Physics Essays volume 20, number 1, 2007

A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General

Relativity
Ronald R. Hatch

Abstract
A fallacy in the equivalence between acceleration and gravity effects is revealed.
This fallacy undermines the general relativity theory (GRT), which is based upon
that equivalence. It is shown that the real equivalence in local physical phenom-
ena is between the effects of gravitational potential energy and those of kinetic
energy. Using this new equivalence, a new theory of gravity is logically developed
from known experimental results. This new gravity theory implies an absolute
ether and, when embedded within a modified Lorentz ether theory, also satisfies
the experiments usually explained by the special relativity theory. It is shown that
the new theory satisfies all the classical tests satisfied by GRT. In addition, a
number of previously unexplained physical phenomena are potentially explained
by the new theory. Finally, a spacecraft test of the new theory is suggested.

Key words: gravity, ether, general theory of relativity, special theory of relativity,
equivalence principle, black holes

1. INTRODUCTION enunciated by Einstein. This simple experiment is

Einstein’s general relativity theory (GRT) is gener-
ally accepted as correct. However, it is quite easy to
show that the very foundation upon which the GRT
was constructed is faulty. Correcting this fault leads
via natural logic from experimental data to a new
theory of gravity based upon the equivalence of
energy effects rather than upon an equivalence
between acceleration and gravity. This change has a
number of very significant implications.
The equivalence of energy effects implies an abso-
lute energy scale and thus an absolute reference
frame. An absolute reference frame in turn implies an
absolute ether. The author has developed a modified
Lorentz ether theory (MLET),(1) also characterized as
an ether gauge theory (EGT). MLET is a “construc-
tive” theory that postulates various characteristics of
the ether that are shown to result in an apparent
relativity. At several points within this paper, MLET
characteristics will be called upon to “explain”
experimental observations.
2. ON THE GRAVITATION OF ENERGY
Einstein began his development of GRT by using
an equivalence principle between gravity and accel-
eration. In fact, a very simple experiment can be
performed that refutes the equivalence principle
described in Section 3.1 below. As will be shown,
there is no equivalence between gravity and accelera-
tion. Instead, there is an apparent equivalence be-
tween the effects of kinetic energy and gravitational
potential energy. As these energies change, the local
physical units change such that there is no apparent
difference in any local experimental results. Accelera-
tion and gravity are simply the actions that change the
kinetic energy and potential energy, respectively.
In Section 2 of his 1911 paper(2) Einstein gives
several reasons for believing that the energy of a body
is subject to gravitational attraction. Richard Feyn-
man, the late professor of physics at California
Institute of Technology, repeated the arguments in
Section 6-6 of his highly acclaimed book, Six Not-So-
Easy Pieces.(3) Feynman used the arguments to
address clock rate in a gravitational field, while
Einstein used them to address the gravitation of
energy. Each of their three arguments is given before
any attempt at refutation is made.
Before addressing the arguments in detail, some
qualifying discussion is needed. Lo claims(4,5) that
Einstein departed from these arguments when he fully
developed his GRT. It is true that in these early
arguments Einstein employed a uniform gravity and a
uniform acceleration. As a result, in his 1911 paper
Einstein obtained only half of the gravitational

1
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity
deflection of light obtained later. This improper
deflection can be ascribed to the lack of metric length
dependence with gravitational potential or, its equiva-
lent, the lack of a curved space. When nonuniformity
is allowed, the equivalence principle assumes an
infinitesimal form. Lo claims that many modern
expositors improperly apply the equivalence principle
but that Einstein himself did not. Einstein’s specific
claim is the “complete physical equivalence” of an
accelerating frame to a frame with a gravitational
field.(6) However, in the very same paragraph, he
states that relative to the accelerating frame “all the
masses have equal and parallel accelerations” and that
they behave “just as if a gravitational field were
present” and the frame were not being accelerated. It
may be as Lo claims that we are simply arguing
against a common interpretation of the equivalence
principle. However, as will be noted in the develop-
ments below, there are other substantial arguments
against both the special relativity theory (SRT) and
GRT. In fact, the arguments against SRT are auto-
matically arguments against the local (infinitesimal)
Minkowski metric of GRT.
2.1 First Argument by Einstein and Feynman
The first argument exploring the equivalence prin-
ciple uses a linear accelerating rocket ship. (Einstein
used an accelerating frame in place of the rocket
ship.) Two clocks are placed at the front and rear of
the ship, a distance H apart, as the ship accelerates
with a uniform acceleration g. The clock rate at the
front is used to generate pulses with a frequency of f.
But, because of the continuing acceleration, Feynman
argues that the transit time, τ , of the radiation be-
tween the front and rear of the ship will become
smaller and smaller, making it appear as if the clock
at the front is running faster than the clock at the rear.
Einstein argues that, because of the acceleration, the
velocity at the time the radiation is received at the
rear of the ship will be greater by gτ than the velocity
of the ship at the time the radiation left the front of
the ship. Thus the Doppler effect explains the appar-
ent difference in the two clock rates; i.e.,
⎛ gτ ⎞ ⎛ gH ⎞
f1 = f 0 ⎜1 + ⎟ = f0 ⎜1 + 2 ⎟ , (1)
⎝ c ⎠ ⎝ c ⎠
where the time difference is given by H/c. (There is a
bit of a problem here in that Feynman, in his initial
argument, assumed that the speed of light, c, re-
mained unchanged, as the acceleration changed the
velocity of the ship such that the transit time became
2
less and less — not the constant value H/c. Subse-
quently, he changes the explanation to the same as
Einstein’s, i.e., that the velocity has changed during
the transit time. The SRT requires that the speed of
light be a constant, c, relative to the velocity of the
rocket ship even as the velocity changes — but
Feynman’s initial assumption was actually correct.
Contrary to SRT, the speed of light does not auto-
matically adjust relative to the accelerating observer.)
Since the energy is related to the frequency by
Planck’s constant, the radiation has more apparent
energy on receipt than when it left the source. Ein-
stein argued, using the equivalence principle, that the
same change in frequency and energy will be ob-
served when the difference in gravitational potential
between two clocks is given by the value of gH. Thus
⎛ gH ⎞ ⎛ φ ⎞
E1 = E0 ⎜1 + 2 ⎟ = E0 ⎜ 1 + 2 ⎟ . (2)
⎝ c ⎠ ⎝ c ⎠
Note that the φ used by Einstein is the difference in
gravitational potential at the two heights.
2.2 Second Argument by Einstein and Feynman
Both Einstein and Feynman argued that the same
result could be obtained from the conservation of
energy. Specifically, given an atom in an excited
energy state, E1, it can be converted to a lower energy
state, E0, by the emission of a photon of energy, hf,
where
hf = ( E1 − E0 ). (3)
Now assume we have the atom in an excited energy
state, E1, sitting on the floor and that we carry it up a
height, H. The work done in carrying the atom to the
higher potential is given by
E1
m1 gH = gH . (4)
c2
Now we let the atom emit a photon and go to the
lower energy state, E0. After the photon is emitted, we
carry the atom back to the floor and recover the
energy given by
E0
m0 gH = gH . (5)
c2
The process of carrying the heavier atom up and the
lighter atom down gives a net energy expenditure of

( E1 − E0 )
ΔU = gH . (6)
c2
If we now complete the cycle and let the atom at the
lower potential absorb a photon emitted at the higher
potential, the photon must supply some extra energy
to return the atom to the original E1 energy level. The
energy supplied by the photon must be given by
⎛ gH ⎞
hf = ( E1 − E0 ) ⎜ 1 + 2 ⎟ . (7)
⎝ c ⎠
Therefore both Einstein and Feynman argue that the
conservation of energy requires the photon to have
picked up the extra energy, gH/c2, while falling the
distance H. This result is in agreement with (2) above.
2.3 Third Argument by Einstein and Feynman
Einstein’s and Feynman’s last arguments are
phrased in different terms but both are essentially
circular. Einstein assumes that the inertial and
gravitational energy are identical. He then claims that
a spring balance will read differently depending on
the amount of energy added to the mass hanging on
the balance. Feynman’s last argument also assumes
up front that the inertial and gravitational energy are
identical. He argues that the equivalent (gravitational)
mass of a photon is given by E/c2. (He acknowledges
that this is not a rest mass.) Now he argues that the
photon, falling a distance H, will pick up additional
energy given by that equivalent mass times the
change in potential, gH. Thus, after falling, the energy
of the photon will be increased to
⎛ gH ⎞
hf1 = hf 0 ⎜1 + 2 ⎟ . (8)
⎝ c ⎠
But this simply assumes the answer, i.e., that the
equivalent inertial mass of the photon (which can
easily be measured) is equal to the gravitational mass.
3. REFUTATIONS OF EINSTEIN’S AND
FEYNMAN’S ARGUMENTS
The last arguments of both Einstein and Feynman
are circular and therefore they need no refutation. The
second argument of Einstein and Feynman will be
addressed before the first because it is the more
powerful.
3.1 The Clifford Will Question — Refutation of
the Second Argument
The conservation of energy argument by Einstein
Ronald R. Hatch
and Feynman hinges on a very significant question.
The question is well stated in Clifford Will’s book,(7)
Was Einstein Right? Given that two clocks are
separated in height (gravitational potential), Will asks
the appropriate question and then gives an answer:
Do the intrinsic rates of the emitter and receiver
or of the clocks change, or is it the light signal
that changes frequency during its flight? The
answer is that it doesn’t matter. Both descriptions
are physically equivalent. Put differently there is
no operational way to distinguish between the
two descriptions.
The irony of Will’s answer is that (after additional
argument that it is impossible to determine whether it
is a clock rate change with potential or a frequency
change in transit) he admits in the very next para-
graph that we can indeed distinguish which phenome-
non actually occurs. This is easily done. Simply move
one clock to a higher potential, leave it for a while,
and then bring it back to that same lower potential.
The clear result is that the clock rate is increased
when the potential is increased. Thus it is not that the
photon has picked up energy (increased frequency) as
it fell. It is simply that the clock used to measure the
frequency runs slower at the lower gravitational
potential.
This observation constitutes the heart of two simple
thought experiments that can be used to refute Ein-
stein’s equivalence principle. Specifically, it is easy to
show that the mechanism by which a (near) uniform
gravitational field causes clocks to diverge differs
substantially from the mechanism by which a constant
linear acceleration causes two separated clocks to
diverge in their readings. Take two clocks in a (near
uniform) gravity field with acceleration g, synchro-
nize them, and then move one of them slowly upward
by a distance H. Leave them separated by a long time
interval compared to the time taken to separate them,
and then bring the lower one up to the same position
at the same slow velocity. (By moving both at the
same velocity, the transient clock effects induced by
the transit are canceled.) When they are reunited, the
clock first moved to the higher potential will show
substantially more elapsed time than the one moved
last. This shows that in a gravitational field it is not
the slow transport that causes the clock readings to
diverge; rather it is that they run at different rates
while at different potentials.
Next, take two clocks, put them at the base of the
rocket, synchronize them, and then move one a
3
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity
distance H to the top of the rocket before starting the
rocket’s acceleration. Moving the clock before
starting the acceleration ensures that there is no
significant effect from the initial slow clock transport.
(It would correspond to turning off the gravitational
field in the first phase of the experiment above, which
would not substantially affect the result.) Leave them
separated by a long time interval compared to the
time taken to separate them. But we know that the
two clocks will run at the same rate while separated
since they are in the same instantaneous inertial
frame. Now bring the second clock to the top of the
rocket with a slow velocity relative to the rocket ship.
But this slow transport velocity is compounded with
the existing velocity of the rocket ship to induce a
significant clock bias during the transit process and
will cause this second clock to read substantially less
than the one moved first. Thus, while the difference in
clock readings in the gravitational and rocket thought
experiments may read the same difference when the
two clocks of each pair are finally brought together, it
is clear that the mechanism affecting the clocks is
different. In the first case it is their separate location
that causes the difference to accumulate. In the latter
it is the process of being brought back together. This
clearly refutes the equivalence of gravity and accel-
eration on clock rates and energy claimed by Einstein
and Feynman.
The fact that the clock rate is a function of the gra-
vitational potential reveals that the frequency of a
photon does not increase as the photon falls; it simply
starts out at a higher frequency. There is additional
evidence from navigation satellites that shows di-
rectly that the frequency of a photon is not affected as
it falls in a gravitational potential. The first evidence
is from the global positioning system (GPS). Virtually
all high-accuracy GPS receivers take advantage of the
concept(8) of “smoothing the code with the carrier.”
The range from the satellite to the receiver is meas-
ured by taking the speed of light times the transit time
of the signal, which is measured using a pseudoran-
dom (code) modulation scheme. This code measure-
ment is about 100 times noisier than the carrier phase
measurement. The carrier phase measurement is
measured by integrating the received frequency beat
against an internal clock in the receiver. This inte-
grated count is scaled by the transmitted wavelength.
While there is a constant of integration to deal with in
the latter measurement, if the frequency changed in
transit, there would be a divergence between the code
and carrier phase measurements that would be a
function of the changing geometry. This divergence
4
would prevent the carrier phase measurement from
matching the dynamics of the code, and the smooth-
ing would not work. (A divergence does occur due to
ionospheric refraction but this divergence is inversely
proportional to the transmitted frequency and is
removed by using two frequencies.) No divergence
between the (refraction-corrected) code and carrier
phase measurements occurs. This independently
proves that the frequency does not change in transit.
The earlier TRANSIT Navy Navigation Satellite
System (NNSS) used the Doppler effect to compute
the position of the receiver. Its operation depended
directly upon the fact that every cycle transmitted was
seen at the receiver on Earth.(9) The integral of the
difference in cycles transmitted minus the cycles
received over a given time period was used to define
the change in range and thereby define a line of
position upon Earth.
Since the energy of a photon is given by Planck’s
constant times the frequency, it is clear that the
energy of a photon does not increase as it falls in the
gravitational potential. This in turn means that (1)
electromagnetic radiation has no effective gravita-
tional mass, (2) at least electromagnetic energy is not
acted upon by gravity, and (3) the gravitational mass
and inertial mass are not always equal. But each of
these conclusions is at odds with fundamental as-
sumptions of Einstein’s GRT. Note that this dis-
agreement with GRT does not depend upon the
interpretation of the equivalence principle or whether
or not we have assumed a uniform gravitational field.
In summary, the conservation of energy derivation
of gravitational effects by both Einstein and Feynman
is faulty because they failed to recognize that the
emission or absorption of energetic radiation is itself
a function of the gravitational potential. They as-
sumed that the energy of radiation and absorption was
a constant (E1 – E0) value independent of the poten-
tial. However, atomic clocks run at a rate that is a
function of the difference in energy levels of excited
atoms and show that that energy is, in fact, a function
of the gravitational potential.
3.2 Refutation of the First Argument of Einstein
and Feynman
The first argument of Einstein and Feynman fails
because the SRT is not correct regarding the speed of
light. When a rocket ship is accelerated, the speed of
light does not automatically remain at c relative to the
rocket ship. The speed of light always remains at c
with respect to the frame in which the clocks (used to
measure the speed of light) are synchronized. This is
verified by the operation of the GPS.

The GPS system uses clocks synchronized with
respect to the Earth-centered inertial (ECI) nonrotat-
ing frame. The GPS Interface Control Document,(10)
in paragraph 20.3.3.4.3.4, states that the geometric
range (computed by multiplying the speed of light, c,
by the measured difference in time between the time
of reception and the time of transmission) is the
vector difference between the position of the receiver
at the time of reception and the position of the satel-
lite at the time of transmission — both positions
determined in the ECI frame. This statement applies
independent of receiver velocity, whether the receiver
is fixed to the rotating Earth, in an airplane, or even in
a rocket or spacecraft. But if the receiver is moving in
the ECI frame at a velocity, v, toward the position at
which the GPS signal was transmitted, then the
velocity of the light relative to that receiver is (c – v)
and not c. The use of the retarded positions (positions
adjusted for the movement of the receivers during the
transit time of the signal) has been verified in multiple
situations — but is clearly contrary to SRT.
SRT uses Lorentz boosts (infinitesimal Lorentz
transformations), which clearly depend upon the
instantaneous adjustment of the speed of light, to
explain the Thomas precession of the electron.(11) (An
alternative explanation of Thomas precession for
spinning objects is available using length contraction
and inertial mass increase.(12)) But GPS shows that
Lorentz boosts and instantaneous adjustments to the
speed of light are not valid. The speed of light re-
mains c with respect to the ECI frame, independent of
whether or not the receiver is in motion.
A specific high-speed illustration, that the speed of
light remains at c in the frame in which the clocks are
synchronized, is the use of GPS receivers on the
Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
satellites, which are traveling at about 8 km/s.(13) Two
GRACE satellites, in approximately 500-km altitude
polar orbits, separated by about 200 km in almost the
same plane, transmit signals between each other. The
signal path from the front satellite to the rear satellite
is more than 5 m shorter than the instantaneous
separation distance, and the reverse path is more than
5 m longer. Each of the one-way path transit times is
compared to the GPS time determined by the GPS
receivers in the GRACE satellites. The transit times
are determined by dividing each of these two signal
paths by the speed of light, c. The same path transit
times are obtained by taking the instantaneous dis-
tance between them and dividing by (c + v) and (c –
v), respectively, i.e., by the relative velocity of the
light signal. The agreement in the measured path time
Ronald R. Hatch
with the GPS time tags has a noise of about 1 × 10–10
s, which is equivalent to 3 cm of distance at the speed
of light. The motion during the transit time would
affect the transit time in each direction by more than
1.8 × 10–8 s, which is 180 times as large as the noise
in the measurement. This proves that Einstein’s and
Feynman’s use of a constant transit time defined by
H/c between the upper accelerated clock and the
lower clock is not valid. The speed of light remains
isotropic in the frame in which the clocks are syn-
chronized. Thus the proper transit time would be H/(c
+ v), where the velocity is the average velocity of the
rocket during the transit time. This result destroys the
claimed equivalence with gravity — but even more
important it invalidates SRT and shows that the
infinitesimal Minkowski structure of GRT is invalid.
4. THE EQUIVALENCE OF ENERGY EF-
FECTS
Some of the early expositors of Einstein’s SRT
illustrated Einstein’s equivalence principle with a
better example.(14) What if we put a couple of clocks
on a spinning disk, one at the center and one at the
edge? According to SRT the clock at the edge will
run at a slower rate due to the velocity. But at the
edge the clock will have a velocity of rω and will
suffer an acceleration given by rω 2. If the center of
the disk is assigned the zero of gravitational potential,
the rim will have the equivalent of a gravitational
potential of r2ω 2/2, which is obtained by integrating
the outward acceleration from the center to the rim.
The clock rate described using this potential is in
agreement with the clock rate from SRT using the
velocity:
⎛ r 2ω 2 ⎞ ⎛ φ ⎞
f1 ≅ f 0 ⎜1 − 2 ⎟
= f 0 ⎜1 + 2 ⎟ . (9)
⎝ 2c ⎠ ⎝ c ⎠
This equivalence is much more robust. Indeed, if one
moves a clock to a different radius on the spinning
disk, the clock will accumulate a time difference
compared to the clock left at the same radius. But it is
also apparent that it is not the acceleration that causes
the clock to run slow. The same slower clock rate will
result on a disk twice as large but with only half the
acceleration, i.e., spinning at only half the angular
rate. The same is true for clocks in the vicinity of a
planet. Clocks twice as far apart near a planet with
half the mass will see the same clock divergence.
What this makes obvious is that it is neither gravity
nor acceleration that determines the clock rate.
Kinetic energy (velocity squared) and gravitational
5
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity

potential energy determine the clock rate. Thus there
is an equivalence between the effect of kinetic energy
and the effect of gravitational potential energy upon
the rate at which clocks tick. Interestingly, they affect
the clock rate with opposite signs. Ascribing equiva-
lence to acceleration and the gravitational force field
improperly assigns an equivalence to the spatial
derivative of the kinetic energy with the spatial
derivative of the gravitational potential energy.
5. STRUCTURAL MASS ENERGY AND GRA-
VITATIONAL MASS
When the gravitational potential energy changes,
the energy level between the excited states of the
atom changes, else the emission energy of a photon
would not change. This implies a fundamental change
in energy levels as a function of the gravitational
potential. What could induce this change? The
apparent answer is that the structural energy, mc2, is a
function of the gravitational potential.
Einstein in his 1921 Princeton lectures(15) gave
equations for the first-order effects of gravitational
potential on (1) the length of a unit rod, (2) the
change in the time interval of successive clock ticks,
and (3) the change in the speed of light. If we sim-
plify his scale factor by assuming a spherically
symmetric mass as the source of the gravitational
potential, that scale factor can be written as
⎛ GM ⎞ ⎛ φ ⎞
s = ⎜1 − 2 ⎟ = ⎜1 + 2 ⎟ . (10)
⎝ rc ⎠ ⎝ c ⎠
lence between the effects of kinetic energy and
gravitational potential energy predicts the same effect
upon clocks. Thus (14) is in perfect agreement with
(9).
In addition, the effect of gravitational potential on
the speed of light, as predicted by Einstein and as
given in (13), has been verified. While it is not true
that the energy of light is affected by gravity, the
speed of light is affected. It is analogous to the
gravitational potential having an effect on the index
of refraction, which explains both the slowing and the
bending of light in a gravitational potential. Note that
the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeabil-
ity are affected equally by the gravitational potential
and do not depend on the frequency. Thus there is no
dispersion of light as a function of the frequency.
Equation (11) follows directly from the truth of (13)
and (14). In order for light to be slowed by the square
of the gravitational potential scale factor, length must
be affected as the first power of the scale factor if the
clock rate is so affected. The truth of (14) also tells us
that (9) is true, since energy and frequency are related
by Planck’s constant:
E1 = E0 s = hf1 = hf 0 s. (15)
But if the energy of radiation from an atom at rest in a
gravitational potential is affected, it seems reasonable
that the rest mass or structural energy of that atom
will be affected by the same scale factor. Thus it
seems reasonable that

Using this scale factor Einstein related the units
outside a gravitational potential (subscript 0) to the
units within the gravitational potential (subscript 1) as
l1 = l0 s,
τ 1 = τ 0 / s,
c1 = c0 s 2 .
The spacing between clock ticks given in (12) is
equivalent to saying that the clock frequency is given
by
f1 = f 0 s.
While we quarreled with Einstein’s equivalence
between acceleration and gravity, the revised equiva-
6
E1 = E0 s = m0 c02 s = m0 c12 s −3 = m1c12 . (16)
Using (13), for the change of the speed of light with
the gravitational potential, (16) shows that the rest
(11) mass has apparently changed as the inverse third
power of the gravitational scale factor:
(12)
m1 = m0 / s 3 . (17)
(13)
This is a new result. It is not found in Einstein’s GRT.
More important, if (16) is correct, it reveals the source
of gravitational energy. It tells us that the source of
gravitational energy is the rest mass energy of the
particle — not the curvature of space-time. This is in
direct contradiction to Einstein’s claim:(16) “The
(14) gravitational field transfers energy and momentum to
the ‘matter’ in that it exerts forces upon it and gives it
energy….”
But if the gravitational force arises from the gradi-

ent of the gravitational potential, i.e., from the gradi-
ent of the rest mass or structural energy of the parti-
cle, the kinetic energy of the particle (like electro-
magnetic energy) can have no gravitational mass.
Gravitational force converts gravitational potential
energy (rest mass energy or structural energy) into
kinetic energy when a particle falls and vice versa
when a particle rises. Clearly, conversion of kinetic
energy to kinetic energy cannot contribute to an
energy gradient, i.e., to a force. Thus, given that the
source of gravitational energy is the rest mass or
structural energy of the particle, kinetic energy cannot
have a gravitational mass associated with it.
Scale factors (ether gauge effects) identical to the
above arise directly from the MLET model of matter
as standing waves within the ether. Since the ether
reaction time is proportional to the speed of light, c, a
standing wave must displace a small amount of ether.
Thus the ether density internal to the particle is
reduced and, by necessity, the external ether density
is increased. It is this external ether density that gives
rise to the gravitational potential and is proportional
to the gravitational scale factor, s. In fact, if the
gravitational force is thought of as acting on rest mass
energy rather than upon the mass itself, the scale
factor, s, is identified with the gravitational potential.
Transverse waves in a solid are propagated such
that the square of the velocity is proportional to the
ether density. Thus (13) above is a direct result of this
ether model. The same scaled standing-wave structure
will result if the speed of light variation is portioned
equally into a decreased frequency of the internal
oscillation and a smaller size. Thus (14) and (11) will
also result from the model. The ether displacement,
i.e., structural mass, of the standing wave is inversely
proportional to its volume, and the result is (17). The
structural energy is the product of the mass and the
square of the speed of light; i.e., (16) results.
By contrast to the structural energy, the kinetic
energy is modeled as the energy of shear displace-
ment that results from the motion of the standing
wave. Thus the kinetic energy is distinct from the
structural energy and does not affect the ether density
and hence is not acted upon by the gravitational force.
Kinetic energy and inertial mass are considered in
more detail in the next section.
6. KINETIC ENERGY AND INERTIAL MASS
The experimental evidence is that kinetic energy
increases the inertial mass. But we argued above that
kinetic energy does not have a gravitational mass.
Therefore the inertial mass and gravitational mass of
Ronald R. Hatch
a moving particle are unequal. But things get even
more interesting for the moving particle. As the
evidence shows, moving clocks with higher kinetic
energy run at a slower rate. This is just the opposite
effect of clocks at higher potential energies. But we
argued above that clock rates are proportional to the
structural (rest mass) energy. If this is correct, the
structural energy must decrease along with the clock
rate decrease as the kinetic energy increases. This
implies that, as the velocity is increased, there is an
associated conversion of the structural energy — no
longer appropriate to call it rest mass energy — into a
hidden component of kinetic energy. This increases
the difference between the gravitational (structural)
mass and the inertial mass.
From the fractional change in the radiation from a
moving particle and from the fractional increase in
the total energy of a moving particle, the relationship
between the structural energy and the kinetic energy
and their contribution to the total energy is altered.
The revised allocation is
m1c 2 m1v 2
= m1c 2 1 − v 2 / c 2 + . (18)
1 − v2 / c2 1 − v2 / c2
The term on the left of the equal sign is the total
energy; the first term on the right of the equal sign is
the structural energy and the final term on the right is
the kinetic energy. The standard definition of the
velocity scale factor is
γ = 1/ 1 − v 2 / c 2 . (19)
If we identify the inertial mass, mi, as m1γ and the
gravitational mass, mg, as m1/γ , then (18), the total
energy, can be rewritten as
mi c 2 = m g c 2 + mi v 2 (20)
Finally, from (16) through (19), a combined energy
equation for a particle moving in a gravitational
potential, reflecting both kinetic and gravitational
energies, can be obtained:
m0γ s −3c02 s 4 = m0γ −1s −3c02 s 4 + m0γ s −3v02 s 4 . (21)
Simplifying this gives
m0c02 sγ = m0c02 s / γ + m0v02 sγ . (22)
7
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity

7. THE GRAVITATIONAL EXPERIMENTS scale factor. He derived it by including the higher-

The gravitational tests that have supported Ein- order terms in the Doppler shift of frequency using
stein’s GRT are among the issues that need address- Einstein’s first equivalence argument above (which
ing as a result of the above development. The three we argued was faulty). Thus both Puthoff and Yilmaz
tests involving light are easily addressed. However, get the same gravitational scale factor as MLET. In
the precession of the perihelion of Mercury will addition, both lead to precisely the same scale factor
require us to address a number of peripheral issues (gauge) equations — (11) through (14) — and even
before an adequate answer can be developed. The first the mass change given in (17). From these scale
issue that needs to be addressed is the precise value of factors alone the three GRT tests involving light are
the gravitational scale factor. easily confirmed.
7.1 The Form of the Gravitational Scale Factor 7.2 The Form of the Gravitational Force Equa-
Einstein’s gravitational scale factor given in (10) is tion
valid only for “weak” gravitational fields. A slightly Another problem, related to the form of the gravita-
more complex value is obtained when adjusted to tional scale factor, arises from the conclusion above
include strong gravitational fields. Specifically, it is that the gravitational force is caused by the gradient
of the structural energy of the particle due to the
variation in ether density. From (20) and (22) above
2GM GM G 2 M 2
s = 1− ≈ 1 − − 2 4 +". (23) the structural energy is given by
rc 2 rc 2 2r c
Es = mg c 2 = m0 c02 s / γ . (25)
But this scale factor has a problem. Hans Montanus
describes the problem very simply.(17) He says to
consider the gravitational scale factor from a large The force equation can be obtained by taking the
spherical mass. Now split that mass into a number, n derivative of (25) with respect to the distance from
– 1, of concentric shells of mass equal to one nth of the gravitating body. But a different force equation
the total, together with a final small central spherical arises depending on which of the two scale factors is
mass of one nth the total mass. The result should be used. If Einstein’s scale factor is used, the spatial
that the product of the n scale factors is equal to the gradient is
scale factor of the total. But this result can only be
true if the scale factor has an exponential form. The GMmg G0 s8 M 0 s −3 mo
FE = =
revised scale factor, which gives the same first-order r 2s (r0 s ) 2 s s 3γ
effect, is (26)
GM m GMm
= 0 2 0 0 = 2 1,
−
GM
GM G 2 M 2 r0 sγ r sγ
s=e rc 2
≈ 1− + 2 2 +". (24)
rc 2 2r c
where the subscript E is used to indicate the force
using Einstein’s scale factor and m1 is defined by
This same factor is obtained from MLET simply
because the exponential density decay, with distance (17).
from the mass source, is precisely the distribution one If the new exponential form of the gravitational
expects to obtain from an equalization of pressure scale factor, (24), is used, the force equation is
within the ether.
Puthoff,(18) following the lead of Wilson(19) and GMmg s G0 s8 M 0 s −3 s m0
Fe = =
Dicke,(20) derives this same exponential form for the r2 r02 s 2 s 3γ
scale factor directly from the polarizable-vacuum (27)
G M m s GMm1s
representation of GRT. The polarizable-vacuum = 0 20 0 = ,
model easily meets the three GRT tests involving the r0 γ r 2γ
speed of light. Because the electric permittivity and
magnetic permeability are affected equally, the effect where the subscript e is used to indicate the force
is equivalent to a changing index of refraction that has using the exponential scale factor.
no frequency dispersion. Note that both of these gravitational force equations
Yilmaz(21) also obtained the exponential form of the differ only minutely from Newton’s inverse square
8
 Ronald R. Hatch

law. This cannot be a coincidence. This supports the orbit caused an extra perihelion precession of nega-
basic claim above that the gravitational force arises tive 14 arc seconds per century.(25)
from the gradient of the structural (rest mass) energy Two different accelerations are implied on an orbit-
of the particle — in disagreement with GRT. ing particle for the two different gravitational scale
This basic claim can be verified in an interesting factors. Specifically, using the inertial mass from (20)
way. At least two texts used a variation of Einstein’s gives acceleration with the Einstein scale factor of
and Feynman’s second argument. Specifically,
Misner et al.(22) and Ciufolini and Wheeler(23) argue GMmg G0 M 0 s 2 m0 s 3
from the conservation of energy that a photon of light aE = / mi =
r 2s r02 s 3γ m0γ
moving upward must lose energy. They postulate a (28)
mass, m, that is allowed to fall a distance, H, in a G M s2 GM
= 0 2 02 = 2 2
gravitational field with acceleration, g. After it falls, r0 γ r sγ
they ascribe to it an energy, mc2 + mgH. They then
argue that, if this energy is converted into a photon
and beamed upward, it must lose energy. Otherwise, and acceleration with the exponential scale factor of
when it arrives back at the original position and is
converted back into a mass, it will have more mass GMmg s G0 M 0 s 4 m0 s 3
ae = / mi =
energy than it started with. r2 r02 s 3γ m0γ
This is actually a very powerful argument that the (29)
G M s 4 GMs
source of gravitational energy is the rest mass energy. = 0 2 02 = 2 2 .
From clock behavior in a gravitational potential we r0 γ rγ
know that the frequency, and hence energy, of a
photon is not affected when it rises or falls in a 7.3 Problems with the Metric of GRT
gravitational potential. The apparent difference in The fundamental concept Einstein used in develop-
frequency, such as was measured by Pound and ing GRT was to make use of the strict proportionality
Rebka,(24) is not caused by a change in frequency, but between the inertial mass and the gravitational mass
by a different standard of comparison (clock rate) at to “geometrize away” the gravitational forces, i.e.,
the two different potentials. Therefore we can turn the embed the effect within a space-time curvature.
argument above on its head. The conservation of Obviously, since we found that the effects of velocity
energy then requires that, like the photon when it upon the inertial and gravitational mass are different,
rises, the particle when it falls must maintain a this scheme should fail. Nevertheless, since the
constant energy. Thus the total energy of the mass difference is only slight, we should be able to explore
must remain unchanged, and during the fall some of the difference and see where the process fails.
the rest mass (structural or potential) energy must First, consider the Schwarzschild solution of Ein-
have been converted into kinetic energy. stein’s equations for the metric of space-time outside
However, the fact that (26) and (27) do differ, even a spherical mass:
though slightly, from Newton’s inverse square law
implies slightly different accelerations than the
⎛ 2GM ⎞ 2 2 1
gravitational potential. Equation (26) indicates that ds 2 = − ⎜ 1 − 2 ⎟
c dτ + dr 2
the Einstein scale factor implies a force that is in- ⎝ rc ⎠ ⎛ 2GM ⎞
⎜1 − ⎟ (30)
creasingly greater than the inverse square law as the ⎝ rc 2 ⎠
gravitational potential is decreased. By contrast, (27)
+ r 2 (dθ 2 + (sin 2 φ )dφ 2 ).
shows that the new gravitational scale factor results in
a force that is increasingly less than an inverse square
law as the potential is decreased. However, sγ is a There are at least two significant problems with this
constant (less than one) for all orbits with a given equation as it stands. First, as mentioned above,
energy. This means that the Einstein force within a Montanus(17) has shown that the square of the Einstein
given orbit does obey an inverse square law. But the scale factor appearing in the first two components of
force resulting from an exponential scale factor the metric in (30) is not compatible with the additive
deviates from an inverse square law even within a effects of mass. In the same paper he also showed that
given orbit by a factor of s2. For Mercury a careful gravitational inconsistencies arose if the metric for the
implementation of the s2 force dependence within an radial dimension was not the same as the metric for
the orthogonal dimensions; i.e., isotropic coordinates
9
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity
are required. Each of the alternative theories (MLET,
polarizable-vacuum, and Yilmaz) mentioned above
also resulted in isotropic coordinates.
But the above equation can be converted into iso-
tropic coordinates according to Misner et al.(26) In
Section 23.2 they claim that, because the theory was
developed using generalized coordinates, one is free
to change the definition of the radial coordinate, as
long as the radial symmetry is retained in such a way
as to generate isotropic coordinates. They claim that,
with the appropriate substitution of radial coordinates,
(30) becomes
−
2 GM 2 GM
ds 2 = −e rc 2
c 2 dτ 2 + e rc 2
(dx 2 + dy 2 + dz 2 ). (31)
Equation (31) is identical to what Puthoff obtained
directly for the polarizable vacuum, is what Yilmaz’s
theory obtains, and is what the use of the MLET
exponential scale factor developed above would give.
The mapping Misner et al. use to obtain isotropic
coordinates agrees with the equation obtained from
first principles. The radial mapping needed to go from
the Schwarzschild metric to the isotropic metric (with
agreement to as many terms as are normally kept in
the expansion of the exponential) is
2 the δ term is kept; i.e., there is a residual difference in
⎛ GM ⎞
r = ρ ⎜1 + 2 ⎟ , (32)
⎝ 2c ρ ⎠
where the r of (32) is the same as the r in (30), but the
ρ of (32) has become the r of (31).
Thus the new exponential scale factor and GRT are
in agreement on the use of (31). Equation (31) is used
in GRT as the basis for the parameterized post-
Newtonian (PPN) approximations of the GRT(27) in
agreement with the exponential scale factor. With the
inclusion of one nonconventional parameter, (31) can
be expanded to second order to give
⎡ GM G2M 2 ⎤
ds 2 = − ⎢1 − 2α 2 + 2β 2 4 ⎥ cdτ 2
⎣ rc r c ⎦
(33)
⎡ GM G2M 2 ⎤ 2
+ ⎢1 + 2γ 2 + 2δ 2 4 ⎥ [dx + dy 2 + dz 2 ].
⎣ rc r c ⎦
The added symbol, α , is included simply to clarify
the source term in a later equation for the precession
of periapse. Misner et al. define the value of β as
“How much non-linearity is there for the superposi-
10
tion law for gravity.” A better definition would be to
describe it as the effect on local clock time due to the
deviation of the gravitational potential from an
inverse radial dependence. They define γ as “How
much space curvature is produced by unit rest mass.”
This is a fine definition — except that I would
substitute ether density variation for space curvature.
They do not include the second-order term, which
includes δ . The δ term should be included and should
be described as the effect on space curvature (ether
density variation) of the gravitational potential
deviation from an inverse radial dependence.
In GRT each of these parameters should be equal to
one. In actuality, however, Misner et al.(28) argue that
the PPN value δ should be set to zero. Why? Their
argument is that, if the value were left at one, the
resulting path would disagree with the Newtonian
inverse square law of force. This simply verifies that
the force law we derived above for the new exponen-
tial scale factor is indeed non-Newtonian. It is not
valid to simply delete terms in a mathematical devel-
opment simply because one does not like the result.
The value of δ should not arbitrarily be set to zero.
Puthoff(18) in his expansion of the metric equation (his
Eqn. (46)) also drops the δ term.
Note also that the mapping from the Schwarzschild
metric to the isotropic metric via (32) is not valid if
the second-order term. Also, Lo(29) claims that the
mapping is invalid because the two solutions do not
give the same space contractions.
7.4 The Precession of the Perihelion of Mercury
Now the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
can finally be addressed. Misner et al.(30) get the
following value for the precession of the perihelion in
GRT using the PPN description:
2π GM
Δφ0 = (2α − β + 2γ ) . (34)
a (1 − e 2 )c 2
This value agrees very closely with the measured
value for Mercury when each of the PPN parameters
is equal to one, as in GRT. However, if δ , the second-
order spatial term, had been retained, the result would
be
2π GM
Δφ0 = (2α − β + 2γ + δ ) . (35)
a(1 − e 2 )c 2
If each of these PPN parameters were equal to one,
the computed precession of Mercury would increase

