Dear Peter,
Thank you for commenting on my essay. It is really nice to see several correlations in ideas. Your essay is very interesting and you have provided several good thought experiments and examples. It seems your essay has a solid set of core assumptions that are applied to a wide range of relativistic effects.
In my essay I try to define internal motion of particles as being driven by a single sustaining potential, and I tend to evaluate other ideas in relation to the essay's core assumptions. Of course, the most important thing is how well the idea fits with experiment. So I hope you don't mind if my following notes are in relation to my own thoughts instead of the standard theories. I also realize I may not fully understand your ideas, but I'll give it a shot.
I think your core assumptions are pretty well defined in your 3 axioms if I can paraphrase: Particles in space produce a dielectric controlling the speed of light; particles (even a fair distance away) essentially absorb and re-emit photons at the local c; and keeping the theme that objects are spatially extended, the third axiom is that massive bodies are surrounded by a plasma shock with its own dielectric constant.
I think your essay has a fairly unique way of looking at relativity. As I compare it with my essay's core ideas I do think you have captured some of the same flavor. On the changing speed of light, I see a particle as pure motion with its mass determined by the internal velocity being driven by a sustaining potential giving the idea that photons and massive particles are nearly the same (somewhat like Jason Wolfe's idea of everything made from photons). A secondary potential (electromagnetic-gravitational) is produced extending away from the particle that ends up controlling the local speed of c. Surprisingly your idea of an object being spatially extended and controlling the local c is quite similar. My equations seem to indicate the absolute speed change is small (on par with general relativity time dilation) and the primary change comes from the circuitous route caused by electromagnetic acceleration, so I'm not sure how the exact mechanism compares with yours. It is interesting, however, how most other theories rely on a constant speed of c.
On the topic of mass changing in different reference frames, I agree this is possible because if mass is related to the internal velocity of the particle (my essay gives the units and how to convert to kg with the constant G.), the internal velocity can increase, going right along with your idea of changing mass. When viewed in relation to a sustaining potential, the concepts of gravity, mass, and velocity have a common denominator.
I would like to leave off for now by noting how interesting your essay really is, and how much I enjoyed it. It will get a high mark from me soon. It is fun to see the correlations and how your core assumptions have given you a pretty solid view of how things work.
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen
