Otto E. Rossler

I will answer with a question. How many of Einstein's breakthroughs does this Law of Gravitation falsify? The reason for the question is that I am questioning most of Einstein's breakthroughs.

tanh(ALPHA)=v/c

You are not afraid of equations.

Even though "most" are still false -- presumably even those above (?). .

But your courage is admirable.

Well, Otto...

I am afraid of my shadow. What gives me courage is evidence, the fact that you didn't answer the question...

I didn't want ask you to bother with my derivation because it requires some flexibility of thought.

I asked you to see if you could recognize Paul Gerber velocity dependent potential in this equation (Mercury Perihelion)? If you could recognize in the numerator the velocity time dilation (1-vˆ2/cˆ2) etc.

Then I was hoping that you would understand that by making the Force itself to be dependent upon absolute velocity, I was explaining the same Physics that Einstein explained with Time Dilation.

That required me to correct Newton's Law of Dynamics, but you didn't have to understand that. Frame dragging is in the denominator. That said, I don't think we have observations of Frame Dragging anywhere. Gravitational Lensing is explained by simple homology of the hyperspherical expansion to the used metric.

The same topology explains Dark Matter evidence without Dark Matter... can you believe it...???

I just wanted to see if you could read a straightforward Law of Gravity. One that explains everything that Einstein explained and also predicts all Supernovae Distances in the Supernova Project.

Instead, I got your false praise..:)

Dear Marco:

Forgive me, I did not want to annoy you in any way.

I am very hesitant to accept new equations that vary but slightly with regard to the old ones. For the old ones need to be changed in a rather radical fashion after I could show that c has to be a globally valid constant.

Therefore I simply ask you, if I may, whether or not you have achieved that elusive goal. As far as I can tell, the answer is no: right?

Would you be ready to try and help me find new equations which fulfill the global-c constraint? I would be maximally obliged to you.

And forgive me for having developed so sharp and simple a criterion for correctness or non-correctness with respect to Nature herself.

Thank you that I was allowed to ask you so specific and succinct a question.

Take care,

Otto

Dear Otto,

Don't interpret my answers as me being annoyed. I just believe that a scientific discussion should be straightforward.

Arguments have no feelings.

Your question was not clear ...:) I achieve the elusive goal of creating a Fundamental Theory of Everything. It that is the question, the answer is yes.

My theory contains only space, space deformations and time. Nothing else. Of course, I map it to our concepts. That said, the underlying Physics refers only to space.

You are a senior scientist, who had a little more time to think about Physics, so I sought your opinion. I hope you will become as well acquainted with me as you are with Zwicky..:)

Also forgive me my sense of humor. I don't get annoyed (other than when I am plagiarized) and I accept being wrong without any problem. So, if you can, just relax and make jokes, if you like them.. rebut vigorously my assertions.

I will not take it personally. If you reward me with a thoughtful answer, I will always be grateful.

Would you be ready to try and help me find new equations which fulfill the global-c constraint? I would be maximally obliged to you.

IF by global c constraint, you mean a constraint in the speed of light, my answer is that you should take it as a constant. That is the simplest possible parametrization of space. c is the natural velocity of a deformation of space.

Yours sincerely,

Marco

Dear Marco:

You moved my heart with your phrase "Would you be ready to try and help me find new equations which fulfill the global-c constraint? I would be maximally obliged to you."

Regrettably, I can only answer by posing the very same question and confession to you. No one ever tried to set up the necessary "global-c field equations."

The only concrete hint I have is my re-analysis of the equivalence principle of 1907. If you follow me there, we find that the meter sticks downstairs are increased by the gravitational redshift factor, but invisibly so towards above.

This means that people downstairs -- for example, on an ideal neutron star with unit redshift -- are twice as big as they look from above. I called them "needle people" years ago. Conversely, we are "pancake people" to them.

This is very meager an answer from my part, in the hope to contribute just a tiny little bit at the outset.

There never existed a similar alliance before.

Take care,

Otto

June 8, 2019

Dear Otto,

If this helps- A Field Theory will never be a Fundamental Theory because fields are not Fundamental. Once you added field to your question, I became able to give you an answer.

The simplest constructs are "thing", position and acceleration and time.

That is how I derived Natural Laws. Field theory is inherently wrong.

Just take the standard dimensional leaking that takes place when you add one extra spatial dimension... Anyone with fields in their minds, cannot take that jump since field based reasoning (e.g. explaining EM force decay with distance) requires a r**{-3) dependent if the Universe were a 4D spatial Manifold.

