Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

ctamblyn · Apr 24, 2012

Farsight said:
No problem with coordinate transformations, but they will abandon the waterfall analogy.

There's no reason to, so I'm going to put my money on "no they won't".

Farsight said:
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.

According to GR, spacetime is locally flat at every single event (though not necessarily globally flat).

Farsight said:
No you won't.

That's a bold assertion. Either the LHC will find the Higgs in the limited range left to search, or it won't. What third alternative do you have in mind, and what makes you think it is more likely than the two I just mentioned?

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

From what we've seen there is no rational reason to believe that relativity+ qualifies as a coherent set of ideas, let alone a viable physical theory.

Farsight said:
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.

So you claim, without actually revealing (or perhaps even thinking about) the details. Show us, for example, how relativity+ leads to quantitative predictions that match or better those of the SM with regard to the anomalous magenetic dipole moment and diffraction.

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

They aren't listening to you, perhaps, but who can blame them when you have no coherent mathematical model to offer. They are, on the other hand, investigating physics beyond the SM.

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

A children's story hardly counts as evidence, Farsight.

Farsight said:
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".

I take that non-answer to mean that you do not intend to produce calculations to back up your claim. How unexpected.

Farsight said:
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.

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.

Evidently you have no understanding of Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics, despite your cocksureness. If I have a state with two identical fermions (e.g. electrons), then that state must change sign if I exchange the labels of those fermions. If they are bosons (e.g. photons), there is no sign change. Therefore, electrons are not self-trapped photons.

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

Bare assertion, contradicted by tried-and-tested theory and without any experimental support.

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

Bare assertion, contradicted by tried-and-tested theory and without any experimental support.

Farsight said:
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.

That's a horrendous/hilarious misunderstanding of a technical term, and a bare assertion, contradicted by tried-and-tested theory and without any experimental support.

Farsight said:
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.

You look at the electron in a mirror (parity-reversal) and the "photon knot" has opposite chirality; it's as simple as that. You say that's now a positron, while QED says that a parity-reversed electron is still an electron. Your claim flatly contradicts what QED says about electrons.

Farsight said:
When the rotation is in two planes it can.

Bare assertion, contradicted by tried-and-tested theory and without any experimental support.

Farsight said:
Go get a strip of paper, and go make a moebius strip.

First children's stories, now origami, but at no stage a coherent mathematical model to (a) demonstrate the self-consistency of your position and (b) show that it is useful.

ctamblyn · Apr 24, 2012

Farsight said:
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.

Both SR and GR provided mathematical models that allowed people to actually make predictions and then test them, long before you say they went "mainstream". You say "it's happening", but there's zero chance of that until you have a coherent mathematical model.

ctamblyn · Apr 24, 2012

Farsight said:
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.

You don't need to invoke virtual particles, just look at the QED Lagrangian and tell me where you see a photon-photon coupling term. Hint: there isn't one.

Farsight said:
Your questions were loaded with presumptions and ambiguity.

They were perfectly clear, as anyone can check for themselves. If you found any of them too technical or otherwise difficult to understand I'd be delighted to clarify. Which ones were tricky for you?

ctamblyn said:
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?

Farsight said:

No.

Click to expand...

Thank you. So you don't think that current experimental evidence suggests that at least two of the three neutrino flavours have non-zero rest mass. Very brave - good luck with that.

Farsight said:
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.

Hand-waving, bare assertion, etc.

ctamblyn · Apr 24, 2012

Farsight said:
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.

No, not here we weren't. Here's a link to all my posts in this thread since I resurrected it, up until the post in which you brought the subject of GRBs up:

You might be thinking of the conversation we were having in the BH thread, which started with your post here and ended with my post here. If you want to continue on the topic of 511 keV photon detection, I suggest we pick up where we left off in that thread rather than this one.

Tubbythin · Apr 24, 2012

Farsight said:
Agreed. I think the important thing to remember with all this is that journals are essentially magazines.

I don't agree with that.

