Gravity Explained

[MolotovCocktail]

I guess I'll give it a shot...

 

Alright, the root of your misunderstanding, Farsight, seems to be this:

 

1)Your belief that c is variable

2)Your lack of knowledge and understanding of relativity.

3)Nonexistent proof to back any of your theories, and the fact that what you posted technically isn't a theory...

 

1. I'll tackle the first one. First off, c is a constant, of which you have been told many times over in all of the other posts. The speed of light doesn't change, and it is not relative to any observer. All observers will agree on the speed that light travels. Depending on their frame of reference, they will disagree on the distance a beam of light has traveled, and they will also disagree on the time it has taken to travel from point A to point B as well. This phenomenon has been verified by many experiments, especially by the Michelson–Morley experiment (They put beams of light at right angles at one another to determine properties of the supposed aether, but found that light always traveled at c independently of what they did). In addition, the value of c has been calculated to be a constant several decades before that experiment by Maxwell. c is not variable and all observers will agree on the speed of light no matter their frame of reference.

 

2. I don't understand it well enough to actually be able to explain it to you in a way that makes sense, so I'll post a link about it right here: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/elementary/specialRT/index.html. This link will teach you about relativity and is intended for the general audiences. It also includes general relativity and its applications, and I have checked it for credibility. But in a nutshell, the Special Theory of Relativity is a theory that explains the nature of light, inertial and accelerating frames, and the nature of time. This theory states that time is relative to the observer just like space (which means that it is a physical dimension just like space, hence it is called spacetime). When one accelerates to near light speeds, the person's time will contract (which is why it goes slower for the person that is traveling and ages less than the person who is not accelerating). It also includes the principle that there is no absolute rest (A Newtonian concept), just as there is no absolute time, that all observers will agree on. And the reason it is called "Special" is because it does not take gravity into account and works only in inertial frames.

 

3. In all of your threads, you have shown and continue to refuse to show any proof, experimental data, and mathematics for your so-called "theories". Also, you have relied on analogies to explain what they are. Analogies are not explanations. Analogies are used to reinforce understanding of a concept and put it into perspective. They are not to be confused with explanations, data, and proofs.

A good scientific theory is something that can:

1) Explain various natural phenomena consistently

2) Be verified by experimental data

3) Make predictions

It is interesting to note that if even one thing or observation contradicts the theory, it either has to be modified or scrapped. The reason standard theories work is because they meet all of the above criterion and they haven't been disproven by experiments or observations. Also note that they will always remain theories because they have to be consistently proven by experiment.

Your theories, on the other hand, do not do a good job explaining, and do not take into account various other natural phenomena (your assumptions are wrong in any case), aren't backed up by experiments or mathematics or any other proofs, and most importantly, they do not make any predictions. For all intents and purposes, it isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis, since a hypothesis makes predictions. As such, this isn't and cannot be the correct explanation for gravity. If you hope for anybody here to even consider this as a theory, never mind an alternative explanation, you have to meet all of the above criterion. Otherwise, we will not consider them to be a legitimate explanation.

[soultech]

Lol! i just realised something from posts i published in PhysOrg quantum mechanics. Lol i actually posted a teory that defined time at our momen to the rate of time seen in telescopes of the big bank, too cut a long story short the universe was much mose smaller/condensed and expanding, the graviton fux would have been much higher and we wound now are see i a secont what could have been changes lasting millions of terestrial liftimes if we were there. Where is my POINT everywhere in the world and universe! gravity bends light. I ask you? Is it probable? that gravity can NOT!!! ONLY!!! bend light but affect its speed??? I ask every thinker(not sceptik septic stinkers lol!) but everyone! There where sugestions! that light is slowing down? Contemplate that with gravitational flux desipating in an expanting universe and time our time traveling ever faster than the still vissible remnants of the center of the big bank, perhaps light is much faster now(as time is) than in the primeval ages! I love the ever expanding and enlightening wonders of the world and and universe being progressivley unraped to the delight of MAN!KIND! like a delicious lady god i love fast women! dont wee all all MIGHT dampen the flames passionat enlighenment to a good night!

