Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Farsight]

What exactly do you mean “reduces with gravitational potential”? How exactly would such a reduction be a “test” of if “a gravitational field was the result of a gradient in the relative strength of the strong force and electromagnetic force” as you asserted?

The strong-force coupling constant is typically given as 1, the electromagnetic-force coupling constant is typically given as 1/137. In a region of space where there exists the thing we call a gravitational field, you should expect to see this 1:137 relationship change. The fine structure constant can be measured to about one part in a billion via the quantum Hall effect, but the Earth's gravitational field isn't adequate. The GPS clock adjustment for GR is 45,900 nanoseconds per day, and there's 86,400 seconds to a day, so the difference is less than one part in a billion. You need a stronger gravitational field, namely the sun's.

You’ll note the part where it directly says “α is the ratio of their electrostatic repulsive force to their gravitational attractive force.” So yes directly.

Not directly. The Planck mass is huge. All stable particles with mass are charged, using a Planck mass is about as useful as using an asteroid with a bit of net charge.

How observant of you to note that the plank mass is larger than the mass of an electron and similarly very observant of you to note that there are two charged masses in this consideration. Any other obvious observations you’d care to, well, observer. I’ll note that you didn’t make note of the fact the mass of the sun is 1.99 x 10³⁸ times the planks mass and you’ve only got one of them in your “test”.

The mass of the sun isn't that important. We measure depth of field via gravitational time dilation. The fine structure constant should vary in line with that.

An aspect one could observe as being noted on page one of this thread, as well as your claim that…

I can tell you why the fine structure constant takes the value it does, and why it's a running constant.

A demonstration that has yet to be observed. Two years have past now, are you any closer to actually fulfilling that claim?

No closer, because I fulfilled it 3+ years ago. Here's a bit about it.

“different environment”? What’s different about the “environment”?

The permittivity and permeability of space. They're combined as vacuum impedance, or "the strength of space". You see hints of this kind of thing from time to time. See for example New Physics at Low Accelerations (MOND): an Alternative to Dark Matter and this bit on page 5:

"We see that the modification of GR entailed by MOND does not enter here by modifying the ‘elasticity’ of spacetime (except perhaps its strength), as is done in f(R) theories and the like."

Oh and if you compare “α = e²α_g/4πε₀m²G” with “α = e²/4πε₀ħc” as you assert to do then you will find α_g/ m²G = 1/ħc

Fine. But you're maybe missing the point of all this. If a gravitational field is only there because of a inverse-square gradient in the electrodynamical properties of space, the α_g is somewhat derivative, and big G is just a dimensionality/unit conversion factor anyway. And since mass m is just E/c² before you know it gravity has kind of slipped between your fingers and is history instead of mystery.

Why? As “e is said to be "effective charge", and "effective charge" can vary (see your own citation NIST)?

I know what NIST says. The electron has unit charge, and whilst it's an electron, that's all it ever has because charge is conserved. The effect of that charge varies if the properties of space vary. But then people make the mistake of thinking that elementary charge varies. It doesn't Because charge is conserved because charge is topological.

Just to give you a hint that’s why it’s called the “effective charge". Also “Since permittivity is intimately related to permeability” that means μ₀must remain constant or change in such a way that c does not remain constant. Oh I know why, because all you want to actually say is just that c is varying.

Of course it is. Einstein said it varies, and we can see it varies.

“nothing in sacrosanct”? You mean except for your desire to have c vary as opposed to just the "effective charge" varying (as your own citation claims) or even both ε₀ and μ₀. Heck you could have even went for ħ but choose to leave it alone for now to preserve the sanctity of your varying c.

I only left it alone to keep things simple in this discussion. I said it has to vary a few years back. Have a read of this recent physicsworld article Can GPS find variations in Planck's constant? You might have to search for it because somebody was saying the links only work after you've already visited the page.

Wait, what? “the energy you supplied has gone”? Has gone where in you notion exactly? Under the consideration of binding energy and bound states “the energy you supplied has gone” into increasing the gravitational potential energy of the brick in relation to the Earth. Unless of course your claim is that as the brick get higher its gravitational potential energy increases and then suddenly at some mysterious point “it escapes the earth's gravitational field” and no longer has any gravitational potential energy in relation to the earth.

