GR vs. CA


General relativity (GR) is the current standard model of gravity. It has been very successful in explaining a wide range of phenomena, including the bending of light around massive objects and the orbits of planets around the Sun.

However, GR has a number of shortcomings. For example, its universe is not scalable, it is not compatible with quantum mechanics, and it does not provide a satisfactory explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

The ChargeAdmittance Theory is a new theory of gravity that proposes to address the shortcomings of GR. It is based on the idea that the universe is filled with a Z0 field, which is a dynamic field that affects the speed of light and the behavior of gravity


General Relativity provides a comprehensive framework for understanding gravity on cosmological scales, from the behavior of galaxies and clusters to the dynamics of the universe as a whole.

CA may offer insights into the nature of gravity at both macroscopic and microscopic scales, potentially unifying gravitational phenomena with other fundamental forces.


General Relativity proposed by Albert Einstein, is based on the concept of spacetime curvature caused by mass and energy. According to GR, massive objects deform the fabric of spacetime, causing other objects to move along curved paths.

CA proposes a departure from conventional physics by redefining the nature of gravity. It suggests that gravity is not a fundamental force but rather emerges from interactions within the ε0μ0 field and the dynamic nature of the speed of light (c).

Time Disturbance: GR vs CA Perspective

Consider an electric charge breaching the barrier of time, disturbing the temporal fabric as it enters and leaves our present moment. The resulting pressure waves prompt a pivotal question: Does pressure adjust to accommodate the disturbance, or does time itself undergo transformation? This inquiry encapsulates the divergence between General Relativity and CA, offering distinct perspectives on the fundamental nature of time and its interactions within the universe.

General Relativity adjusts time to accommodate the differences in energy. General Relativity posits a variable time dimension that leads to spacetime curvature due to mass and energy. Massive objects warp the fabric of spacetime, causing other objects to follow curved paths. However, it does not provide a specific mechanism for this curvature.

Charge Admittance operates with a fixed time dimension and varies the speed of energy based on energy field density. This approach serves as a mechanism for the acceleration of energy, providing a framework to understand gravitational force. Charge Admittance aligns with existing proven formulas, offering explanations for gravity as the acceleration of energy while remaining consistent with new observations and established principles of General Relativity.

Nature of Gravity

General Relativity describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Massive objects create gravitational fields that affect the motion of other objects

CA gravity is conceptualized as a consequence of energy gradients in spacetime, influenced by variations in the ε0μ0 field and the curvature of the speed of light.

Experimental Validation

General Relativity has been extensively tested and validated through numerous experiments and observations, including the bending of light around massive objects (gravitational lensing) and the precession of Mercury’s orbit

As a newer theory, Charge Admittance may require experimental validation to confirm its predictions and consistency with observed phenomena

CA Theory’s ideas pass all of General Relativity’s valid proofs.


General Relativity predicts phenomena such as gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, and the curvature of light around massive objects, all of which have been observed or confirmed through experiments and observations.

CA makes unique predictions regarding the behavior of gravity at different scales and under extreme conditions, such as near black holes or during the early universe.

Two Possibilities

In this exploration of constants and variations in the speed of light, we find ourselves at a critical juncture, contemplating two divergent paths:

General Relativity changing the speed of time: We could embrace the observed phenomena, attributing them to general relativity, navigating our journey without unraveling its intricate workings.

CA Theory changing speed of energy: Alternatively, we might embark on the path that suggests the speed of energy undergoes subtle changes, as indicated by experiments like Pound Rebka. This route beckons us to fathom the mechanics underlying these variations.

Enter the Pound Rebka experiment, where blueshifts hint at potential changes in the speed of energy. The comparison of energy speeds at different elevations, factoring in gravitational acceleration, reveals a near-constant speed—the measured speed of light at the surface minus gravitational acceleration. This minute difference, within the potential variations of space’s vacuum, provides a classical physics-based mechanism for altering the speed of energy.

