Why This Page Exists
The theories presented on this site challenge long-held assumptions. That demands a space for rigorous dialogue. Our goal is to build a constructive feedback loop—a place where questions and critiques help refine the theory, not dismiss it prematurely.
If you’re serious about physics and open to re-evaluating the fundamentals, your voice belongs here.
A Note to the Hesitant
To those who may hesitate in joining this pursuit, fearing the judgment or skepticism of peers toward uncharted ideas: consider the words of Galileo, written to Kepler from the depths of his imprisonment:
This is your invitation to be part of the next revolution in scientific discovery—to be among the first to verify that gravity is an artifact of electromagnetic energy. Join us in forging a new “Galileo moment,” one that could shape scientific understanding for the next 500 years.
Our focus is on shared exploration, not profit. We seek collaborators who are committed to the pursuit of knowledge and open inquiry. If you have experience or ideas that could contribute to our understanding, particularly in conducting the “Dual Plane Interferometry” experiment, we would be delighted to hear from you.
If you possess insights or evidence that might challenge the viability of Charge Admittance as an alternative, your contributions are equally valued. It is only by rigorously testing and refining our concepts that we will advance our grasp of the cosmos.
“In a world that is changing so quickly the biggest risk you can take is not taking any risk” – P. Thiel
We Seek Collaborators
We are not a commercial venture. Our focus is on shared exploration, not profit. If you have insights, critique, or technical experience—particularly in conducting or analyzing the Dual Plane Interferometry experiment—we welcome your involvement.
Use the comment window below to begin, or reach out to the email in the “About” if you’d prefer a private conversation.
This is the first time I’ve seen someone frame gravity as an electromagnetic impedance phenomenon. It actually makes more intuitive sense to me than spacetime curvature, but I’m not sure I understand how mass fits into this. Are you saying mass is emergent from field energy density? I’d love a simple diagram or a conceptual map of how this theory ties all the variables together.
From an instrumentation standpoint, if you’re claiming that c shifts even slightly with altitude or gravitational potential, that should be measurable with high-precision atomic clocks and interferometry, right? Has anyone attempted to extract ε₀ or μ₀ as a function of altitude directly? I’m curious if this could be tested with the same setup used in the Pound-Rebka experiment
Yes, the Pound-Rebka experiment and some early data out of JILA using vertically stacked strontium atoms look promising as a demonstration of this.
I always wondered about the speed of light being constant. Einsteins Declaration means that black holes have abrupt “Event Horizons, The “entire” universe must have a “single starting point and edge.” These are troublesome on light of JWST findings. Must we have more band aids to move forth in support of a theory instead of being shown the possibilities of what might really be?
“One aspect I find genuinely intriguing here is the treatment of permittivity and permeability as spatially dynamic quantities with gravitational implications. It echoes, in a distorted mirror, some ideas from effective field theory in curved spacetimes. If ε₀ and μ₀ are varying, then so is the local impedance of space—you’re effectively arguing that c is a kind of emergent, medium-dependent quantity. That’s provocative. But my immediate question is: how do you preserve local Lorentz invariance? If c varies, what happens to the equivalence of inertial frames?”
Thank you—this is precisely the kind of high-bandwidth question that moves the discussion forward.
The concern over local Lorentz invariance is central. Under Charge Admittance theory (CA), the premise is not that the laws of physics differ between inertial frames, but that the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum itself—specifically ε₀ and μ₀—can vary spatially and gravitationally. This suggests that while local Lorentz invariance is preserved within a locally uniform field domain, it is not global across variable ε₀μ₀ gradients.
Key points of the response:
Local Constancy Assumption Still Holds: Within a sufficiently small region (i.e., the “locally flat” approximation used in GR), ε₀ and μ₀ are treated as constant. In this domain, Lorentz symmetry is preserved. The metric becomes globally variant due to ε₀μ₀ gradients, not locally broken.
c is Emergent and Contextual, Not Arbitrarily Variable: The speed of light is emergent from the medium: Changes in c reflect changes in the medium—not a violation of physical law, but a reinterpretation of the environment in which those laws operate. It’s a context-sensitive constant, not a universal one.
Inertial Frame Equivalence is Redefined: If we accept that “inertial frames” exist within a specific field density regime, then their equivalence is bounded by uniform ε₀μ₀ values. A photon propagating through a gradient in ε₀μ₀ experiences dispersion or bending—not because Lorentz symmetry fails, but because its medium is not uniform.
Analogy with Refractive Media: Think of light passing through a non-uniform dielectric. Maxwell’s equations remain valid, but c varies with position. This doesn’t violate Maxwell, it expresses the medium’s complexity. CA suggests the vacuum itself is such a dielectric—albeit governed by zero-point energy and field interactions.
CA’s Takeaway: Charge Admittance theory doesn’t reject Lorentz invariance—it constrains it to the domain where ε₀ and μ₀ are locally invariant. It implies a more layered topology of physical law, one that admits variations in underlying field parameters without discarding the invariance principles within coherent domains.
This is fascinating, but doesn’t GR already account for light bending and time dilation through spacetime curvature? If ε₀ and μ₀ are varying in space, wouldn’t that require reinterpreting Maxwell’s equations themselves? Is there any experimental evidence that these values change with altitude or field density?
In GR, the Pound-Rebka experiment shows gravitational redshift—photons climbing out of Earth’s gravitational well lose energy, observed as a lower frequency. This is explained by the gravitational time dilation:
A photon moving from a region of high field density (lower altitude) to low field density (higher altitude) experiences a change in
, resulting in a redshift:
This aligns with the observed gravitational redshift:
Thus, under CA, this result emerges not from curved spacetime, but from gradients in ε₀μ₀ due to energy density.