It always has gravitational potential energy in relation to the earth, but the energy you supplied to the brick has departed the system. The brick will never fall back to earth. It's lost in space along with the energy you gave it, gone forever. ETA: it hasn't "gone" in the sense that it's mysteriously vanished, conservation of energy applies.

You mean “constants aren't always constant” unless you just want them to be, so the constant c will vary. If the "effective charge" varies then so does the fine structure constant without any change in the other, well, constants.

I mean constants aren't constant. Also see this bit of wiki. There's a space/time parallel between climbing out of a gravity well and the expanding universe, so if the fsc varies across space it will vary over time too. Next time you hear somebody prattling on about the Goldilocks anthropic multiverse and the "fine tuned fundamental constants", remember all this. I'm not lying to you or trying fool you into buying some "my theory", I'm just ahead of the game that's all. Look at the time, I have to go.

 

[ctamblyn]

I didn't run into problems there, ct. I successfully knocked the "waterfall" woo on the head, and more recently knocked on the head the "geodesic dome" garbage wherein a gravitational field consists of flat plates of non-zero extent. I dare say I've kicked KS coordinates into the long grass too, but that one's less emphatic.

I don't see the physics community abandoning useful tools such as the waterfall analogy or coordinate transformations. I certainly don't see anyone abandoning one of the core principles of GR (that spacetime is locally flat).

Yes, but there's 17 adjustable parameters, it isn't like GR where there aren't any.

That isn't relevant. The parameters are fixed by a relatively small number of experiments, and the resulting theory allows one to predict the outcome of infinitely more experiments. That's perfectly fine for a physical theory.

And it would be wrong to say that all aspects of the Standard Model are "very good". The Higgs sector is described as ad hoc by Gian Giudice who campares it unfavourably with the symmetry aspects.

Aesthetic arguments are irrelevant. Either it works or it doesn't, and we will know soon which is the case.

Plus it doesn't cover gravity,

Nor is it supposed to. Do we criticise GR for not covering particle physics? No. This is again irrelevant.

...there's other gaps that you already know about, and further gaps that you don't. For example it doesn't actually tell you how pair production converts a photon into an electron and a positron.

It tells you exactly what to expect in such processes. That's its job. Your "just so" stories about pair production, on the other hand, are useless from a quantitative perspective and contradict the SM on several well-tested points.

That's because the standard model is a work in progress, or should be, but progress appears to have ground to a halt in recent decades as physics withers on the vine amidst a rising tide of idiocracy. Hence here I am doing my bit.

Tell the researchers at LHC investigating physics beyond the SM that progress has "ground to a halt". Take some ear defenders though, as the laughter is likely to be deafening.

How many times do I have to say it: it isn't my model. The mathematical modelling has been done by people whose papers I've read, but they struggle to get into journals and then struggle to get any media publicity.

As I said before, no-one else has presented this body of ideas, which you christened "relativity+", on so many forums and defended them so vehemently, nor have they published a book about it. The only online materials regarding relativity+ are either written by you or are criticisms of your various essays.

They don't. That's your misreading and misunderstanding.

Yes they do, on which point I will elaborate again below.

Not so. Think of photons as waves propagating linearly. They can ride over one another. They can overlap. They're bosons. Now think of the same kind of wave trapped in a closed path because it's moving through itself. Look up displacement current for this. You've now got angular momentum, spin, rotation, standing-wave orbitals. It's like a vortex. And two vortexes cannot overlap just as two whirlpools cannot overlap. They're fermions.

The difference is one of configuration. Change the stress-energy configuration and you change the particle. It's now a different particle with different properties.

That's just hand-waving. How about you show some actual calculations to back up your claim? While you're preparing those calculations, consider the following points.

1. What distinguishes bosons from fermions is not as simple as a repulsive force; it has to do with how multi-particle quantum states change under permutations of the particle labels. Exchanging two identical bosons leaves the state unchanged, while exchanging two identical fermions yields a change in sign. A two-electron state must be antisymmetric under the exchange of the two particles. However, if an electron were really a photon moving in a closed path then the state would also be symmetric under the exchange of those particles.

2. As we discussed earlier in this thread (about 2 years ago), a photon is also neutral and magically making it whizz around in a loop does not produce an electric charge.

