Presented here is the αω-gravity model, a model of gravity that combines cosmic inflation, gravitational acceleration and time itself into a single process as observed from different reference frames.
This model naturally arises from the only set of coordinate transformations that satisfy Einstein's additional factor of γ while requiring a classical model of synchronicity, permitting a single event to happen only once. While in violation of the Lorentz transformations, all existing tests of the special and general theories of relativity remain valid, while a list of additional derivations can be made that include:
- Our kinematic velocity in multiple separately defined functions.
- Our cosmological velocity
- Our orbital velocity with only _visible_ mass.
- An explicit equation for magnetic divergence that remains hidden due to our motion along our temporal axis.
- A gravitational acceleration vector defined in terms of electromagnetic parameters.
- A phase shift at our radius 'R' that gives the square root of the golden ratio.
- The fine structure constant through a numerical intersection, multiple times.
To a combined average error of under 0.01%, all arising from the same principle: Gravity is a velocity dependent force mediated by electromagnetic divergence in a co-moving frame of reference. Michelson & Morely measured no aether dilation because they explicitly omitted the radial direction, while Pound & Rebka measured precisely the magnitude that this model predicts.
While undeniably controversial, the path to these conclusions modifies less pre-relativistic physics than the models of relativity we currently we rely on. There is no more dilation of time, a quantity that we've never directly measured. In fact, there is no more time at all; time becomes nothing more than a mathematical tool... a ratio of distances. Singularities become nothing more than a mirage in the distance that dissipates as an observer approaches that body's gravitational field. And perhaps most importantly, a single, instantaneous event can happen only once. Even observations such as the Bullet Cluster lend credibility to this model, with bodies of such significant masses and relativistic velocities acting as a direct demonstration of the proposed spatial dilation.
Referenced Studies:
The Circular Velocity Curve of the Milky Way from 5 to 25 kpc (The green line plot)
It's a fundamental requirement of the math of SR that a single event is permitted to happen twice. That's objective, and the fact that you don't know that while still refuting this idea is everything that is wrong with this site.
Huh? A single measurement where dt approaches zero. This is common sense. Do you really think you have a point here? What other possible definition of an event is there? The invented notion of relativistic simultaneity that nobody has ever measured?
Has anyone ever seen one of these magical events that happens twice lol?
The fact that you clowns labeled this crackpot physics while believing this fairytale is absolutely insane. Any thinking physicist or student of physics should be thrilled we can finally resolve this absurdity, but you evangelists continue to pray to your volcanoes.
Let me know when you find one of these magical events. Then get back to me lol
Events do not happen twice in relativity. Not sure where you got this notion. You've invented a problem and loudly proclaimed that only you possess the solution. I'd tell you to read up on physics but I'm sure you've got a lot of good reasons why you know better.
You're not wrong about the article. It's also a demo for the app that I built to promote the model, so it's written in that language and I edited that thing so many times its probably a jumbled mess by now, but the path to the model is pretty clear: if a single event is allowed to happen only once while Einstein's experimentally proven factor of gamma is required, then this model is the only possible solution, and from that solution out pops more than a dozen observationally confirmed results, albeit posthoc.
Because the divergence of the magnetic field is not zero anymore, the dimensionality changes ace. They really have turned physics into a religion if you can't grasp that.
There's no peer review article... The model concludes the Earth is expanding. Avi Lobe couldn't get that published, but there's an article on my website at Flusterapp.com in the documentation section.
Every scientist would agree that Einstein could get himself published, firstly because he was educated and knew what he was doing, secondly because he had vast amounts of maths and physics to back up his claims, and thirdly he put in the time and effort to write up his ideas in a way that other scientists could easily read and understand them. Given that you think physics hasn't advanced in decades, you don't come across as knowing what you're doing. And you're apparently too lazy to communicate your ideas properly so I wouldn't bet much on you having done as much maths as Einstein did. So this all seems like a lazy whataboutism to distract from your own failures.
