Strange

Your argument is pretty incoherent and your notation unclear but you have not prove that this "t+r(t)" does not potentially become infinite. (Which obviously is can do). Therefore, you have not solved the halting problem. Why you think black holes are relevant is beyond me. You don't seem to understand that mathematics is an abstract, formal system and has nothing to do with the universe or black holes (or even actual computers). So we are back to unsupported claims.

It has taken you 9 years to explain what your idea is. But thanks. Can you show the proof of that? I can guess there might be an alternative proof of the Halting Problem where you show that it requires an infinite number of layers. But I can't imagine how you could solve the halting problem. You have made all sorts of claims about what you can do, but so far these just seem be assertions (ie. with no support). Logic in philosophy is a formal system, a branch of mathematics, so I would like to see some more support for your claims.

! Moderator Note We would prefer you posted text rather than unnecessary images likes. For accessibility reasons, if nothing. Also you should provide a source for information like this

Exactly. The concept of spacetime in GR is just a mathematical model. Just like the electromagnetic field. Questions asking if spacetime "really" curves or if the electric field "exists" are irrelevant. These are useful tools (useful because they work).

Because the only way that you can have the same conditions globally is with an empty universe that has uniform curvature (which must be either flat or positive). Which isn't relevant to what you are trying to model.

How about calling it what it is: an analogy. The trouble is that analogies can be very powerful to illustrate a specific concept. But they break down when applied more widely or when you try and base new ideas on them. An obvious example is the "rubber sheet" analogy for GR. Some people just accept it for what it is. Others ask (very perceptively) "but if the dents in the sheet cause gravity then what is pulling the objects down to make the dents." See, the analogy has broken down. So, yes, you can draw an analogy between the Newtonian equation for gravity and Coulomb's law. But if you try and got beyond that simple analogy, you run into problems (gravity only attracts, while similar charges repel, and so on). Similarly, you can draw an analogy between refraction and gravitational lensing. But they are not the same thing. If you are unable to understand the difference between an analogy and science, then maybe you are right. You will never learn. How many years have you been flogging this particular horse, while everyone tells you it is already dead? How much real science could you have learned in that time? How much excitement of gaining knowledge have you missed out on? It is sad that you have let yourself become obsessed by one mistaken idea that stops you learning anything new. I shall suggest that this thread is closed.

Geometry. There is no "thing" that curves. It is purely about what we measure. You are the only one assigning attributes to it.

Lack of context? Comparing apples and oranges? Political bias? Strawman argument? Take your pick.

Unless you have a medium that has no detectable properties at all (i.e. disappears when approached with Occam's Razor) and is only there because it makes someone feel more comfortable (see also: Lorentz Ether Theory).

There is a paper here on the effectiveness of lockdown in China and HK, and how increasing travel and activity afterwards doesn't necessarily result in further growth as long as other precautions exist (*) https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-81 (*) At least, I think that's what it says!

As countries in Europe have only just started relaxing restrictions, I guess we will know the answer to that in a couple of weeks.

It was a bit of hyperbole. But it is common to present the evolution of species from as a tree structure with each species branching from common ancestors. This picture is complicated because as well as this "vertical" transfer of genes from generation to generation, there is also "horizontal" transfer between individuals of different species. This is, maybe, more common among bacteria and other single celled organisms (and even viruses) but it happens at all levels. So we have genes we have acquired from viruses. Which they may have got from some other organism they infected in the past. And, in some cases, those genes have really important functions. And then there are higher level borrowings, like chloroplasts in plants and mitochondria in animals that probably originated as separate organisms that became symbionts and then fully part of the organism. So it is not a tree of life, but a complex graph or network.

Today I learned that orbits in more than 3D space are unstable. Dramatically so once you get above four spatial dimensions:

You need to be more specific. Can you give an example of a “rumour” you are interested in?

Today I learned that not only do cells incorporate retroviral RNA and pass it on, but they can exploit the retroviral genes for various functions. There is one that is essential for creating long-term memory and has been tamed, to produce virus like particles synapses. This allows one neuron to control protein synthesis in another neuron at the opposite side of its synapses. But also, some viruses have developed from retrotransposons (DNA sequences that can copy themselves around the genome). And retrotransposons have come from retroviruses. Forget that "tree of life" nonsense.

Well, one can use Newtonian gravity in most cases for simplicity. The OP's model cannot even reproduce Newtonian gravity so its simplicity is irrelevant.

That is why it would be much better if you did some math and derived, for example, [math] F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/math] from your model. Or, even better: [math] R_{\mu \nu} - \tfrac{1}{2}R \, g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G }{c^4} T_{\mu \nu} [/math] Then we would know you had an accurate and useful model.

It is much less accurate than our current theory of gravity. No. But it gives the wrong results and then you start inventing ways of trying to correct for that. Unlike GR where the correct result (to a very high degree of accuracy) falls out of the the theory. Why? It obviously doesn't work. And we have a theory that does. What "material" do you think 1 kilometre is made of, or one second?

So you are taking some bits of GR and getting the wrong results. Then guessing that you might be able to patch this up somehow, possibly using other bits of GR. I can't see any insights here. I have no idea what that image shows nor what calculations you have done. But you are getting wildly inaccurate results. And you still haven't demonstrated that you can derive [math] F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/math] (or anything else) from your idea. So you are just making up ad hoc excuses to try and fudge your results. Then I suggest we just stick with GR. You are not contributing anything useful.

But you haven't calculated anything for massive particles. All you have calculated is the wrong value for lensing.

I would like to see some concrete evidence that your idea can model gravity. For example, deriving [math] F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/math] or [math] r_s = \frac{2 G M}{c^2} [/math] using your model. The only result you have come up with so far is wrong. This is just bizarre. You start from the fact that GR predicts gravitational time dilation to develop a theory that replaces GR (which would therefore invalidate your initial assumption). Then, when your model gives the wrong result, you use the correct result from GR to try and work out how to use other effects from GR to fudge your result so it looks correct. As GR is so useful as the starting point of your model, for checking the result of your model and then coming up with a way of fixing the results of your model ... why not just use GR?

Which is, therefore, wrong. Consider your hypothesis falsified. Time to move on. And you still haven't shown that this can act as a theory of gravity.

! Moderator Note Can we stick to the topic of the thread please: which is rjbeery's "causal mechanism for gravity"

You still have not shown how this can produce the effects of gravity. Not even the simple Newtonian model. Are you going to do that? Or is this all just guesswork? Second, you haven't provided a "causal mechanism" because you have simply invoked an analogy. If this process actually happens, then what is the cause? (The theory you reject provides a cause, can you?) You haven't "shown" any of these things. You are just making baseless assertions. Unless you can actually show that this analogy reproduces something vaguely similar to gravity, I think this thread has become pointless. How about just showing that it can recreate gravity? Or admit that you can't and then we can all go home.

The difference is relative. It is not symmetrical as in the case of relative velocity. And it is definitely not absolute. When Einstein realised that the tools in his toolbox were inadequate he went and studied differential geometry and tensors. You need better tools.You can't cut fretwork with a mallet. Apparently people have been explaining this to you for years, with mathematical justification, but you just won't accept it.