3. Photons do not participate in weak interactions, and confining one to a loop will not suddenly cause them to do so.

4. There is no known physical mechanism which would cause a photon to do that dance in the first place.

5. If we took your self-trapped photon state and created its mirror image, according to you we'd get a positron (IIRC). However, the mirror image of an electron is still an electron.

6. Orbital angular momentum is quantised in integer multiples of ħ. Photon are spin-1. Thus, a photon travelling in a loop cannot be a spin-1/2 state.

 

[ctamblyn]

Yes they do.
(...snip...)

They don't interact directly. Read up on QED.

I'm going to snip most of your elaborations below, because it would take us too far from the main point (i.e. neutrinos) and only a yes/no answer was required.

Yes.
...
Yes.
...
Yes.
...
No.

From the above, you agree that any particle with non-zero rest mass is at rest in some inertial frames. Good, that's standard SR.

However, bearing in mind that I wanted a simple "yes" or "no", take another look at my last question (and your response):

Based on currently available data, it is more reasonable to believe that at least two of the three known flavours of neutrino have non-zero rest mass than to believe otherwise.

It's more reasonable to understand E=mc² and rest mass along with effective mass, and note that we have never seen a neutrino at rest, and then conclude that in at least two of the three known flavours of neutrino the kinetic energy takes a non-linear path. The more non-linear or "curly" that path is, the greater the effective mass. Make it so non-linear that the path is closed, and then the effective mass is the rest mass.

To get any further I need a very clear "yes" or "no", so let me try wording this another way. In your view, does the current experimental evidence suggest that at least two out of three neutrino flavours have non-zero rest mass, or not?

 

[sol invictus]

The strong-force coupling constant is typically given as 1, the electromagnetic-force coupling constant is typically given as 1/137. In a region of space where there exists the thing we call a gravitational field, you should expect to see this 1:137 relationship change. The fine structure constant can be measured to about one part in a billion via the quantum Hall effect, but the Earth's gravitational field isn't adequate. The GPS clock adjustment for GR is 45,900 nanoseconds per day, and there's 86,400 seconds to a day, so the difference is less than one part in a billion. You need a stronger gravitational field, namely the sun's.

If gravity acts on electromagnetic energy differently from strong-force energy, the equivalence principle is violated. The ratio of the inertial mass to gravitational mass will vary depending on the composition of the material, because different materials derive different proportions of their mass from electromagnetic versus strong-force energy.

That ratio is equal to 1 to a precision of at least 10^-13. That's 10,000 times smaller than 1/billion.

 

[Reality Check]

That's rather an ad-hominem thing to say, RC.

Not really - the Electric Universe theory is a crank idea so any proponent of it is a crank. If someone if ignorant enough to believe in the Electric Universe and favorably reviews a book then there is the implication that this book is as invalid as the Electric universe fantasy.

But then your book is a crank book by definition - it claims to be a TOE but if it had valid science in it you would have published it in a science journal.

But make no mistake, peer review is abused to protect vested interest. I've spoken to people who do have credentials, who find that they struggle to get robust evidential papers into high-impact journals.

The point of peer review is to make sure that papers are robust and based on strong evidence. It is not to make publishing papers easy. In general, the higher the impact journal require a stronger level of robustness and evidence.

Your anecdotal evidence is evidence of the peer review process working.

P.S. These people managed to get their robust evidential papers into high-impact journals. So where are your robust evidential papers in high-impact journals?

 

[Tubbythin]

In general, the higher the impact journal require a stronger level of robustness and evidence.

I would say that is not entirely true. The higher impact journals tend to publish the higher impact research (although the research may have higher impact if its published in a high impact journal). From very limited personal experience I have seen little evidence to suggest that the level of evidence required in such journals is higher than in the (often more specialised) quality journals with a lower impact.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm sorry edd, but anybody who has been "fairly well educated in physics" who has not read Einstein's E=mc² paper has been badly educated in physics.

I'm sorry, Farsight, but that is a fairly dumb statement because you imply that just about every physicist in the world is badly educated because few of them would have read Einstein's E=mc² paper .
Not many physicists have read Galileo's books (in the original Latin!) - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Newton's books (in the original Latin!) - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Maxwell's original papers - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Plank's original papers - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Rutherford's original papers - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Schrödinger's original papers - are the rest also badly educated?
etc. etc. etc.

