I-try

captcass Your learning may be assisted by going to Gravity by i-try

Zet. With regards the manner in which you have drawn that you call an aerofoil, then of course the leading section would generate a down force and the trailing section would generate an upwards generated force. Such a shaped wing would attempt to twist if set in horizontal motion. To generate lift, the raised leading section must be much shorter than the relatively longer tapered trailing section, and the angle of attack must be slightly raised to counter balance the down pressure on the leading section. Strange as it may seem, it is gravity that enables an aircraft to maintain lift due to atmospheric pressure.

ajb. You truthfully state on post 127: I don't know your work so I can't really make any useful comments. Answer In that regard, nobody else on this forum has even an idea of my work. Almost from the beginning of the thread The way I-try views energy was split from the essence of energy, I have been defending against misinformed accusations intermingled with abuse to the point of realisation that my quest on this forum was doomed. Every defence made was ignored and it rapidly became obvious that nobody was prepared to understand by reading my posts other than that pertaining to their own demands. With regards to how my work was examined on this forum, there is a need for a person with the power of a moderator to be assigned to the task of ensuring fairness when the ops are attempting to defend their work. There appears to be an established method of attack by ignoring salient points made by the defence, and either use abuse, sarcasm, or providing statements like it does not agree with QM or GR without bothering to attempt to explain why. In my case, it was not that I was not able to respond to statements implying my work did not comply with well established facts, it was a matter of being sick of having to reply to people who, on being completely ignorant of my work, were dedicated only to ridiculing it. When the referred to thread was locked, the main benefit was in relieving me from having to defend against disinterested people demanding that I explain to them something that had already been posted several times previous. I see you are classified as physic expert. Therefore, in the interest of clarification, I would be much obliged if you would go to Speculations and click on page 7 and then post number 137 of the locked thread The way I-try views energy. My work requires that the Gravitational mass is exactly equal to the Inertial mass irrespective of where it is measured in the universe. However, the work also requires that statement only applies to the actions of gravitation. The equivalence disappears when an experiment is performed with regards to inertia in proportion as supplied in post 137. If you are interested, I am willing to provide all reasons to your satisfaction, as to why that is so. That explanation of gravitation should help to provide a reason to properly examine my work; there is also an opportunity for a paper on the subject. There is a lot of unknown physics to be gained from an examination of the referred to statement regarding the lack of equivalence when dealing experimentally with inertia.

After having read the majority of posts provided on this thread, it appears that a person who challenges mainstream concepts such as gravitation is automatically regarded as a potential crackpot.; guilty and not to be proven to be innocent. I now realize why I would have been regarded as a crackpot 30 or more years ago, when I supplied my work to mainstream science, that provided a concept of gravity and gravitation that disallowed the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves.

Elfmotat. I will risk another warning or being banned by answering your several statement in the reverse order you provided them. I was new to this forum and was reading a post in classical physics where two members stated they had no idea of a quantum wave. I provided a post to the effect that if it was allowed and their email addresses were available, I would supply them with a copy of my work. That resulted in the first warning regarding attempting to introduce my Pet theory on this forum, I left this forum for a year or so and only returned when I became aware of the speculations section. The second warning came when a member was inquiring about the veracity of the author of an article he had read concerning the hunt for gravity waves. The authors name was mentioned. Several other posters stated they thought he was a quack and did not respond further. I supplied truthful information to the extent that the author was a university trained mathematician and did not mention gravity waves. The third warning was the results of me thinking that somehow my post had gone astray because there was absolutely no evidence of it in that thread, so I re-posted it. Instead of just removing the. text of my first post and substituting a caution, I received that warning. You stated: I think it's safe to say that nobody has a clue what you mean when you say that gravity and gravitation are "different." People have asked for clarification several times now, but all you ever say is "I already explained the difference in a previous post." Answer And so I have, Originally in the number of posts that were totally ignored because there were no replies or questions. Also explained to Strange to have it ignored and then in a later post he stated that he was not going to attempt to get his head around it. That did not surprise me because in another forum and some years ago, he stated that I was a idiot for believing that gravity and gravitation were two differing phenomenons. You state: Look, it's not our fault that your nonsense is nonsense. You're getting honest feedback here. I know you'd prefer validation, but you're not going to get it because nothing you're saying makes any sense. That's the truth. Answer. It is obvious that you have given little of no attention to the many posts to this thread and to the locked thread Gravity by I-try. Apart from the moderators, the other posters to Speculation are the people who only concentrate on the threads they start, and to whatever extent, people like Strange who post to several forums. Remember, he self confessed that his value to his company required him providing polite answers to silly questions.