Kwalish Kid · Apr 24, 2012

Tubbythin said:
I don't agree with that.

It's just one more obviously untrue statement that reveals that Farsight doesn't understand science. He can't do the math, he can't understand what a journal is, and he cannot even provide quotations properly.

You really can't take him serious. As people in this forum have noted, he refuses to even attempt to learn the basics of GR as evidenced by his failure to address the perihelion advance of Mercury. People have asked him to show how his version of GR calculates this for almost a decade now, and he has failed to be able to do it.

The Man · Apr 24, 2012

Farsight said:
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.

You could expect to see the ratio of pink to blue unicorns change as well for all that just your vague expectations matter. However, even finding such a change in no way makes the gravitational field a result of the ratio of pink to blue unicorns or the ratio of strong-force coupling constant to the electromagnetic-force coupling constant.

Farsight said:
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.

Your assertion was about the ratio of the strong-force coupling constant to the electromagnetic-force coupling constant. Not the electromagnetic-force coupling constant to the GPS clock adjustment. So you would have to measure both the strong-force coupling constant and the electromagnetic-force coupling constant to get that ratio at that gravitational potential.

Farsight said:
Not directly.

Again explicitly and directly as stated. Heck with a little algebra you can even put the fine structure constant directly as a ratio of just the electrostatic force (F_E) to the gravitational force (F_g) for those particles (F_E/ F_g).

Farsight said:
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.

The sun is even more massive then the Plank mass or “an asteroid” and I even put the fine structure constant in terms of the electron mass for you. So your complaint about the Plank mass being “huge” is simply and ridiculously futile.

Farsight said:
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.

Then the Planck mass “isn't that important” either and your compliant above about it being “huge” is self contradictory as well as futile.

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

“a bit about it”? So what ‘bits’ are you still missing? You made the claim here on this thread and having “fulfilled it 3+ years ago”, as you say, you should have no problem posting that explanation here on this thread.

Farsight said:
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."

They are also “combined” as, and one defined by, the speed of light.

Farsight said:
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.

And (to quote Montgomery Scott) “If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon”.

Also you seem to be missing the point that “If a gravitational field is only there because of a inverse-square gradient in the electrodynamical properties of space” then those “properties” must produce the easily detectable and measurable forces and changes in potential energy that we find right here on earth. So how about it, exactly how and how much of your “inverse-square gradient in the electrodynamical properties of space” will produce a 1n force or a 1nm change in potential energy at or near the surface of the Earth?

Farsight said:
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.

Perhaps you should read it again because that “unit charge” is the effective charge that we measure. We real don’t know what the actual charge of an electron is due to the screening. All we can measure is the effective charge.

Farsight said:
Of course it is. Einstein said it varies, and we can see it varies.
[qimg]http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/download/file.php?id=60[/qimg]

I couldn’t give a flying handshake what “Einstein said” and if you actually think “we can see it varies” then you should have no problem performing or citing any experiment that measures the speed of light in a vacuum as varying.

Farsight said:
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.

Did you say specifically how much “it has to vary” and why? If not then it just another vague assertion by you.

Farsight said:
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.

Well if it “always has gravitational potential energy in relation to the earth” then that “energy you supplied to the brick” hasn’t “departed the” Earth- brick “system”. Being consistent can help quite a bit in these matters.

Farsight said:
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.

Some fundamental values are measured others are defined. In either case if they vary then they are not constants, if they remain the same within certain limits then they are effectively constant within those limits. It is really quite simple and “constants aren't constant” is simply self contradictory.

Farsight said:
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.

Next time you wish to just prattle on about Goldilocks anthropic multiverse and the "fine tuned fundamental constants", don’t, and then you won’t have to worry about the next time someone might be hearing you spout such nonsense. Certainly you’ve gotten quite a bit ahead of yourself as that is the only one you’re playing your “game” on.

catsmate · Apr 24, 2012

Farsight said:
Agreed. I think the important thing to remember with all this is that journals are essentially magazines.

