Strange

Yeah. You can learn a lot from other people's mistakes. Shame they don't! Your mum.

From that link: "It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity" which wouldn't seem to apply to light.

I'm not sure + does what it used to. Sometimes it seems to make almost no difference. It used to be that it would guarantee results containing that search term (or not results at all). Now it seems to be taken as some sort of gentle hint or serving suggestion.

Yes, they are a phenomenon in fluid dynamics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave Google makes it almost impossible to find anything about them because it assumes you mean gravitational waves! (One of the great strengths of Google when it first started was that it was very literal in its searches. If you searched for "wave" you wouldn't get results for "waves" and vice versa. But they abandoned that a long time ago. I wish they still had an "exact" mode.) Bing makes an article on gravity waves the first result. I may start using it more often.

It is a form of the gambler's fallacy because it starts with a false assumption.

How odd ... I completely missed that.

Why do you start with equation 73? Who did you copy this from? And why? What is the point?

No it doesn't. They are in the areas of constructive interference. The Bohr model is wrong. The electron is not (just) a particle. What is "fig 12"? Where have you copied this from? Why do keep posting your ridiculous opinions on things you don't understand? Why is this equation 58? And yet they do. It seems your ignorance, impressive though it is, is not enough to overcome the strong nuclear force. How can something neutral neutralise an electric field? This is just nonsense. There is no fig 13. Where have you copied this from?

Why? Why start at 116? And why include figure numbers when there are no figures?

Repeating this when the multiple errors have been posted out more than once is just silly. Then how come you don't understand any of it? You have never admitted you are wrong despite the fact that every one of your threads are just full of errors and nonsense.

But you asked about a wave structure: "What is the wavelength of a 35Hz stellar gravity wave?" (I assume you meant gravitational wave. You have been corrected on this multiple times. Why do you keep repeating the error?) Why is that odd? A 35 Hz radio wave.

Disappointed they don't have "Wales" as a unit of area. This is frequently used in UK reporting for things like deforestation, ice loss, etc.

Clue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent Scattering is an interaction but not all interactions (with a change of direction) are scattering. No I didn't. There is obviously interaction. But it is not scattering. Because it is refraction. You claiming I said there is no interaction is (a) a straw man and (b) dishonest. What is wrong with you? NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. Where did he say "random"? Stop the dishonest straw man arguments. You are taking your defence of a simple error to ludicrous extremes. Just admit you made a mistake when you said that refraction is due to scattering and we can all move on.

That doesn't surprise me. It is simple logic. A bat is a mammal. That doesn't mean all mammals have wings.

I think both the vacuum energy (virtual particles) and dark energy are (or are assumed to be) uniform throughout space. I don't think therein any model that suggests you can get rid of the 10150 because we are in a local maximum or something. And I don't think it is correct to think of the virtual particles as being "bursty" - they are a constant flux because of the non-zero energy in space.

This idea has been explored in science fiction, and now in reality: https://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memorial-roman-mazurenko-bot

That would be a nice explanation. The problem is that the zero point energy that gives rise to virtual particles is about 10150 x times too large to be dark energy. There have been attempts to explain why some of this "cancels out" but it probably needs something a theory of quantum gravity to answer it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant

Of course. Although you might want to work out how large an effect this is. (Hint: it is immeasurably small). Also, if you understood the stuff about entropy that you keep copying and pasting, you would realise that this process will stop when the rock reaches equilibrium. At that point there will be no more radiation and no more loss of mass.

As you are being so cryptic, I don't know what you are talking about. Are you trying to get to the point that light / photons can create a gravitational effect? Or what? It is, of course, impossible to answer the question ("How much gravity does a massless object have?") because you haven't provided any information about this "object". I don't even know what sort of object could be massless. But presumably you have a different concept of "object" than I do (which would be, roughly, something made of matter that therefore has mass and takes up space). If you are asking about the gravity of a photon or its mass-equivalence, then the answer is obvious (and I'm sure it has already been mentioned in this thread).

As an example of why your claim was wrong. It is not that I don't want to listen to them; I know they are irrelevant. You would know this too if you understood anything about thermodynamics or gravity. They obviously lose heat energy (until they are at the same temperature as space). That isn't what you claimed. You said they would "lose gravity". Yes, very good. Some of the energy will go into the kinetic energy (heat) of the reaction products and surroundings. What makes you think I am playing games? Photons are, as any fool know, massless.

Again, that doesn't say anything about the mass or gravity of a cold, dark rock decreasing with time. This is a very confused question. It is mass and energy that can be converted into one another. What happens to the matter depends on what mass is converted into energy. For example, in the case of a candle, the wax will be converted to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water, and small amount of the mass will be converted to light (the total mass of the CO2 and H2O will be less than the mass of the wax and oxygen used to burn it). In the case of an electron and positron, the two particles will disappear completely and the energy will be given to a pair of photons. But surely you know all this as you are attempting to produce a new scientific theory ...

This is also relevant to another problem with the analogy: it implies that there needs to be another dimension for the sheet to curve into. Whereas, the curvature of space-time is intrinsic - it doesn't need to be embedded in a higher dimensional space.

Intersting. Presumably, the energy in the photons comes from the energy used to one the mirror / change the magnetic field.

One problem is: what pulls the sheet down:

No. It is your claim, you have the burden of proof. Have any science said that mass disappears over time?