Dear Dr. Corda,
I truly appreciate you taking the time to read my paper.
I will answer your questions in order.
1) The first answer is based upon a reply I gave to Peter Jackson on my thread. Bare with me if it is long winded!
Freely falling frames anywhere in our real, gravity-endowed Universe, are equivalent to inertial frames in an idealised, gravity-free universe. The problem is that Einstein ignored tidal gravity, and 'justified' this by insisting that the reference frame be very small. However, Hans Ohanian (H.C. Ohanian, "What Is the Principle of Equivalence?" American Journal of Physics 45 (1977):903-909) has shown that tidal effects persist even when the object in question is arbitrarily small. An observer in a freely falling elevator could in principle deduce that he is in a gravitational field by detecting tidal bulges in a liquid drop. In other words inertial (gravity-free) frames do not in principle exist.
Here is how my theory addresses this problem.
Frames of reference in which Newton's first law (law of inertia) holds are
inertial frames.
Newton's three laws of motion:
1) First law (law of inertia): Every body continues in its state either of rest or of moving uniformly unless acted upon by a net force (F=0). (What about the force of gravity?)
2) Second law: The rate of change of the momentum of a body is proportional to the force acting and takes place in the direction of that force (F=dp/dt=ma).
3) Third law: Forces are caused by the interaction of pairs of bodies. The force exerted by A upon B and the force exerted by B upon A are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction (F=-F).
Laws 2 contains all of Newton's laws of motion as shown, and the laws of motion were necessary for Newton's 'discovery' of the 'force of gravity' to correctly account for Kepler's 3 laws.
Now, Law 2 is what we get when we 'mathematically differentiate' Newton's definition of momentum p=mv. Thus Newton's laws of motion, and hence law of Gravity, ultimately depend upon the 'existence' of p=mv! In my paper I have shown that p=mv disappears of its own accord, given the de Broglie equation, and consistently that F=ma disappears to leave us with a = g, given 'the Light'. Thus the absence of Newtonian mechanics means inertial frames ARE fictitious. What then of SR? In the subatomic realm, where gravity (space-time 'curvature') is negligible, 'the Light' supersedes SR. Both 'the Light' and a = g (the foundations of Relativity) NECESSITATE the observer detect tidal bulges in a liquid drop!
2) The second question I will answer in terms of the following question: How does 'the Light' account for the generally observed matter/antimatter asymmetry?
Since visualisation is difficult we will consider the scalar time dimension alone. Now suppose we have two Universes moving along time axes that are perpendicular to each other (t an ti). If each gradation on the t axis represents one second and each gradation on the ti axis represents i seconds, then the two universe's are moving along their axes at the rate of one gradation per second (Hence Pythagoras' theorem with hypotenuse root-2). Now if 'matter' is one aspect of 'the Light' then it must be moving at speed c, and this must hold true even if that 'matter' is at rest relative to an observer. Thus we now have the 'distance' ct, and the hypotenuse of Pythagoras' theorem is c(root-2). This is consistent with Special Relativity, for if we use the reciprocal of the time dilation formula with v=c(root-2) then the number of seconds t′ passing for antimatter, relative to the viewpoint of the observer is i. Finally, what justification do we have in supposing another universe? If we consider the 'total energy of a photon' with the velocity in the range c
