of how wide of
the mark Sagan is, notice that he too has harbored the most bizarre four-dimensional
fantasies: “If a fourth-dimensional creature existed it could, in our three-dimensional
universe, appear and dematerialize at will, change shape remarkably, pluck us out of locked
rooms and make us appear from nowhere. It could also turn us inside out.” Well, I guess
he was an entertainer as well as a scientist, right?
[29] Pickover Clifford A., Surfing Through Hyperspace, Understanding Higher Universes in
Six Easy Lessons (Oxford University Press, Oxford) 1999, p. 101. The purpose of Pickover’s
book is evidently even more about entertainment than Sagan’s. It is permeated with a
maximum of fantasy and a minimum of factual information.
[30] Kaku Michio and Thompson Jennifer, Beyond Einstein, The Cosmic Quest for the
Theory of the Universe (Anchor Books, New York) 1995, p. 169.
[31] Rucker Rudy, The Fourth Dimension, A Guided Tour of the Higher Universes (Houghton
Mifflin, Boston) 1984, p. 33.
[32] Bragdon Claude, A Primer of Higher Space, the Fourth Dimension (Alfred A. Knopf,
New York) 1923, Plates 1, 3, 5.
[33] Möller C., The Theory of Relativity, Second Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford) 1972, p.
284.
72 R. BENISH
[34] Rindler W., Essential Relativity, Special General, and Cosmological (Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York) 1969, p. 152.
[35] Landau L. D. and Lifschitz E. M., Classical Theory of Fields (Addison-Wesley, 1971,
p. 247.
[36] Einstein A., Relativity, the Special and General Theory (Crown, New York) 1961, pp. 79-
82. Einstein writes: “We shall imagine K 0 to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which
rotates uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who is sitting eccentrically
on the disc K 0 is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction, and which
would be interpreted as an effect of inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at
rest with respect to the original reference body K [i.e., the axis]. But the observer on the
disc may regard his disc as a reference-body which is ‘at rest’; on the basis of the general
principle of relativity he is justified in doing this. The force acting on himself, and in fact
on all other bodies which are at rest relative to himself he regards as the effect of a [static]
gravitational field.”
[37] Einstein A., The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey) 1974, p. 60. With reference to the same circumstance as above, Einstein writes:
“According to the principle of equivalence, K 0 may also be considered as a system at rest,
with respect to which there is a gravitational field.”
[38] Norton J., ‘What was Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence?,’ in Einstein and the History
of General Relativity, edited by Howard D. and Stachel J. (Birkhäuser, Boston) 1989,
pp. 48–62. Norton quotes Einstein: “[The equivalence principle] asserts that the qualities of
physical space, as they present themselves from an accelerated coordinate system, represent
a special case of the gravitational field. It is the same in the case of the rotation of the
coordinate system: there is de facto no reason to trace centrifugal effects back to a ‘real’
rotation.” Then Norton comments: “Within this view, relative spaces [such as that of a
rotating body] would have no intrinsic states of motion—none would be ‘really’ rotating
for example—and in this sense they would all be indistinguishible.” Within this view, one
gets the image of Einstein thinking to himself: I never move.
[39] Hobson M. P., Efstathiou G. P. and Lasenby A. N., General Relativity, An
Introduction for Physicists (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 2006, pp. 33, 35.
[40] Swinburne Richard, Space and Time (Macmillan, London) 1968, p. 155.
[41] Benish R., Light and Clock Behavior in the Space Generation Model of Gravitation,
Apeiron, 15 (July 2008) 222–234.
[42] Orwell G., Politics and the English Language, Horizon, (April 1946) .
[43] Britten Roy J., Graviton Scattering and Matter Distribution, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA, 89 (May 1992) 4086-4090.
[44] Hawking S. W., A Brief History of Time (Bantam, New York) 1988, p. 161.
Dimensions (Harper Perennial, New York) 2005, p. 156.
[46] Zee A., Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (Princeton University Press, Princeton) 2003,
p. 78.
[47] Callender Craig and Huggett Nick, Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale,
Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
2001.
Dimensions (Harper Perennial, New York) 2005, p. 145.
[49] Hawking S. W., A Brief History of Time (Bantam, New York) 1988, p. 168.
[50] Weinberg S., ‘Newtonianism in Today’s Physics,’ in Three Hundred Years of Gravitation,
edited by Hawking S. W. and Israel W., (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
1987, p. 15.
[51] Kane Gordon, Supersymmetry—Squarks, Photinos, and the Unveiling of the Ultimate
Laws of Nature (Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts) 2001.
[52] Weinberg Stephen, quoted in ‘Higgs Discovery Likely at LHC Says Weinberg,’ Physics
Today web page: < http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/10/higgs-discovery-
likely-at-lhc.html >. Accessed 30 August 2010.
[53] Callender Craig, An Answer in Search of a Question: ‘Proofs’ of the Tri-Dimensionality

of Space, (2005) downloadable from: < http://philpapers.org/s/Craig%20Callender >.
Accessed 30 August 2010. Modern physics abounds with hyper-dimensional speculations
whose origins trace back to the work of two authors of separate works who are often
lumped together as “Kaluza-Klein.” In this paper Callender points out that, though Kaluza
adopted an extra dimension of space in 1921, it was Klein who thought of “rolling” it up
so as to “hide” it from view. The originals are in obscure German journals, so Callender
provides a reference to a book (by Applequist, et al) in which they are reproduced.
[54] Greene Brian, The Fabric of the Cosmos—Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality
(Vintage Books, New York) 2004, pp. 365, 367, 369.
[55] Benish R., Maximum Force Derived from Special Relativity, the Equivalence Principle
and the Inverse Square Law, GravitationLab.com, < http://www.gravitationlab.com/
Grav%20Lab%20Links/Maximum-Force-1-16-10.pdf >. Accessed 31 May 2010.
[56] Einstein A., ‘On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,’ in The
Principle of Relativity, A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General
Theory of Relativity, edited by Sommerfeld A. (Dover, New York) 1952, p. 100.
[57] Epstein L. C., Relativity Visualized (Insight, San Francisco) 1988, p. 152.
[58] Davies P. C. W., The Forces of Nature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 1979,
p. 109.
[59] Wald R. M., General Relativity (University of Chicago, Chicago) 1984, pp. 126-131.
[60] Schiller Christoph, Motion Mountain, The Adventure of Physics: Relativity, Free
book from internet: Twenty-second edition, second printing, ISBN 978-300-021946-7.
< http://www.motionmountain.eu/ >. (2009) p. 170. Accessed 30 August 2010.
[61] Schiller Christoph, General Relativity and Cosmology Derived From Principle of
Maximum Power or Force, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 44 (2005) 1629.
[62] Penzias Arno, ‘A Personal View of the Universe,’ in The Cosmic Background Radiation
and Fundamental Physics, edited by Melchiorri F. (Italian Physical Society, Bologna)
1985, pp. 282–283.
[63] Rohrlich F., Self-Energy and Stability of the Classical Electron, American Journal of
Physics, 28 (1960) 639–643.
[64] Feynman R., QED—The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey) 1985, p. 128.
[65] Hoffmann B., The Strange Story of the Quantum, Second Edition (Dover, New York)
1959, pp. 252–254. Hoffmann writes, “Our present theory is defective; it yields infinite
mass for the [electron] cloud . . . The infinities are still there, lurking and snarling, tamed
but unvanquished. Renormalization pushes the accomplishments of the theory beyond the
limitations of the theory itself, and shows that deep down there is something essentially
right beneath the morass of infinities that are certainly wrong.”
[66] Born M., ‘Physics and Relativity,’ in Physics in My Generation, a Selection of Papers,
Second Edition (Pergamon Press, New York) 1969. As a physicist who worked on this
problem both before and after the advent of quantum theory, Born summed up the situation
thus: “Today all these [prior] efforts [to solve the problem of the electron’s self energy]
appear rather wasted; quantum theory has shifted the point of view, and at present the
tendency is to circumvent the problem of self-energy rather than to solve it. But one day
it will return to the center of the scene.”
[67] Stewart John Q., ‘Nebular Red Shift and Universal Constants,’ Physical Review, 38
(1931) 2071.
[68] Dicke R. H., ‘The Many Faces of Mach,’ in Gravitation and Relativity, edited by
Chiu Hong-Yee and Hoffmann William F. (W. A. Benjamin, Inc. New York) 1964,
pp. 139–140.
[69] Bahcall N. A., et al, Where is the Dark Matter?, <astro-ph/9506041> Matter density
parameter given as 0.15 < ΩM < 0.20 or 0.20 < ΩM < 0.30, the latter value depending on
“bias.”
[70] Peebles P. J. E., Probing General Relativity on the Scales of Cosmology, < arXiv: astro-
ph/0410284 > Matter density parameter given as 0.15 < ΩM < 0.30.
74 R. BENISH
[71] Carlberg R. G., et al, ΩM and the CNOC Surveys, < astro-ph/9711272 >. Matter density
parameter given as ΩM = 0.19 ± 0.06.
[72] Hale-Sutton D., Fong R., Metcalfe N. and Shanks T., An extended galaxy redshift
survey – II. Virial constrains on ΩM . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
