Energy Flow, Gravity, Entropy, and Cosmic Aging
Abstract
Charge Admittance (CA) redefines energy propagation, gravity, and cosmic evolution through flux in the μ0ε0 field, ditching General Relativity’s (GR) spacetime curve. Rooted in electromagnetic energy—from quanta to endless waves—it fuses Newton’s inertia, Maxwell’s EM waves, and Einstein’s E=mc2. Gravity’s no force or warp—it’s energy acceleration, Gv = -c(dc/dx), driven by “lumpy” μ0εμ0 gradients. This explains orbits, redshift, lensing, and galactic aging without dark crutches or time tricks. CA sees a cosmos reborn endlessly, no size or time cap—black holes morph into “CEPA” energy onions, magnetostriction squeezing energy into particles, no singularities, no horizons. A sharper lens for physics.
Introduction
Charge Admittance (CA) recasts the universe’s guts—energy flow, gravity, cosmic bones—via μ0ε0 flux, ruled by permittivity (ε0) and permeability (μ0). Forget General Relativity’s mass-bent spacetime—CA makes gravity an energy kick, Gv = -c(dc/dx), with c2 = 1/(μ0εμ0) and E=mc2 tying all mass to energy’s hum. “Energy has no memory, shifting only with fresh juice”—no time dilation, no dark fudge. From Newton’s push to Maxwell’s waves and Einstein’s equivalence, CA unifies particle zips, photon paths, and cosmic sprawl through μ0εμ0 gradients. It nails lensing, rotation, and precession—Mercury’s wobble, Explorer’s slingshot, Hubble and JWST’s stares—without GR’s baggage. This lays CA’s spine—math, history, and proof follow.
History
Charge Admittance (CA) builds on the pivotal insights of physics’ giants, tracing a path from mechanical motion to energy fields, culminating in a redefinition of gravity and cosmic dynamics. Energy has no memory—its flux rewrites the past.
Galileo Galilei (1600s)
“Gravity is an acceleration that acts on all objects, regardless of their mass.” His inclined plane experiments revealed gravitational acceleration as universal, decoupling it from mass variance—a seed for CA’s Gv = -c(dc/dx), where energy’s pace, not weight, rules.
Isaac Newton (1687)
Every particle attracts every other with a force proportional to the product of their masses.” His universal law (F = G * (m1 * m2) / r2) pinned gravity to mass—CA recasts this as energy flux via E = mc2, with μ0ε0 gradients driving the dance, not static pull.
James Clerk Maxwell (1865)
Electric and magnetic fields propagate as waves at c = 1/√(μ0ε0), uniting charge and flux.” Maxwell’s equations fused electricity and magnetism, setting light’s speed through permittivity (ε0) and permeability (μ0)—CA’s bedrock, where energy density in μ0ε0 shapes gravity, no mass or spacetime needed.
Max Planck (1900)
Energy comes in packets—quanta—tied to frequency.” Planck’s quantum leap showed energy’s discrete hum (E = hν), kicking off a shift from smooth fields to gritty bits—CA nods, linking energy’s pulse to μ0ε0 flux, a hint at gravity’s grainy flow.
Albert Einstein (1915)
The curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of matter.” General Relativity (GR) warped gravity into geometry, proven by lensing and redshift—CA flips it, using E = mc2 to trade mass for energy, rooting effects in μ0ε0 flux, not spacetime bends.
CA Synthesis (© Jan 10, 2022)
From Galileo’s roll to Einstein’s warp, CA ties it tight—energy, not mass, flows in μ0ε0, Z0 hums at 377 ohms. No Big Bang, no dark fluff—redshift’s Z stretch, gravity’s charge dance. A new lens for JWST’s gaze.
State of the Art
Gravity’s saga has clung to mass—from Galileo’s falling bodies to Newton’s universal pull and Einstein’s spacetime twist. Galileo’s 1600s experiments showed objects hit the dirt at the same pace, mass aside—upending Aristotle’s weight-driven notions. Newton’s 1687 law (F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²) locked gravity to mass, sharp and simple.
