THE WRESTLING THAT KILLED PHYSICS

http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/...relativity.pdf
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?
Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy
period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. (...) I shall not
rehearse Einstein's arguments here, but it led to the radically novel
idea that, once one physically defines simultaneity of two distant
events relative to one inertial frame of reference, it by no means
follows that these two events will be simultaneous when the same
definition is used relative to another inertial frame moving with
respect to the first. It is not logically excluded that they are
simultaneous relative to all inertial frames. If we make that
assumption, we are led back to Newtonian kinematics and the usual
velocity addition law, which is logically quite consistent. However,
if we adopt the two Einstein principles, then we are led to a new
kinematics of time and space, in which the velocity of light is a
universal constant, while simultaneity is different with respect to
different inertial frames; this is also logically quite consistent."

In 1905 Einstein still did not know that a 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn when individuals similar to Einstein
forget to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly":

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Einstein had known this breathtaking story, he could have used it
to vindicate the outcome of his painful wrestling (instead of
referring to the relativity of simultaneity) so much later John
Stachel would have written:

John Stachel: "It is not logically excluded that the 80m long pole
cannot be trapped inside the 40m long barn, even if Einsteinians
forget to reopen the doors of the barn pretty quickly. If we make that
assumption, we are led back to Newtonian kinematics and the usual
velocity addition law, which is logically quite consistent. However,
if we adopt the two Einstein principles, then we are led to a new
kinematics of time and space, in which the velocity of light is a
universal constant, while any time Einsteinians forget to reopen the
doors of the barn pretty quickly, the 80m long pole remains safely
trapped inside the 40m long barn; this is also logically quite
consistent."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 6, 3:11*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/...ein-relativity...
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?
Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy
period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. (...) I shall not
rehearse Einstein's arguments here, but it led to the radically novel
idea that, once one physically defines simultaneity of two distant
events relative to one inertial frame of reference, it by no means
follows that these two events will be simultaneous when the same
definition is used relative to another inertial frame moving with
respect to the first. It is not logically excluded that they are
simultaneous relative to all inertial frames. If we make that
assumption, we are led back to Newtonian kinematics and the usual
velocity addition law, which is logically quite consistent. However,
if we adopt the two Einstein principles, then we are led to a new
kinematics of time and space, in which the velocity of light is a
universal constant, while simultaneity is different with respect to
different inertial frames; this is also logically quite consistent."

In 1905 Einstein still did not know that a 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn when individuals similar to Einstein
forget to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly":

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Einstein had known this breathtaking story, he could have used it
to vindicate the outcome of his painful wrestling (instead of
referring to the relativity of simultaneity) so much later John
Stachel would have written:

John Stachel: "It is not logically excluded that the 80m long pole
cannot be trapped inside the 40m long barn, even if Einsteinians
forget to reopen the doors of the barn pretty quickly. If we make that
assumption, we are led back to Newtonian kinematics and the usual
velocity addition law, which is logically quite consistent. However,
if we adopt the two Einstein principles, then we are led to a new
kinematics of time and space, in which the velocity of light is a
universal constant, while any time Einsteinians forget to reopen the
doors of the barn pretty quickly, the 80m long pole remains safely
trapped inside the 40m long barn; this is also logically quite
consistent."

Pentcho Valev


Your problem is that you don't have any historical context in which to
place the development of the relativity of simultaneity. If you did,
you would know what the problem is with it. Instead, having read your
papers over the years, I can tell you that you go over the same ground
over and over again, never understanding the issues with which you are
dealing. It's really sad. Neither does Stachel (or Howard) have any
understanding of the history of constructivist math.

So it's like listening to two madmen talking to each other, you and
your opponents. You don't know what you're talking about, and they
don't know what they are talking about.

But I do. Here it is:

We are in the midst of a renaissance in the historiography of set
theory.
Above all, I recommend A. Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE
ORIGINS OF
THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES,' but there's also Grattan-Guinness and
Ferreiros, discussed in the paper linked below.


Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of
simultaneity:


Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical
geometry."
He thought the formulation of this point of view was his crowning
achievement,
and thought very highly of the lecture in which you can read his
discussion
of it, "Geometry and Experience." I recommend it.