237 (1989) 569–587. Matter density parameter given as 0.09 < ΩM < 0.27.
[73] Scarmella R., Vettolani G. and Zamorani G., The distribution of clusters of
galaxies within 300 Mpc h−1 and the crossover to an isotropic and homogeneous universe.
Astrophysical Journal, 376 (20 July 1991) L1-L4. Matter density parameter given as
0.2 < ΩM < 0.4.
[74] Turner M. S., Dark Matter Candidates, in Astronomy, Cosmology and Fundamental
Physics, edited by Caffo M., Fanti R., Giacomelli G. and Renzini A. (Kluwer,
Dordrecht) 1989, pp. 279–286. In this brief review paper, matter density parameter given
as inference from many measurements: 0.1 < ΩM < 0.3.
[75] Robitaille P. M., On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP and
Relikt-1 Satellites, Progress in Physics, 1 (January 2007) 19–23.
[76] Feynman R., QED—The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey) 1985, p. 129.
[77] Atkins P. W., Quanta—A Handbook of Concepts, Second Edition (Oxford University
Press, Oxford) 1991, p. 126.
[78] Barrow John D. and Tipler Frank J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford
University Press, Oxford) 1986, p. 293.
[79] Bondi H., Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 1952, pp. 61–62.
[80] Barrow John D., ‘The Mysterious Lore of Large Numbers,’ in Modern Cosmology in
Retrospect, edited by Bertotti B., Balbinot R., Bergia S. and Messina A. (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge) 1990, p. 69.
[81] Saibal R., Mukhopadhyay U., and Ghosh P. P, Large Number Hypothesis: A Review
< http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1836 >. Accessed 30 August 2010.
[82] Unzicker A., A Look at the Abandoned Contributions to Cosmology of Dirac, Sciama,
and Dicke, Ann. Phys. (Berlin), 18 (2009) 57–70.
[83] Bertulani C. A., Nuclear Physics in a Nutshell (Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey) 2007, p. 126.
[84] Cook A. H., ‘Experiments on Gravitation,’ in Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, edited
by Hawking S. W. and Israel W., (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 1987, p. 71.
[85] Aitchison I. J. R., ‘The Vacuum and Unification,’ in The Philosophy of Vacuum, edited
by Saunders Simon and Brown Harvey R., (Clarendon Press, Oxford) 1991, pp. 185–
186.
[86] Hoyle F., ‘On the Relation of the Large Numbers Problem to the Nature of Mass,’
Astrophysics and Space Science, 168 (1990) 59–88.
[87] Mather J. C., et al, Calibrator Design for the COBE Far Infrared Absolute
Spectrophotometer (FIRAS), Astrophysical Journal, 512 (20 February 1999) 511–520.
[88] Woosley S. E., ‘The Birth of Neutron Stars,’ in The Origin and Evolutin of Neutron
Stars, edited by Helfand D. L. and Huang J.-H., (International Astronomical Union)
1987, pp. 255–272. Woosley writes, “The possibility of neutron star production by a massive
star is, as we shall see, sensitive to the stellar mass and, unfortunately, to the physics that
a given theoretician employs in his or her calculation. It turns out that the more massive
the progenitor star, the less likely it is that the remnant will be small enough to stabilize
as a neutron star. Further, it is possible to produce neutron stars by accretion at certain
rates on white dwarfs in binary systems and thus bypass the need for a massive stellar
parent.” Astrophysics is a messy business. Meaningful patterns abound, but hard and fast
rules are few.
[89] Link Bennett, ‘Neutron Stars as Dense Matter Laboratories,’ in The Third 21COE
Symposium: Astrophysics as Interdisciplinary Science, edited by Maeda Kei-ichi,
Yamada Shoichi, and Daishido Tsuneaki, (Institute of Physics Publishing) 2006,
pp. 80–87.
[90] Epstein L. C., Relativity Visualized (Insight, San Francisco) 1988, pp. 146–163.
[91] Unruh William, ‘Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics,’ in Time’s Arrow
Today—Recent Physical and Philosophical Work on the Direction of Time, edited by
Savitt Stephen F., (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 1995, pp. 26–32.
[92] Gott J. Richard III, Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe—The Physical Possibilities of
Travel Through Time (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston) 2001, p. 86.
[93] Feynman R., Leighton R. and Sands M., Lectures in Physics. Volume 1 (Addison
Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts) 1963, pp. 4–2, 4–7.