To the members of this forum. I came to this forum in an attempt to gain an evaluation of my work It appears that was never possible. From the information regarding gravity and gravitation I have supplied to this forum, then perhaps the reference to the pull of gravity or gravitational pull will eventually cease to be referred to. In that regard, mainstream science has at least one conceptual description of gravity that had it been fairly examined, has a precision to explain why Pioneer received an acceleration beyond that expected by the application of Newtonian gravitation; also why Io is the most volcanic effected body of matter in the solar-system. With regards to the how and the why of mainstream science belief regarding the reason for such concepts as matter and antimatter, also nuclear force etceteras; then their belief will not be challenged by my work regarding those subjects because there will be no further posted extracts from it. The reason for that decision is the lack of interest in my work and I have now received three warnings.

jajrussel. Don't waste effort and material building a wheel, build a balance instead at right angle to the neutral point of the differing gravitational effects, then rotate it 360 degrees. It will remain in balance for the same reason the rotating Earth stays in perfect balance as it orbits the Sun.

Strange. I provided ample opportunity over a number of posts for you to realise why ? appears to violate the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. In my last post there was a request that you post the reason why you constantly state: But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity. This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference". (You keep ignoring this.) Unfortunately you were unable or unwilling to post a reason. In that case I cannot be fairly accused of lecturing or attempting to humiliate you by supplying an answer. You should remember the discussion began with regards to a n of force relative to both methods of accelerating a kg of matter. Then to a dine of force with regards to both methods of accelerating a gram of matter. The above calculation results from the relative acceleration of a 9.81 kg of matter, and would be 1000 times less for the acceleration of 9.81 grams. A relative acceleration of a smaller amount than a gram of matter, the difference would be proportionally less. In my posts that relationship was stated to you but you chose to ignore. If an electron was the subject of comparison acceleration, the difference would be approaching infinitely small and well beyond our ability to measure. The lift explanation provided by Einstein was only an indication as to what he was referring to, and the exact equivalence is only inferred. Far from falsifying ?, it presents further evidence why it should be intensely but fairly examined. To do so requires a full understanding of ?

Strange. Your stated. <shrug> Science doesn't really care whether people think the results are ridiculous or not. There are a lot of scientists who are not happy with what science tells them. Some of them, e.g. Einstein, spend much of their lives trying to show theory is wrong for that reason. Answer. Especially when the concepts are ridiculously derived through ignorance and subsequently go on to cost the world community a large amount of brain power and scarce finances. You stated. But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity. This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference". (You keep ignoring this.) Answer. I most certainly do not ignore that statement. How could I when you continually repeat and rely on it. In that regard it reminds me of the day I was sitting in our car outside a friends house. Their parrot hopped through their gate and hopped over to me. It turned its head sideways and when looking up to me said; Hello. I replied hello and then the bird asked an intelligent question in the form of how are you. I answered good, how are you and the bird replied good and then turned and hopped back home. I had a conversation with that bird which conveyed information that is impossible with you. Yes I know, that is the level of my conversational ability and has nothing to do with your complete ignorance of the intricacies regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity and the gravitational effect. You have a stated disinterest in ? and only desire to attempt to falsify it . Why not provide an example of how the accuracy you refer to was arrived at. imatfaal Because I view all sections of this forum, then when I noticed a statement referring to Other features or words to that effect, I clicked on it and a list appeared. At the bottom of that list was the Rubbish Bin. To the right of that bin was this thread and the latest answer from Strange. Up to this point, the title of this thread has been only lightly printed and with no other markings as most other threads are. Today, this thread is in full print and equal with most other threads. . If your statement regard the complex you refer to is correct, then I must have imagined that originally this thread got the attention of staff members and the other thread Gravity by I-try was locked suddenly without warning.