Einstein’s 1915 General Relativity (GR) rewrote it—mass and energy bend spacetime, guiding objects along curves, no direct force. It nailed orbital oddities and light’s bend, resting on time dilation and spacetime warps. Yet GR falters:
Quantum Divide: GR clashes with quantum mechanics—gravity at micro scales (black holes, early universe) remains elusive.
Dark Enigmas: Dark matter and energy shore up galaxy rotation and cosmic expansion—yet they’re unseen, speculative fixes.
Singularity Limits: Infinite density points—like black hole cores—snap GR’s rules, leaving physics blank.
These gaps demand a rethink—a framework to bridge gravity and quanta, decode cosmic quirks, and chart the universe’s core.
These unresolved issues suggest the need for an expanded framework—one that reconciles gravity with quantum mechanics, accounts for unexplained cosmic phenomena, and provides a more complete understanding of the universe’s fundamental structure.
Maxwell’s 1865 equations opened a side door—charge and fields race at c = 1/√(μ0ε0), no gravity strings tied. Permittivity (ε0) and permeability (μ0) steer the show—energy’s pulse hints CA might outshine mass or spacetime tales.
Concept
Charge Admittance builds upon this foundation, proposing that gravitational effects emerge not from mass-induced curvature but from energy flow regulated by charge impedance and spatial admittance. By considering gravitational interactions as a result of charge density gradients in the ε0μ0 field, CA extends Maxwell’s principles to describe gravity as an emergent property of energy dynamics rather than a fundamental force. This perspective challenges the necessity of mass-driven curvature while offering alternative explanations for planetary orbital discrepancies, black hole behavior, and galactic structure formation.
Reconceptualizing Energy Memory in the CA Framework
In the Charge Admittance (CA) model, the idea is not that energy “remembers” its previous state, but rather that its observable properties—such as direction or frequency—are entirely determined by the current state of the surrounding field. When energy interacts with a medium, such as when its path is deflected by a change in the dielectric constant, the energy does not retain a “memory” of its prior trajectory. Instead, it immediately adopts the characteristics imposed by the present conditions of the μ0ε0 field.
For example, if an energy wave is deflected by a localized change in the dielectric constant, its new propagation direction is a direct consequence of the altered impedance at that location. Even if the impedance later reverts to its “near” original state, the energy wave does not “recall” its original direction; rather, it will be re-deflected according to the current field conditions. In this way, the field itself—the arrangement and gradient of μ0 and ε0—acts as the repository of the system’s history. It “remembers” the cumulative interactions, while the energy merely adjusts to the instantaneous configuration of the field.
Similarly, consider a frequency shift caused by an impedance change. The energy’s frequency, after the shift, is not restored because the energy carries a record of its past; it is restored because the energy is continuously interacting with and being modulated by the present state of the field. Thus, energy serves as an equalizer, dynamically responding to the current field conditions, while the field encapsulates the “memory” of all previous interactions.
This perspective implies that energy does not possess an intrinsic memory of its past states. Instead, any “memory” of previous interactions is encoded in the field’s current configuration. The CA model therefore suggests that the present state of the field—and not any inherent property of the energy—determines the observed properties of energy waves, such as their direction and frequency.
This perspective implies that energy does not possess an intrinsic memory of its past states. Instead, any “memory” of previous interactions is encoded in the field’s current configuration. The CA model therefore suggests that the present state of the field—and not any inherent property of the energy—determines the observed properties of energy waves, such as their direction and frequency.
Implications of the No Memory Principle in Charge Admittance (CA)
Energy Flow Dictated by Local Field Conditions, Not Historical States: Energy does not carry its initial conditions forward. Instead, its behavior at any point is dictated solely by the local ε0μ0 field values at the moment of interaction.
Gravitational Interaction Without Energy Gain/Loss: Energy does not intrinsically gain or lose energy due to gravity. Instead, energy shifts occur as a result of gradients in the ε0μ0 field.