Other trouble is confinement. If you add an extra spatial dimension you start to monkey around with confinement. So, hear my words. Nothing good can come from anything that has field in its name.

From there you know that what you are looking for is "Fools' Gold"

Take care,

Marco

Thank you Marco.

If you don't like the words "field equations" in my reply, I replace the notion by another more fitting concept yet to be found.

At any rate, I cannot yet figure out how the corrected (completed) equivalence principle that I found can be translated into a practical-to-use formalism. If you had one I would be delighted. What I found is the necessity of the global c.

Is this in any way constructive on our beginning common path?

Take care,

Otto

Dear Otto E. Rossler

I apologize for not understanding your request.

I don't know what you call glocal c. I replied against fields because you place field there, so I considered it to be something that I don't know about that is expressed in terms of fields.

Please, explain what do you mean by global c?

Thanks,

Marco

Dear Marco:

I have to apologize to you and the world that I am specializing in simple thinking -- the simplest but still essential way to understand.

I therefore returned to the cradle of it all, the Einstein equivalence principle of 1907.

I found that the ingenious three out-of-the-blue-sky findings of Einstein presented there (gravitational redshift, gravitational light curvature, visible gravitational light slow-down downstairs) stand not alone.

There is a fourth straightforward implication: optically masked gravitational size increase downstairs.

It radically changes all subsequently drawn conclusions because it restores the global validity of c as axiomatically assumed at the outset.

Take care,

Otto

Dear Otto E. Rossler

I also delved into Einstein's creation. At Einstein's time, there was only one force known - Electromagnetism. That force was a velocity dependent force. Everyone expected that Gravitation would be similar.

Einstein departure paradigm was contrived. He dressed up Gravitation with the geodesics paradigm, that is, just guessed an Ansatz metric, derive the geodesics and make them to match Keplerian orbits on a limit.

There is nothing fundamental on doing so. For that reason, there is no fundamental knowledge to be gained from exploring it. In other words, Einstein didn't have SuperHuman Wisdom built into his equations. I say that not because I have any ill-feeling towards Einstein but because his paradigm is precluding us from accepting the self-evidence Reality = that the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.

Einstein's equations cannot accept that as a solution!!!! Hence they are wrong.

To facilitate people acceptance of Reality, I showed that the preponderance of evidence points towards that. Melia R_h=ct fares better than L-CDM in explaining Planck CMB survey results. Short distance Hubble constant of 72 km/s/mpc implies a Universe of 13.58 GY old and measuring 13.58 GLY radius.

That allows me to predict all SN1a distances:

In addition it allows me to derive all Laws of Nature and they look exactly as one should had expected. The Law that describes Gravitation has the same form as the Law that describe Electromagnetism. The only difference is that Gravitation is epoch-dependent and Electromagnetism is not.

gravitational redshift, gravitational light curvature, visible gravitational light slow-down downstairs

All these are explained by the equation I provided, plus Mercury Perihelion Precession Rate and velocity time dilation. All is explained by this simple equation.

In addition, the lightspeed expanding topology falsifies Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

So, I cannot go down that Rabbit Hole with you because I have been there before..;) and didn't like it.

Cheers,

Marco

Dear Marco:

I do not want to pull you over towards my own interpretation.

But the fact remains that my understanding of the equivalence principle in special relativity does without any new axiom, while you stipulate a new one.

This may be acceptable, of course, if only not for me so far. Nevertheless I do respect your thinking a lot.

Deal?

Take care,

Otto

Dear Otto,

But the fact remains that my understanding of the equivalence principle in special relativity does without any new axiom, while you stipulate a new one.

Please clarify this statement. Which axiom..:) Poor little me only rely on observations.

WIth respect to axioms, postulates, the equivalence principle as proposed by Einstein is incorrect.

The equivalence of being in a Gravitational Field and staying in an elevator accelerating at g without paying attention to velocity is not correct.

The actual equivalence should be between falling all the way (from Infinity) up to a distance d and velocity v with an instantaneous acceleration g, is equivalent to being in an elevator and being accelerated up to velocity v with the acceleration g (the acceleration of gravity at distance d)

So, what defines the equivalence are the falling velocity, position and local acceleration.

It is not just the local acceleration to be equal to the elevator acceleration.

So two situations are equivalent if both their velocity and accelerations are identical.

Dear all, "equivalence principle" is valid for all theories that respect the conservation of energy. Nothing special!

Thank you, Joshua.

Dear Marco:

Thank you for your important reply.

The answer is no: I do not stipulate anything.

Cordially,

Otto