So this may be obvious. I keep forgetting this important fact. Trying to build a full new model for understanding a)cosmic expansion b)dark energy, and c) dark matter, is a massive undertaking. After my last update, I went back to again trying to get my core formulas refined and printed out for easy reference. My last pivot, was realizing that I should take a stab at the physical motivation for so called 'dark energy'. That led me to come up with a paper all about just that. See here: https://zenodo.org/records/17203627.
This determined the action where 'so called dark energy' is established via the mass-energy exchange at the event horizon of a black hole. So rather than an unknown force driving cosmic expansion, I have it as a reaction that fully respects Einstein's general relativity.
Back to the formulas! Sort of. I go back to my most recent papers, sub papers, and ideas for my most important and used formulas. And I realize that my last main theory paper MRET v3.2, without intending, I had strayed away from my core philosophy. This is important for a few reasons. The main being that the 'story' of the universe from it's quiet beginning, to how the universe 'expands' and potentially all the way up to the return to a quiet end, tells a narrative that I believe in. It's coherent. It mimics life in a way we can all relate to. And most importantly we can understand the mechanisms without invoking new science or placeholders we don't understand.
So another pivot. This time to clean up my main theory. It was due anyways, after implementing my HCC. As I plug along, I'm trying to build step by step the they specific how and the why. But with each step, each part of the formula, the amount of checks to make sure I am respecting the other aspects, and of course my core theory philosophy gets bigger and bigger.
All that to say, I am putting the finishing touches on MRET v4.0, that is as up to date, and incorporates my most up to date work. I've also decided that as each iteration inevitably is more math heavy, from here on out, I will launch each paper with a layperson explainer. Which, big surprise, is way more fun to write.
And with that, I've got to go make a turkey!
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."
- Richard Feynman
Much love and appreciation for the support.
- Eric
September 27, 2025
About those formulas from last week (ish).
I knew I was on to something. Well...I felt I was on to something. I slapped together a quick 1 pager that outlined my idea that I was calling ME1.0 last week.
Horizon-Coupled Cosmology (HCC) is its new name. It is a new way of looking at the universe’s expansion without invoking “dark energy.” Instead of treating acceleration as a mysterious force, HCC explains it as a natural consequence of how energy and geometry interact across the cosmic horizon — the boundary of what we can see. As matter moves and redistributes, energy flows across these horizons in ways that general relativity already allows, stretching space in the process.
In this picture, expansion isn’t constant everywhere or driven by something exotic. It’s horizon-dependent, dynamic, and linked to the structures forming in the universe. In other words: the universe accelerates not because of an unknown fuel, but because of the way mass, energy, and spacetime boundaries work together.
I uploaded my 1 page descriptor, just to put my stamp on it. Of course as always to also promote a conversation on my ideas. But wow did this hook me. I spent the middle hours of the night over the last 10 days locking in the math and putting together a real paper on it. -Uploaded here: https://zenodo.org/records/17203627.
The wild thing is, at every junction I took a step back to make sure everything was working out within my main theory MRET. I'm calling this a sign that everything is as it should be. It all fit together well. So even if I'm really wrong, I'm consistent! 😁
It's a weird thing when I post a new paper. My work isn't exactly relatable. It's a niche of a hobby as one can get. It's a pile of stress leading up to it, followed by a huge feeling of personal achievement that is equally unrelatable. A quiet victory drink at 1 am is my new celebration tradition.
So anyways with the work out into the world (or void), it's time to rest the brain for a bit. Stepping back is hugely important. I cannot carry this in my head for long. And almost every time I clear my thoughts, that's when inspiration strikes.
Then I check my news feed.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has confirmed that the Hubble tension, the mismatch in how we measure the universe’s expansion rate, is real. Using its sharper infrared vision, Webb re-measured hundreds of Cepheid stars in galaxies already observed by Hubble. The results matched Hubble’s distances, proving the earlier measurements weren’t biased by error or crowding. At the same time, Webb delivered an independent check by observing a lensed supernova, which also produced an expansion rate on the higher side, consistent with local methods. Together, these results mean the discrepancy with early-universe predictions cannot be dismissed as a technical mistake.