This idea not only aligns with classical physics principles but also withstands scrutiny against the methods supporting general relativity. It offers an alternative perspective, grounded in the daily applications of well-established mathematical concepts. So, are we standing on the precipice of profound insight? The journey persists, challenging established narratives and ushering in new understandings.

Fundamental Question

The idea that the speed of time might vary hinges on our willingness to accept a human-defined constant as a natural variable within our equations.

Does the speed of time change in response to mass or energy? Coulomb’s equations illustrate how charge density can influence the speed of charge. This concept has been validated by laboratory experiments demonstrating fluctuations in energy speed. Even atomic clock time can be affected by this factor.

Changing this one simple assumption enables the following new clarity:


In GR, mass bends spacetime, which causes objects to follow curved paths. This curvature is what causes acceleration, which we perceive as gravity.

In CA, energy alters the Y0 field density. Changing densities change the speed of energy. The acceleration of energy is what we perceive as gravity. This concept is similar to relativity except it is based on a variable speed of energy to explain the acceleration as “equivalent gravity.” Gradients in the impedance of space moderate the speed of energy. The resulting acceleration is equivalent to a gravitational “force.”


GR treats time as a physical quantity that can be affected by gravity. In GR, time undergoes compression in the presence of mass.

CA treats time as a human-defined constant and relies on the proven mechanisms of changing permeability and permittivity to change the speed of energy.

Speed of energy

In GR, Einstein postulated that the speed of light is a fixed absolute constant.

In CA, the force of electron repulsion that drives the charge along the path, bound by the magnetic field created by the charge flow, sets the speed of energy transfer as shown with Maxwell’s equation c=1/√μ0ε0.


GR lacks a mechanism for the gathering of matter. This requires that all structures start at this single point. This singular event, the Big Bang, is GR’s explanation of the origin of the universe.

In contrast, CA proposes that energy attracts energy, following Lorentz’s principle, as the gathering force. It suggests an ongoing process of creation. It proposes that galaxies develop in empty sections as energy field density coalesces, leading to a dynamic and evolving universe. It suggests that the universe is not confined to a single event but develops as energy field density spreads, similar to how Yucca trees naturally space themselves in a desert.


GR estimates the age of the universe to be approximately 13.7 billion years based on the Big Bang with expansion.

CA suggests an ongoing universe without a fixed age, where new structures and galaxies can continuously form.


GR limits the size of the universe to the boundaries set by singularity, expansion, and age. GR needs expansion to explain what we see now.

CA predicts that the universe is open, with no limits, by suggesting that the universe is a continuously refreshing entity, growing in-situ, not a small thing trying to get larger.


GR struggles to explain the observed randomness in the distribution, age, orientation, planar shape, and size of older galaxies. It requires dark energy or matter to explain many of the anomalies.

In contrast, CA provides explanations for these characteristics and can even make predictions regarding galaxy structures.


GR, as a theory of gravitation, is primarily concerned with describing the curvature of spacetime and its effect on the motion of objects and the propagation of light. It does not directly account for entropy but can be related to concepts that involve entropy indirectly.

CA addresses entropy as a function of friction in space, as shown by the redshift in energy as it travels through it. Entropy is accounted for in the sidebands, resulting in impedance changes that cause gravitational bending. Each episode lowers the frequency of the energy involved.


GR is not compatible with quantum mechanics, CA relies on it to account for the charge that drives the impedance of free space.

James Webb Space Telescope

GR cannot explain the structures JWST is seeing. CA not only explains the JWST findings but also predicted them.

Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory

General Relativity does not explain the gravitational waves detected by LIGO. CA explains the gravitational waves detected by LIGO as a normal process of energy equilibrium in the universe.

New Physics

GR needs the addition of dark matter and dark energy to explain the movements we observe plus the Higg’s boson to explain gravity.

CA uses principles of existing physics to describe the universe without new theories, rubberbanding of time, or new particles.