The Gravity Constraint Set

 

Foundational requirements for any complete theory of gravity

​

This page defines the minimum set of constraints that any theory claiming to explain gravity must satisfy in order to be considered complete rather than merely useful.

​

This is not a model.
This is not an alternative theory.
This is not a critique of any specific framework.

It is a phenomenological gatekeeper.

​

The purpose of this document is to establish what gravity must explain before debates about equations, fields, geometry, particles, or cosmology can be meaningfully compared.

​

Why a constraint set is necessary

Modern gravity research often begins with one of the following:

• a mathematical formalism
• a historical authority
• a cosmological anomaly
• a preferred ontology (geometry, force, field)

​

In doing so, it silently excludes vast domains of gravitational phenomena as “secondary,” “engineering,” or “already solved.”

This document reverses that order.

A theory of gravity does not earn completeness by fitting distant data alone.
It earns completeness by accounting for all gravitational phenomena, including those that are:

• continuous rather than dynamic
• local rather than cosmological
• embodied rather than idealized
• structural rather than kinematic

​

If a theory cannot explain what gravity is doing when nothing moves, it has not explained gravity.

Methodological principle

No gravitational phenomenon may be excluded from explanation by classification alone.

If a phenomenon is:

• continuous
• repeatable
• ubiquitous
• causally active

then it belongs to gravity’s explanatory domain.

​

Partitioning such effects into “non-gravitational forces,” “engineering,” “materials science,” or “pedagogy” is not explanation. It is deferral.

 

How to read the constraints

​

Each constraint is stated in three parts:

1. Observed fact

2. Explanatory requirement

3. Failure mode

​

The failure modes are not accusations. They are common evasions used across theories.

​

Constraint 1: Persistent Directionality

Observed fact
Gravity defines a continuous, stable direction (“down”) at every point on Earth’s surface and within gravitational environments.

Requirement
A theory must explain why this direction exists, why it is persistent, and why it is globally coherent on curved bodies.

Failure mode
Describing motion without accounting for why a directional field exists at rest.

​

Constraint 2: Resistance as the Primary Manifestation

Observed fact
The most common human experience of gravity is not falling, but resistance: standing, bracing, holding, supporting.

Requirement
A theory must treat resistance against gravity as a primary gravitational phenomenon, not a secondary artifact.

Failure mode
Defining gravity solely in terms of free-fall while outsourcing resistance to “support forces” without gravitational causation.

​

Constraint 3: Continuous Interaction in Equilibrium

Observed fact
Gravity acts continuously even when systems are static: standing objects, supported loads, stable structures.

Requirement
A theory must account for what gravity is doing when nothing moves.

Failure mode
Claiming gravity “disappears” in equilibrium or that nothing gravitational is occurring.

​

Constraint 4: Maintenance Cost Against Gravity

Observed fact
Maintaining position against gravity consumes energy: muscular effort, mechanical power, structural fatigue.

Requirement
A theory must explain where this energy goes, how it couples to gravity, and why resistance has a cost.

Failure mode
Labeling energy expenditure as “inefficiency” without gravitational accounting.

​

Constraint 5: Structural Ordering Over Time

Observed fact
Gravity produces long-term ordering: sedimentation, sag, creep, stratification, posture adaptation.

Requirement
A theory must explain gravity as an organizing influence, not only an instantaneous interaction.

Failure mode
Relegating time-dependent ordering to “materials behavior” unrelated to gravity’s continuous action.

​

Constraint 6: Structure-Sensitive Response

Observed fact
Objects with different internal structures respond differently to gravity in non-free-fall contexts.

Requirement
A theory must permit structure-dependent gravitational interaction without violating equivalence in idealized free-fall.

Failure mode
Treating all structure-dependent effects as non-gravitational by definition.

​

Constraint 7: Global Coherence of Local Experience

Observed fact
Local gravitational experience is globally coherent: people on opposite sides of Earth experience “down” consistently toward the center.

Requirement
A theory must provide a literal, global account that does not rely on mutually incompatible local analogies.

Failure mode
Using locally valid metaphors that become globally impossible when universalized.

​

Constraint 8: Independence from Pedagogical Metaphor

Observed fact
Gravity explanations rely heavily on metaphors (“rubber sheets,” “pull,” “acceleration of the ground”).

Requirement
A theory must remain intelligible and internally consistent without metaphor.

Failure mode
Defending contradictions by appealing to “the spirit” rather than the literal meaning.

​

Constraint 9: Continuity Across Scales

Observed fact
Gravity governs posture, buildings, tides, orbits, and galaxies.

Requirement
A theory must preserve causal continuity across scales, even if formalism changes.

Failure mode
Using one ontology locally and a different one cosmologically.

​

Constraint 10: Minimal Assumptive Load

Observed fact
Local gravitational phenomena require fewer assumptions than cosmological inference.

Requirement
A theory should be constrained first by high-density local data before invoking distant, indirect extensions.

Failure mode
Granting epistemic priority to assumption-heavy cosmology over direct experience.

​

What this constraint set does — and does not do

​

This document does not:

• declare any theory false
• propose a mechanism
• privilege any mathematical formalism

It does:

• define completeness
• restore evidential order
• prevent selective explanation

​

Any theory — General Relativity, MOND, emergent gravity, GPT — may be audited against this set.

A theory that satisfies all constraints earns the right to call itself a complete theory of gravity.

 

Next page

With the constraints established, the next step is a neutral audit:

What does General Relativity explain, and what does it leave silent, when judged against this set?

Continue to:

The GR Silence Map

/graviton-pressure-theory/gr-silence-map/