unifying gravity and electromagnetism

[drgsrinivas]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

In other words an increase in entropy (energy level or disorder) is what causes the electromagnetic force and a decrease in the same (or creation of matter) is what results in the gravity.

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

So mass and energy are responsible for the same force but have opposite direction.

www.homeoscience.com

 

[Mashuna]

That's a hilarious website you've linked to there. Have you ever managed to persuade anyone to take it seriously?

 

[The Don]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

Yes....

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

People have been trying to unify gravitation with the other forces and so far have not been able to do so. The correct mathematics have not yet been developed.

IAs photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

They don't but if you think that they do, show us the maths

In other words an increase in entropy (energy level or disorder) is what causes the electromagnetic force and a decrease in the same (or creation of matter) is what results in the gravity.

It doesn't but if you think it does, show us the maths

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

Now you're just making stuff up but if you're not, show us the maths

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

It doesn't but if you think it does, show us the maths

So mass and energy are responsible for the same force but have opposite direction.

www.homeoscience.com

They aren't, but as you clearly think they do, instead of indulging in some vague thought experiment, do the maths

 

[PixyMisa]

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

As The Don said, this is so bad it's not even wrong, but if you intend to continue, show us the equations.

Anything further you post without equations will be summarily mocked.

 

[Vorpal]

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

Because electric charge and mass are not the same.

If you have a gas of electric charges in a box, zipping about at some velocities, then the total electric charge in the box (as one could measure through Coulomb's law from outside the box) is just the sum of the individual charges.
But if you have a gas of gravitational charges in a box (i.e., massive particles), then the total gravitational charge in the box (as one could measure through Newton's law) is not the sum of the individual masses, but that amount scaled by a Lorentz factor γ corresponding to the average velocity of the particles.

If electric charge also scaled like that, then it would be gravity. But it doesn't.

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

Whut?

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

Antiphoton = photon.

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

You can't have matter without energy. That's basic relativity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

In other words an increase in entropy (energy level or disorder) is what causes the electromagnetic force and a decrease in the same (or creation of matter) is what results in the gravity.

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

So mass and energy are responsible for the same force but have opposite direction.

www.homeoscience.com

Your post seems to ask some well thought through questions, so you deserve a well thought through reply.

.... .....

No.

Thank you for your post, think again, and then come back.

Hans

 

[Tubbythin]

That's a hilarious website you've linked to there.

Indeed. I particularly like the bit where the constancy of light is 'disproved' by taking a real experiment, proposing an alternative form of the experiment (which is completely impossible) and then claiming that because the results of the actual experiment did not turn out the same as that of the proposed experiment (which is completely impossible to do and has thus never been done), the interpretation of the actual experiment must be wrong.

 

[The Don]

From the link in the OP.....

Homeopathy and Science

....two things that are completely unalike

 

[dafydd]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

In other words an increase in entropy (energy level or disorder) is what causes the electromagnetic force and a decrease in the same (or creation of matter) is what results in the gravity.

A decrease in entropy may create ‘antiphotons’ (?graviton) or ‘dark energy’ which could then mediate gravity.

or Gravity could be an innate property of matter in the universe in the sense that it may not require a mediator or carrier. Probably matter ‘naturally’ collapses into singularity in the absence of Energy. So graviton, the presumed carrier particle for gravity, may not be needed.

So mass and energy are responsible for the same force but have opposite direction.

www.homeoscience.com

Thank you for the link. I collect links to hogwash sites. That is a very funny example of the genre.

 

[drgsrinivas]

show us the maths

They aren't, but as you clearly think they do, instead of indulging in some vague thought experiment, do the maths

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

Temper, temper! If you get your knickers tied up all that easy, I suggest you refrain from posting loads of technobabble on a skeptic forum.

What exactly did you expect?

Hans

 

[Mashuna]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

Well, you've shown you're unable to use logic, maybe you'd have better luck with maths.

 

[Tubbythin]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Go on then. Disprove the constancy of the speed of light.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

Mathematics is really just a (large) set of logical rules. If a 'scientific' hypothesis doesn't stand up to mathematical scrutiny then, chances are, it isn't logical.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

So it's your turn. Go for it.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Bring it on. Let's see your explanations and disproofs.

