Thoughts go back to first discussions of TGD with Matti Pitkänen, M. Pitkanen when we disagreed on almost everything in Physics. Issues were resolved later as a difference between science and engineering. TGD was a strange old idea to me until I turned to research of deep space transport at high speed.
Polarizable Vacuum of Harold E. Puthoff seemed appropriate for deep space extreme speeds except for the lack of frame dragging. Some previous supporters were suggesting that frame dragging had been proved by study of Earth satellites. Not everyone agreed, but the consensus was sufficient that Puthoff lost supporters.
I began to add velocity terms to Polarizable Vacuum and was pleasantly surprised when frame dragging emerged from fundamentals as a consequence of high speed. Several problems appeared and were resolved. Velocity was given zero reference to CMB everywhere. A set of equations was collected from main stream science of well accepted formulas. The set was incomplete with one equation missing.
In the research it became apparent that a high speed vehicle must exchange kinetic energy with the local space time, a deviation from General Relativity standard representation. The research resorted to the 1949 Autobiographical Notes of Albert Einstein, where kinetic field energy is recommended but not achieved and to Quantum Field Theory where kinetic field energy is used but not widely accepted.
Making one popular assumption completed my set of equations leading to a solution for deep Space transport that applies whenever GR is accurate in describing space time. An assumption is not fully acceptable. Eventually I asked Matti if he had an equation of a certain type. No, but he had a slightly different equation that turned the popular assumption into one case in a set of cases. The other cases apply at such extreme energy densities that a second order solution like GR cannot describe it.
With a small number of cases to choose from and some idea of when to choose one or another, a set of solutions emerged for deep space transport within the modified Polarizable Vacuum theory. Frame dragging appeared in the solutions as stress energy waves with different quantum states for different solutions in the equations.
TGD has a major feature of space time folded into sheets and layers. One of my solutions for extreme conditions predicted a local flat 4D space around the vehicle that was contained within a region of folded layers and sheets. The flat space was interpreted as a worm hole passing from one fold in the space time sheet to another taking a short cut.
Some other researchers have shown representations of worm holes that look like the hole is taking a longer distance than a sheet of space time. Others have shown a short cut from layer to layer with no discussion about how the higher order curvature comes from second order GR.
Much is written about worm holes and the energy to create them, with little mentioned about the geometry they pass through.
What Geometry Does Space Time Have If A Worm Hole Is A Short Cut Distance Or Time?
Jerry Decker Hi Jerry! Have you seen the Carlip paper on gravitational aberration?
Article Aberration and the Speed of Gravity
The argument is essentially that while gravitational dragging (=velocity-dependent gravitomagnetic effects) is unavoidable, and seems to suggest that moving objects ought to be "braked" to a local preferred frame in which the background stars are on average stationary, the existence of a gravitational aberration effect ought to make moving bodies speed up, with a forward free-fall acceleration towards the region where the starfield seems densest.
While both effects are unavoidable under GR, they were both manually overridden by theorists until the 1990s on the grounds that they both broke Newton's First Law.
However, taken together, they mutually cancel, creating Newton's First Law.
So while your theory may seem to have a local preferred frame, if you take into account gravitational aberration, you might find that it's actually fully relativistic! :)
----
As far as I know, the standard work on wormhole geometry is still Matt Visser's book:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TYBrQgAACAAJ
Thank you Eric Baird
The LIGO program has detected gravity waves arriving within the hour of gamma burst with directional triangulation for common source of both and timing of arrival at three detection sites after millions of years travel through space.
I believe you are suggesting that relativity provides a way that kinetic energy can reside in a local field without a zero velocity reference frame. This might be true, or at least be made true by model construction.
Kinetic field is fairly simple in many cases because of symmetrical sources and simple shapes. These lend them selves to relativity. More complicated shapes start to stretch the claims of relativity, but do not conclusively demand a zero reference for every researcher.
Weisskopf claimed CMB to be fundamental, while Peebles only claimed it to be convenient and not forbidden by relativity. I use the CMB reference with a belief that it is fundamental, and a proof that it is convenient, but no need to prove the fundamental.
Before CMB discovery and even now some researchers reject kinetic field on ground that a stress energy curvature of zero is flat space and could in principle me measured. Some simple examples allow relative observed flatness locally but large scale cosmology of complicated structures seems to need large numbers of observers who do not agree in their observations.
I have bypassed the objections by providing a zero reference that is not forbidden by relativity.
Arguments seem to change overtime. First it was said that kinetic fields do not exist because of not having a zero velocity reference for flat space. The claim was and still is that the kinetic energy resides in the physical object. Then it was claimed that relativity doesn't need a zero reference for kinetic fields after one was provided.
Einstein gave the example of magnetic field which is a kinetic energy in a field, without arguing the zero velocity question, which he didn't need to do in simple cases. Now complicated constructions of magnetometers are used to test general relativity.
Niels Bohr argued with Einstein about rotating objects. The point is that a rotating object collection of parts connected together through strain gages will have a centrifugal force between the parts depending on the speed of rotation and direction of the axis. Objects like apace craft can rotate on three axes at the same time largely proving the claim of Bohr that there can be an absolute zero rotation about any axis.
A collection of such objects in random orientation with their strain gages makes a strong proof for absolute rotation. Then arguments against absolute translation become rather weak since it is the same relativity theory making claims in both cases.
I choose a convenient universal reference frame for zero velocity which is allowed but not required in relativity. In some ways velocity and passage of time are more fundamental than distance which is calculated. So I make my reference frames of velocity components with clocks attached.
Thanks again for your reply.