Cosmic Everything Charts Compared

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cosmic Everything Charts Compared

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GravitationLab.

Cosmic Everything Charts Compared: General Relativity vs. the

(1 ) Eugene, Oregon, USA, rjbenish@teleport.com

log ρ (3M/4πr 3 ) (kg m–3)

NUCLEAR SAT U R AT I O N D E NSI T Y Nucleon Neutron Supra-Nuclear

Density Stars VISI B L E

Electron J1650-500 HLX-1

radius α2 a0) 1999 KW Center of M15

Sirius B Center of Omega Centauri

5 Osmium Elephant Brown Dwarfs J0917 3C 66B Galaxy Core 5

Density Earth 3C 66B Galaxy Core

log g (GM/r 2 ) (m s–2 )

Planck Planetary Nebula

& Nuclei Sand Grain M31 Nucleus M32

radius α2 a0) Bacterium Coma

Bok Globules Cluster

Electron M32 Nucleus

log ρ (3M/4πr 3 ) (kg m–3)

NUCLEAR SAT U R AT I O N D ENSITY

familiar substances can be expressed as the mass IC 10 X-1

size is given by the Bohr radius: Sirius B

log g [GM/(r+2GM/c 2 )2 ] (m s–2 )

Blueberry Red Giant

Planetary Nebula M32 Nucleus

& Nuclei M32

Sand Grain M31 Nucleus

Electron M32 Nucleus

thought of as black holes. We’ll return to this branch below.

2. – Aesthetic Argument: an Edgeless World

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

-20 -20 -20 -20

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

3. – Einstein, Standard Schwarzschild Coordinates and Their Strong Field

4. – Six Issues of Concern

by measuring the change in density. Both situations are quite physical.

5. – Interior Solution Gravity Experiment: Standard Prediction

Fig. 5. – Practical experimental setup: Modified Cavendish balance in Earth-based laboratory.

6. – Interior Solution Gravity Experiment: SGM Prediction Derived from

Fig. 7. – Schematic of hierarchy of space dimensions.

perpendicular to itself we have a (2+1)-dimensional entity (two spatial + one temporal)

Rotation Gravity Gravity

both places to have maximum rates.

accelerometer readings. Feeling justified to disbelieve accelerometer readings in the case

Fig. 9. – Hierarchy of dimensions generated by rotational motion.

1. Linear acceleration, as produced by a rocket. This kind of acceleration

2. Rotational acceleration, as discussed above. This kind of acceleration,

3. Gravitational acceleration. This kind of acceleration, evidently, is the

To these key characteristics we now point out an extremely important distinction as

It is important to make a distinction . . . between the extrinsic properties

7. – The Quest for Quantum Gravity

It is important to fully grasp the “visualization” problem expressed by Britten. We

Particle in Particle in Particle in Particle in

Fig. 11. – Compactified dimensions, as explained by Brian Greene. A) “Kaluza-Klein proposal

Surely it is more sensible to conceive it as a volumetric extension, characterized by a

9. – Interior Solution Gravity Experiment and Strong Field Gravity: SGM

The resulting equation gains validity by appealing to Einstein’s equivalence principle

We arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law of experience, if we

Its significance is that no meaning can be attached to the location of a particle

PARABOLIC CROSS-SECTION OF SPATIAL & (INVERSE) TEMPORAL

SGM: Interior & exterior spacetime curvature

4 SPATIAL COEFFICIENT 4 SPATIAL COEFFICIENT

In the limit as r → 0, this becomes

A maximum force of c4 /4G implies universal gravity. There is no difference

10. – Clues from Cosmology