AuT vs Verlinde's hypothesis of gravity-addressed in matrix portion

So I took the rare step of taking down a post today because it just wasn't right and I decided it needed to go back to the shop.  It's one of a three part series on calculus and AuT which defines gravity.
While it's up on the lift getting a little bit of a tune up, I'm going to make it up to you by explaining how gravity can both be a movement to linearity at the ct1 level and be observed at the ct1-ct2 level and beyond.
And yes, the gravitational constant and the compression features will be discussed in more detail in the sections that follow, this is just a bit of pandering to my audience.
I have a lot to do over the holidays, for now all I can do is offer a publication date at the beginning of the year.
In the meantime, please enjoy this interlude.


http://www.sciencealert.com/a-controversial-new-gravity-hypothesis-has-passed-its-first-test

This is an interesting theory (admittedly it predates mine) and it is almost right although it missed the fundamental background that AuT defines.  The promoters of this theory can be forgiven for not being as far ahead as I am.  The fact that they eliminate dark matter shows they are headed in the right direction.  Eventually they will come across the same factors as AuT and then they'll claim they invented my ideas first.

The move from linearity from non-linearity has always been the source of gravity in AuT.
0,1,1,0 allows for gravity and anti-gravity but the solutions suggest that gravity is the movement to linearity 0,1 and that anti-gravity is the movement 0,-1.  There remains an alternative to this which has been suggested which is that gravity is a secondary dimensional result.  The measurement of gravity (m1*m2)/d^2 suggests two things.  1) Distance (and therefore relative change to ct1) is important and 2) the scale of mass and distance is the same so that they two represent different states of the same thing at the same carrier level.

Since gravity requires separation it stands to reason that gravity would only arise at the ct1-ct2 barrier.  That in turn suggests that gravity is a force of comparison which raises the question of where photonic light fits it.

I am not convinced.  It is possible that gravity and photonic light have the origin in the place originally designated; but that they only become apparent at the next relative state.  This allows for the differentiation of gravity from the dimensional forces while still allow for gravity to be observable only at the dimensional level.

I define gravity based on proximity and velocity based on shared ct1 states (later) so it stands to reason that gravity, the force related to compression or the stacking of algorithms nevertheless can only manifest itself at the ct1-ct2 boundary because, yes you guessed it, it requires dimensional characteristics to be observed.

The research (on Verlinde's hypothesis) has been accepted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and you can read the full paper now on arXiv.org.
I'm going to submit my work there, perhaps you can forward a copy of this post to them and suggest they pre-order a copy of my book and subscribe to my blog.