To submit your first paper to arXiv, you may need an endorsement—a confirmation from an established arXiv author in your subject area. You can request this through arXiv or ask a qualified colleague. If you’ve co-authored papers on arXiv, you might already be eligible without needing endorsement.

I wish you the best. I tired to get a collaborator and he told me to erase all my work online but I didn’t. I saved some. He seemed not trustworthy, and he posted a paper without my name anywhere and then threatened me to take down all my stuff on here or he would call the police on me. i have a lesser dimension idea of gravity. Landauer Limit at Hawking Temp/ln(4) = general relativity gravitational energy per Planck area. This works at all scales. And because someone complained Landauer Limit was hand wavey, I came up with an equation, Energy in a Degree of Freedom, EDoF. EDoF is energy of a photon whose wavelength = object radius/137 to strip out the fine structure constant and take that number x ln(Pi)^2/ln(3) and you recover ELandauer and recover all the gravity for any sized black hole. I see ER=EPR is not wormholes. It’s horizon mechanics. A and B each in superposition require two cosmic horizon holographic bits to describe the uncertainty. Entanglement addresses holographic A and B to the same cosmic horizon address because now A has affected B and B is spin locked. When nature resolves uncertainty of an entangled spin pair by data compression, the orphaned information bit is gravity. This breaks entanglement from particle A and it’s cosmic horizon, so gravity emerges locally as proof A resolved B’a spin on A’s holographic horizon. When B is measured it conserved the now slightly smaller universe by emitting a Hawking photon. The spin equation.

(S+, E-)A -> (S-,E+)B = 0.

where the first particle of the pair is labeled A. S+ is the determinant spin, -S is subordinate spin always opposite of A. E- is the unit of gravity so A can resolve B’s spin, E+ is Hawking info and as you can see, Entropy conserves Delta S Cosmic + Delta S Local = 0. I have so much more but nobody to collaborate or sponsor me. Relative cosmic horizons solve most of the questions modern physics has posed. My model is so simple a ten year old can understand it and once I calculated field theory into a quantum bits using Landauer Limit at Hawking T and EDoF, at that point I just count bits. No more field math.

Good luck! You might be able to create some YouTube videos of your model as well. Because of your question I know your paper exists and will try to understand it. Thanks for caring enough about the universe to make discoveries without a fan club or funding from anywhere! What you have done is pure generosity. Thank you! We need more people like you, people who will not let others force down your eyes, people who will pursue truth no matter where it came from or where it will lead.

Hi William, one of the great things about posting our work online is that we can establish provenance. Whatever you do, if your work is original, don't delete it. Let whoever that was call the police, but I can assure you, the police have no authority in matters of publishing scientific ideas.

Thanks for the kind words.

Have you written a paper with complete derivations? I'm curious why you would connect an object's radius to the electron fine structure. What are the physical mechanics you envision in this?

I had a friend who asked me what can be done with the energy in a constrained degree of QM freedom, the raw spin energy for quantum logic. So I knew spin was low energy but also gravity is low energy. So then I wondered is spin energy actually a form of gravity? So after ELandauer connected so well I could tell there is a radius based informational formula for filling energy levels. The thought is this. Nature prefers to send info in a straight line, no acceleration is needed to turn a corner. But the smaller the radius the more energy you must add to keep the energy signal moving at C. The various radii fill at energy levels according to their radial placement in that system. Check out my dark matter presentation, Landauer at Curvature, it’s only a few slides and the math is super easy. I think it’s hilarious I can recover all the gravity from any black hole with not an angle G or M term. It shows EDoF closely matches to ELandauer. It’s not designed for STEM academics so forgive the primitive appearance. It’s designed for anyone who wants to know. I am curious to what you think.

The observation of energy consumption due to curvature is insightful, but it assumes space is Euclidean. In fact, in Euclidean space, energy is lost when a trajectory is altered, even slightly.

General Relativity is not based on Euclidean space; it is based on Riemannian space. In Riemannian space, the curvature relates to the fabric of space itself, not to the programming within that space, which occurs in Euclidean space.

Imagine a flexible TV screen. If you're watching Star Wars on a bendable screen and you curve it at any angle, the laser blasts will still retain their energy and hit their targets. This is a simple example, but it clearly illustrates that curved Riemannian space is not the same as curvature in Euclidean space.

The curvature of space in the case of the circular deflection angle equation should make this easy to comprehend. First, if a spaceship was following the trajectory from Earth to a distant star and passed near the surface of the Sun, you wouldn't notice the curvature at all in the ship's trajectory. It would take light years before you could notice the effect of the trajectory change. No energy difference would be noted.

Second, photons that have traveled for light years from a star on their way to Earth do not lose any energy when they curve around the Sun. Photons are massless. The only thing that changes is their straight-line trajectory because space itself is bent around the Sun. As far as the photon is concerned, it followed a perfectly straight path with no change in direction at all, hence no energy loss.

If there had been energy loss from a change in direction, it would appear in Doppler effects as the object moved from behind the Sun to the side.

It’s not Euclidean space though. Dark energy pulls things faster at greater distance. Every particle is at the center of their own universe sized relative inverted black hole. Space only appears flat locally but at distance is moving away from us. To move in space is to match recessional velocities with distant regions of your own space. Then you are in a different reference frame. The large relative inverted black hole surface is what causes dark energy. So space can’t be flat if the maximal extent of space is a gravitating event horizon. We see a distant galaxy near our cosmic horizon and it looks like our horizon is pulling the distant body away, but locally that distant galaxy sees no giant inverted black hole horizon moving them, that distant galaxy sees that it’s us who is being gravitated out of their observable universe. Locally we do not see that distant galaxy’s cosmic event horizon. Dark energy is relative gravitational energy, relative to the particle at the center that particles cosmic horizon at distance which is why distant things appear to be moving away from us, our cosmic horizon is pulling them away and their cosmic horizons are pulling us away. This is definitely non Euclidean. Check out my special relativity presenration. Here is a way to look at it. If Alice was moving at .8 towards and object receding at .7C at about 10BLY away. Alice would only be making .1C progress at first, but later she will gradually make faster relative progress as the gets closer to the distant star. At about 5 BLY left she is now moving closer to .45C and then when she finally makes it to that distant star she is making full .8C relative progress. The dark energy causes an apparent acceleration from .1C to .8C. To move is to match recessional velocities with distant regions of your own space being pulled away by Lambda. To stand still is to balance yourself against the ever stretching fabric of space time. Your clock is fastest while still because everything else is redshifting away from dark energy expanding coordinate systems. So, I agree, non-Euclidean as the coordinate system is always moving. Always stretching away. That same energy that stretches away, is the same energy used to Holographically resolve quantum spin which then appears locally as gravity. It appears as nature uses gravity to account for causal uncertainty.

I see your argument, but I disagree with the underlying assumption that space is stretching at great distances. I do see space stretching locally due to GR, but the expansion at great distances results from new matter being created locally wherever physical matter exists. New matter is made through the Casimir effect and fusion/fission processes.

The new matter made locally is measurable even in nuclear reactors. Try searching for an engineer's paper on the fuel budget of atomic reactors. There aren't any. Nuclear reactors start with a given mass of fuel, produce a given amount of energy, yet the fuel mass at the end of the cycle is greater than it was at the beginning. Matter is created in fusion/fission reactions; it is not "converted to energy."

The same happens in stars. Stars expand over time in both mass and volume. It is the expansion of matter and its volume that causes the Universe to accelerate expansion at great distances. It is as you stated, at any location in the Universe, it is the distant objects that appear to be accelerating away from all other objects.

The widely accepted stretching Universe at large scales is an assumption that is not supported by physical evidence. It is based on the belief that new matter cannot be made, and old matter cannot be destroyed. Yet, when matter enters a black hole, it does not make the black hole more massive. The size of a black hole depends on the size of the galaxy that hosts it, not on the accretion of matter over time. If black holes increased in mass over time, there would be small, nearly consumed galaxies with huge black holes, but this is not observed.