Th would appear that this thread can be accessed via the trash can, there fore to the moderators of this forum, I have provided many posts that appear to have had an interest to viewers but of little interest to you people. Despite my viewing of many subjects discussed on this forum, the only interest in the fundamental dynamic nature of physics was a question by robinpike when he asked how does an electron know it is being accelerated. ? automatically supplies the answer to that question along with all changes taking place during the instant by instant acceleration of an electron. About as close as you people can get to the nature of an electron is to refer to it as a point particle, or when it suits, as a cloud of probability surrounding a nucleus. It appears that mainstream ideas of the how and why of that underlying physics must be protected irrespective of how valuable a concept such as the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect may be to humanity. Well done, you have convinced me of the futility of attempting to provide conceptual argument in an attempt to intrude into the hallowed concept of gravity provided by GR. You do that despite the obvious failings regarding Newtonian gravitation when Pioneer bypassed Jupiter. Do you have any idea as to why Newtonian gravitation failed in that event. I would bet you don't. Yes, I agree, this thread belongs in the trash can along with Strange's replies that imply that presently believed concepts of mainstream science are sacrosanct. I will await the results of Rosetta with increased interest.

Mordred. You state: Assuming no particle how would you measure energy?. Remember your the one pushing it as being unique and distinquishable. If that is the case you need to be able to measure it directly. Answer. At the basic level of reality, I refer to the amassing of the intrinsic energy contained in parts of primeval waves travelling from all direction and at the speed of light; there was a reference to the extremely short wavelength being responsible for universal pressure. That statement regarding the attempted description of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy cannot be subjected to measurement as was stated at the time of posting. Even so, and although QM cannot measure and exactly define a part of a quantum wave, you demand that I do so. In that regard and relative to QM, ? close approximates that for a QM required version of gravity The remainder of your post proves your earlier statement that you have zero interest in ? other than attempting to falsify it. Unfortunately that is also the attitude of Strange, and I believe most other members of this forum who have done likewise. That attempt to falsify would be acceptable if there had been any attempt to actually read and understand ?. In that regard, the how and the why underlying physics has remained in the dark ages since Einstein attempted to define the fundamental nature of gravity and gravitation, and will remain so for the foreseeable future due to that attitude.

Mordred. Much later in ?, attempts are made to provide information regarding the manner in which particles form and interact; including information regarding how other force such as nuclear MAY originate. Therefore I will leave your first statement unanswered. With regards to your other statement; you measure the energy constituting a particle (by assuming that the measurement did not induce change) such as an electron, by obtaining its mass value and then applying the equation E = MC^2. The existence of a particle is dependent on the magnitude of its amassed intrinsic energy. In an environment such as our rotating and orbiting Earth, the parameters are constantly undergoing unrecognisable changes besides those that are recognisable, and therefore, the energy contained within a particle must be regarded as having a potential to be subjected to change. Strange. As you would well know and as I have repeatedly stated, the difference between the two lift example is with the method of the application of the accelerating influence. Gravitation results from the eternally acting phenomenon resulting in either acceleration or what is called weight. Suddenly stop the winding apparatus supplying the uniform acceleration, the lift would go into uniform motion and there would be no weight. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that people supposed to think rationally, can believe in the ridiculous idea presently provided by mainstream science to account for weight. I have informed you of the reason why there is a need to supply energy from an external source in the case of horizontal acceleration: there is a retarding influence that requires to be overcome to achieve said acceleration, and that retarder is not present during vertical acceleration due to the gravitational effect. If you want to believe otherwise, that is your prerogative and it has nothing to do with the falsifying of ?.

Strange. Posted Today, 06:00 PM I-try, on 04 Nov 2014 - 12:43 PM, said: And with regards to argument, I stated because the difference was so small, Einstein's belief in his two lift explanation was well within the bounds of a reasonable assumption. You stated: Although this has now been validated to very high levels of accuracy. Why doesn't this rule out your theory? Answer. Because ? agrees with the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. It is physically impossible for them not to be equal because they are one and the same mass. However, and to enlighten further, I will supply the following information. Presently, Newtonian gravitational effect has been measured to a high degree of accuracy except for a slight over estimation with regards the 9,81 n. Even so, that accuracy only applies to presently known physics; the excess acceleration of Pioneer and other spacecraft is an indication of that fact. ? requires that there are other unrecognised phenomenon involved when dealing with gravitational effect acting on spacecraft. With regards to the two lift explanation, there is a retarding phenomenon acting (I referred to it in an earlier post) during the horizontal acceleration that is not acting during the gravitational induced acceleration. In that regard, and as stated several times before, ? can supply an instant by instant (time relative to an electron) description of an electron during horizontal and vertical acceleration. I refer to my work with a question mark because I have never claimed it to be correct or beyond falsification. You state: And yet you reject every piece of evidence that contradicts it, you reject all attempts to explain why it is based on false principles, and you reject all discussion other than people agreeing with you. Answer. You have supplied evidence from presently believed concepts of the nature of matter, and refuse to examine ?. That would be because you consider me to be a self deluding, miss guided, obstinate old fool. Despite what you may presently believe, if the two lift example has been examined to such high precision, then that is just another example of the ability of ?, because it predicts a discrepancy equal to only 1 in 30,583,019. the difference between the mainstream view and that of ?. I will refer you to my above answer for the reason for a slight difference. You have a weird idea of agreement received during this discussion..

Mordred. Judging from your post number 120, I can well believe you when you state that you have zero interest in ?. Your first statement of that post regarding energy and pressure was subjected to a fundamental dynamic analyses in one of my early post. You state: Just like inertia is resistance to momentum. Inertia is a measure of mass I would suggest that statement would be improved by stating that the magnitude of the inertia of a matter particle when attempting to resist changes to its momentum, is dependent on the quantity of the amassed energy composing it. You state: energy is a property of particles it does NOT have its own unique and distinquishable property or essence. In my opinion, that statement indicates a sad lack of understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature on which our physics is based. You state: You sit here and preach to us your model ideas but have spent 40 years of being told "Do the math" and you never bothered. No Mordred, I have spent more than 40 years providing ? to universities without any replies except for two who stated that they would like to do more than glancing through my work but they did not have the spare time. Perhaps the fact that the developing gravity wave detecting adventure was gaining popularity may have something to do with my lack of success. There were physicists who stated an interest to read ?, there were never any replies. You stated: The worse insult is that you wrote a book on your ideas which will only cause trouble for any student who buys your book. Calm your fears, it is not a text book. It was published with the aid of an American self publishing company, and now lies buried in millions of more popular literature such as fictional novels mainly covering adventures in the sleazy side of humanity. There is also a huge number of fictional science novels. I was not advised to learn mathematics. I was advised to use my power of imagination to write fiction but the gravitation dynamic effect kept me chained to this quest. Yes I know, I followed that advice to write fiction and now I am attempting to impose it on this forum. ? was available free of charge for several years via a non peer review Journal. How do I find a peer whom has made a study of the fundamental dynamic nature of matter.

Mordred. You say: Posted Yesterday, 09:00 PM All forms of energy or energy density regardless of type or source in sufficient amounts can exert gravity. That is according to the Einstien field equations. I have zero interest in your personal model. I will continue to use GR and when its still accurate to a good approximation such as Euclidean non relativistic Newtonian. Answer You mean perhaps an energy density like the Sun or us. However, the Sun does not exert gravity, it exerts a gravitational effect commonly called the pull of gravity or gravitational pull. I will state again that there is no such force as a pulling force. You then continue to state that (and being a scientist or having stated an interest in the advancement in the knowledge of physics) you are content with the present state of the how and the why of physics. That appears to me to be a self centred attitude, given the possible benefit to humanity if the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect represents physical reality. . In a previous post to you, there was notification of intention to provide further information regarding gravity and gravitation. That was a reference to my intention to provide the mathematical competent members of this forum with a means of using their ability to perhaps solve the anomaly regarding the excess acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft during its bypass of Jupiter. The motivation being the benefit to ?. In that regard, your zero interest in ? is also the general attitude of members of this forum, and so that information will be emailed to a friendly mathematician. If he accepts and succeeds, you will hear of the success via the media. Strange. I am well aware of the fact that a matter particle or any thing else cannot be accelerated beyond the fastest moving phenomenon in the universe. I have supplied my reason for making that statement. I subscribe to the concept of relativistic momentum and not to relativistic mass. I have posted my reasons for that belief. I referred to one second because that is the time period that a given force is applied to displace a kg of matter a distance of half a meter whilst achieving a velocity of one meter consistent with the final part of the referred to time period. Thanks for providing your calculation for my believed difference between acceleration due to gravitation and horizontal acceleration. And with regards to argument, I stated because the difference was so small, Einstein's belief in his two lift explanation was well within the bounds of a reasonable assumption. Even so, that difference did not violate the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. It simply implies that the 9.81 n due to the gravitational effect is too high by that amount. ? provided the reason for making that calculation.

Strange. You state: Maybe you can suggest a way to test your theory? Answer. I have provided a way to test ?. The ESA spacecraft Rosetta in the process of doing so now. I have previously posted the details. You state: But you do say that acceleration caused by gravity will be (may be) different from that caused by a force. (I think.) You suggest that this could be different by a factor of 1 in 30,583,019. Answer. I am very careful in the use of the words gravity and gravitation because they are different phenomenons. The difference was explained to you in earlier posts. In your statement you say gravity when I said gravitational effect. And yes, the suggested difference could amount to 1 in 30,583,019. Perhaps you may be prepared to use your mathematical ability to check my calculations.

Strange You state : Your hypothesis cannot be disproved mathematically (because it isn't derived mathematically, therefore there is no derivation to be challenged). Similarly, the equivalence principle cannot be proved or disproved mathematically. That is why people continue to create ever more accurate experiments to test it. Answer. The instant by instant description of the horizontal acceleration of an electron, and the instant by instant acceleration of an electron due to the gravitational effect provided by ?, would help to conceptually vindicate it. You state: If there is a difference between gravitational and inertial mass then it is far smaller than you suggest. Answer I have consistently stated that ? finds no difference regarding the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. You make your statements from ignorance of my work You state: I don't understand the difference between the words gravity and gravitation. I googled this. There were several different claims made for the difference. For example, "gravity is used for gravity on Earth, while gravitation is used more universally" - that sounds pretty bogus to me, but what do I know. Another suggestion was that gravity is the general principle (the "field") while gravitation is the force felt as a result of that. Hmmmm.... maybe. And then another site gave it the other way round: gravitation is the more general concept and gravity is the force (as described by Newton). So it seems like different people treat these two words as different in different ways. I'm not sure what distinction you are making. Answer. I have provided my version of the difference several times. Quote Also, are you attempting to provide a reason to have this thread closed? You state: Why or how would I do that. I have no such powers. Answer. You are well aware of the moderator warning regarding condition for the allowance for this thread to remain unlocked. I am required to answer your questions and you are insuring that the debate has become boringly repetitive.

Mordred. ? is based on a proposed conceptual description of the fundamental dynamic nature of basic physics, that underlies and is proposed by ? as a base for physics at our level of reality. As stated many times now, ? extends from an idea of basic reality, and up through various levels to conditions at the centre of our galaxy. It is comprehensive due to each physical statement automatically following from the previous and providing support for the next statement. The provision of a concept of gravity and gravitational effect resulted from the extension from one level to the next level. In that regard the gravity refers to the mass of matter, the fundamental nature of which is presently not known. With regards to gravity waves as now desperately being attempted to provide evidence they may exist by the reference to perturbation to the polarization of CBMR; irrespective of such attempts, ? stated at least 35 years ago that those waves do not exist. The non existent cannot be detected. Yes I know, we will never know if we don't try. Even so, that endeavour has cost a huge amount of brain power and money, and NASA was proposing to send two spacecraft into orbit to form an interferometer in space. Had the money been available it would have been more money wasted. Regarding your reference to Newtonian gravity, I will provide more in another post.

elfmotat My question to you was not intended to confuse. Because you were so convinced that a photon must generate a gravitational field and suggested that thereby ? was falsified, I asked you the same question that Strange refused to answer and that is: do you believe that gravity and gravitation are one and the same phenomenon. If Einstein is correct regarding gravitational force being an illusion, why then should you place so much emphasis on the photon falsifying ?, when gravitation force is regarded as an illusion, and gravity only existing because matter is compelled to follow geodesics pathways in space-time.

Strange. The statement I referred to that contained the word Perhaps is not contained in the quote you refer to in post number 108. simply because you are referring to a different statement. In the statement you refer to, your attempt to verbal me and that is not appreciated. In the statement quoted by you, I stated that the difference may be, and you claim I stated Quote: Here you very clear state that there IS a difference between the effect of gravity and the effect of acceleration. I am clearly suggesting that there MAY be a difference and challenging you to mathematically prove my suggestion to be incorrect. I refer to my work with a question mark because I have never claimed it to be correct or beyond falsification. Your reference to ? being falsified as you state at the bottom of your post, MAY not be correct for the following reason that has been previously stated. Einstein very correctly attempted to remove the concept of gravitation being a force, by stating that such a concept is an illusion. ? agrees with Einstein and supplies the following explanation. The gravity field of the Earth acting on the gravity field of a kg of matter, cause an interference to the gravity field of the kg of matter such as to produce a gravitational effect possibly equal to 9.81 n. My challenge to you Strange was to explain if gravitation is not a force, from where and from what is the 9.81 n derived; hence the question concerning the difference between vertical acceleration due to the gravitational effect, and horizontal acceleration that requires the application of 9.81 n derived from an external source. An explanation was provided regarding from where the 9,81 n is derived, leaving only the need for a mathematical and perhaps a conceptual interpretation of any difference. I have supplied an approximate estimation of the possible difference, whilst you consistently procrastinate by refusing to provide a numerical answer to that challenge. . Yes I believe that the gravitational mass is exactly equal to the inertial mass because they represent the equality of the magnitude of energy present in both cases. And you Strange should stop hiding behind statements that obviously refer to the precision found for the exact equivalence of the gravitational and inertial mass; that is not in doubt. I have asked you several questions that you refuse to answer. I will ask one of them again: do you still regard gravity and gravitation as one and the same phenomenon? Also, are you attempting to provide a reason to have this thread closed?

Strange. You are expert in the introduction of confusion. You discount the word APPEARS whilst placing full emphasis on the remainder of the sentence. As an electrical engineer, you would well know that the mass and therefore inertia of an electron is measured by the amount of path curvature during deflection relative to the strength of a repulsive magnetic field normal to its trajectory. During that acceleration there is no indication of changes to an electron's attributes, as is outlined and required by ?. However, when a body of matter is forced to accelerate, changes to the phenomena resulting from the change of position relative to the original position and “time” become obvious. I will ignore the other attempts at confusion in your post except for your last statement. I am in full agreement that the gravitational mass is equal to the inertial mass. With regards to why I state that photons do not possess an ability to generate a gravitational effect, then to obtain an idea of why I hold that belief, I suggest you refer back to the post containing my detailed description of the generation and propagation of a photon. The above was attempted to be explained previous and was ignored.

elfmotat. Have it your way, I am silly to believe that irrespective of their position in the universe, matter particles will always radiate photons in frequencies proportional to their thermal condition. Before attempting to answer your last statement in post number 103, will you explain why you continue to refer to gravitational force, despite Einstein stating that gravitational force is an illusion. In that regard, according to ?, there is the reality of the gravitational effect that is the precursor of the force currently referred to as gravitational force. In that regard I will ask you the same question that Strange has not answered. Do you believe that gravity and gravitation are one and the same phenomenon viewed under differing circumstances.

