xyzt

No, it is not true, the formula I derived for you show that: [math]\frac{dr}{dt}=c(1-r_s/r)[/math] so, [math]\frac{dr}{dt}<c[/math]. Always. No, it is not true.

Light follows null geodesics: [math]0=(1-r_s/r)(cdt)^2-\frac{dr^2}{1-r_s/r}[/math] where: c=local speed of light r=Schwarzschild radial coordinate [math]r_s[/math] = Schwarzschild radius t=Schwarzschild time coordinate From the above , it follows immediately that : [math]\frac{dr}{dt}=c(1-r_s/r)[/math] The expression [math]\frac{dr}{dt}[/math] is known as the coordinate speed of light.

The local speed of light in vacuum is invariant. The coordinate speed of light is variant. The crank is talking about the coordinate speed of light, an entity that is devoid of any physical meaning. This thread belongs in the Trash.

The author, Raef Fanous, is a well known crank who has some other weird claims about the Khoran predating Einstein's relativity.

...and Mordred is far more knowledgeable in terms of particle physics than me. So, if I make a mistake and Mordred corrects me, I will....listen!

The point is that knowledgeable people DID listen. The person who isn't listening is...you! If you post nonsense and knowledgeable people correct you, you should.....listen.

There is no such thing as "gravitational charge".

What you need is to FIRST calculate the derivative and THEN to apply the boundary conditions. You are doing the steps in reverse order.

Has it? What gives you this bright idea?

Correction, mass (inertial) is an invariant. What increases is the total energy, not the mass: [math](m_0c^2)^2=E^2-(pc)^2[/math]

Yes.

Correct.

Doesn't matter what you agree, I have just shown that the resultant momentum changes the mass of a system. Even more, the stress-energy-MOMENTUM tensor is what determines the gravitational effects, as illustrated by the Einstein Field Equations.

Yes, you are missing the fact that momenta, by virtue of being vectors, can subtract (if they have opposite senses). This is why I pointed out that the case is identical to the one of two fascicles of photons. So, in the case of the two magnets that cancel each other's field, the energy is truly [math](m_{01}+m_{02})c^2[/math] and not [math]\sqrt{(m_{01}c^2)^2+(+pc)^2}+\sqrt{(m_{02}c^2)^2+(-pc)^2}[/math] as one would think.

Correct. Angular. The formula is about resultant momentum, in this case , it happens to be angular.

The total energy of the unmagnetized body is [math]E_0=m_0c^2[/math]. A manetized body of same mass, [math]m_0[/math] has the total energy [math]E_1=\sqrt{(m_0c^2)^2+(pc)^2}[/math], where [math]p[/math] is the resultant momentum due to the spin of the elementary magnets making up the body. So, yes, [math]E_1>E_0[/math]. This is a tricky one: the answer is a function of the magnets orientation. If the momenta add up, then the total energy increases, if the momenta cancel out, then the answer is no. This is exactly like the question about the total energy of two fascicles of photons. Total energy of a system in relativity is a tricky issue.

Yes, that is called "separation speed". It can be as high as 2c. Basic stuff that you need to learn before you start making up "theories".

So, your math is wrong (shoddy) and the connections that you are trying to establish with physics (quantum mechanics, relativity) are non-existent. You call yourself a "professor". What do you "teach"?

This cannot be since KE is frame dependent.

For your education, neutrino has mass and its mass has nothing to do with the crank theory of "small steps". Contrary to the crank theory of "small steps" neutrino has no "components".

You need to come to grips with the fact that your navel-gazing isn't science. It is just that : navel-gazing.

What you are doing is indeed navel-gazing. Science is not navel-gazing.

Same crankery, different phrasing, no one cares.

Now, you are outright lying, you claimed that "the atomic clocks will run faster". See your post, above. I simply pointed out your errors. No one cares about how you roll your misconceptions about mainstream science into your "theory".

Speed has, acceleration, contrary to your fringe claims above, doesn't.