by an extra 14 arc seconds per century. However, this
result does not include the divergence between the
inertial and gravitational mass with velocity, since
that effect cannot be modeled by a space-time curva-
ture. As indicated earlier in the discussion following
(27), the s/γ dependence in that force equation is
equivalent within the orbit to an extra square of the
gravitational scale factor dependence (since sγ is
constant for any given orbital energy). The result is a
negative 14 arc seconds of precession of Mercury.
This brings the total precession of Mercury back into
agreement with the observed value. Thus keeping the
term arbitrarily discarded in the GRT development
causes the extra precession from the velocity diver-
gence of inertial and gravitational mass to be can-
celled. The final result is in agreement with the
measured precession of Mercury.
7.5 The Hulse–Taylor Binary Gravitational
Radiation
One of the problems cited with the alternative gra-
vitational theories is that they predict a different
amount of gravitational radiation from the Hulse–
Taylor binary(31) than that predicted by GRT — GRT
appears to agree with that implied by the decreasing
orbital energy of the binary. At this point we cannot
address all the factors that are different in the differ-
ent theories, but some of the significant differences
are discussed below.
First, according to Ibison,(32) the polarizable-
vacuum theory results in gravitational radiation that is
only two thirds that predicted by GRT and, thus,
disagrees with the observed orbital decay rate of the
Hulse–Taylor binary. The Yilmaz theory(21) uses a
modified stress-energy tensor on the right-hand side
of Einstein’s field equation. There is considerable
controversy about whether this is correct or not,
including arguments about whether the Yilmaz theory
or GRT correctly predicts the gravitational radiation
of the Hulse–Taylor binary.
The MLET theory offers a startlingly different
explanation for the Hulse–Taylor radiation. It is
immediately clear from the prior development that if
we were to try to modify the Einstein field equations
to fit our elastic ether, the right-hand side would
differ from that of both GRT and the Yilmaz theory.
Einstein(33) indicated that the right-hand side of his
field equation should include a stress-energy tensor
that encompassed not only matter energy but also
electromagnetic energy. Yilmaz added a stress-energy
tensor that he ascribed to the gravitational energy that
caused the space curvature. From our arguments
above only the structural (rest mass) energy causes an
Ronald R. Hatch
elastic compression of the ether (quite similar to a
curved space) and only structural energy has a
gravitational mass. Electromagnetic (oscillatory)
energy, kinetic energy (elastic shear of the ether), and
any other form of energy that does not directly affect
the ether compression should not be included on the
left-hand side of the field equation.
MLET identifies an electrostatic field with an oscil-
lating compression, which is equivalent to an oscillat-
ing gravity field. An outward-moving phase results
from a negative charge and an inward-moving phase
results from a positive charge. In a similar manner a
magnetic field is associated with an oscillating shear
of the ether. The direction of the magnetic field lines
can be identified with the direction of the phase
motion of the shear oscillation. Thus a magnetic field
is an oscillating kinetic field. Electromagnetic radia-
tion, though, is not an oscillation of an oscillation.
Rather it is an oscillation of transverse compression in
phase with an oscillation of transverse shear. This
means that labeling the radiation as electromagnetic is
a bit of a misnomer. Yes, it is generally stimulated by
the acceleration of an electric charge (electron). But a
better label would be gravitokinetic radiation, since it
is inherently an oscillating gravitational compression
of the ether in phase with an oscillating kinetic shear
of the ether.
So what about the gravitational radiation of the
Hulse–Taylor binary? MLET confirms that the
quadrupole radiation energy predicted by GRT is
correct but that the radiation itself is identical to
electromagnetic quadrupole radiation. Since the
radiation computed by GRT involves only considera-
tions of the stress-energy tensor due to the changing
mass distribution, and the ether compressive distor-
tion equations are to first order in agreement with the
space curvature equations, the expected radiation
equations should be the same. However, according to
the MLET model, the actual radiation would be
electromagnetic. If the radiation is indeed electro-
magnetic, it would be easily absorbed by the reaction
of free, charged particles in space. Thus the clear
prediction of MLET is that gravitational radiation will
never be detected with the Laser Interferometric
Gravity-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors. This
prediction seems to be holding up rather well.
8. EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLES
In the opening sections above the equivalence be-
tween acceleration and gravity was shown to be
faulty. New equivalence principles are needed involv-
ing the kinetic energy and the potential energy. This
11
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity
does not automatically call into question all the
supporting evidence that has historically been claimed
to support the equivalence principle upon which GRT
was built. For example, the weak equivalence princi-
ple (the uniqueness of free fall), as it is generally
stated (and tested), remains valid. Masses, no matter
their composition, that are initially at rest relative to a
gravitational source, will always fall at identical rates.
The qualification “initially at rest” excludes a velocity
divergence between inertial and gravitational mass
that is not common to all of the masses under test. But
the gravitational force cannot be mapped into a
curvature of space if there is a divergence between the
inertial and gravitational mass as a function of
velocity, i.e., of kinetic energy.
However, the Einstein equivalence principle gener-
alized the weak equivalence principle to claim that
there was no way to distinguish between experiments
performed in a homogeneous gravitational field from
those performed in an accelerated frame with the
same constant acceleration. (Sometimes this equiva-
lence principle is split into a “medium strong” and a
“very strong” equivalence principle, depending on
whether or not gravitational effects are included.) In
any case, it is our claim that Einstein’s equivalence
principle is falsified, as illustrated by the clock
thought experiment described above in Section 3.1.
Specifically, clocks separated by a radial distance H
in a gravitational potential will run at different rates.
By contrast, clocks in a rocket undergoing accelera-
tion, if separated by a distance H in the direction of
acceleration, will continue to run at the same rate
(determined solely by the instantaneous velocity)
when no gravitational field is present. Another way of
saying this is that, unlike the two clocks in a rocket,
two clocks separated by a radial distance H will run at
different rates depending upon their respective
gravitational potentials even when they are in a free-
falling frame. This latter claim is verified by the
differing clock rates at apogee and perigee of the
freely falling clocks in the GPS satellites.
Though Einstein’s equivalence principle is falsified,
two new equivalence principles can be stated that are
based upon the prior development. First, because of
coherent physical changes in the fundamental units of
physical measurements with velocity, all local physi-
cal experiments will yield results that are independent
of the absolute velocity of the inertial frame given the
same gravitational potential.
A second new equivalence principle can be stated:
Because of coherent physical changes in the funda-
mental units of physical measurements with gravita-
12
tional potential, all local physical experiments that do
not involve gravitational effects will yield results that
are independent of the gravitational potential. Fur-
thermore, in experiments that do involve gravitational
effects, if the direct effects of the gravitational
potential are accounted for, no other secondary effects
should arise from a change in the gravitational
potential.
Note that the claim of equivalence in local physical
experiments does not mean that the physics is identi-
cal. Clearly, nonlocal experiments (e.g., those cited as
supporting Einstein’s GRT) yield results that indicate
changes in the local physical units of measurement.
9. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Max Jammer,(34) in a chapter on gravitational mass,
describes multiple tests of the equivalence between
the inertial mass, mi, and the gravitational mass, mg.
(He uses the symbol mp to distinguish the passive
nature of the particle mass acted upon by gravity from
the active nature of the particle mass, ma, generating
the gravitational field. In all cases my use of mg above
can be identified with his use of mp.) In all but one
case the experiments are designed to show that the
ratio of the inertial mass to the gravitational mass is
independent of the substance that constitutes the
masses. As stated in the prior section, the above
development does not contest that relationship. Rather
it simply claims that the velocity of any mass causes
its inertial mass to be increased by the velocity scale
factor and its gravitational mass to be decreased by
one over the velocity scale factor. The only case cited
by Jammer where velocity is involved is in three
papers by Donoghue et al.(35–37) In these papers they
considered the effect of “finite-temperature radiation
corrections” upon the motion of a charged particle in
a heat bath. They obtained a result similar to that
above, i.e., a small increase in the inertial mass and a
corresponding decrease in the gravitational mass of
the same magnitude.
9.1 A Pendulum Illustration
Consider first the oscillation rate of a pendulum in
the gravitational field of Earth. The classical equation
for the frequency of a pendulum of length L is given
by
GM / r 2 mg
fp = . (36)
L mi