This leaves cosmology at a crossroads. Standard ΛCDM predicts a smooth, universal expansion rate governed by dark energy, but Webb’s data show the universe doesn’t line up neatly with that story. Whether the true value of the Hubble constant is higher, lower, or varying depending on method, one thing is clear: new physics may be required to explain the split.
This is exactly the kind of evidence that Mass Redistribution Expansion Theory (MRET) and Horizon-Coupled Cosmology (HCC) anticipated. Both frameworks argue that expansion is not a fixed background property of the cosmos, but a geometric symptom of how mass and energy redistribute. MRET links acceleration to black hole growth and the stretching of spacetime fabric, while HCC shows how energy flows across cosmic horizons create horizon-dependent expansion. In both cases, expansion is dynamic, not constant.
JWST’s confirmation that the Hubble tension is real means we are forced to move beyond the idea of a single universal expansion rate. That aligns directly with my work: the universe expands differently depending on perspective, scale, and horizon. In other words, Webb has caught the cosmos behaving exactly as MRET and HCC predict, not as a smooth, Λ-driven constant, but as a system shaped by redistribution and geometry.
Huge. One step closer to not being a crack pot.
“Every time we open a new window on the universe, it surprises us.”
-Vera Rubin
Much love and appreciation for the support.
- Eric
September 17, 2025
Weekly blog, bi-weekly blog...I said (ish)
So a funny thing happened. When tackling a project of this scale, there are so many jump in spots, and areas to refine, or just unsurprisingly hyper focus on. This is exactly what happened as I started my quest to polish my formulas and math that I use most. (I'm a big fan of having a close physical copy to reference)
So far this is typically around 10 or so formulas. When I revamp it is also a great time to pull back and look and my theory as a whole. I went over my cosmic timeline. Checked all my timestamps for adjustments. Started looking as a whole at any glaring holes. ( There are lots, and likely always will be). But I realised I could take a quick peak at the black hole action a bit closer. My main theory is that as mass enters a black hole, this pulls the 'fabric' of spacetime, thus giving the illusion of cosmic expansion. With this process what we call 'dark energy' emerges as a symptom of this conversion. Somewhere in my notes this was one of my areas to focus on.
Many parts of this project are daunting to say the least. Once I get into coming up with formulas for physical actions predicted within MRET it's a whole different ball game. Step 1 is making sure I respect all known laws of physics, general relativity. Step 2 is following observational data. At least in a broad sense for now. And the final step 3 is not adding more place holders. (the dark sector etc.) And then of course that my math is...coherent. All that keeps me from tackling certain aspects until I am in the right head-space.
More and more I find that when my brain goes into a quiet autopilot, some helpful ideas come to me. I realised one morning that I didn't need to build a new formula for this interaction. Not entirely anyways. Possibly the most famous formula was waiting right there for me. Einsteins Mass–Energy Equivalence (E = mc² ) which states that mass can be converted into energy and vice versa, with the speed of light squared acting as the conversion factor.
So Mr. Einstein shows me the way. But to track light and mass passing the event horizon of a black hole (the point where not even light can escape), while also showing a small but consistent 'left over factor' that would show the 'dark energy' symptom is my target. Add it to the list of things to work on, but I have a pretty good idea of how this can work.
Want to see the technical side? Sure you do! (Sort of anyways. Formatting formulas here is a nightmare) But here is where it stands.
ME-1.0 leaves the Einstein–Hilbert side untouched and places all novelty on the matter side:
Gμν=8πG (Tμν(m)+Tμν(ϕ)[wϕ,cs2,πϕ=0] + Tμν(s)),∑i∇μT(i)μν=0.
Energy exchange is covariant and conservative with a single, aligned 4-vector:
∇μT(m)μν=−Qν,∇μT(ϕ)μν=+Qν−Q~ν,∇μT(s)μν=+Q~ν,Qν≡Q uν.