Redshift as a Function of Field Gradients, Not Velocity-Time Effects: Redshift occurs because energy propagates through a “lumpy” ε0μ0 field, causing incremental energy trades. Likewise, Energy does not experience time dilation—it adjusts its frequency based on ongoing interactions with ε0μ0 gradients.
Photon Travel and Energy Exchange with the Field: A photon’s energy is constantly adjusted by the field it moves through. Over vast distances, the energy’s frequency may shift due to the average ε0μ0 field density changing.
Black Holes as Dense Energy Gradients, Not Singularities: Black holes are dense regions of energy impedance, where energy flow is highly restricted rather than singularities.
Implications for Cosmic Aging and the Universe’s Regenerative Nature: The universe does not require a finite timeline or a “heat death.” It is a dynamically adjusting equilibrium system.
By shifting the paradigm from time-based energy evolution (as in GR) to field-based energy modulation (as in CA), we eliminate the need for concepts like time dilation, energy loss due to gravity, singularities, or a one-way entropic death of the universe. Instead, the universe is an ongoing energy-field equilibrium system, where local conditions dictate observed energy behavior without requiring historical memory.
Postulates
No Memory. Energy entering a changed field has no memory of its prior state, continuing in its new state until new energy alters it.
ε0μ0 Are variable as with the physical world of atoms and molecules, there parameters are variable, Usually relative to physical density. There is no reason why the “imperfect vacuum of space” should not have the same characteristics.
The speed of light c = 1/√μ0ε0: is not a universal constant but fluctuates with changes in the μ0ε0 field.
Gravitational acceleration: emerges from differences in energy flow through the μ0ε0 field, rather than being a fundamental force acting at a distance. i.e., gravitational effects arise from energy flow rather than mass.
The frequency of electromagnetic energy (f(t)), diminishes over time due to entropic dissipation within the μ0ε0 field, challenging the conventional assumption of eternal frequency stability in vacuum propagation.
Redshift emerges not solely from cosmological expansion or Doppler effects, but from an intrinsic decay of energy frequency as it traverses the μ0ε0 medium, reflecting a fundamental entropic process.
The redshift of galactic light is influenced by the aging of galaxies, where local energy density evolves with galactic size and age, altering the emitted frequency independently of cosmological distance.
Redshift cannot serve as a singular indicator of distance, as intrinsic galactic aging—via changes in the μ0ε0 field—mimics the effects of recessional velocity, challenging the Hubble law’s foundational assumption.
EM Field Interaction Equation
Interacting Massless Energy Fields and Flux Path Dynamics
Experimental support comes from interactions between massless electromagnetic fields in vacuum, such as in directional antennas, resonant cavities, and Faraday Rotation.
EM fields interacting with themselves could condense or expand via μ0ε0 gradients, driven by energy flux over time.
Consider this:
dE/dt = -c2 * (ε0μ0)-1/2 * ∇(ε0μ0) * E,
Where:
dE/dt is the rate of energy change,
c = 1/√(ε0μ0) sets the baseline speed,
∇(ε0μ0) captures field gradients from your ionospheric bending and spectrometer insights,
E is the EM field energy.
This ties Maxwell’s c to ε0μ0 flux variation—energy accelerates (curves) as ε0μ0 shifts, not time, sidestepping Einstein’s choice.
Lorentz’s F = q(E + v*B) hints EM fields torque each other via dipoles, so ∇(ε0μ0) could condense energy into lattices or expand it, depending on flux direction and density triggers.
Maxwell’s legacy says EM fields self-interact through μ0ε0—and Einstein’s variable might be that c, not time, bends the universe
Gravitational acceleration emerges from differences in energy flow through the μ0ε0 field, rather than being a fundamental force acting at a distance.
Gravity
Interacting Massless Energy Fields and Flux Path Dynamics
CA proposes that gravitational effects arise from energy flow rather than mass.
Experimental support comes from interactions between massless electromagnetic fields in vacuum, such as in directional antennas, resonant cavities, and Faraday Rotation.
