The Corley Momentum Flux Theory

Gravity, Cosmology, and Quantum Hydrodynamics

Contains the entire website content for AI analysis.

Preamble: The Path Not Taken

A Re-evaluation of the 1915 Vacuum Decision

When Einstein formulated General Relativity, he faced a fundamental decision regarding the nature of the vacuum. He knew that gravity transferred momentum across space, but Special Relativity had seemingly "killed" the luminiferous ether. He was left with a binary choice:

The Mechanical Path: Assume space is a substance (ether/plenum) and find a mechanical reason for gravity.
The Geometric Path: Assume space is empty (void) and attribute gravity to the geometry of the coordinate system itself.

Einstein chose the Geometric Path. Why? Because in 1915, there was no known mechanism that could explain how a fluid vacuum could generate an attractive force without massive drag. He lacked the Geometric Proof of Drift. Without that mechanism, the Mechanical Path seemed like a dead end, so he was forced to "input" gravity as intrinsic curvature.

The Missing Data: The Sagitta of Drift

The Corley Momentum Flux Theory (CMFT) is born from the discovery of that missing mechanism. Through geometric analysis, I have discovered that Gravitational Attraction is an inevitable emergent residual of momentum transfer in a delayed medium.

If you combine Standard Flux (Newtonian Emission) with Time Delay (Speed of Light c), a geometric misalignment occurs. This misalignment—the Sagitta—creates a "Steering Drift" that mimics attraction perfectly.

Gravity is an Output, not an Input.

This changes everything. Einstein chose the Geometric Path because he didn't know gravity could "pop out" of a flat, fluid vacuum automatically. We now know that if you simply respect the speed of light delay in a fluid medium, gravity emerges as a Residual Output.

The Necessary Combination: Inverting the Universe

However, this Drift mechanism is not free. It implies a package deal: To get the Drift, you must accept the Substrate.

Once we accept the Drift Mechanism, we are forced to "Invert the Universe" to make the physics consistent. We are not active particles in a passive void; we are passive defects (vortices) in an active, high-pressure superfluid plenum. This inversion is the required physical substrate for the Drift Mechanism to function.

Concealment by Complexity

By choosing to curve the coordinate system instead of the trajectory, General Relativity inadvertently concealed this superfluid possibility behind a wall of extreme mathematics. The "patches" required to make the geometric model work—such as the Schwarzschild metric or tensor adjustments—created a high barrier to entry. This mathematical complexity has prevented a re-evaluation of the foundational assumption for over a century.

The Modern Verdict: Dark Matter

We are now requesting an open paradigm shift, not because the old math failed, but because the new data demands it. If Einstein had possessed the Geometric Drift Proof and modern data on the Dark Sector, he almost certainly would have chosen the Mechanical Path.

While General Relativity requires invisible mass to fit modern rotation curves, the Inverted Universe solves these problems natively: Dark Matter is simply Vacuum Coupling Efficiency (Cold Gas couples to the superfluid better than Stars), and Dark Energy is Variable Viscosity. He would have likely agreed: Spacetime is not curving; the fluid is flowing.

Abstract: Standard physics separates Gravity (Geometry) from Quantum Mechanics (Probability). The Corley Momentum Flux Theory (CMFT) unifies them under a single, undeniable deductive premise:

"If gravity is real, momentum transfer must occur through empty space."

This deduction necessitates that the Vacuum is a Pressurized Plenum of momentum flux. Gravity is not the abstract curvature of spacetime, but the Geometric Sagitta (residual drift) of flux interacting with volume. This framework removes the need for a Universal Big Bang, identifying Galaxies as local nucleation events ("Fountains") in an infinite, static substrate. It demystifies Quantum Mechanics by establishing Absolute Orientation and Superdeterminism, removing "spooky action" in favor of hydrodynamic inevitability.

How to Read This Document

This document is not laid out in the order in which a conventional physics paper is usually read. It was developed iteratively, by discovery, and some sections preserve that evolutionary path. As a result, readers are strongly encouraged to read this document with the following guidance in mind.

