A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 1 of 12

NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)

A 3-SPACE FLOW MODEL OF GRAVITATION

David L. Sieving, 8 The Green, Suite 5480, Dover, DE 19901

https://DLSieving.com

Updated 2024-09-17 from an archival version transcribed by the author beginning

6 November 1994 and ending 8 November 1994.

Submitted in an earlier form to the Washington branch of Nature some time prior
to the acknowledgement date of 15 May 1985 and returned rejected 30 May 1985;
based on his earlier work "On the Mechanism of Gravitation: A Non-Quantum
Approach" completed 12 September 1980 but submitted between the query
response date of 10 April 1980 and the rejection receipt date of 5 September 1980
to Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New York, NY 10011
and forwarded to A. Held, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH -
3012 Berne, Switzerland, care of the International Committee on General
Relativity and Gravitation (GRG).

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 2 of 12

ABSTRACT - The general relativity (GR) metric is a static four-dimensional

continuum to which a curvature tensor is applied in a geometric description of
gravitational fields. As can be illustrated using simple thought experiments, it is a
description of gravity which, although proven as such to a very high degree of
accuracy, is not an explanation. We understand on a fundamental empirical level
that physical processes operate in three dimensions. Time is an artifice devised to
measure changes that transpire within these three spatial dimensions. Hence any
explanatory model of gravitation must reside and operate within – or of – the three
physical dimensions of space. With the understanding that because of its
counterintuitive treatment of time GR accurately describes but does not explain
gravity, the 3-dimensional model presented herein is a mechanical rendition of
gravitation that is based on and corroborates GR as a description of gravity and is
far simpler than explanatory theories that attempt to unify gravity with particle
physics. Its founding principles are as follows.
1. Space is not empty. This idea meets less resistance today than it did 44 years
ago, all the way back in 1980, at a time during which I can personally attest
that the era of didactic ether-intolerance was still in full swing. Now reality
has overcome dogma, the idea of an aether in some form is no longer
heretical and we have assented to the idea of zero-point energy in a
“foaming” yet isotropic quantum vacuum for which we now have names –
the condensed Higgs field (CHF or Higgs condensate, 8), the condensed
pion field (CPF or pion condensate, 8) or the Einstein-compatible aether
(ECA, 9). Thanks to Sabine Hossenfelder for describing these fields in plain
language.
2. Space exists and can serve as a relativistic reference continuum with respect
to both inertial and gravitational accelerations. The physical space we infer
from gravitation and the equivalence principle is isotropic when measured
but physical in its agency with respect to accelerations. When separated
from time it is not Gaussian and is anything but Euclidean. We know from
the Michaelson-Morley experiment in 1887 that it does not serve as an
absolute frame of reference as did the supposed “luminiferous aether” of the
19th Century. What exists and is not rigid, however, can differentially flow
and accelerate given a limited definition of what exactly is flowing and how.
It is not a goal of this paper to inquire any further into the physical
nature of the quantum vacuum, nor into why it flows as it seems it must
to cause gravity in the spirit of equivalence, beyond the stipulations set
forth herein aimed at improving our understanding of its agency in
gravitation.
3. Einstein’s extended principle of equivalence, as well as the strong form for
stellar objects, is not a coincidence, as theories of gravitation based on

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 3 of 12

particle physics seem to require.

4. The principle of identity put forth herein: that gravitational and inertial
accelerations are equivalent because they are instances of the same physical
phenomenon.

1 INTRODUCTION

Einstein’s signature methodology for the formulation of theories of natural

phenomena consists of the making of an intuitive assumption about the
phenomenon in question, followed by a reconciliation of that assumption and its
ramifications with known facts. Some pertinent examples of founding assumptions,
some of them intuitive and some of them less so, are 1. special relativity (intuitive),
2. general relativity (intuitive), 3. quantum gravity (not intuitive) and 4. the present
model (patently obvious, I would posit, and after a century of experimental results,
unavoidable).
1. (intuitive) Special relativity has the founding assumption that the speed of
light as measured locally is invariant regardless of the frame of reference
(state of motion) in which the measurement is made. That common (i.e.,
non-local, remote) measures of time, mass and length must covary
depending upon considerations of acceleration and relative motion are, along
with the rest of the results of special relativity, unavoidable consequents of
the original assumption, whose own basis was purely intuitive.
2. (intuitive) General relativity reconciles special relativity with the assumption
that no local distinction can be drawn between a gravitational acceleration
and an acceleration produced by alternative means, an assumption referred
to as the principle of equivalence.
3. (imperious) Theories of gravitation based on particle physics seek to resolve
with general relativity the assumption that gravitation is transmitted via
discrete electromagnetic packets. Unlike Einstein’s assumptions, this one is
not intuitive. Instead, it is an overtly imperialistic attempt to extend particle
physics to encompass, and to some degree explain, general relativity. No one
involved in it stops to reflect on its problems with causality and ask whether
it makes physical sense. The drawback (and tell) of this socially motivated
assumption is that it implies that the principle of equivalence is a lucky
coincidence of nature. Attempts driven by this wishful thinking, on the part
of those who pride themselves on their acumen with particle physics and
would like it to explain everything, to disprove equivalence at some level
have been ongoing for over a century. Each assault improves the fidelity of
equivalence to a new high, making it one of the best-established of physical
laws, simply by virtue of the ferocity and persistence of the collective

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 4 of 12

ambition to disprove it.

4. (obvious) The basic assumption of the present model is not so ambitious. It
is simply that equivalence is not fortuitous, being instead a fundamental
aspect of nature and in retrospect a rather obvious indicator of how gravity
works. As with any modern theory of gravitation, it is general relativity to
which the consequences of this assumption must answer. That’s not going to
be a problem for an assumption that’s not only based on GR but calls none
of it into question, subject only to the understanding that because of its
geometric rather than physical treatment of time, GR is a description and not
an explanation.

2 THE PRINCIPLE OF IDENTITY

Consistent with assumption #4 above, the principle of identity is simply a

furtherance of the principle of equivalence. As applied and thus illustrated by the
design of the Gravity Differential Conditioning Facility (GDCF, U.S. Pat. No.
5,302,130), the Identity Principle is postulated as a furtherance of the Equivalence
Principle that reaffirms and fortifies it in association with the present 3-Space Flow
Model of Gravitation (3SF). The Principle of Equivalence states that:

Equivalence: A gravitational acceleration is equivalent over

local (i.e., geometrically flat) intervals of spacetime to an
inertial acceleration with respect to physical 3-space in the
absence of gravity.

Unlike velocity, accelerations are not relative. Observers can feel them regardless
of who or what they are observing. The presence of an inertial acceleration is used
in special relativity to resolve the twin paradox. The twin who accelerates away
while the other waits for him or her to return is the one who will age less, thus
resolving the paradox left open by considerations of relative velocity only. The
Principle of Identity is postulated as the most logical of all possible inferences
from the Principle of Equivalence by stating that the latter holds for the most
obvious of reasons, namely:

Identity: A gravitational acceleration IS an inertial acceleration

with respect physical 3-space. If an object experiencing a
gravitational acceleration is not expending propulsive energy
then it has to be an accelerated movement of physical 3-space
that’s causing this experience, with the understanding that we
are looking for an explanation and not just a description.

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 5 of 12

Since it states that objects at rest in a gravitational field are in a state of inertial
acceleration, the implication of the Identity Principle is that physical 3-space itself
is in fluid, radially and axially differential, accelerated motion in the direction of
and/or about the gravitational source mass. We avoid postulating just another
classical ether theory by defining physical 3-space as:

Physical 3-Space: that 3-dimensional reference continuum

with respect to which Special Relativity is always valid - even
in the presence of mass. This puts it past the pre-relativity
Michaelson-Morley experiment by stipulating its relationship to
special relativity and incorporating that relationship into its
definition.

Without more experimental results on the nature of this medium, we don’t

take this present definition any further than is needed to account for the
principle of identity. While the CHF, the CPF and the ECA mentioned above are
candidates for comparison, their physical nature, relevance and suitability for this
purpose remain open.

The equations pertaining to the magnitudes and directions of this flow, along with
the various other details of the 3-Space Flow Model of Gravitation, naturally
follow. As is perforce required of any defensible theory of gravitation, the 3SF
model, far and away from any correction to General Relativity, is specifically
predicated upon the validity and completeness of GR as a mathematical description
of gravitation (as opposite a mechanism), with the perhaps arguable exception of
points lying about or beneath event horizons, which the present model handles
without any special accommodation.

