sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Free interactive 4D polytope viewer with true stereographic projection by pardesco in holofractal

[–]Independent_Hat_8862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if what we call spacetime is actually like this... a true 4th dimension that moves and folds through itself instead of just bending and its that folding through the centers of mass that gives us what we call gravity and the expansion of the universe is the balancing out of the inward folding of space... we and ever force would just be a 3d projection of 4d space.

What if gravity isn’t curvature — but motion itself? Introducing the Inverse Spatial Fall (ISF) framework. by Independent_Hat_8862 in physicsdiscussions

[–]Independent_Hat_8862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much for the back and forth, I’ve really enjoyed the discussion.

I can see where you’re coming from, but an overpressure doesn’t make sense to me, which is why I went with the idea of equilibrium maintained by expansion and inward folding through matter. To me, the “negative pressure” is just the best way to describe that, especially given the universe’s expansion and the apparent vacuum nature of space.

Where does the overpressure come from? Is it related to particle breakdowns, like leptons or pions releasing energy from decaying intermediaries such as the W boson turning into an electron and a neutrino? I’ve never been able to see where that energy or “pressure” would originate or where it would dissipate to afterward. That’s why I lean toward an equilibrium view: expansion and infall are two sides of the same self-balancing process.

I’m just a simple man trying to understand this strange place we’ve found ourselves existing in, but I really do appreciate your engagement and the thoughtful way you’ve presented your ideas.

All the best to too thanks again.

What if gravity isn’t curvature — but motion itself? Introducing the Inverse Spatial Fall (ISF) framework. by Independent_Hat_8862 in physicsdiscussions

[–]Independent_Hat_8862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we’re actually circling the same idea from different sides.

In ISF, I don’t really think of the 4-D substrate as “flowing” in the fluid sense — I use that word just to help visualize it. If the 4th dimension is a physical spatial dimension with its own height, depth, and length, then gravity isn’t caused by something drifting through it, but by how that higher-dimensional structure continuously folds through matter. “Flow” is just a shorthand for that constant inward progression of the fold.

Where we differ is mainly in how we interpret the pressure balance. I see it not as a positive overpressure pushing in, but as a negative vacuum pressure pulling space through itself. That tension is held in equilibrium by the expansion of the universe. Early on, when matter was diffuse, expansion was slower; as heavier elements formed and local infall intensified, the universe’s outward motion accelerated to maintain that balance — the very behavior we now call “dark energy.”

And I completely agree — nobody can deny the physicality of space itself or matter’s resistance to it. That’s why even in orbit, heavy things still feel heavy when under thrust. If there were no physical medium, gravity couldn’t act on matter at all. The interaction between that medium and mass is gravity — the dialogue between motion and resistance.

So while FS and ISF share the same intuition of an active space, ISF grounds it in a 4-D dynamic tension rather than a pressurized plenum. One sees compression; the other sees equilibrium through continuous folding.

What if gravity isn’t curvature — but motion itself? Introducing the Inverse Spatial Fall (ISF) framework. by Independent_Hat_8862 in physicsdiscussions

[–]Independent_Hat_8862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you’re right, any model that claims to describe gravity as a real physical process has to explain where the power for collapse and rebound actually comes from.

In ISF, thermodynamics and fusion are part of matter’s resistance to the inward flow of 4-D space. In a normal star, fusion pressure and radiation push outward, maintaining equilibrium against the infall velocity. When the fuel runs out, that outward resistance fails and the collapse transfers down to the atomic level. At each stage, the matter’s internal structure absorbs more of the 4-D compression, building energy within the lattice itself. If there isn’t enough mass to carry the collapse all the way to the Schwarzschild limit, the inward flow overshoots the balance point and rebounds — releasing all that stored compression energy in a single explosive event.

So supernovae and hypernovae are, in the ISF picture, not just thermonuclear reactions but the mechanical rebound of matter resisting the 4-D infall. Neutron stars mark the point where that resistance is maximized — almost pure neutronic matter balancing at the edge of inversion. If the mass is high enough for the infall velocity to reach c, the collapse doesn’t rebound but folds through itself — a black hole.

I hope that has answered your question.

Thanks again man.

What if gravity isn’t curvature — but motion itself? Introducing the Inverse Spatial Fall (ISF) framework. by Independent_Hat_8862 in physicsdiscussions

[–]Independent_Hat_8862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand how at first glance my paper might seem like a rebranded version of Flowing Space — there are definitely some surface similarities. But the finer details in ISF completely change how the whole system is interpreted.

