Two years ago, my son gave me a book on string theory. It was a layman's
style book and I read it and I found that string theory claimed to be a
go-between between QFT and GR. That it actually required both. The book
had nothing technical in it, but at the end of reading it, I found myself
asking the silly question of whether string theory would require that ALL
the dimensions were curved (ten of them now). My background grounded me
enough to not consider curled up dimensions as curved. I considered them
more like dimensions on a cylinder where parallel lines circle around the
cylinder but always remain the same distance apart. Again the book had
nothing at all technical in it.

What makes something compeling?

Well...(not yet)

I searched the internet for gravity things and starting reading this
newsgroup. Early on, I found the einsteinhoax gravity paper here and read
it. It's a slow read, and, not knowing enough about GR, I didn't know that
just about everything in it that refered to GR was wrong.

Years ago, during my senior year in high school, I had read Einstein's
original GR book. I had actually read it several times and actually recall
understanding it one of the first times (I was young). I remember being
confused on subsequent readings. I remember not understanding why it was
more confusing the second time. I remember something about getting lost
when the cosmological term was added. Since then, I have tried many times
to learn GR.

What makes something compeling?

Well...(not yet)

My apologies for the rambling. I'm not know as a writer. My school
background is in Math and Physics (double major at Cal).

On this news group, over the past two years, I've asked several questions.
I've gotten sharp answers to just about everything. So, thank you to those
that answered. The questions were formulated on a combination of my being
stuck on a concept, and on trying to keep the issues raised interesting and
possibly a little thought provoking. Hopefully, I haven't been like much of
the posters...

Anyway, I found myself reading and rereading that gravity paper. The paper
was quite intriguing. I found myself needing to either verify its accuracy
or disprove it. I found a webpage that calculated precession results
starting with the Schwartzschild metric. I converted his space and time
conversions into a metric and calculated Christoffel symbols and solved the
basic orbit formulas in the same way. There was an exact solution that was
very comparable to GR. I spent ages trying to research the radar ranging
measurements of GR. I had major difficulty finding good papers on it. For
example, I ordered the "Final Report" from NASA on two years of such
studies. In was a one page report - (reminds me of my own traditional
difficulties writing). The radar ranging and, now, laser ranging are the
best measures of gravity.

Anyway, perhaps the greatest stride in experimental gravity research has
occurred recently. A combination of measurements from the Casini spacecraft
and from Lunar laser ranging has added a second term to the PPN version of
gravity. We now have gamma=1 and beta=1 (four decimal places) - nicely
matching GR.

What makes something compeling?

Well..(not yet - at least for me)

That gravity paper I had been studying turns out not to be compatible with
beta=1. Well, that was that. Until....

Part of my approach this time to learn GR was to do it as a comparison. One
theory that I understood (but was wrong) compared to GR. My new question
was: What exactly "required" curved space? Perhaps a technical measure of
the difference between these two theories could give me some clue.
Actually, I wound up comparing just the simpler case of the PPN in a
Schwartzschild context versus the heretical theory. GR is quite daunting,
and the simplest cases often provide the most insight.

After many false starts, I finally discovered an idea for where I could
legitimately (in my eyes) put a function between the two and calculate some
of the properties of that function. I found that I could calculate exactly,
the first three terms of a Taylor's series expansion of it. I recognized,
immediately, that it matched the first three terms of that function from the
Lorentz transforms : beta = sqrt(1-u^2). And I know that there can be many
natural sources for such a term.

What makes something compeling (at least for me)?

Well... Here goes. Perhaps it's not much, but...

I had just found a function that could be called a correction term. I had
found it based on measurements from low gravity. What effect did it have on
high gravity? Well...

The heretical theory has, as part of it basics, being able to assign an
energy potential to different elevations. It used the simple Newtonian m/r
function. That function, when r goes to zero, goes to infinity. The
correction term made the function go to 1 instead. It basically clamped the
gravitational energy in a somewhat similar fashion that the speed of objects
is clamped to less than 1 (light =1). So, here I am, looking at this metric
where now, gamma=1 and beta=1 for low gravity and for high gravity, the
metric is as mathematically clean as I can imagine. The metric has the
terms (1-U)^2 and (1-U)^-2. Looking at the result, it appears that the
traditional event horizon has shrunken to a single point. There are
actually additional nice related to the metric not being based on curvature,
but rather as in the PPN, it is based on local distortions. The
interpretation is that objects actually shrink and move slower, whereas in
GR extra space is created. In GR, the space also "falls" through the event
horizon (is that a correct interpretation?). The two give very similar
relative results in low gravity, but GR cannot be embedded in a flat space.