These interactions demonstrate that energy density alone can create gravitational effects, aligning with CA’s premise that gravity emerges from structured energy propagation rather than mass-induced spacetime curvature.
Energy-Momentum for Massless Systems
Einstein’s energy-momentum equation:
E2 = m2 * c4 + p2 * c2
This equation accounts for both rest energy (mc²) and momentum-based energy (p²c²).
When considering massless energy flux (setting m=0), the equation simplifies to energy as a function of momentum and propagation speed.
E = pc
Here, energy (E) depends only on momentum (p) and the speed of propagation (c), not mass. This supports CA’s focus on energy propagation as the basis for gravitational effects.
Electromagnetic Propagation and Speed
Maxwell’s Definition of Speed of Energy:
c2 = 1/μ0ε0
Einstein’s Equivalence:
E = mc2
Rewriting Einstein’s Equation in Terms of Electromagnetic Properties:
E = m(1/μ0ε0)
Where:
μ0,ε0: Local field parameters influencing energy speed.
CA posits that variations in these properties across space create gradients in energy propagation speed, driving gravitational acceleration.
Gravitational Acceleration
Interpret c as a local speed influenced by field parameters, and Gv as an effective acceleration (m/s²) requires a scaling factor (e.g., time or energy flux rate):
Gv = – c(dc/ dx)
Normal units: (m/s)⋅(s−1)=m/s2, consistent with acceleration.
Where:
Gv represents the rate of gravitational acceleration vector,
dc: Differential in speed of energy
dx: Differential spatial displacement
Explanation: c=1/μ0ε0 is typically constant, but CA assumes μ0 and ε0 vary locally due to energy density differences. A decreasing c (slower energy propagation) over distance (x) produces a positive acceleration toward regions of higher energy density or slower c.
This represents how gravitational effects result from variations in energy flow rather than from mass curvature.
Gravity as an Energy Equilibrium Gradient
Gravity is redefined as the tendency of energy to flow toward equilibrium. Regions with higher energy density (or altered μ0,ε0) slow energy propagation, creating a gradient. Objects move along this gradient not because of their mass, but because they’re carried by the energy flux—explaining Galileo’s mass-independent acceleration.
Where Gv is acceleration, and c=1/μ0ε0 drops as energy density rises (negative gradient pulls downward). CA scales like GR:
Δc/c ≈ gh/c2
Entropy’s Flow
Entropic Frequency Decay and Energy Dissipation
CA proposes that the observed redshift of light results from an exponential decay in frequency, driven by entropy within the electromagnetic propagation medium. This decay is modeled as:
f( t ) = f0e−kt
Where:
f( t ): Observed frequency at time ( t ),
f0: Initial frequency at emission,
( k ): Entropic decay constant (s⁻¹), dependent on local μ0ε0 properties,
( t ): Propagation time (s).
This formulation posits that energy, E=hf, diminishes as frequency decreases, with the energy loss attributed to entropic interactions within the μ0ε0
field, rather than requiring a physical scattering medium as in traditional tired light hypotheses.
Experimental Support
Observations of cosmological redshift, such as those from distant galaxies and supernovae, align with an exponential frequency decay when interpreted through CA’s lens. The redshift parameter, ( z ), relates to the decay as:
z = (f0−f(t)) / f(t) = ekt −1
For small ( kt ), z≈ktz, suggesting a linear approximation at short timescales, consistent with Hubble’s law, but diverging at cosmological distances where entropic effects accumulate.
Phase shift experiments—e.g., two-slit interference, multipath FM “picket fencing, Shapiro delay” and historical phase-locked loops (e.g., NBA’s 20 kHz)—demonstrate cumulative phase shifts altering effective frequency, supporting the notion that ( f(t) ) evolves over time due to medium interactions.
Electromagnetic Energy Propagation
Maxwell’s Definition of Speed of Energy:
c2 = 1/μ0ε0
Planck’s energy:
E=hf
Combining these, CA reinterprets energy propagation:
E( t ) = hf0e−kt
Where:
μ0ε0: Local permeability and permittivity, varying with energy density,
( k ): Reflects entropic resistance within the μ0ε0 Field.