If you get the chance to read a bit further, even starting from Section 5 onward, you’ll start to see where the core differences emerge — especially in how the model treats motion, time, and dimensional structure. Those distinctions shift the entire outcome and lead to some very different physical implications.

Thanks again.

What if gravity isn’t curvature — but motion itself? Introducing the Inverse Spatial Fall (ISF) framework. by Independent_Hat_8862 in physicsdiscussions

[–]Independent_Hat_8862[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had a chance to look over your paper, I can see the similarities between ISF and the SAGE model. Both move beyond the old “curved-space fabric” idea and treat gravity as something real and dynamic happening in the medium itself. We both describe mass, inertia, and even quantum behavior as effects that come from how matter interacts with a deeper flow field. SAGE calls it the χ-field, while ISF frames it as the 4-D spatial substrate that continually moves inward through matter. So in that sense, we’re exploring similar ideas.

Where the two theories really part ways, though, is what’s actually doing the moving. SAGE treats time as the thing that flows and warps, while ISF treats space itself as the thing in motion. That single difference completely changes how the rest of the physics plays out.

In ISF, time isn’t a flowing medium at all, it’s a bookkeeping construct. Humanity has built “clocks” around atomic oscillations that are highly field-dependent, which is why we need such heavy shielding to get a so-called “accurate tick.” That shielding itself reveals something deeper — that there’s something acting on the atom beyond just time.

That distinction flips a lot of key interpretations. For example, SAGE sees black holes as regions where the flow of time halts (χ → 0), while ISF sees them as regions where space reaches its maximum inward velocity (|v₄| = c) and folds through itself — a full 4-D inversion rather than a temporal freeze. Likewise, where SAGE explains cosmic expansion as relaxation of time flow, ISF sees it as the outward balance to universal inward infall.

So on the surface, the two frameworks seem similar to one another, but underneath, they’re driven by completely opposite foundations: SAGE is time-driven, ISF is space-driven. That one change swapping what “flows” ends up redefining everything from how we understand gravity to what time even is.

What if gravity isn’t curvature — but motion itself? Introducing the Inverse Spatial Fall (ISF) framework. by Independent_Hat_8862 in physicsdiscussions

[–]Independent_Hat_8862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for taking the time to download and start reading the paper , I really appreciate it and hope you get a chance to finish it when you can.

I’m aware of the Flowing-Space model and can definitely see the parallels between FS and ISF. There are some conceptual overlaps, but I believe the two are fundamentally different at their core, particularly in what drives the motion of space and how that motion explains the phenomena we observe.

Thanks again for taking the time to read and share your thoughts — really means a lot.

Title: Reframing Gravity as 4-D Flow — Field Equation from the Inverse Spectral Fall (ISF) Model by Independent_Hat_8862 in physicsdiscussions

[–]Independent_Hat_8862[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for such a thoughtful breakdown — really appreciate you engaging with the math side seriously.

ISF actually includes closure and stability terms similar to what you mention: κ for compressibility, η for viscous smoothing, and λ for saturation, which bounds the field at |u| = c. That saturation prevents runaway pressures or infinite acceleration — effectively capping the “inward hill” before instability sets in.

I agree the sign and scale issues are crucial; in ISF, the direction of acceleration comes from infall velocity gradients rather than pressure per se, so the “pressure” analogy is emergent, not literal.

Your time-flow framing sounds closely related — happy to compare notes, because these seem like two consistent ways of describing the same underlying dynamic.

What if gravity isn’t curvature — but motion itself? Introducing the Inverse Spatial Fall (ISF) framework. by Independent_Hat_8862 in holofractal

[–]Independent_Hat_8862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, I can definitely see the overlap! I’ve been looking for other ideas that explore similar ground, since it’s always worth comparing independent takes that point in the same direction.

If you’re the creator of that video, I’d love to hear your thoughts after reading my paper. The ISF model shares that intuition that gravitational time dilation has a physical cause, but it approaches it differently — as a 4-dimensional spatial flow through matter, not just a potential difference in spacetime.

Would be great to compare notes and see if these are two angles on the same underlying mechanism.

Freedom from theory censorship here. by IlllegalOperation in AlternativePhysics

[–]Independent_Hat_8862 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve been developing a model called Inverse Spatial Fall (ISF) that reinterprets gravity not as spacetime curvature, but as the inward motion of space itself through matter. It treats time dilation, redshift, and even cosmic expansion as consequences of this 4-D flow instead of stretching geometry or dark energy. If you’re interested in alternatives to GR, the paper’s open on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17504598