The 3SF model also explains why the centrifugal force on an orbiting object
reverses at the photon sphere (10). The model defines physical 3-space as that
reference continuum with respect to which special relativity is always valid – even
in the presence of mass. It follows from this that it is physical 3-space with respect
to which fictitious centrifugal forces are experienced, as in the case of the fictitious
force of gravity. By the equivalence principle, a centrifugal force, like gravity
itself, is not a true force, but simply a deviation from the geodesic. By the identity
principle, it is any acceleration with respect to physical 3-space, which
interpretation together with the 3SF model renders gravity and centrifugal forces
mechanically indistinguishable. At the photon sphere, their opposing effects cancel
out: when, moving inward past the photon sphere of a black hole, the acceleration

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 6 of 12

of physical 3-space becomes sufficient to circularize, then decay the orbits of

photons, it is sufficient respectively to cancel, then reverse the direction of the
centrifugal force. Relative to physical 3-space, however, nothing has changed.

Abramowicz's comment (10) on the relativity of paradox is thus borne out. Paradox
is a label we apply to the difference between what we expect based on our
assumptions about a phenomenon and what would ordinarily be expected based on
a truer understanding of that phenomenon. This type of argument might also
resolve the disputes between believers in strict causality and the proponents of
probability and chaos theory as means by which to understand the underlying
character of nature at the quantum level. While it is true that our validated
understanding of nature is limited by the resolution of our measurements, our
reliance on the laws of chance reflects the limitations in our subjective ability to
measure, not in the objective granularity of existence as we are perfectly capable of
understanding to a certain degree and in principle, within the parameters of what
we can measure, in spite of those limitations.

3 THE TREATMENT OF TIME

General relativity identifies the geometry of gravitational fields in terms of the

curvature imposed by the presence of mass on the four-dimensional continuum of
static world-points. Having its basis in equivalence, it generalizes special relativity
to encompass the effect of matter on the geometry of space-time, treating time as a
geometric dimension in contravention of our more intuitive understanding of time
as a measure of the progress of changes in three dimensions. This description
derives from the fact that a four-dimensional coordinate system exists in which the
curvature tensor takes a particular form, and is a valid and complete
characterization of a particular geometry. But the same geometry has an infinity of
alternative descriptions. From any one such description, an arbitrary transition to
another coordinate system results in a new and different characterization of the
same geometry that is just as valid (1). The specific transformation we should be
interested in toward an explanatory theory is one that treats time as what we
understand it to be, namely, a measure of the progress of changes in three
dimensions.

The coordinate transformation from the general relativity metric to the present
model is a transition from space-time curvature tensors to 3-space velocity vectors.
Mapping instead to acceleration vectors might be useful mathematically but does
not expose a mechanism. Mapping to 3-space velocity vectors exposes a
mechanism that in turn accounts for the acceleration vectors. The transition may be

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 7 of 12

described in summary as an exchange of a four-dimensional continuum with

curvature for a three-dimensional continuum that flows. More specifically,
consider a view of the geometry of space-time in which physical 3-space itself is in
accelerated motion in the direction of matter. In the limiting case of a non-rotating
mass whose gravitational field has radial symmetry, this motion has radially
differential velocity and spheric geometry. Additional radially and latitudinally
differential angular motion, as can be stipulated in polar coordinates, is present in
the more general case of a rotating mass wherein the governing symmetry is axial.
Wherever and however space-time is curved in the tensor-based GR model,
physical 3-space is differentially moving in the vector-based flow model.

Before giving a fuller description of the model, it seems natural to contrast it to the
prevailing theories which proceed from the assumption that gravitation is
propagated by way of wave/particle quanta referred to generically as gravitons.

4 SOME COMMENTS ON QUANTUM GRAVITY

The apparent intractability of gravitation to completely successful quantization,

together with the persistent lack of evidence for the existence of gravitons,
comprise adequate grounds for seeking alternative models that explain gravity as
well as describe it. In the following paragraphs, I focus on three well-established
empirical aspects of gravitation which by quantum gravity must be attributed to
fortuity, but by the present model follow as a matter of course.

4.1 Equivalence

If gravitation is quantized then equivalence is fortuitous, since gravitons are not

known to be involved in the production of inertial accelerations. A stronger way to
state this is that gravitons are known not to be involved in the production of inertial
accelerations because they are not known to exist in the first place. The present
model derives from the assumption that equivalence is not fortuitous, that a
gravitational acceleration imparts the same experience to an observer as an inertial
acceleration because it is the same phenomenon, namely, an acceleration with
respect to physical 3-space.

4.2 Covariance

If gravitation is quantized then the empirical similarity between the general

(gravitationally-induced) and Lorentz (inertially-induced) covariance of time, mass
and length is fortuitous, since gravitons play no role in Lorentz covariance. As in

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 8 of 12

the case of equivalence, the present model assumes that the similarity of imparted
experience stems from a similarity of cause, and therefore that general covariance,
as Lorentz covariance, results from accelerations and movement with respect to
physical 3-space.

4.3 Escape velocity 𝑣 = $2𝑀𝐺/𝑟

The quantity $2𝑀𝐺/𝑟 is the canonical local escape and free-fall velocity at
radius r from spherical mass M in an otherwise empty, non-rotating gravitational
field. As such, it provides for the application of special relativity to an object in
free-fall towards the mass to account for the effects of general covariance. As it
happens, the same quantity replaces the relative velocity v of the empirical
formulas describing Lorentz covariance in the empirical formulas of general
covariance. For instance, whereas in special relativity the time dilation relation is
given by the Lorenz factor

∆𝑡 ! 𝑣2
= $1 − ( )
∆𝑡 𝑐2

the corresponding formula from the results of general relativity is

∆𝑡" 2𝑀𝐺
$
= 1−( $ )
∆𝑡# 𝑟𝑐

with the result that 𝑣 ! = 2𝑀𝐺/𝑟, which brings us back to the escape velocity

𝑣 = 02𝑀𝐺/𝑟
This is that mysterious, recurring velocity formula we arrive at in both Lorenz and
general covariance. If gravitation is quantized then this too must be given to
fortuity, since by the assumptions of quantum gravity, velocity plays no part in
general covariance. The model presented herein accounts for this agreement by
stipulating the foregoing quantity as being the relative velocity at which 3-
space moves in the direction of matter, using this simple boundary case for
purposes of illustration. As noted above, physical 3-space, perhaps in some way

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 9 of 12

related or corresponding to the zero-point energy foam in the quantum vacuum,

does not represent a simple coordinate reference as was proposed for the
luminiferous aether in the 19th Century. It does exist, however, and what exists can
move.

5 THE 3-SPACE FLOW MODEL

5.1 A definition of 3-space

Without getting ahead of ourselves and speculating as to how its movement causes
gravity, let 3-space be defined as that non-rigid reference continuum with respect
to which special relativity is valid. When associated with the definition of flow that
follows, this definition of 3-space need not be modified when matter and therefore
gravitational fields are present, since any distortion relative to the common frame
of the zero-gravity laws may be attributed to accelerations of 3-space itself.

5.2 A definition of flow

Let the relationship of 3-space to matter in the limiting case of radial symmetry be
stipulated such that the former is always in motion toward the latter at relative
velocities

2→ 2 = 02𝑀𝐺/𝑟
% &'

with respect to all reference frames. The local gravitational acceleration 𝑔 at 𝑟 in

this case is thus

𝑑6𝑣&' 6
𝑔( =
𝑑𝑟
Since special relativity is stipulated to hold only within and with respect to 3-
space, the movement of 3-space itself is not limited by relativistic constraints; it is
in fact required to exceed such constraints in the vicinity of a singularity: at the
radius 𝑟 = 2𝑀𝐺/𝑐 ! where $2𝑀𝐺/𝑟 = 𝑐 in this limiting illustrative case, the
inflow of 3-space results in the formation of an event horizon as its radial velocity
attains and exceeds the speed of light.

