Introduction Sometimes the greatest advances in our understanding
of this universe seem to be so intuitive and simple once revealed. This perfect simplicity
of our universe was never more evident than now with the unification of time, distance,
matter, energy, gravity, and Space that will be presented here. The key lies in
understanding that "Space" really exists as an entity unto itself. I will
capitalize Space so we can differentiate this discrete entity from a term that is generic
for emptiness in the same manner as we capitalize Earth so as to differentiate the name of
a planet from the generic term for ground/soil.
Just because we can not directly perceive something, does not mean that it does not
exist. For example, if a fish were suspended out of the water by a hook, it would
naturally think (if fish could intelligently think) that this absence of water was a vast
emptiness. On the other hand, a more intelligent and yet uncaught fish may see that
sometimes the surface of the water is turbulent with waves and it may perceive indirectly
that there is some unknown force (air/wind) that exists outside its known sphere. The
unknown that we will try to perceive through this paper is the unknown of Space.
Laws of Space
 The universe consists of two basic physical components:
matter/energy and Space.
 Space can never be created
or destroyed.
 Space has a cohesive and
elastic nature which resists displacement by matter/energy and separation from itself.
 When Space is displaced, it becomes warped and thereby exerts a force in the direction
of its displacement.
 The force of displaced Space is proportional to the amount of matter/energy displacing
it.
 The density
of Space is relative.
The above are necessary for this concept of Space to exist as well as the presented
theories and equations to be correct. If the theories and equations were proven correct
through subsequent experiments, then these Laws of Space would be the best explanation for
their findings.
In this concept of the universe, "matter" is nothing but confined
"energy" in a transiently stable state, which is why matter and energy are
considered one entity. Matter is quantified as mass and can also have an associated
relative energy which therefore increase its relative mass. "Time" as we shall
see is nonrelative but currently an arbitrary attempt to measure the universe's life cycle
and not a primary entity of it. "Distance" like time is but a device of
measurement and not a primary entity of the universe. "Gravity" is but a
misnomer for the force exerted by Space when it is displaced, as we shall later see. This
leaves only "matter/energy" and "Space" to be our two basic components
of the universe.
Space and matter/energy can be conceptualized as being the oil and water of the
universe as they both can exist in close contact but can never mix. Unlike matter/energy,
Space is inert and unchangeable, but yet must have a selfcohesion and elasticity with
itself that resists displacement. If Space is displaced, it will become warped, thereby
exerting a pressure like force towards the matter/energy that is displacing it. This force
is what we have called "gravity." These characteristics of Space are necessary
for gravity to exist (indirect evidence of Space; remember the fish that saw the waves) as
stated in the second, third, and fourth Laws of Space.
Gravity as we have thought of it does not exist but since it would be virtually
impossible to change our psyche enough to call it the "displaced Space force," I
will continue to use the term "gravity" in my discussion. The one concept that
is necessary to change though is that of gravity being a pulling force. Rather it is more
correct to think of it as a pressure like force being exerted in the direction of the
matter/energy that is displacing it, similar to the force that the atmosphere exerts on a
balloon.
The degree of Space warpage is determined by and proportional to the amount of
matter/energy within a certain radius. This is the fifth Law of Space.
Distinct from the warpage of Space is the density of Space. As with anything else,
Space can have a variable density to the observer but it will always be the same density
to the object itself. The sixth Law of Space can be somewhat confusing but it is an
important concept which will be discussed later in this paper.
Why do I call these "laws" rather than "theories?" Theories are
nothing but provable explanations of results of natural laws. These natural laws are our
attempt to define the underlying nature of the universe. They can not be explained, only
defined. The way that we try to define them though is through theories and
experimentation. If we should later find that our definition of a law is flawed or
imprecise, it is not because the universe has changed but rather that our understanding of
the law has been improved through our study of its actions or measurable characteristics.
With these basic Laws of Space, we can now go on to the "Laws of Observation"
which are intimately related to the Laws of Space and from which we will be able to
develop methods that will allow us to accurately observe and comprehend the
universe.
Laws of Observation
 All objects are at rest relative to themselves.
 Time and "true mass" are the only constants
between the observer and the object being observed.
 The only "real" or "true" measurements of an object are
those which are done in the same existence state as the object itself.