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

One great advantage of using mathematics to describe **** ideas is that their **** aspects become more obvious.

You can, of course, achieve much the same result by railing against mathematics.

 

[bjornart]

As photons ‘aggregate’ into matter, the resultant decrease in the number of ‘free photons’ or the energy level of the system (or the decrease in entropy) is probably what we appreciate as the gravitational attraction.

There's no steady aggregation of photons into matter when I jump, so why do I fall back to earth?

And if you think there is, explain why, without resorting to "it has to be like that for my theory to be true, and my theory is true so that's the way it is."

 

[Dancing David]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic.

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Well then how did you disporove the constancy of c?

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

So when asked to demonstrate you claims, you get all huffy and engage in rhetorical spin, in your second post.

This does not bode well for your length of time on the JREF, chill out, read some threads, learn to explain yourself.

 

[The Don]

It was Logic which lead to the religion, science and maths. Religious beliefs turned extremistic and overthrew logic. Then came the Science from logic. Now it is the turn of the scientific extremists to reject logic..

Do you have any evidence for this assertion ?

As far as I can determine, the earliest evidence for the study of logic comes from around 3000 years ago.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic

Religion on the other hand has been around for a lot, lot longer

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths..

There is ample experimental evidence for the absolute speed of light and its application to Special Relativity:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Do you have any opposing evidence (as opposed to faulty thought experiments) ?

How DO you explain the double slit experiment in a clear and concise way without using mathemetics ?

Apparently a mathematical model can be constructed for any **** idea, so why your mind is so obsessed with maths.

Absolutely, any mathematical model could be constructed. Mathematical models are then compared to experimental results and used to make predictions. Those that do so effectively are retained, those that do not are discarded.

In any case they provide a clear and unambiguous description of that model as opposed to a collection of words which can be misunderstood.

 

[Dancing David]

Use this link to read, decrease click through

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ww.homeoscience.com/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Gotta love it but use Google cache!

"The string will have a heavy but tiny matter pole and a large antimatter pole that has no weight."

Hmm, antimatter has no mass?

"Also we can’t imagine that a substance is a mere conglomeration of material particles. We know that substances contain molecules/ atoms which are again made up of subatomic particles. What we don’t easily appreciate or realize is the Energy that fills the space between these particles. Not only the Energy, but there could well be many undetectable/ undiscovered /more fundamental particles within these interstices. These particles could be seen as intermediate energy states or ‘intermediate particles’ in the process of energy to matter transformation. "

Ay, here there be dragons...

 

[Tubbythin]

I don’t need your **** maths to explain the double slit experiment or to disprove the constant speed of light that is based on the well ‘woven’ maths.

Oh, just noticed from your page... if you'd done the slightest bit of research in to the double-slit experiment you would have found that the interference pattern still appears when electrons are fired one at a time. The idea that it is caused by interference between the electrons is simply false.

 

[drgsrinivas]

Double slit situation

An electron is apparently surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. Virtual particles are particle/ antiparticle pairs (electrons/ positrons) that get created from the ‘vacuum’ and disappear by annihilating each other.

If this picture is true, the created particle/ antiparticle pairs may not adhere to and behave with sanctity and it is possible that the original electron may get annihilated by one of the virtual positrons created ‘next’ to it. So the position of the ‘real electron’ keeps changing in the cloud and we may feel that its exact position is unpredictable. This unpredictability is more to do with our ignorance and not to be considered as a fundamental character of the particle.

So this electron cloud when shot, is likely to travel through both the slits simultaneously and how much of the cloud goes through each slit depends on the size of the cloud (likely to be infinite), the distance between the slits and the direction it is shot.

When many electrons are shot at once, all will travel in the same way as above but the particle clouds/ virtual particles of different electrons can interact with their neighbors’ and hence can influence the position of the neighboring ‘real electrons’. This influence of particle clouds on one another can result in the interference pattern observed in the two slit experiment.

www.homeoscience.com

 

[Tubbythin]

When many electrons are shot at once, all will travel in the same way as above but the particle clouds/ virtual particles of different electrons can interact with their neighbors’ and hence can influence the position of the neighboring ‘real electrons’. This influence of particle clouds on one another can result in the interference pattern observed in the two slit experiment.

