I’m not a physicist — just someone who’s been deeply curious about how space, gravity, and motion interact.

I started wondering: what if gravity isn’t a force or the bending of spacetime… but instead, a ripple in a stable, calm medium we call space?

That led me to develop a concept I’m calling Calm Space Theory (CST):

• Space is smooth, calm, and structured by default

• Mass, motion, and energy disturb it, causing ripple effects

• Those ripples are what we experience as gravity

• Gravity isn’t pulling or pushing — it’s the effect of moving through the ripples

• Black holes might not be singularities, but collapsed pockets of broken space

I’ve attached both a one-page PDF write-up and a visual diagram that summarize the idea.

PDF

Diagram

I’m not claiming this is a finished theory — just a thought model I’d love to explore further. Open to critique, refinement, and deeper insight from others.

Thanks for reading.

— A. Janda

Just now, NotAFizzicist said:

Gravity isn’t pulling or pushing — it’s the effect of moving through the ripples

Surely ripples move ?

If you stand still in the water on the shore and let some ripple move past you is the force constant or does it vary as the ripples pass ?

Your experience suggests neither of these are true, yet experience tells us that both happen.

Good point. Yeah, ripples usually move, but I was thinking in this case they’re more like a steady disturbance — like a mass sits in space and constantly sends out these ripples in all directions. So instead of a wave that travels and fades, it’s more like a standing pattern caused by the ongoing presence of the mass.

Kind of like how a speaker playing a single tone can make consistent vibrations in the air. The sound waves don’t disappear unless the speaker stops. I picture mass doing the same to space — always disturbing it, creating the “ripple” we feel as gravity.

Appreciate the challenge though. Still figuring out how far this idea really goes.

Nothing stands still. Motion is relative. Galileo knew this already.

Just now, NotAFizzicist said:

Good point. Yeah, ripples usually move, but I was thinking in this case they’re more like a steady disturbance — like a mass sits in space and constantly sends out these ripples in all directions. So instead of a wave that travels and fades, it’s more like a standing pattern caused by the ongoing presence of the mass.

Kind of like how a speaker playing a single tone can make consistent vibrations in the air. The sound waves don’t disappear unless the speaker stops. I picture mass doing the same to space — always disturbing it, creating the “ripple” we feel as gravity.

Appreciate the challenge though. Still figuring out how far this idea really goes.

Nevertheless sound waves (or any other waves) do not exert a constant force.

That is a definition od a wave.

Equally ripples are a form of wave.

Just now, joigus said:

Nothing stands still. Motion is relative. Galileo knew this already.

Yes but you can be still relative to something else, in this case themass or source of the ripples.

And Cavendish did not detect any ripples with just such an experimeny.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by studiot
spelling

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Nevertheless sound waves (or any other waves) do not exert a constant force.

That is a definition od a wave.

Equally ripples are a form of wave.

Yes but you can be still relative to something else, in this case themass or source of the ripples.

And Cavendish did not detect any ripples with just such an experimeny.

Yeah, motion is always relative. I just meant “still” compared to the source of the ripples, like standing in a pool while waves move past. You’re not totally still, but you’re not the thing causing the ripples either.

As for Cavendish, that’s a good point. I’m wondering if his approach could have missed something like what I’m describing. If gravity is a ripple in space itself, maybe it would not show up the way we would expect in that kind of setup.

Just now, NotAFizzicist said:

Yeah, motion is always relative. I just meant “still” compared to the source of the ripples, like standing in a pool while waves move past. You’re not totally still, but you’re not the thing causing the ripples either.

As for Cavendish, that’s a good point. I’m wondering if his approach could have missed something like what I’m describing. If gravity is a ripple in space itself, maybe it would not show up the way we would expect in that kind of setup.

I understand that relevant scientists are satisfied that gravity waves ( ripples) have been detected.

Not really my field, you should look up LIGO gravity wave experiments.

But these detections are af weak variations in the steady state gravity force experienced at measuring points.

Further I understand it takes cataclysmic activity to generate them.

Also I suggest you post your hypothesis in full here before the moderators instruct you to do so, as per the rules of this forum.

As it is now the witching hour I wish you a good night.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by studiot

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

I understand that relevant scientists are satisfied that gravity waves ( ripples) have been detected.

Not really my field, you should look up LIGO gravity wave experiments.

But these detections are af weak variations in the steady state gravity force experienced at measuring points.

Further I understand it takes cataclysmic activity to generate them.

Also I suggest you post your hypothesis in full here before the moderators instruct you to do so, as per the rules of this forum.

As it is now the witching hour I wish you a good night.

Thanks, I’ll definitely look into LIGO more. Goodnight to you too.

Full Hypothesis: Calm Space Theory (CST)

What if gravity is a ripple, not a force?

Hi everyone. I’m not a physicist or mathematician — just someone who’s been thinking deeply about how gravity might work. I wanted to share an idea I’ve been developing called Calm Space Theory (CST), and I’m open to feedback, critique, or discussion.

CST starts with a simple question:

What if gravity isn’t a force, but the result of ripples through space caused by mass, energy, and motion?

Here’s the basic idea:

Space is naturally calm, smooth, and stable. When mass, energy, or motion enters that space, it disturbs it. That disturbance creates ripples. Those ripples are what we experience as gravity. So instead of gravity being a pull or the bending of spacetime, it’s just the effect of moving through disturbed space.

In this view, mass doesn’t attract other mass. It just constantly disturbs space, and other objects respond to that disturbance. Like a boat reacting to ripples on a lake — it’s not being pulled, it’s moving through a medium that isn’t calm anymore.

Even black holes could be explained as regions where space collapses or breaks under too much energy, not because of a singularity, but because the calm structure of space fails entirely.

I also created a simple diagram to go with this idea. If it’s allowed, I can share that here. And I have a short write-up that summarizes the full theory if anyone’s interested.

Thanks for reading — I really appreciate any thoughts, questions, or constructive feedback.

– Anthony (NotAFizzicist)

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Yes but you can be still relative to something else, in this case themass or source of the ripples.

I see.

But massive objects that are at rest relative to each other also experience gravity.*

Furthermore, gravity satisfies the equivalence principle, so all objects experience the same acceleration, irrespective of their state of motion (relative velocity with respect to anything).

It seems difficult to explain these features with a theory that puts relative velocity with respect to some "ripples" at the source of forces.

Besides, we already know that the only way (consistent with the principles of either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics) that a fundamental force of Nature can depend on a relative velocity (known as magnetic) is:

\[ F=k\boldsymbol{v}\times\boldsymbol{B} \]

where \( k \) is a constant and \( \boldsymbol{B} \) is a vector function of position and time. This is known popularly (and a little bit incorrectly perhaps) as "Feynman's proof of Maxwell's equations", as divulged by Freeman Dyson, and revisited by others. See, eg,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0106235

for a later review.

It is entirely possible that I misunderstood something in the key idea, of course.

PS: Please refresh the page for the maths to display correctly.

---

Edit: Actually, I should have said: Objects that get away from a source at a speed that exactly compensates for the speed of the ripples also experience gravity. This includes photons, which would experience redshift.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by joigus

Moderator Note

Our rules require that material for discussion be posted, not uploaded or linked to.

They also require that ideas be at a stage where you can make specific predictions as a way to test it. In physics, that’s a mathematical model. This fall well short of that. You’ve already gotten some feedback as to shortcoming of your idea, so a model would be moot.

You are free to ask questions to expand your knowledge. As you can see, people are happy to engage.