 Distance will decrease as relative velocity or relative Space density increases.
All perception has an observer and an object. The definition that we will use for
"observer" is that which is in a single existence state and is trying to
perceive an object other than itself either directly or indirectly. The definition that we
will use for "object" is that which is being observed in a single existence
state. The observer and the object are each being defined as each having their own single
existence state for the purpose of simplicity but also because there can be only one true
reality for any object. For instance, if I were near a black hole (bh), I would be
composed of many "objects" since there would be many different existence states
for the different parts of my body due to the black hole's tidal forces.
Once we have defined the object in this way, the first Law of Observation becomes
obvious. In order to understand the third law, imagine yourself flying at half the speed
of light; do you actually get smaller or do you just seem to be getting smaller to the
observer? The simple and correct answer is that you do not change in size relative to
yourself because you, as the object, are seeing the true and correct reality. On the other
hand, the observer's view is usually a distortion of reality. This is especially true if
you think of one object having many different forms to many different observer's
simultaneously. This is similar to the concepts presented in Einstein's Special Relativity
(SR).
The second Law of Observation states that time is nonrelative. Let us consider that if
time within the universe started with the universe’s origin and will end with its
collapse, then all of time must be the same inbetween this beginning and end throughout
the universe and therefore nonrelative. Time therefore can not be relative.
Man in his attempt to understand the universe has artificially attempted to define
intervals of time. From the sundial's use of the solar day and the hourglass's use of
gravity and friction, to modern man's attempt to use atomic tendencies. Each attempt
getting more precise but still lacking in a basis as a measurement of time. Ernst Mach
summed it up quite well when he said, "time is an abstraction." So far, the best
that we have done is to try to define an abstraction, not true time.
In Observational physics unlike SR, time can not be sped up or slowed down with changes
in velocity or gravity. But how do we then explain the experiments that have been done
since Einstein’s time which seem to demonstrate time dilation? For instance, there
have been experiments using particles with known lifespans such as muons, that when
traveling at great speeds seem to exist longer than they should. Let us take a situation
where these muons are being created about 60km above the Earth's surface with an Earthly
observer, from the various perspectives of Newton’s Classical physics,
Einstein’s Special Relativity physics, and Siepmann's Observational physics as shown
in Table 1.
Table 1

Classic 
Special Relativity 
Observational 
Distance observer sees 
60 km 
60 km 
60 km 
Distance muon sees 
60 km 
1.5 km* 
1.5 km*** 
Time observer sees 
4.5m s 
200m s** 
4.5m s 
Time muon sees 
4.5m s 
4.5m s 
4.5m s 
Distance that the muon can travel in 200m s (obs) 
13.5 km 
60 km 
60 km 
Hit Earth's surface? 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
For a surface observer the muon is created at 60
km above the Earth. The muon has a halflife of 1.5m s, and
travels at 0.9997c for 3 halflives (4.5m s). * length
contraction equation: length'=length(1v^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2}
** time dilation equation: t' = t(1/(1v^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2})
*** calculation is shown in the next section 
With Observational physics like SR, the observer sees the object's size (distance)
decrease as relative velocity or gravity increases but unlike SR, time is constant for
both the observer and the object (no time dilation). How do we then explain the various
experiments to date that seem to show time dilation?
I propose that the reason we had thought time to be relative is that the methods that
man has used to measure an interval of "time" utilized modalities that had a
greater density than base Space (a threshold that photons exist below while most other
matter exists above). Whether we are using a mechanical watch or atomic oscillations, all
modalities to date are subject to relative Space density (RSD). Other possibilities that
one or more could explain why experimentally "time" seems to slow as relative
velocity or gravity increases could be that as RSD increases a relative entropy will
decrease proportionally; mistakenly assuming that an extended travel distance of
particles/objects meant a slowing of time; or experimental error.
As previously discussed, time is difficult to delineate and by using arbitrary indirect
measures of time, such as atomic clocks, radioactive halflives, etc., what we call time
can be altered by the dynamics of the RSD. The only constant for time that can be used is
the time it takes light to travel a set distance in the observer's own Space.