Like I said, nine minutes before you posted this, the interference pattern still appears when the electrons are fired one at a time. Therefore the pattern cannot possibly to do with electron-electron interference. You are simply wrong.

 

[drgsrinivas]

time dilation and the weirdness

Apparently different observers/clocks measure different times for the same ‘duration’ in the space, depending on their relative motion. Clocks apparently run slower or in other words time dilates as one moves faster, and hence the speed of light remains constant.

Also time apparently runs slower or time dilates near massive objects.

Time dilation has been ‘proved’ experimentally by running two flights with equal velocity in the opposite directions, one east wards and another west wards. It was 'noted' that the clock in the east bound flight recorded less time than that in the west bound flight ‘indicating’ time dilation. This is because, earth’s rotational velocity (as it spins towards east) gets added to the east bound flight making its relative velocity more than the west bound flight which runs opposite to the direction of the earth’s spin.

If that was true I should imagine that clocks in some way get affected by gravity and their own motion (as can predicted by the gravity/acceleration equivalence) rather than there was any real time dilation or contraction.

We can straight away discard the idea of constant speed of light using the same twin flight experiment. Imagine that a beam of light with velocity ‘10C’ is shone towards the west. A west bound flight whose velocity is ‘2C’ will measure the velocity of light as only 8C unless its time gets dilated. Similarly the east bound flight with a velocity 2C will measure the speed of light as 12C unless its time runs faster. But we know that this was not the case from the above experiment.

 

[Tubbythin]

We can straight away discard the idea of constant speed of light using the same twin flight experiment. Imagine that a beam of light with velocity ‘10C’ is shone towards the west. A west bound flight whose velocity is ‘2C’ will measure the velocity of light as only 8C unless its time gets dilated. Similarly the east bound flight with a velocity 2C will measure the speed of light as 12C unless its time runs faster. But we know that this was not the case from the above experiment.

Like I said:

I particularly like the bit where the constancy of light is 'disproved' by taking a real experiment, proposing an alternative form of the experiment (which is completely impossible) and then claiming that because the results of the actual experiment did not turn out the same as that of the proposed experiment (which is completely impossible to do and has thus never been done), the interpretation of the actual experiment must be wrong.

A beam of light cannot have a velocity of light of 2c or 8c or 10c. Your thought experiment bares no resemblance to the physical universe. It is utterly meaningless in every possible way.

 

[drgsrinivas]

Enter the weird world of relative time

If time dilation was true

1.If there was no absolute time, certain things make no sense- velocity, acceleration, frequency etc.

2.Twins paradox

a.Due to the expanding universe, we on this earth are already moving at close to the speed of light relative to the receding galaxies at the ‘far end’ of our universe. This should make us immortal!

b.Coming to the twins paradox, it is said that if one of the twins travels to the outer space at close to the speed of light, on his return from the space trip, because of time dilation, he would apparently be younger than his earth bound twin. But we could argue that the earth bound twin was also moving at the same speed relative to the space bound twin. So time should dilate for both them equally.

c.As motion is a relative thing in this universe, the concept of time dilation for fast moving things is rather absurd.

3.If time runs slowly near strong gravitational fields, it must have run increasingly slowly as we trace back our expanding universe to the point of big bang.

a.As time runs infinitely slowly as we approach the big bang singularity, we would never ‘reach’ the stage of singularity, if at all this existed.

b.Or at least the predicted time scale of events since big bang are totally wrong – one billionth of a second immediately after the big bang could well be equivalent to our 13.5 billion years, which is the estimated age of our universe!

4.Earth older than Sun?

a.As time should run slower for the Sun than for the Earth, at some point of time, it is possible that our Earth gets older than the Sun and similarly our moon older than our earth.

b.Also we are probably looking at the sun that is actually in our past and the moon which is in our future! So time travel is possible!