Oh good grief. This is possibly the most stupid thing you've said in this (or any) thread; it shows you know damn all about how science communicates and indeed how science works.

ctamblyn · Apr 25, 2012

Farsight said:
Stuff like this: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/44
(...snip...)
We're getting there, ct.

Returning to this briefly...

I'm afraid you're not getting anywhere except deeper into that hole you're digging yourself. I'd recommend reading the actual Letter ("Nondiffracting Accelerating Wave Packets of Maxwell’s Equations", Ido Kaminer, Rivka Bekenstein, Jonathan Nemirovsky, and Mordechai Segev) but I suspect that won't help. I'll summarise for you: It doesn't say what you think it does; no-one is making "self-trapped photons" or an approximation thereof.

W.D.Clinger · Apr 25, 2012

catsmate1 said:
Farsight said:

Agreed. I think the important thing to remember with all this is that journals are essentially magazines.

Click to expand...

Oh good grief. This is possibly the most stupid thing you've said in this (or any) thread; it shows you know damn all about how science communicates and indeed how science works.

In Farsight's defense: I don't think that even comes close to being the stupidest thing he's written in this thread.

He's wrong, of course. Instead of concluding he knows next to nothing of how science works, we might conclude he knows as little about magazines as about science. So far as I know, he has no experience with either.

It's worth noting that, once again, Farsight expects us to believe his emphatic assertion on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, apart from Farsight's own authority. Having published articles in both magazines and in scientific journals, I'm more inclined to trust my own experience than Farsight's unsupported assertion.

Farsight · Apr 25, 2012

LOL, Clinger, I'm forever providing the scientific evidence. You're the one who runs a mile from it remember? And resorts to ad hominems because you've got no counterargument.

Farsight · Apr 25, 2012

catsmate1 said:
Oh good grief. This is possibly the most stupid thing you've said in this (or any) thread; it shows you know damn all about how science communicates and indeed how science works.

That's how it is. Journals are magazines. A journal has an editor. It is a publication. And when it comes to physics, science isn't working too well.

Tubbythin · Apr 25, 2012

Farsight said:
That's how it is. Journals are magazines. A journal has an editor.

So? Many books have editors. Websites have editors. Newspapers have editors. Why are journals not books/websites/newspapers? That really is an abysmal argument.
Take a physics journal. Say Physical Review Letters. Who subscribes to it? Dave the mechanic? I bet Amy at the hair salon does. She can put it on the table in the waiting area for her customers to read while they're waiting for their cut and blow dry. Or is it more likely that academic institutions will subscribe to journals based on the significance of work published in the journal and PRL's reputation for publishing accurate results based on a rigorous peer review procedure?

It is a publication.

Er... !?!?!?

And when it comes to physics, science isn't working too well.

Based on what quantitative criteria?

Roboramma · Apr 25, 2012

Tubbythin said:
Based on what quantitative criteria?

John Poole has not won a nobel prize.

Farsight · Apr 25, 2012

The Man said:
You could expect to see the ratio of pink to blue unicorns change as well for all that just your vague expectations matter. However, even finding such a change in no way makes the gravitational field a result of the ratio of pink to blue unicorns or the ratio of strong-force coupling constant to the electromagnetic-force coupling constant.

There are no pink and blue unicorns. But there are forces, and other things that we can measure. So your unicorns don't cut it at all. In fact, they're a sign of outrage and dismissal.

The Man said:
Your assertion was about the ratio of the strong-force coupling constant to the electromagnetic-force coupling constant. Not the electromagnetic-force coupling constant to the GPS clock adjustment. So you would have to measure both the strong-force coupling constant and the electromagnetic-force coupling constant to get that ratio at that gravitational potential.

No you don't. Because the fine-structure constant is a dimensionless ratio and the strong force appears to vanish after low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation. Only it doesn't.

The Man said:
Again explicitly and directly as stated. Heck with a little algebra you can even put the fine structure constant directly as a ratio of just the electrostatic force (F_E) to the gravitational force (F_g) for those particles (F_E/ F_g).