Clearly, this frequency changes as a function of its
height (distance r from the center of Earth). However,
the equation should be valid at any given height.
Further, for a stationary pendulum the ratio of the
inertial and gravitational mass will be one. Finally,
this equation should be valid when the frequency is
measured by an atomic clock that runs slower when
the gravitational potential decreases. This can be
verified by adjusting each of the parameters by the
appropriate power of the gravitational scale factor, s,
as a function of the units:
G0 s8 M 0 s −3 /(r0 s ) 2 G M / r2
f ps = =s 0 0 0 . (37)
L0 s L0
Indeed, the frequency is slower than it would other-
wise run absent the gravitational scale factor. This is
in agreement with the second new equivalence
principle enunciated in the prior section.
A similar experiment could be run moving the
pendulum with a velocity while the gravitational
potential is held constant. This experiment qualifies
as a direct test of the first new equivalence principle
enunciated above. In this case only the inertial and
gravitational masses are affected. None of the other
parameters should be affected by the velocity since
the pendulum length is perpendicular to the direction
of motion. Also, in this case the frequency as meas-
ured by an atomic clock should give the same result.
But atomic clocks run slower by the inverse of the
velocity scale factor. Therefore the same slower clock
should be observed by the pendulum moving side-
ways at a velocity. This is indeed the case if and only
if the inertial mass and gravitational mass are affected
inversely as described above:
GM / r 2 m0 s / γ GM / r 2
fp /γ = = (1/ γ ) . (38)
L m0 sγ L through (40) will have an extra square root of s in the
This is a direct confirmation that the gravitational
and inertial mass must vary in opposite fashion with
velocity. Otherwise physical laws would not be
independent of velocity in a constant gravitational
potential, and (theoretically) a pendulum could be
used to measure absolute velocity by comparing its
oscillation frequency to that of an atomic clock.
9.2 A Circular Orbit Illustration
The pendulum provides a good stepping stone to
the circular orbit. The orbital frequency can be put
into a similar form, but in the orbital situation both
Ronald R. Hatch
the gravitational and the velocity scale factors should
affect the orbital frequency. The orbital frequency for
a circular orbit is given by
GM / r 2 mg
fo = . (39)
r mi
But again, this equation should give a frequency that
would appear to be unchanged compared to the
frequency measured by an atomic clock subjected to
the same gravitational potential and velocity. Plug-
ging in the same scale factors that appeared in (37)
and (38) into (39) shows that this is indeed the case:
f0 s s G0 M 0
= . (40)
γ γ r03
The circular acceleration is given by the square of
(39) times the radius:
GM mg
ac = . (41)
r 2 mi
When the appropriate scale factors are inserted as a
function of the potential and velocity this becomes
s 3G0 M 0 GM
ac = = 2 2. (42)
γ 2 r02 rγ
This equation appears to be at odds with (29) devel-
oped above. However, it is not. Equations (36)
through (42) have used the classical inverse square
law of Newton. If that inverse square law is modified
per (26) to include an extra dependence upon the
gravitational scale factor, s, in the numerator, (36)
numerator and (41) and (42) will have an extra s in
the numerator. This brings (42) into precise agree-
ment with (29).
10. IMPLICATIONS
One of the most important implications involves the
curvature of space-time with energy. GRT teaches
that all energy curves space-time and that all energy is
subject to the gravitational force. This disagrees with
the derivation above that only the structural mass of
an object is affected by a gravitational force — and in
turn causes a gravitational potential. In addition, the
divergence of the inertial mass from the gravitational
13
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity
mass with velocity makes it impossible to eliminate
that force by incorporating it into the geometry. These
two items alone clearly invalidate GRT.
The GRT relationship between energy and curva-
ture of space-time constitutes one of the most severe
problems of contemporary physics. Computations of
the energy density of the vacuum indicate that the
curvature of space-time should be more than 100
powers of 10 greater than observed. Or, reversing the
logic, the energy density is more than 100 powers of
10 less than expected. Guth and Steinhardt(38) de-
scribe the problem thus:
Our inability to explain the extreme smallness of
the vacuum energy density or, equivalently, the
cosmological constant, is regarded by many
particle theorists as one of the most important
problems in physics.
Clearly, this problem is solved by the new gravity
theory, since only structural energy causes a gravita-
tional force that can be closely approximated by a
curvature of space-time. All other forms of energy
(e.g., the vacuum energy) do not create a gravitational
force and have no effect on any apparent curvature of
space-time.
There is a whole host of additional implications of
the gravitational theory developed above. Some of the
more important are considered briefly below.
10.1 Absolute Energy and Apparent Relativity
The equivalence between acceleration and gravity
was shown to be faulty. The real equivalence between
the effects of kinetic energy and gravitational poten-
tial energy presents a significant problem, for it
implies that there is an absolute energy and therefore
a primary reference frame. Obviously, that is contrary
to Einstein’s SRT. However, just as an experiment
with clocks can invalidate the foundation of GRT, so
the behavior of clocks on and near Earth invalidates
SRT. In three recent publications(39–41) I show that the
only explanation for the apparent absence of any
gravitational effect from the Sun upon clocks on and
near Earth is the absorption of the effect into a clock
bias in the direction of Earth’s velocity vector. Just as
the gradient of the Sun’s gravitational potential causes
a force that changes the direction of Earth’s velocity
vector, the gradient of the Sun’s gravitational poten-
tial causes clocks near Earth, which are separated in
the radial direction of the Sun, to run at different rates
— just enough different that the integral of the effect
causes the direction of the clock bias to be maintained
in the changing direction of the velocity vector. This
14
clock bias, as described below, converts the Selleri/
Tangherlini(42,43) transformation associated with an
absolute ether into the apparent Lorentz transforma-
tion associated with SRT.
MLET(1) incorporates the new gravitational model
described above with a Lorentzian ether theory. In
MLET material particles are assumed to be composed
of standing waves in a solid ether. The movement of
the ether density within these standing waves causes a
decrease in the internal ether density due to the
reaction time of the ether. This internal density
decrease results in an external ether density increase.
The increase in the external ether density reaches a
stable distribution (equalized pressure) when the
radial density exhibits the exponential form given in
the gravitational scale factor of (24). The speed of
light in this increased ether density is naturally slower
— (13). The length in each dimension of physical
objects is smaller in proportion to the ether density —
(11). The clock rate is slower in the increased ether
density — (14). The mass is increased by the third
power of the ether density — (17).
The classical velocity effects of length contraction,
clock slowing, and inertial mass increase, which are
generally associated with SRT, result from the
velocity relative to the absolute ether frame. The ether
density itself does not change with particle velocity;
however, the two-way speed of light (reaction time of
the ether) does slow relative to the moving standing
wave (particle). Using the velocity scale factor
defined in (19) above, we can determine the effects of
velocity on the clock frequency, length, and mass.
However, since the changes in length and speed of
light relative to the particle are different in the along-
velocity (subscript a) and transverse (subscript t)
directions, it is necessary to distinguish the changes as
a function of the direction. The subscript 0 is used to
designate the value at zero velocity relative to the
absolute ether frame and the subscript v when it is not
necessary to distinguish between the along-velocity
direction and the transverse direction. The following
changes are observed when moving at a velocity:
f v = f 0 / γ : t v = t 0γ , (43)
la = l0 / γ : lt = l0 . (44)
The true two-way speed of light relative to the
moving particle is
ca = c0 / γ 2 : ct = c0 / γ . (45)