As ( c ) fluctuates with μ0ε0, frequency ( f(t) ) decays, reducing energy without invoking mass or spacetime curvature, aligning with CA’s energy-centric framework.
Entropic Redshift
Define the entropic redshift as:
f( t ) = f0e−kt
Where:
( k ): Rate of frequency decay (s⁻¹), tied to μ0ε0 gradients.
( t ): Time of flight across cosmological distances.
Explanation: The μ0ε0 field, typically assumed static, exhibits entropic dissipation as energy propagates, reducing ( f ) over time. This contrasts with expansion-based redshift, offering a static-universe alternative where energy loss drives observed phenomena. The decay constant ( k ) may vary with local field conditions, potentially linking to gravitational gradients (Gv).
Entropy as an Energy Equilibrium Process
Entropy governs the flow of energy toward equilibrium within the μ0ε0 medium. As light travels, its frequency diminishes, reflecting a transfer of energy into the field’s entropic background. This process mimics tired light but anchors in measurable field properties, not hypothetical scattering. The redshift scales with propagation time:
Δf/f0 = 1−e−kt
For cosmological scales, ( kt ) grows, amplifying redshift without requiring universal expansion, consistent with CA’s premise that energy dynamics—not spacetime—rule the cosmos
Relation to Gravitational Effects
The entropic decay complements CA’s gravitational model:
Gv = – c(dc/ dx)
Where variations in ( c ) (via μ0ε0 ) drive acceleration, and f( t ) = f0e−kt reflects the temporal energy loss. Together, they suggest a unified energy-flow mechanism for gravity and redshift, free of mass or curvature dependencies.
Aging Galaxies and Color Shift
Galactic Aging and Frequency Shift
CA posits that galactic redshift includes an intrinsic component tied to the aging of stellar populations and their local μ0ε0 environment. The emitted frequency evolves as:
f0(tg) = f0,inite−kgtg
Where:
f0(tg): Initial frequency emitted by a galaxy at galactic age tg
f0,init: Frequency at galaxy formation,
kg: Galactic aging constant (s⁻¹), dependent on local energy density and μ0ε0 variations,
tg: Galactic age
This aging shift compounds with propagation decay:
f(t)= f0(tg)e−kt = f0,inite−kgtge−kt
Where:
( k ): Entropic decay constant from propagation (s⁻¹),
( t ): Light travel time (s).
Total redshift combines source aging and propagation entropy:
ztotal = (f0,init – f(t) / f(t) = ekgtg+kt − 1
Local Energy Density and Color Shift
Galactic energy density decreases with age and size, altering μ0ε0:
cg = 1 / √ (μ0(tg) ε0(tg))
Where:
cg: Local speed of light within the galaxy, varying with age,
μ0(tg), ε0(tg): Age-dependent field parameters.
As galaxies age, stellar fusion slows, energy density drops, and μ0ε0 increases, reducing cg and shifting emitted f0(tg)to lower (redder) frequencies—independent of distance.
Experimental Support
Observations of nearby, old galaxies (e.g., ellipticals) show redshifts exceeding expectations for their proximity, contradicting Hubble’s v=H0d. Conversely, young, distant galaxies (e.g., spirals) may appear less redshifted than their distance suggests. Historical data—e.g., supernovae in aged galaxies—reveal color shifts consistent with intrinsic f0(tg) decay, not solely recessional velocity.
Implications for Redshift
Hubble’s law:
z ≈ v/c = H0d / c
Assumes redshift scales linearly with distance ( d ). CA disrupts this:
Ztotal = e(kgtg+kt) − 1
Where:
kgtg: Intrinsic aging term—dominant in old, close galaxies,
kt: Propagation term—dominant over cosmic distances.
Old, nearby galaxies appear “far” by Hubble’s metric due to kgtg, while young, distant ones seem “close” due to lower kgtg, shattering redshift as a distance proxy.
