ACG52

Plasma Universe enthusiasts are certainly.... enthusiastic.

We get very little in the way of detail from SH nowadays. And what we do hear from him sounds more and more speculative.

Energy does contribute to the gravitational field.

So freedom of speech is the right to say anything you approve of?

And to be blunt about it, this idea is nonsense.

That's not what the forum rules say. If you just want to make things up, do it in the Trash.

As you've been told before, intuition has been formed in a low-energy, slow moving universe, and does not apply to any other evironment. You're not falsifying Relativity, you're just denying it because you don't understand it.

Forum rules: So this thread should be in the Trash.

In motion relative to what? Faster relative to what?

The CMBR is not a frame of reference.

This is probably a translation problem, but none of the above made any sense to me.

Relative to what?

We have evidence of a gravitational field where we cannot see any matter to generate it. From this, we deduce there is something there that we can't see. This is Dark matter.

You don't really seem to know what the laws of physics are, or how they are applied. Gravity, relative movement, acceleration, all are factors which the laws of physics deal with. If your experiment is to see how fast objects fall in a vacuum, adding air will change the result. But the same laws of physics apply to both situations.

No it does not. In one's own frame, time is always measured at the same normal rate. The Laws of Physics are the same in all reference frames, but you must always take the enironmental conditions, i.e. gravity, relative movement, into consideration when applying them. The laws being the same does not mean you will get the same result under all conditions.

Totally.

Except that's dealing with magnetism, which is a totally different thing than gravity.

Intuition was formed by evolving in a low-energy, slow moving universe. Thus intuition is not suited to judging a or understanding a high-energy, relativistic universe. Most laymen don't understand the physics of the universe. The test of an explanation is not if it's credible to someone knowing nothing of the subject, it's is the explanation correct.

This thread belongs in Speculations.

Yes. In his frame of reference, time moves normally. It's when it's compared to another frame of reference that we see time dilation.

The moderators have asked me to be polite, so there's not really anything I can say to that.

No. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was a rigorous mathematical treatment, which was recognized as being a turning point in physics. So you're comparing yourself with Einstein?

This does not in any way conform to actual observation of the physical universe. In other words, nonsense.

Nonsense. Are you stating that gravity is irrelevent? When you say 'near speed of light', relative to what? Ah, argument by appeal to nonauthority.