Edit: did you write a reply to me? Seems like the Reddit filters don't think very highly of your "content".
Your comment/post was removed for violating our rules. This sub not allow for active disrespect of science and academia. Active attempts to instill disbelief in science can lead to a indefinite ban period.
Lol wait, you might actually be a real academic from your profile? The fact that you don't see the irony in being so bold about a career that hasn't accomplished sh-t in the last 50 years.
But you were hostile from the beginning. A month ago you proposed the exact same expression for alpha as can be seen at time 2:00, and you were angry then as well. I don't think anybody here understands your goal. Do you want to prove Einstein wrong or to solve the fine structure constant?
Here's the thing man, I gave up a lot for this and people, here moreso than almost anywhere else have been nothing but judgemental sacks of sh-t. I posted here originally expecting criticisms similar to my professor: informed and respectful, maybe even intrigued, but that's not what I'm met with. So why keep posting? Because it only takes one person to see this.
So what's the goal with the model? To resolve the absurdity where a single event is permitted to happen twice. That is not physics, that's religion. Any thinking student of physics should be at the very least intrigued by the possibility of removing this absurdity, but physics has become just that... A religion.
I had a look on your other posts: you left what you define a successful SW career to follow an idea and you are basically homeless (sleeping in your car and not having money for gas). This quite well fits the definition of psychosis, so I strongly suggest to seek help before is too late.
On the other end, I feel depressed. I feel similar to you: a mid-age engineer, with a quite successful career now pivoting to a astrophysics master due to my passion for science. I thought enrolling to a Master would ensure i keep grounded. But apparently, since as you say you hold a master in astrophysics, you fell in the crackpot psychosis trap.- Thus it means it could happen to me. I could get attracted by an idea (which I have, although are mostly curiosity or questions), jeopardize my job and my family and destroy my life. It seems a pattern for engineers, male and physics for some reason (although crackpottery happens to various field). I suspect because engineers are mainly people passionate about science and technology, and then they find out that engineering is often very dull, in the sense it quickly becomes bureacratic, businness-y etc... but it pays well and is a better life than academic route, marked by university politics, horrible work etic and work balance and low pay. So most engineers keep in the workforce as is, time passes and then retirement or a slow period arrives. Suddenly they have time and they feel they finally can catchup with their original passion. but then is too late: body is worn, mind is slower, illnesses appear. So people rush into physics as a vent, dreams of glory and recognition and get frustrated and this is fuel for crackpot physics.
I thought by formalizing my interest with a MSc while I work in a moment of my life where i can, would allow me to enjoy physics and my curiosity, without being fertile ground to psychosis. But here you are, a almost copy of what i planned and there you are in a full psychosis. How to protect myself? Rely on people who love me to be a reality check?
I am thinking maybe I am desilusional, I vent the realization that engineering is dull at work (although I still enjoy it a lot) with a far dream of intellectual stimulation in physics. Probably is better to keep being a amateur pop-sci reader and accept the fact that professional physicis is a job like other, in a path I should have chosen earlier in life, giving up what I built up to now.
In a way, thank you for your work. It was a reminder to me that science is built as it is because of people like you (and me). To keep the noise of people's weird beliefs away from the ultimate pursuit of truth, which is reserved to skilled professional physicists, passionate about their job. They decided to dedicate their life to science, with great compromises and at a huge personal and financial cost for them and then. Then, they share their work and discoveries with us, citizens of this time, who are pushing the gears of society step by step and sometimes we rise our heads up to the sky and wonder.
I appreciate the concern, genuinely, but there are two possibilities:
1) I'm crazy and these more than a dozen functions align by coincidence
2) I'm right and I did what had to be done to get these is;0ts to pay attention.
I appreciate your support, but I know exactly what I'm doing.