Compeling reason number 1 (for me): Over the years, I have often used the
technique of looking at the extreme cases. It is almost always successful.


There are a number of other supporting reasons to continue the research.

Recent CBR analysis looking at the size of the variations in the CBR
indicate that, back then, the space was flat. Apparently, a single
coordinate system can cover the entire evolution of the universe.

Over the years, GR's cosmological constant has never had a "reason". It has
only recently been determined (if GR is correct), that the constant is -1.
After so many years, why was this a surprise?

A collapsing neutron star has a new cosmology to it. - Intriguing to the
exteme -. This intrigue is fully another compeling reason (for me).

So... What does one do?

I have no goal of disproving GR. My goal is to learn how gravity works,
whereever that takes me. I have gotten to my current point because of a
number of factors, much of which I have just described. The theory is
clearly incomplete. It is clearly in the "plausible" realrm. Some first
impressions (on this site these don't necessarily mean much) have turned it
down on its face without any technical support. If second impressions are
better... then that's a start for another compeling reason.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Ned Phipps

Oh,
Here's my paper (All the equation numbering is currently getting lost in the
conversion to html format; sorry about that. Also the titlebar somehow is
keeping an old title.)
http://www.sonic.net/~ajiko/Gravity/...tVersion-7.htm

ajiko wrote:
Two years ago, my son gave me a book on string theory. It was a layman's
style book and I read it and I found that string theory claimed to be a
go-between between QFT and GR. That it actually required both. The book
had nothing technical in it, but at the end of reading it, I found myself
asking the silly question of whether string theory would require that ALL
the dimensions were curved (ten of them now). My background grounded me
enough to not consider curled up dimensions as curved. I considered them
more like dimensions on a cylinder where parallel lines circle around the
cylinder but always remain the same distance apart. Again the book had
nothing at all technical in it.

What makes something compeling?

There is an objective and a subjective aspect to this question.

1) Objective: Either the theory works or it doesn't.

2) Subjective: The theory has to agree with your formal point of view.
For example, in the realm of electrodynamics, if you are convinced that
there really is a lightbearing physical mechanical medium, called an
ether, then you will probably prefer ether theories over SR. But if you
believe that such an ether (as I just described) does not exist, then
you will probably prefer SR.

However, formal points of view need not be based on metaphysics per se.
You can believe in a lightbearing medium and still prefer SR, or vice
versa, because there are a lot of varaibles one could consider, such as
simplicitiy, harmony, concinnity, beauty, etc. And there is a lot of
deep psychology that is needed to explain why we feel compelled to
accept the theories we choose. The choices that are made are not always
rational, but freedom allows it anyway.

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| ajiko wrote:
| Two years ago, my son gave me a book on string theory. It was a
layman's
| style book and I read it and I found that string theory claimed to be a
| go-between between QFT and GR. That it actually required both. The
book
| had nothing technical in it, but at the end of reading it, I found
myself
| asking the silly question of whether string theory would require that
ALL
| the dimensions were curved (ten of them now). My background grounded me
| enough to not consider curled up dimensions as curved. I considered
them
| more like dimensions on a cylinder where parallel lines circle around
the
| cylinder but always remain the same distance apart. Again the book had
| nothing at all technical in it.
|
| What makes something compeling?
|
| There is an objective and a subjective aspect to this question.
|
| 1) Objective: Either the theory works or it doesn't.
|
| 2) Subjective: The theory has to agree with your formal point of view.
| For example, in the realm of electrodynamics, if you are convinced that
| there really is a lightbearing physical mechanical medium, called an
| ether, then you will probably prefer ether theories over SR. But if you
| believe that such an ether (as I just described) does not exist, then
| you will probably prefer SR.
|
| However, formal points of view need not be based on metaphysics per se.
| You can believe in a lightbearing medium and still prefer SR, or vice
| versa, because there are a lot of varaibles one could consider, such as
| simplicitiy, harmony, concinnity, beauty, etc. And there is a lot of
| deep psychology that is needed to explain why we feel compelled to
| accept the theories we choose. The choices that are made are not always
| rational, but freedom allows it anyway.