There are these things called textbooks, Farsight. They completely describe what is in all of the books and papers. For example that "when the system loses kinetic energy that system loses mass.". That is relativistic mass. They also explain that the concept of relativistic mass is not that usefu since the energy and momuntum concepts are bteer to work withl. Since you remain obsessed by Einstein:
Mass in special relativity

Also Einstein at first used a relativistic mass concept in the form of longitudinal and transverse mass in his 1905 electrodynamics paper (equivalent to those of Lorentz, but with a different

by an unfortunate force definition, which was later corrected), and in another paper in 1906. On the other hand, in his first paper on

(1905) he treated m as what would now be called the rest mass.[15] [16] [17] In later years Einstein expressed his dislike of the idea of "relativistic mass":[18]

It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass

of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

— Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948 (quote from L. B. Okun (1989), p. 42[1])​

...

1. ^ A. Einstein (1905), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", Annalen der Physik 322 (10): 891–921, Bibcode 1905AnP...322..891E, doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004, http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf (German) (English translation)
2. ^ A. Einstein (1906), "Über eine Methode zur Bestimmung des Verhältnisses der transversalen und longitudinalen Masse des Elektrons", Annalen der Physik 21 (13): 583–586, Bibcode 1906AnP...326..583E, doi:10.1002/andp.19063261310, http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1906_21_583-586.pdf (German)
3. ^ A. Einstein (1905), "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?", Annalen der Physik 18 (13): 639–643, Bibcode 1905AnP...323..639E, doi:10.1002/andp.19053231314, http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf (German) (English translation)

 

[Farsight]

Where were we talking about neutrinos? There's a press release about Ice Cube and GRBs, see for example Cosmic ray theory gets the cold shoulder on physicsworld. Sounds interesting.

ETA: And a guy emailed me to flag up http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i16/e163901 which sounds interesting too.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm sorry, Farsight, but that is a fairly dumb statement because you imply that just about every physicist in the world is badly educated because few of them would have read Einstein's E=mc² paper .
Not many physicists have read Galileo's books (in the original Latin!) - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Newton's books (in the original Latin!) - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Maxwell's original papers - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Plank's original papers - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Rutherford's original papers - are the rest also badly educated?
Not many physicists have read Schrödinger's original papers - are the rest also badly educated?
etc. etc. etc.

[Anecdote]
About a year ago I managed to locate the original paper by von Weizsaecker describing the semi-empirical mass formula. Maybe not a seminal paper in physics but certainly an important paper in nuclear physics. I was disappointed to discover it was only available (as far as I could find) in German. Sadly my German isn't up to that level. I don't know whether I would have had similar problems with Planck/Schroedinger's early works.[/Anecdote]

 

[ctamblyn]

Where were we talking about neutrinos?

See above.

There's a press release about Ice Cube and GRBs, see for example Cosmic ray theory gets the cold shoulder on physicsworld. Sounds interesting.

Perhaps, but it's not relevant to what we were talking about.

ETA: And a guy emailed me to flag up http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i16/e163901 which sounds interesting too.

Again, it's not relevant to what we were talking about.

 

[Farsight]

Wikipedia clearly agress with what I just said:

It isn't wrong.

In other words, if the photon has less energy than 2m_ec² there will be no pair production, if it has more energy than that then the extra energy will lead to the electron and positron having kinetic energy. (I'm ignoring the tiny recall energy of the nucleus here for simplicity.)

No problem. I thought you were omitting it totally.

 

[Farsight]

I don't see the physics community abandoning useful tools such as the waterfall analogy or coordinate transformations. I certainly don't see anyone abandoning one of the core principles of GR (that spacetime is locally flat).

No problem with coordinate transformations, but they will abandon the waterfall analogy. The idea that spacetime is locally flat in a non-infinitesimal region is not a core principle of GR. It's locally flat only in an infinitesimal region.

That isn't relevant. The parameters are fixed by a relatively small number of experiments, and the resulting theory allows one to predict the outcome of infinitely more experiments. That's perfectly fine for a physical theory.

Your response noted.

Aesthetic arguments are irrelevant. Either it works or it doesn't, and we will know soon which is the case.

No you won't.

Nor is it supposed to. Do we criticise GR for not covering particle physics? No. This is again irrelevant.

