Curvature vs. Tension: Einstein and RST

🌌 Curvature vs. Tension: Einstein and Reactive Substrate Theory

✨ Two Ways of Seeing Gravity

Einstein’s General Relativity explained gravity as the curvature of spacetime. Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move. Geometry itself bends under the influence of mass-energy, producing the elegant picture of a universe shaped by curvature.

Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) sharpens this picture with a corrective lens. Where Einstein saw curvature, RST sees tension, strain, and torque within the Substrate Field. The universe is not geometry bending into nothingness, but a continuous elastic medium adjusting under stress.

🔧 RST Interpretation

  • Tension: Matter is stored substrate tension — σ soliton knots held in place.
  • Strain: Gravity is a gradient in substrate strain, where matter “sinks” into regions of lower tension.
  • Torque: Rotational and dynamic effects, such as frame dragging, are twisting stresses in the substrate rather than geometric warping.

🌌 Corrective Lens Metaphor

Einstein gave us the breathtaking image of curved spacetime. RST acts as the corrective lens, revealing that what looks like curvature is actually substrate tension, strain, and torque. This reframing resolves anomalies and paradoxes into finite elastic behaviors, keeping physics coherent and grounded.

📌 Takeaway

Curvature and tension are two ways of describing the same gravitational phenomena. Einstein’s geometry opened the door, but RST clarifies the view: gravity is not spacetime bending, but the elastic response of a universal substrate field. This perspective avoids infinities and speculative detours, offering a sharper, more coherent picture of reality.

Popular posts from this blog

Conceptual Summary #2: (∂t2​S−c2∇2S+βS3)=σ(x,t)⋅FR​(C[Ψ])

Image
The tests designed to find the Aether—principally the Michelson-Morley experiment (M-M)—would be largely ineffective at detecting the fundamental S field (Substrate) in the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) framework, though their null results are highly compatible with RST's structure. The reason lies in the distinct conceptual definition and behavior of the two media. The Test: Michelson-Morley and the Aether. The M-M experiment was designed to detect the "aether wind," a predicted change in the speed of light caused by the Earth's motion relative to a stationary, rigid medium—the classical Luminiferous Aether. Classical Aether: A static, absolute reference frame; an elastic, passive, material-like medium that fills space and serves as a carrier for light waves. Predicted Result: Light traveling parallel to Earth's motion through the Aether should be slightly slower than light traveling perpendicular to it. Actual Result (Null Result): No significant differenc...
Read more

The Non-Attraction Model of Gravity: From Attraction to Displacement: RST's Theory of Gravitational Push..

Image
Brief on the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) RST posits that all of reality—matter, energy, space, and time—emerges from a single, continuous, non-material field called the Substrate (S). Matter: Defined as a σ Soliton, a stable, localized "knot of tension" in the S-field, replacing the concept of a point particle. Energy: Defined as dynamic, propagating tension (waves) in the S-field. Unification: RST views E=mc2 as the conservation of Substrate tension: mass is stored tension; energy is tension in motion. Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) fundamentally redefines gravity as a Substrate tension gradient, which is the mechanism underlying the "buoyant" view of gravity. This explanation also clarifies why the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment failed to find the classical Aether, supporting the RST concept of a dynamic Substrate. In essence, gravity is "buoyant" in RST because matter (high tension) sinks into a less-strained S-Field (lower tension...
Read more

Beyond the Flaws: Why RST Succeeds Where Push Gravity and EM-Aether Failed to Unify the Void

Image
RST vs. Extended Electromagnetic Theories (Pre-Relativity) These theories attempted to unify all forces by making gravity a secondary or residual effect of electromagnetism, treating space as an electromagnetic Aether. Why Extended EM Theories Failed Gravity's Independence: The most critical failure is that gravity does not behave like a polarizable electromagnetic force. Gravity affects all matter equally (the equivalence principle), regardless of its charge or composition, which a secondary electromagnetic effect would not do. No Gravitational Shielding: Electromagnetic fields can be shielded (Faraday cage), but gravity cannot.1 This fundamentally contradicts the idea that gravity is an electrical or magnetic residual force. Conflict with GR: They could not accurately predict or explain phenomena later verified by General Relativity (GR), such as the exact amount of light bending around the Sun or the precession of Mercury's orbit. RST vs. Le Sage's The...
Read more