That means it is an alternative theory of physics. Relativity says that light is not bent, space time is bent. You know that, why are you pretending that what you are saying is not fundamentally different than what is currently understood in GR?
The physical effect is exactly the same. I have used relativity's alternative definition of space as light travel time (which Minkowski and Hilbert both ignored), and followed through. There is no "alternative" physics here. The "alternative" view was entirely theirs. They chose to ignore the single assumption which allows relativity to exist and replace it with an invariant 4D interval of their own so that they could work out what is only a fair approximation to the way gravity actually works, without any real bindings to physical reality. Math is a poor substitute for this, and there is simply no manner in which relativity can be worked out from the mathematical principles they tried to use. If anyone else wished to try a different approach based on what has been put forward here, I'm sure the outcome will be much different, and we will have a much better understanding of the physical universe than we currently enjoy.
rpenner finished my physics education about Minkowski rotation and also relativistic Doppler shifts without which I could not properly render a suitable critique.
Litte Bang provided the piece that was missing in terms of time dilation. It is the only measure that really fits relativistic geometry in a 'space' containing only time, bound and unbound energy in a natural way.
Q-reus helped in numerous ways, in may different threads.
Arfa Brane is awesome.
Mathman is very good.
Beer w/Straw helped me overcome some general social issues
Quantum Quack pointed in the direction of a different interpretation of entanglement, and also pointed out the only major flaw which remains in the whole idea; no explanation for either charge or relativistic electrodynamics. This is the extension which I'm certain will require the most additional work. All I know for certain about this is that electric charge is at rest, and magnetic fields are what happen when charges move, except they don't move at c as you might expect, or anywhere close to it. This could just be a side effect of the fact that the electron itself has mass. At any rate, the vector field descriptions work very well for this, and probably need much less revision than is the case with General Relativity. QQs best critique of these ideas was that as far as we are concerned, photons do not even exist without electrons. In my model, of course they do. Gamma radiation photons, for example also derive of atomic interaction much more energetic than possible with electrons, not just electron-positron annihilation.
Paddoboy and brucep were possibly of the greatest help because they kept me on task to re-examine my most basic assumptions, and stopped me from attacking the wrong individuals for all the wrong reasons. They also reinforced the fact that I knew little or nothing about mainstream cosmology, and I have been educated here on this.
Farsight and krash661 have provided some considerable encouragement and reminders of things forgotten from time to time.
If I missed anyone else who contributed, this post just hits the high spots.
Yes indeed, see you all in Stockholm.
I'm OK, truly. Like I said talk is cheap. No one here has any reason to take what you say as gospel, particularly since I have offered many reputable references showing you to be in error and of course you will never reveal what credentials you have to give any one any reason to believe you.