[insane_alien]

Lol! i just realised something from posts i published in PhysOrg quantum mechanics. Lol i actually posted a teory that defined time at our momen to the rate of time seen in telescopes of the big bank, too cut a long story short the universe was much mose smaller/condensed and expanding, the graviton fux would have been much higher and we wound now are see i a secont what could have been changes lasting millions of terestrial liftimes if we were there. Where is my POINT everywhere in the world and universe! gravity bends light. I ask you is it probable that gravity can nNOT only bend light but affect its speed??? I ask every thinker(not scepti septic sticers lol) but everyone. there where sugestions that light is slowing down, Contemplatete that with gravitational flux desipating in an expanting universe and time our time traveling ever faster than the remnant center of the big bak, perhaps light if much fuster now than in the primeval ages! god i love ve fast women!

 

ebbeh...

 

post in english please. not a wall of mistakes. spell checkers are this incredible new invention you know.

[Farsight]

Thanks for putting in the time, Molotov.

 

1. I'll tackle the first one. First off, c is a constant, of which you have been told many times over in all of the other posts. The speed of light doesn't change, and it is not relative to any observer. All observers will agree on the speed that light travels. Depending on their frame of reference, they will disagree on the distance a beam of light has traveled, and they will also disagree on the time it has taken to travel from point A to point B as well. This phenomenon has been verified by many experiments, especially by the Michelson–Morley experiment (They put beams of light at right angles at one another to determine properties of the supposed aether, but found that light always traveled at c independently of what they did). In addition, the value of c has been calculated to be a constant several decades before that experiment by Maxwell. c is not variable and all observers will agree on the speed of light no matter their frame of reference.

 

Yes, all observers will always measure c to be the same old 300,000km/s, no problem. This is clearly the crux of the issue. If you've been following the thread you'll have spotted that it really hasn't been dealt with. If I'm experiencing gravitational time dilation such that I age one year whilst you age seven, my light has travelled one light year whilst yours has travelled seven light years. I assert that for this to happen, my c was one seventh of yours. Can you counter this?

 

2. I don't understand it well enough to actually be able to explain it to you in a way that makes sense, so I'll post a link about it right here: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/elementary/specialRT/index.html. This link will teach you about relativity and is intended for the general audiences. It also includes general relativity and its applications, and I have checked it for credibility. But in a nutshell, the Special Theory of Relativity is a theory that explains the nature of light, inertial and accelerating frames, and the nature of time. This theory states that time is relative to the observer just like space (which means that it is a physical dimension just like space, hence it is called spacetime). When one accelerates to near light speeds, the person's time will contract (which is why it goes slower for the person that is traveling and ages less than the person who is not accelerating). It also includes the principle that there is no absolute rest (A Newtonian concept), just as there is no absolute time, that all observers will agree on. And the reason it is called "Special" is because it does not take gravity into account and works only in inertial frames.

Thanks, but I'm way ahead of this. I really do understand SR beyond the postulate.

 

3. In all of your threads, you have shown and continue to refuse to show any proof, experimental data, and mathematics for your so-called "theories". Also, you have relied on analogies to explain what they are. Analogies are not explanations. Analogies are used to reinforce understanding of a concept and put it into perspective. They are not to be confused with explanations, data, and proofs.

 

You're entitled to express a view. But note that I haven't refused to show proof, experimental data or mathematics. I chose to write these essays in a layman-friendly style in an attempt to get the ideas across. And I haven't actually called it a "theory". I prefer to describe this as a "toy model". Do remember that this is only a discussion forum, not some formal scientific institution.

 

A good scientific theory is something that can:

1) Explain various natural phenomena consistently

2) Be verified by experimental data

3) Make predictions

 

It is interesting to note that if even one thing or observation contradicts the theory, it either has to be modified or scrapped. The reason standard theories work is because they meet all of the above criterion and they haven't been disproven by experiments or observations. Also note that they will always remain theories because they have to be consistently proven by experiment.

 

Who disagrees with that? Not me. But try applying it to String Theory. And does the Standard Model explain natural phenomena such as gravity? See my "toy model" comment above.

 

Your theories, on the other hand, do not do a good job explaining, and do not take into account various other natural phenomena (your assumptions are wrong in any case), aren't backed up by experiments or mathematics or any other proofs, and most importantly, they do not make any predictions. For all intents and purposes, it isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis, since a hypothesis makes predictions. As such, this isn't and cannot be the correct explanation for gravity. If you hope for anybody here to even consider this as a theory, never mind an alternative explanation, you have to meet all of the above criterion. Otherwise, we will not consider them to be a legitimate explanation.