Persuasion makes something compelling.
If you are gullible then you are easily persuaded. If not, then
nothing is compelling except your own subjectivity or objectivity.
The theory doesn't "work" because objectively,
" the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the
stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif".
String theory is built upon GR and QFT, GR is built on SR, SR is built on
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
which is not a constant velocity, it reverses direction.
Hence the theory is flawed, objectively.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...minoEffect.GIF
Androcles.

"ajiko" kirjoitti
...
Two years ago, my son gave me a book on string theory. It was a layman's
style book and I read it and I found that string theory claimed to be a
go-between between QFT and GR. That it actually required both. The book
had nothing technical in it, but at the end of reading it, I found myself
asking the silly question of whether string theory would require that ALL
the dimensions were curved (ten of them now). My background grounded me
enough to not consider curled up dimensions as curved. I considered them
more like dimensions on a cylinder where parallel lines circle around the
cylinder but always remain the same distance apart. Again the book had
nothing at all technical in it.

What makes something compeling?

Well...(not yet)

I searched the internet for gravity things and starting reading this
newsgroup. Early on, I found the einsteinhoax gravity paper here and read
it. It's a slow read, and, not knowing enough about GR, I didn't know
that just about everything in it that refered to GR was wrong.

Years ago, during my senior year in high school, I had read Einstein's
original GR book. I had actually read it several times and actually
recall understanding it one of the first times (I was young). I remember
being confused on subsequent readings. I remember not understanding why
it was more confusing the second time. I remember something about getting
lost when the cosmological term was added. Since then, I have tried many
times to learn GR.

What makes something compeling?

Well...(not yet)

My apologies for the rambling. I'm not know as a writer. My school
background is in Math and Physics (double major at Cal).

On this news group, over the past two years, I've asked several questions.
I've gotten sharp answers to just about everything. So, thank you to
those that answered. The questions were formulated on a combination of my
being stuck on a concept, and on trying to keep the issues raised
interesting and possibly a little thought provoking. Hopefully, I haven't
been like much of the posters...

Anyway, I found myself reading and rereading that gravity paper. The
paper was quite intriguing. I found myself needing to either verify its
accuracy or disprove it. I found a webpage that calculated precession
results starting with the Schwartzschild metric. I converted his space
and time conversions into a metric and calculated Christoffel symbols and
solved the basic orbit formulas in the same way. There was an exact
solution that was very comparable to GR. I spent ages trying to research
the radar ranging measurements of GR. I had major difficulty finding good
papers on it. For example, I ordered the "Final Report" from NASA on two
years of such studies. In was a one page report - (reminds me of my own
traditional difficulties writing). The radar ranging and, now, laser
ranging are the best measures of gravity.

Anyway, perhaps the greatest stride in experimental gravity research has
occurred recently. A combination of measurements from the Casini
spacecraft and from Lunar laser ranging has added a second term to the PPN
version of gravity. We now have gamma=1 and beta=1 (four decimal
places) - nicely matching GR.

What makes something compeling?

Well..(not yet - at least for me)

That gravity paper I had been studying turns out not to be compatible with
beta=1. Well, that was that. Until....

Part of my approach this time to learn GR was to do it as a comparison.
One theory that I understood (but was wrong) compared to GR. My new
question was: What exactly "required" curved space? Perhaps a technical
measure of the difference between these two theories could give me some
clue. Actually, I wound up comparing just the simpler case of the PPN in a
Schwartzschild context versus the heretical theory. GR is quite daunting,
and the simplest cases often provide the most insight.

After many false starts, I finally discovered an idea for where I could
legitimately (in my eyes) put a function between the two and calculate
some of the properties of that function. I found that I could calculate
exactly, the first three terms of a Taylor's series expansion of it. I
recognized, immediately, that it matched the first three terms of that
function from the Lorentz transforms : beta = sqrt(1-u^2). And I know
that there can be many natural sources for such a term.

What makes something compeling (at least for me)?

Well... Here goes. Perhaps it's not much, but...

I had just found a function that could be called a correction term. I had
found it based on measurements from low gravity. What effect did it have
on high gravity? Well...