May be that weirdness of weirdness leads us to the reality and this is what mathematicians and scientists are hoping for! (Like negative value multiplied by another negative giving a positive value)

 

[drgsrinivas]

A beam of light cannot have a velocity of light of 2c or 8c or 10c. Your thought experiment bares no resemblance to the physical universe. It is utterly meaningless in every possible way.

I am not sure if the rest of the crowd also has the same limitations like you.

 

[Tubbythin]

If time dilation was true

I'll make a start...

1.If there was no absolute time, certain things make no sense- velocity, acceleration, frequency etc.

Nope. We still have perfectly reasonable formulations of these things. What we don't have is an absolute frame of rest. This doesn't matter though, so long as we're consistent in terms of which reference frames we use and/or we use the correct transformations between frames.

2.Twins paradox

a.Due to the expanding universe, we on this earth are already moving at close to the speed of light relative to the receding galaxies at the ‘far end’ of our universe. This should make us immortal!

No it shouldn't. We see our selves getting older at the rate we do and we see ourselves die. Therefore we are not immortal. Another observer in a different reference frame may measure us aging at a different rate to what we measure but if they do the correct co-ordinate transformations they will see that their measurementa are entirely consistent with ours.

b.Coming to the twins paradox, it is said that if one of the twins travels to the outer space at close to the speed of light, on his return from the space trip, because of time dilation, he would apparently be younger than his earth bound twin. But we could argue that the earth bound twin was also moving at the same speed relative to the space bound twin. So time should dilate for both them equally.

Nope. The twin paradox was solved a century ago. Why not bother to actually read about it's solution?

c.As motion is a relative thing in this universe, the concept of time dilation for fast moving things is rather absurd.

No it isn't. It may be counter intuitive but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Tubbythin]

I am not sure if the rest of the crowd also has the same limitations like you.

Limitations? Please do elaborate.

 

[sol invictus]

Limitations? Please do elaborate.

You're very limited, Tubby. You have difficulty understanding nonsense.

I'm afraid I too suffer from the same limitation.

 

[ferd burfle]

Why is it that physics crackpots always present their ideas saying "we" and "our" as if those reading are active participants in their delusions?


ferd

 

[dafydd]

You're very limited, Tubby. You have difficulty understanding nonsense.

I'm afraid I too suffer from the same limitation.

Same here. I don't speak gibberish either.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We can straight away discard the idea of constant speed of light using the same twin flight experiment.

Quite the opposite: The experiment can and was used to show that the speed of light (c) is indeed constant.

Imagine that a beam of light with velocity ‘10C’ is shone towards the west. A west bound flight whose velocity is ‘2C’ will measure the velocity of light as only 8C unless its time gets dilated.

I don't know what you mean by '10C', but in any case, you are wrong. No matter what speed you move, light beams shot forwards and backwards will be seen to leave at the speed of light, c. Not only that, but stationary observers intercepting them will also observe them to be moving at c.

Hans

 

[The Don]

...snip.....
2.Twins paradox

a.Due to the expanding universe, we on this earth are already moving at close to the speed of light relative to the receding galaxies at the ‘far end’ of our universe. This should make us immortal!

Evidence for the speed of expansion ?

Even if it were true, in their reference frame we would appear to be immortal

b.Coming to the twins paradox, it is said that if one of the twins travels to the outer space at close to the speed of light, on his return from the space trip, because of time dilation, he would apparently be younger than his earth bound twin. But we could argue that the earth bound twin was also moving at the same speed relative to the space bound twin. So time should dilate for both them equally.

Except that one twin (the one who has remained on earth) has remained in the same inertial reference frame whereas the other twin occupies one inertial reference frame on the way out and another on the way back.

If you can be bothered to read about it, it's all here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

c.As motion is a relative thing in this universe, the concept of time dilation for fast moving things is rather absurd.

It may be absurd to you but it has been observed experimentally and described theoretically (but not necessarily in that order)

 

[MRC_Hans]

If time dilation was true

1.If there was no absolute time, certain things make no sense- velocity, acceleration, frequency etc.

There is relative time. That is enough.

2.Twins paradox

Solved long ago.

a.Due to the expanding universe, we on this earth are already moving at close to the speed of light relative to the receding galaxies at the ‘far end’ of our universe. This should make us immortal!