 

Obviously I beg to differ as regards these essays do a good job of explaining, but again, you're entitled to express your view. Now, can you offer any particular reason why this essay cannot be the correct explanation of gravity? Something better than "c is always constant", because that's an axiomatic rebuttal. The thrust of the argument against this essay is "c cannot be variable because c is constant, QED" and there's a seeming refusal to look into the situations I propose. Please do reply to my question above regarding gravitational time dilation. If you need to do any re-reading start with RELATIVITY+, which links all the essays together.

[Farsight]

Edtharan and swansont, I congratulate your responses to this thread, I have long ago given up.

 

You may have given up, Klaynos, but come on, check back through this thread. You've given nothing.

 

Edtharan: let's agree to differ and call it a day shall we?

[insane_alien]

Edtharan: let's agree to differ and call it a day shall we?

 

wow, you don't understand how science works do you? two different models can't be true at the same time. either one is right and the other wrong or they are both wrong. there is no 'agree to differ' option. and since GR has been tested and still not shot down, i think we'll go for that one.

[Farsight]

Oh I do understand science, insane_alien. Believe me, I do. And I also understand people.

 

Remember that this essay comes under the heading RELATIVITY+. It's my vision of how Einstein might have developed General Relativity. And remember this quote:

 

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)

[swansont]

Yes, all observers will always measure c to be the same old 300,000km/s, no problem. This is clearly the crux of the issue. If you've been following the thread you'll have spotted that it really hasn't been dealt with. If I'm experiencing gravitational time dilation such that I age one year whilst you age seven, my light has travelled one light year whilst yours has travelled seven light years. I assert that for this to happen, my c was one seventh of yours. Can you counter this?

 

 

Surely someone who understands science as well as you claim to understands the burden of proof. It is up to you to devise tests that will confirm your hypothesis if it is correct, but falsify it if it is not.

 

I'll start you off.

 

If c was changing we should be able to observe this effect. Stars "burn" their fuel in nuclear reactions, and the amount of energy released is dependent on c^2. The energy released should scale inversely with the gravitational potential of a star. I'd imagine this would limit the size of a star, since a massive, compact star would have a very high gravitational potential at its core, where the fusion is taking place, but since c would be smaller, less energy would be released. Gravity would exceed the thermal pressure at some pont. These stars should collapse/ not exist. What's the limit predicted by your hypothesis?

 

You've also given a scenario where c simply changes based on your speed. Never mind that this introduces a preferred reference frame, it also means that in a particle accelerator, if you analyze a reaction involving particles travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame (where their own c is now smaller) you will get a different answer: Collide a proton with another proton. For the proton moving, the collision energy has one value, and you can produce particles of some rest energy, mc^2. Let's say we produce three pi mesons. But in the rest frame, c is bigger, so it takes more energy to produce massive particles. Now there's not enough energy to produce three pi mesons. Oops. That's a bit of a problem.

[Edtharan]

Edtharan: let's agree to differ and call it a day shall we?

Does this mean that you have no counter arguments to mine? Remember this is a debate forum, so the purpose is to debate ideas . Agreeing to disagree is not in the spirit of debate.

 

Swansont, I have asked this same question and got no sensible answer.

 

If C is variable, then it will have knock on effects with other physics. E=MC^2 is one in point. This does not say "Observed value of C" but uses the actual value of C.

 

In Farsight's explanations, he has explained that because your local value of C is variable, this effects your "perception" of the speed of C. So if C is reduced, you perceive everything travelling faster and so observe C as the same (even though it has supposed to have been reduced). This is only because of the speed of light is dictating the "Speed of time".

 

However, as E=MC^2 does not work off the "Observed" value of C. So if C really is changing then we should get a different result for the equation as C is changing.

 

This effect has never been observed. Not once, but it has been observed that the results of experiments agree with a constant value of C for this equation.

 

This case alone invalidates the proposition that C is variable as your frame of reference does not change the results of this equation.

[Farsight]

Does this mean that you have no counter arguments to mine? Remember this is a debate forum, so the purpose is to debate ideas . Agreeing to disagree is not in the spirit of debate.

 

LOL!

 

No. It means you have no counter arguments to mine. And this is supposed to be a science forum, not a debate forum. You just don't pay attention to the science. All you do is parrot the very axioms that these essays challenge, as if those axioms prove themselves. You say "Farsight you are wrong about time because time is the fourth dimension, QED". Or you say "Farsight you are wrong about variable c because c is a constant, QED". You never get your teeth into the detailed logic, and the science of why I challenge the axioms that you take for granted.