The heretical theory has, as part of it basics, being able to assign an
energy potential to different elevations. It used the simple Newtonian
m/r function. That function, when r goes to zero, goes to infinity. The
correction term made the function go to 1 instead. It basically clamped
the gravitational energy in a somewhat similar fashion that the speed of
objects is clamped to less than 1 (light =1). So, here I am, looking at
this metric where now, gamma=1 and beta=1 for low gravity and for high
gravity, the metric is as mathematically clean as I can imagine. The
metric has the terms (1-U)^2 and (1-U)^-2. Looking at the result, it
appears that the traditional event horizon has shrunken to a single point.
There are actually additional nice related to the metric not being based
on curvature, but rather as in the PPN, it is based on local distortions.
The interpretation is that objects actually shrink and move slower,
whereas in GR extra space is created. In GR, the space also "falls"
through the event horizon (is that a correct interpretation?). The two
give very similar relative results in low gravity, but GR cannot be
embedded in a flat space.


Compeling reason number 1 (for me): Over the years, I have often used the
technique of looking at the extreme cases. It is almost always
successful.


There are a number of other supporting reasons to continue the research.

Recent CBR analysis looking at the size of the variations in the CBR
indicate that, back then, the space was flat. Apparently, a single
coordinate system can cover the entire evolution of the universe.

Over the years, GR's cosmological constant has never had a "reason". It
has only recently been determined (if GR is correct), that the constant
is -1. After so many years, why was this a surprise?

A collapsing neutron star has a new cosmology to it. - Intriguing to the
exteme -. This intrigue is fully another compeling reason (for me).

So... What does one do?

I have no goal of disproving GR. My goal is to learn how gravity works,
whereever that takes me. I have gotten to my current point because of a
number of factors, much of which I have just described. The theory is
clearly incomplete. It is clearly in the "plausible" realrm. Some first
impressions (on this site these don't necessarily mean much) have turned
it down on its face without any technical support. If second impressions
are better... then that's a start for another compeling reason.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Ned Phipps

Ned, you think and speak like an honest researcher. Please, read this:

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

"ajiko" wrote in message
...
Two years ago, my son gave me a book on string theory. It was a layman's
style book and I read it and I found that string theory claimed to be a
go-between between QFT and GR. That it actually required both. The book
had nothing technical in it, but at the end of reading it, I found myself
asking the silly question of whether string theory would require that ALL
the dimensions were curved (ten of them now). My background grounded me
enough to not consider curled up dimensions as curved. I considered them
more like dimensions on a cylinder where parallel lines circle around the
cylinder but always remain the same distance apart. Again the book had
nothing at all technical in it.

What makes something compeling?

Well...(not yet)

I searched the internet for gravity things and starting reading this
newsgroup. Early on, I found the einsteinhoax gravity paper here and read
it. It's a slow read, and, not knowing enough about GR, I didn't know
that just about everything in it that refered to GR was wrong.

Years ago, during my senior year in high school, I had read Einstein's
original GR book. I had actually read it several times and actually
recall understanding it one of the first times (I was young). I remember
being confused on subsequent readings. I remember not understanding why
it was more confusing the second time. I remember something about getting
lost when the cosmological term was added. Since then, I have tried many
times to learn GR.

What makes something compeling?

Well...(not yet)

My apologies for the rambling. I'm not know as a writer. My school
background is in Math and Physics (double major at Cal).

On this news group, over the past two years, I've asked several questions.
I've gotten sharp answers to just about everything. So, thank you to
those that answered. The questions were formulated on a combination of my
being stuck on a concept, and on trying to keep the issues raised
interesting and possibly a little thought provoking. Hopefully, I haven't
been like much of the posters...

Anyway, I found myself reading and rereading that gravity paper. The
paper was quite intriguing. I found myself needing to either verify its
accuracy or disprove it. I found a webpage that calculated precession
results starting with the Schwartzschild metric. I converted his space
and time conversions into a metric and calculated Christoffel symbols and
solved the basic orbit formulas in the same way. There was an exact
solution that was very comparable to GR. I spent ages trying to research
the radar ranging measurements of GR. I had major difficulty finding good
papers on it. For example, I ordered the "Final Report" from NASA on two
years of such studies. In was a one page report - (reminds me of my own
traditional difficulties writing). The radar ranging and, now, laser
ranging are the best measures of gravity.

Anyway, perhaps the greatest stride in experimental gravity research has
occurred recently. A combination of measurements from the Casini
spacecraft and from Lunar laser ranging has added a second term to the PPN
version of gravity. We now have gamma=1 and beta=1 (four decimal
places) - nicely matching GR.

What makes something compeling?

Well..(not yet - at least for me)

That gravity paper I had been studying turns out not to be compatible with
beta=1. Well, that was that. Until....