The inertial mass is increased by the first power of the
velocity scale factor, and the gravitational mass is
decreased by the first power of the velocity scale
factor:
mi = m0γ : mg = m0 / γ . (46)
From the above, the Selleri/Tangherlini transforma-
tion from the absolute frame to the moving frame is
given by
t = T /γ, (47)
x = γ ( X − VT ), (48)
where the small letters designate the values in the
moving frame and the capital letters the values in the
absolute frame. X and x are in the direction of the
velocity. V is the velocity measured in the absolute
frame. The y and z values are identical to the Y and Z
values. Equation (47), for example, tells us that the
measured time in the moving frame will be smaller
due to the larger units of time in the moving frame.
Even though (47) and (48) apply to a mapping from
an absolute frame, there remains an apparent relativ-
ity. For, when the remote clock is set either by
Einstein’s assumption of isotropic light speed or by
slow clock transport, a clock bias in the remote clock
results that is equal to
Vx
Δt = − . (49)
c2
This clock bias converts the Selleri time mapping into
the equivalent of the Lorentz transformation time
mapping given by
VX
t = γT −γ . (50)
c2
The mapping of the position coordinates is identical.
Thus the absolute Selleri transformation, when
adjusted for clock bias, becomes equivalent to the
Lorentz transformation, and an apparent relativity
results. (This apparent relativity prevents the direct
determination of the absolute frame. However, the
absolute frame is most likely identified with the frame
yielding an isotropic temperature of the cosmic
background radiation.)
10.2 Other Implications and/or Confirmations
Ronald R. Hatch
Several additional implications or confirmations of
the new force law given in (27) have been described
in an earlier paper.(44) They are repeated briefly here.
10.2.1 Discrepancy in the Mean Motion of the
Inner Planets
Radar data accurately measuring the distances be-
tween the inner planets are now available. Using these
data and the inverse square law, we can determine the
relative mean motion of the planets very precisely.
Standish(45) has reported a discrepancy between the
mean motion of the inner planets as determined by the
inverse square law and as observed by optical means.
The discrepancy is on the order of one half to one arc
second per century. Standish believes that the dis-
crepancy is probably due to systematic errors in the
observational data. The discrepancy appears to be
resolved by two contributions. The new force law
given in (27) appears to explain about one third of the
discrepancy. The other two thirds of the discrepancy
can be explained by observing that the mean motion
has the units of a frequency and that this frequency is
itself a function of the gravitational potential of the
Sun. Stated another way, when one adjusts the units
of the distance, time, and mass for the scale factor of
the solar gravitational potential (including adjusting
Newton’s gravitational constant), the classical meas-
ure of the mean motion of each planet is that which
would be measured by an atomic clock resident at the
same solar gravitational potential as each planet —
not a clock held at the constant solar gravitational
position of Earth.
10.2.2 No Black Holes
Einstein’s scale factor as given in (23) seems to
have a problem. It can go to zero, become negative,
and even approach negative infinity as the radius
approaches zero. This creates several problems. If the
scale factor became zero, lengths would go to zero,
clocks would stop, and the speed of light would go to
zero per (11) through (13). Somehow GRT claims
that when this scale factor reached zero, a coordinate
change could be made that would avoid these obvious
problems and, instead, we would reach the surface of
a black hole. The same problem clearly does not arise
when the new scale factor represented by (24) is used.
As the radius approaches zero, the scale factor only
asymptotically approaches zero. Furthermore, with
the scale factor in the numerator of the force, (27), the
gravitational force will approach zero rather than
become infinite. Thus the gravitational force is self-
limiting.
10.2.3 Galactic Rotation Curves
15
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity
Stars on the edges of spiral galaxies rotate faster
around the galactic center than would be expected
based upon the mass estimates obtained from lumi-
nous stars. Typically, some form of “dark matter” is
called upon to supply the missing mass. However, if
for very large concentrations of matter the gravita-
tional force is significantly decreased by the presence
of the gravitational scale factor in the numerator of
the force equation, a great deal more mass could
reside near the center of galaxies than is currently
estimated. Near the edges of the galaxy this increased
central mass could have a larger effect since the
gravitational scale factor would increase with distance
and asymptotically approach one. Jefferies(46) has
suggested this same mechanism to explain the galac-
tic rotation curves. While his exponential model
differs from that proposed here, the fundamental
concept is the same.
10.2.4 Super-Giant Stars and Quasars
Halton Arp(47) presents evidence that the hottest and
largest stars have an unexplained redshift. He also
argues that quasars are ejected from galactic nuclei
and are actually much closer than conventionally
believed on the basis of their redshift. Arp argues that
these phenomena are due to the lower mass of newly
created matter. While there is reason to be highly
skeptical of Arp’s explanation, there is no reason to
doubt the phenomena he is trying to explain. Both
phenomena may be explained by the new force law.
When one looks at the mass versus brightness of
the main-sequence stars on a Hertzsprung–Russell
diagram, one is struck by the slow increase of the
mass relative to the brightness. The standard method
used to “weigh” stars is to use binary pairs and the
inverse square law. But this will be increasingly in
error as the mass of the star increases if the new force
law is correct. The greater the mass of the star, the
smaller the percentage of mass one would obtain
using the incorrect force of the inverse square law.
Arp cites data that show that the bright blue (OB)
stars have an excess redshift when compared to their
surrounding gas. This excess redshift is most likely
due to a gravitational redshift that is computed as too
small due to the smaller mass incorrectly assigned to
the star.
Arp argues that there is also an anomalous redshift
from quasars that is obscured by ascribing the shift to
high recession velocities at huge distances. His claim
is that the quasars are actually much closer and that
they are associated with other spiral galaxies from
which they seem to have been ejected in directions
orthogonal to the plane of the originating galaxy. He
16
shows that the farther the quasars are from the appar-
ently ejecting galaxy, the lower is the redshift. This
appears to be what led him to postulate anomalous
redshift as a function of the age of material particles.
The proposed alternative model is that the ejected
quasars are very large and dense masses that have a
huge gravitational redshift. It is postulated that the
ejecting galaxy does not have the same redshift
because the central massive core is shielded by other
mass that lies farther from the central massive region.
The decreased redshift of the quasars as a function of
age would then be the simple expansion of the large
dense mass with time. As the expelled mass grew in
size, the visible redshift would arise farther from the
center of the mass and hence with a lower gravita-
tional scale factor.
11. A PROPOSED TEST
Today’s technology offers a method to directly test
the new theory. The Sun’s gravitational potential is
large enough that the variation in the force equation
with distance from the Sun should be detectible. In
almost all problems involving planetary motion or the
motion of interplanetary probes, the gravitational
constant (or the product of the gravitational constant
and the Sun’s mass) is included in the unknown
parameters to be determined. This may simply be a
symptom that the inverse square law for the force is
not quite correct. A properly constructed spacecraft
launched to travel through the inner planets should be
able to detect any deviation of the force from the
Newtonian inverse square law. The spacecraft would
need to be “drag free” and insensitive to the noncon-
servative forces from solar wind, Earth albedo, etc.
Such a spacecraft can be built by designing a space-
craft within a spacecraft. The inner spacecraft would
be isolated from all except the gravitational forces. Its
motion within the outer spacecraft can be sensed and
the outer spacecraft accelerated to keep it near the
center. The size of the acceleration deviation is on the
same order as the anomalous acceleration detected by
the Pioneer 10 spacecraft.(48) However, unlike that
anomalous acceleration, the deviation of the force
from the inverse square law should decrease as the
spacecraft moves from the inner to the outer planets.
The same spacecraft could also be used to explore the
anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft
without the ambiguity caused by the nonconservative
forces. A simple alternative to the drag-free space-
craft would be a spacecraft equipped with acceler-
ometers to measure the nonconservative forces.
 Ronald R. Hatch

12. CONCLUSION space.

It is worth recapping some of the conclusions
reached during the development of the new theory
above. Virtually all of them are at odds with GRT.
(1) Whether or not our criticism of the equivalence
principle is valid, clearly the energy of a falling
photon does not change. There is only an apparent
change due to the dependence of the comparison
frequency upon gravitational potential. Hence elec-
tromagnetic energy is not affected by gravity. (2) The
energy of a falling particle does not change. Instead
the kinetic energy acquired from the fall is derived
from the structural energy of the particle. (3) Kinetic
energy has inertial mass but no gravitational mass.
(4) The true kinetic energy is twice (low velocity) that
traditionally assigned to it. (5) The conservation of
energy of a falling particle indicates that the gravita-
tional force is slightly non-Newtonian. (6) Since
inertial and gravitational mass diverge in value as a
function of the velocity, space curvature cannot
precisely describe the motion of a test particle.
(7) Theoretically, a pendulum moving sideways in a
constant gravitational field can be used to detect
motion (by comparison to an atomic clock) if the
inertial mass and gravitational mass of a moving
particle do not diverge. (8) Only the structural energy
of masses gives rise to an ether density gradient
(equivalent to space curvature). Thus the vacuum
energy does not and should not cause a curvature of
In place of GRT, a new theory has been developed
with a new gravitational force equation. This new
theory (and new force equation) finds confirmation in
the following facts. (1) It was derived in clear logical
steps from well-known classical experiments. (2) It
provides a causal explanation of the gravitational
force. (3) It is in agreement with the classical gravita-
tional tests cited in support of GRT. (4) It is in
agreement with the pendulum thought experiment.
(5) It eliminates black holes and their associated
singularity. (6) It provides a possible explanation of
the galactic rotation curve without postulating an
unknown source of dark matter. And (7) it provides a
possible explanation of the anomalous redshift from
the OB stars. Finally, a direct test has been proposed
that should confirm or refute the new theory.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to both Dr. David Talmage and Dr. Thomas
Van Flandern, who kindly supplied criticism, even
though each disagreed with parts of the above devel-
opment. Hopefully, the presentation has been im-
proved thereby. Special thanks to Cécile Mongrédien
for translating the abstract. The comments of the
reviewers are also appreciated and have undoubtedly
resulted in a clearer presentation.
Received 15 February 2006.

Résumé
Une fausse conception concernant l’équivalence entre l’accélération et les effets
gravitationnels est dévoilée. Cette fausse conception résulte en une mise en cause
de la théorie de la relativité générale (TRG) qui est basée sur cette même équiva-
lence. On démontre que la vraie équivalence dans les phénomènes physiques lo-
caux se situe entre les effets gravitationnels de l’énergie potentielle et l’énergie
cinétique. À l’aide de cette nouvelle équivalence, une nouvelle théorie de la gravi-
té est développée de façon logique à partir de résultats expérimentaux connus.
Cette nouvelle théorie de la gravité implique un éther absolu et qui, lorsque asso-
ciée à la théorie de l’éther modifiée de Lorentz, s’accorde avec les expériences
traditionnellement expliquées par la théorie de la relativité restreinte. On démon-
tre que cette nouvelle théorie s’accorde avec tous les tests classiquement expli-
qués par la TRG. De plus, un grand nombre de phénomènes physiques jus-
qu’alors inexpliqués trouvent une explication potentielle à l’aide de cette nouvelle
théorie. Enfin, une vérification de cette théorie à l’aide d’un vaisseau spatial est
proposée.

References 3. R. Feynman, Six Not-So-Easy Pieces (Addison-

1. R.R. Hatch, Infinite Energy 7(39), 14 (2001). Wesley, New York, 1960), pp. 131–136.
2. A. Einstein, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, 4. C.Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 16, 84 (2003).
New York, 1952, 1911), pp. 99–108. 5. Idem, J. Theoretics 5(6) (2003–4),
17
A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity

http://d1002391.mydomainwebhost.com/JOT/Arti 24. R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett.
cles/5-6/Lo.pdf 4, 337 (1960).
6. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, 5th 25. D.W. Talmage, “Effect of Change in g,” Personal
edition (Princeton University Press, Princeton, e-mail dated 27 October 2004.
NJ, 1921), pp. 56–57. 26. Ref. 22, pp. 594–595.
7. C.M. Will, Was Einstein Right? (Basic Books, 27. Ibid., pp. 1096–1099.
New York, 1986), pp. 43–64. 28. Ibid., pp. 1075–1077.
8. R.R. Hatch, Proceedings of the Third Interna- 29. C.Y. Lo, Chinese J. Phys. 41, 332 (2003).
tional Geodetic Symposium on Satellite Doppler 30. Ref. 22, pp. 1110–1116
Positioning, Vol. II (New Mexico State Univer- 31. J.H. Taylor and J.M. Weisberg, Astrophys. J.
sity, Las Cruces, NM, February 1982), pp. 1213– 253, 908 (1982).
1232. 32. M. Ibison, arXiv:astro-ph/0302273 v3 3 (2004).
9. T.A. Stansell, The TRANSIT Navigation Satellite 33. Ref. 6, pp. 82–83.
System (Magnavox Government and Indiana 34. M. Jammer, Concepts of Mass in Contemporary
Electronics Company, Fort Wayne, IN, 1983), Physics and Philosophy (Princeton University
pp. 55–58. Press, Princeton, 2000), pp. 90–142.
10. GPS Interface Control Document, ICD-200c, 35. J.F. Donoghue, B.R. Holstein, and R.W.
Rev. 004, available at Robinett, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2561 (1984).
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/def 36. Idem, Gen. Rel. Grav. 17, 207 (1985).
ault.htm, p. 102. 37. Idem, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1208 (1986).
11. H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, 2nd edition, 38. A. Guth and P. Steinhardt, in The New Physics,
(Addison-Wesley, New York, 1980), pp. 286– edited by P. Davies (Cambridge University Press,
288. New York, 1989), p. 43.
12. R.R. Hatch, Galilean Electrodynamics 10(3), 51 39. R.R. Hatch, GPS Solutions 8(2), 67 (2004).
(1999). 40. Idem, Found. Phys. 34, 1725 (2004).
13. W. Bertiger et al., Proceedings of ION GPS 2002 41. Idem, Infinite Energy 10(59), 25 (2005).
(Portland, OR, September 2002), pp. 2022–2029. 42. F.R. Tangherlini, Nuovo Cimento Suppl. 20, 351
14. W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity (Pergamon Press, (1961).
New York, 1958, Dover reprint), p. 151. 43. F. Selleri, Found. Phys. 26, 641 (1996).
15. Ref. 6, pp. 91–93. 44. R.R. Hatch, Galilean Electrodynamics 10(4), 69
16. Ibid., p. 83. (1999).
17. H.E. Montanus, Phys. Essays 10, 666 (1997). 45. E.M. Standish, in Proceedings of the 141st
18. H.E. Puthoff, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr- Symposium of the International Astronomical
qc/9909037 Union, edited by J.H. Lieske and V.K. Abalakin
19. H.A. Wilson, Phys. Rev. 17, 54 (1921). (Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1990).
20. R.H. Dicke, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363 (1957). 46. C. Jefferies, Phys. Essays 5, 237 (1992).
21. H. Yilmaz, Phys. Rev. 111, 1417 (1958). 47. H. Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and
22. C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998), pp.
Gravitation (Freeman, New York, 1973), p. 187. 95–113.
23. I. Ciufolini and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation and 48. J.D. Anderson et al., http://arxiv.org/PS_cache
Inertia (Princeton University Press, Princeton, /gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf
NJ, 1995), pp. 97–108.

Ronald R. Hatch
1142 Lakme Avenue
Wilmington, California 90744 U.S.A.

email: ron@hatch.net

18