Jacek,
Copying and pasting my reply from your thread:
I read the two Vixra papers and also your essay. Although there are some minor differences, you are correct in that we certainly are speaking of the same concept. All of these are now how I also have come to view gravity and wave/particles, albeit through a different path:
"The reason of the gravity phenomenon is that the gravity force of e.g. a planet is a sum (wave packet) of many tiny spacetime deformations (elementary particles) resulting in far-reaching, but relatively weak interaction (the surrounding spacetime expansion). The gravity is not a fundamental but emergent interaction."
"We assume the matter can be created out of a force field and vanish transforming into the field and we assume not only the matter deforms spacetime. An example: electron - positron pairs are created in (and out of) the vacuum (vacuum polarization). "
"In brief: every particle (spacetime deformation) movement is a wave and every
particle is a wave (wave packet) and not: it only possesses a wave properties."
"In brief: every "massive" object e.g. the earth is a gravitational wave itself. And the
wave is not traveling outward from the source. There is no source e.g. the Earth is a
gravitational wave orbiting the Sun along the geodesics."
"The mathematics we need is partly existing and ready to use for decades because GR
and QM math are probably only special cases of the spacetime deformations theory
(being only the concept today)."
This last quote is how I view the move from Nordstroem's original equation, into the a flat metric (and its perturbations along with the question of what the Cosmological Constant is) and then into the Area Calculus modification:
Nordstroem:
[math](-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_0^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2})\phi_{Newton}=0[/math]
General Relativity:
[math][/math]
[math]g_{00}=1-2\phi_{Newton}[/math]
[math]\Lambda g_{00}[/math]
Nordstroem modified through Area Calculus:
[math](-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_0^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2})(\Lambda-2\Lambda\phi_{InvertedNewton})=0[/math]
The first doesn't seem to predict gravitational lensing, the second seems able to describe the geodesic motion of a positive density "particle" whereas the third would seem to be almost a mirror image of the second but instead describing the geodesic motion of a reduced density wave that is compatible with the theoretical value of the Cosmological Constant from QM, just as you have described. I have given you a top rating, and I hope you will also see the merit within my essay.