 

Swansont, I have asked this same question and got no sensible answer. If C is variable, then it will have knock on effects with other physics. E=MC^2 is one in point. This does not say "Observed value of C" but uses the actual value of C.

We've spoken about this at length. And here you go again, you refuse to study the logic, and then you assert that you've been given none or that you've proved it wrong. Stop kidding yourself. Yes there are knock on effects. Gravity! It's there, as obvious as the nose in front of your face. That's where the kinetic energy of a falling object comes from, from the reduced c. Not from some magical alternative source that you can't explain. Read the essay again. Reread the thread.

 

In Farsight's explanations, he has explained that because your local value of C is variable, this effects your "perception" of the speed of C. So if C is reduced, you perceive everything travelling faster and so observe C as the same (even though it has supposed to have been reduced). This is only because of the speed of light is dictating the "Speed of time". However, as E=MC^2 does not work off the "Observed" value of C. So if C really is changing then we should get a different result for the equation as C is changing.

Yep, light defines time, but have you forgotten about Pound-Rebka? The energy of a photon changes with height. And read MASS EXPLAINED to understand how pair production converts a photon (E=hf) into an electron and positron with mass.

 

This effect has never been observed. Not once, but it has been observed that the results of experiments agree with a constant value of C for this equation. This case alone invalidates the proposition that C is variable as your frame of reference does not change the results of this equation.

Yet again you refuse to look at the science, and then pronounce in your best debating style that you've proved it all wrong. Sigh.

[Farsight]

Surely someone who understands science as well as you claim to understands the burden of proof. It is up to you to devise tests that will confirm your hypothesis if it is correct, but falsify it if it is not.

 

I'll start you off.

 

If c was changing we should be able to observe this effect. Stars "burn" their fuel in nuclear reactions, and the amount of energy released is dependent on c^2. The energy released should scale inversely with the gravitational potential of a star. I'd imagine this would limit the size of a star, since a massive, compact star would have a very high gravitational potential at its core, where the fusion is taking place, but since c would be smaller, less energy would be released. Gravity would exceed the thermal pressure at some pont. These stars should collapse/ not exist. What's the limit predicted by your hypothesis?

 

You've also given a scenario where c simply changes based on your speed. Never mind that this introduces a preferred reference frame, it also means that in a particle accelerator, if you analyze a reaction involving particles travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame (where their own c is now smaller) you will get a different answer: Collide a proton with another proton. For the proton moving, the collision energy has one value, and you can produce particles of some rest energy, mc^2. Let's say we produce three pi mesons. But in the rest frame, c is bigger, so it takes more energy to produce massive particles. Now there's not enough energy to produce three pi mesons. Oops. That's a bit of a problem.

 

That looks like good feedback Swanson.

 

Yes, it is up to me to provide proof. But it's a question of priorities. Do I push forward with the "toy model" or do I consolidate what I've done so far? I've chosen the former to date, and probably will do the same for another three months.

 

Sorry, but work calls, so I have to go now. As I speak I'm thinking that both of the points you raised are based on misunderstanding of how total the scale change is. But I'll check that and get back to you properly later. Meanwhile I recommend that you read MASS EXPLAINED too.

[swansont]

If the tests falsify the hypothesis, there's no point in explaining it further, is there?

[MolotovCocktail]

Yes, all observers will always measure c to be the same old 300,000km/s, no problem. This is clearly the crux of the issue. If you've been following the thread you'll have spotted that it really hasn't been dealt with. If I'm experiencing gravitational time dilation such that I age one year whilst you age seven, my light has travelled one light year whilst yours has travelled seven light years. I assert that for this to happen, my c was one seventh of yours. Can you counter this?

 

You are under the mistaken belief that light defines time, when in fact it doesn't. Time is a fundamental structure of our universe, a physical dimension in which event occur in sequence. Like any other physical dimension, things can move through it and it is defined by measurements. If you were to age one year as you accelerated while I age seven, c will remain unchanged. In fact, there is no "your" c, just as there is no preferred frame of reference. c is not variable, for reasons that I and a bunch of others have already explained.

 

Another thing I want to add is that a light year is a measurement of length. A light year is about 9.5 trillion km long. It is called a light year because it takes light one year to travel that distance.

 

 

Remember that this essay comes under the heading RELATIVITY+.

 

 

A superficial statement is not a legitimate defense of your essay.

[Farsight]

Surely someone who understands science as well as you claim to understands the burden of proof. It is up to you to devise tests that will confirm your hypothesis if it is correct, but falsify it if it is not.

 

I'll start you off.

 

If c was changing we should be able to observe this effect. Stars "burn" their fuel in nuclear reactions, and the amount of energy released is dependent on c^2. The energy released should scale inversely with the gravitational potential of a star. I'd imagine this would limit the size of a star, since a massive, compact star would have a very high gravitational potential at its core, where the fusion is taking place, but since c would be smaller, less energy would be released. Gravity would exceed the thermal pressure at some pont. These stars should collapse/ not exist. What's the limit predicted by your hypothesis?

 

We observe gravitational redshift. The amount of energy released in the core of the star looks the same locally because the matter that is being "burned" is in its barest essence made out light, as are we. And we do observe black holes, or things that appear to be black holes. I haven't predicted any limit. You know I haven't.

 

You've also given a scenario where c simply changes based on your speed. Never mind that this introduces a preferred reference frame...

 

c simply changes based on your speed? No. It's subtle, it's the Twins Paradox. Imagine you and I are in two identical spaceships. We each have a light clock and a high speed TV camera trained upon it. Our cameras emit a signal. We zip past one another and just as we do, we press RECORD. We both record our own signal, and each other's signal. Then we play them back side by side. I see your light clock going slower than mine, and at the same time you see my light clock going slower than yours. The problem here is at the same time. Our ships definitely passed, there was definitely some motion through space, but there wasn't any time passing. That's just a figure of speech.

 

... it also means that in a particle accelerator, if you analyze a reaction involving particles travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame (where their own c is now smaller) you will get a different answer: Collide a proton with another proton. For the proton moving, the collision energy has one value, and you can produce particles of some rest energy, mc^2. Let's say we produce three pi mesons. But in the rest frame, c is bigger, so it takes more energy to produce massive particles. Now there's not enough energy to produce three pi mesons. Oops. That's a bit of a problem.

 

What do you mean travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame ??? There is no traveling in their own frame. Oops. Their own c still looks like 300,000km/s. The answer is in MASS EXPLAINED. All these particles are "in barest essence" circles of light. It doesn't matter what the value of c is. The collision is translating forward-travelling stress into circular stress that's forward-travelling less. Your problem here is that you're hanging on to mass as some fundamental quantity. Think of a photon. It's moving and you aren't. It has momentum. But if we took a leaf out of our relativity book and said it was you moving instead of the photon, it would have inertia. Mass.

[swansont]

We observe gravitational redshift. The amount of energy released in the core of the star looks the same locally because the matter that is being "burned" is in its barest essence made out light, as are we. And we do observe black holes, or things that appear to be black holes. I haven't predicted any limit. You know I haven't.

 

Damn straight you haven't. Until you do, you are not doing science. Stop pretending that you are.

 

c simply changes based on your speed? No. It's subtle, it's the Twins Paradox. Imagine you and I are in two identical spaceships. We each have a light clock and a high speed TV camera trained upon it. Our cameras emit a signal. We zip past one another and just as we do, we press RECORD. We both record our own signal, and each other's signal. Then we play them back side by side. I see your light clock going slower than mine, and at the same time you see my light clock going slower than yours. The problem here is at the same time. Our ships definitely passed, there was definitely some motion through space, but there wasn't any time passing. That's just a figure of speech.

 

but your original example was different:

 

Imagine that I stay here on earth while you travel to Alpha Centauri in a very fast rocket travelling at .99c. We can use 1/?(1-v²/c²) to work out that you experience a sevenfold time dilation. (Multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh). We normally think of time dilation as being matched by length contraction, but that’s only in the direction of travel. Hold up a metre ruler transverse to the direction of travel and it’s the same old metre. Your metre is the same as my metre, and your time is dilated by a factor of seven, which means it takes a beam of your light seven times longer to traverse your transverse metre. Looking at it another way c = s/t and your t changed, your s didn’t, so your c did. Your c is a seventh of mine.

 

Here you contend that simply by moving away at high speed, c will change. But here the dilation is not presented as being symmetric.