No, because there is no universal rest reference.

b.Coming to the twins paradox, it is said that if one of the twins travels to the outer space at close to the speed of light, on his return from the space trip, because of time dilation, he would apparently be younger than his earth bound twin. But we could argue that the earth bound twin was also moving at the same speed relative to the space bound twin. So time should dilate for both them equally.

No. Acceleration was only applied to one of them.

c.As motion is a relative thing in this universe, the concept of time dilation for fast moving things is rather absurd.

No, but it is a bit hart to understand.

3.If time runs slowly near strong gravitational fields, it must have run increasingly slowly as we trace back our expanding universe to the point of big bang.

a.As time runs infinitely slowly as we approach the big bang singularity, we would never ‘reach’ the stage of singularity, if at all this existed.

Time does not run infinitely slowly. Since the mass of the universe is finite, the gravitational time change is also finite.

b.Or at least the predicted time scale of events since big bang are totally wrong – one billionth of a second immediately after the big bang could well be equivalent to our 13.5 billion years, which is the estimated age of our universe!

So what?

4.Earth older than Sun?

a.As time should run slower for the Sun than for the Earth, at some point of time, it is possible that our Earth gets older than the Sun and similarly our moon older than our earth.

No. Time is perceived to move slower on the sun. But at each point of their existence, Earth and the sun are simultaneous.

b.Also we are probably looking at the sun that is actually in our past and the moon which is in our future! So time travel is possible!

No.

May be that weirdness of weirdness leads us to the reality and this is what mathematicians and scientists are hoping for!

(Like negative value multiplied by another negative giving a positive value)

No, but people who can't grasp things will continue to jump to weird conclusions.

Hans

 

[The Don]

A beam of light cannot have a velocity of light of 2c or 8c or 10c. Your thought experiment bares no resemblance to the physical universe. It is utterly meaningless in every possible way.

OK I'll bite.

How can the beam of light have a velocity of anything other than C when the speed of light in a medium is constant ?

Remember, the speed of constant speed of light in a given medium has been demonstrated again and again experimentally.

 

[Tubbythin]

OK I'll bite.

How can the beam of light have a velocity of anything other than C when the speed of light in a medium is constant ?

Remember, the speed of constant speed of light in a given medium has been demonstrated again and again experimentally.

Errr... are you actually directing this at me?

 

[Wowbagger]

Imagine that a beam of light with velocity ‘10C’ is shone towards the west.

That's like proving that it is possible to go back in time, by saying: "Imagine someone went back in time..."

Or proving "1 plus 1 is not equal to 2" by starting "Well, imagine if 1 + 1 = 3...".

Where is the actual explanation for how the speed of light would not be constant (in a vacuum)?

 

[Philosaur]

We can straight away discard the idea of constant speed of light using the same twin flight experiment. Imagine that a beam of light with velocity ‘10C’ is shone towards the west. A west bound flight whose velocity is ‘2C’ will measure the velocity of light as only 8C unless its time gets dilated. Similarly the east bound flight with a velocity 2C will measure the speed of light as 12C unless its time runs faster. But we know that this was not the case from the above experiment.

The 'C' here is not for celeritas, but centum.

He's talking about diluting light!

 

[The Don]

Errr... are you actually directing this at me?

Damn my crossed eyes and clumsy quoting

Apologies , no

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Temper, temper! If you get your knickers tied up all that easy, I suggest you refrain from posting loads of technobabble on a skeptic forum.

What exactly did you expect?

Hans

Sounds like he could use a good dose of Staphysagria*. Among its other amazing homecraptic abilities is that of controlling anger.

-----------
* http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Staph

 

[Cuddles]

We are familiar with the idea that mass and energy are equivalent from the famous equation E= mc².

Some of us are also familiar with the correct equation E² = p²c² + m²c⁴. It's interesting how crackpots always seem to focus on the popular simplification rather than the full equation that would be needed to do any real physics.

If mass and energy are one and the same, why do we need two different forces- gravitational and electromagnetic?

We have four different forces.

I am not sure if the rest of the crowd also has the same limitations like you.

Reality is not really a limitation.