Dear Mr. Petkov,
You have been very patient with my inquiries, and I thank you for that. Without your responses, I would not have been able to provide a critical analysis of your essay in order to give credit where due as well as to provide you with my opinions and comments. We seem to have a lot in common in the way we think, although we may disagree in our conclusions. If I could choose someone to review my contest entry, it would be you. That is because you are someone like me who will leave no clue overlooked in my search to find arguments and questions with which to try to overthrow any one of the important premises I use to persuade readers to agree with my POV.
The following may give you cause to help me with that because at this time I am not in agreement with your position regarding the non-quantization of gravitation, which you have proclaimed, prematurely perhaps, to be a fact.
In response to your last post to me, you give A.E. credit for the overthrow of gravitation-as-a-force due to his invention of the "mathematical model" we call the "space-time continuum" (s-t). You see it as "proof" of A.E.'s claim that "falling bodies do not resist acceleration." I disagree that is the basis of his success, even if he did use those same words. You will see in my essay my situation is the same as the one you describe for him, and I am in a very long line, same as you. In GR, Einstein's equivalence principle "...is any of several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equivalence_principle&printable=yes
I did not say s-t is a theoretical concept; I said it is a math construct, a tool for us to study the universe in a certain way. Here is a link that claims s-t is "...any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spacetime&printable=yes
According to its "Spacetime in literature" section, A.E. "borrowed" the concept from the ancient Incas and several others in-between the year he published it. My essay shows that both time and space are not in reality interdependent, as Einstein claimed. This is a great read for those want to understand better what my essay identifies as a major issue in modern physics.
You say s-t represents a real 4d world, and I agree; it represents our real 4d universe! S-t is a mere representation - a model of reality. As for your Minkowski explanations, no matter how seriously we take s-t, it can never be the ultimate reality, as you call it. It is illogical, I daresay, to turn the world topsy turvy with claims that real objects are mere images and mere images from the world of an imaginary tool is reality. I would agree that length contraction is not possible in a 3d world, since such a world is only imaginary. The real world is of course one of 4 dimensions, and so is the tool of our choice - the imaginary s-t continuum.
It is very difficult to see that length contraction is not impossible in the real world. My essay tries to show the fact that while it is impossible for observers to experience a real time difference that occurs between two or more objects moving at different speeds, we can know it happens. Once we believe that time is a property of discrete matter and passes inversely proportional to an object's speed, we will know that length contraction exists.
My 2nd question is based on the concept of inertia. There are two types: One is the quantity based on the mass of an object, and the other is the quantity based on an object's gravitational mass. The inertial mass does not vary unless the object loses some of its mass. The gravitational mass, however, varies because it is calculated based on the strength of the gravitational forces between two objects nearing each other. Thus, a free-falling body picks up speed as it falls and accelerates uniformly. Please see: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_accn96.htm
My 3rd question was related to my 2nd question, really. It will make sense when you read the above link. Of the two links you provided me regarding accelerometers, the first was inaccessible. The second was, but it does not seem to support your posit, as it states, "For similar reasons, an accelerometer will read zero during any type of free fall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer pgs 2-3.