If you are a mathematical physicist, you might be horrified at my lack of formalism, so instead allow me to pose some questions to the readership at large (but feel free to pipe in of course!). It might be helpful if you are familiar with some simple calculus and vector analysis. You can find my derivation at

http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0025 (arxiv rejected it).

I have posted my thoughts into another forum,

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/129309-Negative-Mass-Interpretation-of-General-Relativity, hoping for some robust criticism of my logic or maths. It doesn't seem to be forthcoming there, but this may be just due to registration problems.

One of the main downsides to general relativity is the difficulty in grasping what the equations fundamentally mean and their complexity. In spite of their accuracy, and the vast amount of analysis that has gone into understanding them (the majority of which I am not familiar with), the accelerating expansion in 1998 was completely unpredicted. If you would, allow for just a moment a simpler (and perhaps naive) take on the Einstein field equation. While you may not agree, your criticism will help me sort out my thoughts and perhaps we will both learn something new. Perhaps you can read through

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ so as to familiarize yourself with the issues.

So, forgetting what anybody else has told you this equation means, this is my take on:

[tex]R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}R=G_{\mu \nu}+g_{\mu \nu}\Lambda[/tex]

The left hand side of this equation is pretty well known, and you don't have to be familiar with what it means or does. The important part here is the right hand side. The term with the G in it is referred to as Einstein's curvature tensor and the term with [tex]\Lambda[/tex] is the mysterious cosmological constant. Firstly, lets dispense with any mystery of what this right hand side means. G is nothing more than what is called a tensor and [tex]\Lambda[/tex] is what we can refer to as a constant of integration. An easy way to think of a tensor is as nothing more than a point with a bunch of arrows pointing out of it. Being able to include in [tex]\Lambda[/tex] just means that, taken together, we can make those arrows however we want as long as the come out pointing the right direction and the right length. Mathematical physicists have known this for a long long time. But there is a problem. You can make the exact same arrows with a big [tex]\Lambda[/tex] or none at all. This has a fancy name called "gauge invariance" but it can also mean what I like to think of as "Am I measuring what I think I am?" When Einstein used this equation, he found exactly what he was looking for: An equation where if one throws in the mass-energy of a body it will accurately predict the precession of Mercury's perehilion, magnitudes of gravitational lensing and simplify down to Newton's equation for gravity (among other things). It didn't exactly make physical sense, and there were some grave conceptual problems, but it sure is accurate. Everything after this was trivial, until 1998. After reading that NASA page, you should know there is a problem with our view of the universe. Whether anyone has told you or not, something is wrong big time with our physics.

Now that we are all comfortable with the quantum vacuum, dark energy , etc. what if we were to instead take that right hand side, assign the cosmological constant as the total value of mass-energy of the vacuum, and subtract off a tensor of remaining mass-energy of the quantum vacuum. Preposterous you might say! What a crazy universe that would be! Really? Hmmm, there is more than one way to make a gradient. Take a look at the top and bottom of this picture.

The magnitudes are only to help you visualize what I mean, but the individual values aren't important. The only thing important is the

*rate of change (derivative)*.

The top part represents what we think of as the regular Newtonian attractive potential gradient and the bottom as an illustration of how to make an equivalent repulsive gradient. This gives you an idea of what [tex]\vec{g}=-\nabla\Phi=-\frac{GM}{r^{2}}\hat{\vec{r}}=-\frac{\Lambda_{\mathrm{vac}} c^{2}r}{6}\hat{\vec{r}}+\frac{G\rho_{\mathrm{res}}V}{r^{2}}\hat{\vec{r}}[/tex] means.

But that can't be, gravity comes from the presence of mass! Like us! Read carefully through that NASA page again. All may not be as it seems.

If you look through my paper, you will see that what we end up with is a repulsive gravity that should look just like Newtonian gravity, but at a certain point (I came up with [tex]r=(\frac{6G\rho_{\mathrm{res}}V}{\Lambda_{\mathrm{vac}} c^{2}})^{1/3}[/tex]) a small 1kg mass would no longer be attracted but would be repulsed away instead. Therefore, for small distances gravity should look just like we experience it. For distances past a certain point though, everything would just keep getting pushed away faster and faster. Kind of like that NASA image.

So, does it match up with the data from the expansion? Don't know yet, but am looking for any interested scientists or people who

*just want to know* about this crazy universe we live in.

I didn't want to just copy and paste what I had in the other forum into here, but stay tuned and ask questions! If you have any good constructive criticism, that is always welcome!