Hi Ody

Always refreshing to hear from you. The mathematical points you
present are well taken, and understood.

But just for a moment, let's take a look at the issue from an entirely
different perspective than the purely mathematical one. The nexus of
the discussion here is the Causal Mechanism if Gravity, right? And
you've not yet commented on whether or not you agree relativity is
purely *descriptions of effects* devoid of _explanations of
causation_. So maybe you could comment on that forthwith.

Let's address the issue of Causation from the perspective of _observed
effects_. With "math mode off" for a moment, we observe:

1. A high, fixed value of c.

2. The fact that there is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of
EM radiation.

3. The fact that the behavior of gravity appears to be that of a
pressure-driven, accelerating flow into mass, with mass synonymous
with flow sink.

4. The fact that whatever _causes_ gravity has the power to crush
massive stars down to the BH state.

5. The 'identical-ness' of all the elements everywhere in the
universe, even when out of lightspeed communication on opposite sides
of the universe.

6. The fact that the above points demonstrate a universal,
hyperpressurized, fluidic 'plemum' rather than a 'void'.

So what is the literal Causal Mechanism of the observed effects? And
it's not geometry-as-cause, 'curvature of space-time' (because again,
these are descriptions of effects), nor is gravity a pseudo force
arising out of those descriptions of effects. If it is, it's an
awfully herculean pseudo force capable of crushing stars down to a
BH.

So (with math mode off momentarily), if gravity is not exactly what it
appears to be behaves as, then what is it?

I mean, i'm open to hear it.

Respectfully,

oc