We can now move forward into the Relative Space Density and Relative Space Warp
equations which will allow us to mathematically calculate an object’s gravity, mass,
size, Space density, and more from a distant viewing site.
The Relative Space Density Equations
I will define "Relative Space Density" (RSD) as the density of Space in which
an observed object resides relative to the density of the observer’s Space. The RSD
is calculated by dividing the density of the observer's Space (D_{obs}) by the
density of the object's Space (D_{obj}).
Therefore any object will always see its own relative Space density as being the same
(RSD=1) no matter where it is in the universe. It will also not notice any difference in
gravity whether the object is on the moon or near a black hole. Imagine that you are a
photon who comes near a black hole and by the definition of "object," there are
no tidal forces acting on you. Even if you went into the black hole itself, the density of
Space would be the same to you, the photon. You would not notice any change in Space
density until you hit the singularity (the ultimate primordial compression of
matter/energy), and then only because you will no longer exist as a photon.
Since Space can neither be created nor destroyed as stated in the second Law of Space,
a remarkable example of RSD would be to look at our universe from the outside during its
expansion phase. Assuming for simplicity that Space is equally dense throughout the
universe (which we will soon see is obviously not the case), an outside observer would see
the distance between two points in the universe as being "x," while a person
within the universe would see the points as being "y" distance apart. When the
universe expands to the where the outside observer sees the two points as being 2x apart,
the person within the universe will still see them as being "y" apart as shown
in figure 1 below. The reason for this is that the "amount" of Space between the
two points has never changed, only the density.
Figure 1
Because the density of Space may be hard to measure, we can convert our definition of
RSD to distance since D=m/d^{3} and for an object at relative rest where m_{obs}=
m_{obj} and we are only measuring along one axis then RSD = d_{obj}/d_{obs}.
Let us place a laser at the end of a piece of metal and knowing how long it took the
pulse of light to get from one end to the other in the observer's Space (RSD = 1 and c =
2.998E5 km/s), then if this laser were to periodically fire while traveling through Space
at a relatively great speed or near a black hole, we would see that it would take the same
amount of time to get from one end of the piece of metal to the other. This means that
even though the relative distance (length) of the metal and the speed of light have
changed relative to our observation, time has stayed the same. Therefore it is distance
that varies with relative velocity and gravity, not time.
It is important to note that the speed of light is therefore relative for the observer
and the term "c" should be more appropriately referred to as "c_{obj}"
which is approximately 2.998E5 km/s as currently measured in a vacuum. From here on, I
will refer to the speed of light more appropriately as "c_{obj}"_{ }or
"c_{obs}."
Relative distance can also be shown in the following thought experiment. Let us assume
that we live on planet "J" that orbits a bh. The RSD for us observers on planet
J is equal to one for the entire orbit around the black hole and we measure the orbital
circumference of planet J to be 2.83E11 km. The radius of the orbit should therefore be
3E5 km. If we were to make a metal rod 3E5km long and extend it out towards the central
black hole, it would not even come close. This would normally not make any sense but in
Observational physics it makes perfect sense. Here the rod is protruded from planet J into
Space that is progressively getting more dense and as the density increases, distance
decreases and the metal rod will never come close to the black hole as shown below.
Figure 2
Another way of looking at the concept of Space density is with an analogy to sponge
cake. Imagine that you are a bug trying to eat your way through a sponge cake that is
8" in diameter and it takes you 4 days to eat straight through. Now imagine that an
upset pastry chef took an 8" diameter sponge cake and squished it into a 4"
diameter sponge cake. It would still take you (the bug) 4 days to eat straight through. To
you it would seem the same distance of cake for both but to the pastry chef it seemed half
as long and therefore taking you twice as long to eat your way through.
Why would the density of Space increase as gravity increases is obvious, but why would
velocity be relevant to the density of Space? Because when an object moves at a high
velocity, it is increasing the amount of Space per unit of time that it meets along that
axis and therefore to an observer the density of the object’s Space is increased
along that axis. Therefore let us separate RSD into its two constituent components, RSD_{mda}
(what has previously been referred to as RSD) for the mass displacement effect and RSD_{vel}
for the velocity effect which is a modification of the length contraction equation and
equal to 1 (v_{obs}^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2}. Since
distance decreases as relative velocity and/or mass displacement increases, we can now
formulate the equation below and define the term "RSD" (without a subscript) as
the product of RSD_{mda} and RSD_{vel}.
d_{obj}= d_{obs} x RSD_{mda} x RSD_{vel}
d_{obj}= d_{obs} x RSD
If we now look back at table 1 we can see that the muon traveling at 0.9997c_{obj}
will see the 60km as really being 1.5 km as shown below.
d_{obj}= d_{obs} x RSD_{mda} x RSD_{vel}
d_{obj}=60km x 1 x (10.9997^{2})^{1/2 }=1.5 km
We can also bring in any other forms of measurement that use distance, such as the
circumference of a black hole horizon (bhh) or the energy from an atomic bomb. Since mass
is a measurement of the amount of matter an object contains, true mass (a mass at relative
rest) will always objective. Since energy (E) is basically mass (m) times distance squared
divided by time (t) squared, it can be related to the RSD in the following equation by
substitution.
E_{obj }= m d_{obj}^{2}/t^{2}
E_{obj}= m(d_{obs} x RSD)^{2}/t^{2}
We can also calculate the energy observed when a quantity of matter is converted to
energy while traveling at an increased velocity and/or within an increased gravity
relative to the observer. I can now modify Einstein's energy/mass equation with RSD to get
the following results.
E_{obj}= mc_{obj}^{2}
E_{obj}= m(c_{obs} x RSD)^{2}
You can see that these results will be different than Einstein’s for a mass
to energy conversion that occurs in a RSD different than the observer's Space. Though
Einstein's complete equation would be correct for a mass traveling at an increased
relative velocity in the same RSD Space, it would not be correct for a mass that was
located in a different RSD Space such as near a bh. I am sure that this equation will be
the correct one when appropriately tested, especially when the conversion occurs in
relatively high or low gravity environment.
Energy is therefore also relative. If a particle was going 0.9c_{obj} relative
to the observer, it would appear to have great energy but if the same particle was at
relative rest to observer, the particle would seem to have little if any energy.
True mass or at rest mass, on the other hand is unchangeable but when a relative energy
is associated with it, then it will appear to the observer to have an increased mass or
"relative mass." Therefore the true mass of an object never changes but the
relative mass may change because of relative energy that may be associated with it. This
explains why we see the "mass" of particles increase with their increasing
relative velocity.
The Relative Space Warp Equations
As Space is warped around an object with mass, photons will also follow this warpage of
Space and to the distant observer it will appear as if these photons are being bent around
the mass. Sir Arthur Eddington in 1919 was the first to measure the photon deviation that
occurs with our own sun and found it to be about 1.75 arcseconds. This photon deviation
can be used to tell us the amount of matter/energy that is within the diameter of the
radius being measured, which in this case is the radius just outside the sun's corona. We
can use this method to measure the Space warpage of any mass by measuring the angle of
photon deviation around that object.
I will call this warpage of Space around a mass the "Relative Space Warp"
(RSW) and define it as being the Angle of Photon Deviation (APD) as measured in degrees
and divided by 360 degrees with a correction for any interference that may be caused by
the gravity of the observer's viewing site which I will call the Angle of Gravitational
Interference (AGI). Obviously a more complicated version of this equation may be needed if
there are more than one gravitational forces interfering with the APD, but the basic
concept is the same as shown in figure 3 and expressed in the following equation.
RSW = APD/360  (sin(AGI) x APD/360)
Figure 3
The RSW tells us the amount of mass within a certain radius. For instance, if two equal
masses are measured at the same distance out from their center but even though they are
very different in size, their RSWs will be the same as shown in figure 4 below. Though
this can be used for certain purposes, for the purpose of this paper, we will be using the
RSW that would be measured at an object’s edge.
Figure 4
Since the RSW of an object is proportional to that object's gravity (g), we can say the
following for any two masses y and z.
RSW_{z}/RSW_{y}=g_{z}/g_{y}
We can now substitute the sun for object y and solve for g_{z} as follows.
RSW_{z} /RSW_{sun}= g_{z} /g_{sun}
g_{z} = g_{sun} /RSW_{sun} x RSW_{z}
It is now possible to see that the number represented by g_{sun}/RSW_{sun}
is a constant, which would be the same for any celestial body. I am using the sun because
it is the only celestial body for which I have the appropriate information. I will call
this number the "Space Constant" (SC) which for now will have an approximate
value of 2.0E8 m/s^{2} as calculated here.
SC = g_{sun}/RSW_{sun}
SC = 274 m/s^{2}/((1.75 arcseconds/360degrees) x
(1degree/3600arcseconds))
SC = 274 m/s^{2} / 1.35E6
SC = 2.0E8 m/s^{2}
As more information about other celestial masses becomes available, the numerical value
for the SC will become more accurate. We can now substitute us the Space Constant Equation
below to determine the actual gravity of any celestial body.
g_{x }= SC x RSW_{x}
We can further prove the validity of these equations by finding out the actual APD for
such bodies as the Earth and moon which would have a calculated APD of 0.064 and 0.010
arcseconds respectively.
g_{Earth}= SC x RSW_{Earth}
RSW_{Earth}= g_{Earth}/SC
APD_{Earth}/360degrees = 9.80 m/s^{2}/ 2.0E8 m/s^{2}
APD_{Earth}= 4.9E8 x 360degrees x (3600arcseconds/1degree)
APD_{Earth}= 0.064 arcseconds
___ ___ ___ ___
APD_{moon}/360degrees = 1.62 m/s^{2} / 2.0E8 m/s^{2}
APD_{moon}= 8.1E9 x 360degrees x (3600arcseconds/1degree)
APD_{moon}= 0.010 arcseconds
Using the Space Constant Equation we can also calculate the gravitational acceleration
at any bhh as shown below.
g_{bhh} = 2.0E8 m/s^{2} x 360/360 = 2.0E8 m/s^{2}
We can also figure out the observed radius of a bh by using a 1 solar mass bh and
comparing it to the sun, which is also1 solar mass. Because we know that the RSW is
proportional to mass (m) and inversely proportional to radius (r), we can therefore solve
for the observed radius of a 1 solar mass bh.
RSW_{sun}/RSW_{bh}=(m_{sun}/r_{sun})/(m_{bh}/r_{bh})
1.35E6/1=(1/6.95E8m) /(1/r_{bh})
r_{bh}=1.35E6 x 6.95E8m
r_{bh}= 938 m
The radius of 938 meters would give us a circumference of 5.89 km, which is quite
different, than the 18.55 km obtained from Classic Relativity.^{1} The observed
density of a one solar mass bh is therefore 7.67E20 kg/m^{3} using Observational
physics.^{2} This is over 100,000,000,000,000,000 times more dense than the Earth.
For any two black holes they will each have the same RSW (1.0) and gravity (2.0E8 m/s^{2}),
therefore the distinguishing characteristics will be the mass and radius (subsequently
volume and density also). Since mass is proportional to RSW and radius is inversely
proportional to RSW, we can use the one solar mass bh (B) to calculate the radius of other
black holes such as a ten solar mass bh (A) as shown below.
RSW_{A}/RSW_{B}=(m_{A}/r_{A})/(m_{B}/r_{B})
1/1=(10/r_{A})/(1/r_{B})
r_{A}=10r_{B}
Therefore the radius of any bh is 938m times the bh’s mass in solar mass units. We
can also use this information in reverse. For instance, if we can measure the observed
diameter (and therefore radius which is one half of the diameter) of a bh, we can
calculate its mass as shown here.
m_{bh}(in solar masses) = r_{bh}/938m
And since g_{bh} is the same for all black holes at the horizon, then the
observed speed of light will always be the same at the horizon. The time it takes to
travel the circumference of the horizon though will increase twofold for every 1 solar
mass unit increase because circ=2p r.
It is also easy to see that as the RSW approaches one, the RSD approaches zero. The
converse is also true, as any object in the same Space as the observer would have a RSD=1
and a RSW=0. It becomes a little more complex if an object is in a RSD>1 as the RSW
would be negative which means that the APD would be away from the mass being measured
(figure 5). Additionally, the equation relating the RSW with RSD would be different. For a
RSD <=1 or a RSW=>0 then a RSD=1RSW and for a RSD >1 or a RSW <0 then
RSD=1/(1+RSW) as shown in figure 6.
Figure 5 