Differentiating Distance from Age
Astrophysicists must disentangle kgtg (age) from ( kt ) (distance):
Age Indicators: Stellar population analysis—color indices (e.g., B-V), metallicity—reveal tg.
Distance Indicators: Cepheid variables, supernovae luminosity—bypass redshift for ( d ).
CA Metric: cg gradients — μ0ε0 shifts—map local aging vs. cosmic travel.
This dual criteria—age vs. distance—redefines cosmology, unshackling it from Hubble’s expansion-only lens.
Integration with State of the Art
Galileo
Galileo’s inclined plane experiments demonstrated a fundamental principle: the acceleration due to gravity is constant (approximately 9.8 m/s² on Earth) and independent of an object’s mass.
The Charge Admittance (CA) model provides a reinterpretation that directly supports this observation. In CA, gravitational acceleration (Gv) is defined as the negative spatial gradient of the speed of energy (dc/dx). This means that Gv is determined by the spatial variation of the energy field, not the mass of the object.
Specifically:
The equation Gv = -dc/dx shows that acceleration depends solely on the spatial variation of ‘c’ (the speed of energy), not on the object’s properties.
Objects fall at the same rate because the driving force is the energy field’s spatial variation, aligning with Galileo’s findings.
Even massless energy flux, such as electromagnetic waves, can induce motion, and material objects follow the same energy gradient. This reinforces Galileo’s principle of universality, that “gravity is an acceleration that acts on all objects, regardless of their mass.
Newton
“Every particle attracts every other particle with a force proportional to the product of their masses.”
CA Alignment: Newton’s law (F=G(m1m2)/r2) assumes mass as the source. CA eliminates mass, suggesting the observed “attraction” is a misinterpretation of energy flux gradients.
The m1m2 term could be replaced by energy densities (E1E2), but CA avoids forces altogether, framing gravity as acceleration due to dc/dx
Maxwell
“Electric and magnetic fields propagate as waves at c = 1/√(μ0ε0), governed by charge and flux.”
CA aligns: dE/dt = -c2 * (ε0μ0)-1/2 * ∇(ε0μ0) * E extends his laws—EM fields self-interact via μ0ε0 gradients, driving energy states sans mass or time warp.
“Energy bears its current mark, shifting with fresh force”—echoes his field continuity using ∇(ε0μ0).
Einstein:
“The curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of matter.”
CA Departure: Einstein includes energy and momentum (via the stress-energy tensor), encompassing mass via E=mc2.
CA rejects spacetime curvature, attributing gravitational effects solely to energy propagation dynamics. It aligns with Einstein’s energy focus but discards mass and geometric warping.
Proof
Charge Admittance (CA) theory passes all the established proofs of General Relativity (GR), aligning with observed gravitational phenomena while offering a distinct energy-based mechanism. Here are some examples:
The Pound-Rebka experiment (1960) measured a gravitational redshift of 2.46×10−15 over 22.5 meters using gamma rays at 14.4 keV. CA attributes this to a shift in energy speed (c) within the ε0μ0 lattice, matching GR’s prediction of Δf/f=gh/c2.
The Shapiro delay, observed in 1964 with radar echoes from Venus, shows a time delay of approximately 200 microseconds as signals pass near the Sun—CA explains this via lattice density gradients slowing c, consistent with GR’s spacetime curvature effect.
Mercury’s orbit, the same ε0μ0 density effects account for the precession of Mercury’s orbit, shifting 43 arcseconds per century—CA posits that the intensified lattice flux near the Sun modulates c, altering orbital dynamics in a manner consistent with GR’s predictions, yet rooted in energy rather than spacetime distortion.
Gravitational lensing as seen in the 1919 solar eclipse with a 1.75 arcsecond deflection of starlight, CA attributes these to energy flux variations in the ε0μ0 field, replicating GR outcomes without mass-driven curvature.
These examples affirm CA’s compatibility with GR’s empirical benchmarks, grounding its validity in observable data.