Today this mathematical point of view is called constructivism or
natural
mathematics, and in his day it had three branches: intuitionism,
logicism and
formalism.


So you have to understand, first, that Einstein expressed the
relativity of
simultaneity in practical geometry. I don't see any acknowledgment of
that
in this chain of remarks. If you want to understand what he said, you
have
to understand the issues which were important to him.


From Poincare (SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS), but also from the long
tradition of
natural mathematics stretching back to Aristotle's concern over the
"paradox"
of Zeno, he adopted the idea that all argumentation leads inevitably
to
paradox. This is certainly the gist of the response to Cantorian set
theory,
hence the fame of the supposed set-theoretic 'paradoxes.'


The most important result of this concern was the idea that there is
no such
thing as logical content: arguments, if expressed in a certain way,
can
approach logical content but can never actually contain it, because,
again,
argumentation necessarily leads to paradox.


So, for practitioners of constructivism or practical geometry, the
only way
out was a compromise: construct an argument, but make it contain the
constructivist idea. That idea is that mathematics is an inherent
human
function.


For those interested in logical content, this is already so far afield
that
eyes glaze over. And it was never seen to be relevant to relativity,
because
no one was able to say how Einstein used practical geometry as a
technique in
constructing an argument. "Geometry and Experience" was seen to be a
bunch
of genial generalities with no relevance to relativity. Why were
people
unable to understand where Einstein used "practical geometry"?
Because, I
think, we share so much of constructivist mathematical thinking that
we are
blind to its presence in arguments.


In any event, you ought to know that Einstein DID use practical
geometry in
developing the relativity of simultaneity. Whatever else you may now
argue
regarding the relativity of simultaneity, you can no longer ignore
the
constructivist mathematics in it--that, now, HAS to be taken into
account.
There is an historical sidetrack to this: Einstein's use of
constructivist
math is in "disguised" form in the 1905 paper.


So, I think intentionally, he made it explicit in the "train
experiment." If
you notice, the train experiment and the clock experiments are the
same
experiment: they can be translated mechanically, one into the other.


Thus, the constructivist term Einstein inserted into the train
experiment is
also present in the clock experiment.


Remember, that in doing this, he intentionally deprived the argument
of
logical content, because he felt he had to do so. If YOU feel that
one must
do so, this will not bother you. If you insist on logical content in
your
argument, it will bother you A LOT. So it's really a matter of taste,
and
not one for debate.


As the paper below says, at one stage of the argument, point M is said
to
"naturally" (fallt zwar...zusammen" in the original German) coincide
with
point M'. (By the way, close readers of this text--translators--have
realized that this was a conceptual anomaly: they treat it differently
in the
French and Italian translations of RELATIVITY).


The logical problem with this notion is as follows:


1. if you drop the term, and M and M' coincide in traditional
Euclidean
fashion, you are led to the contradiction of assuming two Cartesian
coordinate systems and deducing one such system (I leave the proof of
this to
you).


So M and M' cannot coincide in a Euclidean way: that much cannot, I
think, be
contested and no one has ever argued that they could so coincide and
that
Einstein was saying that they did so coincide. At least, I haven't
seen any
such contentions.


2. if you retain the term, you find that it is not part of the
formulation
of the relativity of simultaneity. It is not a definition, an
assumption, a
principle, a deduction or anything else. You will look in vain for
the
logical role it plays in the argument. It doesn't play any at all.
It
simply rattles around in the argument--a loose cannon on deck.


So what is it? It is what Einstein always meant it to be: it is an
arbitrary
insertion into the argument, made necessary--according to his approach
of
"practical geometry"--in order for the argument to avoid paradox. So
Einstein did exactly what he wanted to do. However, I think we have
had an
unconscious prejudice against the lack of logical content, so we never
wanted
to think that that's what he wanted to do, or did do. But that's not
taking
Einstein seriously. I suggest you take him seriously--at least do him
that
courtesy, if you are going to pay any attention to what he says.


By the way, are there any paradoxes? That is, was there anything for
Einstein to worry about? No. Not even Zeno's paradox has stood up
to
analysis. The "logical" compulsion we feel with respect to the
paradoxes so
far proposed, is an artifact of their construction--it's their
rhetoric--it
is not a result of logical content in these arguments. They have
none. Too
bad, because they are very seductive. But that's the way it is.


This is where the new set theory history is making all kinds of
contributions.
Particularly Garciadiego is devastating with his care with respect to
the
history and the terms, showing that Richard didn't even consider his
argument
a paradox, that there is no Cantor paradox, no Russell paradox, and so
on.
They are glib sleights of hand which do not stand up historically or
logically.


So you really have to do some more work understanding the history of
math.


Another thing which is being revealed by new work into Einstein, is
how
little he probed into contemporary set theory debates. He never
criticized
anything Poincare said about those debates, although particularly
Grattan-
Guinness is scathing in his discussion of Poincare. Einstein didn't
really
know anything about the set theory which set him off on his
mathematical
approach. Very remarkable, I think--very eye-opening.


Einstein is not alone in the sloppiness with which he approached the
mathematical foundation of his argument. The Fefermans and other
commentators are amazingly critical of Godel in their remarks in the
collected works, regarding his understanding of set theory debates.


We tend to think of these twentieth-century mandarins as close
students, as
scrupulous thinkers. It turns out that they were slobs.


And of course, Cantor has been subjected to recent research which is
even
more embarrassing for his work than the many longstanding critiques.


Again, there's more to the background of constructivism than the set
theory
debates. And it has had an influence far beyond Einstein. You find
it in
Darwin, Godel, Sraffa, really everywhere. It has stood in the way of
logic
for a long long time.


Finally, you should consider where "natural" coincidence leaves us.
If we
can't get to general relativity because of "natural" coincidence, then
that
means that once again the Pythagorean theorem is at issue (it was a
resolved
issue under general relativity, for reasons you know). Does the
Pythagorean
theorem have logical content?


My feeling is, no. I think it also has a "natural" coincidence in
it. But
where?


Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and
Twentieth-
Century Ideas" (June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085

On Aug 6, 6:40*pm, jrysk wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:11*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/...ein-relativity...
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?
Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy
period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. (...) I shall not
rehearse Einstein's arguments here, but it led to the radically novel
idea that, once one physically defines simultaneity of two distant
events relative to one inertial frame of reference, it by no means
follows that these two events will be simultaneous when the same
definition is used relative to another inertial frame moving with
respect to the first. It is not logically excluded that they are
simultaneous relative to all inertial frames. If we make that
assumption, we are led back to Newtonian kinematics and the usual
velocity addition law, which is logically quite consistent. However,
if we adopt the two Einstein principles, then we are led to a new
kinematics of time and space, in which the velocity of light is a
universal constant, while simultaneity is different with respect to
different inertial frames; this is also logically quite consistent."

In 1905 Einstein still did not know that a 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn when individuals similar to Einstein
forget to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly":

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Einstein had known this breathtaking story, he could have used it
to vindicate the outcome of his painful wrestling (instead of
referring to the relativity of simultaneity) so much later John
Stachel would have written:

John Stachel: "It is not logically excluded that the 80m long pole
cannot be trapped inside the 40m long barn, even if Einsteinians
forget to reopen the doors of the barn pretty quickly. If we make that
assumption, we are led back to Newtonian kinematics and the usual
velocity addition law, which is logically quite consistent. However,
if we adopt the two Einstein principles, then we are led to a new
kinematics of time and space, in which the velocity of light is a
universal constant, while any time Einsteinians forget to reopen the
doors of the barn pretty quickly, the 80m long pole remains safely
trapped inside the 40m long barn; this is also logically quite
consistent."

Pentcho Valev


Your problem is that you don't have any historical context in which to
place the development of the relativity of simultaneity. *If you did,
you would know what the problem is with it. *Instead, having read your
papers over the years, I can tell you that you go over the same ground
over and over again, never understanding the issues with which you are
dealing. *It's really sad. *Neither does Stachel (or Howard) have any
understanding of the history of constructivist math.

So it's like listening to two madmen talking to each other, you and
your opponents. *You don't know what you're talking about, and they
don't know what they are talking about.

But I do. *Here it is:

We are in the midst of a renaissance in the historiography of set
theory.
Above all, I recommend A. Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE
ORIGINS OF
THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES,' but there's also Grattan-Guinness and
Ferreiros, discussed in the paper linked below.

Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of
simultaneity:

Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical
geometry."
He thought the formulation of this point of view was his crowning
achievement,
and thought very highly of the lecture in which you can read his
discussion
of it, "Geometry and Experience." *I recommend it.

Today this mathematical point of view is called constructivism or
natural
mathematics, and in his day it had three branches: intuitionism,
logicism and
formalism.

So you have to understand, first, that Einstein expressed the
relativity of
simultaneity in practical geometry. *I don't see any acknowledgment of
that
in this chain of remarks. *If you want to understand what he said, you
have
to understand the issues which were important to him.

From Poincare (SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS), but also from the long
tradition of
natural mathematics stretching back to Aristotle's concern over the
"paradox"
of Zeno, he adopted the idea that all argumentation leads inevitably
to
paradox. *This is certainly the gist of the response to Cantorian set
theory,
hence the fame of the supposed set-theoretic 'paradoxes.'

The most important result of this concern was the idea that there is
no such
thing as logical content: arguments, if expressed in a certain way,
can
approach logical content but can never actually contain it, because,
again,
argumentation necessarily leads to paradox.

So, for practitioners of constructivism or practical geometry, the
only way
out was a compromise: construct an argument, but make it contain the
constructivist idea. *That idea is that mathematics is an inherent
human
function.

For those interested in logical content, this is already so far afield
that
eyes glaze over. *And it was never seen to be relevant to relativity,
because
no one was able to say how Einstein used practical geometry as a
technique in
constructing an argument. *"Geometry and Experience" was seen to be a
bunch
of genial generalities with no relevance to relativity. *Why were
people
unable to understand where Einstein used "practical geometry"?
Because, I
think, we share so much of constructivist mathematical thinking that
we are
blind to its presence in arguments.

In any event, you ought to know that Einstein DID use practical
geometry in
developing the relativity of simultaneity. *Whatever else you may now
argue
regarding the relativity of simultaneity, you can no longer ignore
the
constructivist mathematics in it--that, now, HAS to be taken into
account.
There is an historical sidetrack to this: Einstein's use of
constructivist
math is in "disguised" form in the 1905 paper.

So, I think intentionally, he made it explicit in the "train
experiment." *If
you notice, the train experiment and the clock experiments are the
same
experiment: they can be translated mechanically, one into the other.

Thus, the constructivist term Einstein inserted into the train
experiment is
also present in the clock experiment.

Remember, that in doing this, he intentionally deprived the argument
of
logical content, because he felt he had to do so. *If YOU feel that
one must
do so, this will not bother you. *If you insist on logical content in
your
argument, it will bother you A LOT. *So it's really a matter of taste,
and
not one for debate.

As the paper below says, at one stage of the argument, point M is said
to
"naturally" (fallt zwar...zusammen" in the original German) coincide
with
point M'. *(By the way, close readers of this text--translators--have
realized that this was a conceptual anomaly: they treat it differently
in the
French and Italian translations of RELATIVITY).

The logical problem with this notion is as follows:

1. *if you drop the term, and M and M' coincide in traditional
Euclidean
fashion, you are led to the contradiction of assuming two Cartesian
coordinate systems and deducing one such system (I leave the proof of
this to
you).

So M and M' cannot coincide in a Euclidean way: that much cannot, I
think, be
contested and no one has ever argued that they could so coincide and
that
Einstein was saying that they did so coincide. *At least, I haven't
seen any
such contentions.

2. *if you retain the term, you find that it is not part of the
formulation
of the relativity of simultaneity. *It is not a definition, an
assumption, a
principle, a deduction or anything else. *You will look in vain for
the
logical role it plays in the argument. *It doesn't play any at all.
It
simply rattles around in the argument--a loose cannon on deck.

So what is it? *It is what Einstein always meant it to be: it is an
arbitrary
insertion into the argument, made necessary--according to his approach
of
"practical geometry"--in order for the argument to avoid paradox. *So
Einstein did exactly what he wanted to do. *However, I think we have
had an
unconscious prejudice against the lack of logical content, so we never
wanted
to think that that's what he wanted to do, or did do. *But that's not
taking
Einstein seriously. *I suggest you take him seriously--at least do him
that
courtesy, if you are going to pay any attention to what he says.

