Where Einstein and I differ
What are we measuring?
I’ve been doing the numbers on my model of the potential energy field and objective gravity. It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out how to convert my geometric methods to the algebraic ones of special relativity. But, I now have a much clearer idea of how my model works, what the calculations mean, and where Einstein and I disagree. It mostly comes down to, “What are you measuring, and how are you measuring it?” Einstein, in effect, conserves velocity at the expense of momentum and energy. I conserve momentum and energy at the expense of velocity. Einstein’s choice leads to ever increasing complexity. My choice leads to more simplicity and a model that predicts behavior on the fringes more accurately.
Here is the velocity addition formula from special relativity. The “stationary” observer A watches a pirate ship with velocity (compared to A) B fire a cannonball straight forward with velocity (with respect to B) C. How fast does the cannonball appear to travel to A? Natural units are used, where the speed of light = 1.
Here is my momentum addition formula for the same scenario, but you need some background knowledge first. Units are momentum (p), which is relativistic kinetic energy (“momenergy”) when multiplied by c=1, which is simply an energy differential across a particle of fixed width. Sine is the velocity. Cosine is the subjective passage of time (Lorentz α). Tangent is the energy gradient, which equates directly to momentum, because tan = sin/cos = v/α = γv = p = pc.
So, we have a more complicated version of momentum based on energy gradients across particles with a fixed width. What does that get us?
To convert these energy gradients to velocities, we have to add a few more steps. When we’re conserving energy, velocity appears as the sine of the gradient angle.
To get the same numbers as special relativity, you need to divide B and C by the other term’s perceived time.
Isn’t my way more complicated? Yes. Don’t the numbers come out slightly different compared to special relativity? Yes. So why bother?
Doing things my way creates an intuitive model of particles moving in a field. Doing things my way preserves Euclidean space and time, the conservation of momentum, and the conservation of energy, while also preserving the observation of the speed of light as being the same in every reference frame. It shows how momentum actually works as an energy gradient across a particle of fixed width. It shows that momentum, kinetic energy, and gravity all have the exact same source - energy gradients. It shows that rest mass is a fixed and flat energy addition to a particle. It shows that a particle’s mass and kinetic energy are irrelevant to the forces acting upon it, so gravity attracts all objects equally. (The interaction of particles with each other generates the traditional force laws.) It shows how red and blue shift happen. It ensures that no massive particle can ever reach or exceed the speed of light. It eliminates both infinities and singularities. It shows that a change of reference frame is a literal rotation of a gradient angle. It shows that subjective (“proper”) time is an inherent feature of every massive particle. It shows that your perception of space and time is exactly that - your subjective perception.
It also correctly predicts a “flattening” of gravity at the low & slow regime near the edges of galaxies - something general relativity completely fails at.
Einstein created a model of how things seem to be. I have created a model that appears to show how things really are.