You just referred to algebra as "kindergarten math." This is the same math you earlier claimed you'd need to get a computer science degree to do.
You also appear to think the paragraph above is sufficient to meet the need for mathematical equations sufficient to overthrow relativity.
I love how when asked to provide the equations yourself they're too difficult for modern technology, but when you're asking someone else to do your work for you this incredibly difficult math transmutes through alchemical means into "kindergarten math."
So, what inputs should I feed into the Lorentz Equation and what outputs should I be getting? You seem to think that name dropping equations is enough to support your theory. It's not. You have to actually show your work, compare and contrast, provide concrete experiments that could demonstrate the accuracy of your theory.
You keep asking me to do the work you should have already done to support your theory. If I actually sit down and do that, I'm gonna publish my own damn paper with the actual equations. Since you've done none of the actual work to support your theory your contribution at this point has been a vague idea. I doubt it would even be worth mentioning you in my paper.
You are absolutely right...
During many years I was not sure, or rather confused, - whether the full range of the theory would have any impact of GR. As I wrote before, the theory has its own logic. I can only follow the main thread (so good I can) to see where it leads me..
Since I realized the necessity to add GR modification to the theory few months ago I was not quite happy with it (so fare). – I knew some understanding (and maybe math) was missing.
A few months I thought it would to be very complicated to program software that could combine modified GR effect and Newtonian orbit math. But these last few days I considered if there was an easy way to tackle this, - and yes it is.
So I reconsidered the mathematical consequences of GR modification the last few days. I have to say I overlooked a simple consequence, even though I many years was fully aware of that this must mean a modification of Newtonian Gravity (which I now see is enough to throw “ the curvature of space speculation” - on the junkyard) ..
Serveral years I just simply forgot to implement that simply fact to the consequences of the theory.. lazy? - no, - the theory have so many thread, if was long time focused on some of these thread but not all.
Shortly spoken the theory have different angles of perspective, and therefore today when it is crystal clear to me that there are at least 2 approaches to why a modification of GR is necessary , it will off course also be easier to communicate what the necessary modification of GR is about.
Understanding is important, - therefore before going any further red this..
‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.
B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.
We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process.
Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.
Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..
This thought experiment was written here at the forum , several time, first time for I think 7 years ago, - and now it shows this is the easiest way to explain why the so called "curvature of space" is not necessary and also not the cause of gravity..
I believe you can already understand which mathematical consequences this will have.. as well why objects approaching close to a heavy object will speed up more as expected. ?
If not let me guide you, - a simple modification to Newtonian math is necessary – because the ruler is a proportional relativistic variant.
And this will be pretty simple math, - so no advanced software is necessary.