It really isn't irrelevant when there's an alternative approach the shows the route via which GR and HEP can be reconciled.

It tells you exactly what to expect in such processes. That's its job. Your "just so" stories about pair production, on the other hand, are useless from a quantitative perspective and contradict the SM on several well-tested points.

The SM is deficient in some respects. What I've said about pair production matches the experimental evidence of electron spin, magnetic dipole moment, diffraction, etc.

Tell the researchers at LHC investigating physics beyond the SM that progress has "ground to a halt". Take some ear defenders though, as the laughter is likely to be deafening.

They aren't listening, and they won't stop digging themselves into a hole.

As I said before, no-one else has presented this body of ideas, which you christened "relativity+", on so many forums and defended them so vehemently, nor have they published a book about it. The only online materials regarding relativity+ are either written by you or are criticisms of your various essays.

Take a look at The Same Elephant. Also take careful note of which way the wind is blowing.

Yes they do, on which point I will elaborate again below.

No they don't.

That's just hand-waving. How about you show some actual calculations to back up your claim?

Because I've got hard scientific evidence to back up "my claim", which actually comes from people who used to be at CERN. Which people like you dismiss, and then say there is no evidence. And when I've shown calculations like Andrew Worsley's λ = 4π / nc^1½ people like you dismiss them too, as "mere numerology".

While you're preparing those calculations, consider the following points.

1. What distinguishes bosons from fermions is not as simple as a repulsive force;

Don't try to put words into my mouth, ct. You aren't sharp enough. Two rotational configurations distinguished only by different chiralities attract and annihilate. When the chiralities are the same they repel. In neither case do they ride over one another like linear waves.

it has to do with how multi-particle quantum states change under permutations of the particle labels. Exchanging two identical bosons leaves the state unchanged, while exchanging two identical fermions yields a change in sign. A two-electron state must be antisymmetric under the exchange of the two particles. However, if an electron were really a photon moving in a closed path then the state would also be symmetric under the exchange of those particles.

Baloney. It's to do with the way "quantum states" change to become different particles. There's no magic to it, there is no mystery. You start with a photon, and you end up with an electron and a positron, wherein the closed path is chiral, like a moebius strip is chiral. Or you take it a step further and end up with two photons.

2. As we discussed earlier in this thread (about 2 years ago), a photon is also neutral and magically making it whizz around in a loop does not produce an electric charge.

It does when that loop is chiral. You know how gravitomagnetism is associated with frame-dragging? Well, so is electromagnetism. Hence the screw mechanism.

3. Photons do not participate in weak interactions, and confining one to a loop will not suddenly cause them to do so.

It does. There's two rotations to the loop. Go play with that washing line. Make sure you take your pliers.

4. There is no known physical mechanism which would cause a photon to do that dance in the first place.

Yes there is, it's called displacement current. Go read up on it, it isn't called that for nothing. The photon displaces its own path into a closed path.

5. If we took your self-trapped photon state and created its mirror image, according to you we'd get a positron (IIRC). However, the mirror image of an electron is still an electron.

You have to reverse the direction of the arrowheads. Then it's a "time reversed electron". It isn't travelling backwards in time, it just has the opposite chirality.

6. Orbital angular momentum is quantised in integer multiples of ħ. Photon are spin-1. Thus, a photon travelling in a loop cannot be a spin-1/2 state.

When the rotation is in two planes it can. Go get a strip of paper, and go make a moebius strip. Now run your finger round it. You need to go round 720 degrees to return to the original position and orientation. That's spin ½. Now stop being such a nay nay naysayer and get on board 21st century physics.

 

[Farsight]

To be honest, I gave up some time ago believing that Farsight might publicly acknowledge that his ideas are fundamentally wrong; IMHO it will never happen now that his book is published. All that is left is (1) to make available some material (i.e. counterarguments) for the benefit of those who might otherwise be taken in and (2) hopefully (and this is a stretch goal) to at least get him to understand why no-one else accepts his arguments.

It's taking a bit of time for physics to come round. That's how it is - SR wasn't maintream until the late twenties, GR wasn't mainstream until the sixties. But it's happening. And do note that these aren't my ideas. What I've done is a "synthesis", which involves very little in the way of original ideas from me.

 

[Farsight]

They don't interact directly. Read up on QED.