By the way, are there any paradoxes? *That is, was there anything for
Einstein to worry about? *No. *Not even Zeno's paradox has stood up
to
analysis. *The "logical" compulsion we feel with respect to the
paradoxes so
far proposed, is an artifact of their construction--it's their
rhetoric--it
is not a result of logical content in these arguments. *They have
none. *Too
bad, because they are very seductive. *But that's the way it is.

This is where the new set theory history is making all kinds of
contributions.
Particularly Garciadiego is devastating with his care with respect to
the
history and the terms, showing that Richard didn't even consider his
argument
a paradox, that there is no Cantor paradox, no Russell paradox, and so
on.
They are glib sleights of hand which do not stand up historically or
logically.

So you really have to do some more work understanding the history of
math.

Another thing which is being revealed by new work into Einstein, is
how
little he probed into contemporary set theory debates. *He never
criticized
anything Poincare said about those debates, although particularly
Grattan-
Guinness is scathing in his discussion of Poincare. *Einstein didn't
really
know anything about the set theory which set him off on his
mathematical
approach. *Very remarkable, I think--very eye-opening.

Einstein is not alone in the sloppiness with which he approached the
mathematical foundation of his argument. *The Fefermans and other
commentators are amazingly critical of Godel in their remarks in the
collected works, regarding his understanding of set theory debates.

We tend to think of these twentieth-century mandarins as close
students, as
scrupulous thinkers. *It turns out that they were slobs.

And of course, Cantor has been subjected to recent research which is
even
more embarrassing for his work than the many longstanding critiques.

Again, there's more to the background of constructivism than the set
theory
debates. *And it has had an influence far beyond Einstein. *You find
it in
Darwin, Godel, Sraffa, really everywhere. *It has stood in the way of
logic
for a long long time.

Finally, you should consider where "natural" coincidence leaves us.
If we
can't get to general relativity because of "natural" coincidence, then
that
means that once again the Pythagorean theorem is at issue (it was a
resolved
issue under general relativity, for reasons you know). *Does the
Pythagorean
theorem have logical content?

My feeling is, no. *I think it also has a "natural" coincidence in
it. *But
where?

*Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and
Twentieth-
Century Ideas" (June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085

xxein: I didn't order a word salad. Just give me a broiled lobster
with butter.

Maybe you don't understand --- which is why you are confused with
Pathagoras. Euclidean and Minkowski spaces have no real effect on
it. Neither does SR. But GR does. All your talking about math,
logic, constructivism and all the other terms you think you know
about, have no effect on how the physic works.

If GR was truly SR compliant in principle there would be no GR. GR
cannot be compliant, but that doesn't make it correct either. It is
simply a derived math to explain what we see --- NOT a description of
the workings of the physic. That is attempted by the other theories
though. Notably Q's and Strings. But they have failed in each of
their own respects also.

OK. You may deem me guilty of word salad if you want, and I am
deliberately NOT clear with it. There is a reason for that. All you
egg-heads have had a chance to guess what the physic is and you still
follow a herd instinct. I've heard of a few coming close but you
trodded them down. Well, I can't lay a complete blame for that.
After all, they missed. I was already in a position to realize that
at the time.

I'm certainly no god, but I do know something. Not in a perfect way
(I already know that --- no TOE here), but apparently beyond the
current genre of how to think about it. Despite all you might imagine
about how goofy I sound, it is all just closer to the physic.

When I started (about 23 yrs-ago), I was 24-7. That was just for
Lorentz-SR. Solved from scratch. GR and gravity required a rethink.
Iow, I had the chance of just accepting it or relying on my proven
logic to figure it out from scratch. I knew I had to go the latter
course. I went dormant for a while and actually gave it up three
times until a thought occurred to me. A stupid thought that had no
chance of working. But I tested it out, anyway.

Test 1 passed. Test 2 passed. Test 3 passed. Test n+1 passed. It
passes all known phenomenae that we can measure including BH's and the
Pioneer anomaly --- except that it doesn't quite get down to the Q
level, but that is primarily because gravity seems to vanish there.
I'm working on it though.

I don't see anybody else coming close. Did I just have a lucky
guess? If I did, it works extremely well.

Try guessing some more, rather than running with the herd.