Special Relativity posits that gravitational fields for a mass moving at constant velocity are seen elsewhere in that inertial frame as arising from the instantaneous position of the mass, not the position when the "gravitational information" left the mass. Same for charges moving. This leads (with attendant irony) to a much better formulation for gravity in the mnp Model not yet folded into the original documents.
Gravity results, in the mnp Model, from the (short distance) effect of the entities to align their directions of travel. This requires rethinking much of the author's writings on the mnp Model.
Picturing the effects of gravity on a photon (which is seen as a propagator) or on electric or magnetic fields becomes easier.
Length "contraction" effects due to gravity run counter to intuition and theory. In a gravitational field in the "new" mnp Model, matter would compress perpendicular to the field and elongate slightly parallel to the field (toward and away from the larger mass). The obvious question, how would such a model fit with the Theories of Relativity, had the author stumped for a while until the Experiment Question was asked. Why would this not be measured (and disproved) yet?
Length contraction due to gravity is much harder to measure than frequency changes. At the Earth's surface, gravity yields a time dilation of 7x10-10 so with no length effects (and taking the definition of a meter as applying only outside gravitational fields), a variation of .21 meters per second in the speed of light might be seen compared to measurements away from gravitational fields. Transverse length contraction may be less in weak fields, since spheres may become more like supereggs before becoming much narrower.
If length compression is equal to time dilation, the measured speed of light across an equipotential Earth surface would go up about 1.4x10^-9 or show an increase of .4 meters per second. That is getting close to the error bars in modern experiments. But most of our experiments are done near sea level, so variation would only show up at different potentials. At 3000 meters elevation, the time dilation would be 3x10^-13 different. At 5500 meters elevation, the time dilation would be 6x10^-13 different. The author volunteers to join that expedition to Everest Base Camp, but will probably not live long enough to see Experiment accurate enough to measure the difference. Experiments on the moon would be interesting since the time dilation is 3.1x10-11 or less than 1/20th that on the surface of the Earth. Acceptance of the author for THAT expedition is even less likely than acceptance of this Model. Experiments in space have the difficulty of needing to assume a measuring or timing technique.
The Shapiro Radar Ranging experiment gets a new interpretation. As light travels near a mass, it is directed more toward the mass, but after light passes the point where its travel is perpendicular to a line to the center of the mass, it will be directed more radially away from the mass. The travel will not be symmetrical as most diagrams of light passing a mass indicate. In the Shapiro radar ranging experiments, as the reflecting body gets closer to being eclipsed by the massive body, the reflected light must come at an ever higher angle from the reflecting body. Light will need to travel further to arrive at the observer. Gravitational lensing can occur, but the further the viewer is from the large mass, the (slightly) closer the apparent reflector is to that large mass. Light passing near a mass, at least a cold dark mass, will emerge more horizontally polarized. In very strong fields, light may be increasingly disrupted or reduced in energy.
In the "new" mnp Model, the "Proximity" effect is a tendency of all entities within a tiny distance to align in the traveling direction (toward 0 or 180 degrees difference). So if entities acting as gravitons are moving in and out in equal numbers, how does acceleration occur? Geometry.
Gravitational acceleration is complicated in the mnp Model. The rings that make up matter are deformed and skewed. The field is very slightly stronger in the half of the ring closer to the large mass so the effect on entities in the lower half circle is stronger than on those in the upper half circle. In the lower half circle, the effect is slightly stronger on the quadrant of incoming entities than the quadrant of outgoing entities. The field is very slightly weaker (the gravitons are spread over a very slightly larger area) for the half of the ring further from the large mass. In the upper quadrants, the outgoing entities experience more effect from the field since they are curving out and spend more time in that quadrant than the incoming quadrant. The tiny differences in effect lead to a net acceleration in the direction of the mass we call gravity. At high field strengths, the deformation effects are not linear with field strength. Acceleration and time dilation and length compression effects are not expected to be linear with field strength.
The angles are tiny, the differences in time spent are tiny, the differences in effects are tiny, the speed c is, well, enormous. So the computational modeling of entity interactions will likely meet the same issues faced and solved by string theorists and quantum gravity computations. Computation of entity to field interactions will come first, and do not pose quite the same level of difficulty.
Regarding the Shapiro curve, neutrinos traveling at the speed of light will travel the same path, but not be subject to the polarizing effects. Different disrupting effects apply. Neutrinos moving at sub-light speeds in stronger gravitational fields might show more magnetic moment than in weaker fields.
Black holes become "scarier" than previously imagined. Any entities moving outward from a black hole will continue outward, but any matter entering the black hole at less than the speed of light will be torn apart. The fraction sent outward as mostly incoherent entities (dark matter and dark energy) will be 50% as the velocity inward approaches 0, 0% as the velocity approaches c, and about .5sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for intermediate speeds, where v is the velocity toward the event horizon. This is in the limit for small objects. The trailing parts of larger objects may pull some of that outbound dark matter and energy back into traveling toward the black hole.
The "Proximity" effect to align direction of travel is much weaker than the previously named "Spin" effect to align axis which leads to electrical and magnetic forces and fields.
Using the term "Spin" has been called into question as confusing compared to astronomical spin, quantum mechanics spin, and gyroscopic spin, so a term indicating Axis Alignment is called for. In like manner, a term for Travel Alignment is needed to replace "Proximity". The Traction effect may not even be needed
How did Special Relativity help the mnp Model? When a mass has a velocity, the entities that make up that mass have on average their axes of travel oriented in the direction of travel at asin(v/c) measured from perpendicular to the travel. At 0 velocity, the entities direction of travel within the mass is balanced, and the gravitational field is balanced. As velocity approaches c, all the entities travel becomes aligned in that direction. The gravitational field appears to travel the same velocity as the mass, if an observer could step back to see it. Masses moving the same velocity "in the same inertial field" see the effects of gravity as apparently coming from the mass where it is "now".
The mnp Model is attempting to provide an explanation for the experimental effects of general and special relativity based on the behavior of matter and energy rather than the structure of space-time. That such an explanation has not been created in 107 years does not stop fools from trying. The author admits that mnp could co-exist as a description of matter along side of space-time effects of gravity, but it cannot co-exist with the frame independence of Special Relativity. Hence the irony.
The Quixotic Quest continues