Part of my approach this time to learn GR was to do it as a comparison.
One theory that I understood (but was wrong) compared to GR. My new
question was: What exactly "required" curved space? Perhaps a technical
measure of the difference between these two theories could give me some
clue. Actually, I wound up comparing just the simpler case of the PPN in a
Schwartzschild context versus the heretical theory. GR is quite daunting,
and the simplest cases often provide the most insight.

After many false starts, I finally discovered an idea for where I could
legitimately (in my eyes) put a function between the two and calculate
some of the properties of that function. I found that I could calculate
exactly, the first three terms of a Taylor's series expansion of it. I
recognized, immediately, that it matched the first three terms of that
function from the Lorentz transforms : beta = sqrt(1-u^2). And I know
that there can be many natural sources for such a term.

What makes something compeling (at least for me)?

Well... Here goes. Perhaps it's not much, but...

I had just found a function that could be called a correction term. I had
found it based on measurements from low gravity. What effect did it have
on high gravity? Well...

The heretical theory has, as part of it basics, being able to assign an
energy potential to different elevations. It used the simple Newtonian
m/r function. That function, when r goes to zero, goes to infinity. The
correction term made the function go to 1 instead. It basically clamped
the gravitational energy in a somewhat similar fashion that the speed of
objects is clamped to less than 1 (light =1). So, here I am, looking at
this metric where now, gamma=1 and beta=1 for low gravity and for high
gravity, the metric is as mathematically clean as I can imagine. The
metric has the terms (1-U)^2 and (1-U)^-2. Looking at the result, it
appears that the traditional event horizon has shrunken to a single point.
There are actually additional nice related to the metric not being based
on curvature, but rather as in the PPN, it is based on local distortions.
The interpretation is that objects actually shrink and move slower,
whereas in GR extra space is created. In GR, the space also "falls"
through the event horizon (is that a correct interpretation?).

No - space does not move or fall.

The two give very similar relative results in low gravity, but GR cannot
be embedded in a flat space.

Not quite. You see it is impossible to tell GR from a flat space-time where
rulers and clocks happen to behave as if it was curved. So the question is
rather meaningless.



Compeling reason number 1 (for me): Over the years, I have often used the
technique of looking at the extreme cases. It is almost always
successful.


There are a number of other supporting reasons to continue the research.

Recent CBR analysis looking at the size of the variations in the CBR
indicate that, back then, the space was flat. Apparently, a single
coordinate system can cover the entire evolution of the universe.

Where do you get the idea it was flat? - it was homogeneous to a high order
of exactitude - which is not quite the same thing.


Over the years, GR's cosmological constant has never had a "reason".

Why do you say that? It was set to zero initially so that Newton's theory
resulted in the limit. Recent evidence suggests even in that limit Newton's
theory is not correct so the procedure was invalid.

It has only recently been determined (if GR is correct), that the constant
is -1.

Where do you get that from?

After so many years, why was this a surprise?

A collapsing neutron star has a new cosmology to it. - Intriguing to the
exteme -. This intrigue is fully another compeling reason (for me).

So... What does one do?

I have no goal of disproving GR. My goal is to learn how gravity works,
whereever that takes me. I have gotten to my current point because of a
number of factors, much of which I have just described. The theory is
clearly incomplete.

How so? IMHO it is a fallacy promulgated by less than careful reading of
popularizations to say GR is incomplete. See the following for the true
situation:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024

The true situation is that up to about the plank scale we have a full
working theory. It is purely a matter of semantics if you call such a
theory 'incomplete'. I prefer limited applicability rather than incomplete.
Using your terminology you would say Newtonian physics is incomplete - which
is clearly not quite what is going on. But having said that it is purely a
matter of semantics.

We know our current theories are in trouble because they require such a
large number of arbitrary constants. Those like myself that believe in the
fundamental simplicity and beauty of nature believe it can't be like that
and a better theory is lurking about - a theory with truly startling
symmetry and beauty. In that sense I would say current theories are
'incomplete'.

Thanks
Bill

It is clearly in the "plausible" realrm. Some first impressions (on this
site these don't necessarily mean much) have turned it down on its face
without any technical support. If second impressions are better... then
that's a start for another compeling reason.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Ned Phipps

Oh,
Here's my paper (All the equation numbering is currently getting lost in
the conversion to html format; sorry about that. Also the titlebar somehow
is keeping an old title.)
http://www.sonic.net/~ajiko/Gravity/...tVersion-7.htm

ajiko wrote:

[...]