Don't be ridiculous. The fine structure constant doesn't have a value of 10^-39!

The Man said:
The sun is even more massive then the Plank mass or “an asteroid” and I even put the fine structure constant in terms of the electron mass for you. So your complaint about the Plank mass being “huge” is simply and ridiculously futile.

As above.

The Man said:
Then the Planck mass “isn't that important” either and your compliant above about it being “huge” is self contradictory as well as futile.

As above.

The Man said:
“a bit about it”? So what ‘bits’ are you still missing? You made the claim here on this thread and having “fulfilled it 3+ years ago”, as you say, you should have no problem posting that explanation here on this thread.

Follow the link.

The Man said:
They are also “combined” as, and one defined by, the speed of light.

And the speed of light varies.

The Man said:
Also you seem to be missing the point that “If a gravitational field is only there because of a inverse-square gradient in the electrodynamical properties of space” then those “properties” must produce the easily detectable and measurable forces and changes in potential energy that we find right here on earth.

They do. Things fall down.

The Man said:
So how about it, exactly how and how much of your “inverse-square gradient in the electrodynamical properties of space” will produce a 1n force or a 1nm change in potential energy at or near the surface of the Earth?

How much of it depends on how much matter you use and the slope of the gradient at your location. But to give you the general picture, light veers in a gravitational field because c = √(1/ε₀μ₀) at one elevation is not the same as at another. An electron has spin angular momentum and a magnetic dipole moment, and since we can make an electron out of light, think of it as light going round and round. Stick a circle of light that looks like this: O, into a gravitational gradient. What’s going to happen? Divide the circle into four flat quadrants to make it even simpler:

..←
↓....↑
..→

Starting from the left and going anticlockwise, at a given instant we have a photon travelling down like this ↓. There’s a gradient in c from top to bottom, but all it does is make the photon look blueshifted. A little while later the photon is moving like this → and the lower portion of the photon wave-front is subject to a slightly lower c than the upper portion. So it bends, refracts, curves down a little. Later it’s going this way ↑ and looks redshifted, and later still it’s going this way ← and bends down again. These bends translate into a different position for our electron. The bent photon path becomes electron motion. The electron falls down:

○
↓

The Man said:
Perhaps you should read it again because that “unit charge” is the effective charge that we measure. We real don’t know what the actual charge of an electron is due to the screening. All we can measure is the effective charge.

No it isn't. Charge is conserved. It doesn't change.

The Man said:
I couldn’t give a flying handshake what “Einstein said”

Fine, dismiss Einstein.

The Man said:
and if you actually think “we can see it varies” then you should have no problem performing or citing any experiment that measures the speed of light in a vacuum as varying.

The Shapiro Delay. Light goes slower when it skims the sun. Or see See this article re super-accurate optical clocks. Compare two clocks one a foot above the other, and you can see them go out of synch. Don't start thinking that's because "the flow of time is reduced". You cannot open up a clock and see time flowing through it. Clocks clock up some kind of motion. And optical clocks clock up the motion of light. When the clock goes slower, it's because the light goes slower.

But doubtless you will dismiss not just Einstein, but the scientific evidence too.

The Man said:
Did you say specifically how much “it has to vary” and why? If not then it just another vague assertion by you.

No I didn't, but your "vague assertion" demonstrates that you're in dismissal mode.

The Man said:
Well if it “always has gravitational potential energy in relation to the earth” then that “energy you supplied to the brick” hasn’t “departed the” Earth- brick “system”. Being consistent can help quite a bit in these matters.

It's gone, and it's never coming back.

The Man said:
Some fundamental values are measured others are defined. In either case if they vary then they are not constants, if they remain the same within certain limits then they are effectively constant within those limits. It is really quite simple and “constants aren't constant” is simply self contradictory.

No, it's telling it the way it is.