I have. They do interact directly. Those virtual particles aren't real particles. That's why they're called virtual particles. The underlying reality is the evanescent wave.

I'm going to snip most of your elaborations below, because it would take us too far from the main point (i.e. neutrinos) and only a yes/no answer was required...

From the above, you agree that any particle with non-zero rest mass is at rest in some inertial frames. Good, that's standard SR.

Which you don't understand. You don't understand mass. It's as if Einstein never wrote that paper.

However, bearing in mind that I wanted a simple "yes" or "no", take another look at my last question (and your response):

Your questions were loaded with presumptions and ambiguity.

To get any further I need a very clear "yes" or "no", so let me try wording this another way. In your view, does the current experimental evidence suggest that at least two out of three neutrino flavours have non-zero rest mass, or not?

No.

It suggests that neutrinos have a longitudinal oscillation in addition to their spin. A particle does not have some ghostly on/off property of rest mass that comes and goes like magic. Neutrinos oscillate, ct. I've explained the energy-momentum path and how it relates to mass. Stop rejecting it in favour of mysticism.

 

[Farsight]

If gravity acts on electromagnetic energy differently from strong-force energy, the equivalence principle is violated. The ratio of the inertial mass to gravitational mass will vary depending on the composition of the material, because different materials derive different proportions of their mass from electromagnetic versus strong-force energy.

You've jumped to the wrong conclusion here. We're only talking about a difference in the relative strength of the electromagnetic force and the strong force. Conservation of energy applies, and energy is energy. The energy of say a proton isn't made up of strong-force energy distinct from electromagnetic energy, as you can deduce when you perform low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation, whereafter the strong force appears to have vanished.

 

[Farsight]

Not really - the Electric Universe theory is a crank idea so any proponent of it is a crank.

Humpty Dumpty logic. Doubtless people said something similar about On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in the quarter-century before SR became mainstream.

But then your book is a crank book by definition - it claims to be a TOE but if it had valid science in it you would have published it in a science journal.

Catch-22 logic. What I give you is a synthesis drawn from robust evidential papers that people with serious credentials struggle to get into high-impact science journals.

And as we saw on the black holes thread, the rest of your logic is similarly suspect.

 

[Farsight]

I would say that is not entirely true. The higher impact journals tend to publish the higher impact research (although the research may have higher impact if its published in a high impact journal). From very limited personal experience I have seen little evidence to suggest that the level of evidence required in such journals is higher than in the (often more specialised) quality journals with a lower impact.

Agreed. I think the important thing to remember with all this is that journals are essentially magazines. And there's no sound reason why magazines should dictate the progress of a field of endeavour.

 

[sol invictus]

You've jumped to the wrong conclusion here. We're only talking about a difference in the relative strength of the electromagnetic force and the strong force. Conservation of energy applies, and energy is energy. The energy of say a proton isn't made up of strong-force energy distinct from electromagnetic energy, as you can deduce when you perform low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation, whereafter the strong force appears to have vanished.

The problem here is your "theory" is a bunch of vague nonsense words, so it's impossible to test. That makes it not science, and totally uninteresting apart from the psychology it reveals.

Actual theories of physics have a mathematical formulation that makes precise predictions. One of the predictions of the real theory is that the strong and EM forces have exactly the same behavior, individually and relative to each other, in a freely falling reference frame in a gravitational field as they do in zero gravity. Even in a non-freely falling reference frame, the change in their strength (there would be one, but not for the reasons you give) are calculable and are far smaller than your naive estimate.

 

[dafydd]

Humpty Dumpty logic. Doubtless people said something similar about On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in the quarter-century before SR became mainstream.

.

Name some of these people. No doubt you have done some research on this subject.

 

[Farsight]

Perhaps, but it's not relevant to what we were talking about.

It is. We were talking about GRBs in the context of black holes and whether a forced annihilation to photons occurs as opposed to electron-stripping and neutrino production.

Again, it's not relevant to what we were talking about.

Google on the title and see what comes up. Stuff like this: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/44 where you can read this: "In a paper in Physical Review Letters, Ido Kaminer and colleagues at Technion, Israel, report on wave solutions to Maxwell’s equations that are both nondiffracting and capable of following a much tighter circular trajectory than was previously thought possible". We're getting there, ct.