Thank you, Terry, I appreciate your thinking along with me.

The following is perhaps a good perspective to discuss things once more:

Einstein came up with his Spacetime to explain the anomalies of the Newtonian view.

Few people know that Gödel provided an alternative (based on spatial rotation) that Einstein agreed to as correct as well.

That is the setup.

We have two different frameworks that both declare correctly though in different ways how the anomalies are captured as seen among the behavior of matter moving through space.

Both frameworks do something really weird, Terry, and I hope you see it right away.

The starting point is the behavior of matter but the conclusion by both very smart people is based on space.

That is therefore truly weird. Normally, we do not say that a behavior seen among matter is explained by space. Yet the frameworks are correct by themselves.

What I see Einstein do is recognizing the missing piece in the puzzle and then replicating the missing piece in the abstract. Of course it is correct, but it shows only the How and not the Why.

Kurt Gödel, Einstein's best buddy, provided an alternative, and Einstein agreed it was also correct, as does everyone else. Still, Gödel's work is often ignored by physicists.

--

Yes, I do have a third option, and it is not based on space but on the behavior of matter itself, exactly as it is supposed to be. I wrote about that already.

If you know someone who can replicate Einstein's Spacetime calculations, and can replicate Gödel's Spatial Rotation calculations, then I would appreciate it much if you can introduce me to that person.

I would -very much- like it if such person can do the calculations for my First Motion model and see that it is not only a correct fit as well, but is based on a motion seen among matter. The way it should be in science.

Thank you for replying, better late than never, right?

Thank you, sir.