In the first iteration of the gravity paper, I expressed some skepticism of the concept of length contraction. It seemed like such an ad hoc, shoehorned addition to relativity, that it appeared lazy and desperate. The justification for the concept makes perfect sense, at least from the perspective of the non-aether crowd, but I wasn’t sold on it. On taking a closer look at my own theory, I began to see support for (a modified version of) it, as well as a mechanical explanation for it. 

Length contraction became part of relativity to make light clocks work when in motion. I won’t try to explain that, google it, others have already done a great job of it. I saw a need for length contraction in my theory to make the shifting of the nucleus of atoms in motion more mechanically sound. I won’t try to explain it here, three paragraphs were added to section ‘Gravity and Motion’ for that purpose. They are the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs after figure [atom motion]. 

Regarding the existing concept of length contraction, I’ve made some passing attempts to reconcile my own theory with the Lorentz factor. The Lorentz factor tells us the amount of length contraction relativity requires an object to experience while traveling at different speeds relative to c. So far they don’t match up very well, but I have thoughts on why that is. While relativity does all the compensating for the speed of light in the rod or traveler, my theory suggests that there is length contraction in the traveler as well alterations to the local aether that together make light clocks continue to work while the speed of light remains constant. So in the days ahead maybe I’ll figure out that mix between length contraction and aether alteration. Or maybe you will, whichever.