The Man said:
Next time you wish to just prattle on about Goldilocks anthropic multiverse and the "fine tuned fundamental constants", don’t, and then you won’t have to worry about the next time someone might be hearing you spout such nonsense. Certainly you’ve gotten quite a bit ahead of yourself as that is the only one you’re playing your “game” on.

Watch my lips: the so-called fundamental constants aren't constant. The Goldilocks anthropic universe and the "fine tuned fundamental constants" are nonsense. Get used to it, and get over your outrage.

bjornart · Apr 25, 2012

Farsight said:
Compare two clocks one a foot above the other, and you can see them go out of synch. Don't start thinking that's because "the flow of time is reduced". You cannot open up a clock and see time flowing through it. Clocks clock up some kind of motion. And optical clocks clock up the motion of light. When the clock goes slower, it's because the light goes slower.

But doubtless you will dismiss not just Einstein, but the scientific evidence too.

How can you manage to post this and expect to be taken seriously when what Einstein says is the exact opposite of what I've bolded? Light always moves at c, time changes. As someone who has just a basic knowledge of relativity and hasn't read this whole thread or your writings beyond this page of the thread I can't say your ideas are wrong, but if this is how you argue I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of doubt.

sol invictus · Apr 25, 2012

Farsight said:
And when it comes to physics, science isn't working too well.

Maybe that's because too many physicists are wasting their time arguing with internet cranks.

catsmate · Apr 25, 2012

Farsight said:
LOL, Clinger, I'm forever providing the scientific evidence. You're the one who runs a mile from it remember? And resorts to ad hominems because you've got no counterargument.

You may refer to your unsupported assertions, factually wrong opinions and quote-mined articles as "evidence" but it's no more valid or convincing than the same sort of rubbish from an IDiot, shroudie, evolution denier, 911 nut, holocaust denier or other wooster.
And you might want to check the actual meaning of 'ad hominem' before you use the term again.

Reality Check · Apr 26, 2012

Farsight said:
Humpty Dumpty logic.

The invalidity of the Electric Universe idea is physics not logic.

Farsight said:
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.

What you give us is an anecdote that shows

your dependence on the fallacy of argument by authority (what does "serious credentials" have to do with anything?)
your personal opionion that these people wrote "robust evidential" papers.
your unsupported assertion that these people struggled to get their papers published.
your fantasy that the reason that they struggled was that "peer review is abused to protect vested interest".

The real inanity is that these people actually got their papers published but you assert this as a protection of vested interest :jaw-dropp

:

Originally Posted by Farsight
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.

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

And as we saw on the black holes thread, the rest of your ignorance of GR is similarly documented.

The Man · Apr 26, 2012

Farsight said:
There are no pink and blue unicorns. But there are forces, and other things that we can measure. So your unicorns don't cut it at all. In fact, they're a sign of outrage and dismissal.

You have presented no forces and you've got your 'signs' turned around. Until you can actually calculate some forces "and other things that we can measure" their is nothing to dismiss or for anyone (other than you) be outraged about.

Farsight said:
No you don't. Because the fine-structure constant is a dimensionless ratio and the strong force appears to vanish after low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation. Only it doesn't.

If you want to show the ratio of the strong-force coupling constant to the electromagnetic-force coupling constant has changed as you claimed then you have to measure both of those coupling constants. If they have both changed in the same proportion then that ratio you are concerned with will not have changed. You really haven't thought any of this through have you?

Farsight said:
Don't be ridiculous. The fine structure constant doesn't have a value of 10^-39!

How did you arrive at that "value"? As it isn't the value of the fine structure constant the indication is that you've made some kind of mistake in your algebra.

Farsight said:
As above.

As above.

See above

Farsight said:
Follow the link.

I did, when are you going to get to the part where you actually explain what you claim you could instead of just what is in your own words just a "bit about it"?

Farsight said:
And the speed of light varies.

Fine..
"then you should have no problem performing or citing any experiment that measures the speed of light in a vacuum as varying."

Farsight said:
They do. Things fall down.

