Stefan, You have calculated rotating gravitational ellipses in an Euclidean space as observed by Le Verrier (1811-1877) You discussed it with a Nobel prize winner and presented it in Berlin Germany. The reason for doing this calculation is obvious. The story cannot be declared no science. Therefore you have achieved something. We are all masters (some in science) and we refuse to talk about the psychological aspects of this story. A yeah-yeah from other guys in the restaurant could be heard. This story ends here. For you it is just wait and see whether.........But this story ends here. Summer 2017 by H.L.
	Rotating gravitational ellipses are observed, so we want to calculate rotating gravitational ellipses. Stefan, in doing this, you are quite arrogant. But before I can state this, I have to tell you that you are right. CTO of a big company. Summer 2017
	------------------------------------------
	You created a "new" equation that should explain exactly one phenomenon (revolving ellipses). The equation is contradicting everything we know about gravity, but you do not seem to care. Nor do care about the fact that: You are using an outdated theory (Newton without relativistic corrections). The relativity theory exists with one and the same equation correctly describing all gravitational effects, including the rotating ellipses, but also the deflection and delay of light at a heavy star, the fusion of black holes, the now-observed gravitational radiation and so on. You do not seem to be interested. And then you are surprised that I find your attitude unscientific. I mail this comment again, in vain, to add some wisdom. I should have stopped long ago. Because I know that you continue to search for quotations from my mails. H.I.
	The comment above does not make the calculation of rotating gravitational ellipses as observed in an Euclidean space non-logical or non-scientific, therefore it is knowledge. The connection between observation and calculation prevails. It is much stronger. The wordily statement 'rotating gravitational ellipse' is allowed a mathematical (rotating gravitational ellipse) counterpart. The knowledge of old theories (relativity) should not interfere between observation and calculation. The observation is wrong or the calculation is wrong. Observation and therefore calculation cannot break because of other theories. If the reasoning is according the scientific procedure, then it cannot be so that the scientific procedure is wrong. Observing rotating gravitational ellipses in an Euclidean space means calculating rotating gravitational ellipses in an Euclidean space.
	Particles going into interaction dictate their own inertial system. For a laser on the earth this could mean two things. The inertial system is dictated by the atoms and photons on the earth. Or the inertial system is dictated by the sun and the atoms and photons on the earth. The last assumption results in the invariance of the speed of light. The first assumption expects the invariance of the speed of light with no consequence for the concept of space. The assumption the sun dictates the inertial system for the atoms and photons on the earth in a laser producing a beam of light is the key to the relativity theory. The two assumptions are just assumptions. An assumption is a key component of reasoning.
	My adversary knows the assumption leading to the relativity theory and so rotating gravitational ellipses are calculated in a relativistic space. The assumption that the sun is dictating the inertial system on the earth leads to non- scientificness of the calculation of rotating gravitational ellipses in an Euclidean space (as observed), because the primary assumption is correct. The sun dictates the inertial system on the earth is a valid assumption.
	The peer pressure now consists of two things. Scientists have to deny the scientificness of calculating things as observed. Scientists have to declare that assuming: 'The sun is dictates the inertial system on the earth for atoms and photons in a laser' is correct whilst assuming 'The atoms and photons in the laser dictate the inertial system' is not correct. Assumptions do not have criteria on which they are scientific or non- scientific. Assumptions lead to reasoning and the reasoning leads to a mathematical result. This result is either correct or not correct. If the result is correct then it is science. Calculating rotating gravitational ellipses in an Euclidean space is science.
	Apparently the peer pressure is not great enough to make calculating rotating gravitational ellipses in an Euclidean space as observed science.
	Stefan Boersen October 2017
	------------------------------------------
	stefanboersen@hotmail.com