Your essay contains a fundamental misrepresentation: you disclaim being
a good writer.

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"ajiko" kirjoitti
...
Two years ago, my son gave me a book on string theory. It was a layman's
style book and I read it and I found that string theory claimed to be a
go-between between QFT and GR. That it actually required both. The book
had nothing technical in it, but at the end of reading it, I found myself
asking the silly question of whether string theory would require that ALL
the dimensions were curved (ten of them now). My background grounded me
enough to not consider curled up dimensions as curved. I considered them
more like dimensions on a cylinder where parallel lines circle around the
cylinder but always remain the same distance apart. Again the book had
nothing at all technical in it.

What makes something compeling?

Well...(not yet)

I searched the internet for gravity things and starting reading this
newsgroup. Early on, I found the einsteinhoax gravity paper here and read
it. It's a slow read, and, not knowing enough about GR, I didn't know
that just about everything in it that refered to GR was wrong.

Years ago, during my senior year in high school, I had read Einstein's
original GR book. I had actually read it several times and actually
recall understanding it one of the first times (I was young). I remember
being confused on subsequent readings. I remember not understanding why
it was more confusing the second time. I remember something about getting
lost when the cosmological term was added. Since then, I have tried many
times to learn GR.

What makes something compeling?

Well...(not yet)

My apologies for the rambling. I'm not know as a writer. My school
background is in Math and Physics (double major at Cal).

On this news group, over the past two years, I've asked several questions.
I've gotten sharp answers to just about everything. So, thank you to
those that answered. The questions were formulated on a combination of my
being stuck on a concept, and on trying to keep the issues raised
interesting and possibly a little thought provoking. Hopefully, I haven't
been like much of the posters...

Anyway, I found myself reading and rereading that gravity paper. The
paper was quite intriguing. I found myself needing to either verify its
accuracy or disprove it. I found a webpage that calculated precession
results starting with the Schwartzschild metric. I converted his space
and time conversions into a metric and calculated Christoffel symbols and
solved the basic orbit formulas in the same way. There was an exact
solution that was very comparable to GR. I spent ages trying to research
the radar ranging measurements of GR. I had major difficulty finding good
papers on it. For example, I ordered the "Final Report" from NASA on two
years of such studies. In was a one page report - (reminds me of my own
traditional difficulties writing). The radar ranging and, now, laser
ranging are the best measures of gravity.

Anyway, perhaps the greatest stride in experimental gravity research has
occurred recently. A combination of measurements from the Casini
spacecraft and from Lunar laser ranging has added a second term to the PPN
version of gravity. We now have gamma=1 and beta=1 (four decimal
places) - nicely matching GR.

What makes something compeling?

Well..(not yet - at least for me)

That gravity paper I had been studying turns out not to be compatible with
beta=1. Well, that was that. Until....

Part of my approach this time to learn GR was to do it as a comparison.
One theory that I understood (but was wrong) compared to GR. My new
question was: What exactly "required" curved space? Perhaps a technical
measure of the difference between these two theories could give me some
clue. Actually, I wound up comparing just the simpler case of the PPN in a
Schwartzschild context versus the heretical theory. GR is quite daunting,
and the simplest cases often provide the most insight.

After many false starts, I finally discovered an idea for where I could
legitimately (in my eyes) put a function between the two and calculate
some of the properties of that function. I found that I could calculate
exactly, the first three terms of a Taylor's series expansion of it. I
recognized, immediately, that it matched the first three terms of that
function from the Lorentz transforms : beta = sqrt(1-u^2). And I know
that there can be many natural sources for such a term.

What makes something compeling (at least for me)?

Well... Here goes. Perhaps it's not much, but...

I had just found a function that could be called a correction term. I had
found it based on measurements from low gravity. What effect did it have
on high gravity? Well...

The heretical theory has, as part of it basics, being able to assign an
energy potential to different elevations. It used the simple Newtonian
m/r function. That function, when r goes to zero, goes to infinity. The
correction term made the function go to 1 instead. It basically clamped
the gravitational energy in a somewhat similar fashion that the speed of
objects is clamped to less than 1 (light =1). So, here I am, looking at
this metric where now, gamma=1 and beta=1 for low gravity and for high
gravity, the metric is as mathematically clean as I can imagine. The
metric has the terms (1-U)^2 and (1-U)^-2. Looking at the result, it
appears that the traditional event horizon has shrunken to a single point.