Not always, based on the "electrodynamical properties of space" the force of gravity on or near the surface of the Earth can be easily overcome by an electromagnetic attraction. The magnets on my refrigerator don't fall down.

Farsight said:
How much of it depends on how much matter you use and the slope of the gradient at your location. But to give you the general picture, light veers in a gravitational field because c = √(1/ε₀μ₀) at one elevation is not the same as at another. An electron has spin angular momentum and a magnetic dipole moment, and since we can make an electron out of light, think of it as light going round and round. Stick a circle of light that looks like this: O, into a gravitational gradient. What’s going to happen? Divide the circle into four flat quadrants to make it even simpler:

..←
↓....↑
..→

Starting from the left and going anticlockwise, at a given instant we have a photon travelling down like this ↓. There’s a gradient in c from top to bottom, but all it does is make the photon look blueshifted. A little while later the photon is moving like this → and the lower portion of the photon wave-front is subject to a slightly lower c than the upper portion. So it bends, refracts, curves down a little. Later it’s going this way ↑ and looks redshifted, and later still it’s going this way ← and bends down again. These bends translate into a different position for our electron. The bent photon path becomes electron motion. The electron falls down:

○
↓

You could have just said that you don't know how to calculate the force or change in potential energy. By all means please get back to us when you have figured out how to do that. Though I should caution you that changes in the "electrodynamical properties of space" will also produce changes in "electrodynamical" interactions that should be even more readily detectable. So you've got a hard task ahead, to show how those changes in "electrodynamical properties of space" produce the forces and energies attributed to gravitational fields that we can detect yet not predict changes in "electrodynamical" interactions that we don't detect.

Farsight said:
No it isn't. Charge is conserved. It doesn't change.

Again read your own citation. We don't know what the actual charge is and (currently) can only measure the screened effective charge.

Farsight said:
Fine, dismiss Einstein.

No problem.

Farsight said:
The Shapiro Delay. Light goes slower when it skims the sun. Or see See this article re super-accurate optical clocks. Compare two clocks one a foot above the other, and you can see them go out of synch. Don't start thinking that's because "the flow of time is reduced". You cannot open up a clock and see time flowing through it. Clocks clock up some kind of motion. And optical clocks clock up the motion of light. When the clock goes slower, it's because the light goes slower.

But doubtless you will dismiss not just Einstein, but the scientific evidence too.

Both of those refer to changes in time not the measurement of the speed of light as varying. So tell us exactly how does a mechanical clock 'go slower' because " light goes slower". Oh that's right you don't know how to calculate actual forces, changes in energy and actions from your " light goes slower" notion yet. By all means please get back to us when you can.

Farsight said:
No I didn't, but your "vague assertion" demonstrates that you're in dismissal mode.

I made no vague assertion and by all means please get back to us when you can say specifically how much “it has to vary” and why.

Farsight said:
It's gone, and it's never coming back.

It hasn't left the potential energy of the brick in relation to the Earth by your own assertions. So it hasn't gone anywhere other then where you put it, into that Earth - brick system. Again consistency can help in these matters.

Farsight said:
No, it's telling it the way it is.

Yep, evidently that you just like to contradict yourself.

Farsight said:
Watch my lips: the so-called fundamental constants aren't constant. The Goldilocks anthropic universe and the "fine tuned fundamental constants" are nonsense. Get used to it, and get over your outrage.

Again as posted before if what you are defining as a constant doesn't meet your definition of a constant then there is a problem with your definition or in the consistency of your application thereof. Again if you are concerned about people hearing that "nonsense" you refer to then just stop spouting it. As for any "outrage" you may perceive, don't try to posit your own emotional state onto others. Again by all means please get back to us when you can actually calculate the forces, changes in energy and actions that would result from your notions as opposed to just using it as a vector to try to posit your own "outrage" onto others.

Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

Data Ghost

Data Ghost

Data Ghost

Data Ghost

Illuminator

Muse

Unbanned zombie poster

No longer the 1

Data Ghost

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Master Poster

Philosopher

No longer the 1

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster