MATHEMATICAL NATURE OF GRAVITY, WHICH GENERAL RELATIVITY SAYS IS SPACE-TIME: Topology Unites With the Matrix, E=mc2, Advanced Waves, Wick Rotation, Dark Matter & Higher Dimensions

General Relativity says gravity is a push caused by space-time's curvature. Combining General Relativity with E=mc2 results in distances being totally deleted from space-time/gravity by future technology, and in expansion or contraction of the universe as a whole being eliminated. The road to these conclusions has branches shining light on supersymmetry and superconductivity. This push of gravitational waves may be directed from intergalactic space towards galaxy centres, helping to hold galaxies together and also creating supermassive black holes. Together with the waves' possible production of "dark" matter in higher dimensions, there's ample reason to believe knowledge of gravitational waves has barely begun. Advanced waves are usually discarded because they're thought to violate the causality principle. Just as advanced waves are usually discarded, very few physicists or mathematicians will venture to ascribe a physical meaning to Wick rotation and "imaginary" time. Here, that maths (when joined with Mobius-strip and Klein-bottle topology) unifies space and time into one space-time, and allows construction of what may be called "imaginary computers". 

Invitation to post either comments or formal reviews to my Research Idea at journal RIO (Research Ideas and Outcomes)  

This is an invitation to post either comments or formal reviews to the Research Idea I'm submitting to the journal RIO (Research Ideas and Outcomes).  My submission is a shortened version of the article on this webpage but remains titled "MATHEMATICAL NATURE OF GRAVITY, WHICH GENERAL RELATIVITY SAYS IS SPACE-TIME: Topology Unites With the Matrix, E=mc2, Advanced Waves, Wick Rotation, Dark Matter & Higher Dimensions", at https://arpha.pensoft.net/preview.php?document_id=9861. 
 
 
 
This research idea is not intended to be a formal theory presenting scientific jargon and mathematical formalism. I should also point out that my article's mention of mathematical gravity and programming of space-time might give scientists thoughts of the article being religiously motivated, or science fiction. Then they'd reject it. My motivation is purely scientific, as illustrated by the final endnote of my article. It speaks of the physicist Paul Davies saying he believes the universe might be "fine-tuned" (not by God, but by our descendants reaching back in time).  
 
 
 
I've been having problems getting my article to fit into RIO's submission system. But Boriana Ovcharova  (the Managing Editor) has been very helpful. She also provided this link to the ARPHA Tips & Tricks section that provides guidelines on making a comment (https://arpha.pensoft.net/tips/Comments) or posting a formal review (https://arpha.pensoft.net/tips/Formal-Reviews), and said you can email her at rio@riojournal.com if you have questions or need assistance. 
 
Best wishes, 
 
Rodney Bartlett 
 
 
PS  
I receive an email of daily news called "inkl: morning edition". A few mornings ago, it included the article "We discovered that life may be billions of times more common in the multiverse" by Professor Richard Bower. At the end, he wrote "It seems that a new physical law, or a new approach to understanding dark energy, is needed to account for the deeply puzzling properties of our universe." If you review my article on RIO, you'll see that it proposes an account for the deeply puzzling properties of our universe that has no need for the multiverse, the Big Bang, Inflation or Dark Energy. Is this the approach we need to understand the universe?