Experiment
To validate Charge Admittance (CA) theory, an experiment is proposed to measure the frequency shift of energy dropped in two distinct mediums: air (a variable, non-shielded ε0μ0 field) and a fixed impedance medium (such as a waveguide or fiber optic cable).
In the air test, a signal—e.g., a laser at 1014 Hz or a radar pulse at 2.8 GHz is transmitted vertically downward over a height of 12 meters in a vacuum chamber approximating free space conditions (Z0=377 Ω). The receiver, positioned below, measures the frequency shift, anticipated at Δf/f≈1.31×10−15, reflecting CA’s c-shift due to the ε0μ0 gradient.
In the fixed impedance test, an identical signal is propagated through a waveguide or fiber optic cable of the same 12-meter length, where the medium’s controlled impedance (e.g., constant Z0 vacuum-filled waveguide) minimizes external ε0μ0 variations. The receiver again measures frequency, expecting a reduced or null shift if the fixed medium shields the energy from lattice gradients. This dual-drop comparison isolates CA’s energy-speed mechanism from mass influences, offering a direct test of its predictions against variable and constrained impedance environments.
Outcomes and Future Directions
Consequences
Space Dances with Energy: The universe is a dynamic medium, shaped by ε0μ0 flux—no static stage, aligning with Gv = -c(dc/dx) as energy gradients drive motion.
Gravity’s Electromagnetic: Gravity emerges as an EM artifact, not a boson’s trick—unifying quantum and classical realms via dE/dt = -c2 * (ε0μ0)-1/2 * ∇(ε0μ0) * E, no Higgs needed.
Paradigm Shift: CA’s simplicity—no spacetime curves, no exotic particles—rewrites physics and tech, grounded in energy over mass.
Implications
Black Holes as CEPA: Charge Energy Permeability Admittance traps energy in dense μ0ε0 lattices—not mass-driven infinities—recasting black holes as finite energy sinks.
Gravity’s Dual Nature: Static ε0μ0 fields exert instant influence on energy-bearing objects, updated dynamically by EM waves at c, consistent with LIGO’s wave detections.
Redshift via Gravitational Stretch: Waves stretch in μ0ε0 gradients, mimicking time dilation via c’s local shift—not cosmic expansion—per f( t ) = f0e−kt
Predictions
No Big Bang: Energy structures evolve without a singular start—JWST’s early galaxies back this, no bang required.
Galaxy Formation: Galactic structures form individually, independent of a universe-wide event, driven by local μ0ε0 flux.
Age of the Universe: No fixed age binds the cosmos; ongoing energy processes spawn new structures continuously, per f(t)= f0(tg)e−kt = f0,inite−kgtge−kt.
Size of Universe: The universe lacks a set boundary—new galaxies emerge as energy permits, unbound by prior scale.
Explorations
How Dense Can the μ0ε0 Field Be?
If gravity emerges from gradients in charge impedance (μ0ε0), then the density of this field must vary across space. The question of how dense it can become is crucial in understanding the full range of gravitational effects.
Lower Limit: In open space, the permittivity (ε0) and permeability (μ0) would be close to their vacuum values, providing the baseline for energy propagation at c.
Upper Limit: In extreme conditions, such as near black holes or within high-energy plasma fields, these values may be significantly altered. If energy flow is the governing principle, then the so-called singularity could instead be a region where energy velocity asymptotically slows, never reaching true collapse.
If ε0 and μ0 define the impedance of space, then high-energy-density regions (like black holes) may simply be areas of extreme spatial impedance, where the energy compression rate reaches a practical limit.
What Is the Range of Density – Can It Extend from Open Space to Black Holes?
If the field density can vary continuously, then it could indeed span the full range from deep vacuum to extreme compression.
Vacuum Space: Minimal μ0ε0 gradients allow energy to propagate freely at near-uniform velocities.
Dense Galactic Cores: As energy accumulates in a region (e.g., near active galactic nuclei), impedance may increase, slowing energy flow and leading to structural formations.
Black Hole Analogues (CEPA Structures): Instead of singularities, these could be layered structures where energy compression reaches a limit, but information is not lost—only slowed.
This suggests that what we perceive as mass in GR is actually just an effect of extreme variations in energy propagation speed within an μ0ε0 field.
Can All Energy Components Be Mixed in a Single Field?
If energy is simply a function of how charge interactions propagate through impedance gradients, then all known forces and fields might be aspects of a unified energy field.
Unification Possibility: Maxwell’s equations already unify electric and magnetic fields. If charge impedance can also generate gravitational effects, then the strong, weak, and gravitational interactions could be emergent behaviors of different μ0ε0 structures.
Localized vs. Non-Localized Energy: If energy always propagates within this field, then different observed “particles” might be just different localized energy distributions within a continuous medium.
This aligns with theories suggesting that fundamental particles are not independent entities but rather stable configurations of an underlying field.
Are Charge Dipoles Entangled in the Mirror of Time?
If energy propagation is strictly governed by the field’s present conditions, then past energy states do not persist as memory—only the field’s structure retains a record of previous interactions.
Time-Symmetric Interactions: In quantum mechanics, wave equations are often time-reversible. If charge dipoles are part of a structured impedance landscape, then their entanglement could be a form of time-reversed mirroring.
Quantum Nonlocality: Entangled pairs might be manifestations of energy states that share a common μ0ε0 linkage, rather than truly “separate” objects communicating instantaneously.
This perspective suggests that what we observe as “entanglement” is simply a reflection of the way the energy field retains coherence over distance.
Is the Median Hum of This Field the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?
If energy dynamics are govAre There Answers to Be Found in This Exploration?erned by the charge admittance field, then the CMB could be interpreted as more than just an artifact of the early universe—it might be the background equilibrium state of the entire field.
Steady-State Interpretation: Instead of being a remnant of the Big Bang, the CMB could be the baseline equilibrium state of energy within the μ0ε0 field, with galaxies forming as localized deviations from this equilibrium.
Energy Recycling Model: If the universe is constantly regenerating energy structures, the CMB could be the universal “background hum” of the energy cycle rather than a one-time thermal relic.
This view aligns with a universe that is not a singular event but a continuous process of energy redistribution.
Are There Answers to Be Found in This Exploration?
Yes, and they could fundamentally reshape our understanding of gravity, time, and the structure of the universe.
Experimental Tests: If the μ0ε0 field determines energy propagation, then precise impedance measurements could reveal gravitational variations without invoking mass.
Astrophysical Observations: Studying regions of high energy compression (e.g., quasars, black hole accretion zones) could test whether their properties align better with an impedance model rather than singularity-based explanations.
Quantum-Gravity Links: If the charge admittance field governs energy dynamics, it could provide a bridge between quantum field theory and gravity without requiring exotic new particles.
Summary
Charge Admittance (CA) reframes a core debate: Does gravity stem from spacetime curvature, as General Relativity (GR) asserts, or from energy flux in the μ0ε0 field, as CA proposes? CA challenges GR’s fixed c, positing c = 1/√(μ0ε0) as a variable speed of energy, shaped by density gradients—Gv = -c(dc/dx)—not a universal constant. Lab evidence, like relaxation oscillator frequency shifts, and ionospheric data support this, suggesting energy dynamics, not geometry, drive gravitational effects.
CA redefines gravity as an emergent acceleration within an energy-first model—“Energy bears its current mark, shifting with fresh force”—integrating Galileo’s universal fall, Newton’s inertial laws, Maxwell’s EM fields, and Einstein’s E = mc2 into a unified framework. It eliminates dark matter and energy, explaining lensing, redshift, and orbits via μ0ε0 flux, while predicting tools like free-space gravimeters and charge-based capture. Not a GR replacement, CA refines it, bridging classical and quantum realms by grounding phenomena in observable energy states over unseen entities. Future tests—extreme conditions, advanced detectors—will weigh CA’s fit with reality, pushing inquiry beyond spacetime’s limits.