PRELUDE TO GRAVITY

First proposed by William McCrea in collaboration with Edward Milne (circa 1950),
expanding negative pressure creates positive energy. Combined with the equilibrium counter
potential of the void as observed by Richard Feynman (1960), the concept of the universe as
self creating inertial space can now be studied as a viable alternative to hypothetical force
carrying field particles. Obviated ab initio, is the fictional implication of fine tuned balance
between independent evolutionary processes. Cosmological creation of space and mass is
joint, but not severable. Betwixt the extremes of Big Bang and Steady State synthesis,
comes now a holistic theory of natures two long range fields derived from global expansion.
A SCALAR DENSITY FIELD FOR EXPANDING SPACE
If inertia be a property of global parameters, how then can it communicate instantaneously
to exert counter forces against accelerated mass. Historically, this has been the Achilles heal of
Machian mechanics, and most likely the reason for Einsteins failure to embrace it as a perspective
of General Relativity. The average density of static space is immeasurable small; offering nil
resistance to acceleration. Yet the void enables the conveyance of long range forces, in form as
reactance of mass to acceleration and electromagnetic impedance of space to accelerated charge.
Both suggest a mediumistic-like dynamic resilience. Most significantly, all inertial reactions are
instantaneous, the elastic properties of space appear to have ubiquitous presence.
In the context of an object with fixed mass M accelerated with respect to universe, Newtons
second law defines mechanical impedance as proportional to rate of change of momentum. For nonrelativistic velocities, the relationship between force, mass and space per Newtons second law takes
form as:

F M
=
a = P = (a )
A A

(X-1)

To scale Newtons second law in terms of a global origin, it will be necessary to explore the
cosmological relationships between space, mass and acceleration. By definition, for accelerated
mass, the area (or volume) over which it is distributed, is unimportant; a reactionary force of one
newton per kgm corresponds to one meter/sec2. In (X-1) sigma is a yet to be identified scalar field
having units of surface mass density. The question posed, is whether a natural cosmic () exists. It
may come as surprise to many readers, that the surface density of the shell model of the Hubble
universe 1 kgm/m2 To illustrate using a reasonable estimate of Hubble mass Mu = 1.5 x 1053 kgm
spread uniformly over a Hubble manifold of radius R = 1.1 x 1026 meters, the surface density u =
kgm/m2 How does this apply to Newtons 2nd Law?
For a spherical volume, constant radial velocity creates volumetric acceleration. When radial
&& is increasing as in de Sitters universe, isotropic volumetric expansion per unit area is
velocity R
2
3c /R and isotropic spatial acceleration is c2/R. This field acts upon the mass density u of the
Hubble volume...resulting in the reactive counter fields of individual masses that comprise the
content of condensed particle matter within the Hubble sphere. Newton called these local inertial
reactions Gravity. Although not possible to recognize at the time, the mysterious attraction of
-a-

masses for one another is a simple consequence of the symmetry of his second law wherein
expansion provides the acceleration. As presaged by Eienstein, acceleration is relative. The inertial
force felt by the crew of an accelerating rocket ship is no different than that experienced by the same
crew at rest in a universe undergoing unidirectional acceleration.
If Mu is to be a player in forging Newtons laws of inertia and gravity from Machs Principle,
the formularising must reflect the scalar field = Mu/4R2 as an instantaneous presence throughout
the Hubble volume. Transformation from volume to surface density follows from the divergence
theorem,

dV = (dA)
u

(X-2)

2.

Where the integral of dA = 4R and the integral over the volume is (4/3)R3. Therefore:

u = uR/3

(X-3)

The negative pressure field in a q = -1 de Sitter universe acting upon a surface density u is therefore:

(-P) = (c2/R)(uR/3) = uc2/3

(X-4)

which corresponds to that required to cancel positive mass energy. 1 Expansion thus accommodates
the dictates of de Sitter expansion, and while positive pressure is uniform throughout a closed
volume uniform per Pascals law, negative pressure (in the form of local g fields) increases in the
vicinity of non-expanding matter. These gradients are proportional to the mass contained thereby.
To restate, the Hubble sphere is reconfigured as an imaginary surface area 4R2. Volumetric
density is then transformed to the fictitious surface to create a fictional shell density u = 1 kgm/m2
coincident with the Hubble manifold. Per (X-4), de-Sitter expansion of the massless interior volume
equates to isotropic radial acceleration c2/R, and corresponding negative pressure u(c2/R). There
being no real Hubble matter shell upon which acceleration can operate, negative pressure must
conceptualize as isotropic momentum flow (Hubble recessional velocity). By this means, empty
space is endowed with the sigma density function, a spatially uniform reactive density shall
surrounding an empty void. When bits of matter are sprinkled throughout the volume, the local
inertia(s) of all such scattered masses will oppose the isotropic acceleration field created by spatial
expansion, the intensity of any uniform spherical object being proportional to its mass divided by
its surface. These locally emergent g fields thus bear the same relationship of mass to surface area
as Hubble mass is to Hubble surface u. In summary, Hubble density u transforms as inertial
surface density u, to take effect there as. Absent expansion, there is no acceleration field, hence no
negative pressure and therefore no virtual scalar field reactance to oppose acceleration.

In a purely massless void, = 0, so pressure must also be zero. This was de Sitters adaptation of
Einsteins gravitational equation that reduced to as exponentially expanding space. Initially regarded as an
unrealistic curiosity until Howard Robertson showed that real solutions could be obtained if mass were sprinkling
throughout the volume. Expansion acting upon the scattered masses creates gradients in the form of negative
pressure g fields, continuous action in the form of global expansion being necessary for the sustenance thereof.

-b-

The quest to derive G in terms of first principles, is in one sense, already completed in the
works of Alexander Friedmann and later George Lamartre, in that both men, working independently,
were able to formulate a model for the expanding universe in terms of G, c, R and M. A later result
of their seminal papers, comes an expression for the cosmic density u defined in terms of the
deceleration parameter q:
u = (-q)(3H2/4G)
(X-5)
For q = +1/2, then (X-5) corresponds to exponential deceleration. For de Sitters originally empty
universe, q = -1, and therefore:

Equation (X-5) then becomes

& 2 c2
R
&&
R = ( q)
=
R
R

(X-6)

u = (3H2/4G)

(X-7)

Rearranging:

G = [3H2/4(u)] = [3(c2/R2)]/[4u]

(X-8)

G = c2/4Ru

(X-9)

And from (X-3)

The question foremost is whether the value of G in (X-8) is the same as that in (X-9). More
specifically, since (X-8) is based upon the mass, size and geometry of a fully homogenized Hubble
three-sphere and u is the outgrowth of the empty shell model, then the gravitational energy U3 will
be greater than U2 by a factor of 6/5. That is, if both constructions contain the same amount of
matter Mu:
2
1 (M u ) G 2
U2 =
R2
2

2
3 (M u ) G e
U3 =
R3
5

(X-10)

Transformation of one to the other changes the fractional part of the total energy allocated to
gravitation, i.e., the energy difference between the distribution configurations in relation to the
energy the separate masses would have if each were totally isolated. If there being no change in
radial scale (R2 = R3) nor total mass Mu, then there would be no change in G unless U3 is not greater
than U2 by a factor of 6/5.
The application of Newtons 2nd law to gravity follows from another familiar relationship of
longstanding intrigue, namely the force acting upon a mass ME at surface of the Hubble manifold.
Since Newtons gravitational equation treats the mass of a uniform sphere as concentrated at its
center, then from his second law:

F = Muan = GMuME/R2
-c-

(X-11)

where an is the cosmological acceleration factor c2/R from (X-6) for an exponentially increasing
Hubble recessional flow. Rearranging:

G = (c2/R)(R2/Mu) = c2R/Mu

(X-12)

which will be recognized as the mysterious ratio

MuG
=1
c 2R

(X-13)

which has puzzled cosmologists for many years. Within the limits of experimental error, why should
the mass of the universe Mu multiplied by G equal the Hubble scale factor R multiplied by the speed
of light squared (c2). Such notables as Robert Dicke and Carl Brans long used the relationship as
a vehicle to investigate Machs Principle.2 The premise is that the numerator makes a statement
about gravitational mass and the denominator defines inertial mass The relationship (X-13) is
now viewed as a bootstrap embracement of Machs Principle. While there have been a numerous
attempts to establish the ratio on a theoretical basis, the problem has always been that of finding a
way to express G is terms of the properties of the universe. That is what this paper is about.

G = (c2/R)(1/[u(4/3)R3])= 3H2/4u

(X-14)

From (X-3) we recover (X-9):

G = c2/4Ru

(X-15)

Inertial enhancement is an evolutionary process. The kgm/m2 scalar field cannot be dismissed as
serendipitous consequence of the present Hubble size. The illusion of fine tuned balance between
runaway expansion and gravitational collapse is the mirage created by a slowly decreasing
gravitational factor and a complimentary rate of inertial accretion. From (X-13) and (X-9),

Mu = c2R/G = (c2R)/[c2/(4Ru)] = 4R2u

(X-16)

The inertial property augments in proportion to the expanding Hubble surface area. As c
defines the relationship between space and time, u defines the connection between mass and space.
No fine tuning is required for cosmic harmony. When measurements were taken in the 17th century
to define a system of units based upon force, mass and acceleration, the experimenters were
unknowingly probing the secrets of the cosmos.

Carl Brans, Varying Newtons constant: A personal history of scalar Tensor Theories,
in Einstein Online Vol. o4 (2010), 1002.
-d-