nonlinear field theory & cosmology


Bruce Erkiletian <>

Jul 25, 2020, 12:04 AM

to redshift


I would like for you to take a look at my web page at the following link, and let me know what you think of it:   

Best Regards

Bruce Erkiletian


Louis Marmet <>

Jul 27, 2020, 1:53 PM

to me

 Dear Bruce,

  your idea that the redshift is caused by some 'nonlinear' relativity is not new.  Have a look at the list here: where several of the proposed models posit the same thing.  (See for example the work by A. Mayer, or J.G. von Brzeski, or D.F. Roscoe.)

  A quick look at your website reveals a few fundamental mistakes.  What Copernicus did was much more than "move a reference point."  And if, as you say, the stars circle about the earth every 24 hours, then the centrifugal force would make the entire thing explode.  Stars cannot travel 27 ly in 24 hours, your mistake is that you are using a rotating frame indiscriminately.  Moreover, Einstein's relativity was already "nonlinear" in 1915, so I'm not sure what your point is here.  His 1955 paper was about 'unified field theory' which is nonlinear but the word has a meaning that is different from 'not-a-straight-line'.  I must say however that you get bonus points for admitting that you could be a crank.

  There are other members of "A Cosmology Group" ( who have ideas similar to yours on relativity.  If you want, I can sign you up and subscribe you to a sub-group called 'ACG Alt Cosmology' where you can share your thesis and discuss it with other members (currently 21 members).  I can also add your thesis to the webpage if you agree.

  Let me know if you agree to become a member of ACG.  Membership is free, but small monetary support is required to post messages.



ACG - a.


Bruce Erkiletian <>


Thank you for your prompt reply. Usually I’m prompt also. Although, normally I don’t respond to insults anyway, but this one is too ludicrous to pass up. Obviously, you didn't read enough of my work, and didn't understand the part you did read. If you read the following in its entirety (which you probably won’t), there is no rational dispute. My Third and Fourth Briefs have nothing to do with "centrifugal force" or any "force" for that matter, just relative motion.

For example, suppose an automobile is traveling along a highway and passes a signpost. Relative to the automobile the signpost is moving in the opposite direction. So, where’s the force that’s moving the signpost? The relative motion of the signpost is proportional to the motion of the automobile, but there is no “relative force” moving the signpost.

Some 300 years ago Isaac Newton discovered that force can cause acceleration. He also concluded that acceleration caused by gravitational force (offset by centrifugal force) can result in orbital motion. But force, acceleration and orbital motion have nothing to do with the motion of stars relative to a point on the surface of the earth. This motion of stars is not caused by gravitational force, and there is no resulting centrifugal force. Again, relative motion does not require force.

Actually, although he may not have realized it, the most significant thing Copernicus did was show that motion of a mass (such as a celestial body) can be considered relative to ANY reference point. That's one empirical supposition that makes sense. Maybe nobody has figured that out except Albert Einstein (and perhaps Tyco Brahe), but it’s called relative motion.

So, you say that stars (including the sun) are not traveling around the earth, relative to you? Then what are they doing, relative to you? If you look straight up into the sky on a clear night you can actually see ancient stars moving across the sky, and if the Universe is linear, they are exceeding the velocity of light relative to you.

There is a more advanced way to look at it. The Lorentz Transformation does not include force or acceleration, only velocity, and sustained velocity does not require sustained force. The Lorentz Transformation is a linear equation, and as such, it defines maximum velocity (the velocity of light) ONLY within linear coordinate systems. Thus, if the Universe is linear, a stationary mass could not be more than about 4.1 x 10^9 km from earth (certainly not 4.3 ly), because its tangential velocity relative to earth’s surface would exceed the velocity of light. So, obviously the Universe must not be a linear system.

I’ve been a mechanical design engineer for almost 50 years, and I’ve been independently researching nonlinear field theory for over 60 years. My education in cosmology and mathematics theory extends far beyond the day I graduated from MS&T. Also, I'm probably a lot older than you are, so let me give you some friendly advice. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone, but taking adolescent cheap shots in an attempt to discredit someone does not increase your credibility. In fact, it does just the opposite. Especially in this case. I would think someone with a PHD (I assume in physics) would know that “relative motion” doesn’t require or cause “relative force.”

I would like for someone with an open mind and appropriate physics and mathematics background to look at all of my work. However, proper evaluation will take a good deal of study, and to understand the latter chapters of my thesis (Chapters 7 through 11) it will take exceptional knowledge of integral and differential calculus as well as logarithmic and exponential variance (to say the least). Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem there are any exceptional mathematicians within the physics community. Today most physicists think velocity can be derived by multiplying a constant by a static distance (Hubble’s Law), that the Doppler Shift varies relative to linear distance and that the Universe is expanding at an accelerated rate due to some idiotic dark energy. But I suppose that’s not unreasonable. After all, there are still people who think the earth is flat.

Incidentally, it might be contentious to some people, but there are no “fundamental mistakes” in my work. Also, I've never said nonlinear field theory is new, pertaining to the red shift. I don’t know about that (and don’t care). However, I do know that my work is independent, original (with noted references) and copyrighted, and I concur with this statement about nonlinear field theory: "Nobody knows anything reliable about it.” You know who said that? The same guy that said, “It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.” Only problem with that is that it usually doesn’t.

By the way, I didn’t say, “I could be a crank.” I asked, “Could it be I’m a crackpot?” Thanks for the extra points, but when you attempt to insult a man with his own words, you should quote him correctly, because if you don’t, it might insult him.🙂

Have a nice day.

Bruce Erkiletian

Not a Crackpot (not even close)