 

What do you mean travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame ??? There is no traveling in their own frame. Oops. Their own c still looks like 300,000km/s. The answer is in MASS EXPLAINED. All these particles are "in barest essence" circles of light. It doesn't matter what the value of c is. The collision is translating forward-travelling stress into circular stress that's forward-travelling less. Your problem here is that you're hanging on to mass as some fundamental quantity. Think of a photon. It's moving and you aren't. It has momentum. But if we took a leaf out of our relativity book and said it was you moving instead of the photon, it would have inertia. Mass.

 

Again, I was extrapolating from your example above, from your first post, where c changes for the "moving" observer.

 

 

So basically "everything is made of light." Fine. Prove it. Come up with specific predictions of how matter should behave if this were true. Explain spin and electric charge and atomic structure, and all that. Stop with the rest of the house and show us the foundation, because if that isn't solid, all the rest doesn't matter.

[Farsight]

I will Swanson, but not here. I've wasted enough time here. And:

 

travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame

 

..proves it. OK some of the other contributors here are young and don't know so much. But you're a physicist. A former physics teacher. A "physics expert". But groan. You don't understand relativity.

 

You won't study these essays. You won't be looking at any "foundations" that I might offer. All you will be doing is chucking out discredits like "pseudoscience" instead of offering sincere feedback. I'm busy, I've got work to do, and I've had enough of this silly nonsense. I've already deleted scienceforums from my favourites at work, and now I'm deleting it from my favourites at home.

 

Goodbye, Doubting Thomas.

[swansont]

I will Swanson, but not here. I've wasted enough time here. And:

 

 

 

..proves it. OK some of the other contributors here are young and don't know so much. But you're a physicist. A former physics teacher. A "physics expert". But groan. You don't understand relativity.

 

 

Nothing like yanking a quote out of context.

 

For the third time, I will note that I was putting the problem in your framework, from your first post, which uses an absolute frame of reference. Trying to show that you were wrong. (proof by contradiction)

 

You won't study these essays. You won't be looking at any "foundations" that I might offer. All you will be doing is chucking out discredits like "pseudoscience" instead of offering sincere feedback.

 

I've lost track of how many time you have quoted something that I did not say. I've asked you to stop, and here you do it again.

 

As far as I can tell, I used "pseudoscience" once in your threads, here. It was to ask you to stop fabricating quotes.

 

I repeatedly told you I wasn't interested in your essays unless they started to be science by making predictions that could be checked. You see, from past experience, I was worried that you might try and weasel out of any objections by making more unverifiable claims.

[Edtharan]

You say "Farsight you are wrong about time because time is the fourth dimension, QED". Or you say "Farsight you are wrong about variable c because c is a constant, QED". You never get your teeth into the detailed logic

Excuse me

 

You have repeatedly told me to stop making lengthy detailed posts and then here state that I am no going into enough detail.

 

I have presented lengthy and detailed and logical arguments where you just keep saying: "C is variable" or "Read my other essays".

 

And this is supposed to be a science forum, not a debate forum.

Actually it is a science debate forum.

 

Yes there are knock on effects. Gravity! It's there, as obvious as the nose in front of your face.

But you refuse to consider the results of the other knock on effects. For example what will occur in your theory in this situation (do the maths with a variable C):

 

A scientists on Earth slams together 1/2 a gram of Matter with 1.2 a gram of Anti matter.

 

This is observed by a scientist near by (Scientist A), and a scientist on a large tower above the experiment site (Scientist B).

 

According to what you have said, the two scientists will each have a different value for C.

 

Using just E=MC^2 what is the energy that both scientists will observe being emitted by this detonation.

 

If this was used to propel a rocket, how far would Scientist A see the rocket travel and how far will Scientist B see it travel?

 

That's where the kinetic energy of a falling object comes from, from the reduced c. Not from some magical alternative source that you can't explain.

Please read my responses to your posts on this again. You "magically" transport an object to a higher point in the gravity well and then wonder where the energy came from to move that object up there.

 

I did explain where the energy comes from by saying you would have needed energy to lift the object up to that point and that is where the energy comes from. I was not using "magic" to explain anything. You required "magic" as part of the scenario (as you needed it to put the object in place where as I had to use energy to do so).

 

If you have to go outside of science to place an object in position, then why should anyone rely of science to explain the results of what happens (or why should you).

 

I used science to explain how the object got up in the first place and the energy needed to put the object in place is the answer to your challenge. The energy came from the energy you had to use to put the object in place.

 

you know what? The other day I lifted my nephew up and I certainly felt the energy needed to lift him. So I know that it does take energy to life an object.

 

The energy of a photon changes with height.

Which doesn't need a variable C to explain it. Why do you consider this as "proof" of your essay?

 

It can be equally explained by the photon being emitted by an object that is travelling slower through time than I am.

 

No. It means you have no counter arguments to mine.

You have the burden of proof. I do not need to prove that the current theories produce prediction that agree with reality. You as proposing a (radical) change to science's understanding have that burden. You have to show that current theory is inadequate and that your theory fills in these gaps.

 

Also, I am not the one that is saying that we need to break off the debate. I have plenty more arguments left. By backing out it give the impression that you have no more arguments left (you might, but by backing out it give that impression).

 

All I have to do is show that there already exist an adequate explanation for the scenarios you describe. Repeating axioms is good enough if in their testing (experiments) has shown that they match with reality.

 

That is how the scientific method works. It is science to do it that way. If you wish to do it another way, do not call it science, because it is most definitely not science if you do.

 

Yet again you refuse to look at the science, and then pronounce in your best debating style that you've proved it all wrong. Sigh.

Observation is part of science. How is looking to observation not science? You refuse to consider that current observations contradict your essay. Doing that is not science.

 

But it's a question of priorities. Do I push forward with the "toy model" or do I consolidate what I've done so far?

I would considerer that consolidation is the most important. Make sure that the axioms that you are basing your theories off match up with reality. That would be, in my mind and the way that rationality and logic, the highest of priorities. I would not even see this as a question.

 

I've chosen the former to date, and probably will do the same for another three months.

So you have just admitted that you are just building a castle in the clouds. Some of the comments you have made indicate that you think otherwise. This indicates that you have closed you mind to the possibility that your entire premise might be wrong. If that is the case, then you are not really doing science.

 

Imagine you and I are in two identical spaceships. We each have a light clock and a high speed TV camera trained upon it. Our cameras emit a signal. We zip past one another and just as we do, we press RECORD. We both record our own signal, and each other's signal. Then we play them back side by side. I see your light clock going slower than mine, and at the same time you see my light clock going slower than yours.

Actually, I see no problem with this. You can't instantaneously communicate with the other space ship, so each ship will always see the other's clock agree with their observations.

 

If however, you both begin to move towards each other (and to do this you will need to slow down and then start moving towards the other - thus acceleration comes into play). Once you start moving towards each other, you will see the other's clock speed up, so that when you finally manage to meet up your clocks will agree.

 

If only one ship turns around and comes back, they will have experienced a distinctly different frame of reference than the non accelerating ship and so the clocks will not have to agree.

 

There is no problem here. This scenario does not highlight a problem with relativity. So, how does this support your arguments?

 

You won't study these essays. You won't be looking at any "foundations" that I might offer. All you will be doing is chucking out discredits like "pseudoscience" instead of offering sincere feedback. I'm busy, I've got work to do, and I've had enough of this silly nonsense. I've already deleted scienceforums from my favourites at work, and now I'm deleting it from my favourites at home.

If you take that attitude, no wonder we can not have a proper discussion. You have already decided the actions of another person and so no matter what they do you will find some way to twist what they do say to reinforce your preconceived notions of them.

 

What if we had done the same to you? What if we had, right from the first essay, though: "This guy just a troll and therefore we should just ban him from these forums?

 

You are being quite unreasonable here. You have repeatedly said that you will explain things in future essays, but as we don't have them, we have to just use the information you have given us. Because it is incomplete (by your own admission of needing further explanation in future essays), we have to ask questions. We see holes (that you say will be filled in future essays), and ask for them to be filled. We question your essays in a scientific manner, and just be cause we disagree with you, you insult us and then have the audacity to get insulted at us. You prejudge us, so no wonder we seem like ogres to you, before we even put hand to keyboard you have already concluded that we know nothing and don't understand relativity, and are just posting because we wish to be trolls.

 

Come on, you are sounding quite irrational, and I thought better of you.

 

All we have done is ask questions when you asked us to. Why is that a reason to leave?

 

Goodbye, Doubting Thomas.

Science is about questioning everything. So why is being a Doubting Thomas a bad thing? When has it been bad science? When has it been a reason to be offended?