The canonical family fixes Q=ΓHρm (one small, non-negative Γ); an optional “quiet-end” siphon uses Q~ν=β uν ρϕ (typically β=0 in baseline). The dark sector follows a smooth EoS wϕ(a)=w0+wa(1−a) with high sound speed cs2≈1 and no anisotropic stress (πϕ=0). In flat FRW this gives
ρ˙m+3Hρm=−Q,ρ˙ϕ+3H(1+wϕ)ρϕ=+Q−βρϕ,ρ˙s=βρϕ,
with quiet beginning (ρϕ/ρm → 0 at high z) and optional quiet end. Because the geometric LHS is GR, cT=1 and standard Solar-System/PPN and GW constraints are automatically satisfied.
Phenomenology is ΛCDM-compatible at Γ=β=0 and yields small, testable departures for Γ>0: (i) background expansion E(z) is nudged so that the onset of acceleration shifts slightly earlier at fixed Ωm0; (ii) linear growth remains GR-Poisson,
D′′+[2+dlnH/dlna]D′−3/2 Ωm(a) D=0,
producing a mild suppression of D(z) at mid-late times; (iii) gravitational slip vanishes at linear order (Φ≈Ψ), so lensing remains standard. A compact, falsifiable summary is the “triangle” constraint: for fixed (w0,wa,Γ) (and β=0), any two of {t0, zacc, E(z=0.5)} determine the third. A horizon-explicit realisation replaces constant ΓΓ by Γ(a)∝ (black-hole accretion / horizon-crossing rate), implementing your event-horizon reclassification mechanism within the same covariant, conserved RHS framework.
TL;DR for non-specialists: This model keeps Einstein’s gravity exactly as it is and changes only how we book-keep energy in the universe. When stuff falls into black holes, a tiny, honest “transfer” moves energy from the clumpy world we see into a smooth background that gently speeds up expansion, so “dark energy” is a symptom, not a new force. It’s conservative (nothing is created or destroyed), compatible with everything we already test (gravitational waves, Solar System), and simple (one main knob to turn). It has a clean standard-cosmology limit when that knob is off, and when it’s on, it makes small, testable predictions: slightly slower growth of structures while light-bending stays normal.
So apart from still working on my cheat sheet, this will be something I play with and fine tune over the next while.
"The event horizon is a one-way membrane. Things can go in, but they can't come out. This is a fundamental statement, which has been incorporated into the laws of physics as we now understand them."
-Kip Thorne
Much love and appreciation for the support.
- Eric
August 30, 2025
And here we are, the end of summer. For those of us with kids, life snaps back into something like a normal schedule.
One thing I love about this grand theory project is how many facets it has. If I hit a wall, or I’m not in a math-heavy mood, I can jump to one of the 100+ items on my checklist. Some are skills to learn next, some are related papers to read, and my favourite subsection is “big ideas to chase.” From the outside it looks like I’m staring at a wall; inside it’s a small chaos storm filing and organizing my thoughts.
A little over a week ago, after finishing and uploading MRET v3.2 (a multi-month push), I needed a breather. I pulled up the checklist. One task has been there since near the beginning: build a cosmological timeline that compares MRET to ΛCDM. The plan was modest, just a quick reference sheet for myself. Version 3.2 updated a lot of formulas and derivations, so my old cheat sheets were also obsolete anyway.
So I sketched a simple visual (an area I know I want to improve) and jotted a dozen key notes. Then I added a short blurb for each stage, tracking the universe from the Big Bang (Quiet Beginning in MRET) to the heat death (Quiet Return in MRET). Then each stage needed “just a bit more.” Fast-forward a week of late nights and… I had a layperson’s timeline paper I never set out to write. That’s becoming a theme: small side projects that quietly grow legs.
Most little reference sheets won’t mean much to anyone but me. But this one? This is cool. Out of everything I’ve done on MRET, I’m most proud when I make it approachable to a broader audience, clear enough to invite curiosity, not just experts.
Working in theoretical physics and cosmology as an independent gives me a few freedoms. The big one: I own the pace and shape of the work. I’m here to make the ideas real and to have good conversations about my favourite subject. This timeline does both: it aligns the shared landmarks (BBN, CMB, today) and shows where the stories diverge (what drives late-time acceleration).
