# Transitioning to x=1

Transitioning from the C20th x=0.5 set of equations to the nominally redder x=1 set and an Advanced General Theory necessarily impacts on many fields of physics. However, the transition turns out to involve surprisingly little in the way of changed predictions. This is partly because C20th testing protocols were oddly insensitive to Lorentzlike variations over 0.5, partly because most of the x=1 GEM effects that are missing from special relativity are dealt with separately as particulate-matter or quantum effects, and partly because many calculations in the realm of general relativity are already carried out using x=1, which is considered to give a decent default "Newtonian approximation" of GR1960 for situations involving only moderately-strong gravitation.

Much of the switch from x=0.5 to x=1 is therefore interpretative relationships turn out to be more accurate than

E=mc2 calculation
... identical outcome with x=1
Transverse redshift
... nominally redder, complicated by different definitions of velocity.
Particle accelerator lightspeed limit for direct acceleration
... also present with X=1.
physical time dilation in particle rings
... calculable using equivalence principle.
Particle decay positions
... identical with x=0.5 and x=1
shift experiments
... inadequate test theory makes most C20th experiments either inconclusive or unsafe when assessing x. Fresh experiments appear to be needed.
Relativistic energy-loss
... this was discovered by accident, and accepted, in 1959.
Ives-Stilwell experiment
... a conclusively different outcome!

Transluminality
... with x=1, particles can exceed background lightspeed by modifying local lightspeed. Heavy ultrarelativistic particles can throw off lightweight superluminal daughter particles, the process being statistically describable as Hawking radiation through the lightspeed barrier.
(supernovae muon bursts, Opera 201xxx)
Persistent superluminality
... status unknown. In AGR, Newton's first law is an emergent effect rather than a given, and it is not clear whether the geometrical regulating mechanism still works when a background starfield background material is moving at more than $v=c$. Also, Cerenkhov-style braking effects may slow superluminal particles, in which case, superluminality might be allowed but only briefly. More study needed.
(supernovae muon bursts, Opera 201xxx) Superluminal daughter particles might only remain superluminal for short distances, in which case arrival time differences might not scale with distance. Some awkward problems here to be solved (which also arise with GR1960+QM, but are typically ignored).
Gravitational waves
... are generated, but extreme nonlinearity makes it difficult to check if these effect should propagate "cleanly", or self-cancel partly or completely as they travel (as the wavefront is "blurred" by Hawking radiation jumping or tunneling through what would otherwise be a classical barrier).
Increased nonlinearity
Applied to cosmology, less dense regions should expand faster, creating a system of voids at the large scale, as discovered.
At smaller scales, increased nonlinearity weakens the interactions between galaxies, allowing their internal physics ot act a little more like "island universes" (galaxy rotation curve problem, dark matter).

Gravitational shifts
... are commonly calculated as a "Newtonian approximation" of GR, in other words, we're already "pragmatically" using x=1 rather then the SR equations in these situations, for simplicity's sake.
... x=1 gives a different horizon behaviour to GR1960, and predicts leakage. This appears to agree with QM. An important theoretical difference, but difficult to test experimentally.
Cosmological horizons, Hubble redshifts
... already use a non-SR Doppler relationship for the shift/recession relationship (... x=1). No obvious change.
Particles modelled as gravitational sources
... the x=1 equations of motion have already been derived by treating particles as small gravity-sources.
Solar-system-scale mechanics
... is already commonly using x=1 as "Newtonian approximation"

## GEM, acoustic metrics and QM updates

varying-v gravitoelectromagnetism
... accelerational and rotational distortion effects have been part of GR since the beginning (but were downgraded in GR1960 to avoid conflicts with SR).
Velocity-dependent gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM(v))
... momentum exchange for passing masses is already "engineering" for NASA (probe slingshotting) – is usually calculated using NM in the time domain rather than GR in the curvature domain.
... light-dragging by moving particulate media has been known since around ~1850.
acoustic metrics
... required mathematics recently derived by quantum gravity community, as a toy model for desired QG behaviours.
... acoustic metric behaviour and first formulation of duality principles derived by Namsrai (from stochastic QM).
... Acoustic horizon behaviour is already part of current cosmology (although downplayed). Cosmological horizons already fluctuate, radiate, have a temperature and leak information, so the "new" classical x=1 behaviour already appears in large-scale physics.