In the case of a rotating mass with spheric geometry whose gravitational field has

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 10 of 12

canonical axial symmetry, 3-space has additional spinward motion orthogonal in

polar coordinates to both the radius and the spin axis. To specify this motion, we
correct → as defined above for latitude and replace mass 𝑀 with a compatible
" #$
expression 𝑎 of the angular momentum for the result

6𝑣 ! &' 6 = sin(𝜃)02𝑎𝐺/𝑟
where 𝜃 is the least supplementary angular displacement from the spin axis. In
this, the simplest non-limiting case of gravitation, the resultant directional velocity
of physical space about the mass is simply the vector sum

→ = → (𝑣&' , 𝑣 ! &' )
% &' )

which in “clean” non-stellar cases reduces to the limiting non-rotating case

/→ / = 𝑣#$ = $2𝑀𝐺/𝑟 when q = 0 or when a = 0.
" #$

The static limit of a singularity is the radius above it beneath which nothing can be
at rest. In the terminology of the present model, this outer surface of the object’s
ergosphere is the radius

2𝐺(𝑀 + 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛! 𝜃)
𝑟$% =
𝑐!

at which /→ / = 𝑐, calculated by setting /→ / equal to 𝑐 and using the

" #$ " #$
Pythagorean relation to solve for 𝑟. Since → and →! are both orthogonal
" #$ " #$
about the spin axis in this simplified illustration, they are also locally orthogonal to
one another (→ ⊥ →! ) with the intuitive result that they are always locally
" #$ " #$
additive, placing the static limit always above or coincident with the event horizon.
As we might expect for such an object, therefore, the static limit is above the event
horizon whenever 𝑎 and 𝜃 are both nonzero.

At any instantaneous point within a similarly idealized multi-body system, not

accounting for relative motions amongst the centroids,

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 11 of 12

→ = → (𝑣&' , 𝑣 ! &' , 𝑣 ! ′&' … )

% &' )

where the component gravitational and rotational vectors calculated for each body
are summed to obtain the cumulative resultant vector of physical space. Resultant
acceleration vectors could then be calculated as integrals between the physical
space velocity vectors thus derived.

6 CONCLUSION

Each of this model's two parts raises a question of causal regress. From section 5.1
(A definition of 3-space) comes the question of why special relativity is valid only
relative to 3-space; section 5.2 (A definition of flow) leads to the question of why
3-space flows as described above. The latter question seems best left open, as it is
only just introduced in this paper. The former, however, may be approached by
restating it: aside from being that reference continuum with respect to which
special relativity is valid, what might this 3-space represent? One way to account
for its aforestated distinction from purely mathematical and especially from
absolute reference continuums is to infer from this distinction that it corresponds to
a physical medium. Because the definition of 3-space encompasses special
relativity, this 'fabric of space' would be isotropic and therefore unrelated to the
classical luminiferous aether. But since gravitation is unmistakably real, the
instrumentality of its mechanism must also be real. As the inferred character and
behavior of that instrumentality in the present model prohibits it from being
material in the conventional sense, we may conclude that it is material in an
unconventional sense. This brings us back to the thankfully now fashionable image
of an isotropic quantum vacuum as a replacement for the long-since
excommunicated luminiferous aether of the 19th Century.

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024

A 3SF Model of Gravitation Identity Principle Page 12 of 12

REFERENCES

1. Peter G. Bergmann, The Riddle of Gravitation, New York, NY,

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968, 24:208.

2. Albert A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, 5th ed

Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1956.

3. Albert A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory;

a Popular Exposition, 15th ed NY, Crown Publishers, 1961.
Authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson.

4. William J. Kaufmann III, The Cosmic Frontiers of General Relativity,

Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.

5. Gravity Differential Conditioning Facility and Method of Use

(U.S. Pat. No. 5,302,130), Official Gazette, U.S. Dept of Commerce,
12 April 1994.

6. A Centrifugal Habitat for Reduced Gravity Environments,

Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 49/3, 83-96 (1996).

7. An Engineering Approach to Miogravity Syndrome,

Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 108/4, 346-348 (1997).

8. Sabine Hossenfelder, You Probably Don't Know Why You Really Have Mass
(YouTube video, 20 January 2024).

9. Sabine Hossenfelder, Space-Filling Aether Theory Makes Comeback

(YouTube video, 7 November 2024).

10. M. A. Abramowicz, Black Holes and the Centrifugal Force Paradox,

Scientific American, 266/3, 74-81 (1993).

D.L. Sieving 20 September 2024