Early this week, the first week of September, somehow!, I’ll upload my paper, Mass Redistribution and the Stretching Universe: A Parallel Timeline to ΛCDM, after a final round of refinements.
Then priority #1 is getting my batch of formulas and key notes up to date, especially my new baby from MRET v3.2, the lag–memory–saturation kernel. It’s a simple rule that turns the history of mass moving around (e.g., black holes growing, voids emptying) into today’s stretching of space: it reacts with a short delay (lag) and remembers past activity. As redistribution accumulates the response grows, but it levels off (saturates), so expansion can’t run away.
So it’ll be a stretch of boring, behind-the-scenes work. But having quick, up-to-date reference sheets saves me a lot of time, especially as my 9–5 gets busier and I’m less keen on late nights.
This is where the duality kicks in. This project is a side gig; it gets attention when I have leftover energy from “normal life.” Operating in fits and starts means that between hardcore science sessions I often have to re-learn where I left off. Lots of notes and quick reference sheets are key. I’ve learned to write myself a one-page note every Sunday evening—what I was working on, why, and any offshoot ideas to tackle next. It’s a good thing I’m obsessed. It’s a lot sometimes.
Never stop learning, friends.
“People think of education as something that they can finish.”
- Isaac Asimov
Much love and appreciation for the support.
- Eric
Date: August 26, 2025
Hello, and welcome.
My name is Eric Petersen, and I’m an independent researcher based on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
Over twenty years ago I stumbled my way onto an idea. Over the years that idea has evolved into a full theoretical physics project, and whenever I have a few free moments, this is what I am working on. Today the Mass Redistribution Expansion Theory (MRET) is alive and well.
MRET began as a simple but radical question: what if the universe’s expansion isn’t driven by a mysterious “dark energy,” but by the way mass itself moves through the cosmos? Over time, that question has grown into this full theory, tested against data, published openly on Zenodo, and refined through many versions.
This blog will be my space to share what I’m working on week by week, not polished papers, but the ongoing process of trying to push an independent theory forward. And really my notebook for where I left off.
Right now, my attention is on what I call the BHARD–H(z) lag. BHARD stands for Black Hole Accretion Rate Density, in simple terms, how much matter the universe’s black holes are swallowing over time. H(z) is the measured expansion rate of the universe at different redshifts, or cosmic times.
In MRET, these two histories aren’t independent. As black holes grow, they don’t just consume matter, they also redistribute mass and energy in ways that alter spacetime’s geometry. The expansion of the universe should therefore “echo” the black hole growth curve, but not instantaneously. There should be a lag, a measurable delay between when black holes take in matter and when that redistribution translates into a visible shift in expansion.
My current work is about pinning down this timing gap. If I can model the lag correctly, and it matches observational data, it becomes one of the clearest, testable predictions MRET makes.
If this alignment holds true, it challenges the entire foundation of the standard model of cosmology. Instead of attributing the universe’s acceleration to a mysterious, invisible “dark energy” with no direct physical mechanism, MRET would show that expansion emerges naturally from the most extreme gravitational processes we already know exist.
That changes the role of black holes in a profound way. Rather than being the “dead ends” of matter, they would be active engines of cosmic evolution — shaping not just galaxies but the very pace of expansion across the universe.
It also means acceleration is not a bolt-on constant of nature, but a dynamic, evolving process, tied to the growth of structure itself. This re-frames one of the biggest mysteries in physics into something measurable, testable, and grounded in the real astrophysical record.
Since I have begun actually putting pen to paper on this, it has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. At times crushingly frustrating, and usually exhausting. I never thought I would actually relate to an Einstein quote, but here we are.
"The years of anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alternations of confidence and exhaustion, and the final emergence into the light - only those who have experienced it can understand that.”
-Albert Einstein from his “Notes on the Origin of the General Theory of Relativity”
Here is a 'layman's version' of my work. It was written awhile ago, but still a great introduction https://zenodo.org/records/15491600
Much love and appreciation for the support.
-Eric