elfmotat Mass results from the amassing of energy, and the energy propagated as a photon results from a reversal of the mass forming process. An eternal cycle throughout the universe. An eternal cycle of energy to mass and a return to energy. There is no requirement for a photon to possess an ability to generate a gravity field to enable its physical reality to constitute a minute active part of the cosmos. I would be intensely interested if you can describe how an entity that is only a unidirectional propagation of energy, can generate a gravity field. With regards to proof of ?. Then an ability to provide a logical explanation of simple anomalies may play a part. I am awaiting the results of the ESA comet orbiting spacecraft Rosetta with much interest.

Strange. Your post number 96 indicates you are unable to understand my posts for whatever reason you may state. When you refer to acceleration, then there is a lot of differences between acceleration of an electron due to the gravitational effect, and the horizontal acceleration of an electron by the application of a force originating from another source. We have a long way to go before you would be aware of the difference. The parameters acting in each case are the same except for one, and the changes and sequence in which the differing phenomena change are fundamentally different. The magnitude of instantaneous changing relates to the creation of an electron's magnetic field, radiation to the normal to direction of motion, the electrical effect, gravity field, kinetic energy, longitudinal and transverse changes to mass distribution within the electron, etceteras, and that which enables uniform motion of a particle or body when accelerating force no longer acts. Your question regarding your idea of effective mass may probably be contained therein. I fail to understand why members are attempting to prove ? to be wrong by violation of the principle of equivalence. I have posted information regarding the amassing of energy to form virtual particles and provided reasons for the propagation of photons in the form mainly of waves and fleeting partial amassing to form a virtual particle nature. Along with that information, a statement was made to the effect that a photon cannot generate a gravity field. There were no challenge then. Although I have already provided you with an assurance that the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is not being questioned, you and others appear to believe that it is. Please take note of the following statements. The gravitational mass always appears to remain unchanged during experiments, however the moment an experiment is performed on the inertial mass there is immediate noticeable change. According to ?, the exact equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass ranks with the laws of the conservation of energy and of momentum. Irrespective of wherever mankind may wander in the universe, that equivalence will always be found to be correct, simply because they are one and the same mass, the energy content of which is given by E=MC^2. Nowhere in this universe is it possible to perform an experiment that can violate the exact equivalence of the gravitational and inertial mass because the magnitude of a particle or body's mass is precisely dictated by the magnitude of the prevailing local parameters. With regards to Einstein's reference to a person in a lift in a gravitational field, and the same person and lift accelerating in a volume of space void of gravity, then that is a good analogy because according to my challenge, the approximate difference may be only one divided by 30,583,019. The difference between the acceleration of one kg of matter by the gravitational effect due to Earth's gravity field, and the need to apply energy from an external source to achieve identical horizontal acceleration to that of gravitational acceleration. Therefore Einstein had every reason to believe that his analogy was exactly correct. With regards to the referred to differing methods of acceleration, the same magnitudes of force is believed to be involved in both cases, and according to ?, there is a difference due to the presence of a parameter acting in the case of the horizontal acceleration and absent in the gravitational acceleration. Thereby there is confusion regarding the use of the 9.81 n as an exact measure of the Gravitational effect. Again I ask; is my above calculation approximately correct. Strange before you ask me how that calculation was derived, please check back to the posts where that information was provided to you. And again I state that I do not claim that ? is correct in every detail, and I am well aware that it requires the help of physicists and mathematicians to make it more understandable, and eliminate any mistakes. All I seek is a honest evaluation. I will leave it to a fair minded viewer to assess whether that has occurred,

Mordred. Don't be downhearted. Try explaining something closer to home that may have an effect on our society. Ilfmotat. Like everybody on this format you are entitled to your opinion. With regards to the remainder of your post, I can now see why you have such a low opinion of me. Why not try to understand something of ? by reading my posts, before attributing such a weird statement to ?.