1. The Framework Is Built on a Single Non-Negotiable Premise

This work rests on one foundational axiom:

If momentum transfer across the vacuum is real and finite-speed, then delayed geometry necessarily produces a residual drift. Gravity is that residual.

This is not a hypothesis introduced later, nor a fitting assumption. It is the geometric consequence of combining:

Conserved momentum flux
Finite propagation speed
Three-dimensional space

Once this premise is accepted, gravity is no longer an input (e.g. curvature inserted by hand), but an output of geometry. Readers who do not accept this premise will not find the later sections persuasive; readers who do accept it should expect many results to follow inevitably.

2. This Is a Cascade Theory, Not a Patchwork Theory

This framework was not constructed by solving isolated problems (gravity, then dark matter, then dark energy, etc.). Instead, a single geometric mechanism is applied consistently. As a result:

Later sections depend on earlier principles.
Many results are consequences, not new assumptions.
Some conclusions may appear “overreaching” unless the cascade logic is understood.

3. Principle-Level Results vs. Measurement-Level Refinement

This document distinguishes between:

Principle-level inevitabilities (geometric drift, inverse-square scaling from 3D conservation, vacuum inversion).
Measurement-level refinements (effective source radius, coherence, tension maps, numerical calibration).

Values such as effective gravitational radius fractions are inferred parameters, not literal physical radii. Readers should not confuse refinement of measured quantities with revision of the underlying mechanism.

4. About the Simulations

Not all simulations serve the same purpose:

Demonstration Simulations: Intentionally simplified to isolate geometric inevitabilities (e.g. sagitta drift). Not quantitative models.
Analogue / Emergence Simulations: Demonstrate how attraction-like behavior emerges from flux/delay under constrained conditions.
Verification / Convergence Simulations: Test whether the framework can reproduce observed gravitational profiles when proper structure is applied.

5. Conservation and Inverse-Square Scaling

Any conserved isotropic flux in 3D space necessarily produces a 1/r² density scaling. This is assumed as a consequence of conservation, not introduced as a tunable feature. The novel content of this work concerns the residual geometric drift that arises from delayed propagation, not the existence of inverse-square scaling itself.

6. Developmental History vs Logical Structure

Some sections preserve the historical path of discovery. Readers seeking a clean logical argument should prioritize:

The foundational sections defining the mechanism.
The sections demonstrating gravitational sufficiency.
The sections testing observational consistency.

7. What This Document Is — and Is Not

This document IS:

A mechanically grounded alternative to geometric postulation.
A consistency-first framework.
An exploration of treating the vacuum as a momentum-carrying medium.

This document is NOT:

A finalized cosmological parameter fit.
A replacement for all existing models without testing.
A claim that all measurements are exhaustively explained.

Final Note to the Reader:

If you find yourself reacting strongly to a later claim, return to the foundational premise and ask: “Is this a new assumption, or an unavoidable consequence of the original geometric argument?” Most of the time, it is the latter.

A quick warning about reader reflexes: If you notice yourself snapping into “standard GR objections” (e.g. “retardation implies drag”, “a medium implies friction”, “vector vs scalar is arbitrary”, “curvature is assumed not derived”), treat that as a sign you have jumped ahead of the chain. This document intentionally places some of the “one-line reversals” earlier than the objections they neutralize.

In particular, do not evaluate any delayed/retarded effect here using the usual viscous-medium intuition. The framework assumes a superfluid vacuum for bulk motion (i.e. no ordinary drag), and the purpose of the geometric construction is to show how the curvature effect emerges inside the geometry as an output of delayed momentum flow, rather than being introduced as a standalone postulate about coordinates.

If you want a fair “minimum viable read” before judging, force yourself to locate these three items first:

Where the geometric seed / kernel is defined (the thing everything downstream depends on).
Where the scalar-vs-vector issue is justified as a consequence of that kernel (not a stylistic preference).
Where the vacuum assumption is stated (so you don’t import ordinary drag/aberration logic by default).

After that, criticize freely — but criticize the premise or the convergence step, not a downstream consequence read in isolation.