Enhanced Hypothesis: A Dual Nature of Gravity

Abstract

This paper proposes a new perspective on gravity and time, suggesting that time is a product of gravitational force and that gravity has a dual nature: attractive when concentrated and repulsive when sparse. Recent observations, including shallower gravitational wells and the accelerated expansion of the Universe, provide support for this hypothesis. The involvement of a hypothetical particle, the graviton, is considered in these phenomena. This hypothesis aims to provide alternative explanations for cosmic phenomena such as the accelerated expansion of the Universe and galaxy rotation curves.

Introduction

The current understanding of gravity, based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, describes gravity as the curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy. While this framework has been successful in explaining many gravitational phenomena, it does not fully account for the accelerated expansion of the Universe or the behavior of galaxies without invoking dark matter and dark energy. This paper explores a new approach, proposing that time is a product of gravitational force mediated by gravitons, and that gravity can act both attractively and repulsively depending on the density of mass. Recent findings from the Dark Energy Survey suggest modifications to gravitational theory, providing a basis for this hypothesis.

Theoretical Framework

Current Model: General relativity describes gravity as the curvature of space-time. Massive objects like stars and planets warp the fabric of space-time, creating the effect we perceive as gravity. Time dilation, where time slows down in stronger gravitational fields, is a well-known consequence of this theory.

Proposed Hypothesis: This paper hypothesizes that time is a product of gravitational force, potentially mediated by gravitons. Additionally, gravity is hypothesized to have a dual nature: it acts as an attractive force in regions of high mass density and as a repulsive force in regions of low mass density. Recent observations of shallower gravitational wells and the Universe's accelerated expansion support this dual nature of gravity.

Modified Gravitational Force: We hypothesize that gravity has both attractive and repulsive components: [ F = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^2} \left(1 - \beta \frac{R2}{r2}\right) ] where β is a constant that determines the strength of the repulsive nature of gravity: [ g_{\mu\nu}' = g_{\mu\nu} \cdot e^{-\alpha \frac{r^2}{Gm_1m_2}} ] Substituting this into the field equations, we get: [ R_{\mu\nu}' - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu}' R' + g_{\mu\nu}' \Lambda = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}(t) ] Here, ( R_{\mu\nu}' ) and ( R' ) are the Ricci curvature tensor and scalar derived from the new metric tensor ( g_{\mu\nu}' ).

New Temporal Equation: This model suggests gravity directly generates time: [ G_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}(t) ] Where ( T_{\mu\nu}(t) ) includes a new term for time creation: [ T_{\mu\nu}(t) = T_{\mu\nu} + \alpha \cdot \frac{d\tau}{dM} ] Here:

• ( \alpha ) is a constant defining the relationship between mass and time creation.
• ( \frac{d\tau}{dM} ) represents the rate of time creation per unit of mass.

Gravitational Wave Influence: If gravity waves generate time fluctuations, the wave equation is modified: [ \Box h_{\mu\nu} = \frac{16\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}(t) ] Where ( \Box ) is the d’Alembertian operator, and ( h_{\mu\nu} ) represents the perturbations in the metric due to gravitational waves. Here, ( T_{\mu\nu}(t) ) includes time creation effects.

Proximity to Massive Objects: For objects near massive entities, time dilation influenced by time creation: [ d\tau = \left(1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}\right) dt ] Incorporating time creation: [ d\tau = \left(1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2} - \alpha \cdot \frac{d\tau}{dM}\right) dt ] This showcases how proximity to massive objects creates time directly, modifying traditional time dilation.

Potential Effects on Cosmic Phenomena

Accelerated Expansion of the Universe: The repulsive component of gravity, especially in regions of low mass density, can explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe, aligning with observations.

Gravitational Wells: The observed shallower gravitational wells may result from the dual nature of gravity, modifying gravitational behavior over time and space.

Asteroid Belt:

1. Stabilization of Orbits:
   • Attractive Component: In regions of high mass density, the attractive component, mediated by gravitons, stabilizes the orbits of asteroids.
   • Repulsive Component: In regions of low mass density, the repulsive component prevents asteroids from clustering too closely, maintaining the overall structure of the belt.
2. Kirkwood Gaps: The repulsive force might counteract some of Jupiter’s gravitational influence, altering the locations and sizes of these gaps.
3. Asteroid Collisions: The frequency and outcomes of collisions could vary, with more collisions in denser regions and fewer in sparser regions.
4. Formation and Evolution: The dual nature of gravity could influence the formation and distribution of asteroids during the early stages of the solar system.

Supporting Findings and Mathematics

1. Compound Gravitational Lenses: Recent discoveries of compound gravitational lenses show complex interactions of gravity, supporting the idea of gravity having multiple effects depending on the context.
2. Quantum Nature of Gravity: Research at the South Pole and other studies probing the interface between gravity and quantum mechanics, using ultra-high energy neutrino particles, align with the idea of gravitons mediating gravitational force and time creation.
3. Gravity-Mediated Entanglement: Experiments demonstrating gravity-mediated entanglement using photons provide insights into how gravity might interact with quantum particles, supporting the notion of a more complex gravitational interaction.

Hi r/Futurology 👋 I am a long-time lurker, first time poster. Like many of us here I am increasingly concerned about the future of human work amid the advancement of AI. There is a novel tax policy proposal that has the potential to insulate human workers from the negative impacts of AI while also boosting wages for low and moderate income workers. I have included a summary of the policy below. PM me for the full paper if you’re interested.

AI may prove to be a friend of man, but a threat to mankind. may prove to be a friend of man, but a threat to mankind. Given the rapid advancement of generative AI, it’s not hard to see an avalanche of job losses coming around the corner - threating the livelihood of millions of Americans.

Currently, the automation of work is a zero-sum game, a machine’s win is a human’s loss. A new tax policy proposal, the Corporate Income Tax Reinvestment Act (CITRA), turns the automation of work into a win-win for humanity and workers. CITRA proposes that corporations be allowed to pay their income taxes in the form of additional human capital spending at their firms rather than paying cash to the government.

CITRA, in its ideal form, would only change the recipient of the tax payment, not eliminate corporate income taxes altogether. Corporations would instead pay the money to their workers rather than the government, in any manner they choose. In essence, the policy would act as a government funded wage subsidy to American workers distributed through and consumed by corporations.

Unfortunately, simply changing the addresses on the checks would not achieve any benefits for the American people. Shrewd corporate executives would artificially lower wages then use the “tax payment” to arrive at the same human capital expense as before the implementation of the CITRA, achieving a 0% effective tax rate. 

Therefore, a new tax liability calculation is required in order to appropriately implement CITRA. A company would be taxed based on the following formula:

((Pre-Tax Net Income + Total Human Capital Costs^(1))  * Industry Calibration Percentage^(2)) – Qualified Human Capital Costs^(3)

 1.       Total Human Capital Costs - Captures all employee related human capital costs that a company incurs.

2.       Industry Calibration Percentage (ICP)  - In order to appropriately calibrate the tax liability calculation to equal ~25% of pre-tax profits for any given company, the ICP must vary by industry given the ratio of human capital spending to net income/revenue varies materially by industry. 

3.       Qualified Human Capital Costs (Qualified Costs) is equal to Total Human Capital Costs adjusted for certain costs associated with highly paid employees. 

Below is a simple illustration of how the tax would be calculated.

Imagine a hypothetical shoe manufacturer and distributor, Shoe Corp, that had the following results. (ICP = 50%) : 

 Sales in the US: $40,000

Cost of Goods Sold: $20,000

Total Human Capital Costs: $6,000

Qualified Human Capital Costs: $5,000

Other Expenses: $6,000

Pre-tax Net Income: $8,000

Taxes: $2,000

Net Income after taxes: $6,000

 CITRA Tax Liability =  (($8,000 + 6,000)*50% - $5,000) = $2,000 = 25% effective rate

 Under this method, artificially lowering wages to achieve a 0% effective tax rate is not possible - reducing Qualified Costs simply increases the tax liability dollar for dollar and results in the same net income. This calculation inherently puts a corporation’s treatment of its employees at the center of its tax liability as companies are taxed not only on their income, but on its distribution to workers.

CITRA is also inherently progressive as the distinction between Total and Qualified costs ensures the benefits do not accrue to wealthy executives. Under CITRA a company should always be incentivized to increase low-wage employee compensation instead of rewarding highly-paid executives.

A few additional carrots and sticks can be built into the system to align profits more closely with the fair treatment of all workers. A progressive tax system that gives companies more Qualified Cost ‘credit’ for spending tax dollars on lower wage earners would create additional incentives for corporations to increase the compensation of its lowest paid employees. This would create a strong incentive for companies to increase the wages of their lowest paid employees.  

For corporations the benefit is obvious, today the federal government is effectively a 21% partner who provides no incremental value to shareholders. Given that the return on investment of human capital spending will always be greater than cash taxes to the federal government, corporations who elect to pay all of their taxes in human capital will always have a higher rate of return than those who elect to pay cash to the government. Shrewd and short-sighted corporate executives alike would quickly find ways to invest in their workers, increase the profits of their businesses, and pay zero in cash to the government. Further, this has the ability to blunt price increases due to increased labor costs as companies could increase wages without harming profits. 

This policy is not without its flaws – some companies would see a dramatic increase in their effective tax rates while others will experience a significant reduction. It introduces many challenges with implementing a fair tax code - including consensus agreement on the relative human capital intensity of every industry as so much hinges on the appropriate industry calibration percentage. It would also potentially cause an avalanche of consumer spending, increasing the risk of reigniting inflation.

However, these negatives need to be contrasted against the current threat that AI poses to human workers. CITRA ensures that regardless of how much a corporation automates its operations, it must still spend approximately 25% of its income on human capital at its business. By tying a corporation’s tax rate to its human capital spending, it by definition, secures the livelihoods of millions of Americans without sacrificing the beautiful human progress that automation offers.

Some jobs such as trades, like labourers, iron workers, roofers are dangerous and cause long term health issues. Many trades people have severe shoulder pain or back pain. Will we ever be able to technologise our way out of these jobs?

Once upon a time, there was a boy who cried, "there's a 5% chance there's a wolf!"

The villagers came running, saw no wolf, and said "He said there was a wolf and there was not. Thus his probabilities are wrong and he's an alarmist."

On the second day, the boy heard some rustling in the bushes and cried "there's a 5% chance there's a wolf!"

Some villagers ran out and some did not.

There was no wolf.

The wolf-skeptics who stayed in bed felt smug.

"That boy is always saying there is a wolf, but there isn't."

"I didn't say there was a wolf!" cried the boy. "I was estimating the probability at low, but high enough. A false alarm is much less costly than a missed detection when it comes to dying! The expected value is good!"

The villagers didn't understand the boy and ignored him.

On the third day, the boy heard some sounds he couldn't identify but seemed wolf-y. "There's a 5% chance there's a wolf!" he cried.

No villagers came.

It was a wolf.

They were all eaten.

Because the villagers did not think probabilistically.

The moral of the story is that we should expect to have a large number of false alarms before a catastrophe hits and that is not strong evidence against impending but improbable catastrophe.

Each time somebody put a low but high enough probability on a pandemic being about to start, they weren't wrong when it didn't pan out. H1N1 and SARS and so forth didn't become global pandemics. But they could have. They had a low probability, but high enough to raise alarms.

The problem is that people then thought to themselves "Look! People freaked out about those last ones and it was fine, so people are terrible at predictions and alarmist and we shouldn't worry about pandemics"

And then COVID-19 happened.

This will happen again for other things.

People will be raising the alarm about something, and in the media, the nuanced thinking about probabilities will be washed out.

You'll hear people saying that X will definitely fuck everything up very soon.

And it doesn't.

And when the catastrophe doesn't happen, don't over-update.

Don't say, "They cried wolf before and nothing happened, thus they are no longer credible."

Say "I wonder what probability they or I should put on it? Is that high enough to set up the proper precautions?"

When somebody says that nuclear war hasn't happened yet despite all the scares, when somebody reminds you about the AI winter where nothing was happening in it despite all the hype, remember the boy who cried a 5% chance of wolf.

What do you think is going to be the next "big topic" of all tech industry like is Al now and like blockchain has been years ago? I think for sure not the Metaverse or NFTs...

Submission Statement: What if automation freed us from repetitive work, and society rewarded creativity and innovation instead? My vision: creativity centers for solving problems and innovating, with a creative currency system that replaces the grind. Baseline living (housing, food, healthcare) is guaranteed, allowing humanity to thrive beyond survival.

How would this reshape society in the next 50 years? Could it solve inequality and spark progress? Let’s discuss.

The system we live in is broken, and most of us are too blind to see it. Look around—everyone is grinding, working endlessly, and for what? To barely scrape by? To pay bills, sit in traffic, go to sleep, and repeat the same cycle until we’re too old to enjoy the life we have left? The world’s entire structure revolves around labor, but here’s the kicker: it doesn’t have to anymore. We’ve built technology advanced enough to free us, yet instead of using these tools to thrive, we’ve chained ourselves even tighter to a system that doesn’t work.

And let’s be real—this system doesn’t value you. It doesn’t care about your ideas, your passions, or your dreams. It cares about what you can produce, not what you can create. Humanity deserves better. We are more than machines made to work until we die.

What if we flipped the script? What if the future wasn’t about working to survive, but about thriving through what makes us human—our ability to think, to innovate, to dream? That’s the world I want to build, one where we replace mindless grind with boundless creativity. Imagine communities built around creative centers, where anyone, regardless of background, can walk in and contribute their ideas to solve real-world problems. These aren’t exclusive clubs—they’re open spaces where people collaborate and turn ideas into action.

Instead of tying survival to hours worked, we create a system where survival is a given. Everyone would have access to housing, food, healthcare, and transportation. Your basic needs are met so you can focus on thriving—not just surviving. This baseline frees us to focus on innovation. And for those who want more? We introduce creative currency—a reward system not for how much you sweat, but for how much you dream. It’s earned through participation and innovation, through solving problems and building a better world.

This isn’t about some utopian fantasy—it’s about using the tools we already have. Automation can take over repetitive and soul-crushing tasks, freeing humans to do what we’re best at: thinking and creating. For the jobs that still require a human touch, like teaching or caregiving, we reward those roles better and elevate their importance. The grind doesn’t have to define us.

The truth is, this system isn’t sustainable. Debt is out of control. Inequality is worse than ever. Depression, burnout, and hopelessness are everywhere. We’ve been conditioned to accept this life, but it doesn’t have to be this way. Imagine what humanity could achieve if we stopped grinding and started dreaming. Imagine a society where every person had the chance to innovate, collaborate, and thrive. That’s not a pipe dream—it’s a choice.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “How does this actually work? Who handles the essential jobs? What’s different about this idea?” The answers are simpler than you think. Automation takes care of repetitive tasks. Essential jobs that require people—teachers, healthcare workers, builders—become better compensated and more fulfilling. And what makes this idea different is that it’s not just about basic survival; it’s about unlocking humanity’s full potential. This isn’t socialism, communism, or capitalism—it’s evolution. A new way forward that values people for their creativity and contributions, not just their ability to clock in.

If you think this sounds impossible, I understand. People are skeptical of big ideas, especially ones that challenge the status quo. But every revolutionary change in history started with someone saying, “What if?” This isn’t just my vision—it’s a starting point for all of us to build on. Together, we refine it, test it locally, and prove that it works.

I’m not saying it’ll be easy. I’m not saying I have every detail worked out. But I do know this: humanity is capable of so much more than we’ve allowed ourselves to believe. We can be more than cogs in a machine. We can create a world where creativity is currency, where automation frees us instead of enslaving us, where every person has the chance to thrive.

It starts with us. Right here, right now. Let’s take the first step.

Tried to pass the turning Test with the X AI output here on Reddit.

Got 29 upvotes before someone recognized.
Does that mean the this post of the X Ai passed the Redditor Turning test?

What is your judgement?
Was the Reddit Turing test passed?
Did you try something similar yourself?

When society becomes perfect through its rearrangement due to automation taking most jobs and doing all the labor to produce resources, it seems to me that it's revealing how people will naturally start questioning, well, what prevented things from being perfect 10 years ago? Or 50 years ago? Or 100, even thousands of years ago?

The only conclusion I can come to for an answer is that society was ruled by sheerly corrupt minds, that's why. It's unfortunate to think that people had to literally live their whole mortally existing lives in a society that was ruled so corruptly that they had to toil for a pittance and put up with mass criminality in the meantime, when they could have lived ideal lives had they choose to enlighten themselves and to take the necessary actions to bring about that perfection.

I just wonder, when we reach a point where technology does more harm than good, how will we know? 

In fact, you can argue it already does.

Societal changes creep up on us. I feel drowned in digital distractions. Even a simple walk now feels pointless without music or a podcast. It’s not just about chasing dopamine; it’s about the endless pursuit of novelty. Our minds are packed, our attention is short, and the promised tech “freedom” has become its own trap.

Technology has relieved us of physical burdens, only to replace them with spiritual exhaustion. It has closed distances yet bred new forms of division. Armed with all the world’s information, we were supposed to be absolved of ignorance. Instead, ignorance seems more pervasive than ever.

I’m still figuring this out. Some days I fail miserably at unplugging. But each morning offers a fresh start, a chance to reclaim our time, rediscover silence, and redefine what’s truly meaningful. Maybe in those quiet moments, we’ll finally recognise if we’ve gone too far.