Hi Thanks for this post about Hotson's ideas.
Don't know about you, but to me, everything is starting to make a lot of sense. Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you can read '4th spatial dimension'. And when, "relativistically" it's said 'time dilation' or 'time contraction' it can be read as movement(or change of velocity, or that which is reflected as a tridimensional spatial distortion) along the fourth dimension. I was thinking recently that it's not enough for gravity to be explained merely as a consequence of a distortion of space. There must be a flux, because a spatial distortion can explain at most the curvature in the trajectory of _already_ moving bodies, i.e. inertial paths, but it's not enough to explain 'force', that is, the acceleration of masses inside a gravitational field. Incidentally, that also shows why GR is so flawed: the equivalence principle, between inertia and gravity, is complete nonsense, because in inertia you have absence of forces, and in gravity, presence of forces(flux). In short: GR replaces the gravitational "force"(net flux towards the fourth dimension) with time dilation/contraction, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Then, spatial distortion is merely a consequence of the flux, and we have a cause and effect relation. Incidentally: a spherically symmetrical (i.e. radial) net flux will produce elliptical paths of _inertial_ bodies, not spherical paths. That is, the elliptical path is a consequence of an inertial body inside a spherical flux. Best regards, Mauro Taylor J. Smith wrote:
