What is MRET?

Mass Redistribution Expansion Theory (MRET) takes a radically different view of why the universe expands. Instead of invoking an invisible “dark energy” that pushes space apart, MRET proposes that expansion emerges from the movement of matter itself. As mass flows into black holes and other dense structures, spacetime’s geometry is altered, not by magic, but by gravity doing exactly what General Relativity (GR) says it should. The fabric of the universe doesn’t sit still; it flexes. On the largest scales, that flex shows up as gentle, late-time acceleration. 

How it works:

In GR, mass–energy tells spacetime how to curve. MRET takes this seriously at cosmic scale: when matter redistributes, especially when it sinks into deep gravitational wells, curvature is rearranged. The “local pull” of clumping isn’t isolated; it couples to the wider geometry and, very slightly, relaxes the large-scale fabric outward. In this view, acceleration is not an extra force layered onto the universe; it’s the natural, built-in response of spacetime to the way structure actually forms.

Core rules:

1) Mass pulls on the fabric of spacetime.
 Gravity is geometry. When mass moves, most dramatically into black holes, the surrounding geometry must adjust. MRET treats this adjustment as a real, cumulative effect on cosmic scales.

2) Expansion is a geometric response, not a new substance.
 No exotic fluid is required. The large-scale stretch is what you get when curvature is rebalanced by ongoing mass flow during the structure-formation era.

3) The effect is minimal and transient.
 MRET does not claim a perpetual push. The response is small, tied to the epoch of vigorous structure growth, and fades as growth subsides, quiet early universe, activation during structure era, quiet return.

4) Conservation and continuity matter.
 Nothing is created or destroyed. The story stays within GR’s language: changes in large-scale behaviour arise from how curvature is distributed, not from injecting mysterious energy.

5) One phenomenon, many observables.
 If expansion is geometry’s response to mass flow, we should see consistent fingerprints across supernova distances, Hubble-rate inferences, lensing around voids, and late-time CMB effects.


Why this matters

If MRET is right, several long-standing puzzles become less mysterious. Acceleration doesn’t need to be universal and constant; it can be an emergent, time-bound outcome of real structure formation. That connects the smallest horizons (black holes) to the largest (the cosmos itself) through ordinary gravity, and it keeps the mathematics inside familiar GR rather than postulating an unknown, everywhere-present energy component. 

What MRET predicts (near-term checks)

Because the response is small but structured, it points to specific signals. A subtle, positive supernova residual at intermediate redshifts (roughly 0.3–0.8) as the structure era peaks; a percent-level H₀ nudge with the right sign and timing; distinctive void-lensing and shear patterns as the background geometry relaxes slightly; and gentle timing hints in the late-ISW and redshift-drift domains. These aren’t vague hopes, they’re concrete places to look for the geometric “tell” of mass in motion.


Recent work

My latest studies emphasize a striking synchrony between the black-hole accretion history (how fast the universe grew its deepest wells) and the late-time window when acceleration appears observationally relevant. That alignment is exactly where a geometry-from-mass-flow response would be most active. It doesn’t settle the debate, but it tightens the target and gives us a practical timetable for testing MRET against real data.

All work is independently developed and open-access on Zenodo—read it, critique it, and build on it:

How MRET fits with standard physics

MRET is deliberately conservative: it keeps the mathematics and spirit of General Relativity (GR) intact while changing how we interpret large-scale consequences of matter moving into deep gravitational wells. Locally, nothing exotic is added, no new forces, no variable-speed light, no extra fields required. The familiar pillars remain: the equivalence principle holds (freely falling observers see local physics as special relativity), Lorentz invariance is respected, gravitational waves travel at c, and the Bianchi identity enforces covariant conservation (∇·T = 0). Early-universe successes are preserved by construction: BBN light-element yields, CMB acoustic peaks, and the BAO ruler come out of the same standard early physics because MRET’s late-time response is minimal and turns on only during the structure-formation era.

Reframing mass–energy equivalence (the “non-Einstein” side)

Einstein’s famous relation E = mc² tells us how mass and energy are interchangeable locally. GR adds a second, equally profound statement at the field level: curvature equals (and responds to) stress–energy via
 Gᵤᵥ = 8πG Tᵤᵥ / c⁴.
 MRET leans on this GR statement and makes it operational at cosmic, coarse-grained scales. When mass irreversibly redistributes into compact structures (especially black holes), the stress–energy that sources curvature is not just “more gravity in the halo.” Once you average over large volumes, that rearrangement of Tᵤᵥ entails a slight, global adjustment of the background curvature. In MRET, I formalize this with a small, bounded response coefficient ε(a) that is zero when the cosmos is quiet, rises during vigorous structure growth, and falls again afterward. No energy is created or destroyed; rather, a vanishingly small fraction of the gravitational work tied to clustering shows up, at the background level, as a gentle outward relaxation of geometry. In short: besides E↔m locally, GR also gives us an effective, averaged “mass–geometry response” cosmologically, and MRET writes that response down explicitly.

What stays unchanged (and why that matters)

Where MRET adds interpretation (and predictivity)

MRET’s addition is a timed, minimal late-era response: as structure growth peaks, ε(a) briefly nudges the background toward slightly faster expansion, then quiets. That alone yields concrete, cross-checkable fingerprints that live in well-understood observables rather than in speculative new particles: a subtle supernova residual at mid-redshift, a small H₀ uplift with the right sign and timing, void-lensing patterns reflecting a gently relaxed background, and mild late-ISW/redshift-drift hints. Because ε(a) is single-dial, bounded, and transient, the framework remains minimal and tightly constrained by data.

Bottom line

MRET doesn’t ask physics to bend; it asks us to apply GR’s mass–curvature linkage at the right scale and epoch. Keep local laws exactly as they are, keep the early universe exactly as it was, and let the observed, irreversible flow of mass into compact structures register, ever so slightly, on the largest scales. That’s the whole move.


Roadmap

Next steps center on pinning down sizes and timings for the predicted signals and confronting them with surveys now arriving from DESI, JWST, and next-generation lensing and supernova programs. The goal is straightforward: translate “mass pulls on the fabric” into clean, testable curves and let the sky render judgment.