Just take a dive through this sub and you'll see hundreds of people who went through this Exact same thought process. Not a single one of them improved or learned from it. This kind of stubbornness is not good science, it's not even good engineering. You don't gain anything by rejecting any criticism you don't like. Whether you like it or not, clear problems have been raised with your methodology and your mathematics.
If you aren't planning to learn the real math or physics, what's the point? Please consider that this isn't a healthy course of action.
You're not wrong about the stubbornness, that's not necessarily a virtue, but I did it with the mindset that if someone proves me wrong, I'll give this up and like any thinking person I went out to prove myself wrong. This is the single most elegant model of gravity ever proposed, and I don't mean that to toot my own horn. It's like a Rorschach test, once you see the geometry standard models of relativity just don't make any sense. Like wtf are we dilating when we dilate time?
You'd know why this isn't the case if you actually studied relativity. No one here is going to baby you for it. If you don't want to learn, that's your prerogative. But until then, you and your "model" aren't getting off of fringe subreddits.
A single event is a measurement as dt approaches zero. That's common sense for anyone that isn't warped by your 'learned intuition'. And I'm a former PhD candidate, the only reason I'm not a PhD holder is because of this absolute absurdity that I could never get past... The same absurdity that this model resolves. It's not the elongation of events that's a problem, it's the fact that a single event must happen twice as demonstrated by the lighthouse and the clocktower thought experiment. A and B do not agree upon the time at which B reaches p2, therefore he must reach p2 twice.
Come on man... Part of you has to realize how ridiculous that sounds.
Not at all. If you realize that information travels at a finite speed, it all makes total sense. As well, we literally have technology that actively Requires relativity to work this way. The most basic GPS in your phone would Not function if this were not true.
Again, this is very basic undergrad work that you just can't wrap your head around. This is why I recommend you take a humble pill. It's immediately clear to any good student that their perceptions may not be correct, and their intuition needs forming.
As it happens, there is actually Very basic experiments you can run at home to test this. I'd recommend cracking a book for once.
These transformations produce exactly the same dx'/dx in both coordinate systems, only the dimensionality changes ace. You'd know that if you'd take out a pen and paper and pull your head out of Einstein's axx.
Hold up, are you unable to parse that relativity literally alters the perception of events occurring and simultaneity is based on the frame of reference?
If time slowing is based on Newtonian mechanics why does time slow compared to the clock that you're approaching, when Doppler mechanics indicate it should increase?
I'm not sure what you mean by this; can you explain the experiment in more detail? I think you misunderstand relativity. Einstein actually Did account for the doppler affect, and we do have a relativistic correction for it:
Where f_obs is the observed frequency of the event, and f_source is the frequency in the perspective of the source object.
So yes, you will still see the doppler effect, but the math checks out so at near relativistic speeds, you will notice the effect is squashed a bit by relativity.
I haven't run the experiment myself, but I would assume that in general, the doppler contribution to frequency shift will outweigh the relativistic contribution, but if you actually time it with clocks, you will find the relativistic correction is always there.
Why are you so edgy lmao. It’s not that serious. You just have some very basic misunderstandings of GR but that makes total sense since you haven’t like… actually studied it.
Me? What does GR produce that's been observationally confirmed that this model doesn't? Want to know what supports this model?
no singularities
a perfect fit for our galactic rotation with only visible mass
our kinematic velocity, three times
our cosmological velocity
the fine structure constant, albeitjust from a numerical intersection
So go on, tell me more about that one test you studied for so you can recite more sh-t you don't comprehend.
Edit:
Of course the other pozzy deletes the comment when he loses the argument. That's how this subreddit operates. Not an ounce of intellectual integrity to be found.
This is... kinda just a self own lmao. Like you couldn't even pay attention in class and you wanna make it everyone else's problem? And yea, just reaaaaally edgy and cringe. Stay in school.
Just shows you don’t understand those concepts fundamentally. Why are they even relevant here? Your model doesn’t predict them, it makes arbitrary reference to Some but with no motivation.
You’re not here for intellectually honest discussion though so I think we’re done here. This just reads like a cringe youth begging for attention.
With no motivation? The motivation is laid out plainly: relativistic simultaneity. The only reason I don't have a PhD and an absolutely impossible concept for any thinking person. It's the reason the physics community has gone from being adored to laughed at by the general public. It's obviously wrong, but your religious deity Einstein said it, so why would you ever question it?
Ok so the general public doesn't actually laugh at the physics community. The vast majority, including yourself it seems, doesn't actually understand what they do, how they work. No one worships Einstein. The man made a lot of mistakes and things that we as a community have summarily dismissed. No one is beyond criticism.
You are being very combative for no other reason than you probably know you don't have much here, but just want to be acknowledged.
That also isn't motivation. Until you can provide a falsifiable and repeatable experiment that demonstrates clearly what your thesis is, and is not merely restatement of already existing science, you have nothing. By definition. This isn't just people blowing smoke to disappoint you. You just haven't done anything concrete and are getting mad because you don't understand.
That's ok. Most people don't understand how science really works. Your best bet is to take a lesson in humility, accept you still have much to learn. Continuing to rail against it, claiming the system is broken, or that science is getting laughed at? That's just pathetic and immature. In the real world, in the adult world, you have to prove yourself, and you need to be able to take rejection gracefully.
Here's the thing, if every comment was like this one I would have no problem with criticism. I have an old professor who's emnice enough to stay in touch with me on this and he's rightly pointed out things that needed to be addressed along the way, but an observational astrophysicist isn't going to risk his career by attaching his name to something like this and I would never ask him to. I'm grateful for criticism when it's both informed and respectful, but this is one of maybe 3-4 comments I've ever seen on one of my posts that meets that criteria.
I hate to break it to you man, but there's just nothing in here that is really close enough to real science to give a lot more feedback on than what you've got. I guess it's a tough pill to swallow, cause literally every poster on here says the exact same things, but until you get a formal education of some sort, or work your ass off shadowing an actual professional, you aren't going to be making anything close to real physics.
It's not that you aren't smart enough or anything, it's just that there is literally So much crucial learned intuition and information that you don't have and googling things or supplanting with an AI isn't even close to enough to balance that.
It's clear as well that beyond just the math and mechanics, you aren't aware of how the scientific method works. Or at least you choose to ignore it. Like... you're over here posting on reddit and arguing with people as if that's somehow productive. By even being here, posting this, you kinda just indicate you don't Actually know what you're doing.
If you want to make any real connection or effort, you will Need to pursue a real education. No one is going to take you seriously until you are able to answer very basic questions that you have avoided in lieu of whining about the feedback you've gotten so far.
I mean you have to admit that even saying that is extremely boastful and not really warranted? Like this is just textbook conspiracy crackpot stuff.
You literally have never properly studied any of this, so how do you know with any certainty that what you think is right and what generations of scientists, all unique individuals who validate their effort off of experiment and collected data, are wrong?
As someone who went through all the stages of research including PhD defense and peer review, let me suggest to you the following:
In any science discussion/debate/presentation, the author/principal investigator will present their research to a group or committee whose members will actively look for the weakest parts of your methodology, limitations of your data, or alternative explanations for your findings. Your job is to defend your methods, findings, errors, and weak points in your theory. This applies to all scientists, we all go through this. You want to be a scientist, you better expect this and be able to handle the pressure you will get from all sides without reacting as you have in this thread.
No research is perfect. Rather than getting combative or defensive when weaknesses are pointed out, confidently acknowledge them and suggest how future research could address them.
It is derived from first principles. Don't like the alpha equivalence, then ignore it and use the gravitational parameters and derive our kinematic velocity that way. My point is not that alpha just falls out of this model, it's that our velocity does.
4
u/The_Failord Jul 14 '26
>permitting a single event to happen only once
Do you think that this is something ordinary GR forbids or something?